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
Apple deciding to drop dGPU & eGPU support isn't all that wrong. They're just ahead of the curve.
It may come to a shock to many but shipments of desktop dGPU have been at a downward slope since as early as 2005. This to me indicates that "perfect" 4090-like performance is not selling all that well.
It appears that SoC with a iGPU is where it is at going forward to the next 2 decades.
Use case of decades past are now approaching niche.
Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/sales-of-desktop-graphics-cards-hit-20-year-low
It may come to a shock to many but shipments of desktop dGPU have been at a downward slope since as early as 2005. This to me indicates that "perfect" 4090-like performance is not selling all that well.
It appears that SoC with a iGPU is where it is at going forward to the next 2 decades.
Use case of decades past are now approaching niche.
Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/sales-of-desktop-graphics-cards-hit-20-year-low
Shipment of dGPU is low because they cost too much for little performance gain, imo. Not because APU is just as good.Apple deciding to drop dGPU & eGPU support isn't all that wrong. They're just ahead of the curve.
It may come to a shock to many but shipments of desktop dGPU have been at a downward slope since as early as 2005. This to me indicates that "perfect" 4090-like performance is not selling all that well.
It appears that SoC with a iGPU is where it is at going forward to the next 2 decades.
Use case of decades past are now approaching niche.
Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/sales-of-desktop-graphics-cards-hit-20-year-low
More likely desktops are not as popular anymore as in previous years.
Desktop PC shipments worldwide 2025| Statista
In 2025, desktop PC shipments worldwide are forecast to amount to ***** million units.
www.statista.com
There are affordable dGPUs that arent flagships. How come they do not sell more?
APUs and SoCs are become more "good enough" as we move forward.
That choice isn't very likely. Supporting 2 code bases, where one is a tiny segment of your market, ands cost and complexity that is not worth the return. It would involve compromises or have differing feature sets which would add confusion in the market.
That assumes Apple wants to be in that market, where users are likely less concerned about what system they use than what software they use. Apple's entering that market would mean they need to get software developers on board with feature equivalent software. Getting developers to spend money for what probably would be a tiny fraction of their existing market is a tough sell; and so this option also doesn't seem attractive.
I think this is the most likely outcome as Apple builds more powerful chips; although they might wind up with Studios and Studio Pros similar to other product line differentiation.
Since the graph is for desktops only that makes sense. Is there one that includes notebooks?
None of the affordable (new) dGPUs are worth the price really. Unless I am missing something.
PC unit shipments worldwide 2024| Statista
In 2024, approximately 245.36 million PCs were shipped around the world, an increase from 2023's results.
www.statista.com
If buyer has X amount of money and need to buy a dGPU, assuming buyer even know what it is, you have alternatives if you aren't hyperfocused on top 1% of performance.
That's where APUs & SoCs come into play. They have "good enough" performance for less money.
Last edited:
Desktop wise, no they really aren't. In notebook space yeah there are alternatives, at least on the AMD side. Intel still doesn't ship good iGPU even though they have the Xe line.
Intel's proposing the x86-S to reduce legacy hardware.
Doing this frees up die space for tech of today.
This will likely anger legacy x86 hardware and software users as future new compatible hardware will be more expensive.
Last edited:
I asked becaused most naysayers on here kvetch about what they don't need and will never have.
No, you are just not comprehending. We say Macs would be better for most people if they could afford it. The majority of those not buying Macs are buying cheaper products.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
Just because people buy something doesn’t mean it was the best option. Would you also claim McDonalds is the best place to eat based on revenue?
Last edited:
I’m saying they don’t really care about the gaming part. They do care about a specific subset of workstations.
The other question I will leave alone because it is based on not understanding what I said, and I’m not spending any more time schooling you.
It’s quite simple.
If you don’t have the money = Apple not for you.
If you have the money, but have no taste = Apple not for you.
If you need native AAA desktop gaming = Apple not for you.
If you need a dGPU and lots of RAM = Apple not for you.
If you need [insert niche workload or low margin segment or software not available for macOS] = Apple not for you.
For everyone else, Apple is the superior choice.
If you don’t have the money = Apple not for you.
