Mac Pro - no expandable memory per Gurman

[B01L]

Could be.

In the end, the reason Mac Pro has always existed is because Apple had to admit that certain users needed more than Apple was willing to sell in a sealed box. They’ve always treated it like it was a niche market, and they are right - it’s a collection of MANY niche markets. They can never satisfy everyone with a sealed box, because even if they stuck the world’s most powerfuel GPU in it, someone else will need a crazy network card or data capture board, or whatever.

What the Arm transition allowed them to do was to eat into that niche market by satisfying a lot more people’s needs. But now satisfying the next 100,000 people would require a lot more work. And the 100,000 after that even more. So slots will solve the problem for a bunch of them, and, over time, Apple will address more and more groups in that niche audience if, in doing so, they also can leverage those solutions for their core audience. But they’re never going to make a GPU board using a high end chip they design that can only be sold to 10,000 people.

But if that same ASi GPGPU could be placed in an eGPU enclosure and utilized by those on the assorted Mac ASi products that are not Mac Pros; the MacBook Air/Pro laptops, 24" iMacs, Mac minis, & Mac Studios...?

Larger market...! ;^p

 

[Cmaier]

Ok but there seems to be little evidence of any software support for third party gpus. Where are these gpus coming from? Not nvidia for sure, so AMD?

Like I said above, “someone” will have to write drivers.

 

[Cmaier]

But if that same ASi GPGPU could be placed in an eGPU enclosure and utilized by those on the assorted Mac ASi products that are not Mac Pros; the MacBook Air/Pro laptops, 24" iMacs, Mac minis, & Mac Studios...?

Larger market...! ;^p

Yeah. Larger. Still tiny.

Anyone who claims that plugging cards into boxes is anything more than an extremely niche thing is lying to themselves. And it’s going to get more and more niche as time goes on.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Like I said above, “someone” will have to write drivers.

Sure. Tough to believe that Apple’s strategy for high end graphics is a pice slot and a hope that companies they’ve shown no interest in for years are gonna magically create drivers that won’t be utter garbage.

 

[Cmaier]

Sure. Tough to believe that Apple’s strategy for high end graphics is a pice slot and a hope that companies they’ve shown no interest in for years are gonna magically create drivers that won’t be utter garbage.

I think from apple’s perspective, it‘s “not their problem.” They sell very few mac pros. How much effort are they going to put into it? They’ll probably announce one or two AMD cards are compatible, and that will be it.

 

[dada_dave]

From 2013 to 2019 the only options were the trash can Mac Pro (D300, D500, D700), or from 2017 the iMac Pro (Vega 56, 64). From 2019 the options have been the AMD 5000 and 6000 series.

Is that really an acceptable selection over ten years? To me, it’s pathetic.

Apple acknowledged the 2013 Mac Pro was a mistake and your original post claimed Apple has been ignoring 3rd party GPUs for 3 years which they haven’t been. You may find it underwhelming but that doesn’t mean Apple and AMD have fractured the way Apple and Nvidia have. Now drivers may still not be forthcoming but that can be worked around as I wrote in one of my original posts. Most likely Apple will gain access to a couple of high end AMD GPUs and leave it at that if they do it all.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Apple acknowledged the 2013 Mac Pro was a mistake and your original post claimed Apple has been ignoring 3rd party GPUs for 3 years which they haven’t been. You may find it underwhelming but that doesn’t mean Apple and AMD have fractured they way Apple and Nvidia have. Now drivers may still not be forthcoming but that can’t be worked around as I wrote in one of my original posts.

Which gpus have they announced support for in the past 3 years?

My main point is the lack of a cohesive strategy over the past decade on the high end desktops. It’s been, multi gpu is the answer, no wait it’s traditional gpus, no wait it’s our own soc, no now we want third party gpus again.

How is anyone supposed to get confidence from this?

 

[Yoused]

Interesting thanks.

I had thought that given the emphasis on unified memory, they wouldn't dilute that for a product that sells in in such small numbers. Wouldn't that be an admission of failure to compete on the high end?

It is largely a matter of professionals wanting PCIe slots. If you pay $10K+ for a box with slots in it, you might want to put other things in the slots or you might want to put in 4090s or something. You probably have to figure out how to crank it up. Metal itself may lack backend driver modularity, so that dGPU may require specialty apps that work it directly.

 

[dada_dave]

Which gpus have they announced support for in the past 3 years?

