Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
All I was saying is that Apple did not put enough effort to give the Mac Pro, the biggest and baddest Mac, more computing power than the Mac Studio. Cost isn't an issue, as evidenced by the 2019 Intel Mac Pro. They could have had some kind of M2 Extreme quad. That would at least have made sense to pay the extreme price for the Mac Pro.

Apple evidently did try and do just that, but it didn't work out. Bloomberg claimed that test yields were very low, which meant per unit costs were astronomical - they suggested the starting price of an "M2 Extreme" configuration with 48C/120G cores and 128GB of RAM could have been between $12,000 and $15,000.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Tagbert
The Apple Silicone macs are essentially video game consoles
100% disagreements on my post. Yet fundamentally consoles are the same principle as Mac Silicon of full SOC with unified ram and no upgradability.

Although in saying this, a PS5 can take an additional full bus NVM internally which is more than all apple silicone macs apart from Mac Pro in that regard. Apple should allow such a thing in all their lineup, there’s really no excuse imho that a video game console is more upgradable than a PC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggaenald
100% disagreements on my post. Yet fundamentally consoles are the same principle as Mac Silicon of full SOC with unified ram and no upgradability.

Although in saying this, a PS5 can take an additional full bus NVM internally which is more than all apple silicone macs apart from Mac Pro in that regard. Apple should allow such a thing in all their lineup, there’s really no excuse imho that a video game console is more upgradable than a PC.
Perhaps your post came across as shallow and dismissive. Now that you have provided some of your reasoning, maybe some will choose to engage in conversation.

BTW is is "silicon" not "silicone". Silicone is a group of polymers made in part from silicon.
 
Tensorflow and Pytorch both run on Apple Silicon "metal" framework. It's fast. But just as important is that my lowly Mac Mini M2-Pro, A can run fairly large models. The Apple GPU has access to more VRAM than my Nvidia card has. and the entire M2 Pro machine costs less than a high-end Nvidia GPA.
Would you point me in the direction?
 
Apple is a trillion dollar company. Their schtick might be making slick technology, but their driving purpose is making money, and they are exceptionally, superlatively good at making money. Apple is not as good at making computers as they are at making money, which is not to say their computers are bad, per se; they're just that good at making money.

The whole "ecosystem" thing certainly has a lot of easily-touted and more-or-less legit consumer benefits, but the value to Apple is in cranking up the odds that customers buy more Apple products. Is the money-gobbling corporate juggernaut going to sell the best possible computer, that users can optimize by buying other companies' stuff, or develop an intriguing, niche alternative that locks in deep-pocketed users?

It's not a coincidence or scheduling fluke that Bob Iger came on stage. That was a show for all the shareholders and creative execs out there. There is now the impression, regardless of how accurate it is, that the most valuable entertainment brand in history does its tech stuff with Apple products. You want to make a billion dollars? Better listen to Cook and Iger! Other execs who are more focused on market perception and making money than understanding tech are going to buy Mac Pros by the pallet. Will all their devs/techs/artists be happy? Maybe (they're still beastly systems). Will it be a smart investment? Very maybe (abysmal upgradeability). Will Apple have accomplished their goal? Yep (Capitalism, baby!).

Sure, there are companies (and individuals) out there that need to customize some absolutely monster rigs, and CTOs who do understand their own highly specific computing needs, but Apple simply isn't in the business of making components for custom supercomputers that can model the atoms in a nuclear explosion or global weather patterns or whatever. If your AI research requires Nvidia GPU architecture and TBs of RAM, Apple isn't shunning you; they're just tacitly acknowledging they aren't trying to seriously move on the current ML market with their system architecture.

Bottom line, you don't have to like what Apple is doing with the Mac Pro, but it's just silly to say they are messing up. They know what they are doing. Their strategy is very clear. They want to make every part of the products they sell and appeal to the premium/luxury market. This has worked extraordinarily well for them, by the metrics that matter to them, and this is not a huge deviation from that winning strategy.


You know, I’ve come around on this. I wasn’t going to buy one anyway, but I did inadvisedly buy some Disney stock a while back. If the Mac Pro gets my Disney stock out of the toilet, I’ll consider it a smashing success.
 
Perhaps your post came across as shallow and dismissive. Now that you have provided some of your reasoning, maybe some will choose to engage in conversation.

BTW is is "silicon" not "silicone". Silicone is a group of polymers made in part from silicon.
It’s not “is is”, it’s “it is”. I know you’ll appreciate the feedback. 👍🏻

Also not sure what you’re correcting exactly. Oh the 2nd typo, well spotted.
 
Turns out that ALL of the Mac Pro 2023's PCIe slots are piped through a PCIe switch with a single 16-lane connection to the SoC: https://social.treehouse.systems/@marcan/110493886026958843

That is for the M2 Max and handles the internal PCIe components (like the Thunderbolt 4 ports, the NIC port, etc.).

The Ultra has two of those switches, one for the internal stuff as on the Max, and one which appears to be dedicated to the PCIe slots for the Mac Pro (and I would presume the extra TB4 slots on the Mac Studio).
 
Here’s one for you, maybe Apple just doesn’t care to have that part of the market anymore. How many MacPro were sold total vs MacBook Pro and Mac Studio since Apple Silicon became available? If I were Apple, I’d give that market up rather than twist the engineers in a pretzel trying keep Apple Silicon work in a way it’s simply not designed to.
The engineers *wanted* to do it, it's the senior executives who didn't want it.

You can tell by the number of CPU engineers who left Apple to work on server chips.

