Nope. My $500 Xbox Series X is much better as a game console. 😂
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
Is for people that want/need PCI express cards like NICs, SSDs, Sound Cards, Video Capture.
This is one of my favourite things on Macrumors - people insisting you justify your statements of requirements, as they cannot comprehend that someone might actually need more power than them.
Yesterday I was maxing out my 64gb on the studio ultra I have. I honestly thought that would be enough but apparently not the way apple silicon operates. 96gb on the next computer when the M3 is out.
Yep. As a former product manager in the IT space, I can recall us doing this very thing; introducing an inferior product with the new architecture to replace a straggler with the old architecture, just to start the EOL clock.
That statement bothered me when he said it and I still can't see it as anything but a dodge. Isn't the answer "the same way you used to?" Sure unified memory is nice within the SoC, but if they wanted to push a block of memory across PCIe and process it remotely that doesn't seem like it would be any harder than it used to be.
The old MBPs had a choice between discrete and integrated graphics in one system. The integrated graphics used shared memory. There were some OpenCL workflows that were faster using the integrated graphics because it saved the memory transfer, and there were some that were faster on the discrete graphics chip because the additional resources were enough to overcome the cost of the memory transfer.
I'm chalking it up to needing an answer on the spot and having picked a bad one...
Is there that much difference now days with external vs internal drives? If storage is that critical I wonder if studio plus one of those promise arrays will work better. Scratch disk over external drive perhaps?
Thank you this is insightful. Is there no option for cards like these via thunderbolt?
On a related note I have a razer corex for my old MacBook Pro with Vega 64. It’s useless with my m2 MacBook Pro. Can a solution like that exist with Mac Studio? Can you theoretically use a razer core x with a sound mix card over thunderbolt?
A stadium of 1? Crazy.Usain Bolt (Nvidia high powered large die GPU) lines up against a six year old (Apple’s underpowered Gen 2 iGPU that shares a die with CPU) at the Olympics. Gun goes off and Bolt sets a new world record, but right behind Bolt only a mere second or two is the six year old.
Now who do you think the stadium is going nuts over? And that’s where the “crazy” comment comes from. What Apple is doing with this early tech without even using RT cores is pretty “Crazy”
Let’s not dig ourselves deeper into useless, juvenile fantasy, make believe analogies.
Last edited:
My biggest surprise is that there is no expansion modules from Apple, like slots to add more SOC's with additional CPU/GPU/RAM.
As it stands now, it's just a Mac Studio with PCI-E slots and nothing more.
As it stands now, it's just a Mac Studio with PCI-E slots and nothing more.
Yea and I wonder how long the concept of a desktop computer will last? 10 years from now do we see these selling new? What about 15-20 yrs? The whole concept of the desktop is based on expansion and cooling. With Apple silicon cooling doesn’t seem to be an issue
That IS the point. If you need the slots a Mac Pro is the answer. If not the Mac Studio will be better if you need all that power. And no, the slots aren’t for graphics cards or memory, but everything else goes. It’s not for everyone, but for the right people it will be exactly what they need. These are the two top machines Apple makes, if it doesn’t do what you need get a PC. 👍🏻
Their main moneymaker in Macs will NEVER be any desktop Mac, though. Both the Studio and the Pro combined likely sell less than 100,000 units a year.
Disappointed because it’s not a machine you feel you could comfortably recommend to others? Because if the decision doesn’t impact you as you weren’t going to buy it, where does the disappointment factor in?
That’s almost entirely due to the fact that people would just use CUDA on Mac rather than the hardware that is there. As someone else said, if used as it’s designed to be used, the Apple Silicon Macs are impressive. And, with more coders every year learning how to use it as intended it’ll just keep getting better. It will never be able to outperform NVidia’s proprietary solution using NVidia purposed code, but the same can be said about Apple’s proprietary solution using Apple purposed code, there’s no surprises there.
Apple does get customer input on these sorts of things - and they know what their machines are being used for. I assume if they can show performance upgrades in the typical pro apps to the previous intel-based solutions those customers would be happy.
it works, m1 or m2 just won't detect the graphic card, but if you put something else in the pcie it should work, i use my egpu sometime on my 14inch as a hdd swap bay.
💯 This writing was on the wall when they killed the M-series Extreme. If you're transitioning to an ecosystem based entirely around a custom SoC, investing in a giant modular chassis from the last century makes little-to-no sense. Would have been interesting to see how the alleged Extreme chip performed; but perhaps Apple calculated that a segment of users would have complained about the lack of discrete cards no matter how impressive the base system. So why create a $12,000 computer that half of the already very limited target demo won't even buy? They're in that situation already and they didn't need to spent billions on R&D to get there. The Studio, on the other hand, carries no such expectations and seems much more in line with Apple's future plans.
Somebody posted that video on this forum, I don't have the link anymore.
