MP All Models Apple sleeping on the mac pro is comically bad timing

[Charlie Bonesx]

I don't think an old Mac Pro with 1.5TB memory is going to be better for an AI than a 512GB Mac Studio, even if it has 3 times as much memory.

It’s absolutely not

We’re talking about a nearly decade old machine here

You can jam as many old amd gpus and as much ram as you want in to it

Unified memory aside, the giant old cpu is a massive bottleneck

Even a base m4 mini is going to run circles around it

Sure you get more total pcie pass through with the Xeon, but the bottleneck is still there

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

post-purchase hardware reconfigurability, and in-service field upgrades.

In reality though, in most enterprise contexts, isn’t there more to be gained from updating chipsets then adding ram and storage later on?

 

[teh_hunterer]

In reality though, in most enterprise contexts, isn’t there more to be gained from updating chipsets then adding ram and storage later on?

Not only that, but enterprises don't buy less than they need and then add more RAM and storage over time. They buy what they need when they need it and just replace it when it's time to replace it.

This idea of:

post-purchase hardware reconfigurability, and in-service field upgrades / repairs.

in the context of PCs provided to employees at the enterprise level is mostly just a fantasy. Some Redditor enthusiast might enjoy swapping around parts in their desktop tower while they LARP as a professional, but actual professional use cases involving this stuff involves the purchase of the thing that is actually required.

Any time you have a technician having to go to the location of a PC, open it up, change things around, you're spending so much money on that labor that you would have saved money just buying the specced up version in the first place. If you're an enthusiast at home, by all means do all that free labor for yourself, but don't confuse Reddit fantasy with enterprise reality.

 

[Audentia]

As the video shows - even a single Mac Studio is a decent machine for local LLM because of the advantage of having a relatively large amount of Unified RAM directly shared between CPU/GPU/NPU vs. limited VRAM (which has to be loaded via main RAM) on a dGPU card.


An Apple Silicon Mac Pro with a competitive level of bandwidth+lanes for PCIe based GPUs or NPUs isn't possible (without Apple designing a new SoC die just for the Mac Pro) and doesn't exist... and, even if it did, would be reliant on the same NVIDIA or AMD dGPUs that can be used in any generic Xeon/Ryzen box and lack the unified RAM advantage which lets a Mx processor with integrated GPU punch above its weight.

The Mac Pro may look like it has plenty of PCIe slots, but the M2/M3 Ultra only has 32 lanes of PCIe4 of which only 22 are available for the PCIe slots (with various constraints on how they can be allocated to slots). Current Xeons and Threadrippers have 128+ lanes of PCIe5. AFAIK many LLM tools run in Linux just as well as MacOS/Unix, and CPU power consumption is irrelevant on a personal workstation stuffed with NVIDIA space heaters, so if you want a GPU-based LLM platform a Xeon or Threadripper is probably the tool for the job.

Want a Mac Pro cluster? - you'd have to use Thunderbolt, same as the Studio.

Agreed, I think the missing thing or what's being unsaid from the mac pro advocates: we (or at least I) assumed Apple would release special versions of the high end Apple Silicon chips suitable for scaling and expansion in pcie slots when they first announced the Apple Silicon Mac Pro. Basically like you buy an M2 Ultra Mac Pro, but then you can add a M4 Max via pcie 5 board and the system expands like what they did with the Ultra fusion chips anyway. Software abstracts it and makes it a user friendly power user experience.

Now as you said it would need to be Apple Silicon that doesn't actually exist with more PCIe lanes or maybe even PCIe wasnt enough and they needed a custom connector like NVLink. This would then make the chassis costs worth it, and a machine you could own and upgrade and invest in over a long time. Apple could sell various boards like Framework and still make money with decent markup. You could say maybe it's too niche and not worth the cost for apple to invest in this ecosystem, but the idea from the power user is ok you could have a machine several times more powerful than a Mac Studio.

This seems to be exactly what Nvidia DGX Station https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/products/workstations/dgx-station/ is doing, so with the right willpower its obviously technically feasible, but sadly Apple's execs did not have this vision and now Nvidia may eat their lunch in a whole new category this fall. Essentially RTX Spark competes with MacBook Pro and Mac Studio Apple Silicon, DGX Station has no competition, but it could have been a Mac Pro and specialized high end Apple Silicon. This is why I completely agree with the OP's presuppositions. I think a lot of people would prefer to host powerful models on macOS rather than windows, it's hugely disappointing for Apple to concede this market and hope John changes things.

