First Benchmark Result Surfaces for Mac Pro With M2 Ultra Chip

[enb141]

So, $300 worth of cards justifies the extra $3,000 to get the slots. Makes sense

Yep, apple tax pricing, $3,000.00 for getting an "expandable" mac studio.

In the PC side, this is also expensive, if you want a motherboard with 7 PCI express slots, those motherboards costs about $1300.00, a normal motherboard would cost about $300. So is about $1000 more, plus the CPU, which you will have to use a server CPU instead of a desktop CPU plus ECC RAM instead of normal RAM.

 

[1147402]

Can anyone share some examples of popular PCI Expansion cards that would justify the extra $3,000...? I feel like I'm missing something here.

I installed an Intel Optane 900p (~$500), a sound card with lots of interface (~$1000), a dual SFP28 network card (~$1000) on my Intel Mac Pro. I wish I could fit more but the MPX module took a lot of spaces. Sure you can use Mac Studio with external PCIe box but it's way easier just use the Mac Pro, no external cables or external power supplies for PCIe devices, more I/O and better cooling. I have a max-out M1 Ultra Studio at work but still prefer the Mac Pro form factor and PCIe capability.

The new M2 Mac Pro could fit more cards since there's MPX no more.

 

[enb141]

I installed an Intel Optane 900p (~$500), a sound card with lots of interface (~$1000), a dual SFP28 network card (~$1000) on my Intel Mac Pro. I wish I could fit more but the MPX module took a lot of spaces. Sure you can use Mac Studio with external PCIe box but it's way easier just use the Mac Pro, no external cables or external power supplies for PCIe devices, more I/O and better cooling. I have a max-out M1 Ultra Studio at work but still prefer the Mac Pro form factor and PCIe capability.

The new M2 Mac Pro could fit more cards since there's MPX no more.

I also had an optane 900p, now I have an optane dc p5810x, those optanes smokes whatever the competition gives, It's a shame that intel abandoned that technology.

I also have a studio sound card, a RME AIO Pro, of course on my PC but those two devices could live in a mac too.

 

[k27]

You can’t really tell the difference especially when high nitrate is used. And my clients don’t see any issue either. File sizes are about the same actually.

That is unlikely to be true. File size is bigger. This is a conclusion that everyone who has dealt with this topic has come to. Here in the forum you should also find experiences about it. This can be seen as a fact. Of course, it also depends on the type of material. But the result of a hardware encoder is actually always larger to significantly larger.
You've obviously never really compared or only used "professional" software encoders, which are mostly not really good (unfortunately, professional is not a sign of quality in this context of encoders - it usually stands for mediocre or even bad). The software encoders that Apple includes with FCPX, Compressor, etc. are mediocre to bad (at least they used to be - even though they've gotten better, I hardly think they've really caught up). Same goes for a lot of other "professional" software/Encoder. You have to use the open source encoders like x265.

An old posting from a x264-Developer:
"Professional" tools for Blu-ray video encoding can cost as much as $100,000 and are often utter garbage.

 

[Ethosik]

That is unlikely to be true. File size is bigger. This is a conclusion that everyone who has dealt with this topic has come to. Here in the forum you should also find experiences about it. This can be seen as a fact. Of course, it also depends on the type of material. But the result of a hardware encoder is actually always larger to significantly larger.
You've obviously never really compared or only used "professional" software encoders, which are mostly not really good (unfortunately, professional is not a sign of quality in this context of encoders - it usually stands for mediocre or even bad). The software encoders that Apple includes with FCPX, Compressor, etc. are mediocre to bad (at least they used to be - even though they've gotten better, I hardly think they've really caught up). Same goes for a lot of other "professional" software/Encoder. You have to use the open source encoders like x265.

An old posting from a x264-Developer:
"Professional" tools for Blu-ray video encoding can cost as much as $100,000 and are often utter garbage.

No not in all cases. I have literally done tests on this. 8 Mbps constant bitrate hardware vs software encoding is the same file size, within margin of error. It is not significantly larger with hardware encoding. This is for my projects. In some cases it might be larger file size, but not in all.

Even if it is larger, that is why I have a 150 TB NAS and about to get a second one.

