cgWerks

chasm said:

In my view, this version of the Vision Pro is intended to sell to a) corporate developers and b) corporations, mostly. Some rich enthusiasts will also buy them for bragging rights, I’m sure — in endgame capitalism, some people have literally more money than they know what to do with.

The way this is built is very obviously designed for you to be plugged in to the mains most of the time, only using the battery when you need to go to another part of the office/warehouse/factory/complex/home, and Apple deliberately emphasized the desktop computing paradigm. You sit in a comfy sitting position with less need for a desk, you use the spatial computer for typical tasks, you can still interact with co-workers.

You take it home, and it replaces your personal computer, TV, and stereo system for social and entertainment purposes. Heh, I wonder how long before “VR face” (where you are noticeably more tan in the non-headset areas) becomes a thing?

Hey wait a minute — didn’t Pixar predict all this in Wall-E?

https://www.dotdash.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/wall-e-humans.jpg

Yeah, most of the people buying this one will be developers and people with $ wanting to experiment. But, the price will come down in the future (or, inflation will bring everything else up?).

I had to laugh though, at the 'it replaces' marketing. Made me think of the kitchen-gadget infomercials... it slices,  it dices, if you had to replace all these functions...

My main issue with it as a product category, is that I'm not a big believer in spatial computing. There are vertical applications, but for the average person, I just can't see how it would be better than just watching at TV, using an iPad on the couch, or sitting at ones Mac on their desk. I suppose this partly depends on how comfortable it is, but is anyone going to want to wear one for many hours at a time? And, there's a reason I'm typing this into the forum, and not dictating it.

My summary so far: incredible technology, engineering, and industrial design. Very weak use-case.

Marvin said:
By comparison, the M2 Ultra is faster than the 28-core Intel chip and faster (27TFLOPs, assuming both GPUs fully used) than the higher-end Radeon GPUs.

Is that really the case, though? Maybe in terms of TFLOPs, but w/o hardware for RT and such, won't certain 3D tasks will perform very poorly compared to a Radeon? I've watched several videos using Studios or MBPs in different 3D/CAD apps and comparing them to PCs (even laptops) where they don't do so well. I suspect some of this is software optimization, but I have to wonder how much is hardware related.

My understanding (maybe even based on a link you gave me some time ago?) is that the GPU approaches are quite different, with advantages and disadvantages (not just TFLOPS numbers). As far as this applies, the problem is that most of the market is developing for, and accustomed to, AMD/Nvidia, so where Apple falls short, it will be quite noticeable in workflows.

Marvin said:
The only market worth targeting is the enthusiast market that would today buy an i9-13900K + Nvidia 4090 for around $4k. The M2 Ultra is within 30% of the CPU and probably 1/3-1/4 the GPU (lower when using hardware raytracing) for $7k.

Yes, this is really the issue, and not just for 3D people, but people wanting to game on the Mac. But, i think it goes even further than that. What about someone who'd buy a mid-level gaming PC with a 3070 or 3080? Then we're in the under $2k range. I still don't think the M2 Ultra will compete, but even the M2 Max becomes expensive. If the GPU is on the table, Apple has no mid-to-high end anymore, though better lower-end than most of their past lineup. It becomes more about justifying any spending beyond a mini or MBA.

Marvin said:
... According to this, Nvidia sold about 30 million desktop GPUs in 2022. Notebook GPUs would be at least as many and their GPU revenue was $12b.

$12b / 60m units = $200 ASP.

High-end GPUs like the 4090 ($1600+) sell around 1m units per year. The majority of GPUs sold are consumer gaming cards:

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

The Ultra Mac Studio and Mac Pro are aimed at the market that buys single 4090 GPUs. The market above this ($5k+) is well below 1%. The HEDT/enthusiast market is around 5-10%.

