MP 7,1 Is it true that M1 is faster than Mac Pro?

[MacBH928]

so I am looking at reviews and everyone seems to say that M1 is faster than the Mac Pro chips multiple times over. The least expensive Mac Pro is $6K or so. Who would buy a Mac Pro then? Am I missing something? I doubt "upgradability" is the reason since buying a completely new M chip computer in few years would be cheaper than the initial investment + upgrade price.

Is it because the Mac Pro has graphics cards that are faster? Feels like a very thin market share since they probably can get get cheaper PCs for the same specs I am guessing of course.

 

[startergo]

The only thing so far which excels in silicon Macs is the 4:2:2 Chroma subsampling decode. On the Intel side all CPU's higher than 11th generation can do that decoding, but none of those is used in the Mac world yet.
Everything else cannot compete with MP with W6800 or W6900 duo configurations. When I say cannot compete I actually mean cannot win.

 

[Starfia]

Apple originally said they'd have transitioned their entire Mac line to Apple silicon by two years from the time of their original announcement, even mentioning the Mac Pro during the final months of those two years – but they still haven't released it amid 2022's difficulties and shortages, and presumably would have liked to.

I'd say the Intel Mac Pro is still available for that (yes, slim) market that needs a Mac Pro or needs it to be an Intel Mac for compatibility reasons or whatever else. Presumably the day will come for Apple silicon Mac Pros, and that will be the day the Intel Mac Pros are no longer offered directly from Apple.

(As for the specific question: I'm guessing that varies based on the task or particular thing being measured.)

 

[mode11]

M1 redux: excellent CPUs, middling GPUs (by desktop standards). Pretty much business as usual for Apple.

 

[Mac3Duser]

Apple silicon is really good for laptops. For computers like mac mini, it's perfect too. On the other hand, for large towers like gamers or workstations, I have some doubts. The absence of Nvidia is a real problem for me. If ever we arrive at the total absence of AMD too, then Apple will have to invest massively in software, metal and frameworks.

 

[mikas]

I really really do hate to say this, but they might have painted themselves in a SoC corner, anyways a good try it was. Mar 7, 2022

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

I really really do hate to say this, but they might have painted themselves in a SoC corner, anyways a good try it was. Mar 7, 2022

The benefits of Apple Silicon go beyond raw numbers.
Apple can design and release chips on their own terms instead of waiting on Intel and accepting what they offer. Sub-systems have become more integrated which has led to more compact and energy efficient hardware. The processing nodes are some of the most advanced in the industry, and Apple can effectively execute its architecture across all its devices rather than just select ones.

 

[MarkC426]

so I am looking at reviews and everyone seems to say that M1 is faster than the Mac Pro chips multiple times over.

It is not as cut and dry as a 'benchmark test', which the M1 may win.
There are a number of variables between an M1 and a MP.

1.M1 shares ram with GPU
2.M1 is VERY limited in Ram size.
3.MP can have multiple different GPU's
4.MP can have multiple SSD's
5.M1 would not be able to render 24/7
6.MP all components are replaceable
etc...

 

[MacBH928]

It is not as cut and dry as a 'benchmark test', which the M1 may win.
There are a number of variables between an M1 and a MP.

1.M1 shares ram with GPU

So what?

2.M1 is VERY limited in Ram size.

How much RAM do you need? Current max of Mac Studio is 128GB ram.

3.MP can have multiple different GPU's

What benefit does this bring? Are you saying if you stack in more GPU's in there it will be faster than an M1 machine? I am honestly asking.

4.MP can have multiple SSD's

M-chip computers can connect external storage. Do I understand you wrong?

5.M1 would not be able to render 24/7

Why not? Mac Studio can't?

6.MP all components are replaceable
etc...

correct, but why do I need to replace all components? I can buy a completely new Mac Studio maxed out (except for storage) for $5800 or so. I can upgrade completely maxed out every 3 or so years instead of having a basic bare bones Mac Pro at $6000 then i have to buy the upgrades?!

If you factor in resale price of the Mac Studio, Mac Studio will probably be a cheaper (and more up to date option) compared to a Mac Pro made to upgrade as you go.