 

[CWallace]

Based on MaxTech's GeekBench 6 results, they found that the M2 Ultra is a bit faster in the Mac Pro than the Mac Studio in both single core and multicore. The SoC does run cooler (though neither gets very warm), so it might just be able to hold maximum clock longer or Apple might have increased the clock-speeds on the Pro slightly.

 

[Ethosik]

Based on MaxTech's GeekBench 6 results, they found that the M2 Ultra is a bit faster in the Mac Pro than the Mac Studio in both single core and multicore. The SoC does run cooler (though neither gets very warm), so it might just be able to hold maximum clock longer or Apple might have increased the clock-speeds on the Pro slightly.

Yeah, not $3,000 worth of an extra performance though. It's a hard sell. I really don't think PCIe slots are worth $3,000 extra.

 

[CWallace]

Yeah, not $3,000 worth of an extra performance though. It's a hard sell. I really don't think PCIe slots are worth $3,000 extra.

Considering they have the same SoC, of course you are not going to see significant performance differences between them.

As for the cost of those PCIe slots, I know people with $30-60K worth of cards in those slots, and they don't even notice the $3000 price. What they would notice, however, is their absence.

 

[enb141]

Yeah, not $3,000 worth of an extra performance though. It's a hard sell. I really don't think PCIe slots are worth $3,000 extra.

1 PCI express no, but even on PC side, getting a motherboard with 7 PCI 16x express slots (Gaming motherboards have just 1 PCI express 16x and the rest are either 4x or 1x) would cost you about $1300.00 instead of $150-$300, plus the CPU now needs to be a Xeon, plus the RAM, now needs to be DDR with ECC.

In other words, a lot of PCI express means a lot of money. Of course apple pricing is insane but on PC is also very expensive.

On apple $3000 extra for a PCI express is a joke but still a lot of people that are stuck with mac os, either because they hate windows or because they use Logic or Final Cut, which is not available on Windows.

 

[Ethosik]

1 PCI express no, but even on PC side, getting a motherboard with 7 PCI 16x express slots (Gaming motherboards have just 1 PCI express 16x and the rest are either 4x or 1x) would cost you about $1300.00 instead of $150-$300, plus the CPU now needs to be a Xeon, plus the RAM, now needs to be DDR with ECC.

In other words, a lot of PCI express means a lot of money. Of course apple pricing is insane but on PC is also very expensive.

On apple $3000 extra for a PCI express is a joke but still a lot of people that are stuck with mac os, either because they hate windows or because they use Logic or Final Cut, which is not available on Windows.

Yeah I don't have an issue with Apple's pricing as some people do. PC is not better in some cases. I spent $1,600 on a 4090, and since I was an early adopter, I spent over $1,000 on DDR5 RAM.

 

[enb141]

Yeah I don't have an issue with Apple's pricing as some people do. PC is not better in some cases. I spent $1,600 on a 4090, and since I was an early adopter, I spent over $1,000 on DDR5 RAM.

If you want 4090 performance on a mac, you have to wait for at least a few generations and will cost you a fortune.

A Mac Pro with about 4070 and an Intel 13 gen Core i9 performance, costs $7000.00

 

[Ethosik]

If you want 4090 performance on a mac, you have to wait for at least a few generations and will cost you a fortune.

A Mac Pro with about 4070 and an Intel 13 gen Core i9 performance, costs $7000.00

In certain workflows my M1 Ultra Mac Studio is faster than my 4090 system.

 

[enb141]

In certain workflows my M1 Ultra Mac Studio is faster than my 4090 system.

In certain workflows, but not overall.

 

[Galve2000]

1 PCI express no, but even on PC side, getting a motherboard with 7 PCI 16x express slots (Gaming motherboards have just 1 PCI express 16x and the rest are either 4x or 1x) would cost you about $1300.00 instead of $150-$300, plus the CPU now needs to be a Xeon, plus the RAM, now needs to be DDR with ECC.

The AS MacPro has only 1 x16 slot as well...

(this is not just a limitation on the PC side)

no one has yet to mention what said single PCI x16 slot can take advantage of...

I guess I am just bitter b/c Apple no longer supports ATi W7900 XTX, I can't think of anything else that might make use of 16 PCI lanes.

 

[Ethosik]

In certain workflows, but not overall.