My main point is the lack of a cohesive strategy over the past decade on the high end desktops. It’s been, multi gpu is the answer, no wait it’s traditional gpus, no wait it’s our own soc, no now we want third party gpus again.

How is anyone supposed to get confidence from this?

I linked it in my post in the last page - March 2022 was the last time Apple and AMD offered a new option.

The multi-GPU first approach was a mistake, Apple acknowledged it - an understandable one, perhaps, but one nonetheless.

The SOC first approach is the newest strategy and yes we still have to see how it will pan out at the high end. I differ with @Cmaier that Apple is disinterested here until chiplets appear. I agree with an earlier post of his that if an extreme SOC is not forthcoming this generation, something went wrong. That said I agree with him that Apple’s end goal is to leverage chiplets fully once they become mature and can be stuck together like Legos.

However SOC first doesn’t have to mean SOC only. An option to use 3rd party GPUs could still be useful during this transition and, even if the Mac side doesn’t make use of it, for those who virtualize other operating systems or operate Asahi Linux (they would need to add/change some hardware/software to allow this). These are niches of niches but that’s what pro device is tailored for, it’s why it exists. Apple will target things such that the main GPU that even most professionals will use is going to be the one on the SOC. The question is will they allow 3rd party as well. The answer according Gurman is yes.

Again, we have no idea what Apple has actually planned. This is all based on rumor and speculation and even then much of it’s vague. But what’s being put forward makes sense to me as a strategy for the professional device.

 

[Colstan]

So, just a couple of weeks ago, Gurman had a vague rumor about adding memory to the next Mac Pro. Many of us were skeptical, but got hung up on his "hallmark features" line as proof of DIMM expansion. He's already contradicted himself in just three weeks time.

Now, he's got another throwaway line about GPU expansion, and the same speculation is cropping up. The last time we heard from the reliable leaker over at the MR forums, his friend was able to plug an AMD GPU into one of the PCIe slots into the Mac Pro prototype, it was recognized, but the drivers weren't there. That was as of October 24th. Has that changed in the past two months?

Ok but there seems to be little evidence of any software support for third party gpus. Where are these gpus coming from? Not nvidia for sure, so AMD?

Perhaps Gurman is simply noting the presence of PCIe slots and extrapolating that there will be third-party GPU support?

If this report is true, Apple is reusing the old case design. They've done away with the "Extreme" SoC, yet we are to believe that Apple has put in the work for a new series of graphics card drivers? If that is the case, then why haven't we already seen eGPU support for previous Apple Silicon Macs? I find this as questionable as the memory expansion rumor that he had a few weeks ago.

Regardless, if that is the case, then Apple is admitting that they can't play in the performance graphics market. I'll wait and see what happens, but much like @leman, @theorist9, and many others, I'm very much concerned about Apple's interest in, not just the Mac Pro, but Mac desktops in general.

Implementation of third-party graphics cards are an indication that Unified Memory is great for computers on a power budget, but for those of us who want added grunt for desktop tasks, this would show no confidence in their own offerings; the performance just isn't there and they can't currently reach it on their second attempt, now with the M2 design.

I think from apple’s perspective, it‘s “not their problem.” They sell very few mac pros. How much effort are they going to put into it? They’ll probably announce one or two AMD cards are compatible, and that will be it.

It is Apple's problem, because it's signaling to desktop Mac users that they can't cut it in performance desktops. The lackluster Geekbench leaks for the higher-end M2 aren't encouraging, either. On the GPU side, the M1 Ultra struggles against a 3060.

If Apple wants to confine their desktop offerings to ultra-compact form factors, with performance to match, then that's fine, but many of us want more than recycled laptop chips.

Which gpus have they announced support for in the past 3 years?

My main point is the lack of a cohesive strategy over the past decade on the high end desktops. It’s been, multi gpu is the answer, no wait it’s traditional gpus, no wait it’s our own soc, no now we want third party gpus again.

How is anyone supposed to get confidence from this?

Exactly this. I respect all of the knowledgeable folks on this site, immensely so, but if Apple slaps AMD cards into the Mac Pro then I think that is sugar coating a failure on Apple's part. Apple's graphic's chief was lampooning power hungry graphics cards on Twitter back when Nvidia announced the 4090, essentially saying that integrated SoC GPUs were the future, but for the Mac Pro it's now okay?

