Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,194
30,136


Apple is working on an updated model of its Mac Pro that may feature an Apple silicon chip with as many as 32 high performance cores, and a 128 core option for graphics, according to a new report from Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.

Mac-Pro-M-series-feature-1.jpg

Bloomberg has reported in the past that Apple is working on an updated Mac Pro that will feature an Apple silicon chip rather than an Intel processor. Today's new report echoes a similar story but offers more details on the performance of this upcoming high-end Mac.

Bloomberg says there are two new Mac Pro models in the works, both featuring a redesign and are planned to "come in 20 or 40 computing core variations, made up of 16 high-performance or 32 high-performance cores and four or eight high-efficiency cores."
Codenamed Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die, a redesigned Mac Pro is planned to come in 20 or 40 computing core variations, made up of 16 high-performance or 32 high-performance cores and four or eight high-efficiency cores. The chips would also include either 64 core or 128 core options for graphics. The computing core counts top the 28 core maximum offered by today’s Intel Mac Pro chips, while the higher-end graphics chips would replace parts now made by Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
Alongside the faster, more powerful processor, the new Mac Pro will feature a smaller design that "could invoke nostalgia for the Power Mac G4 Cube," according to a previous Bloomberg report. Apple is also working on a successor to the current Mac Pro design that may use Intel processors rather than its own Apple silicon.

Article Link: Bloomberg: Apple Silicon Mac Pro May Feature Up to 32 High Performance Cores, 128 Core Option for Graphics
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps

reyesmac

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2002
847
477
Central Texas
I bet Apple will turn todays high end macbook pro into a middle tier model and the new high end macbook pro line will start at $6,000 with the same chip the mac pro has but with less expandability and connectivity than the pro has. Why would Apple spend so much creating Apple silicon if it couldnt find a way to make even more expensive computers with it? A portable mac pro would be on a whole other level, not just talking about price.
 

velocityg4

macrumors 604
Dec 19, 2004
7,328
4,716
Georgia
Why would this type of computer need efficiency cores? Is there something inherent in the design of the CPU which requires them.

I just ask as it seems that the space taken up by the efficiency cores could fit in more performance cores. Really this could be applied to all desktop models. For the Mac Pro they seem the most pointless.
 

citysnaps

macrumors G4
Oct 10, 2011
11,730
25,386
I bet Apple will turn todays high end macbook pro into a middle tier model and the new high end macbook pro line will start at $6,000 with the same chip the mac pro has but with less expandability and connectivity than the pro has. Why would Apple spend so much creating Apple silicon if it couldnt find a way to make even more expensive computers with it?

It's really about Apple maintaining 38-40% GPM (and ~20% NPM). Apple silicon based computers will help with that offering high performance products people will want to purchase. In large numbers, overall.
 
Last edited:

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
Why would this type of computer need efficiency cores? Is there something inherent in the design of the CPU which requires them.

I just ask as it seems that the space taken up by the efficiency cores could fit in more performance cores. Really this could be applied to all desktop models. For the Mac Pro they seem the most pointless.

There are many tasks a cpu does that do not require super high performance. Even one of these machines. They go on all the time. Allowing the efficiency cores to do them frees up the performance cores. It also reduces thermal output, allowing the other cores to run hotter. By them being there the overall cpu performance increases. Replacing them with a small number of performance cores (remember the performance cores are MUCH bigger) would actually decrease overall performance.
 

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
19,427
21,774
Singapore
Why would this type of computer need efficiency cores? Is there something inherent in the design of the CPU which requires them.

I just ask as it seems that the space taken up by the efficiency cores could fit in more performance cores. Really this could be applied to all desktop models. For the Mac Pro they seem the most pointless.

Was reading this article a little earlier and if my understanding is correct, the gist is that this helps make the whole system feel "snappy".

Basically, the efficiency cores take on the lower priority tasks, freeing up the more powerful cores ready to respond to more intensive tasks as needed.

It's one thing to be powerful, and another thing to make you, the user, feel it.
 

henrikhelmers

macrumors regular
Nov 22, 2017
133
202
Why would this type of computer need efficiency cores? Is there something inherent in the design of the CPU which requires them.

If you look at the developer documentation you see there are different quality-of-service classes. Developers can mark something as a background or utility task, and the computer will be able to do them more efficiently.
 

romanof

macrumors 6502
Jun 13, 2020
290
243
Texas
Would love to have one, but the only use I would have for an n-core Pro is bragging rights. My M1 mini is doing great, with some minor video, a lot of graphics and a ton of compiling. Now that the Mini has dumped the crappola Intel gpu, I retired a perfectly good iMac 27" i7 and made the mini my desktop. Still, a new ARM pro will be fun to see.

On a side note, would anybody believe Bloomberg if they claim the sun will rise in the morning?
 

ruka.snow

macrumors 68000
Jun 6, 2017
1,886
5,182
Scotland
Unless AMD has a 30-or-so watt part with 20 cores, seems these will already rock past AMD.

We don't care if it is 30-or-so watt in this line. Gimmie a 350 watt monster CPU that runs circles around AMD's best at the same power consumption any day. Its a workstation, if it spits out my work faster than a 64 core AMD Epyc then it has won. And it should have more PCIe lanes than the best of the last gen so we can put in an Afterburner and connect dozens of TB3 devices.
 

Coleco

macrumors member
Dec 15, 2003
46
87
I realize it's a niche, but the entire purpose of this design was to provide modular upgrades. It would say a lot to those early adopters of this gen of Mac Pro if Apple offered a $1,000-$1,500 M1X or M2 CPU card that allowed an upgrade without the need to repurchase the entire Mac Pro. I imagine the Mac could dynamically adapt which CPU it would use based on whether the app is optimized for Apple Silicon (and, perhaps, even magically use the MacPro's discreet graphics cards where there was an advantage to doing so). This would allow those users to maintain backward compatibility, Windows compatibility and preserve their investment. It could also be billed as a more "green" upgrade than just a wholesale replacement. Realistically, I don't see that happening, but it would be a cool thing to do.
 

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G3
Jul 22, 2002
9,795
7,699
We don't care if it is 30-or-so watt in this line. Gimmie a 350 watt monster CPU that runs circles around AMD's best at the same power consumption any day. Its a workstation, if it spits out my work faster than a 64 core AMD Epyc then it has won.
No, if it runs Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro faster than the fastest Mac (and these will), then it has won. Anyone that needs the speed of a 64 core AMD Epyc has a solution they can buy today that will provide PRECISELY that performance. That solution doesn’t run macOS, but if performance is of the utmost importance, then macOS or not doesn’t matter.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.