 

[leman]

Now as you said it would need to be Apple Silicon that doesn't actually exist with more PCIe lanes or maybe even PCIe wasnt enough and they needed a custom connector like NVLink. This would then make the chassis costs worth it, and a machine you could own and upgrade and invest in over a long time. Apple could sell various boards like Framework and still make money with decent markup. You could say maybe it's too niche and not worth the cost for apple to invest in this ecosystem, but the idea from the power user is ok you could have a machine several times more powerful than a Mac Studio.

It has already been pointed out that a price for such a hypothetical platform would likely far surpass what the enthusiasts would be willing to pay, so I am not going to argue this point again.

What I do want to point out is that Apple has offered an alternative path towards scalability (one they are themselves using for their custom AI servers), and that is the ability to connect multiple Macs and distribute work between them. It's not seamless, and you need to develop software to take care of such setups, but if you have the need, it could be a viable solution for running large ML models locally. It would be great if Apple included faster connectivity options with the future Studio models.

This seems to be exactly what Nvidia DGX Station https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/products/workstations/dgx-station/ is doing, so with the right willpower its obviously technically feasible, but sadly Apple's execs did not have this vision and now Nvidia may eat their lunch in a whole new category this fall.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the DGX Station. That is a supercomputer chip packed into a portable chassis. These machines cost close to $100K, they are not modular and do not come with upgradeable components. They offer only minimal PCI-e connectivity, mainly for a traditional GPU since the supercomputer chip lacks any graphics processing capabilities. So no, DGX Station is _not_ an example for a flexible personal workstation you seem to have in mind, it's quite the opposite.

 

[teh_hunterer]

we (or at least I) assumed Apple would release special versions of the high end Apple Silicon chips suitable for scaling and expansion in pcie slots when they first announced the Apple Silicon Mac Pro. Basically like you buy an M2 Ultra Mac Pro, but then you can add a M4 Max via pcie 5 board and the system expands like what they did with the Ultra fusion chips anyway. Software abstracts it and makes it a user friendly power user experience.

That isn't feasible at all. The whole point is to have the CPU and GPU and memory on the same chip, because the reduced physical distance between everything is what makes it more efficient and powerful.

Introducing PCIe boards throws all that away for nothing. Nobody is ever going to build that. Physics doesn't agree with it.

This seems to be exactly what Nvidia DGX Station https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/products/workstations/dgx-station/.

No? It doesn't work like what you described at all. Nor would it, because that would be a very ineffective and wasteful way to build that tech. As has been pointed out that stuff costs something in the $100k range.

Look I get that the idea of having this desktop tower that you can keep adding stuff to modularly seems neat, but computing is permanently moving away from it.

 

[mcnallym]

In reality though, in most enterprise contexts, isn’t there more to be gained from updating chipsets then adding ram and storage later on?

Indeed. Back in 2013 bought a second hand 2010 Mac Pro. Base spec as in quad 2.8 5850 GPU and a 1TB WD HDD
Company had after 3 years disposed of it

Needless to say soon ended up with a hex w3680 Zotac Nvidia GTX 680 with flashed VBIOS and SSD.

Enterprise will typically do a 3 year plan where the machine then is written off and replaced, not stripped down and then upgraded.

The strip down and upgrade is what either Prosumers do or the small business possibly one man band places.

Enterprise will buy the right tool for the job not try and shoehorn the solution into something like booting a Mac into Windows/Linux. If need Windows/Linux then the user doesn’t get a Mac for those tasks.

 

[mattspace]

in the context of PCs provided to employees at the enterprise level is mostly just a fantasy.

Apple literally had a purchasable spare parts pack for the 2019, so enterprises (regardless of size) with them could keep that on hand to do field repairs in situ.

Any time you have a technician having to go to the location of a PC, open it up, change things around, you're spending so much money on that labor that you would have saved money just buying the specced up version in the first place. If you're an enthusiast at home, by all means do all that free labor for yourself, but don't confuse Reddit fantasy with enterprise reality.

