MP 7,1 7,1 Bros: We're headed into 2025. How are we feeling?

[deconstruct60]

To me, discontinuation of the XDR Pro Display is more circumstantial evidence the Mac Pro is dead.

that is weak correlation. First, any new Mac Pro would work just fine with the Studio XDR Display. Second, Apple several years ago when to zone where they were making zero displays. Apple really is not oriented to making multiple display. They have been for more than a decade. before Apple went to zero they were only making one. ( Thunderbolt 'docking station' Display).

The Pro XDR was relatively old when the Studio Display came. The Studio Display was primarily driven by getting rid of the large screen iMac. (**) Not that Apple wanted to be in display business , but they were getting out of the large screen all-in-one business. Studio Display kept them at the fringes of the customer display market. ( high enough mark up so that it has a low-volume tax built in).

Any display that came with a XDR label would remove the old XDR product. New Mac Pro means old Mac Pro goes away.

Finally, there appears to be a presumption here that there was a very high attachment rate between Mac Pro sales and Pro XDR sales. There are way too many reports here on Macrumors and other forums of software developers and laptop buyers acquiring Pro XDR displays. For folks that had a fixation on buying an Apple display at any cost they didn't have a choice before the Studio Display arrive many years later. Apple pulled lots of. money of out some of those folks , but that tends to make them stuck on a 'sunk costs' issue (i.e., not going to buy another Apple monitor). And looking for an exit out of $5-6+K zone if another option appears.

Once those folks had a choice of. $2K Studio the volume bought probably went down. a $4K Studio that matched. their 120Hz MBP 14"/16" or iPad Pro ... the volume would go down again. The Mac Pro iterating or not , makes little to no material difference in those folks migrating away. At some low unit volume level the Pro XDR isn't viable. ( it appeared as though Apple has done their own custom panel which puts even more low volume cutoff threat to it. )

Both 27" monitors share essentially the same chassis, so Apple is back down to the decades long trend of selling just one monitor. [ the weights of the filled enclosures are different, so there is a minor variation on the pedastal footprint for improved stability for the XDR. ] There are to SKU , but tons of shared reusue between them. So pragmatically one.

I don't think the Pro XDR turned out to be as big. of a reference monitor killer in the enterprise media space. The usage as a nice , big monitor is being gobbled up by 'good enough' 6K panels , OLED TV panels , and this new 5K mini-LED stuff ( Apple has higher peak nits but there are some 1000 nit range ones coming that again will be 'good enough' for a large number of people. ). The 3rd party monitor competition is very active and diverse. There is tons of commodity pressure there which is way Apple really hasn't wanted to do it.

Apple is primarily focused on embedded display panels in their own products.

Not to mention it's March, and news of a new release this Summer would have leaked by now.

Apple's highly custom, internal consumption AI servers is likely a contributing factor to the Mac Pro being 'stuck'. Designers sent off to work on those won't have time to work on Mac Pro.

If the Mac Pro requires a highly custom 'better than Utltra" SoC and the AI servers requires a highly custom SoCwith different attributes. ... right now the hype train is behind the AI server. and not the Mac Pro. If the leave the Mac Pro with the same Ultra as the Studio, then run into problems. Apple's uneven roll out of AI solutions is probably having a substantive impact on Mac Pro 'direction' and 'motivation' also. Where the display panels are going has nothing to do with the AI issues.

(**) decoupling the screen and making large leaps with Apple Silicon and Ultra also pruned off lots of lower level Mac Pro userbase also. The Mac Pro 2019 jump 100% and entry price left lots more folks in that old iMac 27" - iMac Pro
zone that back in 2006-2009 era might have been Mac Pro users out of necessity. ( when imac Meant mobile CPU and/or mobile GPU).

 

[deconstruct60]

I would have to disagree, for the simple reason that we don’t know that the Studio Display XDR has replaced it.

On the contrary - I think the PD-XDR wasn’t updated for two reasons; Thunderbolt 5 wouldn’t support the bandwidth for 6K at 120hz with headroom for other channels,

If can daisy chain two 5K monitors. ( two

• 5120-by-2880 resolution at 218 pixels per inch.

