The cheesegrater Mac Pro is 16 year old, and still the best Mac ever made -- for now

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 7
The original Mac Pro is 16 years old today, and it's still remembered as a high point in Apple history. As we wait to see what an Apple Silicon version will be like, AppleInsider celebrates the old favorite workhorse -- and its less-successful sequels.




It was when Apple made its previous huge transition, the move from PowerPC to Intel processors, when the original Mac Pro came out.

Intel promised unimaginable speed

On June 6, 2005, Steve Jobs had formally revealed that the long-standing rumor was true, Apple was switching to Intel processors for the Mac. That year he detailed the company's roadmap.





"Starting next year, we will begin introducing Macs with Intel processors in them," he said at WWDC 2005. "So when we meet again this time next year, our plan is to be shipping Macs with Intel processors by then."

"And when we meet here again two years from now, our plan is that the transition will be mostly complete," he continued. "And we think it will be complete by the end of 2007. So this is a two-year transition."

That's as clear as Apple ever gets, and if Jobs's explanation of the transition sounds familiar, it should. Tim Cook followed exactly the same playbook when announcing the move to Apple Silicon.

The big news was that Every Mac in the range was to have an Intel processor, and that was good, but Jobs was specifically promising faster and more powerful machines. And the place where power was wanted most was what would become the Mac Pro.

We didn't know that name at the start of the Intel transition, but we did already have a top-of-the-line PowerPC model called the Power Mac G5. And one of the reasons Jobs gave for moving from PowerPC to Intel was explicitly to do with that machine and its development.

Standing in front of a slide showing a PowerMac G5 with the words "3.0GHz?" Jobs had a lot to say.

"I stood up here two years ago and I promised you this," said Jobs, pointing at the screen. "And we haven't been able to deliver that to you yet."

"As we look ahead, we can envision some amazing products we want to build for you," he continued, "and we don't know how to build them with the future PowerPC roadmap."

The Power Mac G5 was popular because it was the most powerful Mac of its time, but it never had the sheer love that the Mac Pro would get. So although there were hopes and expectations, it wasn't until 1:08 PM eastern time on Monday, August 7, 2006, that the Mac Pro began to be a hit.

"In the first two quarters, we transitioned almost all of our product over to Intel. Except for one, and that is the Power Mac," Jobs declared then. "Well, today the Power Mac is going to fade into history."





Phil Schiller then came on stage to reveal what looked like exactly the same machine as before. Surprisingly, it had the same large aluminum casing, the same handles for carrying it, and the same ease of access to the insides, and Schiller was quick to defend it.

"We have the best enclosure in the business, this is a beautiful enclosure design," Schiller said. "On the outside, it has all the benefits as before. Inside, it's entirely new."

Performance promise

This Mac Pro did reach Jobs's promised 3.0GHz and did so with Intel's Xeon processor.

"This is the Mac that so many of our highest-end customers have dreamed of," said Schiller. "For our highest-end customers, a feature they've really wanted: they're 64-bit."

"So this new Intel Xeon chip is an amazing processor to put into our products, but in every Mac Pro we're going to put two of them," he continued. "All Mac Pros, quad Xeon performance. These are screaming-fast machines."

It seems as if every new Mac is the fastest Mac Apple has ever made, but this one gave a huge leap with a claimed doubling of performance over the Power Mac G5. It also boosted what that performance was per watt of power.

Typically that's a concern when you're building notebooks and you're balancing the needs of work and battery life, but Schiller pointed out that it also had great benefits with this desktop.

"Performance per watt means we need less cooling systems inside the box too. Which means we can do more with the space we have," he said. "So we've doubled the number of drives inside the Mac Pro to now four hard drives of up to 2TB of internal storage."

There was also now a second optical drive, plus space to connect more external devices both at the back of the machine -- and now the front.

The front added a second USB 2.0 port and Firewire 800, while the back's most significant change was a double-wide graphics slot allowing for the biggest and most powerful GPUs to be installed without sacrificing an adjacent slot.

So the new Mac Pro was "screaming fast," and it came with greater expansion but still the same enviably easy way of doing that expansion. The enclosure lets you open the whole side and then just snap in new hard drives without any cabling or fiddling.

It was deeply customizable, it was wicked fast, it came with 1GB of RAM but could address 32GB of RAM, and Schiller announced that it was shipping. On August 7, 2006, you could buy one for $2,499 -- $3,571 in today's money.