The M2 Ultra falls short of a $4k i9-13900 + 4090 but it's at least competitively priced in the Mac Studio. Chasing after a minuscule portion of the high-end market isn't a high priority, it can easily wait for M3 for hardware RT and possibly some extra GPU chip.

Keep in mind that one huge factor impacting those GPU sales graphs, was the demand for GPUs (and increased prices!) due to crypto-mining.
Yes, I sure how the M3 closes the gap more, or I'll be buying one of those PCs.

keithw said:

I just saw the M2 UItra Metal result on GB:  281,948,  which IS better than I can get with my eGPU, which gives me 191,426 on GB 6.1.   So I guess Apple has accomplished what I was hoping they would. 

Just be sure you compare the apps/workflows you run, not just GB scores. For example, I've seen YouTube videos of people in 3D/CAD apps on the M1 Ultra where they perform incredibly well in one regard, while becoming almost unusable in others.

I'm trying to remember, but in one 3D sculpting app, the interface got so laggy, the guy straight out said he wouldn't be able to use it. I think his daily-driver was a several year old PC laptop with an RX580. (What wasn't clear, is how much of that problem was software optimization vs hardware... but at the point where it kills your workflow, it doesn't matter all that much.) On the other hand, he was able to replicate bunches of copies of the models (and insane amount of geometry) and the Mac Studio still worked, where he said his PC would have crashed.

macxpress said:
The wedgeless MacBook Air is Apple's best selling laptop so that statement about it being a mistake is BS. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the rest of the market doesn't.

You can't tell, though, if you don't have the choice. This is similar to Apple making iPhone screens bigger and concluding it's fine because people keep buying iPhones. My wife loved her wedge MBA, and hates the new form-factor... but she also wanted a new computer. So, she's dealing with a form-factor she doesn't like... the market didn't speak.

tenthousandthings said:

My own uneducated guess is that it's an Apple Silicon PCIe GPU/Unified Memory extension which doubles the GPU power of the Ultra, and not the rumored 4x "Extreme" design. 

That would be great for Mac Pro users, but kind of suck for the rest of us. Hopefully there is some plan to give some more GPU power to Studio and laptop users, too.

rob53 said:
The M2 Ultra delivers 27.2 teraflops of graphics performance so one current Mac Studio/Pro is faster than the 2005 system. 

Just be sure to check what it actually does in your workflow. How many teraflops it can do is irrelevant if the viewport on your 3D app is too choppy to use.

Marvin said:
If Apple made a Mac Pro that supported quad Nvidia 4090 GPUs (or equivalent), 2TB RAM, quad M-series CPUs, they'd sell... maybe a few tens of thousands of units, just the same as if they don't offer that option. Likewise with a souped up M3 Extreme.

The fact they dropped MPX modules shows that for all the bloviating about how the 2019 model was the right design for pros, nobody bothered buying them. Meanwhile Apple mentioned they've sold millions of Mac Studios with the exact same design constraints as the 'trashcan'.

Yes, this is true as far as it goes. It depends on what markets they want to serve. I think it benefits them overall to support the range, but they'll always make more money down on the consumer end than high-end pros, for the most part.

But, I'm not sure I agree with that second statement. I think they moved to this new Mac Pro to fulfill their transition, and probably couldn't figure out a way to do the MPX thing on the new platform, or just don't plan to do it.

I think for all the bloviating about how the 2019 model was the right design for the pros, they just abandoned that all with their new platform direction. (Unless I'm missing something, they could implement AMD cards and eGPUs and such, they've just decided not to.)

charlesn said:
Another riff on a frequent theme in Apple commentary of late: this inane notion that Apple is pumping out "stopgap" products because this or that didn't quite work out so they had to rush "something" to market. Everything from the Apple Watch 7 (a last minute kludge because the constantly rumored flat-sided design failed in production) to the Mac Studio (a stopgap because the Mac Pro wasn't done in time) to the new Mac Pro itself. Anyone who knows anything about the time needed for R&D, production design and testing, supply chain procurement, etc to bring a tech product to market that meets Apple standards of near perfection knows that these "stopgap product" claims are ridiculous. 

