Apple Unveils New Mac Pro With M2 Ultra Chip and More

Exactly, not many but what I'm saying is, customers that got a Mac Pro with huge amounts of RAM now are out in the wild, they will need to move to PC.
How about making a guess as to how many people you think you are discussing? My guess is they sold under 100,000 a year total, and if 1% of those had more than 192GB I would be shocked (that is probably under 4,000 people).
Base Mac Pro 2023 is more expensive than base Mac Pro 2019
Inflation adjusted the 2019 machine was more expensive with less RAM and SSD.
No way this generation Mac Pro will increase Mac Pro users base.
I know in the studios and visual effects houses with whom I work, there are already more 2023 Mac Pros on order day one than were purchased over the whole life of the 2019 Mac Pro.
 
Whoever made such videos are also not the target audience for this product.

While you continue to fail to imagine why this product could necessary, those who need it for real world use cases are buying them, making your opinion utterly irrelevant.
In the big picture, there are 8 billion people in the world. The vast majority of those aren’t interested in the Mac at all. Of the few that are interested in a Mac, the vast majority wouldn’t be interested in a Mac Pro.

If I personally knew 1 billion people and ALL of those people hated the new Mac Pro, there would still be several million in the remaining folks that would make the creation of the Mac Pro profitable. Logically, the fact that a lot of people don’t like the Mac Pro… I’d say it’s expected. That’s just how small the target audience is.
 
I know in the studios and visual effects houses with whom I work, there are already more 2023 Mac Pros on order day one than were purchased over the whole life of the 2019 Mac Pro.
I hope those studios and visual effects houses know they can't put GPUs in those PCIe slots… I wonder just how useful the machine is to them without multiple GPUs powering simulations, real-time previews, effects compositing, rendering etc. I'd love to see a 2023 M2 Ultra up against four decent GPUs in a Mac Pro 2019.
 
I hope those studios and visual effects houses know they can't put GPUs in those PCIe slots…

That's a safe bet. :rolleyes:


I wonder just how useful the machine is to them without multiple GPUs powering simulations, real-time previews, effects compositing, rendering etc. I'd love to see a 2023 M2 Ultra up against four decent GPUs in a Mac Pro 2019.

Running some Final Cut Pro workflows optimized for Apple Silicon SoCs, the M2 Ultra might very well be faster...
 
Last edited:
I've been trying to figure out how fast the M2 Ultra's GPU really is, and if it's genuinely 2.7x a Radeon Pro W6900X (using OTOY Octane), then I guess I'll be buying a Mac Studio. (Although it's supposedly 7.6x a W5500X, though the available Metal scores don't tally proportionately with these figures). Hopefully real benchmarks will be available soon.
 
I hope those studios and visual effects houses know they can't put GPUs in those PCIe slots…
Wow, thanks for letting me know! None of us knew that Apple has not supported eGPU or non-Apple GPUs on Apple Silicon. First time we have all heard that. I wish we knew that before we bought all the Mac Studios we have been using for the last year.
I wonder just how useful the machine is to them without multiple GPUs powering simulations, real-time previews, effects compositing, rendering etc. I'd love to see a 2023 M2 Ultra up against four decent GPUs in a Mac Pro 2019.
It will do great as having all that unified memory and a solid Neural Engine will do just what we need it to do. If you can find us a GPU that has as much memory for our models, that will ship in the next week and cost less than a fully configured Mac Pro, please let me know.
 
The silicon on the GPUs themselves was never ‘proprietary’, whilst the card designs were (ADC ports etc).

I have a couple of ancient Powermac G5s in the loft with Nvidia GeForce GPUs from the factory.
With proprietary, I meant that you couldn't use them on a PC.
 
1.5TB RAM capacity for the 2019 Intel Mac Pro was an aberration brought on by the Xeon CPU in the system; no other Power Mac / Mac Pro had such a high RAM capacity...
Exactly, the people that bought macs because needed lots of RAM are now out of the waters.

Base 2019 Intel Mac Pro = 32GB RAM & 512GB SSD

Base 2023 ASi Mac Pro = 64GB RAM & 1TB SSD

Huh, almost like the US$1K price bump covers the boost in RAM & storage...?
4 years later, today 64 GB RAM is cheaper than 32 GB RAM of 2019. Same for storage.
 
I agree with you. But, there’s already folks saying the Mac Pro will support non-Apple GPU’s. I think that will always be the case because folks just don’t understand Apple Silicon.
I doubt, if they had the intentions to use / support non apple GPU, they'll already announced it.
 
How about making a guess as to how many people you think you are discussing? My guess is they sold under 100,000 a year total, and if 1% of those had more than 192GB I would be shocked (that is probably under 4,000 people).
We don't know how many 192GB+ RAM Mac Pros they sold, you are right are not many, but even if there was just one guy, that poor guy has to move to PC now.

