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.
Mac Pro Now Starts With 512GB of Storage and Radeon Pro W5500X Graphics
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hector Martin has already confirmed that the M1 Max does not physically have the required hardware to wire up more than 2 dies. If there is a configuration with 4 dies it's basically a multi-socket system, including all the caveats this comes with. Not sure macOS is even NUMA aware - it certainly wasn't back when you could actually buy multi-CPU macs.
My bet is that they shelved the 4-Die option until the next iteration, which would most likely be A16/M2 based.
What I could imagine - if I really try - is, however, building a Mac Pro with multiple M1 Ultras, and use the SoCs beyond the first like a traditional GPU, with their own memory pool, connected over some kind of interconnect, possibly even PCIe. In fact: it's not totally unfeasible to offer M1 Ultra add-in cards for the current MacPro, basically as GPU / Accelerator cards, maybe even using the CPU portion for distributed computing. Metal is smart enough to spread work for both the GPU and the NPU across several physical nodes. It's a long shot, but it at least sounds interesting.
Heck, technically Apple could probably use one Mac Studio as an external GPU for another if they actually wanted to.
Granted, from what I remember, multi-CPU Macs were mostly a late Mac OS Classic (or early PPC, if you want to look at it from that perspective) thing. I certainly wouldn’t expect Mac OS Classic to be good at multi-CPU support, after all.
Dual CPU/Dual Socket pro Macs were a consistent thing from the PowerMac G4 and all the way through the MacPro 5,1. No option for a 2nd CPU is a recent trend.
There's no reason it can't have PCIe slots, upgrade-able RAM, SSD, etc. Hell, it can have swappable CPUs, though you'd be limited to Apple's CPU offerings. Those things aren't unique to x86....
How much upgradeability they'll give us... who knows. If they do I bet a lot of it will be Apple proprietary, like if there's a discrete GPU I suspect it'll be limited to some new AS GPU Apple comes out with - unless they're working with AMD for future GPU support there, which doesnt seem to be their style lately.
Exactly this. People who only use computers for games or "enough Premiere to edit their 10min. 1 second YouTube videos" just don't understand.
I like my Macs but after the unexpected happy surprise of the Studio, the discussion at work for 2 new machines quickly nixed it not on price but that it's not upgradable and limited to 128GB of RAM.
Likewise, just 18 months ago I wasn't involved in the editing/simulating side of the business and thought most engineers were throwing piss contests about necessary RAM to finish their projects or the fact that paying for over 512GB of RAM would pay for itself within a month. I've seen the light.
No wonder it'll be phased out this fall...
That said, I expect Apple finding some solution to bring some expansion capabilities to the mac pro, as the 2019 model's popularity was mostly based on that.
Perhaps some apple branded addons, to better integrate with the SOC.
I think the fact that the Intel-based Mac Pro continues to be released at this point in time speaks to a phenomenon: Apple still needs to provide this "great value" insurance for some users.
The root cause of all this is Windows and the associated demand for Intel-based processors. For example, resources for multimedia-related apps or plug-ins are also quite dependent on intel.
These requirements make it impossible to use M Apple computers immediately, and the risk of a full conversion is still too high. And they need macOS, efficient computing speed, and some expansion, the Mac Pro is Apple's insurance policy for that.
As for memory or PCIE expansion, these are just additional benefits. The fundamental question is - "it work"
So, at this point, the Mac Pro is in fact an insurance policy - albeit an expensive one.
The root cause of all this is Windows and the associated demand for Intel-based processors. For example, resources for multimedia-related apps or plug-ins are also quite dependent on intel.
These requirements make it impossible to use M Apple computers immediately, and the risk of a full conversion is still too high. And they need macOS, efficient computing speed, and some expansion, the Mac Pro is Apple's insurance policy for that.
As for memory or PCIE expansion, these are just additional benefits. The fundamental question is - "it work"
So, at this point, the Mac Pro is in fact an insurance policy - albeit an expensive one.
It's very telling that Apple is releasing a new desktop with an M1 Ultra option in Mac Studio that's meant to replace the 27" iMac. They don't really have to do that since the 27" iMac was never meant to be a Pro level machine like Mac Pro. Yet Mac Studio with M1 Ultra can now potentially compete with Mac Pro in the lower end of the high-end Pro market.
This means two things:
- Either Apple has much more powerful Apple Silicon chips still in the pipeline, i.e., M2, that they will put in the new Mac Pro (thus completing the transition by their self-imposed deadline in Nov 2022).
