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.
References to Intel's Latest Ice Lake SP Processors in Xcode 13 Beta Hint at Forthcoming Mac Pro Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This makes sense. While I’m lucky that I work with mostly Apple apps, some professionals really need intel processors. In fact I assumed that Apple would keep making Pro Intel machines for a good 5 years until enough software catches up. I won’t be surprised if the Intel MacBook Pros get a spec bump when the Apple Silicon machines are introduced.
Out-standing news!
All of us in the Hackintosh world are over here like...
All of us in the Hackintosh world are over here like...
I don't think this is true. Ice Lake W (if released) will almost certainly use socket 4189. I'm not sure there are any historical examples of memory channels increasing without pin counts. If there was a 3647 variant it was probably a very early engineering sample, I think.
I don't think many people are considering it worthless, but in the midsts of an architecture transition and ticking clock towards end of life, the value proposition has definitely shifted from general purpose high performance to very specific needs and use cases. If you are buying a Mac Pro right now you have a very good idea of what the return of investment is going to be over a very short window of time. I don't think anyone is (or should be) rationalizing buying one as a hedge against some unknown future need that may or may not be addressed by a future Pro Mac. Either you need it now or you don't.
that's a good point, but i would also point out that a lot of the people that actually need a mac pro in the first place, often need to update it every couple years anyways. I'd love to see how long the typical super station lasts versus the standard consumer machine. but again, good point.
OS - macOS Tahoe 26
macOS Tahoe 26 with a new design, more ways to work seamlessly across devices, and new features to turbocharge productivity every day.
www.apple.com
This lists, in the footnotes, some dictation features being M1-only.
If you are doing the work that justifies it, then it becomes more or less a commodity just like any other tool. A competitive businesses outfitting their production team is probably going to lease them or buy them speced to their needs and write them off in less than 3 years. A lot of individuals / freelancers have tried to rationalize buying a Mac Pro as a long term investment that they are going to keep and upgrade them for 5 or more years. Right now all the pro Macs both laptop and desktop being sold new by Apple are Intel Macs. If you buy one now, I would expect it to be a viable , supported machine for at least 3 years. But I personably would not buy one unless I had a specific need. Full disclosure - I already have a 2020 16" MBP and a 13" M1 MBP, but If I didn't, I would not buy one unless I needed one to do a job that I could not do on an Apple Silicon chip. If I personally woke up in the middle of 2023 and decided I really missed dual booting into Windows or needed X86/64 virtualization, I'd shop the secondary market for a used iMac Pro or even a Mac Pro rather than buying new Intel Mac Pro direct form Apple if it's still being sold. If by that time, Apple Silicon Macs were not capable of running the necessary software to do my job or lacked the performance to be competitively productive I would switch to a PC running Windows. I would not try to make a go of it using vintage, end of life hardware.
The cube is now over 20 years old. I doubt there are too many professionals still working that owned a cube back in the day that have a negative view of it that would be reluctant to buy something in a similar form factor now.
This honestly makes a good deal of sense. The Mac Pro, being the only Mac where (not just Xeon-caliber CPUs and full sized workstation class GPUs but also) expansion is a top priority, is going to require a fair bit more than a simple replacement of the Intel CPU and Intel iGPU with the Apple SoC and they know that they can't repeat the mistakes made with the 2013 Mac Pro. I have no clue what Apple is planning on putting in the Apple Silicon replacements to the Intel 16" MacBook Pro (if not the rumored 14" MacBook Pro as well) or the Intel 27" iMac, but I can't imagine that Apple will attempt to use the same SoC in both those two (or three) Macs AND the Apple Silicon Mac Pro. Seeing as they haven't even unveiled the SoC to go into the Apple Silicon 16" MacBook Pro yet, it's highly likely that they're going to need as much time as they can possibly get in order to get the Mac Pro on Apple Silicon.
New Intel chips appropriate for a refreshed Mac Pro have been spotted in the Xcode 13 beta, and Bloomberg's Mark Gurman has confirmed that Apple is indeed preparing an updated version of the Intel-based Mac Pro.
The chip data added to the beta is for Intel's third-generation Xeon Scalable processor, Ice Lake SP, which Intel announced back in April. According to Intel, the chip offers "advanced performance, security, efficiency, and built-in AI acceleration to handle IoT workloads and more powerful AI."
Bloomberg in January said that Apple is developing two versions of the new Mac Pro, one that's a direct successor to the 2019 Mac Pro and one that offers a smaller form factor that's about half the size.
Apple is working to transition its entire Mac lineup to Apple silicon, and the smaller Mac Pro will feature Apple silicon chips, but it appears Apple is planning to keep at least one Intel Mac Pro available for the time being.
Some of the high-end Apple silicon chips that Apple is developing feature 20 or 40 computing cores with 64 or 128 core GPUs, but it is not clear if the earliest versions of Mac Pro chips will be able to compete with Intel's Xeon processors for heavy duty professional workloads.