 

[mode11]

The problem is if you need powerful GPU options now, you don’t have them with the Studio. You can wait 3 years and see what’s available then, but you can’t add anything to the Studio either at purchase or afterwards.

In answer to 3, if you put a single upper-midrange GPU in a Mac Pro or PC it will be more performant than a Studio, and only gets more so from there.

The Mac Pro is pretty poor value in absolute terms, making anything look good in comparison. A performance / capacity comparison between a $5800 Studio and a similarly priced PC would be embarrassing for the former, though the Studio’s value proposition weakens when maxed out. Plus, if you only use macOS that’s obviously moot.

 

[MarkC426]

I am stuck in my ways (having used my cMP for 10+ years).
I like the ease of being able to upgrade things if I want, when I want.
I don't like having to decide at purchase if I want 128gb Ram and a 4TB drive.
Plus I never sell my Macs (but that's my choice), I buy for the long term.

I couldn't swap the internal storage on a mini/studio after 12 months.

 

[smckenzie]

so I am looking at reviews and everyone seems to say that M1 is faster than the Mac Pro chips multiple times over. The least expensive Mac Pro is $6K or so. Who would buy a Mac Pro then? Am I missing something? I doubt "upgradability" is the reason since buying a completely new M chip computer in few years would be cheaper than the initial investment + upgrade price.

Is it because the Mac Pro has graphics cards that are faster? Feels like a very thin market share since they probably can get get cheaper PCs for the same specs I am guessing of course.

I'm one of the small group who use a MacPro for 3D, specifically Cinema 4D and Redshift. Mine has two 6800X Duo's which will benchmark the same as two 3090's. I can also get a 5th 6900XT in slot 5 but I use that for 6Tb of SSD instead. A maxed studio has good viewport performance but render times are significantly slower. It will be some time before the AS gpu's can match the discrete ones.

The most appealing thing for windows and Nvidia was the hardware ray tracing and the Optix de-noising. Redshift has just added Intels Odin de-noising, so now realtime rendering is awesome. Sure it's hard to beat the Nvidia's, but this setup isn't far off. It's not all roses on the Nvidia side either as there is a long running Vram bug in their drivers which makes the cards run out of Vram or slows renders down, especially when using other apps at the same time such as after effects etc.

The weakest spot of my MacPro is the cpu, I have the 16 core, but I say that in terms of using it for rendering with Arnold, which is a slow renderer anyway. Sure you can upgrade the cpu but most of those listed for sale on eBay are QS samples.

Sure it's expensive, but if I wanted to stay with MacOS and use 3D this was my only choice. However the flexibility shouldn't be over looked. I can run 12 displays if I ever needed to lol or use it for music, or re-configure for super fast ssd storage should my needs change. With the two Duo MPX modules I have Thunderbolt ports coming out of the wahoo which is good for pretty much any add on's I would need going forward. Bootcamp on Windows 10 with a 3090 also works flawlessly and reboots into that OS very fast.

Apples lack of openness to pro users makes me feel uncomfortable however.

 

[MacBH928]

The problem is if you need powerful GPU options now, you don’t have them with the Studio. You can wait 3 years and see what’s available then, but you can’t add anything to the Studio either at purchase or afterwards.

In answer to 3, if you put a single upper-midrange GPU in a Mac Pro or PC it will be more performant than a Studio, and only gets more so from there.

The Mac Pro is pretty poor value in absolute terms, making anything look good in comparison. A performance / capacity comparison between a $5800 Studio and a similarly priced PC would be embarrassing for the former, though the Studio’s value proposition weakens when maxed out. Plus, if you only use macOS that’s obviously moot.

I'm one of the small group who use a MacPro for 3D, specifically Cinema 4D and Redshift. Mine has two 6800X Duo's which will benchmark the same as two 3090's. I can also get a 5th 6900XT in slot 5 but I use that for 6Tb of SSD instead. A maxed studio has good viewport performance but render times are significantly slower. It will be some time before the AS gpu's can match the discrete ones.