Not standing still

This original Mac Pro -- version 1,1 -- stayed on sale until a speed bump in April 2007. Then version 2,1 lasted until the following January when the 3,1 upped the performance with a faster quad-core Intel Xeon 5400 processor. You could upgrade it to have two such processors plus up to 32GB RAM.

It would be another 15 months before 3,1 was released. The Mac Pro (Early 2009) was particularly suited for multi-threaded operations where software could split its load between several processors.

Strictly speaking, the Intel Xeon 5500 processors were slower than the previous 5400 ones, but with better caching and communications between components, the result was a faster machine.

Another significant update was in July 2010 when, as well as moving to Intel's Xeon 5600-series processors, you could now have up to 64GB RAM and 8TB storage.

It lasted as Apple's flagship model until arguably that flag was faltering. It was two years before the Mac Pro saw another update. The July 2012 release now came with two 6-core 2.4 GHz Intel Xeon Westmere-EP processors.

On the outside, it still looked exactly the same, which was fine, but the insides were now looking old, too. It was being updated, but the interior was no longer improving radically, and so Apple's professional users began clamoring.

The difficult second album

It's hard to top a success, even in technology where devices are developing fast. With the cheesegrater Mac Pro then seven years old, Apple could -- and needed to -- revamp it totally to take benefit of newer technology.

That's exactly what Apple did, and initially, it seemed that this revamped new Mac Pro was remarkable. It didn't stay that way, but at WWDC 2013, when Apple gave a sneak peek, we all applauded Phil Schiller's line, "Can't innovate, my ass."

However, unlike with the cheesegrater Mac Pro, he couldn't add that it was available that day. Instead, Schiller revealed that it would be shipping later that year -- and it did, just barely, on December 19, 2013.





This 2013 Mac Pro was the first in almost a decade that didn't come in the same "beautiful enclosure." Ultimately it was also one that lasted only half as long: that very impressive new design broke down under load because of its "thermal corner."

First reviews were very positive but complained about the 2013 Mac Pro's lack of options for upgrades, and then it was hitting performance bottlenecks because of heat. As great as it looked, it was not the real successor to the 2006 Mac Pro that people had wanted.

It cost from $2,999 at launch ($3814 today), and in hindsight, it was a failure - but only in hindsight. If it didn't become the favorite that the 2006 Mac Pro was, it still had its fans, and video editing suites came to rely on it.

Apple took its eye off the ball

We'll never really know how Apple saw the Mac Pro, but it was never going to become the insane best seller that, say, the iPhone is. And very soon after launch, there were signs that Apple had rather forgotten the 2013 Mac Pro.

For instance, it only just qualified for the name 2013 Mac Pro, as it came out so very late that year. But then it saw no update at all in 2014. Nor 2015.

It wasn't until 2017 that Apple did anything about that Mac Pro, and then it was to announce its death. Apple would continue to sell that Mac Pro up into 2019, but the only folks that bought it had rack hardware to fit it, or very specific vertical market applications that relied on the form factor.

After all, it was a tough sell when Apple promised a radically improved Mac Pro was coming, and not when Apple released an iMac Pro. For many users, the iMac Pro went successfully toe to toe with the 2013 Mac Pro, but also it's hard to justify the cost of a machine that you know will be replaced soon.

That's got to be a familiar concern to people who've been weighing up whether or not to wait for the Apple Silicon Mac Pro.

Apple didn't say it would be such a long wait from the 2017 news to the 2019 reveal, but it was evident that the new Mac Pro would not come out in 2017. Such was eagerness for the new machine that countless articles chose to interpret that as meaning it would be out in 2018.

The audience for the Mac Pro has always been smaller than any other Mac, but it's a passionate one. It's always been an audience where the cost is a factor, but not the only one.

It's the audience where the benefits of a Mac Pro pay back the purchase price with significantly faster workflows and significantly faster turning around of computationally-heavy tasks.

Whether Apple really forgot this audience or not, it definitely learned from the 2013 Mac Pro that this audience is not cost-conscious but benefit-hungry.

Mac Pro 2019

At launch, the 2019 Mac Pro started at $5,999 and went way, way up. A maxed-out version would cost you $53,000 -- without a display.

