It will be more interesting once we get a tear down and if we are lucky a block diagram on Mac Specs. This is in-line with that I expected Apple to pull after the first picture I saw of the Mac Pro interior.
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 Unveils New Mac Pro With M2 Ultra Chip and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
3 years doesn't means future proof, and by reading all your posts, your future proof, in reality it is present proof.
So this Mac Pro was designed for people with your needs, congratulations, you are the main target of this new generations Mac Pro.
As I said above, this generation of mac pro are exactly what you need, but the poor guys that need more ram, are now out of the equation.
Not hobbies but freelancers or similar, those people keeps their high end computers for more than 3 years.
In your case you "dispose" computers every 3 years, so this time apple took 4 years between 2019 Mac Pro and 2023, in that "extra" year what you did?
What you did in the years of the trashcan?, back then you didn't had a real mac pro.
In your case and business no, but as I said before, what about freelancers or other business models.
0, 0, Because I'm curious, is nice to know people that use this expensive computers and get paid by themselves in matter of months.
I also would like to meet someone that uses 1.5GB RAM. in my case 64GB is all what I'm going to need for the next 4 or 5 years.
My thoughts on this are as follows:
1. If you compare what you get from the $7000 base model 2023 Mac Pro and what you got from the $6000 base model 2019 Mac Pro, the former is a way better value. You were never going to get anywhere near 24 Xeon W cores, 64GB of RAM, and anything even remotely as powerful as even the 60-core GPU that the base model M2 Ultra has for $7000 on the 2019 model. Not to mention the base SSD capacity is doubled (though, for Apple's rates, you'd hope so).
2. However, if you compare the $7000 base model 2023 Mac Pro and the $4000 base model M2 Ultra Mac Studio, the former is an extremely poor value. Two extra fans, two extra thunderbolt ports, one extra 10GbE Ethernet port, internal USB-A and SATA ports, and PCIe expansion is not worth $3000. That's really not how the computer industry works.
3. Apple was never going to have memory expansion separate from the SoC choice. However, not having the SoC be socketed was a poor choice for a machine the primary purpose of which is unfettered aftermarket internal expansion.
4. If Apple's claims that the M2 Ultra is more powerful than the 28-core Xeon W that one could max out a 2019 Mac Pro with are true, then the lack of CPU options isn't terrible. You have one choice and that choice bests every 2019 Mac Pro CPU option. What more do you need on the CPU front?
5. If the M2 Ultra with 76 GPU Cores beats out the best MPX AMD GPU combination that you could stuff in a Mac Pro, then that's one thing. However, I'd imagine that there are some workloads where you want multiple GPUs; one to do your rendering, and one to display the system's output. If software sees this as two M2 Max GPUs and will allow for that kind of split-task workloads, cool. If the 76 (let alone 60) GPU core option does this and beats out the best that you could've stuffed into a 2019 Mac Pro in terms of MPX modules (Dual W6800X Duos?), even better. I'm guessing it can't. But if it can, then my "what more do you need?" question stands for GPU power too. All of that sounds pretty iffy so far. But I'll reserve judgement until people get their hands on 2023 Mac Pros.
6. A maximum of 192GB of RAM is one fourth the 8, 12, and 16 core 2019 Mac Pro's maximum RAM capacity and one eighth that of the 24 and 28 core models. While, 192GB is a staggering amount of RAM, I can't imagine that there weren't 2019 Mac Pro customers that needed 256GB or more. Yes, unified memory is more efficient memory. But RAM is still RAM. I could totally buy that an M2 Ultra will beat out a Xeon for CPU performance and most of the AMD configuration options in play from 2019 all the way until this week. But, I'm not buying the notion that 192GB of RAM will suffice for those that needed 256GB of RAM, let alone 768GB of RAM, let alone 1.5TB of RAM. I can buy that the 2023 model is superior in performance to the 2019 model in every way. But unless the use case is fine with 64-192GB of RAM, this is the one area where this machine is a clear downgrade.
7. A fully maxed out 2023 Mac Pro is a Tesla Model 3's worth cheaper than a fully maxed out 2019 Mac Pro. Sure, most of that is Afterburner, Xeons, and Radeons and a lack of RAM options. But still. That's something.
8. The SSD kits for 2019 Mac Pros and the SSD kits for the 2023 Mac Pros are different. This makes sense. Though, it seems ridiculous that the SSD kits for the 2023 Mac Pros can't be used with the 2023 (or 2022) Mac Studio, just as it's ridiculous that the SSD kits for the 2019 Mac Pros can't work for the iMac Pro (or higher capacity 2020 27" iMacs, for that matter). Then again, I've never been a fan of this whole "SSD controller lives on the SoC" convention that Apple has moved the Macintosh to.
9. It seems like PCIe expansion is the real reason to buy a 2023 Mac Pro over a 2023 (M2 Ultra) Mac Studio. There may be other reasons to, but I can't imagine any of them are worth the extra $3000. The Rack Mountable option seems like it would serve well in a datacenter rack or in an audio cabinet. Though, for $3000, I'm sure one can find a rack-able solution that accommodates a Mac Studio that still leaves most of that left over.
