MP 7,1 Mac Pro 7,1 - hit or Miss?

[goMac]

I'm not thinking swappable boards, but literally putting the "computer" part of the computer into one of the VegaII size MPX modules.

I'm just not really sure what the use of this is. If you're putting the entire computer on a slot, you might as well replace the entire computer each time because you'd be paying for it anyway.

The only thing you'd be able to keep is storage (because RAM speed and type is linked to the CPU, and is especially critical if graphics is using a shared pool.)

To me, the reduction in size of the Apple Silicon Mac Pro is the giveaway. That excludes MPX support (MPX modules are too deep.) And it excludes any sort of larger upgradability beyond things like maybe RAM. Even PCIe cards are not likely to be part of that design because full length PCIe cards would be too deep. What you end up with, because of the case constraints, would look a lot like the 2013 Mac Pro. Maybe not literally, but the insides would. It seems off the record Apple is more eager to compare it to the Cube. But let's be honest, we had a new Mac Pro Cube already. It was the 2013.

 

[mattspace]

I'm just not really sure what the use of this is. If you're putting the entire computer on a slot, you might as well replace the entire computer each time because you'd be paying for it anyway.

The whole case, backplane for the slots, cooling infrastructure, power supply, etc is a pretty expensive part of the 7,1 though - you're paying what, $1-1.5k for that alone.

It's not just a "make it cheaper" thing, but also a "make it more configurable" (multiple MPX computers in a single chassis) and a "use / waste less materials" thing.

The only thing you'd be able to keep is storage (because RAM speed and type is linked to the CPU, and is especially critical if graphics is using a shared pool.)

A single secured SSD blade would be on the cartridge as well, to be Apple-ish

What you end up with, because of the case constraints, would look a lot like the 2013 Mac Pro. Maybe not literally, but the insides would. It seems off the record Apple is more eager to compare it to the Cube. But let's be honest, we had a new Mac Pro Cube already. It was the 2013.

Something, something, the definition of insanity...

 

[OkiRun]

The M2 Mac Pro will be for the cool college student crowd, poorer nerdy Apple hobbyist, teacher/professor and upscale FCPX youtubers. It doesn't seem like a corporate computer (like the 8,1) or a high school student computer ~ unless it reaches a high level of gaming experience too. Do high school students use iMacs? Are they on laptops? Why would they switch from a laptop to a desktop and have to buy an extra monitor. Of course, I guess all of these create a bigger market than the 7,1 has at the moment.

 

[fuchsdh]

"We made a non-upgradable appliance to replace our hugely upgradable slotbox, and boy did we hear from you as to how much you hated it. So, here's a new machine, that's the most slotty slotbox we've ever made."

"It's too expensive at the low end for the performance you get"

"We heard how you thought our slotbox was too expensive, so here's a non-upgradable appliance computer. Also, it's more expensive than before. Want to complain some more?"

If that happens, it's definitely gonna be cheaper than $6K at least at the base price, but I agree, it seems really weird that they'd have rethought and repositioned the Mac Pro and spent all the time making a truly new product, and then decide to make a machine that doesn't fill the same niche the very next one. Maybe the 7,1 Mac Pro didn't sell well, but they're not idiots; they wouldn't made a $6K high-end workstation if they wanted the same sales volume as the older mid-range models.

With the discontinuation of the iMac Pro, I think I can see where a smaller high-performance machine cold fit, but it really depends on the high-end iMac to me. I don't think they were wrong when they pointed out most people do stuff on their iMacs (and like it) these days. Having a single more extensible platform to cover the edge cases you don't want to heavily cater to seems like a smarter play from the cheap seats.

 

[StuAff]

We'll know when we know, and no-one outside Apple can truly say otherwise. Given the way the 2013 was released despite negative pre-launch feedback, and how that turned out, and the efforts Apple has made in public and private to actually address what the target pro audience wants- with the 7,1, the 16" MBP, and (if true) the return of ports in the AS MBP- it would be a remarkably odd decision to turn round and nix any or all of the features that matter to MP buyers. If Apple says: 'You know those eight PCIe slots? You don't need them. Expandable RAM? No, that neither. Discrete GPU? Nope' I can only imagine the sales will tank in a way that makes the 2013 look like a huge success. FWIW, I'm guessing:
Workstation/desktop CPU. This will not be an M1, M2…anything, but its own thing. Think Ampere Altra or Fujitsu A64FX with Apple special sauce.
7,1 case, or one much like it, and all eight slots. Apple doesn't generally do one-generation case designs (all the G4s, the G5 & 1,1-5,1 cheesegrater, umpteen iMacs, the mini…), and I can't imagine the 7,1 wasn't designed without the future in mind. The rumoured mini Pro will be instead of or in addition to a pro iMac (if they don't actually bring the iMac Pro name back), if it actually exists…
Apple MPX GPU- iGPU for those who want/need all the slots, and for multi-GPU acceleration purposes.
Expandable RAM, 2TB or more, plus on-package RAM.
Same SSD modules as iMP & 7.1, removable and expandable.

