cgWerks

chasm said:

In my view, this version of the Vision Pro is intended to sell to a) corporate developers and b) corporations, mostly. Some rich enthusiasts will also buy them for bragging rights, I’m sure — in endgame capitalism, some people have literally more money than they know what to do with.

The way this is built is very obviously designed for you to be plugged in to the mains most of the time, only using the battery when you need to go to another part of the office/warehouse/factory/complex/home, and Apple deliberately emphasized the desktop computing paradigm. You sit in a comfy sitting position with less need for a desk, you use the spatial computer for typical tasks, you can still interact with co-workers.

You take it home, and it replaces your personal computer, TV, and stereo system for social and entertainment purposes. Heh, I wonder how long before “VR face” (where you are noticeably more tan in the non-headset areas) becomes a thing?

Hey wait a minute — didn’t Pixar predict all this in Wall-E?

https://www.dotdash.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/wall-e-humans.jpg

Yeah, most of the people buying this one will be developers and people with $ wanting to experiment. But, the price will come down in the future (or, inflation will bring everything else up?).

I had to laugh though, at the 'it replaces' marketing. Made me think of the kitchen-gadget infomercials... it slices,  it dices, if you had to replace all these functions...

My main issue with it as a product category, is that I'm not a big believer in spatial computing. There are vertical applications, but for the average person, I just can't see how it would be better than just watching at TV, using an iPad on the couch, or sitting at ones Mac on their desk. I suppose this partly depends on how comfortable it is, but is anyone going to want to wear one for many hours at a time? And, there's a reason I'm typing this into the forum, and not dictating it.

My summary so far: incredible technology, engineering, and industrial design. Very weak use-case.

Mike Wuerthele said:

Fidonet127 said:

I think we will look back at this article as a very sad misprint. I can't find where video cards will not be supported.

Finally, Mac Pro brings PCI expansion to Apple silicon. It features six open expansion slots that support gen 4, which is two times faster than before. So users can customize Mac Pro with essential cards, including audio and video I/O, networking, and storage.

Right there in the keynote, Apple says the new Mac Pro will support video card for input and output. 

They addressed no video cards several times, most recently in Gruber’s talk show.

I think maybe the confusion here is over the difference between GPUs and video I/O cards.

Marvin said:
By comparison, the M2 Ultra is faster than the 28-core Intel chip and faster (27TFLOPs, assuming both GPUs fully used) than the higher-end Radeon GPUs.

Is that really the case, though? Maybe in terms of TFLOPs, but w/o hardware for RT and such, won't certain 3D tasks will perform very poorly compared to a Radeon? I've watched several videos using Studios or MBPs in different 3D/CAD apps and comparing them to PCs (even laptops) where they don't do so well. I suspect some of this is software optimization, but I have to wonder how much is hardware related.

My understanding (maybe even based on a link you gave me some time ago?) is that the GPU approaches are quite different, with advantages and disadvantages (not just TFLOPS numbers). As far as this applies, the problem is that most of the market is developing for, and accustomed to, AMD/Nvidia, so where Apple falls short, it will be quite noticeable in workflows.

Marvin said:
The only market worth targeting is the enthusiast market that would today buy an i9-13900K + Nvidia 4090 for around $4k. The M2 Ultra is within 30% of the CPU and probably 1/3-1/4 the GPU (lower when using hardware raytracing) for $7k.

Yes, this is really the issue, and not just for 3D people, but people wanting to game on the Mac. But, i think it goes even further than that. What about someone who'd buy a mid-level gaming PC with a 3070 or 3080? Then we're in the under $2k range. I still don't think the M2 Ultra will compete, but even the M2 Max becomes expensive. If the GPU is on the table, Apple has no mid-to-high end anymore, though better lower-end than most of their past lineup. It becomes more about justifying any spending beyond a mini or MBA.

Marvin said:
... According to this, Nvidia sold about 30 million desktop GPUs in 2022. Notebook GPUs would be at least as many and their GPU revenue was $12b.

$12b / 60m units = $200 ASP.

High-end GPUs like the 4090 ($1600+) sell around 1m units per year. The majority of GPUs sold are consumer gaming cards:

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

The Ultra Mac Studio and Mac Pro are aimed at the market that buys single 4090 GPUs. The market above this ($5k+) is well below 1%. The HEDT/enthusiast market is around 5-10%.

The M2 Ultra falls short of a $4k i9-13900 + 4090 but it's at least competitively priced in the Mac Studio. Chasing after a minuscule portion of the high-end market isn't a high priority, it can easily wait for M3 for hardware RT and possibly some extra GPU chip.

Keep in mind that one huge factor impacting those GPU sales graphs, was the demand for GPUs (and increased prices!) due to crypto-mining.
Yes, I sure how the M3 closes the gap more, or I'll be buying one of those PCs.

keithw said:

I just saw the M2 UItra Metal result on GB:  281,948,  which IS better than I can get with my eGPU, which gives me 191,426 on GB 6.1.   So I guess Apple has accomplished what I was hoping they would. 