- Or they've decided to keep Intel-based Mac Pro in their line of business till 2023 as, just like you said, "an insurance policy" for certain customers.
It's probably safe to say that the gap between Intel and Apple Silicon narrows the higher end you go because power consumption becomes less of an issue. If M1 Ultra is already leaps and bounds ahead of its Intel counterpart, Mac Pro's chip has to be at least 60% faster than M1 Ultra for Apple to deem it worthwhile to introduce a new machine.
Most likely they'll keep Intel-based Mac Pro, as an option alongside an Apple Silicon Mac Pro at least, well into 2023.
They'd have to ditch LPDDR5 used in the M1 Pro/Max/Ultra for DDR5 as I don't believe you can get LPDDR5 DIMMs yet, or go with custom memory modules which would limit how cheap 3rd party upgrades could be.
I'm sure a ton of people using them in any situation with pooled/network storage.
The more I think about it, the more an Intel based MacPro with optional AS components really makes a lot of sense as a transition machine. Pick between AMD and AS-based GPUs depending on your workload. Add as many Media Engine/Afterburner and/or Neural Engine cards to suit your needs... I mean if they can get through one more generation selling you $2,000 add-on cards to get the same features you can get included on a $2,000 MacBook Pro or MacStudio, why not?
Dead Mac walking — or rolling, with the optional wheels ?.
I would definitely buy a Studio today over this, but I also don’t need expandability or Windows support — so no judgement if you opt for this.
I would definitely buy a Studio today over this, but I also don’t need expandability or Windows support — so no judgement if you opt for this.
Well since Apple is a for profit company they are in the business of making money. There are other alternatives out there.
In 2022, the price of Mac Pro at that specification is a total rip-off.
I don't care how good Apple's Mac eco system is, it's 2022 people. Instead of humiliating its customers, Apple should just discontinue the product line, then re-introduce when a new model is ready.
I don't care how good Apple's Mac eco system is, it's 2022 people. Instead of humiliating its customers, Apple should just discontinue the product line, then re-introduce when a new model is ready.
Folks that are downplaying Xeon processors, are definitely not it's target audience.
What does this dumb comment mean?
There is no other machine they sell that provides what it provides, e.g. the high end video cards, amount of ram, afterburner, PCI slots period etc.. and plenty of major apps still do not support native silicon..
So why would they not sell it?
Last edited:
512 GB? Seriously? Stating this as literally the first feature and an upgrade to boot had me momentarily impressed, because I thought it was memory, but then the word "storage" hit me.
I'll tell you in a video I posted as a response to someone asking me if I would replace my Mac Pro with this Mac Studio...which is hilarious, and the answer is a very quick and obvious NO...but I have different needs than most as I own a production company and we do a ton of VFX and 3D Animation work. Here are my thoughts in under a minute...
This part, and a lot more. People are ignoring that the 2019 Mac Pro is an absolute beast of a machine...and if we are being honest, it's about half of what a loaded Mac Pro can do. My daily driver is a 28-Core with 2 w6800x DUO's in it...those 4 GPU's are the equivalent of about 3 RTX 3090's...The Mac Studio is in competition with 1 RTX 3090. It's simply not there. Let alone the 1.5TB Ram and 128 GB VRAM. This machine was built for people like me to push it above and beyond daily with heavy 3D Animation and VFX. Mac Studio is PERFECT for a music studio, and I in fact ordered an ultra for the music studio upstairs, but it won't be replacing the Mac Pro down here in the main.
Apparently they don't allow posting videos here lol. Been on here for a decade and didn't know. My bad.
When I tell you this thing rips through animation it's just unreal. Octane X and Redshift simply chew through everything I throw at it. You would need a thread ripper with 2 RTX 3090's to almost compare and even then you'd fall short by about 35%.
This machine is a monster, equivalent to almost 3 RTX 3090's. I feel like a lot of people heard about what this thing can do, but didn't actually see one proper in action. It's enough to actually have caused me to decide to start shooting YouTube videos again in. between VFX and animation sessions, cuz people really need a solid comparison to understand how powerful this thing really is.
You could buy both the PowerMac G5 and the original MacPro with dual socketed CPUs, and both configurations resulted in a NUMA. Frankly, properly implementing NUMA support in an OS isn't a simple task, and it's also not trivial to properly support this in any single application.