Apple Silicon Mac Pro in testing with macOS 13.3

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware
Apple is reportedly testing the Mac Pro using a version of macOS Ventura that is expected to be released in the spring.

The New Mac Pro could look like the old one.
The New Mac Pro could look like the old one.


Backing up his own recent reports that Apple is working on an M2 Ultra version of the Mac Pro, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman now expects a spring launch for this latest Mac to switch to Apple Silicon.

The Apple Silicon Mac Pros in testing currently run macOS 13.3. The X.3 macOS release is typically out in spring. https://t.co/Pq4jhEu7BA

-- Mark Gurman (@markgurman)


Gurman is basing this on how Apple's current developer beta is macOS Ventura 13.2. A version 13.3 is to be expected shortly, although there is no specific timescale.

It's also not a guarantee that testing a Mac Pro with macOS 13.3 means the device will be released alongside the operating system. However, it does suggest that the Mac Pro will not be able to run macOS 13.2, which fits with how new devices routinely need support within the OS.

The Mac Pro and a solitary Mac mini configuration are the only Mac currently still running on an Intel processor. At WWDC 2022, Apple hinted that the refresh was coming, but more recent reports have suggested that the plans for an M2 "Extreme" have been scaled back.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    Best to not launch the Mac Pro until it’s good and ready to destroy everything else. 

    If it’s just a Mac Studio class performer in a different box, then wait until the m3 extreme, desktop specific D1, or whatever is ready. 

    Don’t launch it after all this time an anticipation and have it become a meme. That’s just wrong. 
    h2pbsimpsengregoriusmmacxpresswatto_cobradarkvader
  • Reply 2 of 20
    Well Apple knows best on it systems, let us wait 
    watto_cobra9secondkox2
  • Reply 3 of 20
    thttht Posts: 4,754member
    Will be interesting to see how many PCIe slots it will have and whether it will support PCIe GPUs, MPX modules, and Apple Silicon in an MPX module.

    Hopefully the Extreme version comes out. Definitely want to see how they bridge it all together. Like I said in prior comments, priority 1 is to do better on getting GPU performance to scale with cores. The M2 and A16 GPU have some nice performance increases, but the big problem is how well it will scale with 20, 40, 80 cores.
    n2itivguywatto_cobradarkvader9secondkox2
  • Reply 4 of 20
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,711member
    Best to not launch the Mac Pro until it’s good and ready to destroy everything else. 

    If it’s just a Mac Studio class performer in a different box, then wait until the m3 extreme, desktop specific D1, or whatever is ready. 

    Don’t launch it after all this time an anticipation and have it become a meme. That’s just wrong. 

    A meme is all but guaranteed it doesn’t matter what Apple releases. If it can’t run a game boy AAA PC game that’s all that counts with that crowd, I just hope they have a new enclosure that’s a little bit smaller than the current Mac Pro. (Not too much smaller, but more streamlined)

    The important thing however, is making available a new usable form factor available, I also hope they will clean up the input and outputs and use MagSafe when appropriate. And last upgrade the 27 inch monitor to use MagSafe, having that impossible to unplug power cord on the back was not good.
    watto_cobra9secondkox2
  • Reply 5 of 20
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,476member
    Best to not launch the Mac Pro until it’s good and ready to destroy everything else. 

    If it’s just a Mac Studio class performer in a different box, then wait until the m3 extreme, desktop specific D1, or whatever is ready. 

    Don’t launch it after all this time an anticipation and have it become a meme. That’s just wrong. 
    Nonsense. Real pros want to know what it does for them, how their software runs and can be optimized for it. ‘Destroying everything else’ is not on their list of priorities. That attitude is for spec monkeys and benchmark junkies. And rest assured that no matter what it is and when it is launched it will be deemed disappointing, underwhelming, insufficient, lacking, too little too late, and a failure. 
    edited January 11 mdwargonautwatto_cobra9secondkox2
  • Reply 6 of 20
    thttht Posts: 4,754member
    danox said:
    Best to not launch the Mac Pro until it’s good and ready to destroy everything else. 

    If it’s just a Mac Studio class performer in a different box, then wait until the m3 extreme, desktop specific D1, or whatever is ready. 

    Don’t launch it after all this time an anticipation and have it become a meme. That’s just wrong. 

