Mac Pro Reportedly on 'Back Burner' and 'Largely Written Off' at Apple

[JoeG4]

I think Mac Studio should come in the old trash can chassi. It was awesome.

I have both and agree. The trashcan had character. The Mac Pro also has character and someone really went at it for that design. The Mac Studio... idk what it is, I can't put my finger on it. I'm sitting here staring at the one on my desk and trying to think of something to say, but I can't. It's not ugly or anything. It just doesn't feel special. Yeah that's what it is. I guess it's because I've seen and dealt with enough Mac minis in my life and the mac studio is basically a giant mac mini.

One thing I wouldn't be able to understand: If money is no object and you need a ton of storage, do you really want a Mac Studio and a series of external drives or an external NAS or whatever? You could have one really cool looking box or several boring/ugly boxes?

I actually WOULD buy a mac pro if they cost the same, but hey let's face it, I paid $1700 for my mac studio, brand new m4 max and all. Apple's Mac Pro case is so glitz and glam that the case alone probably costs that much.

No, seriously! The one company that managed to replicate that case charges $950 for it. I think the cheapest clone was $400-ish and ended up being vaporware lol.

It's hilarious to think about because the mac pro cases are just a matter of programming a cnc machine and having impeccable standards. The oldschool powermac g3/g4 cases were, I believe, a lot more complicated to design and manufacturer, but they somehow pulled that feat off way cheaper. GG.

 

[Liquidblue]

Thunderbolt 5 Mac Studio that people can add PCIe adaptors/enclosures is enough because most Mac power users are in content production only and humans can barely even see 4k on TVs in homes.

 

[Happy_John]

I think Mac Studio should come in the old trash can chassi. It was awesome.

Oddly I was thinking about this as a modding project recently - not with a Studio but with an M4 mini - I don’t think it would be difficult to do, but you’d need to print / fabricate an internal frame for the de-cased mini and a panel for the I/O. The outer case, the upper fan and the bottom round base plate could all be reused.

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

For users who want to build their own personal computer (with a traditional tower where they are free to change the graphics card, memory, etc.), the obvious, cheapest, easiest, and almost universal choice is a PC with either Windows or Linux. The choice of hardware and brands, with new and more powerful articles coming out all the time, the flexibility of doing what you want, the community and number of users, the available and compatible software (recent and legacy)… there's absolutely no comparison with what the Mac Pro has to offer. Day and night. Apple is finally getting it and it's only a matter of time before they call it quits. They'll concentrate on the Mac Studio, which is even worse in terms of building your own computer.
As Apple itself once admitted, Macs are best "for the rest of us", ordinary users who aren't geeks and just want something simple and ready to use, where Apple has already made the choices for them.

 

[scottrngr]

Bring back the Cube.

 

[RadMac]

They should probably make Mac servers. It would be great if those servers were run as server farms for AI or high-performance computing.

 

[Scubaman]

Apple's high-end Mac Pro desktop computer is currently "on the back burner," according to the latest word from Bloomberg's Mark Gurman.

In his Power On newsletter today, Gurman said he heard that Apple has "largely written off" the Mac Pro, with the sentiment inside the company being that the Mac Studio represents the present and future of Apple's pro desktop computing.

Apple is working on a high-end M5 Ultra chip, but Gurman said the company is currently "only" focused on a new Mac Studio with that chip, which leads him to believe that the Mac Pro "won't be updated in 2026 in a significant way."

It sounds like Gurman has not heard anything about a Mac Pro with an M5 Ultra chip being in the works, but he has not entirely ruled out the possibility.

In recent years, the Mac Pro has become redundant for many customers, as it is essentially a larger and more expensive Mac Studio with PCIe expansion slots. Apple last updated the Mac Pro with the M2 Ultra chip in June 2023, and Gurman's wording suggests that the future of the computer may be in jeopardy.

​

Article Link: Mac Pro Reportedly on 'Back Burner' and 'Largely Written Off' at Apple

What do we learn from history? Nothing it seems...

 

[grad]

It makes no sense for a “pro”, say scientific researcher, to waste dollars on that kind of hardware. Just go to the cloud. I’m literally running my stuff on AWS from MacBook Air because I don’t need to pay for the hardware in hand. I get movie studios and other use cases may have certain needs. I don’t personally have any experience in that space.

According to many around here (and apparently to Apple), scientific researchers, teachers, audio engineers, productivity users, programmers, etc are amateurs that would better be suited with an iMac or a MacBook Air, while the real "pro" users, who should define the pro line, are the YouTube unboxers and social media influencers ...

The newer tower MacPro never made a sense anyway and it was a failure. The cylindrical MacPro 6,1 showed the way, followed by Mac Studio, about the future Apple had/has in mind, which was still more flexible back then than in the Apple-silicon era. Yet, short-sighted users kept nagging that 3.5" HDD storage should have been internal, while hypocritically losing their words later on the cheese grater when it became apparent that CPU and GPU upgradability was going to be shut down everywhere in the ecosystem.

