Remind me why you're on a Mac forum? Doesn't seem like you think highly of them. Apple Silicon Macs have revolutionized power and efficiency. Take the M1 MacBook Air. What computer in or around the same price point of $999 or less depending on where you buy that competes in performance, efficiency, build quality, display quality, etc?
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.
Apple Executive Discusses New Mac Pro's Lack of Graphics Card Support
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I said before, macs makes sense in laptops, specially if you are taking them in a places with no electricity.
But desktops...
So again, even that macs (laptops) makes more sense for using them on the field, that doesn't means they are the best laptops over all as you said.
In my case I was looking for a laptop with decent storage (512GB) decent ram (16GB) with a decent video card, and a decent monitor, so I got an Alienware, a mac with those specs would cost me much more.
To me 8GB/256 is a no go, my desktop has 64 GB (using about 36 GB), 800 GB SSD + 1 TB SSD + 8 TB HDD.
So there's no mac cheaper than the Alienware that I got with about the same specs, and for desktop if I want a mac with about the specs that I need, then I have to spend a little fortune.
Why I'm here?
I'm here because I love computers, I love technology, so I got into mac os a long time ago so I was lucky to get my computer to boot and use OSX (Hackintosh). But those days are over.
You either find value in what Apple sells or you don’t. Be happy with your Alienware.
It seems pretty clear Macs "make sense" in desktops, as well, considering Apple still sells millions of them every year, even if they sell many more million laptops.
And when it comes to PCs, it appears laptops significantly outsell desktops, as well, so this ratio does not appear to be unique to Apple and macOS.
Where Mac doesn't "make sense" is for workloads that require massive amounts of CPU and/or GPU power and you are willing to accept the drawbacks of massive electrical power draw and heat generation those workloads generate. And that is because Apple's market research of Mac and macOS users show those workloads make up a very small percentage of their customer base. Apple are not going to make ~99% of their customer's experience worse just so that ~1% of their customers can have a (somewhat) better experience.
So Apple has three realistic choices to address that market going forward:
1) Continue to fork the Mac and macOS between ARM and x86. In other words, continue to offer the Mac Pro in the 2019 form factor with newer generations of Intel/AMD CPUs and AMD/nVidia GPUs and continue to make a unique version of macOS for that architecture that will more and more become functionally different from the macOS that runs on every other Mac in terms of feature-set.
2) Develop a custom "Mac Pro Class" SoC that, like Intel's Xeon and AMD's Epyc, is based on the same basic architecture as the "commodity" chips, but has unique modifications for those specialized workloads. So a lot more CPU cores, a lot more GPU cores, a lot more PCIe lanes, access to a much larger memory pool, etc. Now, because this will be a unique chip that will both be produced in very low quantities and will differ rather significantly from the "commodity" Apple Silicon SoCs, it will be very, very expensive and therefore the entry-level Mac Pro configuration will almost certainly be over $10,000 and will likely approach $100,000 when fully-outfitted with both Apple BTO and third-party options.
3) Just abandon that part of the market and withdraw the Mac Pro as a model from the lineup and make the Mac Studio as the most powerful Mac you can buy and if you need more, you will have to go elsewhere for your hardware, software and OS.
Last edited:
Spot on analysis, CWallace.
The only two group of users Apple has abandoned are:
- those who need more than 192GB Ram (this is now, as M3 will probably support 384GB)
- those who do advanced 3D modelling and rendering with AMD discrete cards (most of them moved to Win/Linux in 2013)
This is, IMHO, 0.1% or less of all Mac users and maybe 10% of Mac Pro users.
The only two group of users Apple has abandoned are:
- those who need more than 192GB Ram (this is now, as M3 will probably support 384GB)
- those who do advanced 3D modelling and rendering with AMD discrete cards (most of them moved to Win/Linux in 2013)
This is, IMHO, 0.1% or less of all Mac users and maybe 10% of Mac Pro users.
