Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
there is no RAM issue.
Maybe he’s referring the trash can which we may not seen in a decade or so.
At what size you think will be optimal for the next Mac Pro?
Are you asking about the amount of RAM? Max RAM sizes are funny things. Does the current Mac Pro really NEED such a high RAM Max? Really, how many users are going to need more than a TB of RAM? We’re talking about the very top of the pyramid, and by definition, that’s a very small number.
from my use of the new Macbook Pro, with 16GB, I've found that I can do the same things with this, without problems, that I could do with 32GB. After that, it becomes hazy. I can’t show, for certain that it’s the equal, in function, to 64GB, or maybe even 48GB. But it never feels as though I’m under RAM pressure. It’s difficult to compare this to my older Macbook Pro with separate GPU though. And comparing it to the much poorer performing Intel IG doesn’t seem like a comparable test either, even though I’ve been trying to figure out how everything does compare. I have to make allowances in the fact that the IG performance, by itself, is so much poorer, and the fact that my Macbook Pro has 32GB RAM, plus the RAM from the GPU.
if the next Macbook Pro, a high performance model, we’re all reading about has 32GB, then that’s what the older model has, though it won’t have, I’m assuming, separate GPU RAM, so it won’t be exactly the same. But nevertheless, to me, from what I’m finding here, it should perform as though it has more RAM than it does—64GB, maybe? Assuming things are consistent from one model to the other.
other than Apple’s memory model, these new machines have fast SSDs. At least, as long as you don’t buy the 256GB version, which I keep warning people not to buy if the want to do anything performant. There’s no much Apple can do about the performance of the 256GB drive, as that’s subject to the normal consequences of using half the NAND packages of larger drives, and therefor being a lot slower. I recommend at least the 512 model for performance. I a,ways get a 1TB drive for the main startup drive, and that’s what I bought.
drive speed is very important. And now, where it’s hitting above 2GB/s, it has a major influence on the overall performance of the system. If the machine is paging in and out of the drive, and it’s slow, there will be a noticeable performance hit. But if the drive is fast, then really, you won’t feel that it’s doing that. I’ve had that happen, while monitoring, and trying to use up all the RAM. There’s no really noticeable slowdown. And this impacts the amount of RAM needed.
so between Apple’s unified memory model and fast drives, you need less RAM than before. But that’s with these M1 chips. Nobody knows how Apple is going to handle the new chips with 8 or more CPU cores and 16 or more GPU cores. I don’t see how they can put all of that on chip without almost doubling the area. Will they want to do that, and increase the price of he chip by that much?
I see no problem with doubling the amount of RAM, because it’s off chip, but on the substrate board. Just replace the two 8GB RAM packages with 16GB packages. That’s a no brainer. I imagine they could go to two 32GB packages, at high cost, but I can’t find a 64GB package that would fit. But they could simply extend the substrate further to the right, and add two more RAM packages. So they could go to four 32GB packages, with current RAM packaging, if they want to. I’ve said this before. In reality, they could continue extending the substrate as far as they want, and keep adding packages. They could even use packages with side pins, and use the very small sockets that fit them, and give upgradable RAM.
they have a lot of options. They could also, in a Mac Pro, use two, or even more, SoCs. They have the tech for that. It wouldn’t be the first time. They did it with the G4, which wasn’t designed for multi socket use. And then the G5, and of course, dual Xeons. I would think that if they did, each chip could have its own RAM, and that Apple could pool it, if they thought it would be advantageous. So I suppose they could add as much RAM as they wanted to, when cost isn’t much of an issue.
Not really. I was asking the size of the case. I was thinking if they’ll discontinue the current Mac Pro in favor of the smaller one. Or the smaller version we’re talking here is just another “iMac Pro.”
Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
there is no RAM issue.
Maybe he’s referring the trash can which we may not seen in a decade or so.
At what size you think will be optimal for the next Mac Pro?
Are you asking about the amount of RAM? Max RAM sizes are funny things. Does the current Mac Pro really NEED such a high RAM Max? Really, how many users are going to need more than a TB of RAM? We’re talking about the very top of the pyramid, and by definition, that’s a very small number.
from my use of the new Macbook Pro, with 16GB, I've found that I can do the same things with this, without problems, that I could do with 32GB. After that, it becomes hazy. I can’t show, for certain that it’s the equal, in function, to 64GB, or maybe even 48GB. But it never feels as though I’m under RAM pressure. It’s difficult to compare this to my older Macbook Pro with separate GPU though. And comparing it to the much poorer performing Intel IG doesn’t seem like a comparable test either, even though I’ve been trying to figure out how everything does compare. I have to make allowances in the fact that the IG performance, by itself, is so much poorer, and the fact that my Macbook Pro has 32GB RAM, plus the RAM from the GPU.
if the next Macbook Pro, a high performance model, we’re all reading about has 32GB, then that’s what the older model has, though it won’t have, I’m assuming, separate GPU RAM, so it won’t be exactly the same. But nevertheless, to me, from what I’m finding here, it should perform as though it has more RAM than it does—64GB, maybe? Assuming things are consistent from one model to the other.
other than Apple’s memory model, these new machines have fast SSDs. At least, as long as you don’t buy the 256GB version, which I keep warning people not to buy if the want to do anything performant. There’s no much Apple can do about the performance of the 256GB drive, as that’s subject to the normal consequences of using half the NAND packages of larger drives, and therefor being a lot slower. I recommend at least the 512 model for performance. I a,ways get a 1TB drive for the main startup drive, and that’s what I bought.
drive speed is very important. And now, where it’s hitting above 2GB/s, it has a major influence on the overall performance of the system. If the machine is paging in and out of the drive, and it’s slow, there will be a noticeable performance hit. But if the drive is fast, then really, you won’t feel that it’s doing that. I’ve had that happen, while monitoring, and trying to use up all the RAM. There’s no really noticeable slowdown. And this impacts the amount of RAM needed.
so between Apple’s unified memory model and fast drives, you need less RAM than before. But that’s with these M1 chips. Nobody knows how Apple is going to handle the new chips with 8 or more CPU cores and 16 or more GPU cores. I don’t see how they can put all of that on chip without almost doubling the area. Will they want to do that, and increase the price of he chip by that much?