    A meme is all but guaranteed it doesn’t matter what Apple releases. If it can’t run a game boy AAA PC game that’s all that counts with that crowd, I just hope they have a new enclosure that’s a little bit smaller than the current Mac Pro. (Not too much smaller, but more streamlined)

    The important thing however, is making available a new usable form factor available, I also hope they will clean up the input and outputs and use MagSafe when appropriate. And last upgrade the 27 inch monitor to use MagSafe, having that impossible to unplug power cord on the back was not good.
    My broken record is that Apple's problem with games isn't hardware. The problem is really Apple's support for a macOS games ecosystem. They need to become a publisher, get a must-play set of games whether by hook or by crook, and continuing to do so. The hardware is plenty fast enough. What they don't do is buy game studios and publish games. Microsoft bought several popular game studios in the aughts and took their games off Macs. I was not happy when Age of Empires did not have a OS X version. MS and Sony are continually buying games and game studios.

    Apple may be big enough to have their own games platform that they nourish, and won't be subject to the resource competition with game consoles and PCs. Either this, or make it an iOS box and be able to play iOS games with a keyboard or controller. iOS apps on Macs haven't been popular with developers though. Surprising resistance from developers, or perhaps not, on letting the iOS apps run on Macs.

    Hardware wise, an M1 Pro in a Mac mini for $800 would be just fine as "gaming PC". If people want more, there's the Studio, but Apple will have to drop the price. Apple just aren't interesting in games for Macs.

    For the Mac Pro, the 2019 model is the correct form factor. Big enough to put a lot of stuff in it, properly sized to be either a desktop tower or rack mounted. I would hope that they ship a M2 Max model for say $3k, but they won't. It's going to be a 5k to 10k+ machine, for people who will find it valuable. A set of big questions is whether they'll support AMD GPUs or put a M2 Max and M2 Ultra chips in an MPX module.
    danoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 20
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,025member
    tht said:
    Will be interesting to see how many PCIe slots it will have and whether it will support PCIe GPUs, MPX modules, and Apple Silicon in an MPX module.

    Hopefully the Extreme version comes out. Definitely want to see how they bridge it all together. Like I said in prior comments, priority 1 is to do better on getting GPU performance to scale with cores. The M2 and A16 GPU have some nice performance increases, but the big problem is how well it will scale with 20, 40, 80 cores.
    https://www.servethehome.com/arm-neoverse-v2-cores-launched-for-nvidia-grace-and-cxl-2-0-pcie-gen5-cpus/

    ARM have support for new PCIe5.0 - CXL2.0 and a die to die interconnect launching this year firstly in an Nvidia server chip but expanding across the year. Given Apples ARM licence they would be aware of these efforts and could in theory use any or all parts of this that make sense for them also in a chip launching this year. Assuming they's hadn't rolled their own support and it works better. 

    Given MacPro chip are more server like it would seem to make sense that Apple would be waiting for these things for the MacPro. Would seem to be be a bonus if NVIDIA are in there they'd also be readying GPU's with CXL that will work with their own ARM based CPUs.

    With both NVIDIA and AMD adopting CXL this year with aims to move towards consumer hardware over the next few years it would seem a good plan (to me at least) for Apple to be in there doing it as well. 

    watto_cobra9secondkox2
  • Reply 8 of 20
    I wonder if the rumor/news that it will be the same form factor means there’s a reason for that: so it will support current MPX modules?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 20
    danox said:
    Best to not launch the Mac Pro until it’s good and ready to destroy everything else. 

    If it’s just a Mac Studio class performer in a different box, then wait until the m3 extreme, desktop specific D1, or whatever is ready. 

    Don’t launch it after all this time an anticipation and have it become a meme. That’s just wrong. 

    A meme is all but guaranteed it doesn’t matter what Apple releases. If it can’t run a game boy AAA PC game that’s all that counts with that crowd, I just hope they have a new enclosure that’s a little bit smaller than the current Mac Pro. (Not too much smaller, but more streamlined)

    The important thing however, is making available a new usable form factor available, I also hope they will clean up the input and outputs and use MagSafe when appropriate. And last upgrade the 27 inch monitor to use MagSafe, having that impossible to unplug power cord on the back was not good.
    I don’t think that’s accurate at all. 

    Everyone knows no one prioritizes the Mac for gaming development. Everyone. 

    But if we see it get sparked in 3D rendering, video editing dnd export, creative apps, and just plain number crunching, THEN it will be a meme. And deservedly so. 

    You don’t wait this ridiculous amount of time to underwhelm. That’s a brand killer. 

    The Mac Pro was a highly respected terminator of a machine. Regardless of how many or few it sells, it’s the halo Mac. 