Apple literally have an on-site repair contract with me for warranty support on my machine, and have done since I bought it in 2022-23.

By all means, have your opinions of what "enterprises" would do, and how Apple "would" treat machines, but the simple fact is the Mac Pro was designed, and marketed as a field repairable and user self-supportable and upgradable machine.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

Apple literally had a purchasable spare parts pack for the 2019, so enterprises (regardless of size) with them could do field repairs in situ.



Apple literally have an on-site repair contract with me for warranty support on my machine, and have done since I bought it in 2022-23.

You’re equivocating repairs and upgrades

 

[teh_hunterer]

Apple literally had a purchasable spare parts pack for the 2019, so enterprises (regardless of size) with them could do field repairs in situ.

Apple literally have an on-site repair contract with me for warranty support on my machine, and have done since I bought it in 2022-23.

What you're describing is a warranty, not an in the field upgrade.

Many enterprise machines have something like a 3 year warranty and on-site repair contracts. It's got nothing to do with whether or not it's a desktop or laptop.

 

[mattspace]

What you're describing is a warranty, not an in the field upgrade.

Many enterprise machines have something like a 3 year warranty and on-site repair contracts. It's got nothing to do with whether or not it's a desktop or laptop.

No, I am describing field upgrades, which were part of this process, and when you ordered parts, upgrade parts, your warranty plan took that into account. Apple literally marketed the MPX module, and the logic of the MPX module as a tool for post-purchase working life upgrades of the machine.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

No, I am describing field upgrades, which were part of this process, and when you ordered parts, upgrade parts, your warranty plan took that into account. Apple literally marketed the MPX module, and the logic of the MPX module as a tool for post-purchase working life upgrades of the machine.

You literally described a warranty and made no mention of in the field upgrades in the words that you typed.

Have you had Apple come and upgrade your machine?

 

[mattspace]

It really seems to me that a lot of people arguing in here, who aren't Mac Pro forum regulars, and don't seem to own Mac Pros, don't really understand that buying and owning these machines was a different process to buying and owning any other Apple products.

They weren't sold, or supported like consumer electronics. They weren't sold, or supported at all like other Apple products.

They were treated by Apple like industrial plant and equipment.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

It really seems to me that a lot of people arguing in here, who aren't Mac Pro forum regulars, and don't seem to own Mac Pros, don't really understand that buying and owning these machines was a different process to buying and owning any other Apple products.

They weren't sold, or supported like consumer electronics. They weren't sold, or supported at all like other Apple products.

They were treated by Apple like industrial plant and equipment.

“Y’all just don’t understand” is not a great argument when we clearly do understand and call out the other bad arguments being made

Also, you didn’t answer the question

 

[mcnallym]

It really seems to me that a lot of people arguing in here, who aren't Mac Pro forum regulars, and don't seem to own Mac Pros, don't really understand that buying and owning these machines was a different process to buying and owning any other Apple products.

They weren't sold, or supported like consumer electronics. They weren't sold, or supported at all like other Apple products.

They were treated by Apple like industrial plant and equipment.

Well I would say that the opposite side is people living in the past and not realising that Apple has moved on.
This is not the x86 era but the Apple Silicon era.

The Apple Silicon Mac Pro was nothing more then a studio internals with a PCIe switch to provide more lanes then available on the Ultra SoC.
It didn’t support GPU cards

So literally the Mac Pro 2023 model which was the last model sold really offering what extra for LLM usage.
With Nvidia being dropped completely with Mojave in 2018 then no CUDA under Mac OS

Mac OS 27 doesn’t support x86 machines period, so the 2019 either stays on 26 or goes Windows/Linux tower and no Apple

For people that need massive memory, pcie internal expansion including Nvidia GPU/AI cards then would have to boot into Windows of Linux to get that 2019 hardware working due to no drivers.
The 2019 will be the last Mac for the foreseeable future that can do that however other then the case having an Apple badge on it once turn it into a Windows/Linix tower then there is little Apple Value Add, compared to a HP Z workstation as an example of the tower with slots.

It simply hasn’t shown to be worth while keeping such a platform in the Apple Silicon world. The M1 Extreme was either not able to produced reliably or simply too expensive to be able to sell.
No further Extremes followed and not even every generation had an Ultra

Mac Pro forum has been full of people since 2013 saying that Apple is doomed as dropped the ball with the Mac Pro yet some 13 years later Apple seems to be doing just fine.