Last edited:
If I weren't in the group of "most users", then mac had the biggest market share of computers, which at this point don't, also I'm in the gaming / workstation side, so that makes me be in the group that apple can't compete with the rest.
Exactly, as a gamer / workstation user, the only mac computer that makes sense to people like me are the mac pro, but the price is a no go by far.
There's no way people like me would trade a core i9 13 gen 64 GB RAM GeForce 4070 ti for a mac pro that will give us about the same performance but the price would be a few times more expensive.
That's my guess, they are going to focus their desktops up to mac studio.
The mac pro will disappear sooner or later, likely with the appearance of Thunderbolt 5/6 or USB 5/6.
I don't understand why some folks spend so much time in this forum complaining about a computer they would never buy, either because it does not offer what they want, or if it did, they do not want to pay the price Apple charges.
I bought an Alienware desktop in 2018 with a 1070Ti rather then keep updating my iMac 5K every other model year for the better GPU to run Windows games in Boot Camp. The iMac 5K's GPUs were actually fine for Diablo III and Overwatch, but I figured the inconvenience of having two computers - each optimized for its specific task - was worth it over the long run and the extra money I spent on the PC would be more than offset by not incurring the depreciation of replacing my iMac every two years.
Still using my Alienware with Diablo IV and Overwatch 2 and while I replaced my 2017 iMac with a 2020 model, I really did not need to, considering.
I bought an Alienware desktop in 2018 with a 1070Ti rather then keep updating my iMac 5K every other model year for the better GPU to run Windows games in Boot Camp. The iMac 5K's GPUs were actually fine for Diablo III and Overwatch, but I figured the inconvenience of having two computers - each optimized for its specific task - was worth it over the long run and the extra money I spent on the PC would be more than offset by not incurring the depreciation of replacing my iMac every two years.
Still using my Alienware with Diablo IV and Overwatch 2 and while I replaced my 2017 iMac with a 2020 model, I really did not need to, considering.
Because we are curious to see what kind of people buys those computers at whatever amount apple decides to charge.
But now you will need two computers, you can't Boot Camp anymore to play PC games.
And I find that that to be a reasonable request, but it is one that I believe could be asked a lot more politely than it has been, generally. And in fairness, if it was, hopefully the answers would be more polite than many of them have been, as well.
With the extensions Apple is offering to support DirectX 12 on Apple Silicon and the successful reports of current-generation AAA games running on Apple Silicon Macs implies that the requirement to purchase a dedicated Windows PC for gaming could now be alleviated for a certain percentage of Apple Silicon Mac owners who were using Boot Camp on their x86 Macs to play games (though those desiring the maximum performance will still want to go that route).
The loss of Boot Camp in general on Apple Silicon (even if it only supported Windows ARM Edition operating systems) is a pain for me, personally, as by the end of the year my corporation is going to require Windows 11 which means I will no longer be able to use my iMac 5K since Boot Camp does not support Windows 11 (due to Apple not having a TPM schema Windows supports).
So I will be picking up an M2 Studio this fall to replace my iMac 5K and will probably also replace my Alienware R7 with a more modern desktop with an nVidia 3000/4000-series video card. On the plus side, I should be good with both through 2030.
I'm trying to be as polite as possible, but what I don't like in forums like this, is that people are convinced that macs are better than PC, which is not true.And I find that that to be a reasonable request, but it is one that I believe could be asked a lot more politely than it has been, generally. And in fairness, if it was, hopefully the answers would be more polite than many of them have been, as well.
A Mac could be the best for someone, but could be bad for someone else.
With the extensions Apple is offering to support DirectX 12 on Apple Silicon and the successful reports of current-generation AAA games running on Apple Silicon Macs implies that the requirement to purchase a dedicated Windows PC for gaming could now be alleviated for a certain percentage of Apple Silicon Mac owners who were using Boot Camp on their x86 Macs to play games (though those desiring the maximum performance will still want to go that route).