The simple storyline usually goes like this: something is rumored (the M2 Exteme! the M3 Hyperdrive!). Said rumored thing doesn't appear in a product as rumored. Therefore, Apple couldn't get said rumored thing to work in time or work at all, so it banged out a stopgap or kludge product last minute. It's just stupid. 

Apple's high end computers now seem logically divided. If you need power but not expansion, the base Studio M2 Ultra is $4K. If you need power plus more ports and card expansion capability, the base Mac Pro is $7K. In terms of upspec'ing from the base model, the costs are the same for the Studio and Pro. Maxed out, your $12K investment in a Mac Pro now buys you a machine that will easily outperform what cost $54.000 previously... and people are disappointed with this. It just never ends. 

I disagree. The new Mac Pro only meets the needs of a fraction of the market the old Mac Pro did (which was already small). While rumors and wishes can get a bit wild, I think a basic presumption that the new Mac Pro would be somewhat competent compared to the previous model is warranted. The new one is faster on some metrics, but not even the the ballpark on others (like GPU performance).

My read, is they simply wanted to complete the transition, so they did. They've done this in past transitions. I'd be a bit concerned if I invested in an Intel Mac Pro, as I wonder how long they'll support it OS-wise.

No, a $12k Mac Pro won't even come close to outperforming a previous Mac Pro with a single higher end GPU option, let alone 4 of them. But, the reason for the complaining, is that for people in 3D who use AMD (or Nvidia) based systems, Apple has no competitive machine any longer. Even if you've got unlimited funds, Apple doesn't have the hardware. And, there is little in-between, either. You're better off buying a $1500 gaming PC, and a $600 mini, I guess.

dewme said:
The only real expectation that came directly from Apple was that they would move their whole Mac product line over to Apple Silicon. It finally happened with the release of the Apple Silicon Mac Pro. is it a drop-in replacement for the Intel Mac Pro? Nope, just like the 24” iMac is not a drop-in replacement for the 27” iMac. Apple gets to decide where it wants to focus its investments and how it wants to structure its portfolio going forward. It is what it is and they seem to be content with what it is, at least at this point in time. 

My read on it, is that the plan seems to be they'll have something more workable when they hit the M3 or M4. If they make enough GPU advancement (and add RT, etc.), it might not match what is going on in the PC world with AMD/Nvidia, but it might be good enough. We'll see.

StrangeDays said:

darkvader said:

Less RAM, no real graphics card, and Apple making wild performance claims without any actual benchmarks.

I'm unconvinced.  I want to see real benchmarks vs current AMD and Intel processors, and current high end Nvidia and AMD graphics cards.  I want to see that because I strongly suspect Apple is just doing a bit of puffery.

I strongly suspect you’re not in the market for this machine and thus are just complaining yet again. If only we had a word for such a thing…

Same for me... true to some extent. I can't afford a Mac Pro. But, the Mac Pro is an indicator of where the platform is going in terms of potential, so I watch it closely.

I had been expecting I'd buy a Mac Studio once it was introduced. It seemed like the perfect machine I've always wanted. I still might buy one when the M3 version is released. The problem the new Mac Pro highlighted, though, is that I still don't see a clear plan for GPU power. I need GPU power. So, if the M3 doesn't cut it, I may be much better off minimizing my Mac cost (ex: fairly base mini), and then buying some real 3D power in a PC. I can just remote-control the PC for 3D apps and gaming, and the mini should be plenty fast enough for the rest of my Mac stuff.

nubus said:

The direction of Apple Silicon is clear. Pro = Studio in a PCIe 4 enclosure with no other modularity. The Pro crowd will have to make a decision.

I guess this is part of the debate. Is this representative of Apple's new direction? Or, is it simply a stop-gap? I'm really hoping it is the latter, because otherwise it is quite disappointing.

chasm said:
1. Let us know how many expansion cards you can shove inside that Mac Studio, will you?

