Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Zest28

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Jul 11, 2022
2,579
3,923
For the Mac Pro, why not simply put a 96-core EPYC AMD CPU in it with a RTX 4090 (if Apple can solve their politics with NVIDIA) while retaining user expandability and repairability for the Mac Pro. Since Mac Pro usually supports dual chips, Apple could even put a 192-core AMD CPU in it even.

Does Apple really believe the M2 Extreme would beat a 192-core AMD CPU and a RTX 4090? Heck, you can probably put multiple RTX 4090 in the Mac Pro even (if Apple solves their politics with NVIDIA).

For laptops, I get it. ARM offers nice battery life, but a Mac Pro has no battery life.
 

senttoschool

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2017
2,626
5,482
First, yes, Apple should believe that an M2/M3 Extreme would be better than any CPU AMD can make for the Mac Pro.

Using a CPU with many slow cores designed for data center use will not beat any Apple Silicon that is 2x Ultra for macOS users. It'll look good in Cinebench though. :D

Second, Apple does not want to support AMD and Nvidia products in addition to Apple Silicon. It's not as simple as slapping together PC parts from Newegg and call it a day. You need to write drivers, support them in first-party software such as Finalcut, and provide years of support. All of these things cost money, time, and resources. It also makes the codebase for macOS much more complicated in the long run.

Third, AMD + Nvidia does not satisfy the unified memory model. This is the model Apple is going for. It has huge advantages in performance and applications that support it.

Lastly, AMD CPUs and Nvidia GPUs simply don't support a lot of features that Apple Silicon can. IE. Using the neural engine for extracting objects from photos. Using ProRes encoders. Using the secure enclave. Using image processing acceleration. Even if these parts can be replicated with AMD + Nvidia, Apple would not want to. Not for the Mac Pro which is a niche.

Apple employees are probably itching to get rid of support for x86 CPUs and AMD GPUs in macOS. Speaking as a software engineer, there is probably a ton of code in macOS and first-party software that is something like "If Intel CPU, do this. If Apple Silicon, do this.". I would want to delete this code asap.
 

senttoschool

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2017
2,626
5,482
This isn't referring the OP specifically, but we're seeing a lot of new members here who are essentially trolls. Usually, they are x86 and Nvidia supremacists who can't stand that Apple Silicon is better than what they can buy in the Windows world. I wonder if mods will do anything about it here.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
why not simply put a 96-core EPYC AMD CPU in it with a RTX 4090
They could but I think you're missing the point.

Apple has chosen a path of controlling as much of the computer design/component as possible. They designed laptops that use the ARM chip that easily exceeds nearly anything from its competition. Apple is the only laptop maker able to provide long battery life, great performance, even while on battery.

Razer has fast laptops, and I'm a razer fan, make no mistake. Their latest offerings will be faster then the 16" MBP, but at what cost? Have you seen the ginormous power brick that you have carry around? Battery life can be measured in minutes, not hours. The fans can sound like a jet engine taking off when you start pushing the laptop. You can't push that laptop on the battery because the discrete GPU requires more power then the battery can deliver so you have keep the laptop plugged in.

So I mentioned the fans, well the laptop gets rather hot to use on your lap as well, where as the MBP is thin light, fast, silent and long lasting.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
As for desktops, Intel/AMD and Nvidia/AMD GPUS are shown currently have many advantages over the M1, but imo, the majority of people don't need 96-core EPYC AMD CPU in it with a RTX 4090. Apple is working on their Mac Pro workstation and it will compete with PC workstations I have no doubt.
 

