Because if they shrunk it at a fixed ratio until it was about half the size, easily 80% of the people commenting here would post "BuT ThAt iSnT HalF tHe SizE".
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
Next macOS ARM only most likely
So why blow 6k to 10k dollars?
Save for retirement in this very uncertain world.
So why blow 6k to 10k dollars?
Save for retirement in this very uncertain world.
I think it's a cool design and would work perfect for the ultra cool APPLE silicon.
I have 2 2013 Trash Cans myself.
Biggest problem was the video cards.
If they enable using external GPU box usage in the ARM processor problem solved!
What kind of retirement are you expecting to have on $10K?
No way. They'd need to completely redesign it anyway for the new internals, so why reuse on old design? It assumed 3 heats sources - CPU + 2 GPUs - which was part of its undoing. Any new machine would have a single SoC.
The old one was a bit of a failure, not selling well and getting universally nicknamed 'the trash can'. I think Apple will want to move on.
I wonder where that weird thinking originated from. Some pundit?
Clearly, M1 isn't constrained to 16 GB because Apple thought it was the gold standard, but because they thought it was plenty for the relatively-low-end first-generation machines they were going to ship. No way the higher-end ARM Macs will also be limited to 16.
What, that buying a literal baseline, can't-get-any-lower spec config is somehow going to be a safe bet for future software releases?
I could tell you the type of person who came up with that idea but I think it's against forum rules.
Sure, and it's probably true that Apple didn't intend for those ridiculously low end machines necessarily to be bought much by people who want to do AR Object Capture.
But none of that stopped a bunch of people proudly proclaiming "I swapped my <insert memory capacity amount> Intel MBP for a 8GB m1 and it's fine, we don't need all that extra memory now". And conversely it won't stop me getting out the pop-corn when they inevitably whine about how Apple 'deceived' them.
I don't expect that either. I wouldn't bet you even a beer on what the limit will be though, given how gimped the M1 models are compared to some of their predecessors. But my point is more about how people use the 'well Apple sells it now so it must be fine' mantra to claim that (a) paying more up front to get more memory is unnecessary and (b) that "Apple always knows best" and thus would never release a product configuration that might be severely limited by a not-too-distant future software update.
I got 2 2013 Mac Pro's myself. Awesome desigm
Wish they would call it the SPACE CYLINDER (UFO) Mac Pro instead of the TRASH CAN?
It is Spacey looking and a cool design. TRASH CAN degrades it.
I always dread upgrading to new machines in my productive environment. The person you quoted obviously does not really "work" on it... I guess he is a professional facebook and youtube viewer
I am admittedly not a pro user and would never buy a Mac Pro, but simply from a design perspective, I think an interesting design of the Apple silicon powered Mac Pro would be essentially several Mac Minis stacked for a rounded square shaped ‘trash can’ style device. I have no idea the practicality of such a design.
I just imagine the testers at apple trying out a machine with Logic Pro and 3rd party plugs…
2000 stereo audio tracks, 120 Kontakt various instruments, 4 SD3, 4 BFD, 4 SSD, 12 Spectrasonics each track loaded with FX‘s plugs from SoundToys, Zynaptec, Waves, Slate, SSL, Apple, Fabfilter, Empirical Labs, Pulsar, Arturia PA, Acustica, Melodyne and more, with 3 onboard Drives, 512 GB OS, 8TB for samples, 8TB for Audio and 4 separate USB-C / Thunderbolt I/O.
report, Ya boss, it’s all running no problem.
what, oh too much? Ok…. But it also works with Protools, Cubase, Etc.
2000 stereo audio tracks, 120 Kontakt various instruments, 4 SD3, 4 BFD, 4 SSD, 12 Spectrasonics each track loaded with FX‘s plugs from SoundToys, Zynaptec, Waves, Slate, SSL, Apple, Fabfilter, Empirical Labs, Pulsar, Arturia PA, Acustica, Melodyne and more, with 3 onboard Drives, 512 GB OS, 8TB for samples, 8TB for Audio and 4 separate USB-C / Thunderbolt I/O.
report, Ya boss, it’s all running no problem.
what, oh too much? Ok…. But it also works with Protools, Cubase, Etc.
