Apple definitely doesn’t want people to do that - they want to lock you in to upgrade to a brand new five figure cost computer every few years.
Good for Apple bank balance but poor for paying customers.
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.
MP 7,1 7,1 Bros: We're headed into 2025. How are we feeling?
- Thread starter H. Flower
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good for Apple bank balance but poor for paying customers.
Sadly, it didn't help when Apple offered pros a fully modular Mac Pro either. And to top it off, it was far more expensive than the AS Mac Pro or the Mac Studios fully specced out.
Either way. It is outdated after a few years with no mid term upgradeability.
Instead offering new shiny machines that are "the fastest mac ever blah blah blah"... and trade-in value that are laughable.
I do feel sorry for those of you that need top tier machines for work.
People like me, who are happy with second hand machines, do not have much to complain about, in this regard.
For second-hand, Apple is no longer really a good deal. The main problem comes from soldered SSDs (that can have a high wear rate) or unsoldered but extremely expensive and only "apple".
Personally, I find preferable to buy a new M4, even in an average configuration, than a second-hand M2 pro or max even with a better RAM configuration for example...
The disposable computer is not in my philosophy of life. I like that old computers can work and be repaired easily. Seeing components that work have to be recycled, and computer totally blocked because of the failure of one of the components is totally absurd.
I know that in the future I will only buy average configurations for a macbook air and an ipad from Apple, but no more high-end computers.
Running big calculations on a used dell or lenovo workstation is not a problem for me. Windows Pro is not as nice as Mac Os but I know how to separate what I do on a macbook and what I can do on a workstation. The advantage for me is being able to change gpus and other cards without worrying about compatibilities and being able to increase the amount of ram if I need to for a fairly low price. When I see that my system ssd is starting to wear out, I can change it easily and if I need to resell the machine, I know that it will not be a cause for concern for the new owner.
Personally, I find preferable to buy a new M4, even in an average configuration, than a second-hand M2 pro or max even with a better RAM configuration for example...
The disposable computer is not in my philosophy of life. I like that old computers can work and be repaired easily. Seeing components that work have to be recycled, and computer totally blocked because of the failure of one of the components is totally absurd.
I know that in the future I will only buy average configurations for a macbook air and an ipad from Apple, but no more high-end computers.
Running big calculations on a used dell or lenovo workstation is not a problem for me. Windows Pro is not as nice as Mac Os but I know how to separate what I do on a macbook and what I can do on a workstation. The advantage for me is being able to change gpus and other cards without worrying about compatibilities and being able to increase the amount of ram if I need to for a fairly low price. When I see that my system ssd is starting to wear out, I can change it easily and if I need to resell the machine, I know that it will not be a cause for concern for the new owner.
"mastered" isn't economies of scale. Just because operating at economies of scale in year n doesn't mean you get a 'free ride' in year n+2 . They have to sell just as much , if not more, each year to keep it. You can't 'bank' , 'store' economies of scale and then trot it out in the future when you need it.
If they don't have it , then hard to ship what you don't have. The M3 Max die used to not have the connector. Now it does. In the "used to not have" state the amount they had to ship was zero. They can't ship zero.
First, early on TMSC N3B had yield growth issues. Deferring a larger chip unitil later when yields are higher would be a very good reason.
Second, By using separate chips for laptops versus desktops you LOOSE some economies of scale since all the laptop contribution is gone. The laptops don't count for dies shipped with a UltraFusion connector because they don't have it. They some shared expenses in the overlap ( CPU clusters , GPU clusters , NPU clusters , A/V en/decoders ). But that shared is only just getting the Ultra M3 into existence.
Similarly the more the laptop Max configurations outsell the Studio/MP then the more silicon wafers just wasting with zero value , dead silicon . 500K Max 'full size' in laptops some waste. 1M 'full size' in laptops more waste . 2M 'full size' in laptop even more waste. Economies of scale has impact in context of waste also. As the number of laptop vs desktop deployments diverge it gets worse.
The Studio skipping the M3 Max means they don't get scale there either. Apple very likely juiced production of the laptop variant of M3 Max to just fit the end of the production run of The M3 Max MBP 14/16". When that stopped there is very good chance they turned on the stuff heading for Mac Studio. ( Remember also that the top volume selling MBA M3 is soak up most of the TSMC N3B wafers. If that demand doesn't collapse there are likely not lots of extra wafers lying around. Intel has ramped fulling on N3B at this point. ).
With the M3 generation they are also missing overlaps in reused design M3 Pro since its layout/floorplan is different also. M1/M2 the Pro was 99% the same CPU/NPU/Thunderbolt/ "x1 PCI-e' design as the Max. The Max was add more GPU clusters , AV en/decode , and UltraFusion connection. Again a backslide in scaled sharing of expenses. So the 'pro' is retreating now also from helping to offset the Ultra.
Additionally, if Apple has pushed the size of the M3 Max die so big that Apple had to move from InFo-LSI to CoWoS-LSi then there is no CoWoS-LSI capacity there either.
