A new Mac Pro is guaranteed to be announced this year, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned it in this weeks event I don't think.
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.
M1 Ultra, and it's not even the Mac Pro Yet...
- Thread starter rondocap
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A new Mac Pro is guaranteed to be announced this year, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned it in this weeks event I don't think.
I also think they wouldn't have teased in in such prominent way if it would not come this year. I think we'll see at least a preview of the new Mac Pro at WWDC this June.
Well they did say in the video that the M1 Ultra version will be 90% more powerful than the 16c Mac Pro.
I'm viewing it like having enough power in my 7.1 means I'm saving £6k+ on not having to buy this 😂.
A few years more use and I'll treat myself to the M2 Ultra or whatever it gets called.
Well, yeah, I mean, if you bought the 7.1 you don't really need to upgrade to the Mac Studio, which is not even it's direct competitor, and yet it still comes close/is more powerful than the most powerful 7.1.
Wait until we see the new Mac Pro...
All those machines have a completely different setup (standard SSD/Nvme).
The Apple silicon, because it is unified accesses the ssd much more frequently for swaps.
There where numerous threads after release of M1 mini, discussing excessive read/writes.
Thicker? The iMac Pro is already "thick". All they have to do is not thin it out in the first place. If you don't paint yourself into a corner in the first place than don't need some "revolutionary" solution to get you out of that very same corner.
iMac Pro 2017
" ...
| Power Consumption (230V/50Hz) | Thermal Output | ||
| Idle | CPU Max | Idle | CPU Max |
| 64W | 370W | 218 BTU/h | 1,262 BTU/h |
..."
iMac Pro power consumption and thermal output - Apple Support
Learn about the power consumption and thermal output (BTU) of iMac Pro (2017).
Mac Studio
"
- Maximum continuous power: 370W
https://www.apple.com/mac-studio/specs/
The iMac Pro has a bigger than 370W power supply that can deliver to the internal components 370W.
Apple is pushing this Studio as an old iMac Pro replacement. If Apple wanted to do a new iMac Pro that covered another space than the old one ( e.g. grow the screen size, square off the edges , add 'six speakers' , and even more comfortably provision a 400W allocation .. .they could. The biggest impediment is getting the design through the "ever thinner, no visible air inlets/outlets" design politburo than any technical thermal challenge.
If the Studio Display has some bleeding edge display panel I'd would somewhat agree. Instead what we have here is Apple selling mostly what would have been a $1799 iMac 27" gutted out wih a A13 inside for $200 less. It is repackaged tech probably could have rolled out two years ago. It isn't a leadge edge screen. It is a very affordable (high margins for Apple) and available screen.
That is substantively indicative that Apple can't get the screens they want at the volumes and prices they would like for a iMac Pro at the moment. A large chunk of that is due to issues out of ApplIf e's control. It is the wrong time for another large screen iMac.
If Apple offered a substantive bundle pricing discount for a Ultra+Screen discount there are a lots of folks who will take it. The folks who bought iMac Pro because there was no decent Mac Pro to upgrade to? No. But lots of folks buy iMacs and are not super agitated about the integrated screen.
Last edited:
Are there any solid rumours or info on a half-sized Mac Pro?
Asking for a friend who is about to pull the trigger on an M1 Ultra
The unified memory doesn't change anything. It won't be a problem.
Thicker? The iMac Pro is already "thick". All they have to do is not thin it out in the first place. If you don't paint yourself into a corner in the first place than don't need some "revolutionary" solution to get you out of that very same corner.
iMac Pro 2017
" ...
Power Consumption (230V/50Hz) Thermal Output Idle CPU Max Idle CPU Max 64W 370W 218 BTU/h 1,262 BTU/h
..."
iMac Pro power consumption and thermal output - Apple Support
Learn about the power consumption and thermal output (BTU) of iMac Pro (2017).support.apple.com
Mac Studio
"
"
- Maximum continuous power: 370W
https://www.apple.com/mac-studio/specs/
The iMac Pro has a bigger than 370W power supply that can deliver to the internal components 370W.
Apple is pushing this Studio as an old iMac Pro replacement. If Apple wanted to do a new iMac Pro that covered another space than the old one ( e.g. grow the screen size, square off the edges , add 'six speakers' , and even more comfortably provision a 400W allocation .. .they could. The biggest impediment is getting the design through the "ever thinner, no visible air inlets/outlets" design politburo than any technical thermal challenge.
If the Studio Display has some bleeding edge display panel I'd would somewhat agree. Instead what we have here is Apple selling mostly what would have been a $1799 iMac 27" gutted out wih a A13 inside for $200 less. It is repackaged tech probably could have rolled out two years ago. It isn't a leadge edge screen. It is a very affordable (high margins for Apple) and available screen.
That is substantively indicative that Apple can't get the screens they want at the volumes and prices they would like for a iMac Pro at the moment. A large chunk of that is due to issues out of ApplIf e's control. It is the wrong time for another large screen iMac.
If Apple offered a substantive bundle pricing discount for a Ultra+Screen discount there are a lots of folks who will take it. The folks who bought iMac Pro because there was no decent Mac Pro to upgrade to? No. But lots of folks buy iMacs and are not super agitated about the integrated screen.
Thats pretty poor evidence to claim Apple can’t get the screens they want? To me it seems they have exactly the screens they want to use. Also looking at the cooling solution in the new Studio I’m not sure if your thermal claims. And why are you using the old iMac Pro as evidence for the argument? It’s a lot thicker then the iMac 14” design in its middle part. Any new iMac Pro if they do one will need to be designed around the 24” styling and thus will need to be thicker to noise a power supply, Ultra M1 chip and thermal solution.