Obviously, the only part of this prediction I can make with any confidence is that it will turn out to be highly inaccurate…

 

[mattspace]

With the discontinuation of the iMac Pro, I think I can see where a smaller high-performance machine cold fit, but it really depends on the high-end iMac to me. I don't think they were wrong when they pointed out most people do stuff on their iMacs (and like it) these days. Having a single more extensible platform to cover the edge cases you don't want to heavily cater to seems like a smarter play from the cheap seats.

The real problem with Apples entire "most people do things on their iMac" premise, is that it carries an implicit suggestion that something about the iMac makes people want to use an AIO it for those tasks, rather than it simply being the only option for a desktop more powerful than a mini, and less expensive than a Mac Pro.

I don't know if Apple really is so high on their own supply they believe their sales numbers show a popular love of their product choices (vs a love of macOS), It might explain why they held on to butterfly keyboards for so long, or that might just be personal hubris and arse-covering by the people who OKed them in the first place.

There's definitely a place for a machine between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro, without a built in display, and with user-upgradability, but it would probably eat into iMac sales, and therefore display component volumes/prices. Hopefully Apple can make an AS machine without the Xeon tax, but honestly I think they'll build up to the market price they've already set.

 

[th0masp]

This will not be an M1, M2…anything, but its own thing. Think Ampere Altra or Fujitsu A64FX with Apple special sauce.

Doubtful if they are fine with reusing the current chip across laptops, Mini and tablets. Why would they go and make a special sauce for their niche offering? You'll get the same CPU as the iPhone of that year - but with a cherry on top.

 

[StuAff]

Doubtful if they are fine with reusing the current chip across laptops, Mini and tablets. Why would they go and make a special sauce for their niche offering? You'll get the same CPU as the iPhone of that year - but with a cherry on top.

Please note disclaimer at the end of my post

Getting the M1 out in so many products is a logical step: helping the transition, getting more new tech in the hands of customers, covering costs, positive feedback, anticipation of what's to come…The MP is a 'niche offering' but it's also a halo product, and one that can now feed more technology to lower end models without Intel's highly segmented approach (eg the 24 & 28 core Xeons being the only ones with 2TB support, ECC only on Xeon...). Pretty sure Threadripper and i9 Extreme Editions (etc) are niche offerings as well…Also, reasonably confident Apple does not intend to end up having to develop its products on any one else's hardware. 'Most demanding pro customers' includes its own engineers. Apple could just use a massively overclocked laptop chip…but it won't, just as it did with the Intel transition. The M1 is the Core Duo equivalent, not the Woodcrest Xeon….

 

[fuchsdh]

The real problem with Apples entire "most people do things on their iMac" premise, is that it carries an implicit suggestion that something about the iMac makes people want to use an AIO it for those tasks, rather than it simply being the only option for a desktop more powerful than a mini, and less expensive than a Mac Pro.

I don't know if Apple really is so high on their own supply they believe their sales numbers show a popular love of their product choices (vs a love of macOS), It might explain why they held on to butterfly keyboards for so long, or that might just be personal hubris and arse-covering by the people who OKed them in the first place.

There's definitely a place for a machine between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro, without a built in display, and with user-upgradability, but it would probably eat into iMac sales, and therefore display component volumes/prices. Hopefully Apple can make an AS machine without the Xeon tax, but honestly I think they'll build up to the market price they've already set.

Offerings inform consumption of course, but enthusiasts have always been a small share of the market. Some people who buy an iMac because it's the best option available to them, but I feel pretty confident there's not some groundswell of people who really really want to upgrade their processors and keep their machines for 20 years via a Ship of Theseus transmogrification. It's a question of whether Apple wants to pay attention to the fringes of the market more than they have recently.