Inflation adjusted the 2019 machine was more expensive with less RAM and SSD.
More upgradable, more future proof.
I know in the studios and visual effects houses with whom I work, there are already more 2023 Mac Pros on order day one than were purchased over the whole life of the 2019 Mac Pro.
That is most likely because they knew the 2019 Mac Pro was going to be the last Intel Mac, so they waited for longer to get a mac pro with an apple chip.
 
We don't know how many 192GB+ RAM Mac Pros they sold, you are right are not many, but even if there was just one guy, that poor guy has to move to PC now.
If it was an insignificant number of people, it is, by definition, insignificant.
More upgradable, more future proof.
More upgradable, clearly not future proof. It had PCIe 3.0 slots, about half the speed of the PCIe 4.0 slots in the current machine. This is the problem with this future proof argument. If performance matters, then these old machines get less and less interesting very quickly. Maybe home users want 4 year old machines, but no studio, visual effects or post production facility keeps machines longer than 3 years unless they are forced to do so (like no replacement has shipped).

Professional facilities do not upgrade machines, nor do they buy third party RAM that is not supported by the system’s vendor. They buy systems with service contracts configured as they need them, use them for 2-3 years and scrap them.
That is most likely because they knew the 2019 Mac Pro was going to be the last Intel Mac, so they waited for longer to get a mac pro with an apple chip.
Really? They knew that before it was even announced? I wish they had told me! However, given that you are arguing that it is more upgradable and future proof, should they not want to be upgrading them and keeping them around since they were future proof? I am a bit confused.
 
If it was an insignificant number of people, it is, by definition, insignificant.
Still that insignificant amount of people that needs more than 192GB are pissed right now.
More upgradable, clearly not future proof. It had PCIe 3.0 slots, about half the speed of the PCIe 4.0 slots in the current machine. This is the problem with this future proof argument. If performance matters, then these old machines get less and less interesting very quickly. Maybe home users want 4 year old machines, but no studio, visual effects or post production facility keeps machines longer than 3 years unless they are forced to do so (like no replacement has shipped).

Professional facilities do not upgrade machines, nor do they buy third party RAM that is not supported by the system’s vendor. They buy systems with service contracts configured as they need them, use them for 2-3 years and scrap them.

You can add more RAM, PCI express beyond 3.0 only matters if you use Video cards and Storage, maybe network then you are going to need newer versions of PCI express, but if you only need sounds cards for example, then PCI express 3.0 is more than enough.

Really? They knew that before it was even announced? I wish they had told me! However, given that you are arguing that it is more upgradable and future proof, should they not want to be upgrading them and keeping them around since they were future proof? I am a bit confused.

A lot of people knew / heard / were aware that apple was planning to release their own chip at least a few years before 2020, when they finally announced it.

An old PC with good amount of RAM can serve you for longer than, for example, the almighty Mac Mini 8/256.

Apple will stop giving updates for those macs but if you install into them linux, then your old Mac Pro is going to a much longer life.

Future proof means buy today 32 GB RAM, upgrade tomorrow to 64 GB RAM, so right now there's no "future proof" mac by that definition.
 
Wow, thanks for letting me know! None of us knew that Apple has not supported eGPU or non-Apple GPUs on Apple Silicon. First time we have all heard that. I wish we knew that before we bought all the Mac Studios we have been using for the last year.

It will do great as having all that unified memory and a solid Neural Engine will do just what we need it to do. If you can find us a GPU that has as much memory for our models, that will ship in the next week and cost less than a fully configured Mac Pro, please let me know.
I will ignore your sarcasm (it being the lowest form of wit and all that). I’m genuinely intrigued to know what it is you do and how well the current Mac Studios perform. What models are you using? I have a W6800X Duo, and need to know how the M2 Ultra will perform before deciding which upgrade route to take. I could just throw in a second Duo…
 
