Why do you think it will be called the Mac Studio Pro and then there will the Mac Studio Pro+ but that is black project level ABTS at the moment 😉
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 Reportedly on 'Back Burner' and 'Largely Written Off' at Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why do you think it will be called the Mac Studio Pro and then there will the Mac Studio Pro+ but that is black project level ABTS at the moment 😉
You can’t have it both ways. Either make a proper desktop or don’t. Instead Apple neutered it and act like surprise pikachu when it doesn’t sell well?
Again Apple doesn’t need to severely over-engineer a flipping desktop. A simple Box like Dell provides is better than over engineering then killing it because it takes too much time to design.
Exactly. If the desktop is dead why do we have so many desktop GPUs getting released by NVIDIA and AMD? Shouldn’t we just have one or two versions?
I dont think they’re acting as a surprised pikachu, they’re deliberately backburnering it. They’re clearly only making the mac pro at all because of an important but very niche market, they are definitely not expecting it to be a massive seller
Fun fact: the memory shortage means that we are, in fact, going to be getting very few versions for at least a while
AMD & NVIDIA Might Kill Off Budget GPUs Soon, And Gamers Won’t Like the Reason
This isn't good news for PC gamers at all, as a new report suggests that GPU manufacturers may halt production of budget GPUs.
1. The Mac Pro is not literally design for a desktop. Deskside maybe, but the rack unit that also came along was a major focus. Rack configurations are not 'desktops'. The Mac Pro 2019 is about as tall as a standard rack is wide; that isn't an accident at all.
2. Apple increased the MP 2019's entry price 100% (from 2012-2013 ) levels. You think they expected them to sell in the exact same numbers? Probably not. The Mac Pro 2019 came with a 'low volume' tax already applied to it. They knew it was going to be lower volume. [ e.g, when selecting 24 and 28 core Xeon processors Apple opted only for the 'M' version that allowed for max RAM but also had an Intel '>1TB' tax on them. Apple just threw their tax on top of that one. It was a higher margin play, not a higher unit volume one. Apple was all too willing to follow Intel into the sky-high Xeon W pricing zone because likely knew they were going to 'exit' x86-64 before that strategy went off the cliff (and AMD undercut and beat them). ]
Very similar issue this time. When Apple introduced the Mac Studio there was a line from MP 2013 --> iMac Pro --> Mac Studio. Studio replaced both the large screen iMac ( pro or not) and also the '$3-5K Mac Pro' used to offer before attaching a screen to it. The relatively higher volume model between the two is the Studio. The Mac Pro 2023 was mainly to catch a smaller set of users at higher margins. ( again the base price crept up. Apple tried to anchor that on the highest MP 2019 configuration sold being 16 core and W5700 ... which was a higher than entry price.
If look at even today's Studio Ultra marketing page the baseline in the performance compare is that highest selling configuration.
"...
Faster render performance in Redshift5
Mac Studio with M3 Ultra _____ 6.4x
Mac Studio with M2 Ultra _____ 3.2x
Mac Studio with M1 Ultra _____ 2.4x
Mac Pro with 16-core Intel Xeon W and Radeon Pro W5700X (baseline)
..."
Mac Studio
The ultimate pro desktop. Powered by M4 Max and M3 Ultra for all-out performance and extensive connectivity. Built for Apple Intelligence.
www.apple.com
The M1 Ultra isn't "clobbering" the 24-core Intel Xeon W with dual W6800 which sold in much smaller numbers; its 'target' is the highest selling configuration. That is extremely likely not an accident; that was likely long term planned while work on the initial Ultra progressed. Some large screen iMac fans took that as the Studio was not a replacement for the iMac. If just switch to the Studio Max benchmarks then can see that is just extremely deep denial. That baseline is an very common iMac 27" model. The Mini Pro and Mac Studio was likely always intended to take out the bulk of the iMac 27" and lower 'half' of the Mac Pro sales. That is Apple intent, not surprise.
Apple was measuring the MP 2019 so several years before the Mac Studio appeared. They probably were extremely likely also measure how many folks bought the Pro VEGA II / W6800 / W6800 Duo / W6900 MPX modules also. ( and how many were buy leveraging the 'free ride' to buy off the shelf 5700 , 6800 , 6900 also). [ Decent chance they knew by 2021 that a very expensive 'Extreme' wouldn't work on projected user base. ]
3. In the 2017 meeting about what didn't work (at the time) for the MP 2013 was issues around
i. one and only one internal drive. I think in part the MP 2023 is around because there was enough doubt they couldn't do a 180 on that one ( in 2019-2020 that was still ringing true and they were selling 'enough' MP 2019 models).
ii. they had leaned on Thunderbolt too much. Likewise in 2019-2021 that was still ringing very true inside Apple.
