MP 7,1 Tahoe on 7,1 is intentionally set up as "Planned Obsolescence"

[Lounge vibes 05]

The hardware itself is more than capable lol

As one of the comments above states, even Intel considers the chip used in the 2019 Mac Pro obsolete.
If they will not support it, Apple certainly won’t.
This is why Ventura dropped so many Skylake machines at once, Intel announced that 2022 would be the end of the road for support and Apple followed.

 

[SDAVE]

See some of the recent security issues that Tahoe is likely mitigating and their performance impact on older intel CPUs per my immediately prior post to this.

That most recent vulnerability was only disclosed in may 2025 and mitigation is up to 20 percent performance hit depending on the specific intel architecture. that plus a couple of others would line up with the performance hits you’re seeing outside of liquid glass.

Very convenient for Apple to do this haha

As one of the comments above states, even Intel considers the chip used in the 2019 Mac Pro obsolete.
If they will not support it, Apple certainly won’t.
This is why Ventura dropped so many Skylake machines at once, Intel announced that 2022 would be the end of the road for support and Apple followed.

Brother no one is saying the 2019 MP CPUs are not EOL, what we're saying is Tahoe, officially supported by Apple, runs like sandpaper. If they were truly going to cripple performance in Tahoe, they should've dropped support in Sequoia. At least inform users not to upgrade.

 

[throAU]

Very convenient for Apple to do this haha



Brother no one is saying the 2019 MP CPUs are not EOL, what we're saying is Tahoe, officially supported by Apple, runs like sandpaper. If they were truly going to cripple performance in Tahoe, they should've dropped support in Sequoia. At least inform users not to upgrade.

So you’re saying you’d prefer dropped support entirely rather than the option of upgrading to something with security fixes for vulnerabilities intel won’t fix in microcode any more?

You can essentially have that by… not upgrading to Tahoe.

 

[SDAVE]

So you’re saying you’d prefer dropped support entirely rather than the option of upgrading to something with security fixes for vulnerabilities intel won’t fix in microcode any more?

Yes, completely drop support by Sequoia instead of crippling it, if that's what they're doing (we don't know exactly what they're doing, but we can see based on their actions and guess).

You can essentially have that by… not upgrading to Tahoe.

If only there was an official warning from Apple to be warned about upgrading....

 

[throAU]

Yes, completely drop support by Sequoia instead of crippling it, if that's what they're doing (we don't know exactly what they're doing, but we can see based on their actions and guess).


If only there was an official warning from Apple to be warned about upgrading....

Apple literally tell you to back up before upgrading macOS just in case.

Update macOS on Mac - Apple Support

Use Software Update to keep your Mac up to date.

support.apple.com

Restoring from backup is relatively trivial.

 

[SDAVE]

Apple literally tell you to back up before upgrading macOS just in case.

Update macOS on Mac - Apple Support

Use Software Update to keep your Mac up to date.

support.apple.com

Restoring from backup is relatively trivial.

Brother I've been on Macs since the 90s, you don't think I know that you should have a backup and be able to restore?

Also I have a 24/7 Time Machine backup, for years. Unfortunately you can't restore to an older macOS from a newer Time Machine backup. So it has to be manually done and I have too many plugins and custom settings and it will take me days to accomplish that. I will be downgrading to Sequia when I have time.

We used to mirror our OS drives with CCC and other tools before upgrading, but ever since Apple's yearly releases we've stopped doing that and upgraded by .4 or .5 right before the newer OS cycle in a professional environment. But Tahoe is probably one of the worst macOS's I've ever seen in history.

 

[mattspace]

Nobody wants to support legacy systems any more.

And yet the entire world pretty much runs on a software infrastructure that has Long Term Support versions as a core feature, and security patches seem to be able to keep coming for those.

 

[MarkC426]

We used to mirror our OS drives with CCC and other tools before upgrading, but ever since Apple's yearly releases we've stopped doing that and upgraded by .4 or .5 right before the newer OS cycle in a professional environment. But Tahoe is probably one of the worst macOS's I've ever seen in history.

Why would you stop using CCC, based on when OS releases come out….. 🤔
A backup is invaluable.
TM is a nicety for when inadvertently deleting files.

 

[throAU]

Unfortunately you can't restore to an older macOS from a newer Time Machine backup. So it has to be manually done and I have too many plugins and custom settings and it will take me days to accomplish that. I will be downgrading to Sequia when I have time.

Aware of that.

Copy recently changed data off (if it isn’t on a network share somewhere already), restore from backup prior to OS upgrade, copy data back on.

come on, if you’re a professional using this stuff for work, this isn’t that hard.

