Redesigned Mac Pro with up to 40 Apple Silicon cores coming in 2022

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited May 2021
Apple is reportedly readying a new Mac Pro desktop that could include a new faster Apple Silicon chip with up to 40 processing cores and 128 graphics cores for launch in 2022.

Credit: Jon Prosser
Credit: Jon Prosser


The Cupertino company is preparing to launch updated 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with Apple Silicon chips as soon as the summer. Alongside those portable professional notebooks, Apple is also preparing to launch new desktop models in 2022.

According to Bloomberg, Apple is working on a new Mac Pro model that will sport a processor that's either twice or four times as powerful as the high-end MacBook Pro chips.

Codenamed Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die, the Mac Pro chips will come in either 20 or 40 computing core versions. The chips will contain 16 high-performance cores or 32-high performance cores along with four or eight high-efficiency cores. For graphics, Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die will be available in either 64-core or 128-core options.

The new Mac Pro chips will top the 28 core maximum offered by current Intel models. Apple's graphics will replace components currently made by AMD.

According to Bloomberg, Apple has been developing the new Mac Pro for several months. It's expected to feature a smaller design compared to the current model.

The publication previously reported that a redesigned Mac Pro was in the works in November 2020. In February, prolific leaker Jon Prosser shared renders based on leaked images and descriptions of the device.

In addition to the Mac Pro, Apple is reportedly also working on other Apple Silicon desktops, such as a larger iMac and a refreshed Mac mini.

Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
patchythepirate
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 36
    Ok, so how much will this $40k MacPro cost?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 36
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,706member
    I wonder if it will be cute like the cylinder Mac or a beast(big) like the new one.

    Most likely it will be tiny bit powerful.


    Ok, so how much will this $40k MacPro cost?


    You already answered. $40k. 
  • Reply 3 of 36
    z3r0z3r0 Posts: 238member
    I hope that the new Mac Pro is still modular. We don't need another cylinder Mac Pro or G4 Cube. I could argue for a larger version of the current Mac Pro for more expandability.

    I really hope Apple leverages PCI Express 6.0 to tackle bottlenecks. PCI Express 5.0 has CLX and CCIX but PCI Express 6.0 will go beyond that.

    https://www.extremetech.com/computing/293451-pci-express-6-0-with-256gb-s-coming-in-2022
    williamlondoncaladaniankillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 36
    zimmiezimmie Posts: 577member
    If it's using the same GPU cores as the M1, clocked at the same speed, a 64-core GPU could do 20.8 TFLOPS, while a 128-core GPU could do 41.6 TFLOPS. For comparison, a GeForce RTX 3090 (the top consumer card from Nvidia) does up to 35.6 TFLOPS, and a Radeon RX 6900 XT (the top consumer card from AMD) does up to 23 TFLOPS.

    Considering the RTX 3090 and RX 6900 XT still universally sell for more than double their MSRP, I wonder if Apple will have scalping problems. Their system of allowing backorders mitigates scalping, but doesn't eliminate it. With the added demand from blockbros, it may be difficult to get one for a year or so.
    edited May 2021 GG1repressthispatchythepiratekillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 36
    zimmie said:
    If it's using the same GPU cores as the M1, clocked at the same speed, a 64-core GPU could do 20.8 TFLOPS, while a 128-core GPU could do 41.6 TFLOPS. For comparison, a GeForce RTX 3090 (the top consumer card from Nvidia) does up to 35.6 TFLOPS, and a Radeon RX 6900 XT (the top consumer card from AMD) does up to 23 TFLOPS.

    Considering the RTX 3090 and RX 6900 XT still universally sell for more than double their MSRP, I wonder if Apple will have scalping problems. Their system of allowing backorders mitigates scalping, but doesn't eliminate it. With the added demand from blockbros, it may be difficult to get one for a year or so.
    It would be a terrible shame if a significant use of these machines is for block chain mining.  (But if it boosts my AAPL investment, I'll be crying all the way to the bank.)
    BeatstmayrepressthisFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 36
    pslicepslice Posts: 133member
    40 Cores? I just want 10-12. How many potential customers??? I have modest wants, 27-30” screen, 12 cores and modest storage and decent RAM. Come on , Apple. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 36
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,739member
    pslice said:
    40 Cores? I just want 10-12. How many potential customers??? I have modest wants, 27-30” screen, 12 cores and modest storage and decent RAM. Come on , Apple. 
    Well, if it’s a Mac Pro then it’s not designed for you is it. Potential customers? Same as the current Mac Pro, professionals who need maximum performance and who are willing to pay the price for it,
    llamarepressthisBeatsionicleviclauyyckillroyFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 36
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,070member
    I would have thought that they would stick with the modern cheese-grater design and only upgrade the innards.  It was the ultimate expression of accessibility and modularity.  Theoretically, one should be able to swap out an Intel motherboard for an Apple Silicon motherboard while keeping much of the rest of the hardware the same.