The most appealing thing for windows and Nvidia was the hardware ray tracing and the Optix de-noising. Redshift has just added Intels Odin de-noising, so now realtime rendering is awesome. Sure it's hard to beat the Nvidia's, but this setup isn't far off. It's not all roses on the Nvidia side either as there is a long running Vram bug in their drivers which makes the cards run out of Vram or slows renders down, especially when using other apps at the same time such as after effects etc.

The weakest spot of my MacPro is the cpu, I have the 16 core, but I say that in terms of using it for rendering with Arnold, which is a slow renderer anyway. Sure you can upgrade the cpu but most of those listed for sale on eBay are QS samples.

Sure it's expensive, but if I wanted to stay with MacOS and use 3D this was my only choice. However the flexibility shouldn't be over looked. I can run 12 displays if I ever needed to lol or use it for music, or re-configure for super fast ssd storage should my needs change. With the two Duo MPX modules I have Thunderbolt ports coming out of the wahoo which is good for pretty much any add on's I would need going forward. Bootcamp on Windows 10 with a 3090 also works flawlessly and reboots into that OS very fast.

So what I understand from both of you is that Mac Pro will only surpass Studio M chips if you beef it up with GPU's making the over all cost ludicrous and at which point its only logical financially to get a Windows PC. So Mac Pro's are in the niche of people who want to use extremely upgraded machines and insist on using MacOS so much so they are willing to pay the price difference over a traditional PC build up?

On the other hand, something tells me many people choose to do so since most majro "pro" software vendors have a Mac version of their apps so they user base must be large enough to keep a dedicate version of it for MacOS.

Apples lack of openness to pro users makes me feel uncomfortable however.

Not only pro users but computing as a whole. Apple are treating their electronics more of a fashion symbol and a social device over a computing device. I see their concentration on things like emojis, cameras, messaging, video consumption much more than software functionality and advancement. Its the Gucci of electronics.

I really do not see Apple putting any effort for education, Pro, and work environments although their 15% market share has a lot of growth in that area.

 

[smckenzie]

I got mine at the start of the year. At the time, when I priced out a dual Nvidia 3090 rig it was coming out at $10k from Puget Systems, part of that cost was in inflated gpu pricing. By comparison, I could get an Apple certified MacPro for $7k excluding the Duo modules which still made it more expensive but kept me and the software I was already using in the MacOS camp. That logic might not work for everyone but it did for me

Bear in mind though used MacPro prices have come down some more since then along with gpu prices and upgrading with a 3rd party used or new 6900XT would still out perform the Studio on the GPU side.

The MacPro does get a lot of stick, but having owned one I think some of it is unfair. Some of the things that have value for me:

It's stone quiet. I had two Sonnet Tech 6900XT's in it instead of MPX modules, and whilst super quick, those cards are properly loud and distracting.

MPX Modules. Such a great design. Has a hidden button/lever that allows the module to be removed from the case. Naturally reviews of them focus on performance but no one mentions that they operate silently as they are just giant heatsinks.

The cpu has 64 pcie lanes, by comparison the new 13th Gen Intel I9 has 20. Half of those are used by the gpu's in my case, but that still leaves a lot to play with. Between the two MPX modules I have 8 Thunderbolt ports and 2 HDMI ports. I could use these for all manner of things and I still wouldn't be able to use them all. And this doesn't count the two on the I/O board and the two on top of the case.

The I/O board that comes as standard allows an additional displays to be attached to it along with the thunderbolt ports on top of the case. You don't have to attach displays to the gpu(s) which are lower on the case, so depending on the length of your cable that could be the difference between whether you can attach it or not. It is in my case.

The locking mechanism for the pcie slots should be universally adopted, so much easier than that stupid clip you get on PC motherboards.

Did I mention those PCIE slots? The've allowed me to install additional pcie based ssd storage (nvme and U.2 versions). Super fast and load large virtual instruments libraries instantly. All upgradable.

Bootcamp. Super quick to install and happily uses both an MPX module and a Nvidia card at the same time. Some might say just get a pc if you need windows, but it's a slick solution and means I don't have to mess with Parallels. I had Bootcamp installed on a separate PCIE SSD and when done you can use the Bootcamp utility to remove it and return that space to the Mac partition on the SSD instantly. Just a shame Bootcamp can't do Win 11.