That 2017 IMac Pro still had all those same constraints when it appeared months later.
A Mini/Studio stack enclosure with TBv5 doesn't increase footprint much and is fast enough for most folks. So Apple could be sliding. backwards on that. Most of "Thunderbolt" has been merged into USB-IF standards process. The "Thunderbolt" branding is Intel based ( who is more then eye-ball deep in trouble. So probably little movement there coming any time soon. )
As long as the MP 2023 is holding a target block of folks on the Mac ecosytem that is probably sufficient for Apple for now.
The gap that Apple spent between 2013 and 2019 Mac Pro probably was not a constant effort for 6 years. Much of that time they likely just stopped and worked on other stuff (deemed higher priority). It isn't 'too much time" is it not allocating time. Same with gap between 2019 and 2023. The case , power supply, much of infrastructure was largely done. That wasn't a large 'time sink'.
The Mac Pro 2006-2013 line up used off-the-shelf Intel server processors ( tagged as "Xeon Workstation" models in some generation but primarily paid-for, design, built for servers. ). "Takes too much time to design". The Ultra series to date has been two Max'es 'lglued' together. That is exactly less time to design; not "too much".
Apple killing off Intel CPU and Intel GPU/AMD/Nvidia GPU in the laptop line up completely had extremely real consequences for the Mac ecosystem. There is not 'fall of the back of the truck' server processor for macOS to pick up here so doing a huge left turn to create on that had complelte different memory controller and latenicies , 180 degrees chance in direction on integration, etc, etc. would take lots more time and way more money.
"But Apple could just slap together another x86-64 Mac Pro with commodity parts ... like Dell". That isn't particularly viable when 60-80M other Mac users are exiting for macOS on M-series. Keeping macOS on x86-64 is the 'extra time sink' at that point.
Apple is doing their own customer Private Cloud compute nodes.
Apple begins shipping AI servers from Houston factory
Apple has started shipping artificial intelligence servers built in a factory in Houston, it said on Thursday, part of the company's plans to invest $600 billion in the U.S. in the next few years.
It is attention , not time that is likely the issue. Pretty good chance Apple is going to build as many PCC pod nodes as they sold MP 2019 in its first year (or so). Apple has 'bigger fish to fry'.
Fun fact: the memory shortage means that we are, in fact, going to be getting very few versions for at least a while
AMD & NVIDIA Might Kill Off Budget GPUs Soon, And Gamers Won’t Like the Reason
This isn't good news for PC gamers at all, as a new report suggests that GPU manufacturers may halt production of budget GPUs.wccftech.com
Larger AMD and Intel APU have been a looming threat to the lowest end dGPUs for a while before this memory surge. Surge in LPDDR likely makes baseline laptop prices higher which just weakens the case for lower end GPUs in laptops even more. (i.e., reduce some of the 'redundant' RAM , discrete VRAM from which data is copied into from the main RAM. ). That is more "don't want the GPU chip anyway and higher VRAM just makes it worse" zone.
One thing I just noticed after looking at the store is that the Mac Pro has slipped to 1-2 week delivery.
interesting. by "slipped" do you mean the previous delivery time was shorter or longer than 1-2 weeks?
The real problem is the people that need the bandwidth know that the Mac Pro PCIe is a lie. The processor has 24 lanes, 8 of which are internal to the chip. That leaves 16 lanes shared between Thunderbolt and 7 PCIe slots. If you were to put a single x16 card in it could use all of the bandwidth available on the processor, so no, the PCIe isn‘t actually better than Thunderbolt it just looks like it could be.
The Xeon can run all those slots at full chat natively, having over 100 lanes.
I don't understand why Apple won't maintain annual CPU updates for the Mac Pro. They've already done the heavy lifting with the Apple Silicon transition. How much effort does it really take to drop in a new chip each year? If it's genuinely an issue, why not align the platform more closely with the Mac Studio—essentially making it a Mac Studio with expanded onboard expansion?
They keep falling into the same trap with the Mac Pro—letting missed annual refreshes fester into uncertainty about the product's future.
They keep falling into the same trap with the Mac Pro—letting missed annual refreshes fester into uncertainty about the product's future.
Because the Mac line up has been a mess for quite a few years now and the MacPro is WAY over priced for what it is. No one buys it so they don't update it.
The Studio cannibalised the Pro. Then they got rid of the top end iMacs so there is now a gap here that needs to be filled for graphic professionals that don't need Studio level grunt (and exorbitant cost) but need something more powerful (pro chip and larger screen) than the current iMac. Then all the laptops overlap and the minis with the iMac. It's a mess.
It’s called a Windows PC. If you can handle Linux, you have the expertise to set up a local account and disable telemetry (one click with O&O Shutup), or whatever other reason makes Windows ‘impossible’ to use.
