2022 Mac Pro Rumored to Use Intel's Ice Lake Xeon W-3300 Chips

Danoc said:
Even if the tech is amazing, buying an Intel Mac in 2022 seems odd.
Click to expand...
It would be very off-brand for Apple to “step back” to Intel even if it’s just for a spec bump.

And why on Earth would Apple do a completely new Intel or an Intel Mac spec bump for any Mac if it’s also launching new Apple silicon Macs?

Apple doing more Intel Mac spec bumps makes sense if it wants to pad out the launch cycle until we get legit Apple MacBooks and desktops, besides the M1 iMac.

But wouldn’t we have spec bumps for MacBooks Pro and Macs Pro if Apple had intentions to do more Intel Macs?

I’m pretty sure consumers would be furious to see Apple do any new Intel machines of new Apple silicon versions launch within 1-2 years.
 
bradman83 said:
It’s really not a matter of speed. The M1 bests most Xeon and Epyc models in terms of single core performance. Heck an i9 of the same generation will best a Xeon in single core performance. The value proposition of a Xeon is in parallel performance - having dozens of cores to run dozens of threads in tandem. If rumors are to be believed then Apple’s already made test chips scaled up to this level that will likely blow Xeons out of the water performance-wise.

The Mac Pro represents a unique challenge for the M series not because of power but for other reasons. Pro users who buy this machine expect to be able to customize the hardware to their needs - adding GPUs, memory, storage, networking etc. as needed. Contrast that to the M series’s SoC design, such as memory that’s integrated directly into the package. A Mac Pro user can stuff up to 1.5 TB of RAM into their machine if they need it. Apple isn’t going to want to produce dozens of possible memory configurations for this much of a niche market, so they need to figure out a different memory model to allow for upgradable RAM. The M1’s GPU uses tile based deferred rendering, a rendering model no other GPU on the market supports. Apple needs to either figure out if they want to build dedicated GPU expansion cards that also use this model or allow the use of Immediate Mode Rendering GPUs instead.

Given how small the market is for the Mac Pro it makes sense for Apple to focus on M1X MacBook Pros, Mac Mini, and iMacs first, as this will cover the much larger prosumer and some of the professional market and be more than enough power for those users.
Click to expand...
This much information was not needed :) :)
 
bradman83 said:
It’s really not a matter of speed. The M1 bests most Xeon and Epyc models in terms of single core performance. Heck an i9 of the same generation will best a Xeon in single core performance. The value proposition of a Xeon is in parallel performance - having dozens of cores to run dozens of threads in tandem. If rumors are to be believed then Apple’s already made test chips scaled up to this level that will likely blow Xeons out of the water performance-wise.

The Mac Pro represents a unique challenge for the M series not because of power but for other reasons. Pro users who buy this machine expect to be able to customize the hardware to their needs - adding GPUs, memory, storage, networking etc. as needed. Contrast that to the M series’s SoC design, such as memory that’s integrated directly into the package. A Mac Pro user can stuff up to 1.5 TB of RAM into their machine if they need it. Apple isn’t going to want to produce dozens of possible memory configurations for this much of a niche market, so they need to figure out a different memory model to allow for upgradable RAM. The M1’s GPU uses tile based deferred rendering, a rendering model no other GPU on the market supports. Apple needs to either figure out if they want to build dedicated GPU expansion cards that also use this model or allow the use of Immediate Mode Rendering GPUs instead.

Given how small the market is for the Mac Pro it makes sense for Apple to focus on M1X MacBook Pros, Mac Mini, and iMacs first, as this will cover the much larger prosumer and some of the professional market and be more than enough power for those users.
Click to expand...

I suspect we're overthinking it based on how they positioned the M1. That's only a single model.

They can simply give the M1XL in the Mac Pro external RAM. Yeah, the latency will be worse, but they're not going to cram anywhere near the amount of needed RAM into an M1 package any time soon. 32 GiB, maybe. 64, could be. But that's a far cry from 1,536.

Same for GPU. They already have PCIe lanes anyway, because of Thunderbolt, so I don't really see why they can't allow regular ol' AMD GPUs. I suspect the reason we haven't seen eGPU support on M1 yet is because they simply haven't prioritized it — they figured it wasn't critical for most M1 users.
 