I see no problem with doubling the amount of RAM, because it’s off chip, but on the substrate board. Just replace the two 8GB RAM packages with 16GB packages. That’s a no brainer. I imagine they could go to two 32GB packages, at high cost, but I can’t find a 64GB package that would fit. But they could simply extend the substrate further to the right, and add two more RAM packages. So they could go to four 32GB packages, with current RAM packaging, if they want to. I’ve said this before. In reality, they could continue extending the substrate as far as they want, and keep adding packages. They could even use packages with side pins, and use the very small sockets that fit them, and give upgradable RAM.
they have a lot of options. They could also, in a Mac Pro, use two, or even more, SoCs. They have the tech for that. It wouldn’t be the first time. They did it with the G4, which wasn’t designed for multi socket use. And then the G5, and of course, dual Xeons. I would think that if they did, each chip could have its own RAM, and that Apple could pool it, if they thought it would be advantageous. So I suppose they could add as much RAM as they wanted to, when cost isn’t much of an issue.
Not really. I was asking the size of the case. I was thinking if they’ll discontinue the current Mac Pro in favor of the smaller one. Or the smaller version we’re talking here is just another “iMac Pro.”
Too bad. I put a lot of thought into that. ;~)
we;re getting conflicting signals on that. I think everyone is just guessing now. When the 2019 model came out, it competed directly against, Boxx, Dell, Hp and others. Does Apple want to do that again? I suppose they do. The Mac Pro has sold pretty well considering the market. But top pricing, mostly because of RAM is around $50,000. That also accounts for a fair part of the size. RAM sucks power, and needs a bigger power supply, fans, and room.
I guess this mostly depends on what Apple is going to do about graphics. Having two double width graphics cards, plus a slot for the accelerator takes a lot of room, and also needs a bigger power supply and cooling.
I do think it’s very possible that the flailing about of the rumormongers might be right about Apple making two models. I hope so. But the bigger one will likely be smaller than the current one, and a smaller one might be a replacement for the iMac Pro, maybe. With a new, cheaper monitor coming out, would anyone buy an iMac Pro?
Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
there is no RAM issue.
Maybe he’s referring the trash can which we may not seen in a decade or so.
At what size you think will be optimal for the next Mac Pro?
Are you asking about the amount of RAM? Max RAM sizes are funny things. Does the current Mac Pro really NEED such a high RAM Max? Really, how many users are going to need more than a TB of RAM? We’re talking about the very top of the pyramid, and by definition, that’s a very small number.
from my use of the new Macbook Pro, with 16GB, I've found that I can do the same things with this, without problems, that I could do with 32GB. After that, it becomes hazy. I can’t show, for certain that it’s the equal, in function, to 64GB, or maybe even 48GB. But it never feels as though I’m under RAM pressure. It’s difficult to compare this to my older Macbook Pro with separate GPU though. And comparing it to the much poorer performing Intel IG doesn’t seem like a comparable test either, even though I’ve been trying to figure out how everything does compare. I have to make allowances in the fact that the IG performance, by itself, is so much poorer, and the fact that my Macbook Pro has 32GB RAM, plus the RAM from the GPU.
if the next Macbook Pro, a high performance model, we’re all reading about has 32GB, then that’s what the older model has, though it won’t have, I’m assuming, separate GPU RAM, so it won’t be exactly the same. But nevertheless, to me, from what I’m finding here, it should perform as though it has more RAM than it does—64GB, maybe? Assuming things are consistent from one model to the other.
other than Apple’s memory model, these new machines have fast SSDs. At least, as long as you don’t buy the 256GB version, which I keep warning people not to buy if the want to do anything performant. There’s no much Apple can do about the performance of the 256GB drive, as that’s subject to the normal consequences of using half the NAND packages of larger drives, and therefor being a lot slower. I recommend at least the 512 model for performance. I a,ways get a 1TB drive for the main startup drive, and that’s what I bought.
drive speed is very important. And now, where it’s hitting above 2GB/s, it has a major influence on the overall performance of the system. If the machine is paging in and out of the drive, and it’s slow, there will be a noticeable performance hit. But if the drive is fast, then really, you won’t feel that it’s doing that. I’ve had that happen, while monitoring, and trying to use up all the RAM. There’s no really noticeable slowdown. And this impacts the amount of RAM needed.
so between Apple’s unified memory model and fast drives, you need less RAM than before. But that’s with these M1 chips. Nobody knows how Apple is going to handle the new chips with 8 or more CPU cores and 16 or more GPU cores. I don’t see how they can put all of that on chip without almost doubling the area. Will they want to do that, and increase the price of he chip by that much?
I see no problem with doubling the amount of RAM, because it’s off chip, but on the substrate board. Just replace the two 8GB RAM packages with 16GB packages. That’s a no brainer. I imagine they could go to two 32GB packages, at high cost, but I can’t find a 64GB package that would fit. But they could simply extend the substrate further to the right, and add two more RAM packages. So they could go to four 32GB packages, with current RAM packaging, if they want to. I’ve said this before. In reality, they could continue extending the substrate as far as they want, and keep adding packages. They could even use packages with side pins, and use the very small sockets that fit them, and give upgradable RAM.
they have a lot of options. They could also, in a Mac Pro, use two, or even more, SoCs. They have the tech for that. It wouldn’t be the first time. They did it with the G4, which wasn’t designed for multi socket use. And then the G5, and of course, dual Xeons. I would think that if they did, each chip could have its own RAM, and that Apple could pool it, if they thought it would be advantageous. So I suppose they could add as much RAM as they wanted to, when cost isn’t much of an issue.