 

[AndreeOnline]

…no one is saying the 2019 MP CPUs are not EOL, what we're saying is Tahoe, officially supported by Apple, runs like sandpaper. If they were truly going to cripple performance in Tahoe, they should've dropped support in Sequoia.

This is the core argument and a reasonable expectation. Apple has nothing to gain by including products under a certain macOS's wings if it won't perform as intended. I don't buy the malice angle at all.

Previously mentioned statutory warranties that certain counties offer are typically more general 'catch-alls'. Products needs to:

• be of acceptable quality
• Fit for purpose
• Matching description

This is to make sure that manufacturers can't weasel their way out of living up to basic promises via more limited voluntary warranties. These warranties are not meant to guarantee optimal performance in perpetuity.

Now, none of this excuses beach balling or clearly hampered performance on a supported OS.

 

[mattspace]

This is to make sure that manufacturers can't weasel their way out of living up to basic promises via more limited voluntary warranties. These warranties are not meant to guarantee optimal performance in perpetuity.

Certainly here, a manufacturer can't reduce the performance of a product as a consequence of providing a fix in a warranty situation.

 

[mattspace]

Why would you stop using CCC, based on when OS releases come out….. 🤔
A backup is invaluable.
TM is a nicety for when inadvertently deleting files.

Probably because CCC / SuperDuper or Chronosync usually can't produce reliable bootable backups until several months after an OS release?

 

[MarkC426]

Probably because CCC / SuperDuper or Chronosync usually can't produce reliable bootable backups until several months after an OS release?

Then don’t upgrade for several months…..
I only upgrade my MacOS a year after release, just before the next new version is released.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Certainly here, a manufacturer can't reduce the performance of a product as a consequence of providing a fix in a warranty situation.

Not sure I follow exactly what you mean here, but as an example:

A computer is marketed and sold with certain specs such as CPU speed, alongside some benchmarks of typical performance (with asterisks, obviously).... and then the computer overheats regularly 6 months in....

Then I agree that the manufacturer can't "patch the flaw" by reducing the speed of the CPU and claim it to be fixed.

Contrast this with "battery gate" on iPhone where, due to poor communication from Apple, they update software to better handle the reality of ageing batteries. Not rehashing the whole case here—I think people are familiar.

And lastly... contrast this with a normally working Mac Pro that gets planned support several years down the road and for all intents and purposes works as it should... while showing its age. The huge elephant is "works as it should". What SDAVE (and others) report doesn't fit this description, but we haven't reached the end of the road either. Both in terms of "will Apple fix it" or is it "isolated software combinations or other untypical errors".

 

[SDAVE]

Why would you stop using CCC, based on when OS releases come out….. 🤔
A backup is invaluable.
TM is a nicety for when inadvertently deleting files.

My primary source of work is a 96TB NAS via 10GbE, even if my OS drive gets wiped I don't care, I can just reinstall everything. Time Machine is just an added benefit to restore local files. I haven't mirrored my 4TB OS drive in years and don't plan to. I'm not as picky/cautious as I used to be. Is it my fault that Tahoe runs horribly? Irregardless of my experience, in 2025, UI lag/WindowServer lags/Memory leaks shouldn't be an issue on a supported OS. Tahoe is obviously running better on M chips, even base M1 Airs. Much better than the 28 Core Intels (which is laughable)

This is the core argument and a reasonable expectation. Apple has nothing to gain by including products under a certain macOS's wings if it won't perform as intended. I don't buy the malice angle at all.

Previously mentioned statutory warranties that certain counties offer are typically more general 'catch-alls'. Products needs to:

• be of acceptable quality
• Fit for purpose
• Matching description

This is to make sure that manufacturers can't weasel their way out of living up to basic promises via more limited voluntary warranties. These warranties are not meant to guarantee optimal performance in perpetuity.

Now, none of this excuses beach balling or clearly hampered performance on a supported OS.

Apple has plenty to gain by intentionally/unintentionally not elevating the performance on a supported OS, to force professionals who need a desktop to move to the Mac Studio. By not doing anything to make it fully functional like the last OS is the same thing as them intentionally hurting the professionals who use these machines. As previously stated many times before, under Sequoia these machines work perfectly fine, just not under Tahoe (even with all the Liquid Glass options disabled)

They very well know that tools like the latest version of Logic don't even run on Intel at all. There's a reason why they haven't supported AMD drivers for the 7,1 MP since the 6900XT, so that folks move to the Mac Studio. The latest high end AMD GPUs like the 9070XT run circles around the highest end Mac Studio M3 Ultra GPUs (which cost an arm and a leg)

 

[mattspace]

Contrast this with "battery gate" on iPhone where, due to poor communication from Apple, they update software to better handle the reality of ageing batteries. Not rehashing the whole case here—I think people are familiar.