    To be sure, existing graphics cards may not survive that transition.  But if Apple designs the their newer SOCs with this in mind legacy graphics cards could still have a use.  But then the question becomes, how will the performance of existing graphics cards compare to Apple’s SOC graphics?  Could Apple surprise us again with insanely fast graphics?
    Beatscaladanianfastasleepviclauyyckillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 36
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,673moderator
    Ok, so how much will this $40k MacPro cost?
    The good thing is it's entirely up to Apple, whereas before they were charging a markup on top of Intel's and AMD's prices.

    Intel charges a few thousand dollars for high-end Xeons, the following is in the Mac Pro:
    https://www.amazon.com/Intel-CD8069504248702-Octacosa-core-Processor-Overclocking/dp/B086M6P8D6

    An AMD Radeon Pro VII based on Vega architecture retails for $2740:
    https://www.newegg.com/amd-100-506163/p/N82E16814105105

    Apple charges $10k for 4 Radeon Pro GPUs. Cutting Intel and AMD out means it instantly cuts out around $15k of costs from a $24k Mac Pro. If Apple continued charging that, the extra $15k would all be profit.

    For the easiest manufacturing, they'd use multiple units of the chips that go in their laptops and iMac models. An entire MBP/iMac would cost under $2.5k with a 30% margin so $1750 manufacturing. The CPU/GPU part would be well under $500. It will have bundled memory though up to 64GB per chip. Using 4 of them shouldn't cost more than $2k with 64GB RAM total. The whole machine will likely start around $5k but the lowest quad-chip model will perform like the $24k Mac Pro.

    If they price it too high, people will just buy multiple MBPs/iMacs. I would guess the price range to be starting around $5k and going up to $10k with maximum memory (256GB) and bit higher for 8TB+ SSD. Hopefully the XDR will come down in price a bit too to be able to get a decent Pro with XDR under $10k.

    It may still have PCIe slots to support things like the Afterburner card and other IO cards but I don't see any reason to include slots for GPUs and they can always build an external box for IO cards with a single internal slot.
    zimmie said:
    If it's using the same GPU cores as the M1, clocked at the same speed, a 64-core GPU could do 20.8 TFLOPS, while a 128-core GPU could do 41.6 TFLOPS. For comparison, a GeForce RTX 3090 (the top consumer card from Nvidia) does up to 35.6 TFLOPS, and a Radeon RX 6900 XT (the top consumer card from AMD) does up to 23 TFLOPS.

    Considering the RTX 3090 and RX 6900 XT still universally sell for more than double their MSRP, I wonder if Apple will have scalping problems. Their system of allowing backorders mitigates scalping, but doesn't eliminate it. With the added demand from blockbros, it may be difficult to get one for a year or so.
    It would be a terrible shame if a significant use of these machines is for block chain mining.  (But if it boosts my AAPL investment, I'll be crying all the way to the bank.)
    I could see them being used in render farms and servers. They would be extremely efficient and cost-effective machines.

    Crypto mining would depend on the software being optimized for Apple Silicon and the overall price of the compute units:

    https://otcpm24.com/2021/03/01/apple-m1-vs-nvidia-ethereum-hash-rate-comparison-which-is-more-capable-for-crypto-mining/

    M1 is 2MH/s on the GPU at around 10-15W, NVidia 90HX goes up to 86MH/s at 320W. A 3090 can do over 100MH/s under 300W.
    A Mac Pro would be expected to get 16x this so 32MH/s at around 200W.
    An Nvidia 3090 is around $3k so I don't see people buying $5k+ Mac Pros specifically for mining but if they already planned to have a server array of Macs, they might use them for mining. Mining will probably become obsolete in the next year anyway.
    tenthousandthingsJWSCfastasleepviclauyycpatchythepirateFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 36
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,861member
    Ok, so how much will this $40k MacPro cost?
    If you have to ask…
    Detnator
  • Reply 11 of 36
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 2,686member
    Apple has made Mac Pros in the shape of a cylinder and a cuboid. That leaves the following shapes as possibilities for upcoming Mac Pros:

    commentzillaviclauyycpatchythepirate
  • Reply 12 of 36
    jfdesignsjfdesigns Posts: 16member
    Apple is reportedly readying a new Mac Pro desktop that could include a new faster Apple Silicon chip with up to 40 processing cores and 128 graphics cores for launch in 2022.