I'm not sure 'this will eat into iMac sales' really exists as a concern for Apple. It certainly isn't in their DNA, as they're well-known for killing their own darlings to play to the next thing, from iPods to laptops. And laptops are what has eaten into iMac sales—even in the COVID computing boom, desktop PC sales were down. If Apple thinks there's money to be made turning modularity and upgradability into pro features, they'll do it. But there's got to be a reason other than "it'll hurt the iMac" they've resisted making an xMac for all these years.

Please note disclaimer at the end of my post

Getting the M1 out in so many products is a logical step: helping the transition, getting more new tech in the hands of customers, covering costs, positive feedback, anticipation of what's to come…The MP is a 'niche offering' but it's also a halo product, and one that can now feed more technology to lower end models without Intel's highly segmented approach (eg the 24 & 28 core Xeons being the only ones with 2TB support, ECC only on Xeon...). Pretty sure Threadripper and i9 Extreme Editions (etc) are niche offerings as well…Also, reasonably confident Apple does not intend to end up having to develop its products on any one else's hardware. 'Most demanding pro customers' includes its own engineers. Apple could just use a massively overclocked laptop chip…but it won't, just as it did with the Intel transition. The M1 is the Core Duo equivalent, not the Woodcrest Xeon….

Ouch, the M1 has feelings, don't lump it in with the Duos! They only looked good because what they replaced was so poor.

 

[th0masp]

Also, reasonably confident Apple does not intend to end up having to develop its products on any one else's hardware. 'Most demanding pro customers' includes its own engineers. Apple could just use a massively overclocked laptop chip…but it won't, just as it did with the Intel transition. The M1 is the Core Duo equivalent, not the Woodcrest Xeon….

Wouldn't be so sure about that - designing this stuff is very likely for the biggest part about very specific (industry-standard) software that all the experts are trained on. I bet these apps run mainly on Windows, perhaps Linux or for some things on some big iron running a Unix-OS variant - if those are still relevant. MacOS and engineering? Probably just as terminals.

 

[mattspace]

I'm not sure 'this will eat into iMac sales' really exists as a concern for Apple.

It's not so much the eating of sales, as the making parts more expensive for a product they want to continue selling. Every Mac that fails to sell an iMac's display, makes every iMac more expensive to make, than if the iMac were the only choice.

But there's got to be a reason other than "it'll hurt the iMac" they've resisted making an xMac for all these years.

Mac Pros that are 11 years old, still in use, frankenstein-upgraded to all getout and seemingly more stable than their latest models?

 

[goMac]

The MP is a 'niche offering' but it's also a halo product, and one that can now feed more technology to lower end models without Intel's highly segmented approach (eg the 24 & 28 core Xeons being the only ones with 2TB support, ECC only on Xeon...).

That's not really how the Xeon works. The reason why the Xeon is so segmented is because high end chips have to be segmented. Stuff like the Xeon comes with way more PCIe lanes or memory channels than a laptop would ever need. And most consumer computers would never need ECC RAM. Apple's going to run into the same thing. Workstation chips are segmented because of the unique requirements. If Apple isn't willing to build a chip that meets those requirements, then there's a problem.

And that might be what the Mac Pro Mini is about. Because that sounds like the sort of computer Apple would build if they didn't want to invest in a special chip with a ton of PCIe lanes.

 

[StuAff]

That's not really how the Xeon works. The reason why the Xeon is so segmented is because high end chips have to be segmented. Stuff like the Xeon comes with way more PCIe lanes or memory channels than a laptop would ever need. And most consumer computers would never need ECC RAM. Apple's going to run into the same thing. Workstation chips are segmented because of the unique requirements. If Apple isn't willing to build a chip that meets those requirements, then there's a problem.

And that might be what the Mac Pro Mini is about. Because that sounds like the sort of computer Apple would build if they didn't want to invest in a special chip with a ton of PCIe lanes.

True. And like I said in #205, we'll only know when we know. Gurman doesn't know any more than we do…

 

[fuchsdh]

It's not so much the eating of sales, as the making parts more expensive for a product they want to continue selling. Every Mac that fails to sell an iMac's display, makes every iMac more expensive to make, than if the iMac were the only choice.



Mac Pros that are 11 years old, still in use, frankenstein-upgraded to all getout and seemingly more stable than their latest models?

You and I have different ideas of "more stable" judging by this forum

 

[mattspace]

You and I have different ideas of "more stable" judging by this forum

Hey, my machine hasn't kernel panicked in... 7 years?