The target audience wasn't that concerned about the price -- again, they weren't ecstatic about it, but in their use case it was a worthwhile investment. But just about everyone mocked how Apple would sell you a set of Mac Pro wheels for $699.

At the time, it seemed like this was the perfect Mac Pro. Perhaps it could even have taken over the mantle of the beloved favorite like the original Mac Pro from 2006, but it didn't.




For in June 2020, Apple announced the transition to Apple Silicon. Once again, the promise was of greatly improved performance, even if no details were revealed.

And then we started to get details. It wasn't quite the same as when the iMac Pro could often beat the Mac Pro, but the first Apple Silicon Mac mini was a startlingly leap forward.

Apple Silicon was clearly working and seemingly able to radically improve performance at a much lower cost than an Intel Mac Pro.

You suddenly had to have a very good use case, or someone else funding your budget, to make buying the 2019 Mac Pro the right choice. It still was for many people, as you can't postpone your work while waiting for Apple to release a new model, but sales surely must have dropped.

Completing the transition to Apple Silicon

It seems churlish to point this out when Apple has successfully pulled off an astounding complex transition from Intel to Apple Silicon, but it didn't make its own deadline. Tim Cook said it would take two years, and every Mac did make that transition -- except the Mac Pro.

So far, all we've had is a hint about an Apple Silicon Mac Pro coming, and Apple also said that it is done with the M1 processor.

There is a claim that Apple had an M1 version of the Mac Pro, but decided to wait until it had one with what may be called the M2 Extreme processor.

It certainly won't have an M1 processor now, but beyond that, it's simply unknown what the next Mac Pro will bring.

Back to the future

That original 2006 Mac Pro was the right combination of power, features, and upgradeability. The 2013 version ditched the upgradeable side, and then the 2019 version brought it back.

It's fair to guess that Apple Silicon Mac Pro will be upgradeable. Given the price/performance of Apple Silicon, it's not unreasonable to think that it may also come in at a much lower price than the last Mac Pro.

No doubt, it's going to be popular with its target audience. But that original cheesegrater Mac Pro may be an example of catching lightning in a bottle.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    cjlaczcjlacz Posts: 45member
    I bought my Mac Pro a bit before the cheese grater. But after the amazing laptops and the max studio, you really consider this the best max ever made? I admit it’s competing, at least for it’s time. But this article seems 3 years late.  Basically this had internal storage and good pci expansion. That makes it the best mac ever made?  Meh. It was important at the time. And I do respect that. But im Not sure it qualifies it for the honors you are trying to give it. 
  • Reply 2 of 37
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,634member
    cjlacz said:
    I bought my Mac Pro a bit before the cheese grater. But after the amazing laptops and the max studio, you really consider this the best max ever made? I admit it’s competing, at least for it’s time. But this article seems 3 years late.  Basically this had internal storage and good pci expansion. That makes it the best mac ever made?  Meh. It was important at the time. And I do respect that. But im Not sure it qualifies it for the honors you are trying to give it. 
    You... bought your Mac Pro before the cheese grater? I don't think you did somehow. 

    It was the best Mac for Pros who need expansion, upgradability, power and value. Unlike the current Mac Pro, it was very respectably priced. Furthermore, It was a machine without the outcomes of Apple's undesired "courage"; the current Mac Pro seems more like a tech demo than a real machine, with the resulting price tag to go with it.
    rezwitsentropysdarkvader
  • Reply 3 of 37
    zimmiezimmie Posts: 609member
    I have a macpro4,1 with updated firmware making it a 5,1. Two six-core Xeons, 96 GB of RAM, terabytes of SSD space. It's a beast of a machine, and I like it a lot. I wouldn't call it the best Mac Apple has ever made, though. The Mac Studio is better, hands-down.

    It's surprisingly hard to add Thunderbolt to a classic Mac Pro. It will work ... as long as you boot into Windows first, and don't hot-plug anything. Oh, and it doesn't do USB over the port, which is important for me. I use a 21.5" Ultrafine 4K which accepts DisplayPort over USB-C but needs the single USB 2 channel for brightness control, audio, and so on.

    The firmware doesn't support booting from an NVMe drive. Sure, you can boot from a thumb drive or a small SATA SSD then chainload to an NVMe drive, but something non-NVMe must be in the boot path.