If it's true that the "Extreme" SoC was canceled, and they are now adding in third-party GPU support, then I can't see how this can be blamed solely on global events, but a failure of Apple's ability to scale their own designs. Perhaps M2 was a stopgap, perhaps canceling the "Extreme" was a stopgap, perhaps using third-party GPUs are a stopgap...pretty soon all we have are stopgaps. It's time for Tim Cook and Johny Srouji to show us what they've got, they've already missed the two-year deadline, and pandemic blame only goes so far.

Again, we have to wait and see what is released, these are just breadcrumbs. However, as a desktop user who has no interest in battery life or portability, I find all of these breadcrumbs to be disquieting.

 

[Jimmyjames]

So, just a couple of weeks ago, Gurman had a vague rumor about adding memory to the next Mac Pro. Many of us were skeptical, but got hung up on his "hallmark features" line as proof of DIMM expansion. He's already contradicted himself in just three weeks time.

Now, he's got another throwaway line about GPU expansion, and the same speculation is cropping up. The last time we heard from the reliable leaker over at the MR forums, his friend was able to plug an AMD GPU into one of the PCIe slots into the Mac Pro prototype, it was recognized, but the drivers weren't there. That was as of October 24th. Has that changed in the past two months?


Perhaps Gurman is simply noting the presence of PCIe slots and extrapolating that there will be third-party GPU support?

If this report is true, Apple is reusing the old case design. They've done away with the "Extreme" SoC, yet we are to believe that Apple has put in the work for a new series of graphics card drivers? If that is the case, then why haven't we already seen eGPU support for previous Apple Silicon Macs? I find this as questionable as the memory expansion rumor that he had a few weeks ago.

Regardless, if that is the case, then Apple is admitting that they can't play in the performance graphics market. I'll wait and see what happens, but much like @leman, @theorist9, and many others, I'm very much concerned about Apple's interest in, not just the Mac Pro, but Mac desktops in general.

Implementation of third-party graphics cards are an indication that Unified Memory is great for computers on a power budget, but for those of us who want added grunt for desktop tasks, this would show no confidence in their own offerings; the performance just isn't there and they can't currently reach it on their second attempt, now with the M2 design.

It is Apple's problem, because it's signaling to desktop Mac users that they can't cut it in performance desktops. The lackluster Geekbench leaks for the higher-end M2 aren't encouraging, either. On the GPU side, the M1 Ultra struggles against a 3060.

If Apple wants to confine their desktop offerings to ultra-compact form factors, with performance to match, then that's fine, but many of us want more than recycled laptop chips.

Exactly this. I respect all of the knowledgeable folks on this site, immensely so, but if Apple slaps AMD cards into the Mac Pro then I think that is sugar coating a failure on Apple's part. Apple's graphic's chief was lampooning power hungry graphics cards on Twitter back when Nvidia announced the 4090, essentially saying that integrated SoC GPUs were the future, but for the Mac Pro it's now okay?

If it's true that the "Extreme" SoC was canceled, and they are now adding in third-party GPU support, then I can't see how this can be blamed solely on global events, but a failure of Apple's ability to scale their own designs. Perhaps M2 was a stopgap, perhaps canceling the "Extreme" was a stopgap, perhaps using third-party GPUs are a stopgap...pretty soon all we have are stopgaps. It's time for Tim Cook and Johny Srouji to show us what they've got, they've already missed the two-year deadline, and pandemic blame only goes so far.

Again, we have to wait and see what is released, these are just breadcrumbs. However, as a desktop user who has no interest in battery life or portability, I find all of these breadcrumbs to be disquieting.

Well put. I share your feelings.

 

[dada_dave]

So, just a couple of weeks ago, Gurman had a vague rumor about adding memory to the next Mac Pro. Many of us were skeptical, but got hung up on his "hallmark features" line as proof of DIMM expansion. He's already contradicted himself in just three weeks time.

Now, he's got another throwaway line about GPU expansion, and the same speculation is cropping up. The last time we heard from the reliable leaker over at the MR forums, his friend was able to plug an AMD GPU into one of the PCIe slots into the Mac Pro prototype, it was recognized, but the drivers weren't there. That was as of October 24th. Has that changed in the past two months?


Perhaps Gurman is simply noting the presence of PCIe slots and extrapolating that there will be third-party GPU support?

If this report is true, Apple is reusing the old case design. They've done away with the "Extreme" SoC, yet we are to believe that Apple has put in the work for a new series of graphics card drivers? If that is the case, then why haven't we already seen eGPU support for previous Apple Silicon Macs? I find this as questionable as the memory expansion rumor that he had a few weeks ago.

