Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2022 Mac Pro Rumored to Use Intel's Ice Lake Xeon W-3300 Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don’t think you guys understand the “/s” and “in all seriousness” part of the post. Clearly the first statement was sarcasm. Or maybe not so clearly …Barely outrun an M1 MBA, now that's funny. Even my medium end i9 outruns my M1 MBA easily, and this new chip blows my i9 away. (The i9 machine also costs about $24000 less.
I’d say this is great news for those huge numbers of us using Intel Macs as it kicks back the end of life date for them. As for why are Apple doing this there are several possibilities I can think of (all of which could be wrong)
- They don’t want to alienate their enterprise customers
- They haven’t had time to redesign and approve every Mac yet due to pandemic delays
- They’re working on an X86/64 virtualisation layer and want to release that first so we can run normal windows in a vm
- They haven’t been able to scale up the CPU yet
- They haven’t been able to scale up the GPU yet
- They haven’t designed enough add on cards yet
- They really do want to stick to a 2 year migration as slow and steady wins the race
Who cares about single core performance when running a general purpose computer -- I don't. I don't even run VM's with a single core!
For lack of a better term, this transition is going to be “messier” than the PPC to Intel one because the PowerPC platform had reached an end, whereas Intel is not at an end the way IBM was at with making consumer CPUs. Apple is being slow and methodical, because this is a huge risk to them, no matter how their PR spins it. Keeping customers happy should be their primary goal while moving forward. Is anyone here genuinely upset that Apple may have a few more Intel iterations to release after saying there would be more Intel iterations? Did you think that Apple is suddenly going to start making 10 different CPU SKUs and release them all in 2021? The mistake I see on these forums is the continual application of the PC OEM process and users being frustrated that that is just not how Apple operates. Do
some of you still not get it yet?
First, Apple is more concerned with getting those new 14” and 16” models out the door as they are critical to the next phase in their transition, not the iMac Pro or Mac Pro. Mobile outsells desktop by a WIDE margin.
Second, if Apple is supply constrained, keeping Intel in the mix is relatively easy to do with minor changes to macOS, meaning you might now get every single feature per release, but you get some continuity and future support.
Third, no matter how many engineers Apple has, they cannot magically crap out the volume of CPUs that Intel can and then hide behind rotating CEOs and moving losses from one division to another to appease Wall Street who will give them a pass in ways Wall Street won’t give Apple. It’s been that way for 30 years.
Fourth, every CPU is critical in Apple’s eyes, they are using a rifle whereas Intel has always used the shotgun approach. Because the scrutiny is higher, Apple has little margin for error now, especially with M1 series SoC going into Mac and iPads.
Fifth, Apple knows pros and pro software are going to lag behind, they always do. Yet, “PROS” are the loudest to bitch about everything, while not wanting to budge from their comfort zone. Yes, a lot of you Pros are a PITA, you want faster faster faster, but with zero change to your workflows or anything resembling innovation or even the slightest bit of discomfort. Good grief, you Pros couldn’t even deal with the Touch Bar, you’re that set in your Fn key ways. And you’re the cheapest segment of the Mac user base, whether you admit it or not. Your right behind gamers as the most difficult user base to deal with ongoing. People are griping that Apple might update the Intel Mac Pro after all the complaining that Apple released such a machine at the price point they did and now this is bad, when Pros alternatively say they aren’t going to update to M-whatever Mac Pros because they cannot update their apps for one reason or another (usually because you’re cheap) and so your trying to get 20 years out of that 2010 Mac Pro, which doesn’t help Apple sell computers you demanded Apple make because you’re a “Pro” and your entitled to them at $1499, which is laughable.
Time to nut up or shut up.
some of you still not get it yet?
First, Apple is more concerned with getting those new 14” and 16” models out the door as they are critical to the next phase in their transition, not the iMac Pro or Mac Pro. Mobile outsells desktop by a WIDE margin.
Second, if Apple is supply constrained, keeping Intel in the mix is relatively easy to do with minor changes to macOS, meaning you might now get every single feature per release, but you get some continuity and future support.