This Intel-based Mac Pro may be one of the last Intel machines as Apple has already started transitioning the iMac, MacBook Pro, Mac mini, and MacBook Air lines to Apple silicon. Apple this year plans to release 14 and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with higher-end "M2" Apple silicon chips, and there's also a larger Apple silicon iMac in development.
Article Link: References to Intel's Latest Ice Lake SP Processors in Xcode 13 Beta Hint at Forthcoming Mac Pro Update
Users who are critically dependent on apps and plugins that haven't yet moved to Apple Silicon can't just buy an Apple Silicon Mac Pro and rely on Rosetta 2 to magically make everything work. That kind of strategy works perfectly fine for the vast majority of consumer users and maybe a fair amount of prosumer users too, but not the high-end pros. So, this makes sense and is good. Incidentally, if the rumor of two sizes of Mac Pro are to be believed, then this could give them a good range of flexibility in terms of form factors for the eventual Apple Silicon Mac Pro.
PCIe expandability is way too important. Also Thunderbolt/USB 4 is still not affordable (or, frankly, powerful) enough to wholesale replace PCIe 3.0, let alone PCIe 4.0. The 2013 Mac Pro's entire strategy hinged on Thunderbolt 2 being able to replace PCIe for those purposes and we all know how that turned out.
Apple can certainly take on the kinds of GPUs that were in the now-discontinued final generation of 21.5" 4K Retina iMac with what the M1 has in tow. But you're right in that they'll need better than that to tackle the graphics in the 16" MacBook Pro and 27" iMac, let alone the Mac Pro's GPUs.
And you're otherwise completely spot on about the needs of Mac Pro customers to have software be 100% native before jumping over. I think a lot of the more consumer-minded folks on these forums don't realize that Rosetta 2 can't be the end all be all solution to every incompatibility, especially when it comes to mission critical needs.
Excellent use of this Star Wars meme. That said, Xeons are something that Intel is actually not doing all that bad of a job with. It's true that Intel is lagging in general, but it's not quite to the degree that a 9th Gen Core i7 is really just a 6th Gen Core i7 with more cores.
This totally makes all the sense in the world. These are not consumer machines; they're there to get things done with minimal things standing in the way. It's way too early in the transition to adopt an Apple Silicon Mac Pro and there would be massive resistance to it if the Intel version suddenly disappeared overnight. This is likely true (albeit to a less dramatic extent) with the 27" iMac; though I believe that there are enough people out there truly ready for the 16" MacBook Pro to make the jump (especially after it didn't yesterday).
There is the T2. Apple could update the T2 to something based on something newer than the A10 Fusion that the T2 is originally based on. They could also include the M1 to serve that function, but it would totally be overkill.
If, by "M2 iMac Pro" you mean whatever the Apple Silicon successor to the current 2020 Intel 27" iMac is going to be, then I think your decision will probably be much simpler than you think. If the tools you need are viable on Apple Silicon, then there's no reason to waste time on an Intel Mac. But if they're not, then there's no reason to waste time on an Apple Silicon Mac if what you need is a powerful system that will run your apps and tasks with no issues.I'll have a tough decision between this and an M2 iMac Pro (assuming they make an iMac Pro).
10000%. Though, I think Xeon is still a safer bet than Epyc or Opteron (if that still exists). Certainly, as far as the 27" iMac is concerned, they could've always given that a Ryzen and it would've definitely been a much better system. Hell, it might've taken some of the load off of the T2 which was pretty much compensating for what Intel was missing anyway!
The ironic part is, is that there hasn't been an update or upgrade for the current cheesegrater Mac Pro. At least I don't think there has.
To be fair, there's no reason they *cant* use AMD (or nv) discrete GPUs with AS chips, all indication so far is they're moving towards their own GPUs but that doesnt mean we can't get an AS Mac Pro with a discrete AMD GPU
I think that is very true. At work in a broadcast level video facility, we have 8 video edit stations running both Avid Media Composer and the flue Adobe suite. 4 of the rooms are running HP Z8 workstations with dual Intel Gold 28 core CPUs, 192GB RAM M8000 GPU 10 GB/s optical fiber back to a server with 750TB of storage. 3 of the rooms are the MacPro with dual 28 core CPUs, 192 GB RAM, single Radeon Pro Vega II with AfterBurner, 10GB/s Optical fiber card back to the server and 1 last old HP Z800...maxed out, but headed to e-recycle. I think that these are the environments are where Apple sees the MacPro going. I don't think that Apple silicone will compete with that yet. The HP Z8 can max out to 3TB RAM multiple Quadro GV100 GPU.....you can build a $120k computer and you can build a $51k MacPro
The people who still need or want Intel are going to be more interested in shelling out more money if you're offering more for the money.
We still don't really have any clue what Apple's high-end strategy for Apple Silicon is, and in that uncertainty I don't begrudge people who might want a big expandable slotbox, especially since dedicated GPUs are still a huge question mark.