Last edited:
Could Dual Processor technology be in the works? Intel processor for your intel apps, and M1 for your M1 apps? That would make me abuse a corporate card and through away all other computers.
Cool thought tho, Makes Dual Boot Possible... Even Sync Boot - 2 OS running at the same time!
Cool thought tho, Makes Dual Boot Possible... Even Sync Boot - 2 OS running at the same time!
I don't think saying "Rene Ritchie" is a violation.
I would expect that whatever configuration can be had now (e.g. a 16-inch MacBook Pro with 64 Gigs) can be had with ARM, too.
(It's possible some people are confused by the spec limitations of the Mac mini — superficially, Apple changed its max from 64 to 16. But that's really not what they did at all — they only replaced the low-end model, which they also kind of made clear by swapping the color back for a lighter one.)
Yeah.
Next macOS will support intel, and support will remain for several more versions. Apple said as much when apple silicon was introduced.
With the global chip shortage Apple having access to Intel processors helps them have systems to sell. Having one two or three chip manufactures to work with helps the bottom line. They have plenty of customers that still can utilize Intel processors for computer work. People in need of a EGPU with a better graphics card, a person who needs Windows 10 for some application that only runs on Windows 10. People who need server and workstation systems with Xeon processors that run 24x7. People who are developing VR systems.
Yes the Apple M processors are very nice, like a very nice sports car. And I do like them, But if you are a long haul trucker you need a Xeon processor to do heavy hauling in heavy computer processing organizations.
And who does not love slipping in a card into a computer and turning it back on and see your upgrade in action.
Yes the Apple M processors are very nice, like a very nice sports car. And I do like them, But if you are a long haul trucker you need a Xeon processor to do heavy hauling in heavy computer processing organizations.
And who does not love slipping in a card into a computer and turning it back on and see your upgrade in action.
Reported!I don't think saying "Rene Ritchie" is a violation.
I didn't have a specific person's name in mind.. more a derogatory term for low intelligence individuals.
I don't really follow 'pundits' or 'influencers' or whatever name these people use for themselves now, so I don't know what he has said specifically, but I find it hard to believe everyone claiming "maxing out ram to future proof a Mac is pointless" or "the M1 is just so much better it doesn't need more than 16GB" type comments is just regurgitating what he's said.
I could well be wrong on that though. Regurgitating other people's opinions does seem to be a common past time for some people.
That definitely confuses the situation, for sure, and it's unlikely many people were buying an i3 with 64GB.
Like I said, I'm not sure where it comes from, but I get the impression it originates from some single YouTube video or blog post. Or podcast.
Yup.
So you think Apple should have taken a play out of its 2013 Trash Can playbook, and not release a new Mac Pro for another 6 years? ...instead of waiting only 2 years for a new Mac Pro update. I'm going out on a limb and saying, you are the only person who feels this way. ...or one of a very select (special?) few...
Still. To spend this kinda money when you know in the future Intel support will end.
I dont understand? Why push expensive HIGH POWER workstations when we all know the future is CLOUD COMPUTING and running applications from a web browser on say a fast 6G internet connection and monthly rental of software.
We could be looking easily at 8 years of security support updates. It may make no sense for you, but then again, you may not be the intended market for this machines.
Most of the people suggesting "local computing power isn't needed, the future is all "in the cloud" are one of two things.
They're either a salesperson for a "cloud" company, or they have no idea what they're talking about.
So which cloud company do you work for?
How close the Jade4C SoC gets to 270W probably isn't so much about CPU cores as it is about GPU cores. There isn't any good sign that Apple is going to completely decoupled cranking up CPU cores from GPU cores. Get more of one then likely going to get more of the other also.