I guess sensible to keep running these machines with the latest intel chips for those that need them, although I am looking forward to seeing what the high end Apple Silicon will bring.
 
MacRumors said:
Apple is working on a smaller Mac Pro that's about half the size of the original and that is expected to include an Apple silicon chip, but alongside it, the company is also developing a new version of the current Mac Pro.
Click to expand...
This is the interesting bit...

chucker23n1 said:
I suspect we're overthinking it based on how they positioned the M1. That's only a single model.

They can simply give the M1XL in the Mac Pro external RAM. Yeah, the latency will be worse, but they're not going to cram anywhere near the amount of needed RAM into an M1 package any time soon. 32 GiB, maybe. 64, could be. But that's a far cry from 1,536.

Same for GPU. They already have PCIe lanes anyway, because of Thunderbolt, so I don't really see why they can't allow regular ol' AMD GPUs. I suspect the reason we haven't seen eGPU support on M1 yet is because they simply haven't prioritized it — they figured it wasn't critical for most M1 users.
Click to expand...
Yeah, precisely. Comparing the M1, which is clearly aimed at MBA/low MBP or desktop mini/24" imac territory, with a Xeon is nuts. It has been rumoured before that there will be a pro line (M1X?) and a successor of the M1 (M2? Let's use that naming scheme for now). If Apple comes out with an M1X that does 64GB RAM and external PCIe connections for NVMe, GPU, etc, then we're talking. If that one then has 8 performance cores + 2 low power, or more, then it's starting to look like high end MBP or desktop 27/30" imac - imac pro territory. It's not enough to replace the mac pro Xeons yet (ECC memory etc), but it would be a good step.

Now, put that into a mac pro mini that's not a completely locked box like the regular mini and it's becoming interesting. I'd like to have one with 32GB or 64GB RAM and an M.2 slot for additional storage, please. Or a standard PCIe, then I'll plug in a riser card to get that M.2. Obviously, add 10GbE and more serious monitor support. Then stick a base price of perhaps €2K on it (for 16/512, most likely) and I'm all in.
 
lysingur said:
In the best of times, scientific research is on the periphery of Apple's vision for the Mac and now, as Mac occupies a rather ancillary role to the iOS-centred ecosystem, scientific research is the farthest thing on their minds. The profit simply isn't there to justify the investment.
Click to expand...
Sadly, yes. But that's partially their own fault. It used to be different. I came back to Apple during the G4 days. Apple was much smaller back then, but they offered great support for those pushing scientific software and creating sales in these niche markets. Me and my team worked very close with Apple back then. The larger they became, the less they cared. The market is still huge (just look at Dell and Lenovo), but Apple doesn't offer anything suitable for that market anymore. They'll do fine on the "hipster-market" and for iOS, but lose the rest (unless Microsoft comes to the rescue).
 
I REALLY hope they do something like they did with the 6100 having a DOS card built in (well on a Nubus card). An M1x or M2 on a PCIE card would be AMAZING, it would make the 2022 Mac Pro a beast for all workloads! Not to mention giving older Mac pros some life support 🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻
 
bobcomer said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, they don't beat it at every task. The 2500$ Intel machine beats the 1000$ M1 Air at some tasks and gets beaten at other tasks. Also a 20000$ workstation beats a 2500$ intel laptop as well. I don't think it's a fair comparison since these are completely different price points.

If I was going to buy a laptop today, the only reason I'd go for the 15" MBP would be for the screen size. Otherwise M1 beats any intel MBP in lots of tasks that are important to my workflow already, like photo editing. Oh and, I'd want more than 16GB of memory in a 2021 laptop. So that's exactly what I'll do. When Apple releases some M1X or M2 16" MBP I'll get it. But not for the speed, as M1 is already crazy fast.

Hint: M1 is faster than my 4 core i7 iMac 5K with dGPU.
 
