Hmm, I guess this isn’t a surprise, but it is interesting all the Macs that don’t support discrete GPUs were the ones updated today, implying in the future they will either introduce a chip with a much better GPU or otherwise are still trying to work with AMD to maintain their graphics options in later models.
No one is buying a Mac mini, iPad Air, or 13" MacBook Pro for the GPU power. These are entry level machines for the average person.
Much ado about nothing as always.
We are discussing the capability and speed of the GPU versus the Intel Macs and Apple's M1, as to whether it really is much faster than the Intel ones. People might have liked to use a 13" Macbook with an eGPU for power, but now they can't, so the discussion is quite relevant. Whilst you might not care, many people don't see that as "much ado about nothing".
This information is no longer correct if one considers the new Apple Silicon Macs. No doubt they will update their website. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that Apple will support eGPUs on some or all Apple Silicon Macs in the future. The probability of that is unclear, even for the future Apple Silicon Mac Pro.
I will admit to not knowing too much about this, but my impression was that eGPUs were connected to Intel’s PCI standard, and therefore would only function with Intel chipsets. So of course Apple Silicon would not support EGPUs.
If I understood the keynote correctly, it seemed like the Apple CPUs and graphics chips were designed to work directly together, cutting the overhead of external chipsets and therefore much faster and more efficient. This means you are counting on Apple’s graphics engineers as your sole source for graphics developments.
I was expecting to see a 16” MacBook Pro after the 13” MacBook Pro. So I was disappointed that didn’t happen. But the logical conclusion is that the larger MacBook Pro systems are going to be considerably faster than the lesser models and therefore very much worth looking at. I think we should pass judgement on Apple’s solutions here when the larger machine is introduced and benchmarked.
However, I’m tempted to buy a 13” MacBook Pro just so I can say I have it and am on the cutting edge ... just the typical programmer’s ego I’m afraid.
Todays Apple Silicon Macs are only the entey level consumer focused Macs, in that regard they will be more than fine. Pros will need to wait for the next range with more power. As expected.
I will admit to not knowing too much about this, but my impression was that eGPUs were connected to Intel’s PCI standard, and therefore would only function with Intel chipsets. So of course Apple Silicon would not support EGPUs.
If I understood the keynote correctly, it seemed like the Apple CPUs and graphics chips were designed to work directly together, cutting the overhead of external chipsets and therefore much faster and more efficient. This means you are counting on Apple’s graphics engineers as your sole source for graphics developments.
I was expecting to see a 16” MacBook Pro after the 13” MacBook Pro. So I was disappointed that didn’t happen. But the logical conclusion is that the larger MacBook Pro systems are going to be considerably faster than the lesser models and therefore very much worth looking at. I think we should pass judgement on Apple’s solutions here when the larger machine is introduced and benchmarked.
However, I’m tempted to buy a 13” MacBook Pro just so I can say I have it and am on the cutting edge ... just the typical programmer’s ego I’m afraid.
I concur with most of your post, although using the logic in your first paragraph we should not have been expecting Thunderbolt support, since Thunderbolt up until now "would only function with Intel chipsets." Somehow Apple managed to make Thunderbolt (v3) work, and (perhaps) they could have managed the same with PCI. Especially since the PCI standard is no longer managed by Intel but by PCI-SIG which has 800 members, but the primary members seem to be: Agilent, AMD, Dell, HP, Intel, Synopsys, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm. I don't see Apple in there.
I will admit to not knowing too much about this, but my impression was that eGPUs were connected to Intel’s PCI standard, and therefore would only function with Intel chipsets. So of course Apple Silicon would not support EGPUs.
If I understood the keynote correctly, it seemed like the Apple CPUs and graphics chips were designed to work directly together, cutting the overhead of external chipsets and therefore much faster and more efficient. This means you are counting on Apple’s graphics engineers as your sole source for graphics developments.