10. It's totally possible that an "Extreme" chip or (other higher-tier Mac Pro chip that plugs the gaps between features the highest end 2019 Mac Pros had and what the highest end 2023 Mac Pro) has could still materialize. Apple kept adding GPU options to the 2019 Mac Pro throughout its four year reign. Incidentally, they might wait until the M3 generation to add that. Or it might just be that a future Ultra SoC will get there and that, this one just happens to be a downgrade for those that need higher-end options. I'm not saying I'm hopeful of this. But there's no reason why it can't happen.
11. Regardless of how small customer base is, Apple has no reason not to (a) keep the Mac Pro as up to date as the Mx Ultra Mac Studio and (b) introduce updates more frequently than once every 4-6 years.
1. If you compare what you get from the $7000 base model 2023 Mac Pro and what you got from the $6000 base model 2019 Mac Pro, the former is a way better value. You were never going to get anywhere near 24 Xeon W cores, 64GB of RAM, and anything even remotely as powerful as even the 60-core GPU that the base model M2 Ultra has for $7000 on the 2019 model. Not to mention the base SSD capacity is doubled (though, for Apple's rates, you'd hope so).
2. However, if you compare the $7000 base model 2023 Mac Pro and the $4000 base model M2 Ultra Mac Studio, the former is an extremely poor value. Two extra fans, two extra thunderbolt ports, one extra 10GbE Ethernet port, internal USB-A and SATA ports, and PCIe expansion is not worth $3000. That's really not how the computer industry works.
3. Apple was never going to have memory expansion separate from the SoC choice. However, not having the SoC be socketed was a poor choice for a machine the primary purpose of which is unfettered aftermarket internal expansion.
4. If Apple's claims that the M2 Ultra is more powerful than the 28-core Xeon W that one could max out a 2019 Mac Pro with are true, then the lack of CPU options isn't terrible. You have one choice and that choice bests every 2019 Mac Pro CPU option. What more do you need on the CPU front?
5. If the M2 Ultra with 76 GPU Cores beats out the best MPX AMD GPU combination that you could stuff in a Mac Pro, then that's one thing. However, I'd imagine that there are some workloads where you want multiple GPUs; one to do your rendering, and one to display the system's output. If software sees this as two M2 Max GPUs and will allow for that kind of split-task workloads, cool. If the 76 (let alone 60) GPU core option does this and beats out the best that you could've stuffed into a 2019 Mac Pro in terms of MPX modules (Dual W6800X Duos?), even better. I'm guessing it can't. But if it can, then my "what more do you need?" question stands for GPU power too. All of that sounds pretty iffy so far. But I'll reserve judgement until people get their hands on 2023 Mac Pros.
6. A maximum of 192GB of RAM is one fourth the 8, 12, and 16 core 2019 Mac Pro's maximum RAM capacity and one eighth that of the 24 and 28 core models. While, 192GB is a staggering amount of RAM, I can't imagine that there weren't 2019 Mac Pro customers that needed 256GB or more. Yes, unified memory is more efficient memory. But RAM is still RAM. I could totally buy that an M2 Ultra will beat out a Xeon for CPU performance and most of the AMD configuration options in play from 2019 all the way until this week. But, I'm not buying the notion that 192GB of RAM will suffice for those that needed 256GB of RAM, let alone 768GB of RAM, let alone 1.5TB of RAM. I can buy that the 2023 model is superior in performance to the 2019 model in every way. But unless the use case is fine with 64-192GB of RAM, this is the one area where this machine is a clear downgrade.
7. A fully maxed out 2023 Mac Pro is a Tesla Model 3's worth cheaper than a fully maxed out 2019 Mac Pro. Sure, most of that is Afterburner, Xeons, and Radeons and a lack of RAM options. But still. That's something.
8. The SSD kits for 2019 Mac Pros and the SSD kits for the 2023 Mac Pros are different. This makes sense. Though, it seems ridiculous that the SSD kits for the 2023 Mac Pros can't be used with the 2023 (or 2022) Mac Studio, just as it's ridiculous that the SSD kits for the 2019 Mac Pros can't work for the iMac Pro (or higher capacity 2020 27" iMacs, for that matter). Then again, I've never been a fan of this whole "SSD controller lives on the SoC" convention that Apple has moved the Macintosh to.
9. It seems like PCIe expansion is the real reason to buy a 2023 Mac Pro over a 2023 (M2 Ultra) Mac Studio. There may be other reasons to, but I can't imagine any of them are worth the extra $3000. The Rack Mountable option seems like it would serve well in a datacenter rack or in an audio cabinet. Though, for $3000, I'm sure one can find a rack-able solution that accommodates a Mac Studio that still leaves most of that left over.