TSMC struggles to meet demand for CoWoS packaging, holding back AI and HPC chip production: report
Good news: CoWoS capacity is set to be expanded.
Nvidia and other AI data center players have bought up all of that capacity. Even if Apple had the raw Max die there may not be production capacity to join them together.
The Mac Pro sells at a low enough run rate , it would probably help to get several M3 Ultra studio's out there. Folks can benchmark the SoC to see if useful. If it works and folks need higher I/O then they just wait for a Mac Pro version. If it shows up in June and these evals were all completed until May ... there is really no material long term impact.
If there is some software 'value add' for the Mac Pro then wouldn't be much long term material impact if have to wait for macOS 16. (or a far more stable version of 15 ).
Performance tests for the Mac Studio M3 Ultra have appeared on PugetBench. I personally use DaVinci Resolve and can say that the tests are quite reliable, although for my needs, there are too many Fusion-related functions and too few tests with various codecs. However, the results are interesting, especially when compared to the prices of Windows systems based on the RTX 5080 and RTX 5090. As for the power consumption of these systems, let’s just draw a veil of silence over it.
The results are as follows (sorted by performance):
1. Basic Test:
• RTX 5090 - 16956
• M3 Ultra - 15001
• RTX 5080 - 14023
• M2 Ultra - 13349
2. Standard Test:
• RTX 5090 - 16427
• M3 Ultra - 13767
• RTX 5080 - 13049
• M2 Ultra - 12592
Prices of the respective systems with 256GB RAM and 4TB SSD:
• Mac Studio M3 Ultra - $8,099
• PugetSystems RTX 5080 - $10,655
• PugetSystems RTX 5090 - $11,978
Looking at these numbers, one could say that at least in this area, NVIDIA’s latest offerings seem to have lost their competitive edge—especially considering performance-per-dollar and energy efficiency.
The results are as follows (sorted by performance):
1. Basic Test:
• RTX 5090 - 16956
• M3 Ultra - 15001
• RTX 5080 - 14023
• M2 Ultra - 13349
2. Standard Test:
• RTX 5090 - 16427
• M3 Ultra - 13767
• RTX 5080 - 13049
• M2 Ultra - 12592
Prices of the respective systems with 256GB RAM and 4TB SSD:
• Mac Studio M3 Ultra - $8,099
• PugetSystems RTX 5080 - $10,655
• PugetSystems RTX 5090 - $11,978
Looking at these numbers, one could say that at least in this area, NVIDIA’s latest offerings seem to have lost their competitive edge—especially considering performance-per-dollar and energy efficiency.
Now do the price comparison for 12 months time including more ram and adding a second GPU.
Adding a second GPU is quite easy and doesn’t need a crystal ball. And you can do that with a Puget machine.
The Studio is locked down forever with whatever you built it as. RAM as well. So if you later decide you need higher specs you have to get rid of the entire computer and buy a new one.
Puget doesn’t sell to my country so they aren’t on my list as future Mac Pro replacement.
Last edited:
It’s obvious that you can add a second GPU to a PC. It’s also clear that in two or three years, you can replace the GPU and have a high-performance machine again. However, my post was about something entirely different.
I’m not engaging in a Mac vs. PC debate. The reality is that Apple’s current desktop computers offer virtually no hardware upgradeability (CPU, GPU, RAM), which is unfortunate—just as many “Pro” users likely feel. My point was simply to highlight that after five years, Apple has managed to match PC performance in certain applications while consuming 70-80% less power.
Of course, this is an increasingly niche market, and I believe the Mac Pro will disappear within a few years—in fact, it already has (to me, the Mac Pro with the M2 Ultra is a disappointment).
To sum up, for my specific needs, this hardware works fine, but that doesn’t mean I love this computer. In my small business, the return on investment for this configuration takes anywhere from a few days to a maximum of 30 days. The same would apply to a high-end PC. However, I prefer macOS, so I made my choice accordingly, as stated in my original post.
At the end of the day, this is a discussion about technology, not personal likes or dislikes. Different tools work for different people, and that’s perfectly fine. Wishing you all a great day and happy computing! 😊
It would probably take apple 5 hours to validate 7000 and 9000 series cards for the last hurrah on Intel Mac Pro :\
I think Sequoia is the last macOS to support 2019 Mac Pro, it hit the 5 year cycle, so Apple's gonna completely kick it to the curb.
Oh well. It's earned me good money and paid for itself many times. Still going strong.
I may go the Mac Studio route next year, though.
It was a new machine still in 2023. That's the count date for any cessation of supply for spare parts, software support etc.
If Apple were to present a new Pro XDR display with Thunderbolt 5. As it now has products that support that. Would AMD cards include Thunderbolt 5? And would the Mac Pro 7,1 be able to support that?
If not, there will be no reason why Apple would bother offering a new generation AMD cards. At least as far as I can guess.
By the way. Has Apple ever offered new hardware for machines it no longer sells?
If not, there will be no reason why Apple would bother offering a new generation AMD cards. At least as far as I can guess.
By the way. Has Apple ever offered new hardware for machines it no longer sells?
The closest precedent I can think of is offering RX580 support on 5,1 machines.