I was expecting to see a 16” MacBook Pro after the 13” MacBook Pro. So I was disappointed that didn’t happen. But the logical conclusion is that the larger MacBook Pro systems are going to be considerably faster than the lesser models and therefore very much worth looking at. I think we should pass judgement on Apple’s solutions here when the larger machine is introduced and benchmarked.
However, I’m tempted to buy a 13” MacBook Pro just so I can say I have it and am on the cutting edge ... just the typical programmer’s ego I’m afraid.
I concur with most of your post, although using the logic in your first paragraph we should not have been expecting Thunderbolt support, since Thunderbolt up until now "would only function with Intel chipsets." Somehow Apple managed to make Thunderbolt (v3) work, and (perhaps) they could have managed the same with PCI. Especially since the PCI standard is no longer managed by Intel but by PCI-SIG which has 800 members, but the primary members seem to be: Agilent, AMD, Dell, HP, Intel, Synopsys, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm. I don't see Apple in there.
Every computer vendor in the world supports PCI. the M1 for sure has PCI or it would be Dead on Arrival. PCIe is the defacto standard that DDR memory runs over. The ignorance of some who called this Intel's PCI standard is sad in the year 2020.
I will admit to not knowing too much about this, but my impression was that eGPUs were connected to Intel’s PCI standard, and therefore would only function with Intel chipsets. So of course Apple Silicon would not support EGPUs.
If I understood the keynote correctly, it seemed like the Apple CPUs and graphics chips were designed to work directly together, cutting the overhead of external chipsets and therefore much faster and more efficient. This means you are counting on Apple’s graphics engineers as your sole source for graphics developments.
I was expecting to see a 16” MacBook Pro after the 13” MacBook Pro. So I was disappointed that didn’t happen. But the logical conclusion is that the larger MacBook Pro systems are going to be considerably faster than the lesser models and therefore very much worth looking at. I think we should pass judgement on Apple’s solutions here when the larger machine is introduced and benchmarked.
However, I’m tempted to buy a 13” MacBook Pro just so I can say I have it and am on the cutting edge ... just the typical programmer’s ego I’m afraid.
I concur with most of your post, although using the logic in your first paragraph we should not have been expecting Thunderbolt support, since Thunderbolt up until now "would only function with Intel chipsets." Somehow Apple managed to make Thunderbolt (v3) work, and (perhaps) they could have managed the same with PCI. Especially since the PCI standard is no longer managed by Intel but by PCI-SIG which has 800 members, but the primary members seem to be: Agilent, AMD, Dell, HP, Intel, Synopsys, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm. I don't see Apple in there.
Every computer vendor in the world supports PCI. the M1 for sure has PCI or it would be Dead on Arrival. PCIe is the defacto standard that DDR memory runs over. The ignorance of some who called this Intel's PCI standard is sad in the year 2020.
But the new Apple Silicon Macs use PoP memory, not DDR memory, right? Are you saying these new Macs support PCI? We're talking about the new Macs. I'm confused.
While Apple was touting the improved graphical capability of the new Apple Silicon Macs, they neglected to mention during the event that the M1 chip does not support eGPU technologies.
A MacBook Pro with an external GPU.
AppleInsider has confirmed that the new Apple Silicon Macs based on the M1 processor will not support any external graphics processing units. This means the new Mac mini, MacBook Air, and 13-inch MacBook Pro will solely utilize their own on-processor GPUs.
This confirms a previous suspicion after developer support documentation appeared to imply that support for all non-Apple GPUs would be dropped. The current developer document primarily refers now to what it describes as "Apple family GPUs."
Furthermore, Apple has removed its preferred solution, the Blackmagic eGPU, from the list of compatible accessories for the Mac mini, the MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro with Apple Silicon chips.
Apple has only comparatively recently supported external GPUs. At times, though, it has also seen failures in that support, with certain combinations of Mac and GPU card causing problems in macOS Catalina. And, Nvidia support is lacking in its entirety.
It's not known whether future Apple Silicon processors, such as the previously-rumored "A14T" option, will restore eGPU support.