2 * 5120 * 2880 --> 29,491,200. )


then one 6K isn't that much * 6016 * 3384 --->. 20,358,144.
Can multiply each of those by 24 bit and 120 hz but isn't going to mach much of a relative difference as to which one is larger. (even if use 30-bits for 6K 610,744,320 vs 24-bits for 5k 707,788,800 )


May not be able to daisy chain relatively high bandwidth on that, but easy 'fix' for that is not to put the 2nd TBv5 port on the display. It would just have limitation of hogging more system ports. On Mac Pro or Ultra Stuido that isn't a problem. Really shouldn't be trying to spin the Pro XDR Display to one and two port wonder laptops.

The bigger problem with the Pro XDR is that the very substantially much cheaper Studio XDR would have eaten away a sizable chunk of market share ( of folks who 'have to have' Apple monitor). When Pro XDR came out it was basically the only Apple display you could get. Once there is a regular Studio that numbers does down. A second Studio with even closer display qualities would just make that go even lower stil.

The major problem that the Pro XDR has is that it is an Apple only panel and the unit number s are very low. The Studio XDR appears unique in Apple backlight but probably closer to a shared infrastructure panel. There are 1,000-1,200 miniLED 5K panels with same basic structure. Last I looked no one was trying to do 120Hz 6K.

TV folks are still trying to push 8K up the hill ( to increasing resistance. ), but that is another option where not off on a single vendor panel foundation.

I don't think Apple 'killed' the reference monitor market either with the Pro XDR.

For over a decade Apple has only made one (or zero ) monitors. Two is something that probably do not want to do. The regular Studio Display is because they left the large screen iMac market. The Studio XDR is really a panel deviation from that ( overall enclosure and chassis is shared between the two ). So pretty close to just one monitor.

Apple is OK with taking some smaller segment of the monitor market, but largely seem content with overall diversity provided by the general monitor market. They are not trying to make everything for everybody as a detached system. Broadening the scope of their embedded display is likely a higher priority ( e.g., foldables. tandem OLED , etc. ). I doubt that means the large screen iMac is coming back .

and the enclosure will be updated with a simpler design (not the 3D honeycomb) if or when an accompanying Mac Pro is released.

A cheaper and easier to manufacture enclosure is an impediment to time to market? Part of the Pro Display XDR problem was that it is too expensive ( which drives lower unit numbers).

I know how easy it is to make assumptions, but that’s largely because of how secretive Apple is.

Apple hasn't been secretive since they went to the one Thunderbolt Display at $999 line up over a decade ago. It is a higher than market rate price and not much variety.

 

[avro707]

that is weak correlation. First, any new Mac Pro would work just fine with the Studio XDR Display.

We would have seen a new Mac Pro by now, the 2023 version is the end for it and we have to stop hoping for what's never going to happen.

The earlier Apple Silicon machines must be on the countdown to lose MacOS support as well, Apple cannot allow folks on those to keep going for too much longer, they must force those folks to upgrade to newer machines (for $$$$).

 

[deconstruct60]

We would have seen a new Mac Pro by now, the 2023 version is the end for it and we have to stop hoping for what's never going to happen.

That doesn't mean the follow on to the 2019 'old' Pro XDR display would have to be extremely tightly coupled to the Mac Pro. Whether the Mac Pro had arrived last year , do this year , or next year , or year after that it will still work with the Studio XDR. What year it arrives in (or not) at this point is immaterial to Studio XDR release. ( if a new Mac Pro , it would have M3 generation or better in it which meets the supported list for the XDR product. It is already evident that the Studio XDR did not need a Mac Pro to launch. So yes, that XDR hyper coupling to Mac Pro is weak. )

Looking at the Apple AI server is like looking at the iMac Pro back in 2017. If nobody is assigned to do a new Mac Pro from the design and R&D resources there won't be a new Mac Pro. The 2019 Mac Pro was in part due to not applying resources until late 2016 , early 2017. It just didn't/doesn't have high enough priority to get resource allocation. The XDR R&D resource allocation likely has almost nothing to do with that as it is on a different timeline and very different resource requirements battling a different set of products.