    Credit: Jon Prosser
    Credit: Jon Prosser


    The Cupertino company is preparing to launch updated 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with Apple Silicon chips as soon as the summer. Alongside those portable professional notebooks, Apple is also preparing to launch new desktop models in 2022.

    According to Bloomberg, Apple is working on a new Mac Pro model that will sport a processor that's either twice or four times as powerful as the high-end MacBook Pro chips.

    Codenamed Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die, the Mac Pro chips will come in either 20 or 40 computing core versions. The chips will contain 16 high-performance cores or 32-high performance cores along with four or eight high-efficiency cores. For graphics, Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die will be available in either 64-core or 128-core options.

    The new Mac Pro chips will top the 28 core maximum offered by current Intel models. Apple's graphics will replace components currently made by AMD.

    According to Bloomberg, Apple has been developing the new Mac Pro for several months. It's expected to feature a smaller design compared to the current model.

    The publication previously reported that a redesigned Mac Pro was in the works in November 2020. In February, prolific leaker Jon Prosser shared renders based on leaked images and descriptions of the device.

    In addition to the Mac Pro, Apple is reportedly also working on other Apple Silicon desktops, such as a larger iMac and a refreshed Mac mini.

    Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.
    So Godzilla has a name and it’s, “M4”. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 36
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    z3r0 said:
    I hope that the new Mac Pro is still modular. We don't need another cylinder Mac Pro or G4 Cube. I could argue for a larger version of the current Mac Pro for more expandability.

    I really hope Apple leverages PCI Express 6.0 to tackle bottlenecks. PCI Express 5.0 has CLX and CCIX but PCI Express 6.0 will go beyond that.

    https://www.extremetech.com/computing/293451-pci-express-6-0-with-256gb-s-coming-in-2022

    Unfortunately what you want, an even bigger Mac Pro, just isn't a money maker for Apple.   In fact Apple trying to build a Mac Pro that fits into such a narrow market is why it always sells so poorly and thus never gets updated.   Apple would be far better off coming up with a half rack wide Mac Pro that has at most 3 PCI-E slots.   Get the intro price well below the current price, well under $2000, and go for enough low end volume to pay for the engineering going into the box.    They can charge as much as they want for a high end box.

    So in a nut shell lets not put Apple in the position of failure again, with asinine product requirements that make for an expensive intro machine.    Apple needs enough volume out of the new Mac Pro to pay for the engineering time put into it.   That means a reasonably capable intro model to support the high performance model.   Then maybe just maybe the Mac Pro would get yearly updates that don't suck.
    williamlondoncaladanianmobirdwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 36
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,070member
    Apple has made Mac Pros in the shape of a cylinder and a cuboid. That leaves the following shapes as possibilities for upcoming Mac Pros:

    Please, no tetrahedrons from Oblivion!  Definitely not environmentally friendly.
    patchythepiratekillroywatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 36
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    lkrupp said:
    pslice said:
    40 Cores? I just want 10-12. How many potential customers??? I have modest wants, 27-30” screen, 12 cores and modest storage and decent RAM. Come on , Apple. 
    Well, if it’s a Mac Pro then it’s not designed for you is it. Potential customers? Same as the current Mac Pro, professionals who need maximum performance and who are willing to pay the price for it,

    There simply are not enough of those sorts of customers.   Apple keeps designing a Mac Pro for a customer base that does not exist in the volume to justify the machine they design.   This then results in sales failures that lead to Apple giving up and the same machine on the market for years with no updates.   It has been the history of the Mac Pro for more than a decade now. 
     