MajorFubar

macrumors 68020
Oct 27, 2021
2,173
3,801
Lancashire UK
This isn't referring the OP specifically, but we're seeing a lot of new members here who are essentially trolls. Usually, they are x86 and Nvidia supremacists who can't stand that Apple Silicon is better than what they can buy in the Windows world. I wonder if mods will do anything about it here.
I've seen those posts. Imagine joining a forum for enthusiasts of computers you don't like, just so you can passive-aggressively p*ss off the enthusiasts. Mind you, it happens with all interests. Pick any popular sport or interest, musician, band etc etc, and 10%+ of the user base on its official forums or SM groups are trolls who don't share enthusiasm about that interest/personality/team etc, and are only there to irritate the remainder. They must lead a sad life if this is their height of entertainment.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
Imagine joining a forum for enthusiasts
The OP is not a new member, so that's not the situation here. I think its a fair question, especially since Intel/amd Nvidia/AMD (gpus) have clear advantages in the desktop segment. The ARM processor that Apple designed, is first and foremost a mobile processor. Its roots are from Apple's phone processors, and many of the advantages built into the processor (that make it a great laptop cpu) don't hold as much value in desktop or workstation settings.
 

unrigestered

Suspended
Jun 17, 2022
879
840
plus there's also the other side who seem to think that only Apple has hired intelligent people and only they can make fast products, so if something else is faster, it surely has to be not optimized... because it is impossible that something else could actually be faster at times
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
seem to think that only Apple has employed intelligent people
...
so if something else is faster, it surely has to be not optimized
There's definitely members here that behold that mentality. Some folks will do logical gymnastics to try to defend apple when in some situations apple has the inferior item. I really do like the trajectory that apple is on, and I think they're making right decisions, but that doesn't take away that other companies are making some great products.
 

senttoschool

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2017
2,626
5,482
The OP is not a new member, so that's not the situation here. I think its a fair question, especially since Intel/amd Nvidia/AMD (gpus) have clear advantages in the desktop segment. The ARM processor that Apple designed, is first and foremost a mobile processor. Its roots are from Apple's phone processors, and many of the advantages built into the processor (that make it a great laptop cpu) don't hold as much value in desktop or workstation settings.
When the M1 Pro/Max was first released, only the Ryzen 5950x rivaled it in CPU power. It was the most powerful CPU AMD shipped for desktops (excluding Threadripper).

I'd like to think that Apple Silicon are actually desktop CPUs that are efficient enough to run on laptops. :)
 

ericwn

macrumors G5
Apr 24, 2016
12,114
10,906
Apple’s own chips are of course also a marketing instrument and they won’t have products around forever that are outside of that realm of control.
 

unchecked

macrumors 6502
Sep 5, 2008
450
555
Funny AMD was mentioned. They did just release the non-X CPUs and they’re limited to 65W and performed near their X cousins but at much lower temperatures.

I think a better question isn’t what is the point of ARM, but what is the point of a Mac Pro.

Is it the performance or the upgradability at a later date? Apple Silicon means we’re not going to customise and upgrade GPUs and RAM at a later date when a new chip rolls around.

Then at that point, the Mac Studio form factor would be sufficient isn’t it?
 