Regardless, if that is the case, then Apple is admitting that they can't play in the performance graphics market. I'll wait and see what happens, but much like @leman, @theorist9, and many others, I'm very much concerned about Apple's interest in, not just the Mac Pro, but Mac desktops in general.

Implementation of third-party graphics cards are an indication that Unified Memory is great for computers on a power budget, but for those of us who want added grunt for desktop tasks, this would show no confidence in their own offerings; the performance just isn't there and they can't currently reach it on their second attempt, now with the M2 design.

It is Apple's problem, because it's signaling to desktop Mac users that they can't cut it in performance desktops. The lackluster Geekbench leaks for the higher-end M2 aren't encouraging, either. On the GPU side, the M1 Ultra struggles against a 3060.

If Apple wants to confine their desktop offerings to ultra-compact form factors, with performance to match, then that's fine, but many of us want more than recycled laptop chips.

Exactly this. I respect all of the knowledgeable folks on this site, immensely so, but if Apple slaps AMD cards into the Mac Pro then I think that is sugar coating a failure on Apple's part. Apple's graphic's chief was lampooning power hungry graphics cards on Twitter back when Nvidia announced the 4090, essentially saying that integrated SoC GPUs were the future, but for the Mac Pro it's now okay?

If it's true that the "Extreme" SoC was canceled, and they are now adding in third-party GPU support, then I can't see how this can be blamed solely on global events, but a failure of Apple's ability to scale their own designs. Perhaps M2 was a stopgap, perhaps canceling the "Extreme" was a stopgap, perhaps using third-party GPUs are a stopgap...pretty soon all we have are stopgaps. It's time for Tim Cook and Johny Srouji to show us what they've got, they've already missed the two-year deadline, and pandemic blame only goes so far.

Again, we have to wait and see what is released, these are just breadcrumbs. However, as a desktop user who has no interest in battery life or portability, I find all of these breadcrumbs to be disquieting.

Make no mistake if Apple doesn’t release an M2 Extreme SOC or whatever the highest tier SOC they offer for the Mac Pro underwhelms, then that will be a big black eye. However, I view that as orthogonal to allowing third party GPUs as, if they are are allowed, they will almost certainly be strictly optional add ons and not a requirement. However I take your point that if the base model of the highest tier SOC comes with a 3rd party GPU that will look extra bad if that SOC also underwhelms graphically. I just don’t think that’s likely*. And truthfully it’s that the SOC underwhelms that would still be the problem.

If the M2 is fuck up generation then that will be bad - an entire generation that doesn’t pan out especially on the high end will not look good for Apple especially so soon after making the switch. It won’t be the end if the conversation because the M3 will exist but if it takes forever to get an M3 extreme or whatever Apple creates, and there’s no M2 extreme, then there will still be a bad taste and the M3 extreme better have been worth the wait.

Make no mistake there have been oddities in this transition like the high end Mac mini never getting replaced by an M1 Pro. Some can be blamed on the global crises, some on Apple transitioning to new screens and new chips and new bodies, some on TSMC finding 3nm more difficult than expected, but overall yes things didn’t go as smoothly or as quickly as predicted. Although it also went better in other ways than some were predicting - it could’ve been a lot worse. So the initial out of the gate transition went better than expected, but this middle part has been rough. It remains to be seen if they can stick the landing.

*Edit: I should unlikely part is offering any kind of base model with a 3rd party discrete GPU. If the rumors are accurate about the SOC not offering a high tier option, then … well … I think I already expressed how unfortunate that will be.

 

[Citysnaps]

It is largely a matter of professionals wanting PCIe slots. If you pay $10K+ for a box with slots in it, you might want to put other things in the slots or you might want to put in 4090s or something. You probably have to figure out how to crank it up. Metal itself may lack backend driver modularity, so that dGPU may require specialty apps that work it directly.

I would love that. But only if Apple again offers a MacPro rack mount chassis option. Fingers crossed.

 

[Colstan]

Make no mistake if Apple doesn’t release an M2 Extreme SOC or whatever the highest tier SOC they offer for the Mac Pro underwhelms, then that will be a big black eye. However, I view that as orthogonal to allowing third party GPUs as, if they are are allowed, they will almost certainly be strictly optional add ons and not a requirement. However I take your point that if the base model of the highest tier SOC comes with a 3rd party GPU that will look extra bad if that SOC also underwhelms graphically. I just don’t think that’s likely*. And truthfully it’s that the SOC underwhelms that would still be the problem.