    Apple absolutely needs an intro machine that is under $2000 and doesn't suck.   They need that price to drive volume and to support the platform so that they can have high performance models.   More so they need to go a step further and make sure the mother board is compatible for other platforms like an iMac Pro or an Xmac.   Literally a multi use motherboard that again drives volume to address the issue of cost or more importantly the perception of value.

    Now some of you probably think I'm nuts and will say this can't be done.    I say it has to be done to break the cycle of Mac Pros that frankly are jokes.   The current Mac Pro is an embarrassment when you look at what one can do with a Thread Ripper based system.   Frankly I don't think Apple has a chance in hell of competing with such systems but they can make a far better and competitive Mac Pro.   The enablement for this is in fact Apple Silicon.   They will have to bin such chips as it isn't likely they will get every CPU core and every GPU core working out of such large chips.   So maybe more than 10 cores but less than the 40 or 32 of a performance chip.    As long as you support the same pin outs you can cover a very broad range of performance needs.
    caladanianviclauyycpatchythepiratesmalm
  • Reply 16 of 36
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,070member
    Marvin said:
    Ok, so how much will this $40k MacPro cost?
    The good thing is it's entirely up to Apple, whereas before they were charging a markup on top of Intel's and AMD's prices.

    Intel charges a few thousand dollars for high-end Xeons, the following is in the Mac Pro:
    https://www.amazon.com/Intel-CD8069504248702-Octacosa-core-Processor-Overclocking/dp/B086M6P8D6

    An AMD Radeon Pro VII based on Vega architecture retails for $2740:
    https://www.newegg.com/amd-100-506163/p/N82E16814105105

    Apple charges $10k for 4 Radeon Pro GPUs. Cutting Intel and AMD out means it instantly cuts out around $15k of costs from a $24k Mac Pro. If Apple continued charging that, the extra $15k would all be profit.

    For the easiest manufacturing, they'd use multiple units of the chips that go in their laptops and iMac models. An entire MBP/iMac would cost under $2.5k with a 30% margin so $1750 manufacturing. The CPU/GPU part would be well under $500. It will have bundled memory though up to 64GB per chip. Using 4 of them shouldn't cost more than $2k with 64GB RAM total. The whole machine will likely start around $5k but the lowest quad-chip model will perform like the $24k Mac Pro.

    If they price it too high, people will just buy multiple MBPs/iMacs. I would guess the price range to be starting around $5k and going up to $10k with maximum memory (256GB) and bit higher for 8TB+ SSD. Hopefully the XDR will come down in price a bit too to be able to get a decent Pro with XDR under $10k.

    It may still have PCIe slots to support things like the Afterburner card and other IO cards but I don't see any reason to include slots for GPUs and they can always build an external box for IO cards with a single internal slot.
    zimmie said:
    If it's using the same GPU cores as the M1, clocked at the same speed, a 64-core GPU could do 20.8 TFLOPS, while a 128-core GPU could do 41.6 TFLOPS. For comparison, a GeForce RTX 3090 (the top consumer card from Nvidia) does up to 35.6 TFLOPS, and a Radeon RX 6900 XT (the top consumer card from AMD) does up to 23 TFLOPS.

    Considering the RTX 3090 and RX 6900 XT still universally sell for more than double their MSRP, I wonder if Apple will have scalping problems. Their system of allowing backorders mitigates scalping, but doesn't eliminate it. With the added demand from blockbros, it may be difficult to get one for a year or so.
    It would be a terrible shame if a significant use of these machines is for block chain mining.  (But if it boosts my AAPL investment, I'll be crying all the way to the bank.)
    I could see them being used in render farms and servers. They would be extremely efficient and cost-effective machines.

    Crypto mining would depend on the software being optimized for Apple Silicon and the overall price of the compute units:

    https://otcpm24.com/2021/03/01/apple-m1-vs-nvidia-ethereum-hash-rate-comparison-which-is-more-capable-for-crypto-mining/

    M1 is 2MH/s on the GPU at around 10-15W, NVidia 90HX goes up to 86MH/s at 320W. A 3090 can do over 100MH/s under 300W.
    A Mac Pro would be expected to get 16x this so 32MH/s at around 200W.
    An Nvidia 3090 is around $3k so I don't see people buying $5k+ Mac Pros specifically for mining but if they already planned to have a server array of Macs, they might use them for mining. Mining will probably become obsolete in the next year anyway.
    I was wondering if it makes sense to crank up the clock speed on M Series SOC processors.  If cranking up clock speed is one avenue of performance improvement then you have to take yield into account.  With the M1 that seems like virgin territory to explore.  Without that data how would Apple know how to price faster M Series chips?  They would have to produce enough to get statistically significant yield data, which would take time and a lot on money.