 

[KENESS]

Mac pro use Apple silicon with discrete CPU and GPU will be cool

But that would be a radical amount of chip engineering, just for that model, which is even at BEST the lowest selling model Mac.

To justify that engineering cost, plus the more expensive case and everything else, at low volume, would make the cost even more astounding than it already is.

The Mac in general is already low volume enough that the A-series chips are actually where each generation starts. The M-series are iterative, adapted and upgraded designs based on the A.

 

[Frixo Cool]

Ok. But how would that discrete GPU connect to the CPU in an Apple Silicon based system? Would it have its own discrete unified memory and how would that discrete unified memory interact with the memory on the CPU SoC. Would if effectively be a separate computer, just on a card form factor?

Yes, that was the idea. I know that with that architecture we loose all advantages of SoC, BUT it could be interesting to see how some Apple specialized "G5 GPU chip" would perform in let's say 4-core CPU, 256-core GPU with 32 to 256 GB of memory. Such configuration makes no sense in Mac Studio as it's expensive and all about graphics, but in an upgradable Mac Pro workstation it could be a way for Mac Pro users to update their machines (as Apple marketed those as super upgradeable). Just let's remember there was times when Apple sold expansion cards to convert Motorola 68K machines to PowerPC and also there was a "Apple DOS Compatibility Card" for PC compatibility. I would enjoy to see Mac mini M4 on a PCI card for Mac Pro Intel Xeon owners. Those machines were too expensive to be written off easily and Apple selled them till Jun 2023. I run Mac Pro's for last two decades, for me, best computers ever. I'd be very sad if Apple aborts the professional desktop line.

 

[spillled typos]

yeah, no crap

 

[darkblu]

The M3 Ultra arrived relatively very late. Basically after the run for M3 Max was done. Some reports were that the M3 Max used in the MBP 14/16" didn't have UltraFUsion. That would make the M3 Max-v2 a special case chip. (and if a special case chip , then pretty likey it has a lame or no update on the PCI-e backhaul . In that case, the plain M3 Max probably dumped the PCI backhaul function to save die space. ). On top of TSMC N3B to boot and very large ( so also more expensive packaging). It wouldn't be too surprising if it were a money loosing chip. Apple decided to take they lumps for the Mac Studio , but placing it in MP would be just digging a deeper hole. [ They may be an option for Apple PCC since that is a money-pit anyway. Web services for zero fees. ]


The M3 generation was a bit of a transitional chip that probably wasn't worth 'betting the farm' on. Ultra's are too big and expensive to throw in the 'trash can' every year; so likely not coming every generation. I think the original Apple plan was M1 -> M3 -> M5 , but that got scrambled by pandemic and TSMC N3 quirks. If M5 Ultra comes and no Mac Pro that would be the odd-duck situation.


P.S. Since Apple has been putting together some custom server nodes , there is a decent chance parts of the MP team that did the rack version got 'hijacked' into doing non-customer facting work. Until Apple gets there PCC situation stabilized and sorted out the MP would get starved of some resources. If Apple diverts a large chunk of M5 Ultras into PCC then MP might just get left out.

M3 was an odd duck. I think Apple had more issues with that gen than they're willig to admit. Apple's first during the M3 gen was binning the Max not only by GPU cores, but by CPU cores *and* by memory channels. The latter created the embarrassing situation where the entry M3 Max SKU had lower RAM BW than the M2 Max. Apple carried that experiment onto the M4, but at least there the entry Max SKU does not degrade on the prev gen's BW.

 

[Ethosik]

This just proves Apple just flat out lied regarding their "apology" about the trash can Mac Pro scenario. They said they promised they would correct things and for a VERY BRIEF time in 2019 it was OKAY-ish with the new Mac Pro. Apple can no longer blame AMD or Intel or NVIDIA for stalling product lines.

How about you update the Mac Pro to include the M3 Ultra - HUH?

How about you lower the price differential between Mac Studio and Mac Pro - HUH?
- No motherboard, case, power supply is worth a flipping $3,000 premium over the SAME SPEC Mac Studio.

Maybe....MAYBE if it was a reasonable system it would sell more and be more popular.

It's not rocket science geez. Stop over-engineering a flipping desktop computer.

I am a bit fed up with Apple AGAIN. If it wasn't for Apple Silicon, I would be back on PC. But I absolutely cannot stand the power and heat output of high performance PCs. That is literally the biggest benefits of my Mac Studio right now. But for raw performance outside of video editing, Windows systems are still in a class of their own entirely. Apple cannot possible catch up.

 

[MallardDuck]

It can’t be a Pro until it has a real graphics card, and Apple closed the door hard on that.

 

[seek3r]

I have both and agree. The trashcan had character. The Mac Pro also has character and someone really went at it for that design. The Mac Studio... idk what it is, I can't put my finger on it. I'm sitting here staring at the one on my desk and trying to think of something to say, but I can't. It's not ugly or anything. It just doesn't feel special. Yeah that's what it is. I guess it's because I've seen and dealt with enough Mac minis in my life and the mac studio is basically a giant mac mini.