The number of folks here seeming to have 7,1s hard crashing on sleep / wake etc just baffles me.

 

[randy85]

Just want to say that my 7.1 hasn't crashed in months & wakes up from sleep totally fine. I don't even play it safe with updating software like Resolve or Adobe CC. I always just go for it and it's fine.

 

[rondocap]

I don't think there really is a big rush in replacing the 2019 Mac Pro, I think it's a great performer for years to come still.

CPU choices, while not perfect, are still fairly powerful up to 28 cores. Ram is great too, so is the SSD speeds.

The biggest thing is GPU power - and luckily the 7.1 is built to be easily upgradable. I have a 6900 XT running perfectly fine on one right now, and when the MPX modules come out, will be a tremendous dosage of power with perhaps 2 of them.

The M1 Macs are great, but they are also chasing different objectives like efficiency, battery life, etc. There is still room for a brute force Mac Pro configuration, because some workflows require it and are not yet fulfilled by the silicon Apple Macs. I am sure they eventually will be, but still a few years away I'd gather.

Plus, look how long each Mac Pro generally lasted for - I doubt Apple would stop this design so soon, which is arguably their best design yet. Most likely run it alongside a M2 Mac Pro or something if they ever overlap.

 

[fuchsdh]

Just want to say that my 7.1 hasn't crashed in months & wakes up from sleep totally fine. I don't even play it safe with updating software like Resolve or Adobe CC. I always just go for it and it's fine.

You are one brave dude

 

[deconstruct60]

and one that can now feed more technology to lower end models without Intel's highly segmented approach (eg the 24 & 28 core Xeons being the only ones with 2TB support, ECC only on Xeon...). Pretty sure Threadripper and i9 Extreme Editions (etc) are niche offerings as well

For the more part, the i9 extreme editions and Xeon W ( E5 and SP ) have largely overlapped with the same dies.

EPYC and Threadripper are different binnings of the same die building blocks too.

But the primary reason why the segmenting works is there are are at least an order of magnitude ( if not two orders) more customers. Apple has something in ballpark of 5% of higher end workstation market (generously likely smaller than that ). That largely leaves 95% for the x86_64 to split up ( and if more players pop up it is still 95% that isn't Apple).

Can chop the 95% up into nine 10.5% segments have all of them larger than Apple's 5%. Chop Apple's 5% up into nine segments and have segments of 0.56%

( never mind the reuse overlap that weaves in when toss in the servers. Servers + Workstaiton CPUs sold per year only shrinks share of total market even smaller. )

…Also, reasonably confident Apple does not intend to end up having to develop its products on any one else's hardware. 'Most demanding pro customers' includes its own engineers. '

The Industrial design or engineering side? When get to bleeding edge chip design..... macOS isn't a super dominate player. High end RF/analog design is a similar boat.


The large web services platform they run isn't macOS either. That is over 10% of the overall business now. It is bigger than Macs hardware.

Apple could just use a massively overclocked laptop chip…but it won't, just as it did with the Intel transition. The M1 is the Core Duo equivalent, not the Woodcrest Xeon….

Woodcrest isn't all that big of a die.

"... Processing Die Size143 mm2 ..."

Intel® Xeon® Processor 5150 (4M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB) - Product Specifications | Intel

Intel® Xeon® Processor 5150 (4M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.

ark.intel.com

The M1 is 120mm2. a 20mm gaps isn't that large. ( ~17% ). There is lots more functionality in the M1 ( Woodcrest has no memory controller , No PCI-e , no ""North" or "South" bridge. etc...) but the dies themselves are in the similar ballpark. But that 17% gap is smaller than the gap between A14 and M1 ( about 40%).

It is more than likely that the 10-core-16GPU die of the MacBook Pro large screen leaked is sustantively larger than the Xeon Woodcrest die.


Xeon SP ( where the Xeon W share dies with) are larger.

" LCC3x4 (10-core) 14.3 x 22.4 322 mm2
HCC4x5 (18-core) 21.6 x 22.4 484 mm2
XCC5x6 (28-core) 21.6 x 32.3 698 mm2 "

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1155...-core-i9-7900x-i7-7820x-and-i7-7800x-tested/6


"..

