CelticPaddy

kellie said:

ApplePoor said:

It seems all four M1 chips had nearly the same single core performance. We saw that all four of the M2 chips also had similar single core speeds and there was about a 15% increase in the average number. So, for me, there was no incentive to upgrade to the M2 series. The first three of four M3 chips repeat the average single core speed  concept of the M1 and M2. But there was a larger percentage increase in the average single core speed over the M2.

I am intrigued that a M3 Max MacBook Pro can now be acquired that is nearly as powerful as my M1 MacStudio (128GB and 8TB SSD) with the same amount of memory and SSD in just two generations. I thought I had really future proofed my M1 MacStudio with those top go the line options. And the fully configured MacBook Prop price is fairly close to my MacStudio price.

I thought we had a good performance boost going from the 68030 in my IIci to the 68040 in my IIfx. The Intel years were snoozers in terms of performance  increases over time.

But I am concerned how many more rabbits are in the hat for this M series chip to continue this pace of spec improvements. The crowd that needs and can afford the top models is far smaller than the more modest needs and prices group. With the lower operating temperatures of the M series computers, one could expect much longer service lives of the M devices. 

Like the iPhone, the incremental changes are getting smaller and the crowd seems to be wanting to spread their acquisition cost over more years.

So could Apple turn off operating system support for the M1 series at some future time like they will Intel chips? And how many generations of M series will be supported?

The computing power necessary for the average non-pro users is already exceeded. One usually does not see a Ferrari V8 in a Karman Gaia.

The M1 architecture is the same as the M3.  There’s no reason Apple can’t support the M1 as long as it supports the M3

coolfactor said:

All this fuss over non-expandable GPU and RAM, what if it turns out that the overall architecture is so good that people's old thinking is just false? What if the Mac Pro delivers incredible performance beyond what anyone imagined, without the need for user expansion?

Yes, this possibility still exists.

"7 Afterburner cards"

dewme said:

Just checked Apple’s leadership team profiles on https://www.apple.com/leadership/. Did I miss something? I don’t see Mark Gurman’s profile anywhere on that site. Where does he sit in Apple’s leadership team that decides the execution of Apple’s product strategy?

AppleInsider said:

There may be a long wait for the next Mac Pro to surface, if another one comes at all, with a report offering that the desktop Mac model is on thin ice.

The newest Mac Pro made the eventual switch over to Apple Silicon, but didn't receive the usual acclaim and welcome that other Mac Pro releases received after launch. There's a chance that Apple's fumbled Mac Pro update could lead to it giving up on the model for the moment.

As part of a discussion of the M3 chip roadmap, Mark Gurman mentioned in the "Power On" newsletter for Bloomberg about the Mac Pro. In explaining which models should receive the M3 Ultra chip, Gurman says the list is the Mac Studio and the Mac Pro, "if Apple continues making those."

The aside to the reader isn't a good sign for fans of the Mac Pro, which was previously seen as the most powerful and flexible Mac for professionals to use as a workstation.

With the introduction of the Apple Silicon model, some elements of the Mac Pro's utility became less impressive, in part due to the existence of the Mac Studio. With both the Mac Pro and Mac Studio able to use Apple Silicon, and with the Mac Studio being generally cheaper to purchase, it made the Mac Pro a hard purchase for anyone just wanting high levels of performance.

The other big factor picked up in reviews and comparisons is that the PCIe expansion options of the Mac Pro are really limited. The Intel version enabled select graphics cards to be installed and used, but that is not available in the Apple Silicon version at all.

Indeed, if Apple Silicon did hypothetically support discrete GPUs, there was also the argument of buying a Mac Studio and an external GPU enclosure instead of spending extra for the Mac Pro.

It is possible to expand the Mac Pro, albeit with other types of PCIe cards and a limited amount of storage. The user-serviceable memory of the Intel version was also culled for Apple Silicon, severely limiting the amount of memory that the Apple Silicon-based model could hold.

If Apple were to continue making the Mac Pro, it would need to address the major shortcomings that were key to the model's existence for it to become a success. For the moment, if Gurman's comment turns out to be a true indicator, Apple may step back from the Mac Pro for a long time to regroup, or potentially give up on the Mac Pro entirely in its current form.

Read on AppleInsider

MacPro said:

I was watching a Tom Brady interview the other day discussing E Boats,  and was impressed to see him refer to football (as in USA soccer) as 'football'.  Perhaps over time, as football really gains ground here the American version (which is more akin to Rugby) will gradually become known as American Football, allowing the game played everywhere on earth as football, to have its correct name here too.