    Let the thing freaking shine, even if it means gestating longer than anyone is comfortable with. At this point, it’s been so long, a little longer is not going to hurt. Subpar performance after this long and this much anticipation thst you yourself built up? That’s hospital ICU kind of hurt. 
    edited January 11 watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 20
    lkrupp said:
    Best to not launch the Mac Pro until it’s good and ready to destroy everything else. 

    If it’s just a Mac Studio class performer in a different box, then wait until the m3 extreme, desktop specific D1, or whatever is ready. 

    Don’t launch it after all this time an anticipation and have it become a meme. That’s just wrong. 
    Nonsense. Real pros want to know what it does for them, how their software runs and can be optimized for it. ‘Destroying everything else’ is not on their list of priorities. That attitude is for spec monkeys and benchmark junkies. And rest assured that no matter what it is and when it is launched it will be deemed disappointing, underwhelming, insufficient, lacking, too little too late, and a failure. 

    Real pros want to know how well it works with their existing hardware and software workflow.  It's not about how their software "can be optimized for it" it's about how it works NOW.  And if that fails, it's worthless.
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondon
  • Reply 11 of 20
    Best to not launch the Mac Pro until it’s good and ready to destroy everything else. 
    You are presuming that an M3 Extreme would outperform the latest Intel Xeon W or AMD Threadripper 5990. (And I use "latest" with a grain of salt as the 4th gen 10nm Xeon W and the 5nm AMD Threadripper 7000 launch later this year.) As Apple's best chips don't outperform the Intel Core i9, AMD Ryzen 9 or even the AMD Ryzen 7 in anything but power per watt, that is not a good presumption. And that is without even considering how the M3 Extreme would be limited to 256 GB of RAM. 
  • Reply 12 of 20
    And let’s not forget the 2019 Mac Pro was announced just a year before the Apple Silicon announcement. The launch was less than six months before. It makes perfect sense that it would have been designed for Apple Silicon from the start. 
    watto_cobradarkvader9secondkox2
  • Reply 13 of 20
    danox said:
    Best to not launch the Mac Pro until it’s good and ready to destroy everything else. 

    If it’s just a Mac Studio class performer in a different box, then wait until the m3 extreme, desktop specific D1, or whatever is ready. 

    Don’t launch it after all this time an anticipation and have it become a meme. That’s just wrong. 

    A meme is all but guaranteed it doesn’t matter what Apple releases. If it can’t run a game boy AAA PC game that’s all that counts with that crowd, I just hope they have a new enclosure that’s a little bit smaller than the current Mac Pro. (Not too much smaller, but more streamlined)

    The important thing however, is making available a new usable form factor available, I also hope they will clean up the input and outputs and use MagSafe when appropriate. And last upgrade the 27 inch monitor to use MagSafe, having that impossible to unplug power cord on the back was not good.
    If the rumors are true that it will only be able to access 192GB of main memory it is going to be inadequate for intensive problems that require large datasets such as can be found in engineering and physics, financial modeling, etc.
    darkvader9secondkox2williamlondon
  • Reply 14 of 20
    tht said:
    Hardware wise, an M1 Pro in a Mac mini for $800 would be just fine as "gaming PC". If people want more, there's the Studio, but Apple will have to drop the price. Apple just aren't interesting in games for Macs.
    Yeah, the cheapest device with the regular M1 costs $700 and the cheapest device with the M1 Pro costs $2000. And both those have only 8 GB RAM. Even the $400 Steam Deck has 16 GB of RAM. So A. no way Apple sells a device with an M1 Pro for $800 instead of twice that and B. it still wouldn't be "fine." It isn't just that you can frequently find a device with a Ryzen 5 or Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia RTX 3050 or AMD Radeon 6500 for about the $800 that you claim this M1 Pro Mac Mini would cost. It is that you can use that $800 x86 box as a base and significantly increase/improve the RAM, storage, GPU or even CPU over time as you can afford it in a way that you never can with an Apple Silicon device. Some gamers bought the Core i5 and Core i7 Mac Minis because you could do Windows on bootcamp with them and upgrade them. Not anymore.

    Also, you are ignoring the real thing holding back gaming on macOS: small market share. 2022 was the best year for Mac market share since the combination of Windows 8 and people who fell for Apple's "an iPad can replace your PC" marketing campaign had x86 down in the dumps ... and it was still under 11%! (One analyst had it under 10%.) And most of that "less than 11%" are the entry level models running CPUs with 4 performance cores that - in gaming - would perform about as well as systems with Intel Core i5 in CPU performance and worse than those with NVIDIA GeForce 1650 in graphics (basically entry level gaming laptops). Developers aren't going to create ports of their games for such a tiny market share.