No internal cables! I built a pc for my daughter recently, it had been a long time but my lord the amount of cable management you have to do internally. I haven't missed that.

At the end of the day you can compare apples to apples all day but the little things play a large part of the ownership experience in addition to the headlines features. For creatives the Studio will satisfy nearly all of them for sure, but for those of us who need the GPU grunt and flexibility to re-configure our systems without buying a new unit, the MacPro is still hard to beat.

 

[mode11]

So what I understand from both of you is that Mac Pro will only surpass Studio M chips if you beef it up with GPU's making the over all cost ludicrous and at which point its only logical financially to get a Windows PC.

There’s a distinction to be made here between CPU and GPU performance. Apple Silicon is fine on the former, less so on the latter (by desktop standards). In terms of GPU, no particular ‘beefing up’ is required, just specify any half-decent option at the Mac Pro checkout. The prices are high; it’s ultimately up to the customer to decide if macOS is worth the difference vs a PC.

So Mac Pro's are in the niche of people who want to use extremely upgraded machines and insist on using MacOS so much so they are willing to pay the price difference over a traditional PC build up?

The want very powerful machines, rather than ‘upgraded’ per se. GPUs are a fast-moving category, however, so it’s likely such users will want to upgrade them during the life of the machine.

On the other hand, something tells me many people choose to do so since most majro "pro" software vendors have a Mac version of their apps so they user base must be large enough to keep a dedicate version of it for MacOS.

Which ‘pro software’ are you referring to? Most will run fine on a MacBook Pro. The class of applications that need powerful GPUs is smaller, but a Mac wouldn’t be the ideal pick for 3D animation, (non-iOS) games development, Virtual Production or Machine Learning. Generally because Mac Pros don’t support Nvidia GPUs, offer poor value for money in those roles, and / or the software runs better under Windows or Linux.

Also, define ‘many people’. Apple’s long-term ambivalence towards the Mac Pro suggests the number doesn’t meet their desired economies of scale. Pricing it high to compensate will have shrunk the machine’s user base even further. Unfortunately, Apple had already tried reducing their costs (with the 6,1 and iMac Pro), and that didn’t work out - the resulting products just weren’t what (enough) pro customers wanted to buy.

For a whole bunch of reasons, Apple’s sweet spot for the Mac platform seems to be laptops, and desktops that essentially use laptop hardware.

 

[opeter]

Apple can design and release chips on their own terms instead of waiting on Intel and accepting what they offer.

Now Apple can have a much longer release cylce (2, 3 or more years) for a chip series, if they want. In the meantime, they can sell the same hardware over and over for years or even a decade without a bigger price drop. Not that they already didn't do that in the past.

 

[mode11]

The Intel transition was exciting because it finally ended Apple’s struggle to keep up with mainstream PC hardware. Now the Mac is hitching itself to the iPhone’s economies of scale, but that has a particular, SoC-based approach. Great for laptops, but the end of being able to use desktop PC GPUs.

 

[MacBH928]

I got mine at the start of the year. At the time, when I priced out a dual Nvidia 3090 rig it was coming out at $10k from Puget Systems, part of that cost was in inflated gpu pricing. By comparison, I could get an Apple certified MacPro for $7k excluding the Duo modules which still made it more expensive but kept me and the software I was already using in the MacOS camp. That logic might not work for everyone but it did for me

Bear in mind though used MacPro prices have come down some more since then along with gpu prices and upgrading with a 3rd party used or new 6900XT would still out perform the Studio on the GPU side.

The MacPro does get a lot of stick, but having owned one I think some of it is unfair. Some of the things that have value for me:

It's stone quiet. I had two Sonnet Tech 6900XT's in it instead of MPX modules, and whilst super quick, those cards are properly loud and distracting.

MPX Modules. Such a great design. Has a hidden button/lever that allows the module to be removed from the case. Naturally reviews of them focus on performance but no one mentions that they operate silently as they are just giant heatsinks.