I agree that, most likely, if third-party GPUs are offered in the Mac Pro, then they will be entirely add-ons, not default. However, I see that as a bad thing, period. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a desktop user, I'm a stationary sod, and don't care about battery life and portability. As long as my computer doesn't sound like a jet engine, then I'm good.

I'm not in the market for an Apple Silicon Mac Pro, but as the flagship desktop product, it will reflect upon the rest of the line. Assuming the rumors are correct, which is a big if, then I'm not seeing any encouraging signs.

Even though we've talked ad infinitum about the M2 "Extreme", there was an equivalent in the M1 generation, Gurman's Jade 4C-Die. The original Mac Pro prototype mentioned by the leaker on MR, who has access to early hardware, said as much. So, the M2 was actually Apple's second attempt at an "Extreme" SoC for the Mac Pro, which also means this is their second failure. We don't know why they decided not to launch, just that this isn't their first ride on the Extreme rodeo. (For what it is worth, just today, that same poster is reiterating what he said previously about the next Mac Pro.)

With the apparent failure of the M2 "Extreme", the amount of GPU power available is going to be no better than whatever ends up in the high-end Mac Studio, featuring an M2 Ultra. The simple fact that Apple may have to depend upon third-party GPU cards at all is not encouraging, and another failure, from my perspective. The M1 Ultra matches an RTX 3060, at best, which makes the comparison that Apple made to the 3090 embarrassing.

Then there is the M2 itself, which Gurman called a stopgap. It would be fine if this were a short-term release, but it's being stretched out longer than most of us had expected. We also have the leaked Geekbench scores for the higher-end M2 variants, which are lackluster, at best.

I've heard much talk about global events being to blame for this, but I simply don't buy that, at least not as an excuse which Apple can hide behind. Nvidia's Lovelace, Intel's Raptor Lake, and AMD's Zen 4 and RDNA3 have all been, more or less, on time. The exception is Arc, and I give Intel a pass on that, for obvious reasons. Apple is the most valuable company on the planet, with a "supply chain master" at its helm, yet it couldn't adapt like their competitors? Maybe the pandemic is the cause, but Apple is to blame, because they should have adjusted, but didn't.

Perhaps the M3 generation will fix all ills and ailments, restoring balance to the silicon sphere, but I don't make product purchasing plans based upon maybes. As a desktop-only user, I care about performance cores and GPU. The P-cores appear to be virtually unchanged in M2, based upon Geekbench leaks, and now Apple may need to trot out third-party GPU cards for the Mac Pro, which is embarrassing, no matter how optional they may be.

At the end of the day, again as a desktop user, my concern is that Apple is simply taking recycled laptop chips and slapping them inside compact desktops without any enhancements. That was fine for the M1 generation, but I want them to scale beyond that. If the GPU for an M2 Ultra, which appears to be the only option inside the Apple Silicon Mac Pro, ends up being equivalent to a theoretical RTX 4060, then that's another loss that Apple will take.

I joke by stealing @theorist9's line that "I'd use macOS if it ran on vacuum tubes", but if Apple continues to ship warmed over laptop chips inside their desktops, and the only way to get something better than Nvidia's entry-level graphics is to get a Mac Pro with optional third-party GPUs, then I would be forced to consider PC by default, simply because Apple has given up on the mid-range desktop market. We'd be forced to chose between compact desktops with laptop performance, or an astronomically priced Mac Pro + third-party GPU combo.

It would be like the bad old days of the G4/G5 stratification at the end of the PPC era, except the professional desktop would be even more obscenely priced, with no middle ground.

Yes, that's a lot of "maybes" and "what ifs", but I'm not at all encouraged by what I've seen, thus far. Nor am I heartened by what few rumored breadcrumbs we've seen from the future. The M3 may be the greatest thing ever, but it also may be another warmed over M2, depending on how correct those brain drain reports were about Apple losing engineering talent, technical accuracies of said reports aside.

As a Mac user since 2005, I don't want to have to even consider getting a Windows PC, but if Apple can't match even a 4070 with Apple Silicon, then I really don't see a future for them in mainstream desktops. I hope my pessimism is wrong and entirely a result of Apple's secrecy. The fruit company had a honeymoon period with Apple Silicon on the Mac, and I am concerned that the bloom is wearing off, not just in perception, but reality.

 

[Jimmyjames]

I agree that, most likely, if third-party GPUs are offered in the Mac Pro, then they will be entirely add-ons, not default. However, I see that as a bad thing, period. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a desktop user, I'm a stationary sod, and don't care about battery life and portability. As long as my computer doesn't sound like a jet engine, then I'm good.