    The only way that Apple is going to become a factor in gaming with their silicon is to create a console. But ... fat chance. Both Microsoft and Sony lose money on XBox and PlayStation consoles. Nintendo doesn't, but only because the Nintendo Switch is actually a smaller, cheaper version of the Nvidia Shield Android tablet from 2014. And the Shield was never a premium tablet ... the first version started at $299 and the K1 version cost $199. And the parts for the Shield and Shield K1 were state of the art in 2014 and 2015. When the Switch came out in 2017 they were already outdated. So now the current Switch is basically an 8 year old midrange Android tablet like the Nexus 9 (which also used the Nvidia Tegra K1).

    At the very minimum, Apple would need to use an M1 in a console that costs only $500. Even that is debatable ... the PS5 and the XBox Series X cost $500 but give you 8K gameplay (in theory) and their AMD CPUs would thrash the M1, especially in graphics. The M1 is better than to the XBox Series S, which costs $300 but outputs only 1080p. So charge $400 for it and call it a day. Except Apple isn't going to lose $100-$150 on every M1 console sold under their current business model (where you lose money on the hardware in order to make it back on AAA exclusives made by studios that you own for $60-$70 apiece, not including DLC). 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 15 of 20
    Best to not launch the Mac Pro until it’s good and ready to destroy everything else. 

    If it’s just a Mac Studio class performer in a different box, then wait until the m3 extreme, desktop specific D1, or whatever is ready. 

    Don’t launch it after all this time an anticipation and have it become a meme. That’s just wrong. 
    Apple can't change physics and economics, so it's not going to destroy everything else. There is no way Apple can release a GPU like Nvidia's top models or have a CPU that beats the top intel/amd CPU. Apple Silicon is really nice, but it's not pixie dust.

    darkvader9secondkox2williamlondon
  • Reply 16 of 20
    keithwkeithw Posts: 115member
    Whatever they come out with, it had better be able to match the GPU performance of the Intel-based MacPros that have been available for quite a while.  Heck, I can beat the very fastest Mac Studio extreme in Metal graphics performance with my 5 year old iMac Pro with an AMD eGPU.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 17 of 20
    thttht Posts: 4,754member
    thadec said:
    tht said:
    Hardware wise, an M1 Pro in a Mac mini for $800 would be just fine as "gaming PC". If people want more, there's the Studio, but Apple will have to drop the price. Apple just aren't interesting in games for Macs.
    Yeah, the cheapest device with the regular M1 costs $700 and the cheapest device with the M1 Pro costs $2000. And both those have only 8 GB RAM. Even the $400 Steam Deck has 16 GB of RAM. So A. no way Apple sells a device with an M1 Pro for $800 instead of twice that and B. it still wouldn't be "fine." It isn't just that you can frequently find a device with a Ryzen 5 or Intel Core i5 and an Nvidia RTX 3050 or AMD Radeon 6500 for about the $800 that you claim this M1 Pro Mac Mini would cost. It is that you can use that $800 x86 box as a base and significantly increase/improve the RAM, storage, GPU or even CPU over time as you can afford it in a way that you never can with an Apple Silicon device. Some gamers bought the Core i5 and Core i7 Mac Minis because you could do Windows on bootcamp with them and upgrade them. Not anymore. 
    The base MBP14 SKU for $2000 comes with 8c CPU, 14c GPU, 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD. Also, all the other laptop parts. The cheapest M1 device is the iPad Air for $600 and comes with 8 GB RAM, 64 GB storage, and the other tablet parts. The $700 Mac mini SKU does have 8 GB RAM and 256 GB storage. Imo, the Mac mini has rather favorable profit margins for Apple, like a legit 30% profit margin. Not gross margin. Profit margin. I think that can sell it for $400 and break even, or maybe even make money.

    Apple sells an Apple TV with A15 SoC, 4 GB RAM, 128 GB storage and Ethernet for $150. This sounds like it is an "at cost" to a break-even price. You double everything about it, and it is basically an M1 with 8 GB RAM, 256 GB of storage for $300. Add some profit margin and you get to $400. For an M1 Pro, you just double again as that is basically what an M1 Pro is over a M1, and that gets you to $800. Not a lot of profit, but doable. (You can think of it as would Sony or MS have hardware profit margins if they sold a PS5 or XBox series X for $800.)

