Looking forward to the new Mac Pro being released, hopefully with a 3nm Apple Silicon chip.
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.
Gurman: All-New Mac Pro Still in Testing, But 'M2 Extreme' Chip Likely Canceled
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the form factor will be the key differentiator for the product and any potential software support that goes along with it. If they can enable expandability that Apple Silicon currently lacks, it’s enough of a difference from the integrated options (mini, Studio) to warrant purchase, even if it offers the same CPU options as the Studio. If they can figure out a more traditional multi-CPU system (multi socket), that would also make sense and allow them to avoid development of M2 Extreme level SoC.
Can you expand on your thinking here, how does scrapping a larger SoC with more lanes for extra slots provide a clue that it would support dGPUs?
Is it because M2 extreme would have more GPU cores that offset the need to have the dGPU?
There's only so much anyone can fit within a single SoC (there is actually a physical size limit in addition to power and cooling constraints).
M2 Ultra has 24 CPU cores based on this rumor.
If you're asking how many SoCs, then 1 SoC unit, there is no "actual CPU" on its own, the CPU is part of the SoC. I don't think they are going to have more than 1 SoC at all in any of their Macs. It's why they built M1 Ultra in the first place, to fuse two m1 max SoCs together. M2 Extreme would've been M2 Ultra together.
Having two separate SoCs or more would add too much complexity to an already expensive and complex setup for a very small market.
Apple has no desire to compete with the gaming chips, they only want to focus on the compute side of 4090, which Apple Silicon is already much closer than half of 4090 after optimizations and so on. I think Apple is most likely going to have next-gen Afterburner cards for Mac Pro, so they don't need to do M2 extreme for these specific compute-heavy workloads.
Except that's not a equal comparison; M2 Extreme would be too niche because it would be fusing an already expensive and complex M2 Ultra SoCs together. We're talking the rumor config of 48-core CPU, 160-core GPU cores, up to 384GB RAM all on the same package.
An Apple GPU does not have to be the same size of M2 Extreme, it can be a customized GPU-only core design of the same m1 baseline architecture; they can remove all CPU cores, networking, etc, everything off the SoC and instead, only GPU, Neural Engine and a small memory die may be needed. So if M2 has 8-core CPU and 10-core GPU with 24gb, they can replace the CPU with GPU and boost it up to 20-core GPU at higher clock speeds.
The problem is compatibility, who is going to support the very small market share of Mac Pros? The existing parts can't be dropped in and expect to work out of the box, their firmwares have to be updated to support Mac Pro, drivers have to be written for macOS, etc.
Regular consumers aren't going to buy these Mac Pros without Apple dropping it back down to 2499-2999$ price point it used to have in the past. At that point, is it worth 1000$ over Mac Studio if they have the same parts? It'll be a tough buy.
Neither Gurman's rumors (both for the Extreme and the Extreme being canceled) nor any ideas brought forward in this thread make any sense.
The only thing that would kinda make sense is an M2-Max with interconnects on 2 sides to allow for a 4 chip config (aka mxExtreme) but that would still rule out PCIe and RAM expansion and doesn't sound viable for such a niche product as the MPro.
My best guess atm: MPro is canceled until Apple finds a way to circle that square.
The only thing that would kinda make sense is an M2-Max with interconnects on 2 sides to allow for a 4 chip config (aka mxExtreme) but that would still rule out PCIe and RAM expansion and doesn't sound viable for such a niche product as the MPro.
My best guess atm: MPro is canceled until Apple finds a way to circle that square.
Agreed. The standard Mac Pro should be at least 2 x Ultra. The price for Mac Pro is already there...
I think they will need to support DDR5 ECC memory modules or there is no point in producing a new Mac Pro. Apple really needs to make a server class processor for the Mac Pro, but it seems they are more interested in making TV shows and throwing money at imaginary cars, while serving ads in their operating systems.
I think it's going to need to, the current Mac Pro has way more I/O capability than the Mac Studio.
Remember when the entry level Mac Pro was actually affordable?
A mac pro without an "extreme" chip makes no sense.
At this point keep developing the mac studio, to gradually expand it and make it the new mac pro.
At this point keep developing the mac studio, to gradually expand it and make it the new mac pro.
Although it's a pie in the sky wish most of us would like to have the ability to upgrade the RAM & SSDs in our MacBook Pros, just as is rumored for the Mac Pro.
Not a problem if there's an internal bus structure like pcie. Perhaps with 8 or more slots and rear-panel I/O options. Can also see a rack-mount version like with the current MacPro.
"who is going to support the very small market share of Mac Pros? The existing parts can't be dropped in and expect to work out of the box, their firmwares have to be updated to support Mac Pro, drivers have to be written for macOS, etc."