2. How — exactly — can Apple “fail to deliver” something they never, ever promised, Mr. Entitled? Did you know that your theoretical fantasy chip involves exponentially more work to create than just hot-gluing two M2 Ultra’s together?

3. You may be right about the sales predictions, but my own theoretical fantasy regarding this machine is that now that its out, Apple might strike a deal with Nvidia — or heck, just make in-house — video cards that can with, rather than be a substitute for, the incredible on-board GPU. I think those PCI slots will eventually prove very useful in unexpected ways, though again you may be right that that’s a job for the M3 or later.

Ok, you get a 'like' for that 3rd point (and I so hope you're correct).
But, re: 1 - True, but what percent of the 2019 Mac Pro user base needed those card slots (besides GPU)?
re: 2 - Fair point... except, I think it is reasonable to make the assumption the new Mac Pro will be better than the old one. If you need GPU-power, the old Mac Pro will wipe the floor with the new one. Heck, my 2018 Mac mini will wipe the floor with the new one. (Apple has no mid-to-high-end anymore in this regard.)

AniMill said:

The Mac Pro is a kludge. I’m betting they tried to punch a hole in the sky, but the sky punched back: no 3rd party video card support, and no extended RAM to 1.5TB (for serious math/design labs). An M3 Extreme isn’t likely because the niche audience will use PC’s with multiple AMD/nvidia cards or simply off-load to cloud render farms. The days of the Mac Pro are waning - very sad. But the rise of the Mac Studio is a happy compromise. And I agree - stacks of M2 Pro Mac Minis are a serious consideration for homegrown render farms.

The problem is, unless they are abandoning that market (3D pros), there will have to be a certain amount of GPU performance local. You can't work in the actual app with unresponsive viewports, or inaccurate previews (compared to a PC), with cloud render-farms. There has to be a level of suitable local GPU performance. (Note: most of the benchmarks miss this.)

That said, there have been some good Unreal Engine demos I've seen (they aren't as good as PCs, but seem quite usable), and I'd guess Maya must be performing OK? So, that will make it possible, assuming other apps optimize. Maybe we'll be OK more fully when the M3 brings some RT hardware.

That still leaves competitiveness. This stuff already works well on a $1500 PC, and I can't imagine that tech will just sit still and wait for Apple to catch up. My main concern (at least at this point) is capability, not matching the PC market. But, when it comes time to buy, I'm going to have to carefully consider putting extra money into a Mac Studio, or if I should just buy a mini and a $1500-2000 PC I can remote control in a window. I see little advantage, right now, to buying anything beyond a base-level Mac for what I do.

darkvader said:

Less RAM, no real graphics card, and Apple making wild performance claims without any actual benchmarks.

I'm unconvinced.  I want to see real benchmarks vs current AMD and Intel processors, and current high end Nvidia and AMD graphics cards.  I want to see that because I strongly suspect Apple is just doing a bit of puffery.

Oh, they totally are. And, more than benchmarks. Look at performance within actual apps you use (or intend to use). For certain multi-core CPU stuff, or things that can use the special video-encoding hardware, etc. these machines will scream. But, for things you'd have a PC with a 4080 or such, it probably won't go so well.

Here are a few links I've run across just in the last week or so:





https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Fulltext/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx
"Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2307/3237261
"Despite increasing temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age (ca. 1850), wildfire frequency has decreased as shown in many field studies from North America and Europe. We believe that global warming since 1850 may have triggered decreases in fire frequency in some regions and future warming may even lead to further decreases in fire frequency."

tht said:
You think that heat transfer physics is too complicated and therefore skeptical of it, while what will convince you is the wisdom of the crowd, where you would believe it if everyone does something about it. That's backwards.