Not really. I was asking the size of the case. I was thinking if they’ll discontinue the current Mac Pro in favor of the smaller one. Or the smaller version we’re talking here is just another “iMac Pro.”
Too bad. I put a lot of thought into that. ;~)
we;re getting conflicting signals on that. I think everyone is just guessing now. When the 2019 model came out, it competed directly against, Boxx, Dell, Hp and others. Does Apple want to do that again? I suppose they do. The Mac Pro has sold pretty well considering the market. But top pricing, mostly because of RAM is around $50,000. That also accounts for a fair part of the size. RAM sucks power, and needs a bigger power supply, fans, and room.
I guess this mostly depends on what Apple is going to do about graphics. Having two double width graphics cards, plus a slot for the accelerator takes a lot of room, and also needs a bigger power supply and cooling.
I do think it’s very possible that the flailing about of the rumormongers might be right about Apple making two models. I hope so. But the bigger one will likely be smaller than the current one, and a smaller one might be a replacement for the iMac Pro, maybe. With a new, cheaper monitor coming out, would anyone buy an iMac Pro?
I took my time read it though.
Back to topic. If anything, I hope we’re not losing PCIe slots. Someone out there can get it maxed out pretty well. Bigger chassis does mean better passive cooling capability and thus making the machine quiet. As far people like about a smaller workstation, none of us want it noisy & hot.
Though Apple could make them have different processors to justify the price range, I don’t know what that would mean for the iMac Pro. I’m guessing that it will step down and merge with the larger iMac? At least it does make sense by core counts (16-Core Apple Silicon is definitely faster than 18-Core Xeon).
another thing to add is I does hope the current design lasts a long time, perhaps a decade like the classic cheese grater. A professional product should be future proof and durable (same for the 16”, though I understand mobile technology always evolve in form).
Back to topic. If anything, I hope we’re not losing PCIe slots. Someone out there can get it maxed out pretty well. Bigger chassis does mean better passive cooling capability and thus making the machine quiet. As far people like about a smaller workstation, none of us want it noisy & hot.
The slots are primarily used for the GPUs. Currently they go up to 56TFLOPs for 4x GPUs. There's a rumor here saying AMD will make an upcoming GPU on a chiplet design:
Chiplets give better yields. Apple can make a 2.6TFLOPs GPU within 10-20 Watts so if they can scale it up, they can reach around 40-50TFLOPs within the iMac Pro enclosure. They might not reach that high performance if the heat output is hard to control but it's reasonable that they can make a chip that is 2-3x faster (5-8TFLOPs) for the MBP to fit within 40-60W and make a chiplet package with 2 of those for the iMac (10-16TFLOPs) within 80-150W and up to 4 of those for higher-end use (20-32TFLOPs) to fit within 500W.
The higher-end models would be better with 3nm process to stay cool enough but the 500W thermal design of the iMac Pro can accommodate a lot of power with Apple Silicon. Nothing about Apple Silicon would suggest they will run hot and noisy. Apple has the freedom to control all aspects of the cooling with their own hardware. The following video compares the Intel chips with the M1 around 3:20:
It shows what Intel has been getting away with selling all these years and while AMD were better, they were never that much better, they only ever tried to stay one step ahead of Intel and Apple jumped significantly ahead of both.
While the iMac Pro would provide enough cooling, Apple could repurpose the Mac Pro enclosure, which works better for use with the XDR displays. Potentially a new iMac Pro could be based on the XDR display. I'd expect a unified CPU/GPU system so everything that would normally be in the bottom half can move into the top with a shared heatsink. That doesn't necessarily mean no PCIe slots as they will probably still want to support the Afterburner card (unless they find a way to integrate it into the custom chip) but there's been no indication so far for 3rd party GPU support. There's not much point if their own chips reach this performance level.
Cutting it in half wouldn't be an issue considering Apple's own chips will be multiple times improved performance-per-watt vs the current Mac Pro. Only 2x would justify cutting it in half. It should also be significantly cheaper. Intel was charging $7k+ for a Xeon chip. Apple's chip would run rings around it for under $200. Intel only charges that because they sell in such low quantities and they weigh it against the cost of their own production, Apple can price it however they want. I doubt it would be as low as $200, they charge $2k for their Afterburner card but I expect it to be significantly lower than Intel's prices, especially if they just use multiples of the chips that go in the MBP/iMac.
This kind of chip design will make a huge difference for Apple support because they won't have dozens of different hardware models and drivers from different companies. It will be one architecture for CPU and GPU from low-end to high-end and should result in a more stable experience for professional use.
Back to topic. If anything, I hope we’re not losing PCIe slots. Someone out there can get it maxed out pretty well. Bigger chassis does mean better passive cooling capability and thus making the machine quiet. As far people like about a smaller workstation, none of us want it noisy & hot.
The slots are primarily used for the GPUs. Currently they go up to 56TFLOPs for 4x GPUs. There's a rumor here saying AMD will make an upcoming GPU on a chiplet design:
Chiplets give better yields. Apple can make a 2.6TFLOPs GPU within 10-20 Watts so if they can scale it up, they can reach around 40-50TFLOPs within the iMac Pro enclosure. They might not reach that high performance if the heat output is hard to control but it's reasonable that they can make a chip that is 2-3x faster (5-8TFLOPs) for the MBP to fit within 40-60W and make a chiplet package with 2 of those for the iMac (10-16TFLOPs) within 80-150W and up to 4 of those for higher-end use (20-32TFLOPs) to fit within 500W.
