WWDC 2023 Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cmaier
  • Anyone can edit the first post of this thread WikiPost WikiPost
  • Start date Start date
Status
The first post of this thread is a WikiPost and can be edited by anyone with the appropiate permissions. Your edits will be public.
Formerly_Jimmyjames said:
This might be unfair, but it seems like the lowest possible effort possible for the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m not sure what else anybody expected. It had to be M2-based, which means no extreme. we don’t know much, yet, about the PCI support, but that’s about all we could have reasonably expected.
 
Cmaier said:
Well, I’m not sure what else anybody expected. It had to be M2-based, which means no extreme. we don’t know much, yet, about the PCI support, but that’s about all we could have reasonably expected.
Click to expand...
You’re probably correct, but a starting price of 7k, is tough for a machine that is going to get clobbered by a much cheaper pc.
 
Cmaier said:
Well, I’m not sure what else anybody expected. It had to be M2-based, which means no extreme. we don’t know much, yet, about the PCI support, but that’s about all we could have reasonably expected.
Click to expand...

Formerly_Jimmyjames said:
You’re probably correct, but a starting price of 7k, is tough for a machine that is going to get clobbered by a much cheaper pc.
Click to expand...

So that it’s only an M2 Ultra is mildly disappointing, but not shocking. Cliff is right, if it was to be M2-based that was the most likely outcome. Of course I held out hope that it would be an announcement of the product with delivery later and M3-based. However, that it’s available today signals to me that we can expect an M3 upgrade sometime next year or early 2025 and I suspect we will see bigger chips then.

The $7K is steep though. There’s no getting around that. Im not quite sure how to justify that with the Studio right there for $3000 less - yes the internal expansion is a difference in kind but combined with the lack of a bigger chip, that price makes it underwhelming. As I argued earlier when discussing this possibility, I don’t think it’s DOA or the worst thing ever, this isn’t Macrumors and I’m not that kind of poster, but I do think what I’m seeing so far is underwhelming and overpriced.

I think the CPU will probably pull its weight but unless you’re really going to take advantage of the top tier unified memory (even more money) the GPU performance at $7K+ is not great. This is the first of the new Apple lineup where I can say that the base model is not a good value.

Again maybe I’m missing something and it’s possible that next generation model Pros will rectify some of this, but not a perfect start - though it could’ve been worse if Gurman’s full set of predictions had come to pass.
 
Formerly_Jimmyjames said:
You’re probably correct, but a starting price of 7k, is tough for a machine that is going to get clobbered by a much cheaper pc.
Click to expand...
This is an ultra niche device. Customers who need to purchase one already know the cost of entry.

Formerly_Jimmyjames said:
This might be unfair, but it seems like the lowest possible effort possible for the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...
The alternative was probably no Mac Pro.

Most folks who require horsepower and expandability have already moved to Windows or Linux workstations. This is for users who specifically need macOS support with slots. At this point, the Apple Silicon Mac Pro is closer to the Xserve than a general purpose computer. (In that it targets a small sliver of the market, I don't mean specifically as a server.)

Concerning macOS Sonoma, the system requirements have changed:

Screenshot 2023-06-05 at 4.58.38 PM.jpg


Sonoma dropped support for the 2017 models of the iMac, MacBook Pro, and the 12-inch MacBook. Apple is quickly winding down support for Intel models. I expect the carnage to continue now that the transition is complete.
 
Colstan said:
This is an ultra niche device. Customers who need to purchase one already know the cost of entry.


The alternative was probably no Mac Pro.

Most folks who require horsepower and expandability have already moved to Windows or Linux workstations. This is for users who specifically need macOS support with slots. At this point, the Apple Silicon Mac Pro is closer to the Xserve than a general purpose computer. (In that it targets a small sliver of the market, I don't mean specifically as a server.)
Click to expand...

Ehh they still didn’t have to charge $7K starting. It is just an Ultra and the studio is $3000 less for the exact same performance specs. That’s … rough for basically just the firm factor. $5K would have been reasonable, again it’s just an Ultra with the same specs as a base Studio Ultra, $6K fine pricey but it is a niche form factor, $7K is getting way past “but it’s a niche machine!” and well into “you gotta be kidding, it’s gotta have something else it can do” territory.