Just be sure you compare the apps/workflows you run, not just GB scores. For example, I've seen YouTube videos of people in 3D/CAD apps on the M1 Ultra where they perform incredibly well in one regard, while becoming almost unusable in others.

I'm trying to remember, but in one 3D sculpting app, the interface got so laggy, the guy straight out said he wouldn't be able to use it. I think his daily-driver was a several year old PC laptop with an RX580. (What wasn't clear, is how much of that problem was software optimization vs hardware... but at the point where it kills your workflow, it doesn't matter all that much.) On the other hand, he was able to replicate bunches of copies of the models (and insane amount of geometry) and the Mac Studio still worked, where he said his PC would have crashed.

macxpress said:
The wedgeless MacBook Air is Apple's best selling laptop so that statement about it being a mistake is BS. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the rest of the market doesn't.

You can't tell, though, if you don't have the choice. This is similar to Apple making iPhone screens bigger and concluding it's fine because people keep buying iPhones. My wife loved her wedge MBA, and hates the new form-factor... but she also wanted a new computer. So, she's dealing with a form-factor she doesn't like... the market didn't speak.

tenthousandthings said:

My own uneducated guess is that it's an Apple Silicon PCIe GPU/Unified Memory extension which doubles the GPU power of the Ultra, and not the rumored 4x "Extreme" design. 

That would be great for Mac Pro users, but kind of suck for the rest of us. Hopefully there is some plan to give some more GPU power to Studio and laptop users, too.

Mike Wuerthele said:
Sure. To make a long and complex story simple, Intel chips on-die have the ability to address external graphics processors, like PCI-E ones. With that, all you need is a software driver.

Apple Silicon does not. All video work must be done on-die.

Thanks Mike... should have read the comments first.

mfryd said:

... Yes, there is a very small percentage of users who need expandability, insanely fast graphics cards, and over a TB of RAM.   They are not in Apple's target market.

Just to be clear, this isn't about 'insanely fast graphics cards' but trying to have adequate graphics performance, even compared to a fairly modest PC.

Even if the the new Mac Pro could match could match a PC with a single higher-end GPU (or the old Mac Pro with a single GPU, let alone 4+), I'd say it is a good start. I'd then wonder how they will be expanding that, but it would be a reasonable start. My issue here, is I don't feel it was a reasonable effort.

atonaldenim said:

I’d guess that they would have liked to do more with AS Mac Pro, but for whatever reason were not able to get it done this year. Hopefully they will keep pushing forward. From taking a year longer than their 2 year transition goal, to failing to deliver the planned Jade 4C “Extreme” SoC in both M1 and M2 generations, seems like they really hit some roadblocks from their original intent. I highly doubt they would have given 2019 Mac Pro such dramatically better expansion capabilities if they knew they wouldn’t be able to maintain that level of performance after Apple Silicon transition.

One has to suspect the ongoing brain drain on the Apple Silicon design team is part of these stumbles. Let’s hope Srouji gets the big Mac back on track, and their patented multi-GPU tech comes to light soon!

Yeah, my hope is this was a stop-gap to complete the Apple Silicon transition. If they add ray tracing to the M3, that will close the gap a bit more. Then, hopefully, they'll eventually figure out a way to expand/scale that even more, as you say. It's just that we might be talking years away at this point. And, I'm not sure where that leaves the rest of the lineup (like Studio) on the GPU-front (hopefully the M3 version becomes acceptable in that regard).

AppleInsider said:

The reasons why for this are complex. It's not just about drivers -- Apple has decided that it didn't need a way for the Apple Silicon processor to talk to an external graphics card, at all, under any circumstances.

Very well said, Mike!

But, I'm curious about this statement. I was under the impression it was more a driver type situation, and maybe eGPUs could even make a come-back.

I'm not even in the market for a Mac Pro, but I look to it to see Apple's potential and direction. In that regard, I really hope this is a stop-gap to get the transition done, because it is very disappointing.

For myself, I'm left with a bit of dilemma. I want GPU power for 3D stuff (and, sure, I'd love gaming). But, unless the M3 is a real leap (which it might be), I'll be left with buying a fairly expensive Studio (kind of my dream machine), that barely competes with with a $1500 gaming PC, and might be questionable about usability, outside of question of being competitive.

Or, I could buy a base-level mini, which will probably be just fine for most of my computing needs, and then get that entry to mid-level gaming PC to run certain 3D apps (and real gaming). Given how well Geforce Now works, there has to be some remote-control software that could put that PC on my Mac screen, usable for both 3D work and gaming, right? I'd spend less money, have a more capable setup.

I'd rather give Apple my money for a Studio. But, Apple has kind of abandoned the mid-to-high end marketing needing GPU capability, at least for now.