I'm not in the market for an Apple Silicon Mac Pro, but as the flagship desktop product, it will reflect upon the rest of the line. Assuming the rumors are correct, which is a big if, then I'm not seeing any encouraging signs.

Even though we've talked ad infinitum about the M2 "Extreme", there was an equivalent in the M1 generation, Gurman's Jade 4C-Die. The original Mac Pro prototype mentioned by the leaker on MR, who has access to early hardware, said as much. So, the M2 was actually Apple's second attempt at an "Extreme" SoC for the Mac Pro, which also means this is their second failure. We don't know why they decided not to launch, just that this isn't their first ride on the Extreme rodeo. (For what it is worth, just today, that same poster is reiterating what he said previously about the next Mac Pro.)

With the apparent failure of the M2 "Extreme", the amount of GPU power available is going to be no better than whatever ends up in the high-end Mac Studio, featuring an M2 Ultra. The simple fact that Apple may have to depend upon third-party GPU cards at all is not encouraging, and another failure, from my perspective. The M1 Ultra matches an RTX 3060, at best, which makes the comparison that Apple made to the 3090 embarrassing.

Then there is the M2 itself, which Gurman called a stopgap. It would be fine if this were a short-term release, but it's being stretched out longer than most of us had expected. We also have the leaked Geekbench scores for the higher-end M2 variants, which are lackluster, at best.

I've heard much talk about global events being to blame for this, but I simply don't buy that, at least not as an excuse which Apple can hide behind. Nvidia's Lovelace, Intel's Raptor Lake, and AMD's Zen 4 and RDNA3 have all been, more or less, on time. The exception is Arc, and I give Intel a pass on that, for obvious reasons. Apple is the most valuable company on the planet, with a "supply chain master" at its helm, yet it couldn't adapt like their competitors? Maybe the pandemic is the cause, but Apple is to blame, because they should have adjusted, but didn't.

Perhaps the M3 generation will fix all ills and ailments, restoring balance to the silicon sphere, but I don't make product purchasing plans based upon maybes. As a desktop-only user, I care about performance cores and GPU. The P-cores appear to be virtually unchanged in M2, based upon Geekbench leaks, and now Apple may need to trot out third-party GPU cards for the Mac Pro, which is embarrassing, no matter how optional they may be.

At the end of the day, again as a desktop user, my concern is that Apple is simply taking recycled laptop chips and slapping them inside compact desktops without any enhancements. That was fine for the M1 generation, but I want them to scale beyond that. If the GPU for an M2 Ultra, which appears to be the only option inside the Apple Silicon Mac Pro, ends up being equivalent to a theoretical RTX 4060, then that's another loss that Apple will take.

I joke by stealing @theorist9's line that "I'd use macOS if it ran on vacuum tubes", but if Apple continues to ship warmed over laptop chips inside their desktops, and the only way to get something better than Nvidia's entry-level graphics is to get a Mac Pro with optional third-party GPUs, then I would be forced to consider PC by default, simply because Apple has given up on the mid-range desktop market. We'd be forced to chose between compact desktops with laptop performance, or an astronomically priced Mac Pro + third-party GPU combo.

It would be like the bad old days of the G4/G5 stratification at the end of the PPC era, except the professional desktop would be even more obscenely priced, with no middle ground.

Yes, that's a lot of "maybes" and "what ifs", but I'm not at all encouraged by what I've seen, thus far. Nor am I heartened by what few rumored breadcrumbs we've seen from the future. The M3 may be the greatest thing ever, but it also may be another warmed over M2, depending on how correct those brain drain reports were about Apple losing engineering talent, technical accuracies of said reports aside.

As a Mac user since 2005, I don't want to have to even consider getting a Windows PC, but if Apple can't match even a 4070 with Apple Silicon, then I really don't see a future for them in mainstream desktops. I hope my pessimism is wrong and entirely a result of Apple's secrecy. The fruit company had a honeymoon period with Apple Silicon on the Mac, and I am concerned that the bloom is wearing off, not just in perception, but reality.

Absolutely.

I will reiterate. For me the most troubling thing is the lack of clear message and strategy. Making high end gpus is fine. Not making them is also fine. Saying you've created a pro-workflow group and are listening to pro users, then having 3 different strategies within 4 years is not. I'm not aware of any pros who want that. It scares them. Clear continual improvement is what's needed.