Basic75

macrumors 68020
May 17, 2011
2,072
2,431
Europe
First, yes, Apple should believe that an M2/M3 Extreme would be better than any CPU AMD can make for the Mac Pro.
I really hope Apple surprises us with some great ARM chip for the Mac Pro, but it's clear that scaling up from mobile isn't easy. We'll just have to wait and see what they deliver. If they deliver, seeing that it's already overdue...
Using a CPU with many slow cores designed for data center use will not beat any Apple Silicon that is 2x Ultra for macOS users. It'll look good in Cinebench though.
What do you mean "slow cores", the x86 alternatives are Zen 4 and Rocket Lake which are nothing like Niagara or other "many small cores" processors.
Second, Apple does not want to support AMD and Nvidia products in addition to Apple Silicon. It's not as simple as slapping together PC parts from Newegg and call it a day. You need to write drivers, support them in first-party software such as Finalcut, and provide years of support. All of these things cost money, time, and resources. It also makes the codebase for macOS much more complicated in the long run.
That is true, a distinct platform needs effort to support and keep running, but the alternative isn't for free either. Apple has to develop something wild for a relatively low volume product. The Trashcan has shown that customers don't like compromises when it comes to the Mac Pro, just see how heated the discussion on non-expandable RAM in a Mac Pro is here in the forums.
Third, AMD + Nvidia does not satisfy the unified memory model. This is the model Apple is going for. It has huge advantages in performance and applications that support it.
UMA also has disadvantages, like an RTX 4090 has 25% more memory bandwidth just for the GPU compared to what an M1 Ultra has to divide between CPU and GPU.
Lastly, AMD CPUs and Nvidia GPUs simply don't support a lot of features that Apple Silicon can. IE. Using the neural engine for extracting objects from photos. Using ProRes encoders. Using the secure enclave. Using image processing acceleration. Even if these parts can be replicated with AMD + Nvidia, Apple would not want to. Not for the Mac Pro which is a niche.
They could always stick an ARM SoC into an x86 Mac Pro for these tasks, a bit like the T2 on late Intel Macs. Perhaps even on an expansion card :) Not the most elegant solution, and not the most "integrated", but they've done it in the past and it worked.
Apple employees are probably itching to get rid of support for x86 CPUs and AMD GPUs in macOS. Speaking as a software engineer, there is probably a ton of code in macOS and first-party software that is something like "If Intel CPU, do this. If Apple Silicon, do this.". I would want to delete this code asap.
I don't think the processor support in itself makes much of a difference to the macOS code. What might help more is if Apple at some point can assume UMA and not need alternative code for VRAM on dGPUs.
 

Lounge vibes 05

macrumors 68040
May 30, 2016
3,861
11,113
Yeah sure, but what's the point??? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /s
Are you asking what’s the point of a laptop being thin, light, fast, silent and long lasting?
Thin and light for portability, a massive factor for people purchasing a laptop.
Fast so people can actually use these machines for professional work.
Silent and cool because it’s good for everything. Less heat means the less use of the fans which are moving parts, less strain on the CPU, less heat towards the battery.
Long lasting because you can buy a 2021 MacBook Pro right now and it will probably comfortably last you at least 5-7 years, maybe even more but time will tell.
Meanwhile, compare this to something like the 2016 MacBook Pro, which isn’t even a full 7 years old but is already on the vintage list for hardware Meaning it’s going to get limited support, already can’t get the latest version of macOS, had horrible battery life and heat management, got extremely loud and extremely slow extremely quickly, and on top of all of that, had the terrible butterfly keyboard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lcgiv

senttoschool

macrumors 68030
Nov 2, 2017
2,626
5,482
What do you mean "slow cores", the x86 alternatives are Zen 4 and Rocket Lake which are nothing like Niagara or other "many small cores" processors.
Epyc has significantly slower ST than desktop chips.

Nboxnes2y8oqqO2K.jpg

That is true, a distinct platform needs effort to support and keep running, but the alternative isn't for free either. Apple has to develop something wild for a relatively low volume product. The Trashcan has shown that customers don't like compromises when it comes to the Mac Pro, just see how heated the discussion on non-expandable RAM in a Mac Pro is here in the forums.
The alternative seems way better than the OP's suggestion which would be a monumental software challenge that can slow down the development of macOS and first party Mac software for decades.

They could always stick an ARM SoC into an x86 Mac Pro for these tasks, a bit like the T2 on late Intel Macs. Perhaps even on an expansion card :) Not the most elegant solution, and not the most "integrated", but they've done it in the past and it worked.
I thought we're trying to keep things simple because the Mac Pro is niche? Now Apple has to design macOS to work with an AMD CPU + Apple Silicon chip as a copilot? Or worse, Apple has to create a niche chip for the Mac Pro that only contains things like ProRes accelerators, neural engine, secure enclave, etc?

UMA also has disadvantages, like an RTX 4090 has 25% more memory bandwidth just for the GPU compared to what an M1 Ultra has to divide between CPU and GPU.
All tech has tradeoffs. But I really prefer UMA as a software engineer. I think Apple is in a unique position to bring UMA to the mass for consumer/prosumer computers.