People appreciate it. They just don't think it's an important enough scenario any more.
Yeah, with a tower, you can expand RAM and storage. But you usually do that a few years in. Then you get to, hm, is the RAM really the bottleneck, or do I also need higher IPC? Then you're at a new CPU (which Apple hasn't let you swap in decades anyway). Then you're usually at a new motherboard because the new CPU uses a different socket. At that point, the question becomes: what are we doing all this for? Why not just get a new machine with better I/O — Thunderbolt, Wi-Fi, whathaveyou — and better almost everything? Add to that the labor required, and the risk that something goes wrong. We just don't live in a world any more where most businesses want that hassle.
For a while, I'd upgrade my RAM on my MacBooks halfway in. Buy a MacBook, configure it with a decent amount of RAM, then two years later, double the RAM, then another two years later, get a new MacBook. All else being the same, would I still do that? Yeah, I suppose. But all else isn't the same. For that to still be a thing, the RAM would have to have higher latency, the device would have to be bulkier, and I'd still only get the RAM at whatever standard was current when the original device debuted.
Wha? The current Mac line-up is better than it has been in a long time. The MacBook Air, Pro, Mac mini, and Studio are all great options; easy to recommend.
The iMac is niche, and the Mac Pro even more so. So what.
But they don't. That's just not a thing. Most will get a laptop anyway because it's 2025, and those who want a desktop can get the mini or Studio. The Studio is just a higher-end mini. You want the M4? mini. M4 Pro? mini. M4 Max? Studio. Simple as that.
They really don't?
Because NVIDIA and AMD only play a role in desktop and server (and console). They're only interesting for high-end low-efficiency scenarios. So that's where they still make their money.
(And these days, most of it isn't in desktops so much as it is in data centers.)
Yup.
I'm guessing they'd mostly abandoned the idea by around 2014, due to low sales of the 2013 model.
Then by 2016, a manager convinced Ternus to start a new Mac Pro, and out came the 2019, with Afterburner, MPX and all. But meanwhile, a different team was already working on the M1, making much of that work moot.
Because are sales are so low that it isn't worth it.
The need for a high-end NVidia GPU is debateable, you can look at the size of the market and decide whether you want to get involved or not. There has been an explosion of interest in AI accelerators, and that is where NVidia now makes 90% of its revenue. Consumer GPUs are a relatively minor market for them.
So perhaps Apple decides they want to make a low-wattage, high performance solution for the AI accelerator market. That might boost the company’s share price, and also provide technology that will trickle down to the iPhone and the Mac in the form of better GPUs.
Mac gaming is kind of an afterthought. Apple Silicon has an advantage in that it is a large pool of more or less homogenous hardware, which makes it easier to develop for, but it isn’t a market where the hardcore audience lives. They’ve long since moved on to Steam Decks and the like.
That seems to me a better way of looking at Apple’s priorities.
So perhaps Apple decides they want to make a low-wattage, high performance solution for the AI accelerator market. That might boost the company’s share price, and also provide technology that will trickle down to the iPhone and the Mac in the form of better GPUs.
Mac gaming is kind of an afterthought. Apple Silicon has an advantage in that it is a large pool of more or less homogenous hardware, which makes it easier to develop for, but it isn’t a market where the hardcore audience lives. They’ve long since moved on to Steam Decks and the like.
That seems to me a better way of looking at Apple’s priorities.
Perhaps you've missed the numerous "How much RAM should I get?" discussions that have been going on here since Apple removed the ability to upgrade RAM?
I disagree, a lot of people have them...my brother included. He needs to replace his (2014 model) but the existing offering is a step down (24", 4K screen). Why doesn't Apple offer an AS 27" version???
Just more peanuts from the gallery - my idea of what the MP should be is about adding some modularity that can take advantage of the architecture or improve upon it. This would be of two paths - some specialized "plug in" hardware such as audio and video that are dedicated processes that are meant to improve speed and handle large files. Perhaps bays for NVME with best practice heat synchs to replace the typical drives in sleds. The entire size of the unit might have the same footprint as the Studio but be about 4x in height. Those plug in hardware items might be optimized for certain applications such as Logic Pro or Final Cut or maybe add value on group rendering etc. It would be strictly a real pro machine. As for me, overall I love the Studio Max. It is an amazing computer for its size.
Because they have now split the iMac into Mac Mini / Studio + Studio Display or Pro Display.
You build your own desired combination of Computer + Monitor.
Are you saying someone who needs a Mac Pro is going to ask around, "well, gee, I don't really know what RAM is; how much do I need?"
If they don't know, they definitely don't need a Mac Pro.
Why can't your brother get a Mac mini and any ol' display?