We've heard that certain software isn't performing as well as we would like because devs aren't adapting their software to the strengths of the soc and unified memory. What kind of message is it if it's now "Please develop for our soc, unless you wan't more power then optimise for a discrete gpu".

 

[dada_dave]

I agree that, most likely, if third-party GPUs are offered in the Mac Pro, then they will be entirely add-ons, not default. However, I see that as a bad thing, period.

I disagree. It’s a lackluster or absent M2 Extreme that would be bad, not the option to have a 3rd party GPU.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of a desktop user, I'm a stationary sod, and don't care about battery life and portability. As long as my computer doesn't sound like a jet engine, then I'm good.

I'm not in the market for an Apple Silicon Mac Pro, but as the flagship desktop product, it will reflect upon the rest of the line. Assuming the rumors are correct, which is a big if, then I'm not seeing any encouraging signs.

Even though we've talked ad infinitum about the M2 "Extreme", there was an equivalent in the M1 generation, Gurman's Jade 4C-Die. The original Mac Pro prototype mentioned by the leaker on MR, who has access to early hardware, said as much. So, the M2 was actually Apple's second attempt at an "Extreme" SoC for the Mac Pro, which also means this is their second failure. We don't know why they decided not to launch, just that this isn't their first ride on the Extreme rodeo. (For what it is worth, just today, that same poster is reiterating what he said previously about the next Mac Pro.)

I don’t see that leaker mention an M1, that was an M2 prototype by the looks of it? Gurman was just wrong the M1 Extreme as Hector Martin detailed on several occasions - the M1 Max was never designed to go above 2 tiles. It was logically impossible for it to do so without further changes.

With the apparent failure of the M2 "Extreme", the amount of GPU power available is going to be no better than whatever ends up in the high-end Mac Studio, featuring an M2 Ultra. The simple fact that Apple may have to depend upon third-party GPU cards at all is not encouraging, and another failure, from my perspective. The M1 Ultra matches an RTX 3060, at best, which makes the comparison that Apple made to the 3090 embarrassing.

Here’s the subtle distinction I’m trying to make: yes, depending on 3rd party GPUs would be bad, that’s not what this rumor is pointing to. As @Yoused and @Cmaier have both said, there are expectations for what will be included in the Mac Pro, full length PCIe slots are amongst those things. Giving users the option to use 3rd party GPUs would simply be another option for professionals to populate those slots. But we don’t even know how or in what context that will take place.

Then there is the M2 itself, which Gurman called a stopgap. It would be fine if this were a short-term release, but it's being stretched out longer than most of us had expected. We also have the leaked Geekbench scores for the higher-end M2 variants, which are lackluster, at best.

I've heard much talk about global events being to blame for this, but I simply don't buy that, at least not as an excuse which Apple can hide behind. Nvidia's Lovelace, Intel's Raptor Lake, and AMD's Zen 4 and RDNA3 have all been, more or less, on time. The exception is Arc, and I give Intel a pass on that, for obvious reasons. Apple is the most valuable company on the planet, with a "supply chain master" at its helm, yet it couldn't adapt like their competitors? Maybe the pandemic is the cause, but Apple is to blame, because they should have adjusted, but didn't.

Perhaps the M3 generation will fix all ills and ailments, restoring balance to the silicon sphere, but I don't make product purchasing plans based upon maybes. As a desktop-only user, I care about performance cores and GPU. The P-cores appear to be virtually unchanged in M2, based upon Geekbench leaks, and now Apple may need to trot out third-party GPU cards for the Mac Pro, which is embarrassing, no matter how optional they may be.

At the end of the day, again as a desktop user, my concern is that Apple is simply taking recycled laptop chips and slapping them inside compact desktops without any enhancements. That was fine for the M1 generation, but I want them to scale beyond that. If the GPU for an M2 Ultra, which appears to be the only option inside the Apple Silicon Mac Pro, ends up being equivalent to a theoretical RTX 4060, then that's another loss that Apple will take.

Sure I agree. But I also don’t see the need to hand wring based on Gurman rumors to be perfectly blunt. The guy’s recent track record ain’t great and his own predictions are vague and self contradictory. Let’s at least wait until the M2 Pro and Max are out to commence the gnashing of teeth about M2 Ultra/Extreme?

 

[dada_dave]

Absolutely.

I will reiterate. For me the most troubling thing is the lack of clear message and strategy. Making high end gpus is fine. Not making them is also fine. Saying you've created a pro-workflow group and are listening to pro users, then having 3 different strategies within 4 years is not. I'm not aware of any pros who want that. It scares them. Clear continual improvement is what's needed.