Core i7-8700K	Coffee Lake	6 C	9.2 x 16.7 mm	153.6 mm2
Core i9-9900K	CFL Refresh	8 C	9.2 x 19.6 mm	180.3 mm2
Core i9-10900K	Comet Lake	10 C	9.2 x 22.4 mm	206.1 mm2
Core i9-11900K	Rocket Lake	8 C	11.5 x 24.0 mm	276.0 mm2
HEDT for Comparison
Core i9-7900X	Skylake-X	10 C	14.6 x 22.3 mm	325.4 mm2
Core i7-6950X	Broadwell-E	10 C		246.3 mm2 "

Intel Rocket Lake (14nm) Review: Core i9-11900K, Core i7-11700K, and Core i5-11600K

www.anandtech.com

If Apple does 10-core-32-GPU on a single die it is probably creeping up in the 300mm2 range also.
So that Coffee Lake 6 core die is likely smaller.

Apple has "big-ish" dies in relatively smaller packages than Intel (and AMD), but they also don't have the I/O bandwidth either.

 

[deconstruct60]

My guess is that the Apple Silicon Mac Pro (at least any half sized one) won't have any graphics upgrade capability. That's why Gurman has also said there will be likely an 8,1 Intel Mac Pro as well. That'll be the differentiator, if you want GPU upgrades or multiple GPUs you buy the Intel one. Otherwise you buy the Apple Silicon one. Basically I think the Apple Silicon Mac Pro will likely be the new trash can.

The Apple shouldn't release a new "Mac Pro". It could be a Mac DM or Mac MD ( M-series Desktop or vice vera). OR even Mac Pro M . ( which could be read as Mini or M-series. ) The last would be used to claim complete transition when still had a hold out.

But half sized leaves a huge amount of volume to fill with what? I slice in half on one dimension then that is "half". if slice on two dimensions really getting something more akin to a 1/4 sized system; not half.

If the Apple Silicon Mac Pro could take GPU upgrades, they'd likely bring MPX to Apple Silicon. No way a half sized Mac Pro could fit an MPX module, especially if there is any reduction in the depth of the case.

The major problem with doing just one MPX bay would more so constraints Apple imposed on itself. It is just a matter of effectively using the volume space.

The Mac Pro 20.8 inches high (~60cm) . half of that is 10.4 inches ( 30cm ) . Two 140mm stack up to 28cm So a two high fan stack is under the 10.4 inches.

If just "chop off" the middle fan in the current Mac pro (and associated MPX ) bay , you then end up with a CPU zone and a MPX (+ power supply ) all inside of 10.4 inches. If it is going to be a desktop targeted machine then don't need the one (or so) inch feet risers. [ Apple could keep the bottom plate above and attach some thin "non skid" feet to the bottom so doesn't scratch desktops. And still be able to upsell from multiple hundred wheels for those who wanted to upgrade. And couple hundred feet to put it on the floor ]

If then gave up on the space frame's upper handles then even easier to hit the 10" mark. Keep the dual sided board but only really need to move the NAND daughter cards up into the CPU zone ( if soldering the RAM onto the SOC that is flipping to the front. ). The box would probably be heavy enough that some handles would be very helpful.

Provision 4 TB sockets with the onboard iGPU display/TB output and just have a simple A/B Display port switch for an dual I/O card TB ports ( either iGPU or MPX module). That would simplify the backside board complexity.


Dropping the height to 10.2 inches means the height to width percentage would be 1.18. The Mac Cube actually was not an actual cube. Its height to width ration was 1.27 ( 9.8 x 7.7 x 7.7 ) That "half" Mac Pro frontal profile would be more square than the cube was. If sitting at the desk and looking at just the front of the system it would be a "like a cube".

The Mini has drifted between 6.5 inche to 7.7 inch desktop footprint. The Mac Pro 2013 was 6.6 X 6.6 footprint ( circular but inside that square). That's where the real problem kicks in. If there is some OCD Apple rule that states no desktop Mac can be have bugger than a 8 x 8 inch footprint on the desktop. That is what would "kill" the MPX slot.

Similarly if the primary concern is what the sideways profile of the system is then it would not be "cube like".


However, Physically it can be done. The more likely root cause issue is that the Apple's bigger M-series doesn't have the PCI-e I/O to provision a MPX bay and decent dual 10GbE ports and a some enhanced I/O. That would be a bigger driver to shift to a 1/4 - 1/6 sized enclosure that squeeze out the slots as a 'fig leaf' to cover up that shortcoming.

