Apple knows very well that without the Trade-In program, most potential buyers would just wait for the M3 chips to be released by early 2024, hence the need for an incentive to buy with the Trade-In options.
I'm curious to know how much you will get for your old Studio.
When the studio was first announced they strongly implied a new Mac Pro would come later. That never happened. If the studio laps the pro with no mention of a future pro, I’ll conclude the pro’s future is in serious doubt.
Gruber should ask about it in his WWDC edition of his podcast.
If the new Mac Studio can reach the GB 6.0.3 Metal benchmark of my current iMac Pro with an eGPU, 192,834, then I'm all in.
CPU performance of even the M1 Ultra was good enough for me...
Ten years ago 3D TVs were the "next big thing" and they flopped within a couple of years. Nobody can speak on behalf of all consumers why they flopped, but the most common reason people seem to give is "glasses." (Various technical issues regarding glasses.) That fact doesn't bode well for any augmented reality product, especially if you have to remove your glasses to get them to work, or switch to contact lenses.
When the studio was first announced they strongly implied a new Mac Pro would come later. That never happened. If the studio laps the pro with no mention of a future pro, I’ll conclude the pro’s future is in serious doubt.
Gruber should ask about it in his WWDC edition of his podcast.
I'm sad that Apple has shown their hand with the Mac Pro yet, and that it is taking so long. It basically implies the solution they were planning on for the Mac Pro didn't not provide the performance expected for its price target.
The clue to me is that their GPU performance scales very poorly with GPU cores from 16, 32, to 64 cores, and they weren't expecting it. For many of the GB5 GPU compute loads, it looked it was reaching diminishing returns from 32 to 48 cores. Once they saw it not panning out, that meant at least a 1 cycle delay, 12 to 18 mo, and the true solution is 2 cycles away, 24 to 36 mo. So if there is an M2 Ultra, they at best could only do late changes, like cache size changes, to address it. Then, the M3 cycle could institute architectural changes to improve scaling.
The rumor was Apple was going to have 4 M1 Max chips bridged together in someway so that it would appear as one CPU and one GPU. How they did the silicon interposers for 4 M1 Max chips would have been interesting to see.
Apple knows very well that without the Trade-In program, most potential buyers would just wait for the M3 chips to be released by early 2024, hence the need for an incentive to buy with the Trade-In options.
I'm curious to know how much you will get for your old Studio.
At least 50% less than what you'd get on the open market. But this way you don't need to worry about trying to sell it.
When the studio was first announced they strongly implied a new Mac Pro would come later. That never happened. If the studio laps the pro with no mention of a future pro, I’ll conclude the pro’s future is in serious doubt.
Gruber should ask about it in his WWDC edition of his podcast.
I'm sad that Apple has shown their hand with the Mac Pro yet, and that it is taking so long. It basically implies the solution they were planning on for the Mac Pro didn't not provide the performance expected for its price target.
The clue to me is that their GPU performance scales very poorly with GPU cores from 16, 32, to 64 cores, and they weren't expecting it. For many of the GB5 GPU compute loads, it looked it was reaching diminishing returns from 32 to 48 cores. Once they saw it not panning out, that meant at least a 1 cycle delay, 12 to 18 mo, and the true solution is 2 cycles away, 24 to 36 mo. So if there is an M2 Ultra, they at best could only do late changes, like cache size changes, to address it. Then, the M3 cycle could institute architectural changes to improve scaling.
The rumor was Apple was going to have 4 M1 Max chips bridged together in someway so that it would appear as one CPU and one GPU. How they did the silicon interposers for 4 M1 Max chips would have been interesting to see.
I agree that Apple hadn’t found a way to blow the doors off for the Mac Pro just yet. But I think they’re pretty close.
The m2 architecture just isn’t quite it, as potent as it is. The M2 Ultra will be awesome. But the Mac Pro needs the M3 architecture at minimum if not a desktop specific one. For the Mac Pro to be taken seriously, it needs to be upgradable/expandable and that’s going to require a complete rethink of what a Max is/can be. If Apple does what I think they’re doing, it will be quite the feat and will definitely be worth the wait. The worst thing ever would be for Apple to launch a Mac Studio on roids and call it the Mac Pro.
I'm thinking more along the lines of the long-overdue iMac and iMac Pro pro models, one to replace the 27" and another to address the previously-rumoured 32" model, respectively.
M2 Max- & M2 Ultra-based Mac Studio models are now available, confirming the pre-WWDC rumors. A 27-inch or larger Apple silicon-based iMac still remains an unrealized dream.
Comments
Gruber should ask about it in his WWDC edition of his podcast.
The clue to me is that their GPU performance scales very poorly with GPU cores from 16, 32, to 64 cores, and they weren't expecting it. For many of the GB5 GPU compute loads, it looked it was reaching diminishing returns from 32 to 48 cores. Once they saw it not panning out, that meant at least a 1 cycle delay, 12 to 18 mo, and the true solution is 2 cycles away, 24 to 36 mo. So if there is an M2 Ultra, they at best could only do late changes, like cache size changes, to address it. Then, the M3 cycle could institute architectural changes to improve scaling.
The rumor was Apple was going to have 4 M1 Max chips bridged together in someway so that it would appear as one CPU and one GPU. How they did the silicon interposers for 4 M1 Max chips would have been interesting to see.