    OTOH, maybe the M Series SOC architecture is different enough that Apple need not focus on clock speed and instead focus on making massively parallel systems with many cores.  That brings its own problems with increased overhead associated with task management.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 36
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Marvin said:
    Ok, so how much will this $40k MacPro cost?
    The good thing is it's entirely up to Apple, whereas before they were charging a markup on top of Intel's and AMD's prices.

    Intel charges a few thousand dollars for high-end Xeons, the following is in the Mac Pro:
    https://www.amazon.com/Intel-CD8069504248702-Octacosa-core-Processor-Overclocking/dp/B086M6P8D6

    An AMD Radeon Pro VII based on Vega architecture retails for $2740:
    https://www.newegg.com/amd-100-506163/p/N82E16814105105

    Apple charges $10k for 4 Radeon Pro GPUs. Cutting Intel and AMD out means it instantly cuts out around $15k of costs from a $24k Mac Pro. If Apple continued charging that, the extra $15k would all be profit.

    For the easiest manufacturing, they'd use multiple units of the chips that go in their laptops and iMac models. An entire MBP/iMac would cost under $2.5k with a 30% margin so $1750 manufacturing. The CPU/GPU part would be well under $500. It will have bundled memory though up to 64GB per chip. Using 4 of them shouldn't cost more than $2k with 64GB RAM total. The whole machine will likely start around $5k but the lowest quad-chip model will perform like the $24k Mac Pro.

    If they price it too high, people will just buy multiple MBPs/iMacs. I would guess the price range to be starting around $5k and going up to $10k with maximum memory (256GB) and bit higher for 8TB+ SSD. Hopefully the XDR will come down in price a bit too to be able to get a decent Pro with XDR under $10k.

    It may still have PCIe slots to support things like the Afterburner card and other IO cards but I don't see any reason to include slots for GPUs and they can always build an external box for IO cards with a single internal slot.
    zimmie said:
    If it's using the same GPU cores as the M1, clocked at the same speed, a 64-core GPU could do 20.8 TFLOPS, while a 128-core GPU could do 41.6 TFLOPS. For comparison, a GeForce RTX 3090 (the top consumer card from Nvidia) does up to 35.6 TFLOPS, and a Radeon RX 6900 XT (the top consumer card from AMD) does up to 23 TFLOPS.

    Considering the RTX 3090 and RX 6900 XT still universally sell for more than double their MSRP, I wonder if Apple will have scalping problems. Their system of allowing backorders mitigates scalping, but doesn't eliminate it. With the added demand from blockbros, it may be difficult to get one for a year or so.
    It would be a terrible shame if a significant use of these machines is for block chain mining.  (But if it boosts my AAPL investment, I'll be crying all the way to the bank.)
    I could see them being used in render farms and servers. They would be extremely efficient and cost-effective machines.

    Crypto mining would depend on the software being optimized for Apple Silicon and the overall price of the compute units:

    https://otcpm24.com/2021/03/01/apple-m1-vs-nvidia-ethereum-hash-rate-comparison-which-is-more-capable-for-crypto-mining/

    M1 is 2MH/s on the GPU at around 10-15W, NVidia 90HX goes up to 86MH/s at 320W. A 3090 can do over 100MH/s under 300W.
    A Mac Pro would be expected to get 16x this so 32MH/s at around 200W.
    An Nvidia 3090 is around $3k so I don't see people buying $5k+ Mac Pros specifically for mining but if they already planned to have a server array of Macs, they might use them for mining. Mining will probably become obsolete in the next year anyway.
    Hi Marvin;

    I look at it this way, Apple has no choice but to address the cost of the Mac Pro.    The box is a total embarrassment compared to what your get on other platforms performance wise.   In a nut shell the Mac Pro isn't cost competitive for many of the pro users out there.