The cpu has 64 pcie lanes, by comparison the new 13th Gen Intel I9 has 20. Half of those are used by the gpu's in my case, but that still leaves a lot to play with. Between the two MPX modules I have 8 Thunderbolt ports and 2 HDMI ports. I could use these for all manner of things and I still wouldn't be able to use them all. And this doesn't count the two on the I/O board and the two on top of the case.

The I/O board that comes as standard allows an additional displays to be attached to it along with the thunderbolt ports on top of the case. You don't have to attach displays to the gpu(s) which are lower on the case, so depending on the length of your cable that could be the difference between whether you can attach it or not. It is in my case.

The locking mechanism for the pcie slots should be universally adopted, so much easier than that stupid clip you get on PC motherboards.

Did I mention those PCIE slots? The've allowed me to install additional pcie based ssd storage (nvme and U.2 versions). Super fast and load large virtual instruments libraries instantly. All upgradable.

Bootcamp. Super quick to install and happily uses both an MPX module and a Nvidia card at the same time. Some might say just get a pc if you need windows, but it's a slick solution and means I don't have to mess with Parallels. I had Bootcamp installed on a separate PCIE SSD and when done you can use the Bootcamp utility to remove it and return that space to the Mac partition on the SSD instantly. Just a shame Bootcamp can't do Win 11.

No internal cables! I built a pc for my daughter recently, it had been a long time but my lord the amount of cable management you have to do internally. I haven't missed that.

At the end of the day you can compare apples to apples all day but the little things play a large part of the ownership experience in addition to the headlines features. For creatives the Studio will satisfy nearly all of them for sure, but for those of us who need the GPU grunt and flexibility to re-configure our systems without buying a new unit, the MacPro is still hard to beat.

There’s a distinction to be made here between CPU and GPU performance. Apple Silicon is fine on the former, less so on the latter (by desktop standards). In terms of GPU, no particular ‘beefing up’ is required, just specify any half-decent option at the Mac Pro checkout. The prices are high; it’s ultimately up to the customer to decide if macOS is worth the difference vs a PC.


The want very powerful machines, rather than ‘upgraded’ per se. GPUs are a fast-moving category, however, so it’s likely such users will want to upgrade them during the life of the machine.


Which ‘pro software’ are you referring to? Most will run fine on a MacBook Pro. The class of applications that need powerful GPUs is smaller, but a Mac wouldn’t be the ideal pick for 3D animation, (non-iOS) games development, Virtual Production or Machine Learning. Generally because Mac Pros don’t support Nvidia GPUs, offer poor value for money in those roles, and / or the software runs better under Windows or Linux.

Also, define ‘many people’. Apple’s long-term ambivalence towards the Mac Pro suggests the number doesn’t meet their desired economies of scale. Pricing it high to compensate will have shrunk the machine’s user base even further. Unfortunately, Apple had already tried reducing their costs (with the 6,1 and iMac Pro), and that didn’t work out - the resulting products just weren’t what (enough) pro customers wanted to buy.

For a whole bunch of reasons, Apple’s sweet spot for the Mac platform seems to be laptops, and desktops that essentially use laptop hardware.

So in short Mac Pro is the option for someone who insists on using MacOS although its cheaper and more capable (has more software) to get a PC?

----

You keep mentioning M series are SoC, does this mean it will not be able to utilize GPUs?

 

[mode11]

So in short Mac Pro is the option for someone who insists on using MacOS although its cheaper and more capable (has more software) to get a PC?

Yes. You could extend that to the Mac in general, though the value proposition is much stronger for Apple laptops than a mains-powered workhorse box that lives under your desk. Like many luxury products, though, I expect the quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.

You keep mentioning M series are SoC, does this mean it will not be able to utilize GPUs?

In principle, there’s no reason they can’t. The issue is that a System on a Chip is tightly integrated, and would need significant (expensive) redesign to allow for PCIe-connected GPUs. This is a particular issue for the Mac Pro, as it’s the only model that could meaningfully take advantage of this, whilst also being by far their slowest seller. So would offer low economies of scale to offset the costs. Apple won’t be selling the chips to anyone else.

