Apple Is Struggling to Build Mac Pro Based on Its Own Silicon: Report
The company is also reportedly considering moving production of the Mac Pro to Vietnam.
When Apple introduced its first M1 system-on-chip for PCs in mid-2020, it said that it would transition all of its Macs to its Apple Silicon SoCs in about two years. By now, the company should have introduced its Mac Pro workstation featuring its own processor. But that hasn't happened, and it is actually unclear when this desktop will emerge, according to a Bloomberg report.
At first, Apple planned to build its new Mac Pro around its M1 Ultra dual-chip processor, but that device ended up in the most powerful Mac Studio desktop, and the company scrapped plans to produce a Mac Pro on its M1 generation. Eventually, the company decided to use its dual-chip M2 Ultra and quad-chip M2 Extreme processors for its top-of-the-range workstation.
The M2 Ultra is said to feature 24 general-purpose cores and 76 graphics clusters, whereas the M2 Extreme is projected to feature 48 general-purpose CPU cores as well as 152 graphics clusters. Furthermore, the M2 Ultra is reportedly designed to support at least 192 GB of memory, so expect the M2 Extreme version to support up to 384 GB of DRAM.
But it looks like Apple has scrapped plans to produce M2 Extreme processor because of complexity and costs. A Mac Pro based on the alleged M2 Extreme processor would cost around $10,000 and would be an extremely niche product that may not be worth development costs, engineering resources, and production bandwidth, Bloomberg says.
Yet, the Mac Pro is supposed to be an extremely capable workstation for a relatively small niche market. A key thing that should be kept in mind about Apple's Mac Pro is its audience. While the Bloomberg report vaguely mentions demanding users like "photographers, editors, and programmers," Mac Pro is much more than a powerful PC. Mac Pro systems are often used for cinema and video production, and such workloads are getting more demanding as resolutions and color depths increase. And such systems not only need performance, but the also versatility and flexibility of a desktop PC, as they need to install a variety of add-in-cards, accelerators, advanced storage devices, and so on. To add these boards, a new Mac Pro would need advanced I/O, which is somewhat of a departure from Apple's SoC ideology that entails a very high level of integration.
One of the features that Apple's Mac Pro has — and something that the company's other systems lack — is upgradeability. A user of previous Mac Pros would often buy the tower, then install a new graphics card, add more memory, or Apple's Afterburner accelerator. It is unclear whether an Apple Silicon-based desktop would be upgradeable, but from what we see with the Apple Studio machine, the company is reluctant to offer such capability even to its professional customers.
It is noteworthy that in addition to switching its Mac Pro to its own Apple Silicon processors the company is mulling transferring its production and final assembly from China and the U.S. to Vietnam. This will somewhat lower its costs, though given the price of Mac Pro, this will hardly have any difference for end users.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
One of the things that the Bloomberg report does not touch upon is when the new Mac Pro is set to hit the market. So far, Apple has only introduced its M2 SoC, and it yet has to roll out its M2 Pro and M2 Max SoCs. Meanwhile, multi-chip M2 Ultra and potential M2 Extreme are typically introduced months after single-chip SoCs, which means these processors probably won't arrive until mid-2023 at the earliest.
Apple of course does not comment on its future plans, though it is about time for the company to offer an upgraded version of its Mac Pro, as the current-generation machine was launched in 2019.
Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
-
PlaneInTheSky Mac Pro systems are often used for cinema and video production, and such workloads are getting more demanding as resolutions and color depths increase.
When did resolution increase. Content has never moved on from 4k because it is pointless. I think you can count the movies shot in native 8k on one hand. -
Glock24 An Epyc/Threadripper workstations would be cheaper, support more RAM and offer a ton more flexibility and upgradeability. Unless you rely on Apple software, then there's no point in this Mac Pro.Reply -
bit_user A Mac Pro based on the alleged M2 Extreme processor would cost around $10,000
Adjusting for inflation, isn't that close to the starting price of the existing Mac Pro, when it launched?
I'm exaggerating, but not by much. I also seem to recall the fully-configured price of a Mac Pro was like $40k or $45k, back then.
Anyway, I think a bigger issue might be that even 384 GB isn't enough memory for some workstation applications. CXL.mem would be a good option for expandability, but it'd required a lot of software work to enable.
One of the features that Apple's Mac Pro has — and something that the company's other systems lack — is upgradeability. A user of previous Mac Pros would often buy the tower, then install a new graphics card, add more memory, or Apple's Afterburner accelerator. It is unclear whether an Apple Silicon-based desktop would be upgradeable, but from what we see with the Apple Studio machine, the company is reluctant to offer such capability even to its professional customers.
