mjtomlin

CookItOff said:

I would love to be totally wrong on this, but after thoroughly reading each patent application it looks like these are the patents for how the Ultra chip (two Max chip linked together through infinity fabric) processes graphic task in tandem, and the infinity fabric link which Apple uses to tie both MAX chips together, and has nothing to do with future multiple dGPU support by Apple. 

Further evidence of this is that the patent file date is for August 2021 and the Ultra chip debuted in March 2022.

This doesn’t mean that Apple isn’t working on dGPUs though. And we may very well still see dGPU support come to the new AS MacPros. I just think these patent applications cover the Apple Silicon Ultra’s pair of GPUs talking to each other in tandem. 

Completely agree. When the Ultra debuted people wondered how Apple was treating each "GPU". Were they seen by the kernel as 2 discrete GPUs, or were they tied together as 1 in hardware? This patent definitely alludes to this. I think the interpretation is thrown off by the use of "slot". It's easy to make the leap to "PCI slot" without any further context.

Several facts...

1. Apple is already adept at supporting multiple GPUs, be it discrete or integrated or both.
2. M-series already supports PCI-e, can't have Thunderbolt without it. (M-series Macs already support PCI breakout boxes.)
3. PCI-e is just a data bus (a peripheral component interface). It doesn't matter what you plug in on the other end as long you can interpret and manipulate the data that is sent and received (via drivers).
4. macOS is extremely capable at process dispatching. It is not at all dependent on integrated processing units of any kind.

Opinion...

1. Apple is not supporting dGPUs currently because at this early stage they're more interested in forcing all developers to adopt and optimize code for Apple's GPUs.
2. Performance wise, Apple's GPUs aren't quite where they were hoping for - yet. And until they can approach the level of performance that most 3rd party GPUs are, they're holding back support.

dewme said:

Hey, at least they took the death penalty off the table ...

I cannot imagine why anyone in the known universe of intelligent life would sign up for this. Anyone using a Tile tracker for loss prevention would be at the whim of a jury to determine whether a Tile tracker was or was not being used for stalking purposes versus loss prevention, with a million dollar liability on the line. A stalker could place a Tile tracker on an item of value, say a watch case, camera case, binoculars, etc., and then place the item+tag in the stalking victim's vehicle. The perpetrator could then claim that the tag was being used purely for loss prevention, not stalking. Way too much gray area. I'm sure Apple thought about all of these scenarios and decided just not to go there at all and partially neutered the stalking and loss prevention capabilities of AirTags rather than expand the acreage of the legal minefield.

Not only that but also way too easy to frame someone, by taking their anti-theft Tile, "finding" it, and accusing the person of tracking/stalking you.

Apple could still open the market while keeping the platform "closed". They could allow 3rd party app stores and even allow side loading while still maintaining control over what apps run on their devices. Any app that a developer wanted to distribute (from anywhere) could still have to be submitted, vetted and signed by Apple.

And if they wanted to make up revenue from lost App Store sales, they could start jacking up developer account fees and even start charging for the developer tools.

d_2 said:

Mac Mini
  Mx & Mx Pro

Mac Studio 
  Mx Pro & Mx Max

Mac Pro
  Mx Max & Mx Ultra

assuming the Mac Pro has all of the Studio functionality, and then some, the only reason to keep the Mac Studio is to fill in a price gap… unless the new Mac Pro has a (bare bones) starting price closer to $1999-$2499 (similar to MacBook Air and MacBook Pro price differential)

I doubt they'd offer the same SoC on the mini and the Studio. Instead, I think it'll be more like...

Mac mini - Mx, Mx Pro
Mac Studio - Mx Max, Mx Ultra
Mac Pro - Mx Ultra, Mx Extreme*

1. The mini and the Studio are basically the same system, so there's nothing to differentiate a mini w/Pro from a Studio w/Pro... the boards are the same footprint. Only difference is cooling capacity, which would be a waste of space for the Mx Pro.

2. The differences in GPUs between the Pro and Max aren't quite as clear cut now, but I believe with newer generations cores, that difference will become very obvious between the two systems. And so the jump from a mini w/Pro to a Studio w/Max will be fairly significant with regards to graphics/video processing.

3. If rumors are correct that there were issues with current gen Extreme, then it may miss the first Mac Pro model, and it'll eventually show up in a later model. Possibly this summer we get the Mac Pro w/Ultra and then by next summer get a Mac Pro with both options, Ultra and Extreme.

davebarnes said:

Old man yelling at cloud here.

Can I just get a 27-inch iMac?

When they update the current iMac to M2, this Spring, I'd be willing to bet they also release a larger iMac with M2 and M2 Pro. Then next release, we'll get larger iMac with M3 Pro and M3 Max.