I think it has just been WAY overly simplified to fit their models and narrative. Again, I think the calories and weight gain/loss is a good parallel. It seems pretty simple and straight forward, the problem is just that reality doesn't work that way.

tht said:
What people will do when given information about something that will happen 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now? That's quite difficult to predict, and as the pandemic has reminded us, people will believe and do whatever they want no matter how irrational. People will keep on doing things that will actively hurt them. ...

Repeat this with nearly everything. Plain everyday advice such as investing in retirement funds giving people a safe retirement after 30 years? A shocking amount of people with the means don't do it because something something 30 year timeline. Nearly everyone that works has the means to do it, but don't. A rather large fraction go the opposite direction and just rack up the debt. Rationalism isn't at play there. Or rationalism in the sense that saving now will improve one's future, and as such, people should do it. If there is a thing to distrust, it's a crowd of people.

What the pandemic has shown us, is that governments will do nearly anything to try and control people and achieve their ends (heh, I don't think that example worked in your favor). They got nearly everything wrong... the experts told us and were censored... now they've been largely proven correct.

Yes, people will often act in selfish, short-term ways. But, the use of this example is again problematic. In economics, this is referred to as time preference. People might not understand the mechanics, but they have gut-feel their money is being devalued... so better to spend it now than to save for the future. Do you have grandparents who skimped and saved their whole life, only to leave your parents enough to maybe go on a little vacation or buy a used car? The problem is like fish in water, most of us aren't even aware there are other schools outside Keynesian economics. We've allowed the government and wealthy class to steal our money for several generations now. It isn't supposed to be that way. cf. https://saifedean.com/poe

tht said:
So, people not joining together to address global warming that is in the future isn't proof that global warming isn't harmful or doesn't exist. It just proof that rationality and unity isn't our forte.

Or, maybe it is that deep-down, they have a sense they are being played, so their behavior doesn't reflect the urgency of the narrative. I've been putting out calls on social media to anyone with ocean-front property around here (Vancouver Island, Victoria BC in my case) to unload these properties at pennies on the dollar, so they don't lose their shirts. So far, no takers.

Yes, that's a bit of a joke, as we know even the ocean-rise predictions are in terms of millimeters over a person's lifetime, but that is also a bit of the point. Even if the climate is going where the models predict (let's leave aside our ability to have any impact on that for the moment), technology rapidly advances to help address the impacts, and countries that might be most impacted might not exist centuries down the road anymore, anyway. The timescale is massive, and the predictions incredibly uncertain. Who is going to majorly uproot their life over this kind of thing? This movement would have a lot more success appealing to people's actual concerns for the environment.

tht said:
I think you assume too much to say CO2 is dangerously low. All those farming efficiency techniques will work at 275 ppm, which was what human civilization lived with for about 10,000 years. Planet wide farming production will be more productive at 275 ppm than it is at 420 ppm and definitely better than at 600 ppm, because there will be more consistent melt-water from higher elevations. Crops will be more productive at lower temperatures, with less risk from heat waves.

Humanity should really think of what CO2 concentration it should have. It's an easy form of geo-engineering. 

What if CO2 is following warming, rather than the other way around?

tht said:
The models have been right on. The average surface temperature predictions from the 70s and 80s has tracked quite well to the present time.

No, the models haven't been right on. In the 70s, it was fear of ice-age (which was probably more accurate, like I previously mentioned). They just keep adjusting them to fit the narrative (or picking certain ones out to highlight, as they vary widely). For example, look at the 'radiative forcing' ranges of the models, (even in the IPCC report footnotes). And, that's just the atmospheric gasses, not all the other potential factors.

"The radiative forcing since preindustrial times by well-mixed greenhouse gases is well understood. However, there are major gaps in understanding of the other forcings, as well as of the link between forcings and climate response. Error bars remain large for current estimates of radiative forcing by ozone, and are even larger for estimates of radiative forcing by aerosols. Nonradiative forcings are even less well understood. The following recommendations identify critical research avenues that should be persued immediately with high priority."