Edit: Heck that was one reason why I was looking for clock speed information, any clue to say that these were clocked higher maybe or something. Even that wouldn’t have totally justified the jump, but at least it would be something.
 
Last edited:
Early in the MacPro presentation Cook said (IIRC) that unlike the previous MacPro there are no MPX slots, as that functionality is built in.

Not quit sure what that means - or what they were. I *think* they were special slots (non PCIe ?) for graphics acceleration - and some TB ports. Right?

If that functionality is now "built-in," does that mean it already exists on AS (my guess), and is somehow different than AS gpu? The new MacPro does have eight TB ports on the back, so that might be some of it.

Or...?
 
MPX provided more power to the Apple MPX GPUs (no ugly cables that you will not see when the chassis is closed up) and enabled the TB ports on the Apple MPX GPUs...

AFAIK, the MPX slot did nothing to provide more bandwidth to the actual (Apple MPX) GPU itself...?
 
The Mac Pro is a little less than I expected but it has slots.

As mentioned above it is an ultra niche device and if apple put out some sort of GPU or video processing card for it you can expect it to be a compute monster.

I think it’s hilarious that people are comparing its onboard SOC to PC workstations when it has a bunch of empty slots in it.
 
throAU said:
The higher end iPads are massively crippled by iPadOS.
Click to expand...
As far as I know restrictions on apps using even the most paltry amount of RAM and the like have been long since removed, which aspect is so bad that the experience is crippled? They aren’t Macs and the fabled 2-1 Mac-iPad is still a long ways off.

This year it’s realityOS that gets the love. I’m sure iPadOS and macOS will get new features next year.

throAU said:
The Mac Pro is a little less than I expected but it has slots.

As mentioned above it is an ultra niche device and if apple put out some sort of GPU or video processing card for it you can expect it to be a compute monster.

I think it’s hilarious that people are comparing its onboard SOC to PC workstations when it has a bunch of empty slots in it.
Click to expand...

Asking $3K for slots is pretty bad - just saying it’s a niche firm factor doesn’t come close to papering over that steep price increase. There is no dGPU or Afterburner-like video processing card for the Apple Silicon Mac, the whole point made in their presentation was how the built in SOC capabilities preclude the need for such cards and the studio has the exact same SOC. So again, $3K above the Studio price for slots is not a good base value.
 
dada_dave said:
Asking $3K for slots is pretty bad. There is no dGPU or Afterburner-like video processing card for the Apple Silicon Mac, the whole point made in their presentation was how the built in SOC capabilities preclude the need for such cards. So again, $3K above the Studio price for slots is not a good base value.
Click to expand...

Different logic board, different chassis, different PSU...
 
Cmaier said:
Do we know that’s true?
Click to expand...
Hard to tell they aren’t claiming any performance increases and they stripped all the information that would’ve let us figure it out. But it would have to be one hell of a spec bump for $3K.
B01L said:
Different logic board, different chassis, different PSU...
Click to expand...
Those are incredibly minor differences to the cost of the machine in comparison to the SOC. Again I don’t begrudge them charging more, but $3K more? That doesn’t seem anywhere near justified by what they’ve shown so far.

Look most Apple base pricing has been pretty good, even some of the tiered pricing has been good (some not so much). This is a bad base price unless they forgot tell us something vital about the machine’s capabilities. This is at least $1000 too expensive and probably $1500 to $2000 too much in my opinion based on their presentation. Again, subject to change if they omitted key details.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Joelist
WWDC 2024 WikiPost
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
4K
B01L
B01L
Cmaier
WWDC 2022: What was Announced WikiPost
18 19 20
Replies
381
Views
14K
Roller
R
Colstan
Gurman's WWDC announcement predictions.
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
8K
Colstan
Colstan
Cmaier
WWDC 2022: Wishlist
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
DT
DT
Cmaier
WWDC 2022: examples of lifting subjects from photos
Replies
11
Views
388
MEJHarrison
MEJHarrison
Back
Top