Further, Apple’s AS programming APIs and guidelines are all geared to using an integrated GPU. Supporting add-in GPUs would require a U-turn on that policy, plus require developers to do additional work. If using AMD GPUs, it would also require Apple or AMD to write / maintain AS drivers for them. Again, all for one, slow-selling machine.

 

[MarkC426]

So in short Mac Pro is the option for someone who insists on using MacOS although its cheaper and more capable (has more software) to get a PC?

Not neccessarily true, when comparing like for like and the 'trouble free' use of a Mac.

I would go back to pencil and paper before using Windows again....🤮

 

[MacBH928]

Yes. You could extend that to the Mac in general, though the value proposition is much stronger for Apple laptops than a mains-powered workhorse box that lives under your desk. Like many luxury products, though, I expect the quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.


In principle, there’s no reason they can’t. The issue is that a System on a Chip is tightly integrated, and would need significant (expensive) redesign to allow for PCIe-connected GPUs. This is a particular issue for the Mac Pro, as it’s the only model that could meaningfully take advantage of this, whilst also being by far their slowest seller. So would offer low economies of scale to offset the costs. Apple won’t be selling the chips to anyone else.

Further, Apple’s AS programming APIs and guidelines are all geared to using an integrated GPU. Supporting add-in GPUs would require a U-turn on that policy, plus require developers to do additional work. If using AMD GPUs, it would also require Apple or AMD to write / maintain AS drivers for them. Again, all for one, slow-selling machine.

Seems like you are hinting that an apple silicon Mac Pro won't be in the making, and Mac Pro will be dropped altogether.

Not neccessarily true, when comparing like for like and the 'trouble free' use of a Mac.

I would go back to pencil and paper before using Windows again....🤮

I see where you are coming from but when you consider the software availability, modularity, hardware capability, and price... one can not fight so much back

 

[mode11]

Seems like you are hinting that an apple silicon Mac Pro won't be in the making, and Mac Pro will be dropped altogether.

It’s a possibility, but my thinking was more that the AS MP will use a giant SoC.

 

[randy85]

I can think of two main reasons:

1. GPU power. If you're using something like Resolve, the extra power really helps.

2. You already bought one before the Pro/Max/Ultra were available, so that was your only option if wanting to stay on Macs.

The equation has shifted since then and as a result Apple probably aren't selling all that many Mac Pros. They'd probably rather sell you a Studio to show that the transition has been a success for them.

There is the expandability argument with the Mac Pro, which I believe is a bit overstated, as there will never be a better processor you can use over the 28 Core model offered at launch. You can add more RAM (but how much will the software actually use?). I've added a lot of SSD storage, but I'm sure I could come up with an external solution if I had to.

 

[avro707]

Not neccessarily true, when comparing like for like and the 'trouble free' use of a Mac.

I would go back to pencil and paper before using Windows again....🤮

Windows 11 Pro for workstations has been running perfectly on my Mac Pro 7,1.

The surprise was actually how quickly it runs. It lacks a lot of macOS convenience features (in only the modern MacOS versions) but it seems quite stable.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I can think of two main reasons:

1. GPU power. If you're using something like Resolve, the extra power really helps.

2. You already bought one before the Pro/Max/Ultra were available, so that was your only option if wanting to stay on Macs.

The equation has shifted since then and as a result Apple probably aren't selling all that many Mac Pros. They'd probably rather sell you a Studio to show that the transition has been a success for them.

There is the expandability argument with the Mac Pro, which I believe is a bit overstated, as there will never be a better processor you can use over the 28 Core model offered at launch. You can add more RAM (but how much will the software actually use?). I've added a lot of SSD storage, but I'm sure I could come up with an external solution if I had to.

Your statement on overstating is overstated, as people who do 3D work need better GPUs, not cpus. The studio cannot even run a single 8K screen. Your “external “solution” was the trashcan rats nest of cables that was an ADMITTED failure by apple. People here have both, myself included, I have a maxed out ultra. It is in effect a Mac mini plus, but worse, since it’s less expandable. Not a serious machine.