If you have the money, but have no taste = Apple not for you.
If you need native AAA desktop gaming = Apple not for you.
If you need a dGPU and lots of RAM = Apple not for you.
If you need [insert niche workload or low margin segment or software not available for macOS] = Apple not for you.
For everyone else, Apple is the superior choice.
I disagree with some of your points:
1. Apple is more expensive, but not that much above similar quality machines.
2. Apple is not about taste, buying Apple does not mean you have taste; and if you are buying it to show your “great taste” you’re probably a poser.
Apple is not by default a better choice. As a consultant, I live in a Windows world, and a Windows machinw ould make my life easier in many ways. Fortunately, Parallels offers me the ability to run Windows or I would need a Windows machine to do regular work with Office and ensure it works the same on client machines.
Apples a great choice for many users, but it isn’t a superior choice all the time for “everyone else.”
I would say, apple is a choice for some people, but "most people" in this forum think otherwise.
You mean, if you don't think what apple charges you is fine, then Apple is not for you
Define taste, some PCs have way way better taste, some example, Alienware or Razer laptops.
Agreed.
Agreed.
You forgot to add, specific hardware / software that only works on Windows.
For some people, Apple is the superior choice.
Folks, my points above are unassailable. No matter how many graphs or stats or bar charts or benchmarks or pricing or opinions are presented, I’ve been to enough MacWorlds and WWDCs and read enough Steve Jobs biographies to know without a doubt that Apple is the only choice for those with a modicum of common sense. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to refill my Kool-Aid. 
On a serious note, the frustrating thing about Apple for me is that for some of the use cases I’m interested in, they aren’t hindered by lack of technical know-how, they just choose not to participate or provide solutions that don’t align to their business strategy. This hasn’t materially hurt the company as it’s more valuable than ever for shareholders and Team Tim Apple. I used to not give the niche folks a second thought since my workflow doesn’t require the most cutting edge/powerful solutions, that’s why I’m still fond of my 6,1 and it still does what I need. But with the loss of Bootcamp and the ability to run x86 VMs on AS, I find myself now one of the niche folks. I really enjoyed having all I needed for work and personal life on one platform/physical machine. Now I am likely going to have to maintain dual systems like a gamer or give up macOS entirely. This entire AS transition is affecting my peace of mind. The other night had a nightmare that kid from the 90s Dell commercials woke me up exclaiming “Dude, you’re gettin’ a Dell!” God forbid…
On a serious note, the frustrating thing about Apple for me is that for some of the use cases I’m interested in, they aren’t hindered by lack of technical know-how, they just choose not to participate or provide solutions that don’t align to their business strategy. This hasn’t materially hurt the company as it’s more valuable than ever for shareholders and Team Tim Apple. I used to not give the niche folks a second thought since my workflow doesn’t require the most cutting edge/powerful solutions, that’s why I’m still fond of my 6,1 and it still does what I need. But with the loss of Bootcamp and the ability to run x86 VMs on AS, I find myself now one of the niche folks. I really enjoyed having all I needed for work and personal life on one platform/physical machine. Now I am likely going to have to maintain dual systems like a gamer or give up macOS entirely. This entire AS transition is affecting my peace of mind. The other night had a nightmare that kid from the 90s Dell commercials woke me up exclaiming “Dude, you’re gettin’ a Dell!” God forbid…
It's gonna be a good question in the long run to see how many people that wanted an All in one solution (MacOS + Windows) will stay. Some companies had mac hardware but used windows OS on those macs, so right now, they are still using those intel macs, but sooner or later they will have to move on.Folks, my points above are unassailable. No matter how many graphs or stats or bar charts or benchmarks or pricing or opinions are presented, I’ve been to enough MacWorlds and WWDCs and read enough Steve Jobs biographies to know without a doubt that Apple is the only choice for those with a modicum of common sense. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to refill my Kool-Aid.