The higher-end models would be better with 3nm process to stay cool enough but the 500W thermal design of the iMac Pro can accommodate a lot of power with Apple Silicon. Nothing about Apple Silicon would suggest they will run hot and noisy. Apple has the freedom to control all aspects of the cooling with their own hardware. The following video compares the Intel chips with the M1 around 3:20:
It shows what Intel has been getting away with selling all these years and while AMD were better, they were never that much better, they only ever tried to stay one step ahead of Intel and Apple jumped significantly ahead of both.
While the iMac Pro would provide enough cooling, Apple could repurpose the Mac Pro enclosure, which works better for use with the XDR displays. Potentially a new iMac Pro could be based on the XDR display. I'd expect a unified CPU/GPU system so everything that would normally be in the bottom half can move into the top with a shared heatsink. That doesn't necessarily mean no PCIe slots as they will probably still want to support the Afterburner card (unless they find a way to integrate it into the custom chip) but there's been no indication so far for 3rd party GPU support. There's not much point if their own chips reach this performance level.
Cutting it in half wouldn't be an issue considering Apple's own chips will be multiple times improved performance-per-watt vs the current Mac Pro. Only 2x would justify cutting it in half. It should also be significantly cheaper. Intel was charging $7k+ for a Xeon chip. Apple's chip would run rings around it for under $200. Intel only charges that because they sell in such low quantities and they weigh it against the cost of their own production, Apple can price it however they want. I doubt it would be as low as $200, they charge $2k for their Afterburner card but I expect it to be significantly lower than Intel's prices, especially if they just use multiples of the chips that go in the MBP/iMac.
This kind of chip design will make a huge difference for Apple support because they won't have dozens of different hardware models and drivers from different companies. It will be one architecture for CPU and GPU from low-end to high-end and should result in a more stable experience for professional use.
Well I don’t mean they’ll running at an unusual degree, those massive heatsinks for the Mac Pro was meant to have better passive cooling capabilities. I’m sure the MPX module can be 2-3x smaller with the cost of heat & noise.
Maybe with Apple silicon they could bring it down, or if they keep the same power envelope they’ll reach to a new level of performance. That said, I don’t think it’s reasonable to discontinue a workstation design only two years after release. If Mac mini was meant for a decade why not the Pro?
Though there are people who can maxed out all 8 slots there, not necessarily just the graphics. Having any of these removed will be quite an impact.
Well I don’t mean they’ll running at an unusual degree, those massive heatsinks for the Mac Pro was meant to have better passive cooling capabilities. I’m sure the MPX module can be 2-3x smaller with the cost of heat & noise.
Maybe with Apple silicon they could bring it down, or if they keep the same power envelope they’ll reach to a new level of performance. That said, I don’t think it’s reasonable to discontinue a workstation design only two years after release. If Mac mini was meant for a decade why not the Pro?
Though there are people who can maxed out all 8 slots there, not necessarily just the graphics. Having any of these removed will be quite an impact.
The 2013/14 cylinder Mac Pro was designed for a decade and if Intel/AMD had managed to deliver 2x performance-per-watt improvements every 3 years, Apple would have been able to make a 28TFLOP cylinder last year but they didn't deliver close to this.
Hardware designs are made to accommodate the technology available, Apple Silicon changes this again and warrants a new design.
When it comes to PCIe, they only really need a single slot or connector. For the handful of people who want more slots, they can buy an external box that plugs into that.
A single PCIe5 slot will have 0.5Tbit/s bandwidth, easily enough to handle anything people need - 8k/60 raw is only 20Gbit/s. Let's say the next iMac Pro looks like the XDR display and they manage to fit a chip faster than the 28-core Xeon and a 32TFLOP GPU in the back (or stand). They can have a cable that runs down the back for a PCIe box. RAM may be an issue but they can have 64-128GB DDR5 on the chip and have some RAM external if more is needed. Then an internal PCIe SSD bay for up to 8-16TB internal and the rest can go in the external box.
Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
there is no RAM issue.
Maybe he’s referring the trash can which we may not seen in a decade or so.
At what size you think will be optimal for the next Mac Pro?
Are you asking about the amount of RAM? Max RAM sizes are funny things. Does the current Mac Pro really NEED such a high RAM Max? Really, how many users are going to need more than a TB of RAM? We’re talking about the very top of the pyramid, and by definition, that’s a very small number.
from my use of the new Macbook Pro, with 16GB, I've found that I can do the same things with this, without problems, that I could do with 32GB. After that, it becomes hazy. I can’t show, for certain that it’s the equal, in function, to 64GB, or maybe even 48GB. But it never feels as though I’m under RAM pressure. It’s difficult to compare this to my older Macbook Pro with separate GPU though. And comparing it to the much poorer performing Intel IG doesn’t seem like a comparable test either, even though I’ve been trying to figure out how everything does compare. I have to make allowances in the fact that the IG performance, by itself, is so much poorer, and the fact that my Macbook Pro has 32GB RAM, plus the RAM from the GPU.
if the next Macbook Pro, a high performance model, we’re all reading about has 32GB, then that’s what the older model has, though it won’t have, I’m assuming, separate GPU RAM, so it won’t be exactly the same. But nevertheless, to me, from what I’m finding here, it should perform as though it has more RAM than it does—64GB, maybe? Assuming things are consistent from one model to the other.
other than Apple’s memory model, these new machines have fast SSDs. At least, as long as you don’t buy the 256GB version, which I keep warning people not to buy if the want to do anything performant. There’s no much Apple can do about the performance of the 256GB drive, as that’s subject to the normal consequences of using half the NAND packages of larger drives, and therefor being a lot slower. I recommend at least the 512 model for performance. I a,ways get a 1TB drive for the main startup drive, and that’s what I bought.
drive speed is very important. And now, where it’s hitting above 2GB/s, it has a major influence on the overall performance of the system. If the machine is paging in and out of the drive, and it’s slow, there will be a noticeable performance hit. But if the drive is fast, then really, you won’t feel that it’s doing that. I’ve had that happen, while monitoring, and trying to use up all the RAM. There’s no really noticeable slowdown. And this impacts the amount of RAM needed.
so between Apple’s unified memory model and fast drives, you need less RAM than before. But that’s with these M1 chips. Nobody knows how Apple is going to handle the new chips with 8 or more CPU cores and 16 or more GPU cores. I don’t see how they can put all of that on chip without almost doubling the area. Will they want to do that, and increase the price of he chip by that much?