    More so I'm talking real aggressive here with an entry price under $2000.   Now that will not be sporting a high end processor, most likely a binned processor that doesn't enable all cores, but capable enough that it doesn't such when compared to other Apple machines int he price range.   The idea is to draw enough customers to make Mac Pro development profitable so that Apple actually takes an interest in the platform.    Everything I know about business tells me that the Mac Pro has been a complete failure in the eyes of management over the last decade, actually more years than that.    It explains why after each major revision the product languishes on the shelf for years some times several years before they try again.   Sadly each time they screw up in the same way going after a market that just isn't as big as many people imagine.  The cycle then repeats, poor sales, threats of a discontinuation, years of no updates (lather, rinse and repeat forever).  

    Apple Silicon will not change this one bit if they don't address the potential market with cost competitive machines.   Actually for this market Apple really needs to be more that cost competitive because for the most part pro users are not Apple fan boys.    Any Apple Silicon based Mac Pro needs to be a performance leader and at the same time under cut other machines price wise.   I'm not kidding when I say Apple needs an intro or base machine, that starts at around $2000.    It is the only way to drive sales and get Apple to actually pay attention to the platform and provide us with yearly updates that have some value to them.

    All one has to do is look at the many pro industries that defected to Thread Ripper for the value that platform offers.   Pros don't care about the cheese grater look or even Mac OS.   They care about performance and value for the dollar.

    In any event one common theme in discussions like this is people form the AV industries apparently thinking that they are the only "pro" in the world.   I sometimes think Apple agrees with them.   However the reality is it is an extremely small, niche market that simply does not buy enough hardware to make anybody at Apple happy.   Apple needs a far broader appeal for any new Mac Pro to avoid rinse, lather and repeat.
    viclauyyc
  • Reply 18 of 36
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,070member
    wizard69 said:
    z3r0 said:
    I hope that the new Mac Pro is still modular. We don't need another cylinder Mac Pro or G4 Cube. I could argue for a larger version of the current Mac Pro for more expandability.

    I really hope Apple leverages PCI Express 6.0 to tackle bottlenecks. PCI Express 5.0 has CLX and CCIX but PCI Express 6.0 will go beyond that.

    https://www.extremetech.com/computing/293451-pci-express-6-0-with-256gb-s-coming-in-2022

    Unfortunately what you want, an even bigger Mac Pro, just isn't a money maker for Apple.   In fact Apple trying to build a Mac Pro that fits into such a narrow market is why it always sells so poorly and thus never gets updated.   Apple would be far better off coming up with a half rack wide Mac Pro that has at most 3 PCI-E slots.   Get the intro price well below the current price, well under $2000, and go for enough low end volume to pay for the engineering going into the box.    They can charge as much as they want for a high end box.

    So in a nut shell lets not put Apple in the position of failure again, with asinine product requirements that make for an expensive intro machine.    Apple needs enough volume out of the new Mac Pro to pay for the engineering time put into it.   That means a reasonably capable intro model to support the high performance model.   Then maybe just maybe the Mac Pro would get yearly updates that don't suck.

    Your point is well taken concerning the profitability of the Mac Pro.  Apple will be lucky to break even on that particular product.  But I think it is a mistake to view the Mac Pro in isolation from the larger Mac product line.

    1. The Mac Pro can serve as a technological test bed for future Mac development.
    2. It’s use in the scientific community on various models and simulations, and as a rendering machine for high end CG can inform Apple of emerging markets that they may not otherwise be aware of.
    3. It can inspire Apple’s design and engineering teams, including the occasional “mad scientist types” to push themselves further than ever.
    4. It can inspire technophiles and the tech press, which can draw the attention and admiration of the larger public.  That public may not be able to afford the Mac Pro.  But they might opt for a highly capable MacBook Pro instead.

    Apple doesn’t like doing loss leaders.  But in the case of the Mac Pro, I believe for this one product, they have a strong business case to make an exception.

    williamlondonosmartormenajrviclauyycpatchythepirateFidonet127muthuk_vanalingamsconosciutowatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 36
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    JWSC said:
    Marvin said:
    Ok, so how much will this $40k MacPro cost?
    The good thing is it's entirely up to Apple, whereas before they were charging a markup on top of Intel's and AMD's prices.

    Intel charges a few thousand dollars for high-end Xeons, the following is in the Mac Pro:
    https://www.amazon.com/Intel-CD8069504248702-Octacosa-core-Processor-Overclocking/dp/B086M6P8D6

    An AMD Radeon Pro VII based on Vega architecture retails for $2740:
    https://www.newegg.com/amd-100-506163/p/N82E16814105105

    Apple charges $10k for 4 Radeon Pro GPUs. Cutting Intel and AMD out means it instantly cuts out around $15k of costs from a $24k Mac Pro. If Apple continued charging that, the extra $15k would all be profit.