There is sizable amount of Apple custom / Apple only stuff inside the AI servers. If some design team inside of Apple was going to be redirected to do that work, it likely would be the folks who were clustered around the Mac Pro.
It Apple needs 1-2 year updates on the AI servers then Mac Pro probably could get permanently starve of resources.
There AI server is not oriented on being some PCI-e lane monster. If Apple is ready to punt on PCI-e v5 and up that would be a problem also. That the AI server make no direct revenue makes it an even bigger rosource sink. ( so Apple go hire another team is even more money. )

If Apple does a 180 on doing their own AI servers then that might change. Right now though lots of company are spending to run down the AI hardware spend path. I think there is some tension betwen not wanting to churn sever designs every year and wanting their own nodes that better hit their power consumption requirements (and costs ... especially if continue no direct revenue path).


Additionally, no die shots of the M5 Pro/Max leaves some mystery as to what Apple 'hiding' for the Studio's SoCs.
There are some things they could do to make a Mac Pro easier. And some things that would make a market pro 'harder' to do (e.g., take away I/O provisioning for PCI-e). It is hard to tell at the moment. (e.g., I suspect the M3 Utlra may not be Mac Pro capable in that respect. Pruned out to save space for timeline problematical N3B. )

Finally, if Apple has some dogma cap on number of Mac products offered then the intro of the Neo would be a bigger threat to Mac Pro getting axed than anything associated with Studio Display XDR timing. ( iMac 27" got replaced by Mac Studio. And partially covered by that and Studio Display. Product count in that area stayed constant. ) . If the Neo 'counts' as the stop gap MBA M1 (at Walmart) replacement then it isn't a 'product count' issue. MBA M1 was just old. It didn't need design resources. If Neo gets a yearly trademill. That isn't a one-for-one product replace in line up.

Apple doesn't make everything for everybody. But the Display have their own issues over scope and product breath separate from Macs.

The earlier Apple Silicon machines must be on the countdown to lose MacOS support as well, Apple cannot allow folks on those to keep going for too much longer, they must force those folks to upgrade to newer machines (for $$$$).

The Mac Pro 2023 is only 3 almost years old. What kind of short timeline you think the countdown clock it is on? If Apple replaces that system faster the clock starts sooner. Apple just selling some M1 MBA's (those are probably on short lease, but other stuff was retired at Apple normal rates). Not start the clock probably has some negative impacts once get past 5 years. Like the Mac Pro 2013 the 5-7 nominal isn't going to work if stretched way past what is typical for most other Mac systems.

The other systems that got M1 all got M2 and M3 updates. Most have M4 and now M5 updates. If want to get off a M1 there are multiple paths. The Mac Pro never got a M1 updates. It didn't get a M2 until relatively close to when the M3 shipped.


As you expressed in another post (in this thread?) , people who pay more tend to expect longer support. With Apple's legacy/vintage protocols the faster the updates comes the shorter the window is. It has nothing to do with system cost. So to keep the system cost folks' expectations better aligned, the updates come slower. The window gets longer via the Apple baseline protocols.

It isn't forcing people to buy as much as aligning the upgrade cycles to of a relatively small group into large groups. What is misaligned is folks who jump in at the late second half of a long cycle. ( buy 2019 model in 2021 and fell pressure to jump again in 2023. the Mac Pro was released around December 2019. But December 2020 it should be obvious buying late cycle MP 2019 was bad timing. ).


The Ultra SoC also doesn't have much unit volume. Every M-series generation churning out an Ultra probably want not going to happen. The Studio. moving to M3 Ultra just pragmatically saddle the Mac Pro to duty of finishing the duty to recoup M2 generation costs. Apple has been setting the 'slow' update expectation for Mac Pro for over a decade. What is an 'Ultra" may change to make that more practical to do yearly. And that may trickle down to the Mac Pro (depending upon how flexible I/O upgrades are. )

Some folks were calling the Mac Pro dead in late 2022 also. It didn't look 'good' in late 2022 either. I think the bigger cloud at this point is there were less clouds over other parts of Apple at that time. Lots of grumbling about AI rollout . Relatively less grumbling about GUI changes ( Liquid Glass took it to a new high.). Folks having to face stark reality that Intel binary macOS (and most Intel apps) are going away. There is lots of other stuff on Apple's 'to do' list than the Mac Pro.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Frustrated with Crossover gaming. I think I'll buy a license anyway, and see if support can guide me. I just want to check out some ray traced games at 2k.

 

[SDAVE]

Frustrated with Crossover gaming. I think I'll buy a license anyway, and see if support can guide me. I just want to check out some ray traced games at 2k.

CrossOver works fine, what issues are you having?

