There is very solid evidence that Metal compute code running on the ultras has the thoughput of nvidia GPUs with much higher theoretical peak performance. Memory bandwidth is the key here.
If buying this kind of workstation, why on earth would I be interested in a comparison with a four year old machine? I would be comparing it with what else is currently in the market to perform similar tasks.
Regardless, this machine is an expensive, crippled embarrassment, not able to do anything a Mac Studio can do at much lower cost.
It is not the Mac Pro anyone should be looking for.
You're not Apple's target here. They're trying to get users of Intel Mac Pros to upgrade. Hence, the comparison to the previous Mac Pro. Anyone interested in spending this type of money on a system would do some research - I'd hope - and know there are Intel and AMD systems that are more powerful. But that's completely useless to someone whose workflow is based around the Mac and Apple.
That doesn’t make sense. Some companies/users bought Mac pros and upgraded them to high numbers with the expectation of upgrading them during the time of ownership. Four years isn’t the time to buy a whole new Mac Pro.
This stinks all the way around.
Hopefully Apple is prepping Mac Pro SOC upgrades that excel beyond yearly Mac Studio updates.
Apple has been bragging about performance superiority with the Mac Pro for a long time - notably starting with the Power Mac G5, which was basically a supercomputer in its day.
There is no other way to view this than a giant letdown. Because it is. Pushing people who need more to a competitor is admitting defeat. Apple hasn’t made that statement yet. But they e made a case for it. They really should have delayed until something max pro worthy was ready. Because this isn’t it.
I would like to see a comparison where someone performs the same physics 3D simulation with a dataset larger than 192GB with a maxed out 2023 Mac Pro vs a maxed out 2019. Based on past experience I would expect the 2023 to crash once the memory usage gets close to the max.
MacOS is pretty good at handling swap. I've been working on a 3D animation recently that needs ~ 70GB RAM when rendering, will render on the CPU without issue on a MacBook Air with 24GB RAM. If your software is making use of GPU compute though, that may need to all be in RAM and not swap, GPU rendering does cause a crash.
If buying this kind of workstation, why on earth would I be interested in a comparison with a four year old machine? I would be comparing it with what else is currently in the market to perform similar tasks.
Regardless, this machine is an expensive, crippled embarrassment, not able to do anything a Mac Studio can do at much lower cost.
It is not the Mac Pro anyone should be looking for.
Why do you keep asking this stupid fucking question despite being given multiple salient replies? Get a fucking clue.
Hee asking because it’s the most logical question to ask. It’s not that Apple meant to downgrade the Mac Pro yo Mac Studio status. It’s that they weren’t willing to do better at this time. At least it looks like the SOC can be upgraded down the line. We’ll see.
So stop cussing at people with legit criticisms/questions. It IS really lame to compare a computer to one from FOUR freaking years ago just yo try to m as Jr the new one look better than it is.
He’s got a point.
First of all, fuck that childishness.
Secondly, as previously explained, knowing how a new release compares to its predecessor is clearly important to people that actually use their devices to make money. The equation is not difficult if you want to know how long it will take a faster machine to pay for itself, if at all.
You and entropy are only getting upset because it’s comparing to an Intel Mac so you can cry foul over AI not comparing M2 performance to the latest Intel (or AMD) chips, even though that would be a stupid comparison since you can’t buy a Mac with those power hungry chips.
So tell us again why a video editor would who uses an Intel Mac Pro shouldn’t care about the M2 Mac Pro performance as a potential upgrade?
You either believe in numbers, or you don't. If you do, then you have to consider that an out-of-the-box ASUS Rog Scar 18 LAPTOP (Intel) scores ~20,400 in Geekbench (multicore), while the close competitor MSI Titan GT77, scores a little higher than that. They are between $3500 and $4000 laptops, so they have a screen.
So yes, the MacPro with the new CPU is fast, but there is context here.
The Mac Pro will support graphics cards. but the develooper will have to write drivers for them. Apple won't be writing drivers for them as in the past.
The Mac Pro will support graphics cards. but the develooper will have to write drivers for them. Apple won't be writing drivers for them as in the past.
Do you have any proof of this?
As I understand it, there are hardware issues involved, not just lack of drivers.
Is it even possible for 3rd-party developers to write GPU drivers for Apple Silicon based systems?
The Mac Pro will support graphics cards. but the develooper will have to write drivers for them. Apple won't be writing drivers for them as in the past.
Except Apple will block the Nvidia kernel extensions needed, as they have done in the past. Unless a miracle happens, no Nvidia for us.
The Mac Pro will support graphics cards. but the develooper will have to write drivers for them. Apple won't be writing drivers for them as in the past.
If buying this kind of workstation, why on earth would I be interested in a comparison with a four year old machine? I would be comparing it with what else is currently in the market to perform similar tasks.
Regardless, this machine is an expensive, crippled embarrassment, not able to do anything a Mac Studio can do at much lower cost.
It is not the Mac Pro anyone should be looking for.
You're not Apple's target here. They're trying to get users of Intel Mac Pros to upgrade. Hence, the comparison to the previous Mac Pro. Anyone interested in spending this type of money on a system would do some research - I'd hope - and know there are Intel and AMD systems that are more powerful. But that's completely useless to someone whose workflow is based around the Mac and Apple.
That doesn’t make sense. Some companies/users bought Mac pros and upgraded them to high numbers with the expectation of upgrading them during the time of ownership. Four years isn’t the time to buy a whole new Mac Pro.
This stinks all the way around.
Hopefully Apple is prepping Mac Pro SOC upgrades that excel beyond yearly Mac Studio updates.
Apple has been bragging about performance superiority with the Mac Pro for a long time - notably starting with the Power Mac G5, which was basically a supercomputer in its day.
There is no other way to view this than a giant letdown. Because it is. Pushing people who need more to a competitor is admitting defeat. Apple hasn’t made that statement yet. But they e made a case for it. They really should have delayed until something max pro worthy was ready. Because this isn’t it.
Not true at all...people who buy Mac Pro's don't really care about "upgrading" them, but rather just being able to install PCIe expansion cards to suit what they're gonna use it for. They don't care about being able to install more RAM, put more HD space in it, etc. That may have been true in the 90's and early 2000's but today it's just not the case. The customers buying Mac Pro buy it to do work and they don't have time to screw around tinkering inside the computer. They buy what they can afford use it until it's not useable anymore and then move on with another Mac.
Comments
Secondly, as previously explained, knowing how a new release compares to its predecessor is clearly important to people that actually use their devices to make money. The equation is not difficult if you want to know how long it will take a faster machine to pay for itself, if at all.
So tell us again why a video editor would who uses an Intel Mac Pro shouldn’t care about the M2 Mac Pro performance as a potential upgrade?
So yes, the MacPro with the new CPU is fast, but there is context here.
Apple won't be writing drivers for them as in the past.
As I understand it, there are hardware issues involved, not just lack of drivers.
Is it even possible for 3rd-party developers to write GPU drivers for Apple Silicon based systems?