Beyond issues like the number of PCIe lanes, there is also a pretty clear reason why Apple is stalling on doing a Mac Pro tower in Apple Silicon: It would be the only Apple Silicon Mac with discrete graphics. Apple may not want to bring upgradable graphics to Apple Silicon because it would create a weird configuration that doesn't match the rest of the lineup.

it isn't a "weird configuration". It is just doing the work that desktop Operating System providers are suppose to do. As long as there is always a baseline Apple iGPU then they can just run iPhone apps on that. If the display output is on a non Apple GPU then just copy that frame buffer subset over to the other GPU. [ or just don't run iPhone apps on non Apple GPU driven displays. ]

This is more so Apple being anticompetitive .... which the longer they drag their feet the more likely they will have to sit through even more unpleasant regulatory hearings ( and possible fines ).

Nvidia being a bad partner and stop signing their drivers is one thing. But to throw Intel and AMD out under the bus also so that there is no other option ... that isn't technical difficulty... that is a business ( Scrooge Mc Duck money pit filling) plan.

There are lots of details to get right. So I understand it wasn't there in year 1. They also want developers to throughly optimize for Apple GPU specifics ( unless fully leverage all the features gets harder to complete with the upper half of the discrete market ) .... But by year 2 ...

But for Mac Apps that have been dealing with Intel/AMD/etc GPUs all along.... what is the major app hurdle here. There really should be one.

I hope Apple changes their mind on eGPUs, but it seems like there is a similar thing happening with eGPUs. Apple doesn't want to fragment graphics on Apple Silicon by having discrete GPUs be possible.

Again... besides running native iPhone apps ... this shouldn't be super hard because it already happens on the Intel side. Squeezing frame buffers over TB would be much more problematical.


That rigid homogeneity would be cutting off their MBA and MBP from heavy duty computational horsepower. dock laptop at desk and get horsepower and take more mobile system on the road.

And as long as Apple was screwing over Thunderbolt uniformity and Intel's business... I don't see see them getting a Thunderbolt label much in the long term future if stay on that path (which also coupled to not letting another other OS natively boot and run either. )

If Apple brings back eGPUs on Apple Silicon in macOS 12, that might be a sign that things are changing. But at this point I really doubt we'll ever see support for anything but integrated GPUs on Apple Silicon, software or hardware.

Apple will probably do a few more revisions to the Intel tower, like Gurman has indicated, and hope the tower users all just go away. Kind of like they hoped with the 2013.

This is the part that doesn't mean rational sense. If Apple stumbled and fell on their face with a sizable segment of the Mac Pro market with the ill-motivated hope in 2013 .... why would it work better now with that specific group?

And if going to iterate more than once on Intel ... that will run into conflict with the cost saving mode of putting macOS x86_64 into "background mode" build status.

More likely is zero iterations on the core system and perhaps tweaking the GPU support over time to keep folks who are buying the increasingly stale system happy over an extended period of time. Mac Pro will get cheaper for Apple to sell because it will get into "paid for" status and the margins will grow. ( Apple sold the MP 2013 right up till they shipped the MP 2019 models. ). Just would be a big cash cow.

 

[Kung gu]

Apple will still sell the intel Mac Pro, along side that there will be a Apple Sillicon G4 cube like Mac Pro.

For people who want upgradeability the intel Mac Pro will do that. Apple also in 11.4 updated driver support for big navi cards.

The Apple Silicon Mac Pro will have 20 cpu cores(16+4)/64 gpu cores or 40 cpu cores(32+8)/128 gpu cores.

Buts lets be real the AS Mac Pro will be more powerful than the intel Mac Pro. The latter more upgradeable.

I guess we will see this next year in 2022 but for now my eyes are on the 16" AS MBP.

 

[deconstruct60]

But I also don't think that the M1 was an "accident". Apple didn't just change chips after throwing a dart on the board. They had this stuff in the pipeline. Compared to the apology 7,1 Mac Pro their plans were undoubtably more firm than mid 2017 "guess we need to make a new machine"-type stuff.

The question I guess is how siloed the Mac Pro team was compared to the ARM stuff. It seems weird to me to pour all that time and sweat into a platform that would be irrelevant when your ARM machines come out, but stranger stuff has happened, and certainly right now the situation with non-Apple GPUs seems dire. We will see.

Even if the M-series SoC is greatly increased in size Apple is still going to fit under the TDP limited of the Intel CPU. So there isn't a big problem in reusing the case. Apple easily reused the Mac Mini and MBA case for a M1 with a lower TDP profile.