Last edited:
Still that insignificant amount of people that needs more than 192GB are pissed right now.
Which is insignificant. Apple does not now, nor has it ever made systems that served the needs of all possible users. This has not changed.
You can add more RAM, PCI express beyond 3.0 only matters if you use Video cards and Storage, maybe network then you are going to need newer versions of PCI express, but if you only need sounds cards for example, then PCI express 3.0 is more than enough.
Given that the only cards we have in our 2019 systems are video IO, 25Gb/s Ethernet (about to upgrade to 100Gb/s Ethernet), and OWC 8 M.2 storage cards, you have made it clear why we do not think that 4 year old systems are “future proof”.
A lot of people knew / heard / were aware that apple was planning to release their own chip at least a few years before 2020, when they finally announced it.
Again, you seem to want to have it both ways. You argue that these Intel machine are better and more future proof, but than in the same breath say that people did not buy them because they knew they would be obsolete. Which is it?
An old PC with good amount of RAM can serve you for longer than, for example, the almighty Mac Mini 8/256.
Serve one for what? Will it run macOS and our rendering pipeline? You have a strange conception of how companies use computers. We buy machines in specific configurations for specific tasks. There is no one who is tasked with trying to find uses for machines that have been obsoleted.
Apple will stop giving updates for those macs but if you install into them linux, then your old Mac Pro is going to a much longer life.
How would have an old, slow, unsupported linux system help us in any way? That is not how real companies work. We do not even sell these systems off for liability reasons, but simply remove the disk drives (where we can or erase them where we cannot) and then scrap them.
Future proof means buy today 32 GB RAM, upgrade tomorrow to 64 GB RAM, so right now there's no "future proof" mac by that definition.
No, that is your definition. Again, none of the studios, post facilities or visual effects houses with whom I have worked over the years upgrades machines in place. You are describing how hobbyists use machines, not how professions use them. My definition of future proof is having enough headroom to be able to run any software that needs to be upgraded over the 3 year life of the machine. By that definition, everyone one of these machines is future proof.
 
Which is insignificant. Apple does not now, nor has it ever made systems that served the needs of all possible users. This has not changed.

Given that the only cards we have in our 2019 systems are video IO, 25Gb/s Ethernet (about to upgrade to 100Gb/s Ethernet), and OWC 8 M.2 storage cards, you have made it clear why we do not think that 4 year old systems are “future proof”.
Not future proof for your needs, but Apple silicon Mac Pros will have an even lower future proof time, at least the first one. Those computers come with PCIe 4 not 5, and hopefully each PCI express port doesn't shares bandwidth with the rest.

So to your needs is half way obsolete already because doesn't have PCIe 5.
Again, you seem to want to have it both ways. You argue that these Intel machine are better and more future proof, but than in the same breath say that people did not buy them because they knew they would be obsolete. Which is it?
I'm arguing that those intel machines have better RAM capacity.
Serve one for what? Will it run macOS and our rendering pipeline? You have a strange conception of how companies use computers. We buy machines in specific configurations for specific tasks. There is no one who is tasked with trying to find uses for machines that have been obsoleted.
Obsolete for your needs, but for another person will find those second hand computers a good use.
How would have an old, slow, unsupported linux system help us in any way? That is not how real companies work. We do not even sell these systems off for liability reasons, but simply remove the disk drives (where we can or erase them where we cannot) and then scrap them.
Not you, but some will reuse that old computer for a second life out of service.
No, that is your definition. Again, none of the studios, post facilities or visual effects houses with whom I have worked over the years upgrades machines in place. You are describing how hobbyists use machines, not how professions use them. My definition of future proof is having enough headroom to be able to run any software that needs to be upgraded over the 3 year life of the machine. By that definition, everyone one of these machines is future proof.
So by your definition, if you need more than 192 GB RAM what does that means?
 
Not future proof for your needs, but Apple silicon Mac Pros will have an even lower future proof time, at least the first one. Those computers come with PCIe 4 not 5, and hopefully each PCI express port doesn't shares bandwidth with the rest.
Again, no. They will do what we need them to do when we buy them and will continue to run the software we need through the three years we expect to keep them. That means they are future proof.
So to your needs is half way obsolete already because doesn't have PCIe 5.
No. I made clear that we do not replace/upgrade hardware in existing machines, so we would not swap cards a year or two from now. The cards we use right now support PCIe 4. In a year or two, Apple may have a new Mac Pro, with PCIe 5 and we may be able to buy cards that take advantage of it. At that point machines we buy will use that, however, like most actual businesses, we would not try to replace cards mid cycle. You model is how hobbyists work, not how real professionals work.
I'm arguing that those intel machines have better RAM capacity.
Which matters not at all to me. They have more RAM that I do not need, nor would I buy, but lack Neural Engines and Unified Memory. Those are much more important for me than a spec that is irrelevant to me. Our 2019 Mac Pros were configured with 96GB, as that was all that our testing showed benefited our applications. That we could have spent $50,000 and bought machines with 1.5TB was irrelevant.
Obsolete for your needs, but for another person will find those second hand computers a good use.
Which matters not at all to me, as we do not sell our old machines, we scrap them. Their theoretical use by some future theoretical user that would have no impact on our use.
Not you, but some will reuse that old computer for a second life out of service.
That is not the common practice for businesses. Again, you are talking about hobbyists, who are not the target market for these machines.
So by your definition, if you need more than 192 GB RAM what does that means?
It means that I would not buy these machines. Just as if I needed to run Windows, or have 4 PCIe x16 slots I would not purchase them. However, given that the max RAM one can buy for these machines is 192GB, it seems unlikely that over their three year life span, any of the software we use would require more than that. It is possible that some future version might be able to take advantage of more, but it would not require it. That means that these machines as purchased would continue to meet our needs for their full three year life span.