I used to own a Mac Pro however back then you could buy Mac Pro as a quad single through to 12 dual socket system and the mini/MacBook Pro were much less powerful.
These days an entry level Studio does the job and still on an M1 as don’t need something the size/power of the Mac Pro 2019.

People seem to have confusion between

This machine does not meet my needs
And
This machine is crap and Apple is doomed.

 

[teh_hunterer]

No, I am describing field upgrades, which were part of this process, and when you ordered parts, upgrade parts, your warranty plan took that into account. Apple literally marketed the MPX module, and the logic of the MPX module as a tool for post-purchase working life upgrades of the machine.

You're describing buying products from Apple that have warranties attached to them.

I can buy a Magic Keyboard for my iPad Pro and add it to my Apple Care - am I also field upgrading my iPad in situ? 🤣

Enterprises buy the machines they need when they need them, and replace them when they're finished with them. They don't buy PCs with half the specs they need and then keep adding ram and PCIe cards to them.

It's much more cost effective to buy what you need. Upgrading a bunch of PCs costs IT department labour that adds up extremely quickly and just isn't worth it. And you get more out of upgrading to new generations than you do sticking to old ones and adding more memory and storage. And you get a warranty.

 

[leman]

It really seems to me that a lot of people arguing in here, who aren't Mac Pro forum regulars, and don't seem to own Mac Pros, don't really understand that buying and owning these machines was a different process to buying and owning any other Apple products.

How is any of this relevant to the current discussion? Times and circumstances have changed, and solutions that were feasible with the old paradigm are not feasible with the current one. Not to mention that the customer interest in modular machines are at its lowest and the entire industry is transitioning to more integrated platforms to better meet customer demand and challenges of modern compute.

And btw, before you ask, I had three tower Mac Pros in my old office. We used to run them as servers and workstations for statistical simulations back in the day. They’ve never been upgraded and haven’t been used in many years, since newer computers were more performant and much more convenient. The cylinder MPs we had were probably the most useful since we could quickly move them between desks - we used them for bulk video encoding before Apple Silicon made them entirely obsolete.

 

[mattspace]

Well I would say that the opposite side is people living in the past and not realising that Apple has moved on.
This is not the x86 era but the Apple Silicon era.

It was once the PowerPC era, it was once the 68k era, it was once the StrongARM era, it was once the DEC Alpha era, Itanium, all architectures have their time in the sun.

Apple Silicon is already well into the era of declining returns in terms of generation over generation improvements, and Intel's new mobile chips are competitive for performance and power use, while offering substantially higher display support.

But I'm not really interested in the argument about where the future is going, just in the revisionist history that some people seem to be pedalling along the lines of "the Mac Pro never was (upgradable / intended to be upgraded)" etc, which is ahistorical fiction, as people who have the lived experience of owning them, especially the 2019 can attest.

My partner's workplace, one of the largest gamedev studios in my country with hundreds of employees, is now moving all their art teams off high end gaming laptops (i9/4070) as their dev stations, and back to standard slotbox PCs, purely because it's cheaper to upgrade & configure components using their in-house IT team, who they have anyway, than to turn over every 3-4 years on any sort of lease programme.

This idea there's a single way that all of "enterprise" does computing is another of those myths, like the Mac Pro not being "intended" to be upgraded.

This machine does not meet my needs
And
This machine is crap and Apple is doomed.

I would say that Apple is painting itself into a very Black Swan Fragile corner, where everything they sell is entirely dependent on single-supplier, integrated manufacture products. A corner fragile enough that looking for offramps from their ecosystem is probably a safer bet than investing deeper into it. Their software story is certainly a shambles now, hardware may very well follow, just by virtue of being overly invested in a single path, and less nimble to external events.

When Apple was taken over by NeXT, a big part of what they received was NeXT's ability with JIT manufacture-to-configuration, which was being used by Dell (though they dumped it once Apple were the owners) when they became the dominant PC supplier. Apple's inventory was in a shambles then, because they were manufacturing things people didn't want, and unable to manufacture the things they did. They turned that around by cutting all the specialised products (the ones manufactured as specific configurations), and going back to generic products differentiated by the after-manufacture components installed.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Can we even have a serious discussion here? If you truly have a pressing need to run AI models, you are not using a Mac Pro or any other system and adding 1.5TB of RAM on to a motherboard to do it. Why do we have to talk around in circles?