The Mac Pro 2019 design is mainly so don't have to care so much about component space , power , and volume requirements going in. There really isn't a disconnect with there M-series basic trendline to lower power consumption. It would just be a bigger box with lower power consumption.

"ARM stuff" isn't the larger disconnect with long term plans. That is more on the software side. First, is Apple's push to kick everyone who isn't Apple out of direct, unfettered access to the kernel. That is disrupting the driver implementations. And for macOS on M-series blown the GPU drivers out of the water.

The second just how "hardcore" Apple wants to go with native iPhone apps. Somewhat related just how unidimensional the Metal stack goes on the new system ( integrated , uniform memory only; iGPU).

Hardware wise there isn't much about the MP 2019 design that couldn't be adapted. The whole DisplayPort/Thunderbolt distribution network gets much simpler if coupled the SoC's GPU+thunderbolt to the four sockets. If decouple the two TB ports on the add-in I/O card then weaving in one or two MPX DisplayPort feed to just drive two sockets actually gets substantively easier.


Apple could drop one of the MPX bays ( just "regular" double wide slots) in the longer term. If have a future M-series with just one x16 PCI-e v4 (or 5) slot could just feed that to PLX switch to the same fan-out they do now at PCI-e v3 speeds. [ wouldn't be bleeding edge slot but would be what they have now. Which is fine if primarily just want to be a container for current level cards. ProTools HDX cards , Video capture cards , Frozen in time Afterburner , M.2 SSD carrier cards , etc. ]


If Apple applies "maximal" thinness to the Mini, smaller screen iMac , and large screen iMac that could pose a bigger disconnect. If even the larger screen iMac is primarily being feed a SoC mainly targeted at the MBP 16" then that would be problematical.

The MP 2019 would probably make for a better "Rip van Winkle" product to sit and squat on for 6 years than the MP 2013 was. It isn't a "ton of effort" if going to coast for 4-5 years once amortize the workload out over that full span. (did something for 2 years for don't have to for 2-3 years. )

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Sounds like it’s just me, but I’ve always believed that this alleged ‘cube-inspired’ Mac Pro was simply a beefed up Mac mini.

And for the 7,1 Mac Pro, they could upgrade it to Apple Silicon and keep it around for those that actually want complete upgradability. Sales in the long-term may dictate that customers actually go for the ‘cube’.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple also in 11.4 updated driver support for big navi cards.

The Apple Silicon Mac Pro will have 20 cpu cores(16+4)/64 gpu cores or 40 cpu cores(32+8)/128 gpu cores.

Apple's 64 and 128 GPU cores aren't going to put them in the same class at the 6900XT computational wise.
[ Maybe some Metal optimized corner cases , but generally not. ]

Buts lets be real the AS Mac Pro will be more powerful than the intel Mac Pro. The latter more upgradeable.

perhaps more powerful on main CPU computations and on fixed function 4:2:2 decode , but GPU computation wise ? No.

Better Final Cut Pro and/or Logic X machine with zero in-system media capture ? Yes 1-2 Camera streams with 4-6K 4:2:2 de/encode editing? Yes

Large bulk data I/O streams to move around? That's a question mark. [ Apple may have thrown all the SoC edge I/O placements at the memory I/O (trying to keep the 128 GPU fed with data ) and left relatively little for more general I/O. ]

 

[deconstruct60]

Sounds like it’s just me, but I’ve always believed that this alleged ‘cube-inspired’ Mac Pro was simply a beefed up Mac mini.

Indicators trending to Apple putting the "beefed up Mini" on a thinness diet.

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/25/high-end-mac-mini-renders/


Unless using slots ( CD slot , card slot(s) ), a cube just too much volume. Not really using the bulked up internal volume being made available.

Tne NeXT Cube ( somewhat precusor to G4 Cube) had slots. ( So did Cube is look at the CD slot. )


Even if Apple did a 8x8x8 inch cube probably would get something like the MP 2019 I/O cord which allowed the bigger volume to increase number of ports (and/or optionally do something else with a small add-in card. ).

And for the 7,1 Mac Pro, they could upgrade it to Apple Silicon and keep it around for those that actually want complete upgradability. Sales in the long-term may dictate that customers actually go for the ‘cube’.

As long as laser focused on maximum iGPU performance , we are probably not going to get complete upgradability. ( much more likely the RAM will get soldered down and made uniform. )