While Apple was touting the improved graphical capability of the new Apple Silicon Macs, they neglected to mention during the event that the M1 chip does not support eGPU technologies.
I read that page you cite, there is no mention of M1 at all. It does say "Compatible with Mac with Thunderbolt 3 ports" but that's probably out of date now. Apple needs to update several things on its website now.
I suspect the desktops will have a different CPU (M2? D1?) than the laptops. Presumably some iteration eventually will end up in the Mac Pro, with PCIe support, and with it PCIe GPUs. Either that or Apple will just abandon the iMac Pro and Mac Pro, I wouldn't be hugely surprised.
They abandon their pro lines they might as well stop selling Logic Pro X and Final Cut Pro X, because the entire creating markets will abandon them.
Well honestly I'm not sure they really care, because I don't think there *are* many creatives left using Macs. Apple is so ditzy when it comes to pros (and their software, FCP X for example, Shake, Aperture, etc) that plenty of businesses that rely on pro software have switched to Windows where they can be sure they aren't going to be abandoned at the drop of a hat. The BBC for example used to do most of their editing on Macs, but they switched to Windows and Avid a number of years ago. Not sure what they're using software-wise now.
The BBC uses Nuke, by Foundry. And yes, they now use Windows.
A friend who works there remembers the days when it was all G5 PowerMacs, ah the glory days.
I suspect the desktops will have a different CPU (M2? D1?) than the laptops. Presumably some iteration eventually will end up in the Mac Pro, with PCIe support, and with it PCIe GPUs. Either that or Apple will just abandon the iMac Pro and Mac Pro, I wouldn't be hugely surprised.
They abandon their pro lines they might as well stop selling Logic Pro X and Final Cut Pro X, because the entire creating markets will abandon them.
Well honestly I'm not sure they really care, because I don't think there *are* many creatives left using Macs. Apple is so ditzy when it comes to pros (and their software, FCP X for example, Shake, Aperture, etc) that plenty of businesses that rely on pro software have switched to Windows where they can be sure they aren't going to be abandoned at the drop of a hat. The BBC for example used to do most of their editing on Macs, but they switched to Windows and Avid a number of years ago. Not sure what they're using software-wise now.
The BBC uses Nuke, by Foundry. And yes, they now use Windows.
A friend who works there remembers the days when it was all G5 PowerMacs, ah the glory days.
Glory days indeed! Back when Apple built desktops with 9 (!) fans turning your workspace into an oven...haha
1) The Apple Silicon Macs don't have Thunderbolt 3 ports. They have USB 4 ports.
2) And, I'm sure the product page for the Blackmagic hasn't been touched in ages.
3) Apple has removed the Blackmagic eGPU from the MacBook Air's compatible accessories, as the article says.
1) Apple spec page specifies "Two Thunderbolt / USB 4 ports" -> there is Thunderbolt. 2) The Black Magic product page has had its compatibility list updated. 3) see 2.
I will admit to not knowing too much about this, but my impression was that eGPUs were connected to Intel’s PCI standard, and therefore would only function with Intel chipsets. So of course Apple Silicon would not support EGPUs.
If I understood the keynote correctly, it seemed like the Apple CPUs and graphics chips were designed to work directly together, cutting the overhead of external chipsets and therefore much faster and more efficient. This means you are counting on Apple’s graphics engineers as your sole source for graphics developments.
I was expecting to see a 16” MacBook Pro after the 13” MacBook Pro. So I was disappointed that didn’t happen. But the logical conclusion is that the larger MacBook Pro systems are going to be considerably faster than the lesser models and therefore very much worth looking at. I think we should pass judgement on Apple’s solutions here when the larger machine is introduced and benchmarked.
However, I’m tempted to buy a 13” MacBook Pro just so I can say I have it and am on the cutting edge ... just the typical programmer’s ego I’m afraid.