One thing I wouldn't be able to understand: If money is no object and you need a ton of storage, do you really want a Mac Studio and a series of external drives or an external NAS or whatever? You could have one really cool looking box or several boring/ugly boxes?

I actually WOULD buy a mac pro if they cost the same, but hey let's face it, I paid $1700 for my mac studio, brand new m4 max and all. Apple's Mac Pro case is so glitz and glam that the case alone probably costs that much.

No, seriously! The one company that managed to replicate that case charges $950 for it. I think the cheapest clone was $400-ish and ended up being vaporware lol.

It's hilarious to think about because the mac pro cases are just a matter of programming a cnc machine and having impeccable standards. The oldschool powermac g3/g4 cases were, I believe, a lot more complicated to design and manufacturer, but they somehow pulled that feat off way cheaper. GG.

FWIW the B&W G3 started at $1600 in 1999, which adjusted for inflation is $3200 today, they werent as cheap as you may be thinking in hindsight based on raw number, and since there wasnt the equivalent of the Studio tier in the mix the equivalent of the base B&W G3 is the studio today, not the MP

The equivalent of the current MP, the fastest option with the 450mhz CPU (the base had a 300mhz one) and the 16mb ATI Rage 128 (the base had a 4mb ATI Xclaim) GPU was $3000 in 1999, the equivalent of $5900 today, basically the same as the MP

Or, put another way, the pricing for the B&W Powermac G3 lines up nearly perfectly, adjusted for inflation, with the studio and MP that combined occupy that segment today

 

[Anonymous Freak]

You don't say‽

Mac Pro still has the M2 Ultra.

Mac Studio has M3 Ultra. (Or M4 Max.)

While the MacBook Pro has an M4 Max, M4 Pro, or…. M5 chip.

It is so silly that the "higher end" systems each have a progressively older chip the "higher end" you go.

 

[seek3r]

You don't say‽

Mac Pro still has the M2 Ultra.

Mac Studio has M3 Ultra. (Or M4 Max.)

While the MacBook Pro has an M4 Max, M4 Pro, or…. M5 chip.

It is so silly that the "higher end" systems each have a progressively older chip the "higher end" you go.

To be fair that’s actually how it often works with higher end enterprise chips too. Xeons often lag significantly behind Intel’s desktop chips generation-wise for example

 

[BNBMS]

View attachment 2579975

Once the Mac Studio was released, I never really understood the point of the Mac Pro anyway.

Totally stupid since Mac Studio can only perform RTX 5070’s performance which is a joke. Mac lacks RTX 5090 grade GPU and workstation with multiple GPU.

Apple is limiting themselves in terms of performance and specs after all.

 

[Ethosik]

To be fair that’s actually how it often works with higher end enterprise chips too. Xeons often lag significantly behind Intel’s desktop chips generation-wise for example

Explain Mac Studio then. Why is it SO DIFFICULT to put the M3 Ultra in the Mac Pro but it's fine in the Mac Studio. They are just intentionally killing their own pro lineup. They also messed up on the Mac Studio, it should have been the M4 Ultra.

 

[VisionProRocks]

Wish they would bring back the trashcan mac pro. It wasn't good then because of the hot power hungry hardware. Now with apple silicon it could be an awesome device. Of course you wouldn't have the expandability of the big tower so perhaps maybe it should stay retired.

 

[seek3r]

Explain Mac Studio then. Why is it SO DIFFICULT to put the M3 Ultra in the Mac Pro but it's fine in the Mac Studio.

I have no idea on that one, I’m genuinely surprised, about the only thing I can think of is that maybe yield on the M3 Ultra is low so they prioritized the studio

They are just intentionally killing their own pro lineup. They also messed up on the Mac Studio, it should have been the M4 Ultra.

That’s not a “mess up”, that’s an intentional architecture decision. They made the determination that the M4 didnt fit with making an ultra version. It’s possible they wanted the die space the ultrafusion interconnect takes up for added components in the much much much higher volume max chips that maybe they’ve managed to minituarize enough to fit the interconnect back in on the M5, it’s possible it was a node yield issue where they prioritized a max chip, it’s possible they’re trying to milk the last out of the M3 process node and tape out, etc. there are a lot of completely valid reasons to make that choice, and again it’s actually rather common for higher end enterprise chips to lag a generation behind more consumer oriented desktop chips.

 

[Eorlas]

for people who need PCIe, this would be helpful as a solution. otherwise, mac studios are pretty amazingly powerful

 

[springsup]

In other words: Mac Studio price hike incoming

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think given the computing power already available with the upcoming M5 Ultra Mac Studio, the demand for the Mac Pro is not worth the money to develop it.

 

[theorist9]

Personally I think the studio is the perfect desktop computer. Well near perfect, user replaceable storage that is sanctioned by Apple would make it perfect

The Mac Pro as it stands offers nothing more, except yet is significantly more expensive

The MP offers about double the I/O bandwidth of the same-generation Ultra Studio.

Is that difference worth it to most people? No. But it's still incorrect to say it offers nothing more than the Studio.