All it takes is a wee bit of imagination. There's all sorts of products that could be developed based on a new MacPro.
"At that point, is it worth 1000$ over Mac Studio if they have the same parts? It'll be a tough buy."
That's silly. It depends on what's being offered. Long ago a friend and I developed commercial products (signal analysis/processing systems) based on Macs with internal slots.
There's loads of potential for that today based on a new high-performance MacPro with internal expandability. Even more so if there's a rack-mount option.
You have a point about the Ultra having fewer pcie lanes, maybe they’re going to rely on pcie switching chips like they already do on the current MacPro
(the big chip circled in light blue)
But yes about the second part, that was my thinking: if Apple was to say “you’re only getting XX GPU cores, till the end of times, and that’s it, end of story”, if XX=76 it makes add-on GPUs more probable than if XX=152.
Last edited:
The question that we need to be able to answer is who does Apple think these computers are for. If we knew that answer we would be able to figure out what the computer needs to be. I think that it’s only high end video and audio editing that Apple wants this computer to be capable of. So what do they need to make it capable of that? Surely it is not gaming class video cards. So no to the 4090. I think they have decided that they can handle the video with accelerators. So this large amount of video that they were planning, turns out not to be necessary. The audio side is even easier. Just add a lot of thunderbolt ports. The audio people are gonna want it all external anyway. I believe, and have believed for a long time, that when we finally see this computer, most of us are going to be disappointed. Because Apple is not building it for us. Our computer is the studio. This one is for a niche. And very few of us are in it.
They’re obviously going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat for this next Mac Pro because I can’t see how it’s going to scale as well as the current model
Likely never started in the first place. 
For those that think Apple’s strategy will NOT include a one-off high end chip and, instead will always be more cores of what they’re putting in the low end, it makes sense.
For those that think Apple’s strategy will NOT include a one-off high end chip and, instead will always be more cores of what they’re putting in the low end, it makes sense.Apple kinda settled this discussion in April 2017
Transcript: Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi and John Ternus on the state of Apple's pro Macs | TechCrunch
You have already read the news. But we thought we would also use this opportunity to share a transcript of the interview with Phil Schiller, Senior Vice
techcrunch.com
Unless they’re doing a U-turn once again.
I am not surprised that the projected MSRP of an "Extreme" model of an Apple Silicon SoC would be into five figures. The complexity of developing and producing an SoC of almost 50 CPU cores and over 150 GPU cores is likely significant and I expect the yield rate of such an SoC is fairly poor compared to smaller models (I am presuming the Extreme is four Ultras connected on multiple edges - side-to-side and top-to-bottom being the most likely based on Majin Bu's claim that the UltraFusion connector can be used in two axis).
As such, Apple could be re-evaluating the Apple Silicon Mac Pro to make it more like the Intel Mac Pro with separate compute and graphics subsystems.
I could see Apple looking to make a dedicated Mac Pro "compute SoC" that has the Power and Efficiency cores and the Neural Engine. This would allow for a fairly smaller die size and remove a fair amount of heat by getting rid of the GPUs. Then we could have a separate "graphics SoC" with the GPU cores and video encoders/decoders on the system board sharing the memory pool with the "compute" SOC.
As such, Apple could be re-evaluating the Apple Silicon Mac Pro to make it more like the Intel Mac Pro with separate compute and graphics subsystems.
I could see Apple looking to make a dedicated Mac Pro "compute SoC" that has the Power and Efficiency cores and the Neural Engine. This would allow for a fairly smaller die size and remove a fair amount of heat by getting rid of the GPUs. Then we could have a separate "graphics SoC" with the GPU cores and video encoders/decoders on the system board sharing the memory pool with the "compute" SOC.
Last edited:
fully with you on the Pro needing to be above the Studio, but based on the reports here, it would stand above for two simple but very important (particularly the latter) reasons:
1) higher CPU and GPU core counts, along with MUCH more RAM (especially if 192 is the base amount, as is reported here);
2) expandability (good God, would one be able to crack the hell out of this thing if they support NVMe and standalone graphics cards such as the 30/40 series Nvidias).
excited to see them charge double the price for the wheels though. 🤣
Likely never started in the first place.
Mark Gurman did say on the Max Tech interview that Apple did have an M1 Mac Pro, but he did not mention what was powering it (my guess this was the lower-end model with an M1 Ultra).
Any Apple GPU DOES have to be directly connected to the same pool of memory as the CPU, though, according to Apple’s current documentation. I think folks look at Nvidia/AMD and assume that Apple’s MUST work the same way.