    For the easiest manufacturing, they'd use multiple units of the chips that go in their laptops and iMac models. An entire MBP/iMac would cost under $2.5k with a 30% margin so $1750 manufacturing. The CPU/GPU part would be well under $500. It will have bundled memory though up to 64GB per chip. Using 4 of them shouldn't cost more than $2k with 64GB RAM total. The whole machine will likely start around $5k but the lowest quad-chip model will perform like the $24k Mac Pro.

    If they price it too high, people will just buy multiple MBPs/iMacs. I would guess the price range to be starting around $5k and going up to $10k with maximum memory (256GB) and bit higher for 8TB+ SSD. Hopefully the XDR will come down in price a bit too to be able to get a decent Pro with XDR under $10k.

    It may still have PCIe slots to support things like the Afterburner card and other IO cards but I don't see any reason to include slots for GPUs and they can always build an external box for IO cards with a single internal slot.
    zimmie said:
    If it's using the same GPU cores as the M1, clocked at the same speed, a 64-core GPU could do 20.8 TFLOPS, while a 128-core GPU could do 41.6 TFLOPS. For comparison, a GeForce RTX 3090 (the top consumer card from Nvidia) does up to 35.6 TFLOPS, and a Radeon RX 6900 XT (the top consumer card from AMD) does up to 23 TFLOPS.

    Considering the RTX 3090 and RX 6900 XT still universally sell for more than double their MSRP, I wonder if Apple will have scalping problems. Their system of allowing backorders mitigates scalping, but doesn't eliminate it. With the added demand from blockbros, it may be difficult to get one for a year or so.
    It would be a terrible shame if a significant use of these machines is for block chain mining.  (But if it boosts my AAPL investment, I'll be crying all the way to the bank.)
    I could see them being used in render farms and servers. They would be extremely efficient and cost-effective machines.

    Crypto mining would depend on the software being optimized for Apple Silicon and the overall price of the compute units:

    https://otcpm24.com/2021/03/01/apple-m1-vs-nvidia-ethereum-hash-rate-comparison-which-is-more-capable-for-crypto-mining/

    M1 is 2MH/s on the GPU at around 10-15W, NVidia 90HX goes up to 86MH/s at 320W. A 3090 can do over 100MH/s under 300W.
    A Mac Pro would be expected to get 16x this so 32MH/s at around 200W.
    An Nvidia 3090 is around $3k so I don't see people buying $5k+ Mac Pros specifically for mining but if they already planned to have a server array of Macs, they might use them for mining. Mining will probably become obsolete in the next year anyway.
    I was wondering if it makes sense to crank up the clock speed on M Series SOC processors.  If cranking up clock speed is one avenue of performance improvement then you have to take yield into account.  With the M1 that seems like virgin territory to explore.  Without that data how would Apple know how to price faster M Series chips?  They would have to produce enough to get statistically significant yield data, which would take time and a lot on money.

    OTOH, maybe the M Series SOC architecture is different enough that Apple need not focus on clock speed and instead focus on making massively parallel systems with many cores.  That brings its own problems with increased overhead associated with task management.

    Apple is almost certainly focused on yields with M1.    Every thing they ship has the same clock rate with no attempt to make the MB-pro faster for example.  

    Now here is the thing, they will almost certainly have to bin parts one they go with these very large chips.   There is just a much higher chance of defects in either the GPU or CPU cores.  So I could see the 32 core ship being offered up as a 16 or 24 core chip for lower end machines.   They would likely disable some GPU cores just to differentiate.  In a nut shell bigger chips mean a greater possibility for defects and thus makes binning mandatory.   They might also truncate performance clock wise to further increase yields or differentiate, so we could see different clock rates just because of that.

    As I've stated elsewhere Apple really needs these lower end machines to make the Mac Pro a viable product.   So if they are not planning for this, in my mind they are nuts.
    JWSCviclauyycwatto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 36
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    JWSC said:
    wizard69 said:
    z3r0 said:
    I hope that the new Mac Pro is still modular. We don't need another cylinder Mac Pro or G4 Cube. I could argue for a larger version of the current Mac Pro for more expandability.

