wizard69

About

Banned
Username
wizard69
Joined
Visits
154
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
2,255
Badges
1
Posts
13,377

Reactions

2KLike0Dislike165Informative

  • Redesigned Mac Pro with up to 40 Apple Silicon cores coming in 2022

    wizard69wizard69
    JWSC said:
    Marvin said:
    Ok, so how much will this $40k MacPro cost?
    The good thing is it's entirely up to Apple, whereas before they were charging a markup on top of Intel's and AMD's prices.

    Intel charges a few thousand dollars for high-end Xeons, the following is in the Mac Pro:
    https://www.amazon.com/Intel-CD8069504248702-Octacosa-core-Processor-Overclocking/dp/B086M6P8D6

    An AMD Radeon Pro VII based on Vega architecture retails for $2740:
    https://www.newegg.com/amd-100-506163/p/N82E16814105105

    Apple charges $10k for 4 Radeon Pro GPUs. Cutting Intel and AMD out means it instantly cuts out around $15k of costs from a $24k Mac Pro. If Apple continued charging that, the extra $15k would all be profit.

    For the easiest manufacturing, they'd use multiple units of the chips that go in their laptops and iMac models. An entire MBP/iMac would cost under $2.5k with a 30% margin so $1750 manufacturing. The CPU/GPU part would be well under $500. It will have bundled memory though up to 64GB per chip. Using 4 of them shouldn't cost more than $2k with 64GB RAM total. The whole machine will likely start around $5k but the lowest quad-chip model will perform like the $24k Mac Pro.

    If they price it too high, people will just buy multiple MBPs/iMacs. I would guess the price range to be starting around $5k and going up to $10k with maximum memory (256GB) and bit higher for 8TB+ SSD. Hopefully the XDR will come down in price a bit too to be able to get a decent Pro with XDR under $10k.

    It may still have PCIe slots to support things like the Afterburner card and other IO cards but I don't see any reason to include slots for GPUs and they can always build an external box for IO cards with a single internal slot.
    zimmie said:
    If it's using the same GPU cores as the M1, clocked at the same speed, a 64-core GPU could do 20.8 TFLOPS, while a 128-core GPU could do 41.6 TFLOPS. For comparison, a GeForce RTX 3090 (the top consumer card from Nvidia) does up to 35.6 TFLOPS, and a Radeon RX 6900 XT (the top consumer card from AMD) does up to 23 TFLOPS.

    Considering the RTX 3090 and RX 6900 XT still universally sell for more than double their MSRP, I wonder if Apple will have scalping problems. Their system of allowing backorders mitigates scalping, but doesn't eliminate it. With the added demand from blockbros, it may be difficult to get one for a year or so.
    It would be a terrible shame if a significant use of these machines is for block chain mining.  (But if it boosts my AAPL investment, I'll be crying all the way to the bank.)
    I could see them being used in render farms and servers. They would be extremely efficient and cost-effective machines.

    Crypto mining would depend on the software being optimized for Apple Silicon and the overall price of the compute units:

    https://otcpm24.com/2021/03/01/apple-m1-vs-nvidia-ethereum-hash-rate-comparison-which-is-more-capable-for-crypto-mining/

    M1 is 2MH/s on the GPU at around 10-15W, NVidia 90HX goes up to 86MH/s at 320W. A 3090 can do over 100MH/s under 300W.
    A Mac Pro would be expected to get 16x this so 32MH/s at around 200W.
    An Nvidia 3090 is around $3k so I don't see people buying $5k+ Mac Pros specifically for mining but if they already planned to have a server array of Macs, they might use them for mining. Mining will probably become obsolete in the next year anyway.
    I was wondering if it makes sense to crank up the clock speed on M Series SOC processors.  If cranking up clock speed is one avenue of performance improvement then you have to take yield into account.  With the M1 that seems like virgin territory to explore.  Without that data how would Apple know how to price faster M Series chips?  They would have to produce enough to get statistically significant yield data, which would take time and a lot on money.

    OTOH, maybe the M Series SOC architecture is different enough that Apple need not focus on clock speed and instead focus on making massively parallel systems with many cores.  That brings its own problems with increased overhead associated with task management.

    Apple is almost certainly focused on yields with M1.    Every thing they ship has the same clock rate with no attempt to make the MB-pro faster for example.  

    Now here is the thing, they will almost certainly have to bin parts one they go with these very large chips.   There is just a much higher chance of defects in either the GPU or CPU cores.  So I could see the 32 core ship being offered up as a 16 or 24 core chip for lower end machines.   They would likely disable some GPU cores just to differentiate.  In a nut shell bigger chips mean a greater possibility for defects and thus makes binning mandatory.   They might also truncate performance clock wise to further increase yields or differentiate, so we could see different clock rates just because of that.