Last edited:
xraydoc said:
They will, but it'll still take Apple more time to develop a home-grown solution that can match a 32-core Xeon with 128GB of RAM and four dedicated desktop GPUs. I would wager that the next Intel Mac Pro revision will be the last Intel Mac Pro.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think the GPU is possibly the limiting factor, more than the CPU. Developing an integrated solution that can match four removable high-end graphics cards is quite a challenge.
 
iBug2 said:
Well, they don't beat it at every task. The 2500$ Intel machine beats the 1000$ M1 Air
Click to expand...
My i9 Windows desktop and my M1 MBA both cost ~$1600, and the Windows desktop beats the M1 at everything I do, and it's not really even close. I would expect the M1X with 8 performance cores to get pretty close though, and maybe beat my middle of the road i9. (i9-10900)

iBug2 said:
Also a 20000$ workstation beats a 2500$ intel laptop as well.
Click to expand...
I would expect so, but maybe not, it depends on what that 20K workstation is supposed to do, some aren't built for raw power but something else. :)

iBug2 said:
If I was going to buy a laptop today, the only reason I'd go for the 15" MBP would be for the screen size.
Click to expand...
I've really started to loath laptops that big. I have a dell that size that I'd use more if it weren't so heavy. It's got the best screen I have, yet I'd rather not carry it around. (XPS-15)

That's why I'm looking at replacing my M1 MBA with a 14" M? MBP, though I wish Apple made something even lighter than the MBA. No way I'd buy an Intel based Apple laptop, I've had bad experiences in the past...

iBug2 said:
Hint: M1 is faster than my 4 core i7 iMac 5K with dGPU.
Click to expand...
That doesn't surprise me, my MBA is faster than my work laptop (Also 4 core i7), but it's 4 years old and weighs less and has a 14" screen.
 
visualseed said:
Insanity is buying a machine this expensive and trying to keep it operational as a desktop for a decade. 2-3 years should be more than enough time to see a huge return on your initial investment and be in need of its replacement in order to stay relevant. If you can do competitive work on this machine 5 years from now, you could do competative work on a MacBook Pro or iMac today. These machines are consumable tools, not decorative fixtures to be ogled and passed down to your grandkids.
Click to expand...

This would be true if you bought $1-2K machine, not a $25K machine. I do not imagine its financially sound to replace 5 Mac Pros costing $25K each in an institution like a school every 2-3 years. Those are treated more like industrial machines not an iPhone.
 
MacBH928 said:
This would be true if you bought $1-2K machine, not a $25K machine. I do not imagine its financially sound to replace 5 Mac Pros costing $25K each in an institution like a school every 2-3 years. Those are treated more like industrial machines not an iPhone.
Click to expand...
What are you buying a $25K machine for if not to do $200K+ worth of work? Mac Pros make terrible day-to-day machines from both a cost and feature standpoint. Almost every university I work with auctions off workstations after a few years. They have to keep that grant money flowing (use it or lose it) and they buy the latest and greatest to meet their evolving needs. K-12 is woking on iMacs, MacBook Airs and iPads. They may have one Mac Pro in a media lab or something like that and it is probably under-utilized.
 
Last edited:
MacBH928 said:
This would be true if you bought $1-2K machine, not a $25K machine. I do not imagine its financially sound to replace 5 Mac Pros costing $25K each in an institution like a school every 2-3 years. Those are treated more like industrial machines not an iPhone.
Click to expand...

That $25k machine will rapidly depreciate in value, though.
 
I CANNOT WAIT for the M<whatever> Mac Pro. While this loaded Mac Mini has been holding up nicely, I definitely need one of those on my desk.
 
The smaller Apple Silicon Mac Pro would be more ideal for me, due to its' compact size reminiscent of the PowerMac G4 Cube, and how it would probably be even more powerful than whatever higher-end Apple Silicon Mac Mini comes up with. As for pricing, I wouldn't be surprised if it costs around the same as the 16" MacBook Pros or the current higher-end 13" Intel MacBook Pros do, being around $2000, but for that price range it wouldn't be so bad. And of course I plan to configure it online to have 32 GB of memory and a 1 TB SSD.
 