That’s not what’s happening.

We've heard that certain software isn't performing as well as we would like because devs aren't adapting their software to the strengths of the soc and unified memory. What kind of message is it if it's now "Please develop for our soc, unless you wan't more power then optimise for a discrete gpu".

Again, not what’s happening even with this rumor. All that said is that the machine can accept 3rd party GPUs as an option. No word on the details, which would be crucial for actually understanding what they mean for the product.

 

[mr_roboto]

Even though we've talked ad infinitum about the M2 "Extreme", there was an equivalent in the M1 generation, Gurman's Jade 4C-Die. The original Mac Pro prototype mentioned by the leaker on MR, who has access to early hardware, said as much. So, the M2 was actually Apple's second attempt at an "Extreme" SoC for the Mac Pro, which also means this is their second failure. We don't know why they decided not to launch, just that this isn't their first ride on the Extreme rodeo. (For what it is worth, just today, that same poster is reiterating what he said previously about the next Mac Pro.)

We actually have pretty good reason to believe that Jade 4C was never real, no matter how many anonymous forum posters swore they totally saw it. At best, it was a "canary trap" to find leakers. Reverse engineering, decapping, and so forth performed on Jade family SoCs (T6000 aka M1 Pro, T6001 aka Max, and T6002 aka Ultra) have found absolutely no evidence of a 4-die config which failed to make it to market. The die-to-die interconnect supports only 2 die through a passive interposer, and the interrupt controller only supports 2 die even though its register interface is designed to cleanly extend to more die in future SoC generations.

Sometimes you have to put the rumors aside and pay more attention to observed reality.

 

[Colstan]

I don’t see that leaker mention an M1, that was an M2 by the looks of it? Gurman was just wrong as Hector Martin detailed on several occasions - the M1 Max was never designed to go above 2 tiles. It was logically impossible for it to do so without further changes.

The specs from the MR leaker matched Gurman's Jade 4C-Die:

I have some info about next Mac Pro?? chips
- Total 40 cores, contains 32 P-Core and 8 E-Core.
- Total 128 GPU Core!!
- A sample board contains PCI-E slot but no ram slot (Doesn't know it exists on Production Mac Pro)

Then the next, updated prototype, which is what he currently stands by, matches the M2 Ultra:

Latest Prototype Mac Pro is now based on 24 Core M2 and 192GB <<Unified Memory.>>

Double that and you get the M2 "Extreme".

We actually have pretty good reason to believe that Jade 4C was never real, no matter how many anonymous forum posters swore they totally saw it. At best, it was a "canary trap" to find leakers. Reverse engineering, decapping, and so forth performed on Jade family SoCs (T6000 aka M1 Pro, T6001 aka Max, and T6002 aka Ultra) have found absolutely no evidence of a 4-die config which failed to make it to market. The die-to-die interconnect supports only 2 die through a passive interposer, and the interrupt controller only supports 2 die even though its register interface is designed to cleanly extend to more die in future SoC generations.

Sometimes you have to put the rumors aside and pay more attention to observed reality.

Gurman said such a beast existed, back when he had reliable sources. The leaker on MR said that the Jade 4C-Die was tested with a 6900XT inside it, and it didn't work, so they claimed it was a physical product. This is the same person who leaked the specs, case, and name of the Mac Studio before Apple announced it. I don't know what solution Apple may or may not have used for an M1 "Extreme", just that there were credible claims that Apple was working on something in that space. That doesn't mean it took the same form that the alleged M2 "Extreme" did. However, it would help inform us as to why it is taking Apple so long to conjure up a suitable Mac Pro.

Regardless, whether an M1 "Extreme" existed or not doesn't matter, not now. So, I don't want to get too far off into the weeds on something that will never see the light of day, whether it is made of unicorn dust or not. What matters is what is cooking inside Apple's labs for the future, and many of us, particularly desktop users, are concerned about said future.

 

[Jimmyjames]

That’s not what’s happening.

Which part do you disagree with?

In the round table meeting Apple had with the press, they did say they had created a pro-workflow group. There has been 3 strategies in 4 years: 2019 - tower with amd gpus. 2020 - soc only. Now- soc and third party gpu if you need power??

Again, not what’s happening even with this rumor. All that said is that the machine can accept 3rd party GPUs as an option. No word on the details, which would be crucial for actually understanding what they mean for the product.

Again, what do you disagree with here?