The loss of Boot Camp in general on Apple Silicon (even if it only supported Windows ARM Edition operating systems) is a pain for me, personally, as by the end of the year my corporation is going to require Windows 11 which means I will no longer be able to use my iMac 5K since Boot Camp does not support Windows 11 (due to Apple not having a TPM schema Windows supports).
So I will be picking up an M2 Studio this fall to replace my iMac 5K and will probably also replace my Alienware R7 with a more modern desktop with an nVidia 3000/4000-series video card. On the plus side, I should be good with both through 2030.
Or you could buy a gaming console plus your new mac.
"But those days are over". So why are you still here?
If you want to discuss Mac vs.PC perhaps it would be better to find threads that are appropriate for that.
Because I'm curious to see what people think about the Mac Pro with no video card add.
You got one more than you anticipated. What if there are a few more who didn’t bother answering?
You will take back your ‘thought’?
Though you can also tell us WHY you asked.
Edit: what explains the increase in ram capacity from 128 GB to 192 GB in Mx systems? According to your ‘thoughts’ what workflow/s explains this increase?
What if Apple offers more than 192 GB in the future?
Last edited:
Flawed logic. 1: “most users” spend less money on a computer, which is the main reason they don’t have the largest market share. Apple very clearly have a very large market share in the segment they are shooting for. And it would be the best choice for most users, IF they could afford it, because for most use cases, it is a superior device. Costly, but better.
2: “gaming/workstation” is very much NOT “most users”*, so thank you for confirming. As you say, Apple on purpose do not try to reach your use case, which is why your opinion doesn’t matter.
*According to the numbers I can find, “gaming PC’s” is 10-15% of the PC’s sold, and roughly equivalent to the number of Macs sold.
You can totally see that while keeping your uninteresting opinion about Mac pricing to yourself.
Please point me to a post where someone said that Macs are better for everyone. If someone has ever stated that on this forum, I have missed it. YOU are the one claiming that one platform is inherently superior.
As the most popular laptop computer model sold, one could argue the MacBook Air is the machine for "most users".
Of course, Windows PC makers like Dell and HPE offer dozens, if not scores, of laptop models so when sales of their entire line is combined, they outsell the MacBook Air (and Apple, in general). But Apple still usually ranks in the Top Five in terms of aggregate personal computer sales, so they may not be for "most users", but they certainly seem to be the one for "many users".
Personally, I find the argument to be little different than the one made for cellular phones. There are vastly more Android phones sold every year than Apple phones, but the significant majority of Android phones are the most basic of basic "feature phones" (because they can't really be considered a "smartphone" when they have functionality closer to a 1990s flip-phone).
Of course, Windows PC makers like Dell and HPE offer dozens, if not scores, of laptop models so when sales of their entire line is combined, they outsell the MacBook Air (and Apple, in general). But Apple still usually ranks in the Top Five in terms of aggregate personal computer sales, so they may not be for "most users", but they certainly seem to be the one for "many users".
Personally, I find the argument to be little different than the one made for cellular phones. There are vastly more Android phones sold every year than Apple phones, but the significant majority of Android phones are the most basic of basic "feature phones" (because they can't really be considered a "smartphone" when they have functionality closer to a 1990s flip-phone).
So what's the market they are shooting in where the "most users" are?
So are you saying that apple doesn't cares about workstations at all?
In this forum, people like you keep saying that macs are better for "most people" but that amount of "most people" is about 14% of computer market share in the US, if you go to other places in the world, even in europe, the market share is about 6%, asia 1.61%, africa 1.47%, south america 1.08%.
The only countries that have "large" market share are Countries like Australia, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Denmark.
Top 10 Mac countries by market share (United States is #3) - 9to5Mac
Switzerland leads the pack with an estimated 17.61 percent Mac OS X market share, followed by Luxembourg and the United...
9to5mac.com
Exactly, "many people" is a much better definition for mac scenarios than "most people".
Well those 1990s flip-phones didn't have internet or color screen, or touch screen. So even those crappy like android phones have way way better features than those 1990s phones.