There's a trial you can try

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Basically everything runs like crap. Even lightweight stuff like heroes of the storm. I'm on the trial but will purchase when I have some time to go back and forth with support. Doom dark ages, Doom Eternal, some other FPS too.

 

[SDAVE]

Basically everything runs like crap. Even lightweight stuff like heroes of the storm. I'm on the trial but will purchase when I have some time to go back and forth with support. Doom dark ages, Doom Eternal, some other FPS too.

Looking at your signature, you don't have an M class device?

If you have an Intel Mac just install Windows and run natively.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

I refuse to dual boot. About to pick up a 2nd 7,1 and transplant the 7800XT into that for Windows gaming via proxmox. Currently no M class devices. May pick up a used mini to run headless and tinker with.

 

[avkills]

I refuse to dual boot. About to pick up a 2nd 7,1 and transplant the 7800XT into that for Windows gaming via proxmox. Currently no M class devices. May pick up a used mini to run headless and tinker with.

Why would you buy another 7,1 for windows gaming? The Xeon chips in them suck for gaming. Just build something for a lot less money.

 

[bombardier10]

We’re at a turning point, but it won’t be the M5 Ultra or M6 Ultra…
I’d compare the situation to the 3DFx VooDOO in the late 90s.
Both Intel and Apple processors have relatively limited capabilities when it comes to AI technology.
I mean, you can do something, but it’s not exactly what you’d like to do.
For now, the most you can do is ask Google AI, and that’s where the possibilities end.
There are already some Nvidia cards that manage to cope with AI to some extent, but we’re
still a long way from a breakthrough.

When relatively cheap processors appear that will, for example, enable upscaling from SD to 4K,
that’s what will be worth spending money on. It may seem unlikely, but
at the start of this century we were buying video cards costing $3,000 that allowed
real-time viewing of SD footage, including basic features like PiP…
Just as today we buy Nvidia 5000 series cards for upscaling. Or we buy
very expensive access to cloud services.

That’s why I’m sticking with a Hackintosh with a 15th Gen Intel processor, and for the next few years
I’ll be keeping an eye on what’s happening in this market. And it will probably take a few generations of processors
before something finally appears that’s worth our attention. It’s not worth getting caught up in the marketing hype
and replacing your computer just to …do the same thing in a year or two.

 

[SDAVE]

I refuse to dual boot. About to pick up a 2nd 7,1 and transplant the 7800XT into that for Windows gaming via proxmox. Currently no M class devices. May pick up a used mini to run headless and tinker with.

Waste of money, 7,1 is very dated by today's standards with DDR4 and PCIe 3.0

I dual boot into Windows only for gaming (once in a while). Other than that, I have no other use for Windows

 

[maflynn]

I refuse to dual boot. About to pick up a 2nd 7,1 and transplant the 7800XT into that for Windows gaming via proxmox. Currently no M class devices. May pick up a used mini to run headless and tinker with.

You're better off getting or building a PC with a current CPU.

 

[Regulus67]

..About to pick up a 2nd 7,1 and transplant the 7800XT into that for Windows gaming ...

I set up one just for Windows gaming (not listed in my signature). Installed a nvidia RTX 4070 Ti Super because I got myself a Varjo XR-3 mixed reality headset. (nvidia cards only support).
@avro707 has mentioned that flight simulator is far better in VR. So I wish to try it. And he also said it runs very stable on his machine 🙂

I have many older games that I want to play. Primarily flight and truck sim games 🙂 But not the latest Microsoft flight simulator 2024.
I installed Windows 11 Enterprise LTSC, but seriously considering Windows 10 Enterprise IOT LTSC.
Upgrading to Windows 11 removed BootCamp, and I had to manually install drivers, from the Win10 system folder.

Waste of money, 7,1 is very dated by today's standards with DDR4 and PCIe 3.0

It depends a lot of what games one wishes to play, no? Older games run just fine on older hardware.
The internal Apple SSD is more than fast enough.

You're better off getting or building a PC with a current CPU.

A current PC build can not be said to be good value for money. But some games need faster CPU and GPUs, than the 7,1 can offer. Especially since most graphic cards are longer than it has space for.
The argument was better six months ago, but with the exploding hardware prices, it seems much less so.

If I were to choose Steam OS, and not Windows. I would try to install it on an older Windows 7 PC, that I already have.