10. It's totally possible that an "Extreme" chip or (other higher-tier Mac Pro chip that plugs the gaps between features the highest end 2019 Mac Pros had and what the highest end 2023 Mac Pro) has could still materialize. Apple kept adding GPU options to the 2019 Mac Pro throughout its four year reign. Incidentally, they might wait until the M3 generation to add that. Or it might just be that a future Ultra SoC will get there and that, this one just happens to be a downgrade for those that need higher-end options. I'm not saying I'm hopeful of this. But there's no reason why it can't happen.
11. Regardless of how small customer base is, Apple has no reason not to (a) keep the Mac Pro as up to date as the Mx Ultra Mac Studio and (b) introduce updates more frequently than once every 4-6 years.
I would not be surprised if each generation of M SoC+memory package uses a different layout for how it connects to the system board, just as Intel and AMD change sockets with each generation. So you might very well need to replace the entire system board for M3 (especially if it also improves to PCIe Gen5).
The connectors look the same for the Mac Pro and Mac Studio SSD modules, but since the former is under a cover, I do not know what the PCB layout is in comparison and they might not be electrically compatible. It is kind of interesting that Apple never (to my knowledge) offered an SSD upgrade kit for the Mac Studio since it would have been a potential revenue source.
Early reviews of the M1 Mac Studio noted that Apple populates only one SSD slot in the 512GB to 4TB configurations and the second SSD slot is only populated at the 8GB configuration (with two 4TB modules), so perhaps the system is designed to only recognize the second slot if there is a 4TB module in the first slot? If true, then post-sale upgrades would not really be possible except to add another 4TB module to an existing 4TB factory configuration (the 1TB/2TB/4TB/8TB Mac Pro kits were meant to be installed in pairs so they included two SSD modules).
Thoughts from a Mac Pro [audio engineer] user:
"The GPU specs look amazing... I don't use any of that..."
It'll be interesting to see how the new Mac Pro Apple Silicon GPUs compare to workstation GPUs from NVidia and AMD.
If the Apple Silicon GPUs are as fast as RTX 4090 or Quadro-class GPUs... then great! Problem avoided!
But we'll have to see.
I don’t think so. I much prefer getting viewpoints from pro users that the Mac Pro is actually aimed at.
I would rather wait to see a white paper & PCIe subsystem block diagram for the 2023 ASi Mac Pro; and some actual field reports once folks get their hands on these units...
The video is just a bunch of conjecture & supposition parroting a string of clickbait YouTube videos...
The folks it’s aimed at like it because it’s what they want at the price they want to pay.
Anyone that doesn’t like the features or doesn’t like the price, it’s fine, it’s not aimed at them. Luckily for Apple, the unit sales are so low, everyone that bought one in 2019 could skip this system and Apple would still sell the 50-100,000 they always sell.
Rumors were flying a few months ago that the Studio would be a short-lived product, surreptitiously discontinued once the Pro arrived. Now one wonders if the Pro won't ultimately be the product getting discontinued. With their entire hardware model centered around the SoC, Apple will clearly never make a traditionally modular PC again. And with upgradability fully out the window, the Studio looks a lot more like the product Apple actually wants.
Apple Executive Discusses New Mac Pro's Lack of Graphics Card Support
While the new Mac Pro features six available PCI Express expansion slots for audio, video capture, storage, networking, and more, the desktop tower...
www.macrumors.com
Based on sales volume alone, Apple would sooner discontinue the Mac Pro than the Mac Studio.
No one is phasing out the Mac Pro. They'll be coming out eventually with the Mac Pro Ultra that will have the entire system on a chip on replaceable cards. Plus work out the expansion memory bottlenecks. They just couldn't do it and have it ready to go, now.
Then "everyone" can have their $50,000 Mac Pros again and be happy happy happy. While the rest of us will trade in our $11,000 mac pros every couple of years for new Apple Silicon.
It's not rocket science.
Then "everyone" can have their $50,000 Mac Pros again and be happy happy happy. While the rest of us will trade in our $11,000 mac pros every couple of years for new Apple Silicon.
It's not rocket science.
Turns out that ALL of the Mac Pro 2023's PCIe slots are piped through a PCIe switch with a single 16-lane connection to the SoC: https://social.treehouse.systems/@marcan/110493886026958843
Very disappointing.
Very disappointing.
Why? Does it perform better than thunderbolt and external PCI? That's all I'm concerned with. And I only have one UAD card.
Because PCI express uses 16 lanes, thunderbolt uses 4 lanes, so if you need to 4 cards you are ending up with 1 lane each (4/4=1), but in PCI express you are gonna have 4 lanes (16/4=4)
https://eclecticlight.co/2022/04/30/explainer-thunderbolt/
So for people like you that only need one card that uses 4x tops at PCIe 3 then thunderbolt should be more than enough.
Thanks. But how would a thunderbolt bus with other things on it (monitors, hubs, various drives) work as well as internal PCI?
Because those other things are not saturating the bus, in that specific case, but that doesn't means it can't be saturated.