It's hard to tell if this is serious, but if you are, I guess you're suddenly learning that technology advances on a yearly basis?
I really like the 2019 Mac Pro, in fact I bought 2 base models recently and upgraded them myself, including 28 core Xeon, ram, ssd, etc. running w5700x dual in one, with afterburner, and 6900xt plus 6800 xt in the other. Metal video rendering for pro res raw and red raw.
theyre a pleasure to use - I have a 3960x Threadripper with 3090s, but i like fcpx workflows more. Threadripper is very powerful though, so no complaints there either.
w6900x mpx will be a huge gpu upgrade, my 6900 xt is already amazing vs even a vega ii duo for video.
theyre a pleasure to use - I have a 3960x Threadripper with 3090s, but i like fcpx workflows more. Threadripper is very powerful though, so no complaints there either.
w6900x mpx will be a huge gpu upgrade, my 6900 xt is already amazing vs even a vega ii duo for video.
I have been saying that Apple needs a Mac Pro Mini with half the of technology in the Mac Pro tower with a starting price of $3000. I almost bought a $6000Mac Pro tower. My last Mac Pro tower lasted 10 years. But before the Pandemic I was working in a office and thought it would be a better idea to get a MacBook Pro 16. I have a iPhone and two iPads I really don't need a MacBook Pro 16, I would better off now have a Mac Pro Mini tower, where I can expand it when I want to expand it. Oh need more ram, ram chips, oh need more SSD storage, a M2 SSD. Need to upgrade the video card now that it is 4 years old pop in a new video card, Need a different monitor buy a new monitor.
I have a EGPU box with a 3080TI card, but if I could still run Bootcamp and move my card over to a machine that has a PCI slot, or have a PCI slot to add other card technology like Thunderbolt 5,6,7 in the future that is what I want. Now that the iMac Pro is gone this is a perfect time to introduce a small tower with expansion and I would buy one. I don't think spending $3000 every 4 years for a new computer is good when you can expand a $3000 small tower and save money and have the ability to grow and keep it for 8 or 9.
That is why people loved the first Apple II computer you could expand it. Not the iPhone generation that want to throw everything away every three years for better technology.
I have a EGPU box with a 3080TI card, but if I could still run Bootcamp and move my card over to a machine that has a PCI slot, or have a PCI slot to add other card technology like Thunderbolt 5,6,7 in the future that is what I want. Now that the iMac Pro is gone this is a perfect time to introduce a small tower with expansion and I would buy one. I don't think spending $3000 every 4 years for a new computer is good when you can expand a $3000 small tower and save money and have the ability to grow and keep it for 8 or 9.
That is why people loved the first Apple II computer you could expand it. Not the iPhone generation that want to throw everything away every three years for better technology.
What expansion do you need that requires full PCIe speeds and full PCIe 16x physical slot that TB3/4 can't handle?
Seems like an Apple Silicon Mac Pro isn't going to allow NVIDIA or AMD graphics to be installed, but instead require users to buy Apple's custom GPU, I don't see the need for full PCIe 16x physical slots.
And I firmly believe the original 2013 Mac Pro intended on replaceable components, but Apple realized AMD's and NVIDIA's GPU roadmap didn't allow for lower powered GPUs, so they axed the idea halfway through. I don't think Apple designed the removable cover just to add new RAM. So you can't really rule out PCIe 5.0 slots. A 4x PCIe 5.0 slot equates to PCIe 3.0 16x speeds. Maybe 8x can fit.
Last edited:
That design also presumed that plugging everything in via cables would be the preferred way to go. Not sure that panned out so well.
*If* there is 1 Mac that continues to offer an Intel option for the next few years, it will be the Mac Pro. That could be this form factor updated every couple of years to latest Intel chips. If (and that’s a big if) that happens, there will be an AS Mac Pro as well. Perhaps new form factor (smaller of course). Apple may see the full realization of their dream of the trash can Mac Pro with AS. We shall see…
TB2 didn't offer enough bandwidth and was using DP as the physical port. Also can't rule out PCIe 5.0 slots being used where internals can be replaced. I don't believe for a second Apple designed a removable cover for 2013 Mac Pro just to add more ram sticks. It's more likely the GPU roadmap restricted Apple's upgradability since the GPUs were getting too hot.
But if Apple controlled the GPU chips...that's a different story.
Apple will launch a barely upgradeable [mini on steroids] computer that you will need to replace in 3 years max.
I cannot see them allowing for any expandability except, RAM, SSD and perhaps an Apple made GPU [if possible with M].
TBH this suits me but maybe not you.
I am actually quite happy with my current PC performance [AMD Ryzen 16 core with 2080 super, 64gb]. Something at this level would be adequate for the near term without much upgrading required. I can imagine a lot of pro's would be happy with this.
Having said the above, I know of several major architecture studios that are going fully mobile, including the viz team...... and they are heavy into 3D, BIM and fully custom designs......