There's plenty of clever folks with a pressing need to run AI who are choosing MP 2019 as their foundation. And yes, some of them have 1.5TB RAM.

Well I would say that the opposite side is people living in the past and not realising that Apple has moved on.
This is not the x86 era but the Apple Silicon era.


For people that need massive memory, pcie internal expansion including Nvidia GPU/AI cards then would have to boot into Windows of Linux to get that 2019 hardware working due to no drivers.
The 2019 will be the last Mac for the foreseeable future that can do that however other then the case having an Apple badge on it once turn it into a Windows/Linix tower then there is little Apple Value Add, compared to a HP Z workstation as an example of the tower with slots.

People seem to have confusion between

This machine does not meet my needs
And
This machine is crap and Apple is doomed.

We're not living in the past. MP 2019 is still an officially supported platform as of this posting.

Proxmox exists. You can run MacOS to administer the compute resources. No need to reboot.

I'd argue there's a HUGE value add to the Mac Pro hardware, and it's worth it to me vs HP Lenovo or Dell. I have stacks and stacks of HP Z workstations from multiple generations. MP2019 is in a different class, and those qualities are worth it to me. Especially now they're so affordable.

 

[teh_hunterer]

There's plenty of clever folks with a pressing need to run AI who are choosing MP 2019 as their foundation. And yes, some of them have 1.5TB RAM.

So what do you use hash cracking and FP64 to do again?

 

[theluggage]

Apple Silicon is already well into the era of declining returns in terms of generation over generation improvements, and Intel's new mobile chips are competitive for performance and power use, while offering substantially higher display support.

Intel and AMD have been playing catch-up with Apple Silicon in terms of bangs-per-Watt for the last 5 years. They've barely caught up, and M5 MacBook Pros are still setting performance records for that form factor. NVIDIA and Qualcomm are producing very Apple Silicon-like ARM-based designs, which are going to hit the same buffers as Apple Silicon. So, yeah, Apple will need to keep pushing ahead, but that's business.

What else are they going to do? Buy off-the-shelf chips from Intel, AMD, Qualcomm or NVIDIA which will be no better than the competition?

But I'm not really interested in the argument about where the future is going
just in the revisionist history that some people seem to be pedalling along the lines of "the Mac Pro never was (upgradable / intended to be upgraded)" etc, which is ahistorical fiction, as people who have the lived experience of owning them, especially the 2019 can attest.

Nobody here is saying that - of course the 2019 Mac Pro was designed for expansion. The point is that in industry most of that expansion happens on day one to meet whatever specifications the job needs. Mid-life upgrades happen but they're not the Unique Selling Point some people think.

If we're running on anecdotes, I'm not "industry" but I used tower PCs for years at home and work and rarely upgraded RAM or GPUs "mid life" because, by that point, virtually every component was obsolete so (with a tower PC) the only option was a complete strip-down and new motherboard... and it was usually better to repurpose the old machine as a server, hand-me-down or emergency backup. "Upgrades" went in on day one. Day one upgrades happened on Macs because Apple wanted $silly for BTO RAM and hard drive configurations - even when the parts were standard.

and back to standard slotbox PCs, purely because it's cheaper to upgrade & configure components using their in-house IT team, who they have anyway, than to turn over every 3-4 years on any sort of lease programme.

Probably because they were PCs and could be thrown together from commodity components in the safe knowledge that every component manufacturer tests their products on Windows. Not so easy with Mac.

Plus "using their in-house IT team, who they have anyway" presumably means that the IT team were happy to take on a lot of extra work for no extra pay. The cost of IT hardware is almost negligible compared to the cost of labour.

I would say that Apple is painting itself into a very Black Swan Fragile corner, where everything they sell is entirely dependent on single-supplier, integrated manufacture products.

As opposed to being limited to whatever generic third-party components can do? Should they maybe switch to Snapdragon-X instead of Apple Silicon? Go back to Intel x86 and be a slave to whatever SKUs they bring out? And still probably end up with stuff that's being fabbed by a single supplier who aren;t contracted directly to Apple.