You keep talking about situations that do not affect actual business users. No one I work with evaluates a machine by saying will this be useful to someone else for some other purpose after I am done with it. In addition, I cannot think of any software we use that has ever required the max available configuration in order to function.

Just to be clear how many 2019 Mac Pros did you purchase and how many of them were purchased with over 192GB? If you have no real world experience with this, we are we even discussing it?
 
No one I work with evaluates a machine by saying will this be useful to someone else for some other purpose after I am done with it.
The thing about this is that businesses don't want computers, they want the thing that computers produce. At my business, I don't need computers, I need CPU and RAM hours. That's what I buy. If they can be provided within my latency constraints, I don't care where they are. There are many of us in the software business who work this way, which is why the cloud providers are able to be successful.

There is an old HBR study where GE and realized the airlines don't want to buy jet engines, they want to buy thrust hours, so GE structured the business around providing that.

It sounds like your business wants render hours (or something like that). I'm guessing the only reason you buy computers is because no one can sell you those hours within your constraints (security, latency, etc.). From that perspective, when you buy a computer, the calculation is "it will provide X render hours for a TCO of Y, which will generate Z revenue". As long as Z > Y, then it doesn't matter what the box is.

I suspect people who don't deal with this volume of work don't realize this. It is a variation of the old "kittens vs cattle" conversation that happened when we first moved to containers.
 
The thing about this is that businesses don't want computers, they want the thing that computers produce.
Absolutely true. This is reason that we do no upgrade mid cycle. We purchase machines with support contracts and would not do anything that would void those contracts, nor make them useless (like adding third party RAM - where for a pro it does not void one’s AppleCare+, it needs to be removed for support by Apple, making it impossible to test).
At my business, I don't need computers, I need CPU and RAM hours. That's what I buy. If they can be provided within my latency constraints, I don't care where they are. There are many of us in the software business who work this way, which is why the cloud providers are able to be successful.
I am guessing that you also need more just sitting in from of a screen typing hours than you need developer container hours, making it make sense to have a reasonable laptop/desktop for your developers, but not a small backend local server farm.
There is an old HBR study where GE and realized the airlines don't want to buy jet engines, they want to buy thrust hours, so GE structured the business around providing that.
I tried to buy thrust hours for scenes in some of my projects but I could not figure out how to get them delivered inside our renders, so I went back to just simulating them. :-D
It sounds like your business wants render hours (or something like that). I'm guessing the only reason you buy computers is because no one can sell you those hours within your constraints (security, latency, etc.). From that perspective, when you buy a computer, the calculation is "it will provide X render hours for a TCO of Y, which will generate Z revenue". As long as Z > Y, then it doesn't matter what the box is.
Basically correct. We look at Teradici and its equivalents on a regular basis, but so far they do not meet our needs. One day maybe.
I suspect people who don't deal with this volume of work don't realize this. It is a variation of the old "kittens vs cattle" conversation that happened when we first moved to containers.
Very much this ^. An article I like on the topic (one can ignore past the explanation of the analogy and its origins). :cool:

Those who spend time thinking about how they will repurpose machines after they are no longer useful for their original purpose are worried about pets. We deal in cattle.
 
Watched that this morning.

Yes it is possible that Apple has decided to formally exit the workstation market (as they did the server market) and the 2023 Mac Pro is the final version of the model designed to give 2019 Mac Pro users a temporary bridge to allow them to move their workloads off of macOS and on to Windows or Linux.

It is also possible the 2023 Mac Pro is a "quick and dirty stop-gap" to complete the transition to Apple Silicon so they can focus solely on that architecture for both hardware and software. We have media reports claiming that Apple has encountered serious issues with creating a true workstation-class SoC (the "M Extreme") as well as developing an off-package memory controller with acceptable performance that would allow them to offer terabyte-levels of RAM (their first attempt had poorer memory performance than the 2019 Mac Pro). And Apple has also filed patents to support off-SoC GPU modules. So with enough work and will, Apple could create a true "workstation" class Apple Silicon Mac Pro with scores of CPU cores and hundreds of GPU cores that can access a terabyte-plus of RAM.

Let's check in again around 2025-2026. :)
 
That is a very brutal evisceration of the PCIe layout.

Reading further down, he noted that the APCIe-GE MMIO addresses on the M2 Ultra are different from APCIe on the M2 Max and the Ultra appears to have a second root controller to handle the PCie slots with the first one handling handling the rest (as it does on the M2 Max MacBook Pro and Studio). I admit I am not sure what this means in terms of PCIe performance on the 2023 Mac Pro, but it sounds like it might alleviate some of the issues if the machine only had the single root controller as found on the M2 Max SoC.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top