    Hardware isn't the problem. It's the will to nurture a games ecosystem on macOS that is the problem. They don't want to do it. I don't think they need to have leading GPU performance either. Just have good games exclusive to the platform. For that, I think the only choice is to become a games publisher and develop a set of games that would be able to sell the platform. They are spending billions on exclusive Apple TV+ shows to sell subscriptions in quite the long game. They can spend billions on exclusive games to sell both subscriptions and hardware.

    I think the upgradeability of the hardware is not really material until Apple actually commits to having a gaming ecosystem. If someone wants higher end hardware, they can just get a Mac Studio in a trade-in or a sell-buy cycle. They won't get the PC builder hobbyists, but they aren't a big part of the market. It all doesn't matter as long as they don't have games and the availability of good Mac hardware isn't going to cause games to be ported or developed for it. So, in short, a Nintendo strategy, not a Playstation or Xbox strategy. They definitely have enough units imo.

    No matter what, they are going to be a 4th player. That inevitably means a niche player, but it behooves them to do it as it keeps some fraction of their customers happy and will stay in the ecosystem rather buying a game console or a PC to play games. If Arcade had good exclusive games, I can see it happen, but Arcade is really just an iOS game subscription service, with existing games.
    darkvader
  • Reply 18 of 20
    tht said:
    My broken record is that Apple's problem with games isn't hardware. The problem is really Apple's support for a macOS games ecosystem. They need to become a publisher, get a must-play set of games whether by hook or by crook, and continuing to do so. The hardware is plenty fast enough. What they don't do is buy game studios and publish games. Microsoft bought several popular game studios in the aughts and took their games off Macs. I was not happy when Age of Empires did not have a OS X version. MS and Sony are continually buying games and game studios.

    Apple may be big enough to have their own games platform that they nourish, and won't be subject to the resource competition with game consoles and PCs. Either this, or make it an iOS box and be able to play iOS games with a keyboard or controller. iOS apps on Macs haven't been popular with developers though. Surprising resistance from developers, or perhaps not, on letting the iOS apps run on Macs.

    Apple would fail at being a game publisher, because Apple would only want to release G-rated games.  It would be a waste of everybody's time.
    9secondkox2williamlondon
  • Reply 19 of 20
    thttht Posts: 4,754member
    darkvader said:
    tht said:
    My broken record is that Apple's problem with games isn't hardware. The problem is really Apple's support for a macOS games ecosystem. They need to become a publisher, get a must-play set of games whether by hook or by crook, and continuing to do so. The hardware is plenty fast enough. What they don't do is buy game studios and publish games. Microsoft bought several popular game studios in the aughts and took their games off Macs. I was not happy when Age of Empires did not have a OS X version. MS and Sony are continually buying games and game studios.

    Apple may be big enough to have their own games platform that they nourish, and won't be subject to the resource competition with game consoles and PCs. Either this, or make it an iOS box and be able to play iOS games with a keyboard or controller. iOS apps on Macs haven't been popular with developers though. Surprising resistance from developers, or perhaps not, on letting the iOS apps run on Macs.
    Apple would fail at being a game publisher, because Apple would only want to release G-rated games.  It would be a waste of everybody's time.
    That’s always a risk, but they seem to be doing fine with Apple TV+ so far. 
    9secondkox2williamlondon
  • Reply 20 of 20
    lkrupp said:
    Best to not launch the Mac Pro until it’s good and ready to destroy everything else. 

    If it’s just a Mac Studio class performer in a different box, then wait until the m3 extreme, desktop specific D1, or whatever is ready. 

    Don’t launch it after all this time an anticipation and have it become a meme. That’s just wrong. 
    Nonsense. Real pros want to know what it does for them, how their software runs and can be optimized for it. ‘Destroying everything else’ is not on their list of priorities. That attitude is for spec monkeys and benchmark junkies. And rest assured that no matter what it is and when it is launched it will be deemed disappointing, underwhelming, insufficient, lacking, too little too late, and a failure. 
    LOL. Then "real pros," of which. I am one, can buy any other Mac currently on the market to satisfy your lofty ;)  requirements. For the rest of us, the reason we wait on a Mac Pro is so that it can destroy everything else AT WHAT WE NEED IT TO DO. Not a spec game. A real world performance game. Otherwise it wouldn't need to exist. Tray harder next time.
    edited January 13 williamlondon
Sign In or Register to comment.