Apple have two options if they hit supply problems - they can look for other fabs to manufacture Apple Silicon (they're already talking to Intel according to rumours) or if, in some hypothetical near future, NVIDIA or AMD make something that's end-of-argument better across the range, they can switch architecture: something that Apple have successfully done 3 times (4 if you count 6502 but that's a reach) but which Microsoft/Intel struggle with.

If TSMC (or the Dutch firm that makes the machines that many fabs depend on) folded than I guarantee that Apple would have plenty of company at the soup kitchen.

They turned that around by cutting all the specialised products (the ones manufactured as specific configurations), and going back to generic products differentiated by the after-manufacture components installed.

You mean, like the famously not-modular iMac?
Jobs did axe the horizontal-format desktop Mac models which had become pretty pointless - but Apple were already making G3 mini-towers with slots before Jobs replaced them with the bblue-and-white versions.

 

[mcnallym]

There's plenty of clever folks with a pressing need to run AI who are choosing MP 2019 as their foundation. And yes, some of them have 1.5TB RAM.

We're not living in the past. MP 2019 is still an officially supported platform as of this posting.

Proxmox exists. You can run MacOS to administer the compute resources. No need to reboot.

I'd argue there's a HUGE value add to the Mac Pro hardware, and it's worth it to me vs HP Lenovo or Dell. I have stacks and stacks of HP Z workstations from multiple generations. MP2019 is in a different class, and those qualities are worth it to me. Especially now they're so affordable.

Yes you are living in the past asking for a product Apple doesn’t make any more.
Apple Silicon is not going to get you a Tower with Slots as people asking for.
The Mac Pro 2023 is what would get with a new Mx Ultra in it.
You are not going to get a Mac Pro 2026 with a Xeon/Threadripper and loads of empty PCIe x16 slots ready to take Nvidia Cards.
What would get os at best an M5 Ultra and a PCIe switch to provide additional

So turning the Mac Pro into a ProxMox Box and then using Mac OS to administer the ProxMox so that can pass through the hardware that don’t work in Mac OS to a virtual machine running Linux/Windows.

Literally at that point almost any Workstation Vendor that makes a Tower with Slots can be swapped in other then running Mac OS as the admin platform

Ok it is worth it to you buying secondhand as they so affordable now.
Right so how much is Apple making from this.
Exactly as much if you bought a Lenovo/HP machine is what is worth to Apple.

So where exactly is the return on Apple spending a fortune to develop and produce an Extreme SoC and break the Ecosystem model they have with the unified model with the SoC and Unified Memory so that people who want to run CUDA can run VM on the hardware and populate with their own non Apple purchased RAM.

 

[BSDnostalgia]

This seems to be exactly what Nvidia DGX Station https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/products/workstations/dgx-station/ is doing

Unfortunately, there is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the DGX Station. That is a supercomputer chip packed into a portable chassis.

I would say that Apple is painting itself into a very Black Swan Fragile corner, where everything they sell is entirely dependent on single-supplier, integrated manufacture products.

I think a lot of points have already been covered and are being re-hashed, but, Nvidia is actually moving into Apple's territory with the Spark. These products have a lot in common with Apple Silicon systems.

As for Apple being fragile, well, all the players in the highest-performance space at all levels right now are dependent on TSMC in Taiwan.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

People love to get all up in arms about which Macs they think Apple should be building, but we're talking about a 7.6% segment of their revenue. And the vast majority of that 7.6% is from MacBooks. That leaves, what, maybe 2% of their overall revenue coming from these desktops they’re doomed because they didn’t bring to market? Please.

View attachment 2634855

It's still a massive amount and they NEED a halo product. It's like Porsche saying the normal 911 is enough, and nah, nobody wants or needs a 911 Turbo. Nobody has a poster of a base 911 on the wall. These halo products need to exist, and the cost of producing it is inconsequential as a sparrow fart in a hurricane to Apple financials.

Get real. They could lose money on every unit and still gain massive mindshare and brand loyalty. Everything should not come down to money worship. Everything should not come down to money worship.

Everything should not come down to money worship.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

So what do you use hash cracking and FP64 to do again?

To crack hashes and perform accurate mathematical calculations.