Apple really is an iPhone company now. The Mac side is just creeping to become big iOS devices year by year.
 
Apple has not been part of the server market since 2011. It is not their core competency in terms of either hardware or software and they would have no chance entering the market against the current crop of established OEMs. It is probably one of the major reasons they dropped their lawsuit against Gerard Williams since Nuvia will be making chips that have 0% overlap with anything Apple will ever offer for sale so why waste their lawyer's billable hours?

Apple could have conceivably developed their own server-class SoC that would be used exclusively in their own data centers hosting iCloud data (like Mike Filippo will be doing for Microsoft Azure), but they clearly feel that third-parties who specialize in this kind of hardware and software integration can do it far better and far cheaper.

And I expect the driving motivation for those hire-aways was the amount of money being thrown at them, not because they really, really, really wanted to work on a server SoC that even if it happened, would never have been used outside of Apple's own data centers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert
Apple really is an iPhone company now. The Mac side is just creeping to become big iOS devices year by year.
Sad thing is: you are not wrong...
Apple indeed appears to intend to leave the higher end computing space on purpose
 
Sad thing is: you are not wrong...
Apple indeed appears to intend to leave the higher end computing space on purpose
Meanwhile, things that were super high end just a few years ago can now be done on the weakest hardware Apple sells. Direct 4K editing for example.

Apple has always catered to the “creative types”, but the super high end fluid dynamic simulators amongst us may not fit in the space Apple focuses on anymore 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tagbert
IIRC the MP 5.1 is very popular to this day. Its successors... not so much. I wonder why

Likely in no small part because it was the only performance desktop in the lineup at launch. Once the iMac became sufficiently powerful to perform the workloads of most customers, it quickly became the most popular Mac desktop because it was cheaper than the MP 5,1 and it included a high-quality Apple display that was an expensive add-on for the MP.
 
Apple has not been part of the server market since 2011. It is not their core competency in terms of either hardware or software and they would have no chance entering the market against the current crop of established OEMs. It is probably one of the major reasons they dropped their lawsuit against Gerard Williams since Nuvia will be making chips that have 0% overlap with anything Apple will ever offer for sale so why waste their lawyer's billable hours?

Apple could have conceivably developed their own server-class SoC that would be used exclusively in their own data centers hosting iCloud data (like Mike Filippo will be doing for Microsoft Azure), but they clearly feel that third-parties who specialize in this kind of hardware and software integration can do it far better and far cheaper.

And I expect the driving motivation for those hire-aways was the amount of money being thrown at them, not because they really, really, really wanted to work on a server SoC that even if it happened, would never have been used outside of Apple's own data centers.
If there was 0% overlap, one could also argue that they shouldn't have started the lawsuit in the first place.

It's possible that Apple wanted to 'stay in their lane' but if the business case that Williams put in front of the senior executive wasn't big enough to warrant investment, then everyone should start bailing out of high end Macs because I bet that market is even smaller. I'm pretty sure that Williams proposed selling ARM servers instead of internal consumption only.

Money isn't the only thing motivating people, although it's pretty important. Williams probably wanted to upend the data server space and convinced a lot of people to leave with him when Apple didn't care about that as much as he did. Who you work with can be as important as who you work for.

They were never any good at it based on all the complaint comments in this forum, so why stay in it?
Apple's competency in the higher end has been sorely lacking due to the consumer focused nature of making handhelds and consumer products. Retail 'super reveals' are sort of antithetic to workstation and server computing, because the secrecy involved in the mega event reveals works in opposition to stable and long term views.

Macs have always been good at content creation so it's tough to see higher end slowly get deprived and wither away. Those are the people complaining generally, they don't want to change platforms but it always is tough when you've invested a lot into the platform and get orphaned.

Oftentimes there will be network effects from people who change platforms and leave. A lot of the people who evangelized Apple products have worked in content creation... maybe they'll advocate switching too.
 
If adding discrete GPUs was not a direction that Apple wanted to pursue with Mac Pro, why on earth did it take so long to simply just add PCI-E slots? All this is is a Mac Studio, with pci-e slots, in the mac pro enclosure.
 
Apple evidently did try and do just that, but it didn't work out. Bloomberg claimed that test yields were very low, which meant per unit costs were astronomical - they suggested the starting price of an "M2 Extreme" configuration with 48C/120G cores and 128GB of RAM could have been between $12,000 and $15,000.
Didn't the 28-core Xeon Mac Pro start in that range? Price wouldn't have been an issue for those who desired it and could afford it. That could have been an upgrade over M2 Ultra.
 
Didn't the 28-core Xeon Mac Pro start in that range? Price wouldn't have been an issue for those who desired it and could afford it. That could have been an upgrade over M2 Ultra.
But with the *massive* crunch in wafer starts at the time these decisions had to be made, would it have been worth it?

I think Apple saw all the pileups in the supply chain and a *lot* of upcoming features were decided would only make sense on the 3nm node.
 
LOL, the blind sheep sees a compelling argument and it's always "get a pc if you dont like it, waaah".

All I was saying is that Apple did not put enough effort to give the Mac Pro, the biggest and baddest Mac, more computing power than the Mac Studio. Cost isn't an issue, as evidenced by the 2019 Intel Mac Pro. They could have had some kind of M2 Extreme quad. That would at least have made sense to pay the extreme price for the Mac Pro.
I agree mate.

Always funny to see the same members downvoting any critical/unfavorable personal opinion one has, which in any way shape or form doesn't portray Apple as the perfect company 😂 how dare you not conform! haha
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.