    The power distribution is pretty weird. The power supply has plenty of headroom, but you only get two aux power connectors for GPUs, and they have a weird capacity (120W each, rather than the more common 75W or 150W each). Some GPUs (e.g, the Radeon RX Vega 64) draw exclusively from the aux power connectors, which can cause the system to brown out, even though it has plenty of power budget left (the 75W allocated to the slot isn't used). Wouldn't be safe to draw more over the two aux connectors, which is why there should have been more than two.

    It's also huge. If you haven't seen one in person, it's almost certainly bigger than you expect. And heavy. And the "handles" have fairly sharp edges, which make it unpleasant to move around on a regular basis.

    There are undeniably a lot of tradeoffs with the old Mac Pro. They're worth it for me, but they're not for everybody.
    edited August 7 rezwitslongpathwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 37
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,389member
    I disagree...I think the current Mac Pro is the best Mac Pro ever made. While the cheesegrader Mac Pro was "affordable", it also didn't seem to always serve the needs of true professionals either which I believe is why Apple went the route it did with the current Mac Pro. You don't have to buy the $52,000 version of the Mac Pro and if you do then you're used to spending that amount of money on your equipment. 
    williamlondondoozydozenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 37
    longpathlongpath Posts: 386member
    zimmie said:
    It's also huge. If you haven't seen one in person, it's almost certainly bigger than you expect. And heavy. And the "handles" have fairly sharp edges, which make it unpleasant to move around on a regular basis.
    In my role as a engineer in broadcast television, there are completely fair criticisms. The weight and sharpness of the handles destroyed a number of my trousers, slashing across my thighs. 18Kg, with sharp handles is a literal & metaphorical pain to move around. Why those handles lacked bevels, such as the cylinder had along its thermal exhaust, is utterly beyond me. While it’s perfectly fair to note the cylinder’s limits, it was a safer machine to install and work on. The early RAID cards for the early cheesegraters drew my blood on too many occasions, when I had to pull them to get the numbers from the card to order cache batteries. 

    The current MacPro thankfully omits those sharp edges, so their heft is distinctly less hazardous.

    I hope that the Apple Silicon successor will continue this progress.
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 37
    boboliciousbobolicious Posts: 1,005member
    zimmie said:
    I have a macpro4,1 with updated firmware making it a 5,1. Two six-core Xeons, 96 GB of RAM, terabytes of SSD space. It's a beast of a machine, and I like it a lot. I wouldn't call it the best Mac Apple has ever made, though. The Mac Studio is better, hands-down.

    It's surprisingly hard to add Thunderbolt to a classic Mac Pro. It will work ... as long as you boot into Windows first, and don't hot-plug anything. Oh, and it doesn't do USB over the port, which is important for me. I use a 21.5" Ultrafine 4K which accepts DisplayPort over USB-C but needs the single USB 2 channel for brightness control, audio, and so on.

    The firmware doesn't support booting from an NVMe drive. Sure, you can boot from a thumb drive or a small SATA SSD then chainload to an NVMe drive, but something non-NVMe must be in the boot path.

    The power distribution is pretty weird. The power supply has plenty of headroom, but you only get two aux power connectors for GPUs, and they have a weird capacity (120W each, rather than the more common 75W or 150W each). Some GPUs (e.g, the Radeon RX Vega 64) draw exclusively from the aux power connectors, which can cause the system to brown out, even though it has plenty of power budget left (the 75W allocated to the slot isn't used). Wouldn't be safe to draw more over the two aux connectors, which is why there should have been more than two.

    It's also huge. If you haven't seen one in person, it's almost certainly bigger than you expect. And heavy. And the "handles" have fairly sharp edges, which make it unpleasant to move around on a regular basis.

    There are undeniably a lot of tradeoffs with the old Mac Pro. They're worth it for me, but they're not for everybody.
    I can boot Mojave on a 5,1 NVMe ?  

    It is indeed my favourite mac, with the 2011 i7 mini not far behind for different reasons. Both support multiple user replaceable and upgradable storage (raid) and ram, and have discrete GPU, while acknowledging the chip speeds are now out gunned.  The 5,1 will run a VEGA 56 GPU, and with 12/24 cores I understand it as faster in ways than the 2019 pro when it launched. The 2018 i7 mini offers ram and eGPU upgrade potential, however storage is at the mercy of the mothership, and is that by design vs technical...?