Yes that is why you get the right tool for the job. Which is why I have multiple computers for my work.

 

[enb141]

The AS MacPro has only 1 x16 slot as well...

Wrong, Mac Pro has 2 16x PCI express slots and 4 8x PCI express slots Gen 4

https://www.apple.com/au/mac-pro/specs/

(this is not just a limitation on the PC side)

no one has yet to mention what said single PCI x16 slot can take advantage of...

I guess I am just bitter b/c Apple no longer supports ATi W7900 XTX, I can't think of anything else that might make use of 16 PCI lanes.

Video cards doesn't need more than Gen 4 16x, what really consumes bandwidth are SSDs.

 

[enb141]

Yes that is why you get the right tool for the job. Which is why I have multiple computers for my work.

Yep, unfortunately for my case, I got a decent PC plus my laptop, but for my needs I would need a Mac Pro, but what apple asks for that machine is unbuyable for me.

 

[_Spinn_]

So most people should just get the Studio then.

 

[CWallace]

So most people should just get the Studio then.

The only reason to get the Mac Pro over the Mac Studio is you have a 2019 Mac Pro with a shedload of (non-GPU) PCIe video cards in it.

If you are upgrading from any other late-model Intel Mac desktop or have a 2019 Mac Pro with only GPU cards, then the Mac Studio is the logical and prudent choice.

 

[Galve2000]

Wrong, Mac Pro has 2 16x PCI express slots and 4 8x PCI express slots Gen 4

You will see, when the reviews come out, that only 1 of the 2 x16 slots has access to the full 16 lanes at a time, regardless of what the australian spec page says.

 

[enb141]

You will see, when the reviews come out, that only 1 of the 2 x16 slots has access to the full 16 lanes at a time, regardless of what the australian spec page says.

That will piss a lot of mac pro buyers, fortunately I'm not a mac pro buyer.

 

[quarkysg]

You will see, when the reviews come out, that only 1 of the 2 x16 slots has access to the full 16 lanes at a time, regardless of what the australian spec page says.

I thot I remember reading somewhere that the 2023 Mac Pro has 32 lanes of PCIe v4 compared to 64 lanes of PCIe v3 that the 2019 Mac Pro has.

The 32 lanes of PCIe v4 goes thru two 16 lanes PCIe v4 switches.

I guess if only two x16 PCIe v4 cards are installed, they get the full bandwidth.

 

[k27]

No not in all cases. I have literally done tests on this. 8 Mbps constant bitrate hardware vs software encoding is the same file size, within margin of error. It is not significantly larger with hardware encoding. This is for my projects. In some cases it might be larger file size, but not in all.

Even if it is larger, that is why I have a 150 TB NAS and about to get a second one.

Which software encoder did you use? Which codec? Which Profile? Settings?

If you just used a mediocre to poor software encoder (Adobe, Apple, etc.), that may be. With a very good software encoder, like x265, this contradicts my own experience and those I've read about (e.g. here, Handbrake forum, etc.).

 

[Bodhitree]

Which professionals is the Mac Pro for? We couldn’t find them

We asked professionals if they wanted Apple’s desktop, and they all said no.

www.theverge.com

This article on The Verge may shed some light… it certainly seems like the slice of customers who need a Mac Pro as compared to a MacBook Pro is shrinking.

 

[CWallace]

Which professionals is the Mac Pro for? We couldn’t find them

We asked professionals if they wanted Apple’s desktop, and they all said no.

www.theverge.com

This article on The Verge may shed some light… it certainly seems like the slice of customers who need a Mac Pro as compared to a MacBook Pro is shrinking.

20 customers is probably not exactly an exhaustive sample pool.

Seriously, it is clear that a significant majority of "traditional" Intel Mac Pro customers are likely well-served by the Mac Studio or MacBook Pro and have moved to those machines as they transitioned from Intel to Apple Silicon. And for those who had to stay with Intel, they moved from macOS to Windows and Linux PCs.

As I and others have noted, the people buying the 2023 Mac Pro for reasons other than bragging rights or on a lark are buying them because their workloads thrive under Apple Silicon and those workloads leverage tens of thousands of dollars worth of non-GPU PCIe cards. That market was quite small in 2019 so I find it not surprising that it remains quite small in 2023.