I see no problem with doubling the amount of RAM, because it’s off chip, but on the substrate board. Just replace the two 8GB RAM packages with 16GB packages. That’s a no brainer. I imagine they could go to two 32GB packages, at high cost, but I can’t find a 64GB package that would fit. But they could simply extend the substrate further to the right, and add two more RAM packages. So they could go to four 32GB packages, with current RAM packaging, if they want to. I’ve said this before. In reality, they could continue extending the substrate as far as they want, and keep adding packages. They could even use packages with side pins, and use the very small sockets that fit them, and give upgradable RAM.
they have a lot of options. They could also, in a Mac Pro, use two, or even more, SoCs. They have the tech for that. It wouldn’t be the first time. They did it with the G4, which wasn’t designed for multi socket use. And then the G5, and of course, dual Xeons. I would think that if they did, each chip could have its own RAM, and that Apple could pool it, if they thought it would be advantageous. So I suppose they could add as much RAM as they wanted to, when cost isn’t much of an issue.
Not really. I was asking the size of the case. I was thinking if they’ll discontinue the current Mac Pro in favor of the smaller one. Or the smaller version we’re talking here is just another “iMac Pro.”
Too bad. I put a lot of thought into that. ;~)
we;re getting conflicting signals on that. I think everyone is just guessing now. When the 2019 model came out, it competed directly against, Boxx, Dell, Hp and others. Does Apple want to do that again? I suppose they do. The Mac Pro has sold pretty well considering the market. But top pricing, mostly because of RAM is around $50,000. That also accounts for a fair part of the size. RAM sucks power, and needs a bigger power supply, fans, and room.
I guess this mostly depends on what Apple is going to do about graphics. Having two double width graphics cards, plus a slot for the accelerator takes a lot of room, and also needs a bigger power supply and cooling.
I do think it’s very possible that the flailing about of the rumormongers might be right about Apple making two models. I hope so. But the bigger one will likely be smaller than the current one, and a smaller one might be a replacement for the iMac Pro, maybe. With a new, cheaper monitor coming out, would anyone buy an iMac Pro?
I took my time read it though.
Back to topic. If anything, I hope we’re not losing PCIe slots. Someone out there can get it maxed out pretty well. Bigger chassis does mean better passive cooling capability and thus making the machine quiet. As far people like about a smaller workstation, none of us want it noisy & hot.
Though Apple could make them have different processors to justify the price range, I don’t know what that would mean for the iMac Pro. I’m guessing that it will step down and merge with the larger iMac? At least it does make sense by core counts (16-Core Apple Silicon is definitely faster than 18-Core Xeon).
another thing to add is I does hope the current design lasts a long time, perhaps a decade like the classic cheese grater. A professional product should be future proof and durable (same for the 16”, though I understand mobile technology always evolve in form).
It’s a question as to what all the slots would be used for. I have nothing against slots, but most these days are for graphics, and if Apple uses their. Solution, and if it’s really good, then all the slots might not be necessary., two maybe three would suffice. The small model might do with one.
Well I don’t mean they’ll running at an unusual degree, those massive heatsinks for the Mac Pro was meant to have better passive cooling capabilities. I’m sure the MPX module can be 2-3x smaller with the cost of heat & noise.
Maybe with Apple silicon they could bring it down, or if they keep the same power envelope they’ll reach to a new level of performance. That said, I don’t think it’s reasonable to discontinue a workstation design only two years after release. If Mac mini was meant for a decade why not the Pro?
Though there are people who can maxed out all 8 slots there, not necessarily just the graphics. Having any of these removed will be quite an impact.
The 2013/14 cylinder Mac Pro was designed for a decade and if Intel/AMD had managed to deliver 2x performance-per-watt improvements every 3 years, Apple would have been able to make a 28TFLOP cylinder last year but they didn't deliver close to this.
Hardware designs are made to accommodate the technology available, Apple Silicon changes this again and warrants a new design.
When it comes to PCIe, they only really need a single slot or connector. For the handful of people who want more slots, they can buy an external box that plugs into that.
A single PCIe5 slot will have 0.5Tbit/s bandwidth, easily enough to handle anything people need - 8k/60 raw is only 20Gbit/s. Let's say the next iMac Pro looks like the XDR display and they manage to fit a chip faster than the 28-core Xeon and a 32TFLOP GPU in the back (or stand). They can have a cable that runs down the back for a PCIe box. RAM may be an issue but they can have 64-128GB DDR5 on the chip and have some RAM external if more is needed. Then an internal PCIe SSD bay for up to 8-16TB internal and the rest can go in the external box.
Form factor is one thing (full of external expansion isn’t elegant), you can’t always count on “2x the performance per watt” even that’s Apple Silicon. TSMC may have a problem and under-delivered or the processor design did not end up well. Just check that Snapdragon. Relying on something that minimize the thermal may always be a bumpy ride.
Not to mention maybe you don’t want to lose out your performance advantage, imagine how much performance you can deliver with current design.
Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
there is no RAM issue.
Maybe he’s referring the trash can which we may not seen in a decade or so.
At what size you think will be optimal for the next Mac Pro?