Third, no matter how many engineers Apple has, they cannot magically crap out the volume of CPUs that Intel can and then hide behind rotating CEOs and moving losses from one division to another to appease Wall Street who will give them a pass in ways Wall Street won’t give Apple. It’s been that way for 30 years.
Fourth, every CPU is critical in Apple’s eyes, they are using a rifle whereas Intel has always used the shotgun approach. Because the scrutiny is higher, Apple has little margin for error now, especially with M1 series SoC going into Mac and iPads.
Fifth, Apple knows pros and pro software are going to lag behind, they always do. Yet, “PROS” are the loudest to bitch about everything, while not wanting to budge from their comfort zone. Yes, a lot of you Pros are a PITA, you want faster faster faster, but with zero change to your workflows or anything resembling innovation or even the slightest bit of discomfort. Good grief, you Pros couldn’t even deal with the Touch Bar, you’re that set in your Fn key ways. And you’re the cheapest segment of the Mac user base, whether you admit it or not. Your right behind gamers as the most difficult user base to deal with ongoing. People are griping that Apple might update the Intel Mac Pro after all the complaining that Apple released such a machine at the price point they did and now this is bad, when Pros alternatively say they aren’t going to update to M-whatever Mac Pros because they cannot update their apps for one reason or another (usually because you’re cheap) and so your trying to get 20 years out of that 2010 Mac Pro, which doesn’t help Apple sell computers you demanded Apple make because you’re a “Pro” and your entitled to them at $1499, which is laughable.
Time to nut up or shut up.
Sigh, this was in regards to macos dropping support for Intel systems. Not features, but actually running a newer macos on Intel so we are not in a security issue running an old operating w.
Didn't think apple will release a real computer ever again.
Who would have thought.
Who would have thought.
Please describe your idea of a ”real” computer? Pretty sure I know what you think that is, but just for the audience members who may be lost in your heady rhetoric.
Absolutely true of course, but then if you don't need macOS and are fine with Linux or Windows then you also don't have to bother with Apple's overpriced hardware (and there's much better workstation hardware out there from other manufacturers than Apple).
I think that the ARM version they'll come up with will be faster than the Intel one. They will just update the intel because of legacy app support.
Well, no 4 core intel matches the multicore performance of M1 either. Only 8 core Intels can beat it, that's basically twice the amount of performance cores to beat 4 performance cores.
We do not care about a computer with only 1 core. But single core performance is still and will still be really important as a lot of workloads are not mathematically possible to be paralleled.
Even video editing is still heavily single core bond in most scenario.
Because businesses are still owning a lot of x86 Mac software. The transition is not meant to be a immediate end to what Apple sells to companies as solutions. Common sense requires high performance ARM workstation/server products to be introduced that sways enterprise customers to migrating, not heaving their intel based business solutions overboard.
Not really. Because businesses tend to buy workstations as a whole package, i.e. hardware and software, and as long as the software works, is supported and performs adequate on the existing Mac Pro hardware they'll be unlikely to upgrade.
Besides, Mac Pros are a niche product even amongst workstations, most workstation grade software isn't even available on macOS or certified on the Mac Pro. The (comparatively) few programs that exist (mostly imaging, video and audio software) will very likely be available on AS as soon as Apple comes out with the next generation of AS Macs which can use more than just 16GB RAM. And once that happens the software vendors will want to draw down support for Mac/intel as soon as possible (the same already happened during Apple's two prior transitions from 68k to PPC and PPC to intel, while macOS continued supporting the previous architecture for several years it was dropped by the majority of software applications very early on).
I have some doubts that the rumor of a new Intel Mac Pro in 2022 holds true (it's mere existence would create the impression that Apple wasn't that serious with AS). The only scenario where this makes sense is if Apple thinks its unable to come up with an AS Mac Pro quickly enough.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
This rumor flies in direct contravention to Tim saying Apple would be completely transitioned to AS by 2022.
Of course the statement leaves a lot open to interpretation, but it is definitely an interesting development, given that no other Intel-based hardware has been released so far.
Next year is going to be really really interesting for Apple, product-wise.
Of course the statement leaves a lot open to interpretation, but it is definitely an interesting development, given that no other Intel-based hardware has been released so far.
Next year is going to be really really interesting for Apple, product-wise.
