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

First Benchmark Result Surfaces for Mac Pro With M2 Ultra Chip

tYNS said:
Mmm.. Synthetic benchmarks.. 13900K performs better single core still and at a fraction of the cost. What a great choice going to their own processor. Apple is doomed. People paying this much money for a machine like that literally have too much money and little common sense. Not to mention you can put a 4090 or soon to be 5090 in the 13900K machine and blow the socks off the Mac Pro at any compute task. and STILL be a fraction of the cost. Apple is literally doomed to repeat the 80's-90's again.
Click to expand...
You don't make business decisions on a whim. Especially ones as large as dropping Intel. By the time that decision was made and business strategy was determined, Intel sucked, and AMD was not even close YET. Therefore, Apple decided to scale up their successful phone processors.

Similarly, just because Intel and AMD are fine NOW, doesn't mean history will NOT repeat itself and cause these processors to hit a wall.

Lastly, things are evolving. It's not just about raw CPU and GPU performance any more. Apple processors have more than CPU cores and a GPU. It has Neural Engines, Media Encoders and very very fast RAM, which the GPU can access all of it. In professional workloads, this can have more benefits than simply a 4090 with very limited memory.

My 13900k and 4090 setup cannot compete with my M1 Ultra Mac Studio in a couple of areas, as mentioned above. Not only faster RAM, but GPU can access all 128GB of it from my main system. I also am able to export my video much much MUCH faster (even with the poor scaling issues of the M1 Ultra) compared to my Windows system.

Also, realize we just got through a pandemic and global shutdowns, chip shortages, etc. A LOT of world issues that impact work, materials, timelines and just the ability to improve a whole lot. Intel's and NVIDIAs solution is mostly pump more power and heat in these. Which is why I have a 1,000 watt power supply for my setup. Never had a system this power hungry before. And HOT HOT HOT, even idle it heats up my office like crazy. I actually need to ban my system from use in hot summer days as my AC can not keep up. Did not have an issue with my 9900k and 1080/5700XT setup.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CWallace and maiingun
CWallace said:
Yes we have, but it does not make logical sense for Apple to have done so as they were under no legal contractual obligation to release it. They could have just said "we tried, it didn't work, buy a Mac Studio or a PC" and moved on.

Instead, they spent money designing it, developing it and validating it and the logical reason for them to do that is enough of the 1% of the 30% of "pros" who make up the annual Mac sales customer base said "we like it!" to make it worth Apple's effort.
Click to expand...

Fair point, though I’m not sure a whole lot of money went into designing/developing/validating it.
 
canadianreader said:
There's no shock more like an underlying disappointment. 2 features I wish they were present gen 5 pcie and GPU support. I appreciate when flagship products carry cutting-edge tech and more future proof.
Click to expand...
What are the pcie slots really for. Honestly. IO? What a waste of materials. Apple ditched Nvidia and now AMD. They are solo. Their all in one chip design can’t access external gpus like typical hardware does. It’s a giant disposable computer costing 10,000 for any decent one time only choice spec. It literally is no different than any other machine they sell. Why waste the money. 13 years ago you would be laughing at the thought of what apple had become.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: canadianreader and zapmymac
I think people looking at this as a ripoff, are looking at this backwards. Apple has made the performance available in a cheaper machine, $3000 less, the Mac Studio. The fact that there is little benefit to most users of going up to the Mac Pro is great, not bad.

Yes it would be cool to have an Extreme chip and maybe that is coming later. My personal view is that this is a bit of a stop gap, but that also Apple is designing the architecture for their primary use case first (consumer use) and that it doesnt make sense to break that just so that a tiny portion of a market they sometimes serve can pop in an expensive third party gpu or some extra ram. I mean if you look at most threads discussing these so called use cases, everyone just talks about how essential NVIDA CUDA cores are, or this or that.

I think the fact is, apple may just be saying, it's ok some niche pro workloads are perhaps better on other machines. If you look at say, Gruber's WWDC interview with them, they see that their unified architecture gives them unique competitive advantages. Just as their on chip neural and media engines give them really good performance in specific areas. They are chasing that rabbit hole further, not trying to undo it to hit artificial numbers.

Ultimately, I have been pretty disappointed by the M2 generation, as I was hoping to see apple keep pushing a very aggressive pace. But I think apple is content with its pace and doesnt feel pressured to move faster. It has a lot of projects on the go, and ultimately, it doesnt make sense to put all their energy in to 20% of their business, when they need new chips for their iPhone, Vision Pro, AirPods, etc.