I'm not sure that accurately represents the case, which I think might better be described as "Apple updated iOS to be more aggressive in its demands for power from batteries that functioned adequately under the previous OS version, and would have continued to function adequately had they stayed on the previous OS version. Apple then forced customers to adopt this less-efficient software in order to maintain security update coverage".

Negligence, or malfeasance, or motivation are really not worth debating; the purpose of a system is what it does. Apple are big enough, that their failure to fully anticipate and mitigate the negative effects of their actions are rightly viewed as ethically indistinguishable from a nefarious intent to cause those actions.

 

[SDAVE]

Let's be real guys, does Tahoe really have anything worthwhile that slows down a 4.6Ghz (boost clock) 28core 56 thread CPUs with 192GB of DDR4 RAM and a 6900XT? Let's say we don't disable Liquid Glass, do people really think the 6900XT can't handle that when it handles 1440p Cyberpunk with Ray Tracing fine without any upscaling?

 

[MarkC426]

My primary source of work is a 96TB NAS via 10GbE, even if my OS drive gets wiped I don't care, I can just reinstall everything.

My cMP (no longer my main machine) has two Sata SSD’s which are both the current (Mojave) OS.
Whenever I installed a MacOS update if it broke something, it was just a case of rebooting to the other drive and carry on. Plus when a new OS was released I would re-clone my current to the second disk, upgrade, then again could just reboot to the previous if no good.
This method is obviously a bit harder on AS Macs…..

But I do sympathise with your predicament

 

[AndreeOnline]

…and a 6900XT?

I'm just now realising that you're on a non-Apple graphics card.

But you are not the only one with similar issues right? Do we have confirmations from others with MPX cards with similar issues in Tahoe?

I get that the card is very similar and that it's recognised and so on. But I also remember all the .kext editing I used to do on the 5.1 to massage "compatible" cards into compliance.

I don't really have the time, short term, to do a clean install on a separate partition. But I'll check it out in due time to satisfy my own curiosity.

 

[SDAVE]

My cMP (no longer my main machine) has two Sata SSD’s which are both the current (Mojave) OS.
Whenever I installed a MacOS update if it broke something, it was just a case of rebooting to the other drive and carry on. Plus when a new OS was released I would re-clone my current to the second disk, upgrade, then again could just reboot to the previous if no good.
This method is obviously a bit harder on AS Macs…..

But I do sympathise with your predicament

Yeah I used to do this for like 10+ years before I started getting lazy around 2018.

I'm just now realising that you're on a non-Apple graphics card.

But you are not the only one with similar issues right? Do we have confirmations from others with MPX cards with similar issues in Tahoe?

I get that the card is very similar and that it's recognised and so on. But I also remember all the .kext editing I used to do on the 5.1 to massage "compatible" cards into compliance.

I don't really have the time, short term, to do a clean install on a separate partition. But I'll check it out in due time to satisfy my own curiosity.

Has nothing to do with it. I have a MPX 580X card, same thing happened with it (tried it by removing the 6900XT) and using that on it's own.

It's Tahoe that's the issue and others are reporting same thing with higher end MPX modules.

 

[ADGrant]

Hopefully Apple addresses Tahoe on Intel performance issues before MacOS 27 is released. Once that happens its game over.

 

[Dolphins1972]

An FYI, in case others are having mouse issues with Tahoe. I updated my post here: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ce.2475063/page-6?post=34349729#post-34349729

 

[H2SO4]

I always find this take humorous. Just because YOUR computer stopped running well after an update, (not to mention the infinate number of variables that could affect your Mac performance) doesn't mean Apple has it out for you lol. Apple has literally nothing to gain by artificially throttling your device down and making it run bad on purpose. And I would muich quicker jump down Adobes throat, their software consistently doesn't play nice on new OS's or after updates, and are much more often the source of problems.

Not sure that's true. Companies do all kinds of things to 'encourage' you to upgrade.
I remember a company I used to work for that, and I'm quoting here, "deliberately changed to a lesser part and vastly increased the price of spares to get customers to upgrade".

 

[kody137]

Not sure that's true. Companies do all kinds of things to 'encourage' you to upgrade.
I remember a company I used to work for that, and I'm quoting here, "deliberately changed to a lesser part and vastly increased the price of spares to get customers to upgrade".

That's not planned obsolescence, that's just manufacturing an inferior product, which is not what is being alleged here.

 

[SDAVE]

.3 Beta 2 should be coming early this week, let's see if Apple made any advancements. I've decided not to downgrade to Sequoia since it's going to be a major pain for me to reinstall all my plugins.