Presumably updated AMD drivers would also effect Intel eGPU users.
Would Apple produce a new display that's TB3 compatible? IIRC a number of the TB4 displays from 3rd parties didn't work properly on TB3 machines. Though, a lot of the M1 macs only had TB3 in their UB4 ports, perhaps they'd alternate to displayport on TB3 machines.
I guess this ability was because the Mac Pro 7,1 had the 580x card. But still cool that the drivers worked on such an old machine.
Apple had full TB3 support, unlike PCs. And TB4 insured that PCs also got all the functionality.
Thunderbolt 5 vs Thunderbolt 4 and 3 vs USB4
What is the difference between Thunderbolt 5 and Thunderbolt 4 and Thunderbolt 3, and then what about USB4?
www.macworld.com
But Thunderbolt 5 is a step up, with at least double the bandwidth. So when Apple makes a large display to replace the Pro XDR. It will need Thunderbolt 5 port support. And as you say, that will not be compatible with the present Thunderbolt 3 MPX graphic cards, in my opinion
They'll probably only use the bandwidth difference to run a higher refresh rate. If the resolution and 60hz refresh are doable within TB3, or the version of displayport encapsulated in TB3 alt mode, the display should work as well as the current XDR.
I don't think they're likely to make something that can't be driven by any M-series mac yet.
The way Apple have handled the (heavy) workstation segment the last decade or so is nothing less than a disgrace.
It was not good before 2010 either, but nevertheless in another ballpark. A roadmap to plan for company wide upgrades was never on Apples list and professional software often felt unpolished and not very well supported. But at least the MacPro got regularly updates, had some official and a plethora of third party upgrades.
But after 2012 it really went south. Once-only products like the Trashcan, Imac Pro and the 2019 MacPro, with very limited or no official updates. If anything it felt halfhearted and almost just for show releases. The Apple silicon MacPro does not feel convincing either, if Apple means it they have to back it up way better. Or just kill it off, nice and clean.
It was not good before 2010 either, but nevertheless in another ballpark. A roadmap to plan for company wide upgrades was never on Apples list and professional software often felt unpolished and not very well supported. But at least the MacPro got regularly updates, had some official and a plethora of third party upgrades.
But after 2012 it really went south. Once-only products like the Trashcan, Imac Pro and the 2019 MacPro, with very limited or no official updates. If anything it felt halfhearted and almost just for show releases. The Apple silicon MacPro does not feel convincing either, if Apple means it they have to back it up way better. Or just kill it off, nice and clean.
Was Apple ever in the heavy workstation market? I mean, I love my old 2009 Mac Pro and it was great, but they never really had the Xeons to compete at the really high end…
It's an interesting question, and i think given where semiconductors are right now it seems, given the right incentives, they can expand in this area.
Similar to what @Mac3Duser has mentioned in a previous post; since Apple has these M series chips, theres a golden opportunity to make slots to add M chips with different capabilities for HPC/AI/server workloads. Maybe the M series has to be reworked to expose only the GPU or ANE or something but its definitely possible. This could be a competitor to nvidia and could make Apple a viable development platform in the long run. Just my opinion
So true!
But they made several attempts with multi-cpu machines. Even the fancy liquid cooled G5. Certainly not just enhanced consumer machines.
Yep, I've been saying something similar in other message threads on MR for the last few years. Even though I'm no longer the target market for a Mac Pro (the Studio suits my needs better), I would love to see a Mac Pro with a modern-day "daughter card" where you could upgrade the Apple Silicon module with a newer one, or choosing one that had more GPU cores, etc.
It would be cool if a future Ultra (or Extreme) model could support different kinds of chips, like a CPU focused one and a GPU focused one. Then you could build up your system by choosing the appropriate chiplets for your workflow.
Might be too niche to be profitable though...
They had them on the G4, I sold a lot (and we owned one). With the G4, I think it was more that Motorola had trouble scaling them faster (and probably IBM did too on the G5) that they went dual CPU. I don't ever remember them going after the really high end when I was selling them. Then again, that's almost 25 years ago now...
If Apple was a product company, you might see that, but what apple makes now, it's primary output, is shareholder value, and shareholder value is most predictable with iPads in different shapes and forms.
Some iPads are tablets, some are cellphones, some are watches, some you wear on your face, and some are wearing the hollowed-out skins of desktop computers, shambling around with an uncanny valley imitation of a desktop operating system. They all share one thing in common - their hardware is as sealed and inalterable as a baseball card cast in a block of lucite.
Apple cancelled their self-repair program already? Haven't really been keeping up with the news, I didn't know.
Apple were not aiming really high end, like Supermicro/Tyan, but more into HP and Dell workstations. Apple did a lot fancy stuff in the 2000s that was rare outside workstation territory. Dual CPUs, ECC-memory, hardware raid, fibre channel storage, the dabble into ZFS, and the xserve environment. So there were certainly some high ambitions, but maybe not fully backed as a longterm strategy?
The self repair programmes are only ever there to try to placate regulators. They're not a practical "make the device better than it was when it was new" option.