I think the fact that the MacPro case hasn't really changed and has pretty excessive cooling, to me indicates they probably do have a bigger plan long term for the system. But they figure they can complete teh transition now and some users' needs will be met by it whose weren't met by the Studio.
 
PowerMac5500 said:
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.
Click to expand...
When I don't count all the AJA, Blackmagic etc. capture cards many studios will benefit from getting for example 40 Gbit or more network cards and/or 4x NVMe cards like the Sonnet 4x4 Silent card which I reviewed in 2019 Mac Pro and did get 28 GB/s, that was on PCIe Gen 3. So in the new AS Mac Pro you could count with even higher speeds thanks to PCIe Gen 4...
 
  • Like
Reactions: atonaldenim, PowerMac5500 and burgerrecords
Ethosik said:
I bought Dune in 2019. Still waiting for my case.
Click to expand...
Sure, because it was scam from the beginning, that company should be sued by Apple for stolen their design and profiting on it! And I even don't talk about the fact their copy of Mac Pro case is very poorly done :)
 
obviouslogic said:
The performance will change depending on thermal boundaries. Under any kind of normal workload, yes, they should always be about the same. Under longer, heavier workloads, the system will throttle performance as each boundary is approached. The Mac Pro has a higher thermal boundary than the Mac Studio, because of 1. larger case - more open space, and 2. more air being pushed through the case.
Click to expand...
Ok but 700 points higher?
 
  • Like
Reactions: burgerrecords and zapmymac
Do we have an idea of, say three companies that have publicly noted that they buy top-of-the-line maxed out Mac pros in the past, and will do so again?

Are these high-spec machines sitting next to a Cray supercomputer, or next to a super computer at Oakridge laboratories, etc.?

We all know that they have lots of I/O, can accommodate a lot of cards, etc. but have we heard from anybody that actually does this type of work? I'm genuinely curious.

Im just curious about the .01% of buyers? Are they rendering Star Wars movies? Do they suck down the audio from 50 different microphones at an orchestra simultaneously?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Razorpit
NT1440 said:
The Pro has an amazing cooling solution built right into the chassis already. Why not reuse the design for workflows that need silent operation?
Click to expand...
Mac Studio and Mac Pro would preform identically if equipped with the same M2 Ultra. The chassis adds nothing here. The chassis made sense with the Intel chips. Apple was either lazy and did not want to invest too much time in niche product as the Mac Pro, or they are working on something really special as next-gen Mac Pro (e.g. multi SoC platform).
 
Spaceboi Scaphandre said:
And with that, any reason to get this over the Mac Studio is now gone. There is now ZERO reason at all to buy a giant Mac Pro over the smaller Studio

"But the Mac Pro can be rack mountable!"

So can the Mac Studio, even moreso since it's considerably smaller so you can mount a lot more

rackmount-mac-studio-myelectronics.jpeg
1453.png


"But I need the Mac Pro for the PCIE to put my BlackMagic cards in!"

Do you? Do you really? Because BlackMagic PCIE is slowly on it's way out as there's external rack mounted boxes that are performing better than the PCIE cards did.

Even Neil Parfitt, the audio studio pro who famously unboxed a fully specced Rack Mount Mac Pro, is saying the M2 Ultra Mac Pro is kinda redundant


I don't see a future for the Mac Pro anymore.
Click to expand...
Neil speaks the truth. And is he wearing a Gamera shirt? ❤
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️ and Spaceboi Scaphandre
splifingate said:
My 5,1 is uses PCIe 2.0, and it is extremely performant.

Heck, myPCIe 3.0 x4 nvme's reveal operations on the 2.0 bus that are, basically, instantaneous.
Click to expand...

The point here is that they are already using outdated technology. it seems like a cost cutting measure to me.

of course, the only thing that makes use of a PCI 5.0 x16 lane at this time is the 4000 series nVidia and 7000 series ATi GPUs, which the MacPro doesn't support.

while I am here, let me point you to the "elephant in the room" of this article:

discerning viewers may have already noted that there is no mention of the Geekbench 6 compute / Metal / GPU scores.

hmmmm.. could it be b/c Apple Silicone GPUs cannot compete with the offerings from nVidia and ATi?

I suspect so. anyway... it was, for me, a glaring omission.

if I had to eye-ball it, I would say the M2 Ultra GPU is giving 4070 / 7800 XT type perforemance. but boy would I love to see it go up against a 4090 Ti and and the rumored 7950 XTX.