Now if add the 580X TDP budget to the 27OW that would be an even higher number. If the RAM is soldered to the M-series SoC also then that would be another "pull" of TDP into the current 'topside' CPU cooling zone.
The part that is likley missing on the Jade4C part though are
PCI-e v4 x68 lanes versus what ? Perhaps x16-32x PCI-e v3 lanes
> 1TB RAM capacity versus what ? 128GB ( of soldered on LPDDR4/5 ) [ those CPU counts can with RAM limits also ).
So far at WWDC 2021 I haven't seen one peep about 3rd party GPU support in M-series macOS instances. (no eGPU or dGPU support mentions. Several mentions of how much better xyz graphics feature addition will be with Apple GPU). If Apple still has lockout on 3rd party GPU throughout most of Q421 - Q422 time frame then not a particularly good sign they are going to change that in 2023. If Apple drags their feet on 3rd party GPU support
into 2024 (or later ) there is a substantively sized windows for this bump to the Mac Pro ( around 3 year lease sized ).
The other presumption is that the Jade4C actually works well on higher end workloads where have to "walk and chew gum at the same time" ( highly concurrent CPU core and GPU core workloads). Everything Unified Memory can be a dual edge sword if the Unified brings a constrain of being homogeneous memory also.
But the "half sized" Mac Pro could very well follow on with a reduced I/O SoC. If can only provision 3-4 slots then then that is with the whole 2nd MPX bay gone . Trim the DIMMs slots off the backside and can move the SSD NAND modules up to where the DIMMs are. Dump the large PLX switch and again save substantive board space. Provision all the onboard TB out of the SoC ... again more board clean up and therefore shrinkage.
Trim off some of the feet and handle height and at about "half" size with same baseline design approach.
The problem though is that probably have probably alienated some of the current Mac Pro usage base:
1. 5-6 Add-in cards..... Blocked. 9e.g., 2-3 HDX cards, 2-3 M.2 SSD carrier add-in-cards , etc. )
2. Aggregate working set Data footprints of 512+ GB workloads ... Blocked. ( threshold might be as low as 256B In short solder the RAM down isn't volume space efficeint. Extending laptop constraints to the Mac Pro would be a dual edge sword for Apple. )
3 The DIY and/or "control" crowd. The fewer parts can pull/replace the less "Pro" in their eyes. ( Apple not signing NVidia drivers is one thing. Not signing Intel , AMD , or Nvidia drivers is going to an issue for some. The very top end of GPU market, Apple isn't going to cover any more than covering the > 64 core options. )
4. AVX software appendices. Native boot Windows dependencies.
Having "about equal number of cores" isn't going to matter for those folks. If can't get the data into RAM any speed advantage of Apple 'P' cores will be muted against the Intel x86 ones. ( impede the caching on P cores and the IPC will sag significantly. ). If there are no supported drivers for M-series cores for a core... matching count doen't matter either. ( some drivers evolve at a glacial space even if Apple isn't outright banning them.)
A half sized Jade4C Mac Pro would probably sell well. But the hard core holdouts for a "box with slots" will probably not be happy with it.
Well see what Intel does with W-3300 pricing but if that is more competitive that would also help with the pricing problems that the Mac Pro currently has at the top end ( versus Threadripper and high end Ryzen 9 )
Personally doubtful Jade4C is going to pragmatically help much on that aspect. If can't opt out of Apple pricing on RAM and GPU .... that probably won't be a money saver ( Apple is likely going to put a "low unit volume" tax on it also.)
P.S. stopping at 128GB makes it easier to punt on ECC support also. So Apple only needs a "mainstream" memory controller. if Apple is going to chase Intel/AMD/Ampere/etc into the 1TB RAM space then they'll need to up there ECC support on their proprietary RAM controller. I doubt Apple wants to go there because the kernel design driver of the whole SoC series is the iPhone/iPad ... Mac gets some "extra" stuff but not stuff on long term path for those. Similar with kernel changes for > 64 cores... mobile products don't need it long term, probably not going to do it.
Last edited: