cgWerks

macxpress said:

cpsro said:
PCIe expansion, DIMM slots, support for ECC memory, and maybe 4 M1 Maxes.

I doubt the next Mac Pro will include user replaceable RAM, but rather maybe just unified ECC RAM. The days of replacing your RAM is gone. You buy all you can afford. That's the one thing I would increase as much as you can afford when spec'ing any Apple Silicon Mac out.  PCIe expansion I can see yes. I wouldn't be surprised if we see an M2 CPU/GPU in the new Mac Pro. You can always add more storage with TB4 drives if you really needed it. For an general user or even company I doubt they'd even care to replace the RAM anyways. 

Yeah, I hadn't initially thought of that, but they can probably just make the unified RAM ECC and that problem goes away (aside from future expansion). Thunderbolt is now fast enough to extend most things external (which it wasn't when first proposed with the trash-can Mac Pro concept). Storage external is a no-brainer. It is a bit messier setup, but eventually, that's the only benefit of a big-tower like machine.

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:
I am not sure I understand your point about the SSD being external. A M.2 is a SSD. Externally you can get about 1GB/sec on a USB C 3.2 and about 2GB/sec on thunderbolt (although I have yet to see one get that much when tested). A M.2, on the other hand, can currently get as much as 7 GB/sec. The one I have in my PS5 is 6 GB/sec and costs about $220 for 2TB currently. SSDs have been getting a lot faster recently at reasonable prices. Even if the M.2 speed is limited, you can expect to see a lot larger ones in a couple of years (unless China invades Taiwan in which case all of this is moot anyway).

A M1 Max gets a compute score of 61256 on GeekBench 5 for OpenCL. A RTX 3090 gets 205005. Apple's performance graphs are a complete fantasy.

Sorry, I maybe went a bit overboard with the SSD statement. Yes, by going internal, you can get more performance. I guess I just see, anymore, the internal storage on my computer being OS/Apps/scratch-space, and then I add any additional storage a number of ways (and much more cheaply). But, I suppose if you're doing really huge projects, or work a ton with really massive files, having a ton of super-fast internal storage is beneficial... and at much lower costs than Apple.

re: GPU - but that's OpenCL, which is kind of the problem. What I want to see are more comparisons between a 3090 doing real world stuff, and a M1 Max/Ultra doing real world stuff with Metal optimized software. Then we'll know how they actually compare. I'd think, given the specs, the M1 would be ahead, depending on how dependent the particular thing is on memory speed.

But, what is the memory speed of the 3090? I though with the Max was slower but getting close, but that's double now with Ultra. Can't be too far away from similar speed now.

Detnator said:
It's been 6 years since they started soldering everything.  And for good reason, as has been explained on this forum countless times.  Has it possibly occurred to you, ever -- maybe even when explained to you -- that there's a direct relationship between the performance of these machines and how they're physically put together?  When you want Apple to build in internal upgradeability, you're asking them to compromise some of that performance. That would hurt the rest of their customers, that DON'T CARE about upgrading.

The RAM isn't upgradeable, because, you know, the RAM is part of the actual CPU system now.  But you knew that right?

Yeah, well put. Do I miss the days of ordering the base-config Mac and then upgrading the RAM from OWC? Sure. But, overall, I'll take this new performance if push comes to shove. And, I don't have the data, but I think the machines are overall more reliable too.

Funny aside though on performance... my wife just upgraded from a 2015 mid-level MBA to a M1 Pro MBP (the Air was having issues). I'm all excited about it and asking her (a few days after we got it setup), so is it really fast? She's like, I don't really notice a difference. But, she's just been doing day-to-day stuff, I guess. I can't wait until she gets to video-editing and does her first export for YouTube. I'm pretty certain she'll notice it then. (And, some people just don't notice such things. To her, a car is just a car, too.)

Detnator said:
Meanwhile, the GPU speeds... Not sure what you're talking about.  These were compared directly against the actual options in the 2019 Mac Pro and highest end iMac.  

And you're really going to compare a Mac's graphics performance -- for, you know, doing actual work -- against Nvidia's mining capabilities in a PC?  You do realize the G in GPU stands for "Graphics", right?

To be fair, Apple is a bit deceptive there. The Mac Pro can have 4x (or more) of those GPUs. So, it isn't quite as good as they portrayed.

And, while I do CAD/3D, I'd *also* really like it if it could be mining some crypto. I could justify one really quickly if that were the case! Heck, if the mining performance (especially per watt) is what I think it would be with a Metal-optimized miner, I'd probably buy a dozen. The problem is it won't perform well until it is written for Metal. People getting the mining to work, if I understand, are running OpenGL and within an emulator. I'm actually surprised they are getting the hash rates that high!

But, I've also seen some fairly disappointing 3D/CAD efforts with the M1 Max. I'm hoping it is just software related, as the videos I saw were too slow to use (larger object/scene manipulation in a 3D modeler). We really need to see more real-world comparison in a broad range of apps (and then understand what is optimized, emulated, or worse).

k2kw said:
unless China invades Taiwan in which case all of this is moot anyway).

This may be a smart reason for upgrading soon for both Mac and Windows machines.

Yeah, we live in 'interesting' times.
I've never been so excited about being an Apple user, and kind of tech in general. I'm also wondering how long until I live out the rest of my life in the gulag.

designr said:
People don't always just want bigger. Consumers especially. Pros? Sure. That's kind of a no-brainer. Consumers less so since they're more price-sensitive.