MacRumors said:


A new Mac Pro that's coming in 2022 is set to use Intel's Ice Lake Xeon W-3300 workstation chips, according to an Intel leaker that WCCFtech says has offered reliable information on Intel Xeon chips in the past.

mac-pro-mini-feature.jpg

Intel's W-3300 Ice Lake CPUs are set to launch in the near future, and there have already been signs of new Ice Lake SP processors in the Xcode 13 beta. Intel has said that these chips offer "advanced performance, security, efficiency, and built-in AI acceleration to handle IoT workloads and more powerful AI."


Ice Lake chips for the Mac Pro would offer up to 38 cores and 76 threads, with the Xeon W-3775 positioned as Intel's top chip in the lineup. This top of the line chip features 57MB of cache and a 4.0GHz clock speed.

While Apple is transitioning its Mac lineup to Apple silicon and is developing a version of the Mac Pro that will run an Apple silicon chip, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman has said that Apple will also update the Intel Mac Pro.

Apple is working on a smaller Mac Pro that's about half the size of the original and that is expected to include an Apple silicon chip, but alongside it, the company is also developing a new version of the current Mac Pro.

The Intel-based Mac Pro that's in the works with Intel's W-3300 Ice Lake chips could be one of the last Intel Macs that Apple will develop. Apple has already begun transitioning the iMac, MacBook Pro, Mac mini, and MacBook Air lines to Apple silicon.

Article Link: 2022 Mac Pro Rumored to Use Intel's Ice Lake Xeon W-3300 Chips
Click to expand...
Given they no longer have to use Intel CPUs why on Earth are they not using AMD Threadripper / Epyc!? Their price to performance is insane next to Intel and would make the Mac Pro a no brainer purchase for a great deal many more people. I also can’t comprehend machining a smaller form factor Mac Pro due to the fact that the people who get one want the PCIe expansion. You can’t put full size graphics cards in a smaller machine, neither can you add sound cards etc.
 
bobcomer said:
My i9 Windows desktop and my M1 MBA both cost ~$1600, and the Windows desktop beats the M1 at everything I do, and it's not really even close. I would expect the M1X with 8 performance cores to get pretty close though, and maybe beat my middle of the road i9. (i9-10900)



That doesn't surprise me, my MBA is faster than my work laptop (Also 4 core i7), but it's 4 years old and weighs less and has a 14" screen.
Click to expand...
On paper my iMac is supposed to be faster than M1 though, it has a Radeon Pro 580 which has more raw computing power than M1, again on paper, however when I do photo editing on my iPad Pro (A12Z, not M1), iPad Pro does the same task more than 3 times as fast as my iMac.

On paper iPad Pro with A12Z is much less powerful than my iMac, in reality, it does photo editing faster (Same app, same effects, same workflow). There's something inherently fast about A series processors that the intel ones simply don't match. At least in photo editing tasks. So if A12Z (2 years old) is already faster than my iMac (4 years old), I cannot imagine how fast M1 is doing the same tasks. It'll be faster than any intel laptop even with i9.
 
iBug2 said:
On paper my iMac is supposed to be faster than M1 though, it has a Radeon Pro 580 which has more raw computing power than M1, again on paper, however when I do photo editing on my iPad Pro (A12Z, not M1), iPad Pro does the same task more than 3 times as fast as my iMac.

On paper iPad Pro with A12Z is much less powerful than my iMac, in reality, it does photo editing faster (Same app, same effects, same workflow). There's something inherently fast about A series processors that the intel ones simply don't match. At least in photo editing tasks. So if A12Z (2 years old) is already faster than my iMac (4 years old), I cannot imagine how fast M1 is doing the same tasks. It'll be faster than any intel laptop even with i9.
Click to expand...

It depends on the kinds of tasks.

The M1 is strong at:

  • single-threaded tasks, which are extremely common especially in UIs.
  • machine learning tasks, which may play a role in photo editing.

Your iMac may be stronger at:

  • heavily multi-threaded tasks, which however aren't that common
  • GPU-accelerated tasks (which are also heavily parallelized, but compared multi-threaded CPU tasks tend to have lower precision)

It's much easier for Apple to scale those up (assuming the thermal room is there, which on a Mac Pro it certainly would be) than for other vendors to increase single-threaded speeds, so it stands to reason a high-end M1 or M2 would improve on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top