Are you asking about the amount of RAM? Max RAM sizes are funny things. Does the current Mac Pro really NEED such a high RAM Max? Really, how many users are going to need more than a TB of RAM? We’re talking about the very top of the pyramid, and by definition, that’s a very small number.
from my use of the new Macbook Pro, with 16GB, I've found that I can do the same things with this, without problems, that I could do with 32GB. After that, it becomes hazy. I can’t show, for certain that it’s the equal, in function, to 64GB, or maybe even 48GB. But it never feels as though I’m under RAM pressure. It’s difficult to compare this to my older Macbook Pro with separate GPU though. And comparing it to the much poorer performing Intel IG doesn’t seem like a comparable test either, even though I’ve been trying to figure out how everything does compare. I have to make allowances in the fact that the IG performance, by itself, is so much poorer, and the fact that my Macbook Pro has 32GB RAM, plus the RAM from the GPU.
if the next Macbook Pro, a high performance model, we’re all reading about has 32GB, then that’s what the older model has, though it won’t have, I’m assuming, separate GPU RAM, so it won’t be exactly the same. But nevertheless, to me, from what I’m finding here, it should perform as though it has more RAM than it does—64GB, maybe? Assuming things are consistent from one model to the other.
other than Apple’s memory model, these new machines have fast SSDs. At least, as long as you don’t buy the 256GB version, which I keep warning people not to buy if the want to do anything performant. There’s no much Apple can do about the performance of the 256GB drive, as that’s subject to the normal consequences of using half the NAND packages of larger drives, and therefor being a lot slower. I recommend at least the 512 model for performance. I a,ways get a 1TB drive for the main startup drive, and that’s what I bought.
drive speed is very important. And now, where it’s hitting above 2GB/s, it has a major influence on the overall performance of the system. If the machine is paging in and out of the drive, and it’s slow, there will be a noticeable performance hit. But if the drive is fast, then really, you won’t feel that it’s doing that. I’ve had that happen, while monitoring, and trying to use up all the RAM. There’s no really noticeable slowdown. And this impacts the amount of RAM needed.
so between Apple’s unified memory model and fast drives, you need less RAM than before. But that’s with these M1 chips. Nobody knows how Apple is going to handle the new chips with 8 or more CPU cores and 16 or more GPU cores. I don’t see how they can put all of that on chip without almost doubling the area. Will they want to do that, and increase the price of he chip by that much?
I see no problem with doubling the amount of RAM, because it’s off chip, but on the substrate board. Just replace the two 8GB RAM packages with 16GB packages. That’s a no brainer. I imagine they could go to two 32GB packages, at high cost, but I can’t find a 64GB package that would fit. But they could simply extend the substrate further to the right, and add two more RAM packages. So they could go to four 32GB packages, with current RAM packaging, if they want to. I’ve said this before. In reality, they could continue extending the substrate as far as they want, and keep adding packages. They could even use packages with side pins, and use the very small sockets that fit them, and give upgradable RAM.
they have a lot of options. They could also, in a Mac Pro, use two, or even more, SoCs. They have the tech for that. It wouldn’t be the first time. They did it with the G4, which wasn’t designed for multi socket use. And then the G5, and of course, dual Xeons. I would think that if they did, each chip could have its own RAM, and that Apple could pool it, if they thought it would be advantageous. So I suppose they could add as much RAM as they wanted to, when cost isn’t much of an issue.
Not really. I was asking the size of the case. I was thinking if they’ll discontinue the current Mac Pro in favor of the smaller one. Or the smaller version we’re talking here is just another “iMac Pro.”
Too bad. I put a lot of thought into that. ;~)
we;re getting conflicting signals on that. I think everyone is just guessing now. When the 2019 model came out, it competed directly against, Boxx, Dell, Hp and others. Does Apple want to do that again? I suppose they do. The Mac Pro has sold pretty well considering the market. But top pricing, mostly because of RAM is around $50,000. That also accounts for a fair part of the size. RAM sucks power, and needs a bigger power supply, fans, and room.
I guess this mostly depends on what Apple is going to do about graphics. Having two double width graphics cards, plus a slot for the accelerator takes a lot of room, and also needs a bigger power supply and cooling.
I do think it’s very possible that the flailing about of the rumormongers might be right about Apple making two models. I hope so. But the bigger one will likely be smaller than the current one, and a smaller one might be a replacement for the iMac Pro, maybe. With a new, cheaper monitor coming out, would anyone buy an iMac Pro?
I took my time read it though.
Back to topic. If anything, I hope we’re not losing PCIe slots. Someone out there can get it maxed out pretty well. Bigger chassis does mean better passive cooling capability and thus making the machine quiet. As far people like about a smaller workstation, none of us want it noisy & hot.
Though Apple could make them have different processors to justify the price range, I don’t know what that would mean for the iMac Pro. I’m guessing that it will step down and merge with the larger iMac? At least it does make sense by core counts (16-Core Apple Silicon is definitely faster than 18-Core Xeon).
another thing to add is I does hope the current design lasts a long time, perhaps a decade like the classic cheese grater. A professional product should be future proof and durable (same for the 16”, though I understand mobile technology always evolve in form).
It’s a question as to what all the slots would be used for. I have nothing against slots, but most these days are for graphics, and if Apple uses their. Solution, and if it’s really good, then all the slots might not be necessary., two maybe three would suffice. The small model might do with one.
I was thinking about that audio professional who pretty much maxed out all available slots.
GPUs most likely comes with a dedicated slot & may not necessarily need those massive heatsinks. With that they could move the processor down a bit. Then I couldn’t think about what else can be shrink without some compromise.
Apple could bring back the trash can Mac as the problem was thermal capacity. The Apple Silicon generates much less heat.
There’s still the issue of raw power. It has yet to be proven that Apple can provide a workhorse machine like the current Mac Pro when their own SOC is used, instead of Intel Xeons. Also the RAM issue...
I don’t think that’s an issue. Do you believe that Apple is winging it? That they don’t know what their chips can, and will be able to do? That they took a chance that could cost them hundreds of billions in company value if they fail without being certain they can pull ALL of it off? I don’t think so.
there is no RAM issue.
Maybe he’s referring the trash can which we may not seen in a decade or so.
At what size you think will be optimal for the next Mac Pro?
Are you asking about the amount of RAM? Max RAM sizes are funny things. Does the current Mac Pro really NEED such a high RAM Max? Really, how many users are going to need more than a TB of RAM? We’re talking about the very top of the pyramid, and by definition, that’s a very small number.
from my use of the new Macbook Pro, with 16GB, I've found that I can do the same things with this, without problems, that I could do with 32GB. After that, it becomes hazy. I can’t show, for certain that it’s the equal, in function, to 64GB, or maybe even 48GB. But it never feels as though I’m under RAM pressure. It’s difficult to compare this to my older Macbook Pro with separate GPU though. And comparing it to the much poorer performing Intel IG doesn’t seem like a comparable test either, even though I’ve been trying to figure out how everything does compare. I have to make allowances in the fact that the IG performance, by itself, is so much poorer, and the fact that my Macbook Pro has 32GB RAM, plus the RAM from the GPU.
if the next Macbook Pro, a high performance model, we’re all reading about has 32GB, then that’s what the older model has, though it won’t have, I’m assuming, separate GPU RAM, so it won’t be exactly the same. But nevertheless, to me, from what I’m finding here, it should perform as though it has more RAM than it does—64GB, maybe? Assuming things are consistent from one model to the other.
other than Apple’s memory model, these new machines have fast SSDs. At least, as long as you don’t buy the 256GB version, which I keep warning people not to buy if the want to do anything performant. There’s no much Apple can do about the performance of the 256GB drive, as that’s subject to the normal consequences of using half the NAND packages of larger drives, and therefor being a lot slower. I recommend at least the 512 model for performance. I a,ways get a 1TB drive for the main startup drive, and that’s what I bought.
drive speed is very important. And now, where it’s hitting above 2GB/s, it has a major influence on the overall performance of the system. If the machine is paging in and out of the drive, and it’s slow, there will be a noticeable performance hit. But if the drive is fast, then really, you won’t feel that it’s doing that. I’ve had that happen, while monitoring, and trying to use up all the RAM. There’s no really noticeable slowdown. And this impacts the amount of RAM needed.
so between Apple’s unified memory model and fast drives, you need less RAM than before. But that’s with these M1 chips. Nobody knows how Apple is going to handle the new chips with 8 or more CPU cores and 16 or more GPU cores. I don’t see how they can put all of that on chip without almost doubling the area. Will they want to do that, and increase the price of he chip by that much?
I see no problem with doubling the amount of RAM, because it’s off chip, but on the substrate board. Just replace the two 8GB RAM packages with 16GB packages. That’s a no brainer. I imagine they could go to two 32GB packages, at high cost, but I can’t find a 64GB package that would fit. But they could simply extend the substrate further to the right, and add two more RAM packages. So they could go to four 32GB packages, with current RAM packaging, if they want to. I’ve said this before. In reality, they could continue extending the substrate as far as they want, and keep adding packages. They could even use packages with side pins, and use the very small sockets that fit them, and give upgradable RAM.
they have a lot of options. They could also, in a Mac Pro, use two, or even more, SoCs. They have the tech for that. It wouldn’t be the first time. They did it with the G4, which wasn’t designed for multi socket use. And then the G5, and of course, dual Xeons. I would think that if they did, each chip could have its own RAM, and that Apple could pool it, if they thought it would be advantageous. So I suppose they could add as much RAM as they wanted to, when cost isn’t much of an issue.
Not really. I was asking the size of the case. I was thinking if they’ll discontinue the current Mac Pro in favor of the smaller one. Or the smaller version we’re talking here is just another “iMac Pro.”
Too bad. I put a lot of thought into that. ;~)
we;re getting conflicting signals on that. I think everyone is just guessing now. When the 2019 model came out, it competed directly against, Boxx, Dell, Hp and others. Does Apple want to do that again? I suppose they do. The Mac Pro has sold pretty well considering the market. But top pricing, mostly because of RAM is around $50,000. That also accounts for a fair part of the size. RAM sucks power, and needs a bigger power supply, fans, and room.
I guess this mostly depends on what Apple is going to do about graphics. Having two double width graphics cards, plus a slot for the accelerator takes a lot of room, and also needs a bigger power supply and cooling.
I do think it’s very possible that the flailing about of the rumormongers might be right about Apple making two models. I hope so. But the bigger one will likely be smaller than the current one, and a smaller one might be a replacement for the iMac Pro, maybe. With a new, cheaper monitor coming out, would anyone buy an iMac Pro?
I took my time read it though.
Back to topic. If anything, I hope we’re not losing PCIe slots. Someone out there can get it maxed out pretty well. Bigger chassis does mean better passive cooling capability and thus making the machine quiet. As far people like about a smaller workstation, none of us want it noisy & hot.
Though Apple could make them have different processors to justify the price range, I don’t know what that would mean for the iMac Pro. I’m guessing that it will step down and merge with the larger iMac? At least it does make sense by core counts (16-Core Apple Silicon is definitely faster than 18-Core Xeon).
another thing to add is I does hope the current design lasts a long time, perhaps a decade like the classic cheese grater. A professional product should be future proof and durable (same for the 16”, though I understand mobile technology always evolve in form).
It’s a question as to what all the slots would be used for. I have nothing against slots, but most these days are for graphics, and if Apple uses their. Solution, and if it’s really good, then all the slots might not be necessary., two maybe three would suffice. The small model might do with one.
I was thinking about that audio professional who pretty much maxed out all available slots.
GPUs most likely comes with a dedicated slot & may not necessarily need those massive heatsinks. With that they could move the processor down a bit. Then I couldn’t think about what else can be shrink without some compromise.