I concur with most of your post, although using the logic in your first paragraph we should not have been expecting Thunderbolt support, since Thunderbolt up until now "would only function with Intel chipsets." Somehow Apple managed to make Thunderbolt (v3) work, and (perhaps) they could have managed the same with PCI. Especially since the PCI standard is no longer managed by Intel but by PCI-SIG which has 800 members, but the primary members seem to be: Agilent, AMD, Dell, HP, Intel, Synopsys, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm. I don't see Apple in there.
Every computer vendor in the world supports PCI. the M1 for sure has PCI or it would be Dead on Arrival. PCIe is the defacto standard that DDR memory runs over. The ignorance of some who called this Intel's PCI standard is sad in the year 2020.
But the new Apple Silicon Macs use PoP memory, not DDR memory, right? Are you saying these new Macs support PCI? We're talking about the new Macs. I'm confused.
PoP and DDR aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. It's probably DDR and PoP. @mdriftmeyer is wrong in that DDR runs over PCIe though, it does not. And as I mentioned previously, PoP is probably why the RAM is limited to 16GB. More than 16GB would require too much physical space atop the CPU, or extra pins on the bottom of the CPU and thus a new CPU package. This is why is also why I think the M1 is little more than a slightly beefed up iPhone/iPad CPU. If it was actually designed from the ground up for Mac, there's little reason to use the expensive PoP method, which is mainly to save space. But anyway, some form of PCIe is supported to a certain extent by the M1 (and Ax CPUs), because the NVME interface for the SSDs uses PCIe. It's probably just a single PCIe lane.
I will admit to not knowing too much about this, but my impression was that eGPUs were connected to Intel’s PCI standard, and therefore would only function with Intel chipsets. So of course Apple Silicon would not support EGPUs.
If I understood the keynote correctly, it seemed like the Apple CPUs and graphics chips were designed to work directly together, cutting the overhead of external chipsets and therefore much faster and more efficient. This means you are counting on Apple’s graphics engineers as your sole source for graphics developments.
I was expecting to see a 16” MacBook Pro after the 13” MacBook Pro. So I was disappointed that didn’t happen. But the logical conclusion is that the larger MacBook Pro systems are going to be considerably faster than the lesser models and therefore very much worth looking at. I think we should pass judgement on Apple’s solutions here when the larger machine is introduced and benchmarked.
However, I’m tempted to buy a 13” MacBook Pro just so I can say I have it and am on the cutting edge ... just the typical programmer’s ego I’m afraid.
I concur with most of your post, although using the logic in your first paragraph we should not have been expecting Thunderbolt support, since Thunderbolt up until now "would only function with Intel chipsets." Somehow Apple managed to make Thunderbolt (v3) work, and (perhaps) they could have managed the same with PCI. Especially since the PCI standard is no longer managed by Intel but by PCI-SIG which has 800 members, but the primary members seem to be: Agilent, AMD, Dell, HP, Intel, Synopsys, NVIDIA, and Qualcomm. I don't see Apple in there.
Every computer vendor in the world supports PCI. the M1 for sure has PCI or it would be Dead on Arrival. PCIe is the defacto standard that DDR memory runs over. The ignorance of some who called this Intel's PCI standard is sad in the year 2020.
But the new Apple Silicon Macs use PoP memory, not DDR memory, right? Are you saying these new Macs support PCI? We're talking about the new Macs. I'm confused.
PoP and DDR aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. It's probably DDR and PoP. @mdriftmeyer is wrong in that DDR runs over PCIe though, it does not. And as I mentioned previously, PoP is probably why the RAM is limited to 16GB. More than 16GB would require too much physical space atop the CPU, or extra pins on the bottom of the CPU and thus a new CPU package. This is why is also why I think the M1 is little more than a slightly beefed up iPhone/iPad CPU. If it was actually designed from the ground up for Mac, there's little reason to use the expensive PoP method, which is mainly to save space. But anyway, some form of PCIe is supported to a certain extent by the M1 (and Ax CPUs), because the NVME interface for the SSDs uses PCIe. It's probably just a single PCIe lane.