Yea well, the thing is that now that apps are getting optimized for M1, even Adobe Apps, the 7.1 will age even faster than it normally would:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/afte...ing-you-ve-been-asking-for/m-p/12804750#M1881
For me it's GPUs. More GPU power the better. I need to be able to reliably upgrade that GPU power over the life of the machine, at non-exorbitant cost. Not a huge ask from a modern desktop machine. Apple's gonna have to find a way to make PCIe work in the next Mac Pro(maybe not).
Please ask him to run the free Hashcat benchmark.
hashcat - advanced password recovery
World's fastest and most advanced password recovery utility
That's for sure. But maybe we will return to the days of a super cheap, minimum spec tower (that actually performs). Starting price $3499? 😂
Viva Hackintosh
Apple will get PCIe working just fine in the ASi Mac Pro; but discrete GPU...? No GPU for you...!
Please ask him to run the free Hashcat benchmark.
hashcat - advanced password recovery
World's fastest and most advanced password recovery utilityhashcat.net
Hashcat... Pfff... Stockfish is where it is at...! ;^p
Personally I find purchase decision on Mac Studio is simple. If your friend has not been using much or not looking for internal expansions, then go for M1 Ultra by all means. It'll be a fast machine for many years with ease.
Given the launch of Mac Studio and the fact that Apple silicon Mac Pro is to be launched on another day (note not on another year), we could expect the new Mac Pro will be available later this year.
To differentiate from Mac Studio, I believe the new Mac Pro surely will be bigger in size but more compact than Intel Mac Pro. And it'll be all about scaling up further on the maximum capacity: number of CPU cores, GPU performance, memory and storage capacity, and I/O expansions.
I believe (or rather hope) the scaling up is done through internally modular designs such as user-changeable Apple proprietary SSDs, MPX-like Apple silicon daughter boards, perhaps a couple of SATA ports, and a number of PCIe slots.
I think it'll be particularly interesting to look forward to memory expansions. One of the decisive difference in Mac Pro (that stands out from Mac Studio) will be memory capacity. Let's hope Apple will bring in some "innovations" here and support more than a few hundreds of gigabytes.
Given Apple's cadence of M1 SoCs so far: M1 > M1 Pro/Max > M1 Ultra, and the very likelihood of a Mac Pro launch this year, I'll be a little surprised the new Mac Pro will be shipping with M2 Ultra or M2 Ultra Duo. Hence, I won't be surprised if the new Mac Pro will be something like M1 Ultra X2 on a daughter board and the chassis could support two or three such daughter boards.
Now I'm also inclined to think there will be only one new chassis for Apple silicon Mac Pro (also covering a variation of rack mountable if any). This is the chassis of the so called "half-size Mac Pro" that Apple PRs said to some journalists. I still believe the Intel Mac Pro will continue to co-exist for a couple of years and the Mac Pro 2019 refresh will be coming out too later this year.
Not solid rumours. Just my thought based on open source intelligence.
Good points, I think he is concerned that a new half-size Mac Pro is just around the corner that has no PCie and is even faster than the Studio Ultra for a similar price...
I did say, the best way to avoid that is to wait
And yet in the lab behind there are no Mac Pro’s
That’s where the real magic is happening I’m sure Apple will match the current Mac Pro’s internal max storage amount (I think it’s 1.5TB)? I have a great feeling after announcement, launch and deployment the upcoming Mac Pro will shock and awe the entire industry for months, just like the G5 did, only to have Dell, HP complain 9 months later it’s not the fastest lol.
I pray the Apple Silicon Mac Pro does not have SATA ports lol. Incredibly too slow and a massive bottleneck to overall system performance. We’re on NVME today.
Has the industry been toying with smaller expansion ports than that PCIe offers? I feel video cards are slowing up the industry in terms of power consumption and allowing for smaller desktops. This large design shouldn’t bee needed anymore, at least in Arm-based desktops - if NVidia and AMD video cards can get smaller.
I agree the upcoming Mac Pro should be slightly smaller than the classic/current Mac Pro.
Why speculate on things we already have answers for?
bridgeOS is a heavily modified version of watchOS - not iOS.
SATAs are cheap (on bandwidth requirement) to include and more than good enough for HDDs. In the lifetime of the new Mac Pro, a single HDD capacity will reach beyond 50TB if not 100TB. If the new Mac Pro can house two HDDs, I would think it's very convenient for many people to store data that sporadically need immediate access but not so much on transfer speed. A single modern HDD can transfer anywhere between 120MB/s and 260MB/s. Two in RAID 0 saturate the SATA bandwidth nicely and handle large media storage and retrieval adequately IMO.
PC industry is marching ahead with PCIe. The momentum is hardly stoppable. Apple also uses PCIe though seems exposing PCIe as expansion slots in Mac is a difficult ask for anything but Mac Pro. Mac Pro being Mac Pro PCIe slots would be there for sure. Will they support AMD/Nvidia GPUs/accelerators? Most likely not as long as Intel Mac Pro is still available for purchase. Otherwise, who can be sure 5 to 10 years into the future.
Contrary to Internet consensus on Mac Pro's high entry price, I would rather think the entry model may not be as expensive as people think since compute resources will modular and configurable. A basic model need not start with an outrageous price point.