I don’t see why pro audio would max out anything. 20 years ago, yes. The only problem Apple has for pro audio production today is the 24/96 DACs they insist on using. It’s way past time for them to go to pro level 24/192 DACs. I don’t want to get into the argument over 24/192, but it’s where Apple has to be if audio pros aren’t going to be forced to either go external, or pop a better card in. It’s a complex subject. I still do some of that work, and for much of it, it doesn’t matter. But there are niches where it does.
Comments
we;re getting conflicting signals on that. I think everyone is just guessing now. When the 2019 model came out, it competed directly against, Boxx, Dell, Hp and others. Does Apple want to do that again? I suppose they do. The Mac Pro has sold pretty well considering the market. But top pricing, mostly because of RAM is around $50,000. That also accounts for a fair part of the size. RAM sucks power, and needs a bigger power supply, fans, and room.
I guess this mostly depends on what Apple is going to do about graphics. Having two double width graphics cards, plus a slot for the accelerator takes a lot of room, and also needs a bigger power supply and cooling.
I do think it’s very possible that the flailing about of the rumormongers might be right about Apple making two models. I hope so. But the bigger one will likely be smaller than the current one, and a smaller one might be a replacement for the iMac Pro, maybe. With a new, cheaper monitor coming out, would anyone buy an iMac Pro?
Back to topic. If anything, I hope we’re not losing PCIe slots. Someone out there can get it maxed out pretty well. Bigger chassis does mean better passive cooling capability and thus making the machine quiet. As far people like about a smaller workstation, none of us want it noisy & hot.
Though Apple could make them have different processors to justify the price range, I don’t know what that would mean for the iMac Pro. I’m guessing that it will step down and merge with the larger iMac? At least it does make sense by core counts (16-Core Apple Silicon is definitely faster than 18-Core Xeon).
another thing to add is I does hope the current design lasts a long time, perhaps a decade like the classic cheese grater. A professional product should be future proof and durable (same for the 16”, though I understand mobile technology always evolve in form).
https://wccftech.com/rumor-amd-navi-31-will-be-an-mcm-gpu-featuring-10240-cores-and-37-tflops-of-graphics-horsepower/
Intel is using this setup in their GPUs:
https://wccftech.com/intel-42-tfops-xe-gpu-benchmark/
Chiplets give better yields. Apple can make a 2.6TFLOPs GPU within 10-20 Watts so if they can scale it up, they can reach around 40-50TFLOPs within the iMac Pro enclosure. They might not reach that high performance if the heat output is hard to control but it's reasonable that they can make a chip that is 2-3x faster (5-8TFLOPs) for the MBP to fit within 40-60W and make a chiplet package with 2 of those for the iMac (10-16TFLOPs) within 80-150W and up to 4 of those for higher-end use (20-32TFLOPs) to fit within 500W.
The higher-end models would be better with 3nm process to stay cool enough but the 500W thermal design of the iMac Pro can accommodate a lot of power with Apple Silicon. Nothing about Apple Silicon would suggest they will run hot and noisy. Apple has the freedom to control all aspects of the cooling with their own hardware. The following video compares the Intel chips with the M1 around 3:20:
It shows what Intel has been getting away with selling all these years and while AMD were better, they were never that much better, they only ever tried to stay one step ahead of Intel and Apple jumped significantly ahead of both.
While the iMac Pro would provide enough cooling, Apple could repurpose the Mac Pro enclosure, which works better for use with the XDR displays. Potentially a new iMac Pro could be based on the XDR display. I'd expect a unified CPU/GPU system so everything that would normally be in the bottom half can move into the top with a shared heatsink. That doesn't necessarily mean no PCIe slots as they will probably still want to support the Afterburner card (unless they find a way to integrate it into the custom chip) but there's been no indication so far for 3rd party GPU support. There's not much point if their own chips reach this performance level.
Cutting it in half wouldn't be an issue considering Apple's own chips will be multiple times improved performance-per-watt vs the current Mac Pro. Only 2x would justify cutting it in half. It should also be significantly cheaper. Intel was charging $7k+ for a Xeon chip. Apple's chip would run rings around it for under $200. Intel only charges that because they sell in such low quantities and they weigh it against the cost of their own production, Apple can price it however they want. I doubt it would be as low as $200, they charge $2k for their Afterburner card but I expect it to be significantly lower than Intel's prices, especially if they just use multiples of the chips that go in the MBP/iMac.
This kind of chip design will make a huge difference for Apple support because they won't have dozens of different hardware models and drivers from different companies. It will be one architecture for CPU and GPU from low-end to high-end and should result in a more stable experience for professional use.
Maybe with Apple silicon they could bring it down, or if they keep the same power envelope they’ll reach to a new level of performance. That said, I don’t think it’s reasonable to discontinue a workstation design only two years after release. If Mac mini was meant for a decade why not the Pro?
Though there are people who can maxed out all 8 slots there, not necessarily just the graphics. Having any of these removed will be quite an impact.
Hardware designs are made to accommodate the technology available, Apple Silicon changes this again and warrants a new design.
When it comes to PCIe, they only really need a single slot or connector. For the handful of people who want more slots, they can buy an external box that plugs into that.
https://www.amazon.com/StarTech-com-Express-Slot-Expansion-System/dp/B000UZL1GC
A single PCIe5 slot will have 0.5Tbit/s bandwidth, easily enough to handle anything people need - 8k/60 raw is only 20Gbit/s. Let's say the next iMac Pro looks like the XDR display and they manage to fit a chip faster than the 28-core Xeon and a 32TFLOP GPU in the back (or stand). They can have a cable that runs down the back for a PCIe box. RAM may be an issue but they can have 64-128GB DDR5 on the chip and have some RAM external if more is needed. Then an internal PCIe SSD bay for up to 8-16TB internal and the rest can go in the external box.
I was thinking about that audio professional who pretty much maxed out all available slots.