    The 2013 Pro seemed to usher in an era of underperformance by design (for profit?) without Crossfire (multiple GPU) support on macOS, vs enabling such in Apple's proprietary apps such as FCP.  Is such arguably more support effort than mGPU system support ? Rough benchmarks suggest that a dual D700 with Crossfire might target VEGA 64 GPU comparisons, and this all the way back in 2013. Would such make that model still relevant...?

    The only faster than v56 GPU on ARM seems the Ultra, which is completely non upgradable, so while it may seem impressive now, will it fall into the accelerated obsolescence cycles that seem to have been increasing since 2011, with macOS upgrades and support down to 3 from 6+ years, from a time when upgrades seemed on merit vs shareholder calendar...?

    I am reminded of the abandonment of MacWorld - suggested to remove the calendar timing pressure such put on development, which I might assume is only getting more complex with time...?
    JMStearnsX2watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 37
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,170member
    The only holdup is marketing (slotting it into the so-called Mac range), a half size tower or a rack type enclosure is well within Apples tech capabilities, such a machine would sell many more times the number Apple currently sells in the current tower singular (sad only one) configuration.

    And despite what Apple has done in the last 12 years there is a market for truck Mac’s and standalone Apple curated monitors of multiple sizes 24”, 27” 32”, Apple curation lead to better monitors than the LG or Samsung monitors. Not having a standalone Apple 24” monitor to match the 24” iMac is criminal.

    That 32” XDR monitor enclosure is perfect for a new SOC/GPU iMac/Mac computer inside. Note Google, Samsung, Amazon and Microsoft will try to follow up with a me too cheap version soon after.

    After all if you are going to dabble in TV/Movies make something that uses all of your in house OS/SOC chip tech with it, in a way that leaves competition scrambling.
    edited August 7 williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 37
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,339member
    For me, the Sawtooth line was the best desktop Mac ever released.

    Rock solid, excellent accessibility and an internal firewire port which, sadly, Apple never bothered to take anywhere.

    And designwise, beautiful for its time. 
    danox9secondkox2muthuk_vanalingamdarkvader
  • Reply 9 of 37
    zimmie said:
    I have a macpro4,1 with updated firmware making it a 5,1. Two six-core Xeons, 96 GB of RAM, terabytes of SSD space. It's a beast of a machine, and I like it a lot. I wouldn't call it the best Mac Apple has ever made, though. The Mac Studio is better, hands-down.

    It's surprisingly hard to add Thunderbolt to a classic Mac Pro. It will work ... as long as you boot into Windows first, and don't hot-plug anything. Oh, and it doesn't do USB over the port, which is important for me. I use a 21.5" Ultrafine 4K which accepts DisplayPort over USB-C but needs the single USB 2 channel for brightness control, audio, and so on.

    The firmware doesn't support booting from an NVMe drive. Sure, you can boot from a thumb drive or a small SATA SSD then chainload to an NVMe drive, but something non-NVMe must be in the boot path.

    The power distribution is pretty weird. The power supply has plenty of headroom, but you only get two aux power connectors for GPUs, and they have a weird capacity (120W each, rather than the more common 75W or 150W each). Some GPUs (e.g, the Radeon RX Vega 64) draw exclusively from the aux power connectors, which can cause the system to brown out, even though it has plenty of power budget left (the 75W allocated to the slot isn't used). Wouldn't be safe to draw more over the two aux connectors, which is why there should have been more than two.

    It's also huge. If you haven't seen one in person, it's almost certainly bigger than you expect. And heavy. And the "handles" have fairly sharp edges, which make it unpleasant to move around on a regular basis.

    There are undeniably a lot of tradeoffs with the old Mac Pro. They're worth it for me, but they're not for everybody.
    Problem with the Studio Ultra is that it is limited to 128GB of RAM for anyone who needs memory intensive applications.
    williamlondondarkvader
  • Reply 10 of 37
     I had a 2009 Xeon Nehalem cheese grater. It was a well-designed product but I don't have a lot of nostalgia for the weight of it or the amount of space it took up. I really like how small the Mac Studio is and obviously the M series is more important historically for Apple than getting Intel. 
    edited August 7 watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 37
    Rogue01Rogue01 Posts: 55member
    I wouldn't call the Apple Silicon transition 'successful'.  It has been over two years and Apple just now replaces the M1 with a new CPU, and they still don't have a replacement for the Mac Pro?  How is that successful?  Apple finished the Intel transition in 270 days and had newer and faster models the following year, and continued to do so for 15 more years.  Granted there is a supply chain issue, but the Apple Silicon transition has been slow as molasses.  There used to be high-end, high-performance iMacs. Now we are stuck with a single model with a low-end base model CPU (M1) that maxes out at 16GB of RAM, when the model it replaced maxed out at 128GB of RAM.  Everyone thought the Macs would come down in price with Apple making their own CPUs, but it has been the opposite.  The Macs are now more expensive than ever, and new models come with an unpleasant price hike.  And now you are forced to pay the Apple-Tax for memory and storage at the time of purchase.  No upgrading later.