Ethosik said:
It's been a mess. Lots of lies and empty promises. I have attempted to dispute my charge for years now but Indiegogo is always chosen as the "winner" saying I received my "perk". Uhhhh no I haven't! You literally have the campaign under review for about a year now! Sheesh. That is just money I am NEVER getting back and I am very angry about it.
Click to expand...

I tried to get a refund too.. no luck. one of these days, if it ever shows up, i'll have an excuse to build another PC... (twist my ARM -- no pun intended)

Ethosik said:
Similarly, just because Intel and AMD are fine NOW, doesn't mean history will NOT repeat itself and cause these processors to hit a wall.
Click to expand...

the one being lazy here is Apple. pushing 3 nm processs when they have barely scratched the surface of what 5 nm can do..

I guess when you are charging USD 3000 (+ tax) for a cool-looking cheese-grater case and PCI connectivity you can pay TSMC whatever they ask for the right to use their "best" technology.

Apple is being lazy, and the customer is bearing the brunt of this laziness.
 
zoozx said:
Remember when the top end Mac work station cost $1499.00
and now the low end is $ 7000.00
That's not progress for the consumer
And nothing else from apple these days is...
Click to expand...
Early desktop Macs were never that cheap unless you are referring to very recent Mac Mini’s? The initial 128k Mac was $2499. Mac II was $5498. :)

en.wikipedia.org

Power Macintosh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

en.wikipedia.org

Mac Pro - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: splifingate, maiingun and T'hain Esh Kelch
nikaru said:
Mac Studio and Mac Pro would preform identically if equipped with the same M2 Ultra. The chassis adds nothing here. The chassis made sense with the Intel chips. Apple was either lazy and did not want to invest too much time in niche product as the Mac Pro, or they are working on something really special as next-gen Mac Pro (e.g. multi SoC platform).
Click to expand...
Why would you put the capital investment in retooling a production line so soon after setting it up for this chassis?

That’s not “lazy”, that’s smart logistics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Razorpit and maiingun
Eorlas said:
i checked out the product page yesterday and it said "+$400"

(this still seems absurd)
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's $400 if you add it when purchasing the computer. For added "drama", I was quoting the $700 price tag, which is the price if you were to buy the wheels separately.

But, what that also means to me is that the standard "feet" on the Mac Pro (which the wheels will replace) is valued at $300, which is even more absurd. :-}
 
Galve2000 said:
The point here is that they are already using outdated technology. it seems like a cost cutting measure to me.

of course, the only thing that makes use of a PCI 5.0 x16 lane at this time is the 4000 series nVidia and 7000 series ATi GPUs, which the MacPro doesn't support.

while I am here, let me point you to the "elephant in the room" of this article:

discerning viewers may have already noted that there is no mention of the Geekbench 6 compute / Metal / GPU scores.

hmmmm.. could it be b/c Apple Silicone GPUs cannot compete with the offerings from nVidia and ATi?

I suspect so. anyway... it was, for me, a glaring omission.

if I had to eye-ball it, I would say the M2 Ultra GPU is giving 4070 / 7800 XT type perforemance. but boy would I love to see it go up against a 4090 Ti and and the rumored 7950 XTX.



I tried to get a refund too.. no luck. one of these days, if it ever shows up, i'll have an excuse to build another PC... (twist my ARM -- no pun intended)



the one being lazy here is Apple. pushing 3 nm processs when they have barely scratched the surface of what 5 nm can do..

I guess when you are charging USD 3000 (+ tax) for a cool-looking cheese-grater case and PCI connectivity you can pay TSMC whatever they ask for the right to use their "best" technology.

Apple is being lazy, and the customer is bearing the brunt of this laziness.
Click to expand...
No. Lazy is Intel with their history of 14nm++++++++++++++ strategy. What Apple is doing is the opposite of Lazy. It requires significant architecture to do what Apple is doing (new stuff) compared to just enhancements of an older process. But that’s not really lazy either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: splifingate and Razorpit
a.coward said:
Yeah, it's $400 if you add it when purchasing the computer. For added "drama", I was quoting the $700 price tag, which is the price if you were to buy the wheels separately.

But, what that also means to me is that the standard "feet" on the Mac Pro (which the wheels will replace) is valued at $300, which is even more absurd. :-}
Click to expand...

i wouldnt be surprised if that's not terribly far away from what it's actual value is. apple tends to spend a lot of time fawning over how particularly machined and r&d'd their products are. i dont put it past them to spend an inordinate amount of time making the "perfect" wheels, and then making people pay for it, when they could have had slightly less "perfect" wheels
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back