    As I've stated elsewhere Apple really needs these lower end machines to make the Mac Pro a viable product.   So if they are not planning for this, in my mind they are nuts.
    JWSCviclauyycwatto_cobra

  • Redesigned Mac Pro with up to 40 Apple Silicon cores coming in 2022

    wizard69wizard69
    lkrupp said:
    pslice said:
    40 Cores? I just want 10-12. How many potential customers??? I have modest wants, 27-30” screen, 12 cores and modest storage and decent RAM. Come on , Apple. 
    Well, if it’s a Mac Pro then it’s not designed for you is it. Potential customers? Same as the current Mac Pro, professionals who need maximum performance and who are willing to pay the price for it,

    There simply are not enough of those sorts of customers.   Apple keeps designing a Mac Pro for a customer base that does not exist in the volume to justify the machine they design.   This then results in sales failures that lead to Apple giving up and the same machine on the market for years with no updates.   It has been the history of the Mac Pro for more than a decade now. 
     
    Apple absolutely needs an intro machine that is under $2000 and doesn't suck.   They need that price to drive volume and to support the platform so that they can have high performance models.   More so they need to go a step further and make sure the mother board is compatible for other platforms like an iMac Pro or an Xmac.   Literally a multi use motherboard that again drives volume to address the issue of cost or more importantly the perception of value.

    Now some of you probably think I'm nuts and will say this can't be done.    I say it has to be done to break the cycle of Mac Pros that frankly are jokes.   The current Mac Pro is an embarrassment when you look at what one can do with a Thread Ripper based system.   Frankly I don't think Apple has a chance in hell of competing with such systems but they can make a far better and competitive Mac Pro.   The enablement for this is in fact Apple Silicon.   They will have to bin such chips as it isn't likely they will get every CPU core and every GPU core working out of such large chips.   So maybe more than 10 cores but less than the 40 or 32 of a performance chip.    As long as you support the same pin outs you can cover a very broad range of performance needs.
    caladanianviclauyycpatchythepiratesmalm

  • New 14-inch and 16-inch Apple Silicon MacBook Pro, redesigned Mac mini in pipeline

    wizard69wizard69
    OutdoorAppDeveloper said:
    Not liking the rumor that the RAM is still packaged with the CPU and can't be upgraded. That is going to be a major issue with users that need a lot of RAM for their projects. Apple could mitigate this if they include an extremely fast SSD along the lines of the one in the PS5 that can move 5.5 GB a second. Memory swapping could be a thing again.

    I doubt it is a rumor, Apple gains a lot of performance advantages with in package RAM.   There is a real speed benefit but a bigger factor from my perspective is that it is likely saving them a lot of power and maybe even more moving forward.    I'd kinda like to see Apple address the complaints so that people know the trade offs.

    I see the SSD problem as one of the storage devices being fast enough and at the same time reliable.   The research into the Linux kernel port indicates that the SSD controller is memory mapped which probably already explains some of the performance advantages of AS.   That fact should allow Apple to rapidly increase SSD support as Flash becomes faster.

    It will be interesting to see what Apple does for the Mac Pro and possibly other desktop machines.   To support massive memory they will have to have off die memory, probably in sockets.    That is likely to be DDR5 with very wide (multiple) memory channels.   This chip, in a slightly reduced core count) could end up in a high end iMac or even a enhanced Mac Mini or XMac type box.    So the idea of memory sockets might not go completely away when it comes to low end Macs, but it won't be in 2021.
    doozydozenwilliamlondonGG1docno42watto_cobra

  • Apple says Epic Games demands threaten iOS app security, privacy, quality

    wizard69wizard69
    Trey_Lance said:
    Epic is so out of line here , which judge even accepted this law suit?

    Epic is owned by Tencent, you know that company that also makes these movies that says how great the Chinese government is? And half of the board of Tencent have ties to the current Chinese government?

    Hello people?

    This is bullshit as you try to use the horrors of China to deflect from the real issues Apples practices create.   If Epic wins it will be a win for all developers and users of the iOS ecosystem.    Right now Apple has a creatively stacked deck of cards that always generates a winner for them.   Frankly if you combine the issues with App Store and the other anti competitive practices Apple engages in and you will see that Apple is going to have a very tough going in the next few years as governments world wide crack down.   Apple has just gone off the deep end trying to create a world in their image forgetting that many don't have the same views as them.   One of those views is the fairness when it comes to how App store is managed.

    Frankly Apple is using some of he same idiotic excuses, that only the extremely gullible accept, that they use to fight right to repair.    In the end Apples motivations are planned obsolescence and getting a cut of every commercial app that runs on its devices.    It can be likened to Ford demanding 30% from every gas station when you fill up your tank.   It isn't something most Americans would feel comfortable with and frankly is against the law.   I just don't see Apple having a leg to stand on especially if one looks deep into existing law and what has traditionally been accepted business practice.
    williamlondon

  • Fatal fire at Apple supplier's factory in Shanghai kills eight

    wizard69wizard69
    tommikele said:
    How long until someone in the tech media or people commenting start claiming Apple has some responsibility with this?

    Well Apple is the one doing business in China and other countries where their only concern is low cost.   In this regard my opinion of Apple has changed dramatically in the last couple of years, I really don't believe they give a damn about the people building their hardware.   Basically they are a forked tongued devil when it comes to worker treatment.
    williamlondonelijahg