    Watch the old Apple keynotes in which Steve Jobs introduced new models that were faster, but less expensive, or the same price as the outgoing models.  Speaking of this trip down Mac Pro memory lane, Apple made a point to show that the new Mac Pro started at $2,499, but the equally configured PC was over $4,700.  Now Apple's base model Mac Pro is $5,999, and the 2020 iMac 27" with 10-core i9 and 5700XT graphics beats it on most benchmarks, and cost less (at the time).  Of course the Mac Studio beats it hands down.  Yet Apple still sells it for $5,999.
    elijahgdarkvaderdanox
  • Reply 12 of 37
    Rogue01Rogue01 Posts: 55member
    I got a Mac Pro 1,1 for free from someone on Facebook.  After buying two used 3.0 GHz quad-core Xeons on eBay for $50 and updating the firmware and SMC to the Mac Pro 2,1 firmware, it is now a '2008' Mac Pro with 8-cores.  Great for running older software.  That $50 CPU upgrade doubled the performance of the original Mac Pro 1,1, and that was already 3x faster than the Power Mac G5.  Those Mac Pros 1,1 to 5,1 were the best Macs.
    edited August 7 elijahgdarkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 37
    killroykillroy Posts: 216member
    My 3.1 Mac Pro is still going strong.
    darkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 37
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,391member
    avon b7 said:
    For me, the Sawtooth line was the best desktop Mac ever released.

    Rock solid, excellent accessibility and an internal firewire port which, sadly, Apple never bothered to take anywhere.

    And designwise, beautiful for its time. 
    That design was so far ahead of its time, it was unreal. Like a futuristic dream machine. Now, it is outdated of course. But at the time, it was the most beautiful piece of computing hardware, light years ahead of everything else. That is the Jobs-Ive combo. A lethal one two punch, Always pushing the envelope, creating truly iconic designs that others tried to copy, but could never match. Legendary Apple. 

    The OG Mac Pro was and is also iconic. Even today, it doesn’t look a bit outdated. Performance was insane too. I bought one for my organization shortly after it was available. We were running notoriously unoptimized software that was barely chugging along on all of our systems, and the Mac Pro ran it like a hot knife through butter. A legend of its time. 
    edited August 7 elijahgdarkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 37
    I have three 5,1 Mac Pros, definetly my favorite Macs of all the many I've owned. I sincerly hope that the new M-series Mac Pro will still have PCI slots and the ability to add storage (SATA, NVMe) & memory. 

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 37
    It was lifting and twisting around a Mac Pro that did my back in.  Never fully recovered.
    longpath
  • Reply 17 of 37
    M68000M68000 Posts: 485member
    I liked the trash can cylinder Mac Pro…. Very interesting design.  Nothing else like it.
    longpathwatto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 37
    dewmedewme Posts: 4,388member
    The current Mac Studio is what you get when a trash can Mac Pro and a Mac Mini have a baby. 

    Seriously though, I am hoping that an offshoot of Apple’s work to bring Apple Silicon to Mac Pro will be a way to bring eGPU support to all Apple Silicon Macs. I realize they don’t have to go in that direction but it is technically feasible to do so. 
    darkvaderwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 37
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 886member
    M68000 said:
    I liked the trash can cylinder Mac Pro…. Very interesting design.  Nothing else like it.

    Very stupid design.  No slots, loads of thermal problems, hard to repair.  It was one of Apple's worst designs.
    elijahg
  • Reply 20 of 37
    mikethemartian said: Problem with the Studio Ultra is that it is limited to 128GB of RAM for anyone who needs memory intensive applications.
    Studio Ultra has unified memory though. That 128GB is the performance equivalent of 256GB on an older "standard" RAM system.
    edited August 8 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.