This is being done so that business customers who can't transition to m1 computers yet, still have an option if they need to buy a mac. I suspect that a maxed out 16" Macbook Pro will exist for a while longer, too.
Tim Cook said that every Mac would run Apple silicon and that the transition would take 2 years. He didn’t say that every Mac would run exclusively on Apple silicon. A dual chip arrangement would make perfect sense for a Mac Pro with certain configurations omitting the Intel chip. The operating system and most apps would run on the M-chip but for pro users who need an x86 chip for legacy or custom software, they’d have the option of running Intel alongside on the same motherboard.
Who owns a 4 core intel machine for serious work these days? My i9 desktop is 10 core + HT, 128G RAM, my home Windows laptop is 6 core +HT 32G RAM. My Intel Mac Mini has 6 cores +HT and 64G RAM. And I don't even own a high end machine.
My M1 MBA has 4 performance cores and 16G RAM.
If the M processors ever get the same kind of capabilities or more, then we can talk about them competing.The important thing is they beat it. It would be good if there was an M processor in their league, but there isn't *yet* unfortunately. (I'd own it at home if there were!)
I'm actually kind of hoping they do the same treatment with the Intel Mac Mini, (a current xeon processor), I'd buy that.
I decided to upgrade my wife's small computer from her aging 12" MacBook to a 13" MacBook Pro. I choose the fastest Intel processor offered, 32Gb of Ram and the 4TB SSD. The Intel version doubles the parameters of the M1 as it has four I/O ports, twice the memory and twice the storage. She also has a 16" MacBook Pro with the fastest Intel processor available, 64GB of memory and a 4TB SSD.
I have the new 11" iPad with 2TB of ram and the M1 chip. Not sure I see that much of an improvement in speeds because we use WiFi at home and a base Intel could go just as fast with the bandwidth there. Speed for the sake of seed is a money waster. How many folks actually have fiber internet access? Certainly not the majority.
Even 10Gbit ethernet is a bottle neck for transferring data.
I would like a new MacPro as my 2013 six core model, even with 128GB max memory and a 2 TB SSD, is starting to choke on these newer huge operating systems. Big Sur is a power hog for my MacPro with boot up times in terms of minutes now.
The M1 has a long ways to go to power and actually run the application inventory many of us have. I went through the Motorola and Power PC machines and other Mac Compatible brands before we got the Intel chips. While Intel certainly dropped the ball of chip on improvements, there were not many failures (infections are another story).
I will await the 14" M1 (or whatever cpu model number it is) to see if it would make sense for my smaller portable unit as my laptop is the fully loaded 16" model.
Apple does not want to loose the big buck "Pro" customers, so Intel will be here longer than one might think. Consumer products will all probably be be Apple chips by the end of the year as promised.
I have the new 11" iPad with 2TB of ram and the M1 chip. Not sure I see that much of an improvement in speeds because we use WiFi at home and a base Intel could go just as fast with the bandwidth there. Speed for the sake of seed is a money waster. How many folks actually have fiber internet access? Certainly not the majority.
Even 10Gbit ethernet is a bottle neck for transferring data.
I would like a new MacPro as my 2013 six core model, even with 128GB max memory and a 2 TB SSD, is starting to choke on these newer huge operating systems. Big Sur is a power hog for my MacPro with boot up times in terms of minutes now.
The M1 has a long ways to go to power and actually run the application inventory many of us have. I went through the Motorola and Power PC machines and other Mac Compatible brands before we got the Intel chips. While Intel certainly dropped the ball of chip on improvements, there were not many failures (infections are another story).
I will await the 14" M1 (or whatever cpu model number it is) to see if it would make sense for my smaller portable unit as my laptop is the fully loaded 16" model.
Apple does not want to loose the big buck "Pro" customers, so Intel will be here longer than one might think. Consumer products will all probably be be Apple chips by the end of the year as promised.
You can take out the we there, I don't agree with you at all. And I'm not talking about parallel processing, just general purpose computing. I don't do much video, but I think you're way underestimating just what more cores can give you when doing video -- you don't have to be only processing just 1 frame/stream at a time...
but with thing like big sets of raw data you may need an 10G uncapped fiber line to use the clould