On a serious note, the frustrating thing about Apple for me is that for some of the use cases I’m interested in, they aren’t hindered by lack of technical know-how, they just choose not to participate or provide solutions that don’t align to their business strategy. This hasn’t materially hurt the company as it’s more valuable than ever for shareholders and Team Tim Apple. I used to not give the niche folks a second thought since my workflow doesn’t require the most cutting edge/powerful solutions, that’s why I’m still fond of my 6,1 and it still does what I need. But with the loss of Bootcamp and the ability to run x86 VMs on AS, I find myself now one of the niche folks. I really enjoyed having all I needed for work and personal life on one platform/physical machine. Now I am likely going to have to maintain dual systems like a gamer or give up macOS entirely. This entire AS transition is affecting my peace of mind. The other night had a nightmare that kid from the 90s Dell commercials woke me up exclaiming “Dude, you’re gettin’ a Dell!” God forbid…
Speak about urself. Let others speak for their own selves. Don’t inject Cambrian explosion escapee proclamations into the Triassic..or today’s era.
Also you didn’t explain what motivated Apple to increase ram offering from 128 GB to 192 GB…and if Apple increases it further to 256 GB and above, what’ll happen to your proclamation?
I think the connection that hasn't been made with all these graphs is the polarization of workloads. The amount of people that need a desktop has been falling for years and years because mobile and laptop technology is always improving. However certain fields have an insatiable need for processing power, ram etc, and currently that extra 20%? of what a laptop can muster is only found in a desktop format, usually due to heat and the physical size of components.Apple deciding to drop dGPU & eGPU support isn't all that wrong. They're just ahead of the curve.
It may come to a shock to many but shipments of desktop dGPU have been at a downward slope since as early as 2005. This to me indicates that "perfect" 4090-like performance is not selling all that well.
It appears that SoC with a iGPU is where it is at going forward to the next 2 decades.
Use case of decades past are now approaching niche.
Source: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/sales-of-desktop-graphics-cards-hit-20-year-low
I would guess that as shipments of dGPU's continue to fall.. the average purchase price per dGPU is rising because the people that need a GPU, really need a GPU and tend to purchase in the upper end of the performance spectrum.
Gamers go for mid class GPU (4050/4060), you can't have those numbers with integrated GPUs yet.
The interesting thing is, Apple’s willingness to ignore some use cases to be able to create a better experience for their actual target audience, is exactly WHY I love Apple products. Yes, they could make the best product in probably any category, if they chose to. Which is why so many people are crying over them not doing it. But, if they started to do that, they would lose that ability. It’s about focus.
Everyone saying “why can’t they just do both?” are missing the point.
Apple is currently valued at $2.9T, has ~$55B cash on hand, and +160k employees globally, and has teams dedicated to emojis and widgets, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t lose any focus or negatively impact the innovation and quality of the next iPhone, iPad, Watch, MacBook, or Studio if they spent a little more time and effort on the workstation segment. Not saying it would be profitable, which is likely why they ended up delivering a Mac Pro M2 Ultra, but catering to Mac Pro users isn’t like designing an Apple Car or even Apple Vision. It would be orders of magnitude less effort (and zero impact on focus) to release a top-tier high-performance upgradeable/expandable Mac Pro capable of going toe-to-toe with any workstation on the market. With all due respect, I can begrudgingly accept the fact that Apple has made a business decision to go in a new direction, but anything else is just making poor excuses for the company (and I’m pro-Apple).
This is exactly the kind of opinion I was alluding to. I think it’s kind of weird that you are arguing for making a half-a$$ed attempt, which would be very non-Apple. And it’s not true that it wouldn’t affect the main business, it would require the chip design to be fundamentally different, potentially compromising the performance for the main target audience.
But, of course they could spend a little money creating a product that fits YOU, and earn their money on the rest of us. But why? And why ONLY your use case? Why not the thousands of other use cases that Apple says “no” to? Why not make a 49” curved monitor? Why not make a gaming controller? Why not make a soundbar? That’s the whole point of “focus”, being able to say “no”. If they made all the products they could just because they can, they wouldn’t be Apple, they would be Samsung. We already have a Samsung, we won’t need Apple to turn into that. It’s weird how some people seem to like Apple, but want to change them into something that is not Apple.
Emojis and widgets may not matter to you, but they spend time and money on it because it matters to a significant enough part of the target audience. I’m pretty sure there are a lot more users of the Widgetsmith app than there are Mac Pro owners.