Well, Mac Minis have never had good upgradability, I think. But, the main issue is probably how many PCIe lanes the M2 Max has, and what speed. If it had 16, then a quad-chip configuration could get you 64 lanes.
the current-generation machine was launched in 2019.
...using a special Cascade Lake variant, with 64 PCIe 3.0 lanes instead of the normal 48 you'd get in that socket. However, it only had up to 28 cores. Perhaps they regretted not going with ThreadRipper, which would've given them PCIe 4.0 and up to 64 cores. -
bit_user
I agree with you in terms of what I'd buy. However, there's no denying that the current Mac Pro has superior cooling, built-in Thunderbolt, and the GPUs have an over-the-top link that even the normal AMD Pro cards don't support.Glock24 said:An Epyc/Threadripper workstations would be cheaper, support more RAM and offer a ton more flexibility and upgradeability. Unless you rely on Apple software, then there's no point in this Mac Pro.
https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MW732AM/A/radeon-pro-vega-ii-duo-mpx-module -
cia1413
The resolution of what you render down to to hand off to people is 4k sure, but cameras are now available and commonly used up to 12k raw files. The editors use the extra space to zoom in and reframe and special fx guys always want ultra high rez to do super special fx stuff to.PlaneInTheSky said:When did resolution increase. Content has never moved on from 4k because it is pointless. I think you can count the movies shot in native 8k on one hand. -
SSGBryan I was running Mac Pro's for 15 years (and Power Macs before then).Reply
The clowns running Apple never did understand the Mac Pro user base. The 1,1 to 5,1 Mac Pro (the original cheesegrater) was an incredible general purpose workstation. It was price and performance competitive with Windows based workstations. It could handle anything I threw at it (3D art - Blender, Zbrush, Poser, Hexagon, Shade, Carerra, Vue, etc). Creatives that needed horsepower loved those things.
Then we got the trashcan. Overpriced, and I would have to add $2,000 to the price to replace the functionality that Sir Idiot Boy yanked out of it, so Apple could have a Cube 2.0. It could only do 1 thing well - video production (up until the video cards started dying by the bucketload). And no way to replace the video card BECAUSE THE VIDEO ROM WAS ON THE MOTHERBOARD, not the video card. Could max the CPU or the GPU, but not both, because Sir Idiot Boy didn't understand the customer base didn't care what it looked like - we were busy creating.
Over 2,000 days later (yep, that is how long we were stuck with that PoS.) We got another overpriced PoS that was thoroughly obsolete the day it launched. Every single subsystem had been superseded. Video, IO, storage, everything.
The base model (@ $6,000USD - before the $400 non locking wheels) could be outperformed by a $1,200USD Ryzen based system.
If Timmy & Sir Idiot Boy had just said in their 2017 apology tour, We are leaving the PC space, because we can't compete there. I could have left 2 years earlier and jumped on the Ryzen train then, rather than waiting till that PoS was released.
The only people buying the 7,1 are video folks that are too scared to leave the Apple prison.
Apple users really don't understand how far behind they are. But hey, they can now use their iFart apps on their "desktop" systems. -
bit_user
Uh, so Timmy is "Tim Apple" and Sir Idiot Boy is Johnny Ives? If so, at least he's gone, right?SSGBryan said:If Timmy & Sir Idiot Boy had just said in their 2017 apology tour, We are leaving the PC space, because we can't compete there. I could have left 2 years earlier and jumped on the Ryzen train then, rather than waiting till that PoS was released.
P.S. thanks for your post. Interesting insights, as I've not touched a Mac in over 20 years. -
thestryker When I see stories like this I can't help but wonder if Apple's loss of talent to Nuvia (now at Qualcomm) has hurt them for this space. They seem to keep trying to scale what they have rather than do a proper new design and that doesn't seem particularly smart.Reply -
systemBuilder_49 Apple is realizing it will take additional time to train its sheeple to buy a non-upgradeable workstation(s). Until they can train them, they will be forced to offer workstations based on PCI bus and unsoldered ram which can be upgraded. Also the aftermarket for mac workstations will collapse with M2 cripplestations but that's not apple's concern.Reply -
Kamen Rider Blade
How many CPU Engineers did they losoe to Nuvia?thestryker said:When I see stories like this I can't help but wonder if Apple's loss of talent to Nuvia (now at Qualcomm) has hurt them for this space. They seem to keep trying to scale what they have rather than do a proper new design and that doesn't seem particularly smart.