    I really hope Apple leverages PCI Express 6.0 to tackle bottlenecks. PCI Express 5.0 has CLX and CCIX but PCI Express 6.0 will go beyond that.

    https://www.extremetech.com/computing/293451-pci-express-6-0-with-256gb-s-coming-in-2022

    Unfortunately what you want, an even bigger Mac Pro, just isn't a money maker for Apple.   In fact Apple trying to build a Mac Pro that fits into such a narrow market is why it always sells so poorly and thus never gets updated.   Apple would be far better off coming up with a half rack wide Mac Pro that has at most 3 PCI-E slots.   Get the intro price well below the current price, well under $2000, and go for enough low end volume to pay for the engineering going into the box.    They can charge as much as they want for a high end box.

    So in a nut shell lets not put Apple in the position of failure again, with asinine product requirements that make for an expensive intro machine.    Apple needs enough volume out of the new Mac Pro to pay for the engineering time put into it.   That means a reasonably capable intro model to support the high performance model.   Then maybe just maybe the Mac Pro would get yearly updates that don't suck.

    Your point is well taken concerning the profitability of the Mac Pro.  Apple will be lucky to break even on that particular product.  But I think it is a mistake to view the Mac Pro in isolation from the larger Mac product line.

    1. The Mac Pro can serve as a technological test bed for future Mac development.
    2. It’s use in the scientific community on various models and simulations, and as a rendering machine for high end CG can inform Apple of emerging markets that they may not otherwise be aware of.
    3. It can inspire Apple’s design and engineering teams, including the occasional “mad scientist types” to push themselves further than ever.
    4. It can inspire technophiles and the tech press, which can draw the attention and admiration of the larger public.  That public may not be able to afford the Mac Pro.  But they might opt for a highly capable MacBook Pro instead.

    Apple doesn’t like doing loss leaders.  But in the case of the Mac Pro, I believe for this one product, they have a strong business case to make an exception.


    To consider some of your points:

    1.
    I actually think this might be the other way around right now.   A lot of new Mac tech is coming from the cell phone world.

    2.
    The problem with this point is that they have to compete with Thread Ripper, from AMD, which is extremely capable and likely to get much better real soon now.   Then you have the combo of CDNA and RDNA, which is getting better every month.   This doesn't even include NVIDIA.   I just don't see Apple having a chance here unless they can under cut the costs of some of these platforms and at the same time be as versatile.   Even with a lower cost they would still be seen as a niche player.

    I have to agree that there are a lot of high performance computing markets out there, many more than are thought of in Mac forums.   Apples problems here, right now anyways, is the laughable high prices of Mac Pro hardware and lack of support for standards used there.    For example Apple gave up on OpenGL years ago but it is the defacto standards in many of these markets.

    3.
    You actually have a point here but Apple has already done this with the development of Apple Silicon itself.   Maybe more importantly engineers and other mad scientist, do not like to see their products fail in the market place.   It is a very personal thing but it can be extremely damaging to the engineering team to see the new mac Pro design go down the toilet after each new release.   So far we have seen all sorts of designs pushed from marketing but we have seen nothing, as far as I'm concerned, that would fulfill the desires of an engineer being tasked with building these new Mac Pros.   It has to be extremely frustrating.    I would have to think that the team building the Mac Mini has a more rewarding experience.

    4.
    This might have actually been the case in the past.   However these days you are more likely to see people laughing at the Mac Pro.   The more objective you are about the Mac Pro the more it becomes a comedy sketch played out on Apples web site.   For your money you get a massive box filled with air, special slots and aging Intel hardware.   I'm not trying to dismiss the good electrical engineering in the box but rather trying to highlight the stuff that doesn't matter and costs way too much.   The Mac Pro has become a show piece with no substance and can be likened to the high end pickup that nobody actually buys to get work done.


    It would be asinine to design a product like this to be a loss leader.   It makes about as much sense as public transportation that can't support itself.   All it would do is jack up the costs to people like me buying lower end machines.   I really don't see the point.   Even Cray made good money back in the day as they charged a fair price for what they had to offer.    Once real alternatives happened, due to technology changing, Cray had some hard times.    Apple needs to adjust the Mac Pro for today's technology and the markets it will sell into.
    osmartormenajr
Sign In or Register to comment.