That is an insightful response, and not an inciteful response. I have learned from it. Thanks for being in a good mood. You seem to think that the ideal solution is to avoid using PoP. To me PoP seems inherently faster since it's physically on the chip. I don't feel that it's to save space, but to make the CPU's memory access faster. Whatever the real reason is, it saves both space and time/speed.
I hope eGPU support will be implemented later, maybe AMD drivers on Apple Silicon still needs work.
M1 GPU is impressive for being integrated but I'm quite sure Radeon VII, Radeon RX 5700 and RX 5700 XT will beat them anyway by a large margin.
If you want eGPU support back, in the case Apple is evaluation, use Apple feedback page.
This was the first round of Apple Silicon Macs and obviously they won't satisfy everyone. But they are Apple's first kick at the can, and it's a very good opening kick. Personally I'm thrilled how Apple has taken ownership of a new technology in their computers. Actually, it's more than just one thing: it's CPU, plus GPU, plus Thunderbolt controller, memory controller, and who knows what else. That's very impressive.
I probably wasn't going to upgrade soon anyway, I'd rather stand back and see how the new silicon works out for others, but this seals it. I use my eGPU basically every day with my MacBook Air, no chance am I getting a new Mac until that functionality (caveat: or something better) is restored.
Maybe it was just an embarrassment to Apple to support external GPUs that had slower speeds than their internal one.
Integrated Graphics are fine for the average consumer surfing websites, etc. But discrete graphics have always crushed them and likely always will. I do wonder what reason they could have to remove support for External GPU's? I suppose it doesn't matter for something like the MacBook Air, I doubt many if any people used one on that machine anyway, but they need to offer this for their real "Pro" machines.
It's not really fair to say Apple "removed support for eGPUs on Apple Silicon Macs" since Apple never supported eGPUs on Apple Silicon Macs. Nobody has lost anything. It's entirely possible that this feature will be added later. In fact, we're fairly confident other GPU support will be added, if only for the Apple Silicon Mac Pro.
eGPU's will probably be supported with the next generation of M chips or the one after that. The M1 is IO constrained and obviously focused on regular consumers.
Comments
We are discussing the capability and speed of the GPU versus the Intel Macs and Apple's M1, as to whether it really is much faster than the Intel ones. People might have liked to use a 13" Macbook with an eGPU for power, but now they can't, so the discussion is quite relevant. Whilst you might not care, many people don't see that as "much ado about nothing".
This information is no longer correct if one considers the new Apple Silicon Macs. No doubt they will update their website. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that Apple will support eGPUs on some or all Apple Silicon Macs in the future. The probability of that is unclear, even for the future Apple Silicon Mac Pro.
If I understood the keynote correctly, it seemed like the Apple CPUs and graphics chips were designed to work directly together, cutting the overhead of external chipsets and therefore much faster and more efficient. This means you are counting on Apple’s graphics engineers as your sole source for graphics developments.
I was expecting to see a 16” MacBook Pro after the 13” MacBook Pro. So I was disappointed that didn’t happen. But the logical conclusion is that the larger MacBook Pro systems are going to be considerably faster than the lesser models and therefore very much worth looking at. I think we should pass judgement on Apple’s solutions here when the larger machine is introduced and benchmarked.
However, I’m tempted to buy a 13” MacBook Pro just so I can say I have it and am on the cutting edge ... just the typical programmer’s ego I’m afraid.
Pros will need to wait for the next range with more power. As expected.
1) The Apple Silicon Macs don't have Thunderbolt 3 ports. They have USB 4 ports.
2) And, I'm sure the product page for the Blackmagic hasn't been touched in ages.
3) Apple has removed the Blackmagic eGPU from the MacBook Air's compatible accessories, as the article says.
2) The Black Magic product page has had its compatibility list updated.
3) see 2.
Who is "we", are you quoting from another source?