Or...it could be that Apple is just deciding: Pro: > 24", Consumer: 24" or less. Either way, I doubt we'll see an iMac larger than 24" ever again. Totally fine admitting I'm wrong if it does happen. Just a reasonably-reasoned opinion. Not a hill to die on.

Kind of like phones, right? But, I agree. I think a 24" unit is already pretty big in the context of most home desks and uses. Once you go beyond that, you're addressing more prosumer/pro needs or specific cases, and probably would be better suited with picking the right setup/combo of stuff anyway.

The issue is pricing. If you go with the new 27" display and then add an appropriate Mac, the costs just went up. You would need to get the appropriate Mac and then go 3rd party for the display to keep the costs down (which is what I'll likely do), but then you don't have as nice of display as you would have with a 5k iMac. If they'd come in at closer to $1k for the new display, then they have a good argument for dropping the 5k iMac. I can see why some are upset.

sflocal said:

$1,599 considering what one gets for this display is not that bad a deal.  

I own three of Apple's 27" Thunderbolt monitor for my two iMacs and still use them to this day.  Those brand new costed $999 back in the day.  Currently, LG's 5K display is running $1,299 and I'll gladly pay the premium for Apple's offerings and support compared to LG's plastic ugliness.

Not sure what people are complaining about.  It's a 5K monitor and priced appropriated for what one gets.  Sure, I'd love it to be the $999 price that my current thunderbolt monitors were priced, but everything is expensive now.

I'm just glad Apple finally came out with updated monitors.  When it's time to upgrade my monitors, Apple-branded monitors are the only ones I use.  They just last forever.

I guess $1299 seems a bit closer to iMac 5k minus the Mac, but more the issues - for me - seems that I don't get the need for this spec monitor (compared to a lot of other monitors that cost considerably less). I'll probably end up with 1 or 2 BenQ 4k or something like that. But, I also get investing in something really good that is what you need, and it lasting a long time.

techaccident said:
It is most certainly only USB-C/TB, that's the way things have been going. I have no idea what is on a PS5.

I'm not certain either (I have a PS4), but I assume HDMI. I suppose there are converters to run that into it, but I wonder if you'd have to do the input switching with external gear as well?

crowley said:
There's only one upstream Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) port, so you won't have much luck with the PS5.  The Mac mini might be fine if it has TB3.

The lack of inputs makes it a non starter for me.  Shame, it's quite a nice design in other ways.

Yeah, kind of like the iMac dropping video in, it seems like Apple doesn't consider people using multiple devices. This should have definitely been considered with the move to Apple Silicon where one might need to run an Intel Mac for some time along with a new Apple Silicon one. I'd have to look into it more, but I'm sure there are external units that can do the switching. (At least I hope!)

mobird said:

Boy 'oh boy how we were told "NOPE, never going to happen". 

To be fair, many wanted a mid-tower with slots and such. But, I think given the computing evolution that has happened since, and a practical solution to the actual issues, this is the xMac.

lilpir8 said:

I was really hoping for an M1 Pro or M1 Max Mac Mini. The Studio is $1000.00 more and leaves a big gap between a higher powered Mac Mini and the Mac Studio. Once again Apple has ignored the sweet spot of the average upper end consumer.

Hmm... kind of, for the average consumer who needs more GPU power. The M1 mini should be fine for everyone else. And, if you go looking to buy a gaming PC, it is going to cost about what a entry level Studio costs. It would be nice to see something in-between mini w/ Pro chip, but I don't think the gap is that huge.

9secondkox2 said:

Starting at FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS is something we’d expect of an m1 ultra iMac Pro - screen included. 

The entry level Studio is just one spec-bump down from the top 14/16" MBP (24 core GPU Max instead of 32). So, it is more comparable to the $1999 one, not the $4,000 one. The $4000 one is two MBPs of power.

macxpress said:
You can also just go out and get whatever display you want. Apple isn't forcing you to get their display. If you want something cheaper then you can get that, if you wanted something more expensive such as the XDR Display then you can get that. It gives you more choices in the end. 

Yeah, as nice as it looks, I'd have a hard time justifying it. One can buy nearly a half-dozen regular 4k monitors if you just need the screen space, or a couple really good ones. But, if you do splurge, it might be the last display you need to invest in for a long, long time. I honestly can't see ever needing more than 5k display. I get some high-res video editors need more, but I doubt I'll ever go beyond 27 or 28" and 5k. And, while i've never had one, I don't think one 5k really replaces 2x 4k for screen-space for CAD, 3D, etc.

eightzero said:

This is the component I was waiting for as an alternative to a 27" iMac. This plus a mac mini gives a lot more flexibility as opposed to the imac. The CPU upgrades are needed far more often than a whole screen. 

I see one of these in my future.

auxio said:
When comparing to other monitors, you're forgetting the integrated camera and speakers in this.  I'm not saying those justify the increased cost, but if you need them, it's extra cables and setup hassle to buy 3rd party ones (and they likely wouldn't be as good).

Both fair points. I guess any other display gives that same future upgradability, though. But, pricing it over the longer haul makes it seem less expensive than sticking into an iMac you just have to toss when you're done with it.

Yes, the camera/mics would be nice I guess. I've already good good of both, so I don't need them (and it wouldn't be good enough to replace them). Speakers would be nice, but again, probably not as good as what I want to eventually get if I get into creating music again (ie. studio monitors).

I'm sure it will be high quality. I need to look at the specs more... is input just the USB-C/TB? If I wanted to plug in, say a PS5 (or my Intel Mac mini), is there a way to do that and switch inputs? I'm not up on the methods to do that kind of stuff with the new cabling.