I don't think the processor support in itself makes much of a difference to the macOS code. What might help more is if Apple at some point can assume UMA and not need alternative code for VRAM on dGPUs.
Why not? It makes a massive difference. Just off the top of my head, the CPU architecture affects booting, security, thread management and instruction sets in the OS level. Then there's features. Apple software is designed to work with Apple Silicon. For example, Photos app can read text from photos and extract objects using the neural engine. There's going to be a lot more software that will start to take advantage of Apple Silicon's full capabilities.

Supporting two entirely different architectures for the sake of the Mac Pro seems really dumb.
 

Apple Knowledge Navigator

macrumors 68040
Mar 28, 2010
3,688
12,849
What I would say is this. ‘Apple Silicon’ is more about the whole sales proposition than just a change in architecture - Apple has control or influence over the processes from design through to production.

Apple Silicon enables a number of benefits beyond just power efficiency, and there’s nothing to stop Apple from developing a desktop class SoC that makes use of the saved die space with more cores/features.

It’s all perspective.
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
I'd like to think that Apple Silicon are actually desktop CPUs that are efficient enough to run on laptops.
There's really no evidence for that, and in fact I'd say if apple designed a desktop cpu from square one and the M1 was the result they missed too many opportunities. The M1 is first and foremost a mobile processor, every design choice screams mobility imo. I'm not saying having its bad as a desktop processor but the lineage is clearly from Apple A series processors.
 

Lounge vibes 05

macrumors 68040
May 30, 2016
3,861
11,113
For the Mac Pro, why not simply put a 96-core EPYC AMD CPU in it with a RTX 4090 (if Apple can solve their politics with NVIDIA) while retaining user expandability and repairability for the Mac Pro. Since Mac Pro usually supports dual chips, Apple could even put a 192-core AMD CPU in it even.

Does Apple really believe the M2 Extreme would beat a 192-core AMD CPU and a RTX 4090? Heck, you can probably put multiple RTX 4090 in the Mac Pro even (if Apple solves their politics with NVIDIA).

For laptops, I get it. ARM offers nice battery life, but a Mac Pro has no battery life.
The answers are very simple.
The Mac Pro is an extremely, extremely niche product, certainly more niche than it’s ever been in it’s history.
Apple came out with the Mac Studio last year, which was right around $2000 and basically a Mac pro for people who didn’t want to shell out for a Mac Pro.
Sales projections show that Apple more than likely sold about 600,000 Mac Studio units in 2022.
And that was in a very, very good year for the Mac.
If a $2000 computer that can fit on anyone’s desk and isn’t going to be too cumbersome is only selling 600,000 units, imagine how many units the Mac pro is selling.
Half of that? Maybe a third?
The Mac Pro sells in extremely limited quantities.
Keeping around an X86 version of macOS just for the Mac Pro makes absolutely no sense, and would probably cause Apple to start losing money on that product.
If the massive cut off of 2013 through 2017 Macs that happened in the past three versions of macOS show anything, it’s that Apple wants to discontinue the X86 version of macOS as soon as possible.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see it all completely eradicated by 2025.
So keeping around basically an entire operating system just for one product that doesn’t even sell in the millions makes absolutely no financial sense.
And, this is very important to remember, at the end of the day Apple’s main goal always is and always has been to make profit.
That’s literally how and why they exist.
And out of all of the products that would not make Apple money, An AMD Mac Pro is definitely at the top of that list.
They have literally no incentive to make anything like that other than a couple complainers online hooting and hollering about non-upgradable ram and lack of BootCamp, two issues that don’t affect Apple’s profits at all.
Well… their integrated RAM upgrades are very expensive, but you get the point I’m trying to make.
Also, more symbolically, an AMD Mac Pro would be nothing but another product anchoring Apple to the outside world of other businesses. They definitely don’t like that, they want everything to be in house.
Apple wants to control everything, from the processor to the RAM, to the software to the modem, to (according to a rumor that literally just appeared today) the displays of their products.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.