***
I have not had time to sit down and actually play any game on it yet. But I still think my reasoning isn't all that bad

 

[SDAVE]

It depends a lot of what games one wishes to play, no? Older games run just fine on older hardware.
The internal Apple SSD is more than fast enough.

It works fine with modern games too, I finished RE9 (with FSR 4.0.1 DLL swap) with no issues. I'm just saying its not worth spending like $2,000 or whatever unless OP can get it for super cheap.

 

[maflynn]

A current PC build can not be said to be good value for money. But some games need faster CPU and GPUs, than the 7,1 can offer. Especially since most graphic cards are longer than it has space for.
The argument was better six months ago, but with the exploding hardware prices, it seems much less so.

If I were to choose Steam OS, and not Windows. I would try to install it on an older Windows 7 PC, that I already have.

It is when you take a computer that came out 7 years ago, and try to turn that into a modern day gaming machine.

 

[SDAVE]

2019 Intel Mac Pro has horrible single core performance by today's standards (even the 16core). If you are trying to put in something like a 5080 for gaming at 4k you should be ok, anything lower like 1080p will use CPU cycles more so not sure it's a great deal.

 

[avro707]

I set up one just for Windows gaming (not listed in my signature). Installed a nvidia RTX 4070 Ti Super because I got myself a Varjo XR-3 mixed reality headset. (nvidia cards only support).
@avro707 has mentioned that flight simulator is far better in VR. So I wish to try it. And he also said it runs very stable on his machine 🙂

I have many older games that I want to play. Primarily flight and truck sim games 🙂 But not the latest Microsoft flight simulator 2024.
I installed Windows 11 Enterprise LTSC, but seriously considering Windows 10 Enterprise IOT LTSC.
Upgrading to Windows 11 removed BootCamp, and I had to manually install drivers, from the Win10 system folder.


It depends a lot of what games one wishes to play, no? Older games run just fine on older hardware.
The internal Apple SSD is more than fast enough.

A current PC build can not be said to be good value for money. But some games need faster CPU and GPUs, than the 7,1 can offer. Especially since most graphic cards are longer than it has space for.
The argument was better six months ago, but with the exploding hardware prices, it seems much less so.

If I were to choose Steam OS, and not Windows. I would try to install it on an older Windows 7 PC, that I already have.

***
I have not had time to sit down and actually play any game on it yet. But I still think my reasoning isn't all that bad

FS does run stable in VR with a W6800X 32gb, but you have to be very careful not to run two 5K screens at the same time as VR, that causes endless lock ups. I suspect it’s just too much for the one card to handle.

Using VR and one 4K or 5K screen is more stable.

In 2D mode it is very stable, no stuttering at all. Frame rates might not be 80fps, but steady 30-40fps without stuttering or crashes is no problem.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Why would you buy another 7,1 for windows gaming? The Xeon chips in them suck for gaming. Just build something for a lot less money.

I like the quality and aesthetics of the 7,1 and performance at 2k on a 4k monitor with all eye candy turned up to max has been great for me. I play FPS on EZ mode for the story. Doesn't need to be 500FPS.

 

[avkills]

I like the quality and aesthetics of the 7,1 and performance at 2k on a 4k monitor with all eye candy turned up to max has been great for me. I play FPS on EZ mode for the story. Doesn't need to be 500FPS.

Fair enough, but windows hardware is a lot cheaper. The Phanteks case I have is *almost* as nice as the Mac Pro case; well it is about as nice as one can be for a build it yourself kit in Win Intel/AMD land.

 

[H. Flower]

*a moment of silence for the greatest computer ever…. The Mac Pro*

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Welllll… that turned quick.

 

[penguinlust]

Yeah, not a shocker though. Apple's incompetence with respect to the pro market is longstanding since Steve left. 2019 was a blip, but ultimately the end.

 

[Bafflefish]

2019 Intel Mac Pro has horrible single core performance by today's standards (even the 16core). If you are trying to put in something like a 5080 for gaming at 4k you should be ok, anything lower like 1080p will use CPU cycles more so not sure it's a great deal.

At 4K I think the Mac Pro can still perform fairly well and won’t be the limiting factor for quite some time.

 

[SDAVE]

Dang rip MP.

It's crazy to me Apple actually redesigned in 2019 then it went sideways. Wonder if they even had a timeline for Mac Pro and what to do with it.