rob53

keithw said:

The 2023(?) ASi "Mac Pro" must either be able to reach the 166,946 GB5 GPU results either with on-chip GPU cores or by a discrete graphics card like the existing Intel Mac Pro, otherwise, why bother to even release it?

Agree. The question is how Apple will be able to do this. I added some more comparisons to try and help answer your question but they're not complete. I din't see the Mac mini ever being configured to match a Mac Pro but we've already seen it match the Mac Studio's base configuration cost. Once the Studio gets a M2/M3 Max and Ultra, I can see the GPU results getting a lot closer to the existing Mac Pro. To replace the Mac Pro with Apple Silicon, these results (except single CPU core) need to be twice what the current Mac Pro is capable of production. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti is running OpenCL at 229738, that's where the Mac Pro has to get to. The 3090 Ti uses 24GB of dedicated memory with 10752 cores. The M1 Ultra only uses 64c and gets an OpenCL score of 76040. That's 1188/GPU core while the 3090 only gets 21/GPU core. This might mean Apple would only need to produce a GPU with maybe 200 cores. Could the M2/M3 Ultra be enlarged to handle this many GPU cores? Would the Mac Pro be configured with multiple Ultras connected using a second generation unified memory architecture?

Here's Mac Studio results that should have been added to the comparison even though the Mac mini isn't available with the Max or Ultra configuration. Includes Mac Pro. When I look at the Ultra's numbers, they're better than the Mac Pro CPU but while the GPU still lags behind the Radeon, it's almost twice as powerful as the Mac Pro mini numbers. This article should have included the M2 Max numbers from the MBP but Geekbench isn't listing the M2 in the Metal chart (yet). 

canukstorm said:

bill42 said:

Upping the specs to mid level to match how I always buy new Macs, this Mac Mini alone would cost about $2000, and that's without a monitor. As an Apple snob who has not purchased a non-apple screen since my 21 inch Sony CRT for my 840AV back in 1991, I would want to buy an Apple screen. All we have available is a Studio Display starting at $1600.  I would prefer an iMac like my current 27" iMac from 2012, but the only iMacs available today have a screen just a bit too small for my taste. I really wish Apple would just make a new 27 or 30" iMac. It would be half the price of a Mac Mini with Studio Display, and it would sell like mad, just like the old 27" iMacs did when they dominated the graphics world.

A 27" 5K iMac with the M2 Pro would be my dream Mac.

The problem with this scenario (which is what I'd like to get) is that my 2019 27" iMac already has a Studio Display (kind of) in it. Would be interesting to see if someone would gut a 5K iMac and drop in a mid-level Mac mini (Mac Pro mini with enough internal storage) with ports moved to the back. Of course, even though it would look a bit ugly, I could go with attaching the mini to the back of the iMac and figure out how to drive the display at full 5K resolution. Maybe put the mini under the display stand would be a better idea. I know the Studio Display has a ton on electronics inside including an A7(?) CPU for performing lots of things but for many of us just an accessible 5K display might be enough. I like having everything in one "box" but I still have a couple external drives and Thunderbolt dock/hub(s) plus a bunch of external power bricks so why am I worried about having an all-in-one. I gave up on this years ago after adding RAID arrays. Maybe it's time for a rack-mounted Mac mini (flat) along with slots for RAID arrays and a rack-mounted dock for extra I/O ports. Put all the power supplies in the back of the rack, install a couple whisper fans and everything is organized cleanly. 

Would be nice to see Intel-based Macs added to chart to show price/performance breakdown. Include standard graphics scores plus scores for higher end (expensive) graphics cards. My iMac with AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 ($450 upgrade, thought it cost more) with a Metal score of 53883. That puts it in the M1 Max area but back in 2019, the Pro Vega was an expensive option. A "base" M1 Max MBP is half what was spent on the 2019 iMac and everything about the M1 Max MBP is much faster than the configuration I have. Having these comparisons should help consumers realize even the refurbished Intel Macs are no longer worth the price they're being sold for.

Now, I'd like to see a Mac Pro built around a cluster of M2 Max SoCs with appropriate software. The M2 Max might be a more reasonable SoC to build a cluster around than the Ultra version. I would think the Max would have a lower rejection rate than the Ultra. 

Doesn't surprise me even though most Apple Stores are usually filled while other computer type stores are either out of business or almost empty. Most people are simply buying online, whether it's through Apple, Amazon or major businesses like B&H (not sponsoring them but huge in NYC). Most Apple Stores will stay around until people decide not to go there anymore. I've actually purchased a few things, including picking up an iPad, at an Apple store but usually purchase online and have it delivered to my door. Cost less than driving 200m RT to buy at the store with higher sales tax.

mikethemartian said:

hodar said:

rob53 said:

Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.

That is my single “ding” against the iMac line.  The display is magnificent; but then tech on the motherboard will be obsolete decades before the monitor is done.  The monitor doesn’t have the ability to switch inputs; which is why I went with the Mac Mini

With a decent monitor; keyboard, mouse and a little extra storage the cost outlay is not that far apart, assuming you start off with a upper level Mini

It is a risk someone takes whenever they buy an all-in-one product from any company.

My first iMac, the original Bondi Blue G3 iMac, was delivered the first day it was released (August 15, 1998). iMacs are still being produced 24.5 years later so it has been a risk a lot of people have taken. Of course, maybe Apple is the only company that actually made money on an all-in-one computer.