Apple Announces New Mac Pro With M2 Ultra, PCI Expansion Slots, and $6999 Price (9to5mac.com) 79
At WWDC today, Apple announced a new Mac Pro powered by the M2 Ultra chip. 9to5Mac reports: The chassis design of the machine appears to be the same as the 2019 Intel Mac Pro. The Mac Pro features eight Thunderbolt ports and six PCI slots for modular expansion. The base model config Mac Pro starts at $6999. Mac Pro with M2 Ultra features a 24-core CPU, up to 76-core GPU and 192 GB RAM. It also features two HDMI ports, dual 10-gigabit Ethernet, and a 32-core Neural Engine for machine learning tasks. It also features the latest wireless connectivity with Wi-Fi 6E and Bluetooth 5.3. You'll be able to order the new Mac Pro today via Apple.com.
how many pci-e lanes does it really have? and (Score:4, Insightful)
how many pci-e lanes does it really have? and what is the block map like?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:how many pci-e lanes does it really have? and (Score:5, Insightful)
For $7,000 dollars they can't even provide PCIe Gen5, which is available at the desktop tier in x86 land...
Re:how many pci-e lanes does it really have? and (Score:5, Funny)
192GB max ram shared with video is low for an work (Score:2)
192GB max ram shared with video is low for an workstation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:192GB max ram shared with video is low for an w (Score:5, Informative)
This is a Mac Studio (same CPU, same GPU, and same max memory). There aren't even two SOCs on board. I have a 2019 Mac Pro with a Xeon, 320GB of Ram, multiple spinners, and multiple Samsung gumsticks in mine, and it costs way less. This thing is not a workstation. It's a trashcan Mac Pro dressed in a workstation's skin. Its garbage. If you need the power, buy a Mac Studio with the M2 Ultra, and an external enclosure for your Nvidia graphics/AI card.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you need the power and are trapped behind Apple's walled garden, buy a Mac Studio with the M2 Ultra, and an external enclosure for your Nvidia graphics/AI card.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: 192GB max ram shared with video is low for an (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BTW: what ARM based processor that ISN'T sold by Apple can compete for power in terms of sheer grunt with x86 in desktop or server class?
Ampere has ARM CPUs that go up to 192 cores and 8-channel DDR5.
Re:192GB max ram shared with video is low for an w (Score:5, Insightful)
Things could be better, but OSX/iOS on Apple Silicon is so much worse.
Aside from Apple Silicon, we haven't really seen high performance ARM work out. nVidia promises that Grace will be that, but Qualcomm has made such promises, Cavium made such promises, Ampere made promises. Even with Apple it's hard to do a straightforward comparison, and the available data is somewhat not straightforward. Embedded/handsets, sure, ARM designs were available with all sorts of nuanced sleep states when there was not even a hint of comparable flexibility in x86 land. Even if x86 has caught up (Intel at one point pushed hard on this, but not a whole lot of seeing if that works in practice), the ecosystem is pretty well set on ARM and not much x86 could do to break in.
In x86, we have basically the legacy of what IBM inadvertently did. IBM tried to create an 'open ecosystem' that only they got to benefit from by designating their BIOS as the keys to the kingdom and that part would be proprietory. Anyone could make an OS, anyone could make peripherals, everything was standard, everything was specified to be able to mix and match. When Intel had their solution, IBM made them second source to AMD. Then Compaq reverse engineered the 'secret sauce', won a legal battle, and suddenly the last part of the ecosystem anchoring it to any one player was fair game.
ARM admittedly has more licensees with more potential for competition, but long plagued by fairly monolithic platforms, and from an OS perspective, a real pain to try to support at the driver/firmware level. Almost never supporting socketed anything. We are now getting to see more PC-like ecosystem open up, at least in server side, but we still aren't there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the secrets to the M series chips performance is the built in RAM. There's as close to zero distance for the signal to travel as possible, and there's no complications from the RAM sockets. They also manage to have more memory channels than traditional motherboards usually have. That all adds up to way higher memory speeds than traditional desktops have.
It's just a tradeoff you have you have to pick. You can't upgrade the RAM on the Mac, but in exchange for that you get a big performance boost. This
Re: (Score:3)
It's just a tradeoff you have you have to pick. You can't upgrade the RAM on the Mac, but in exchange for that you get a big performance boost.
Except because the RAM is small for some purposes, you get a big performance punch in the nuts from not being able to load data into memory fully. Obviously this won't be a problem for many people. But those people don't need a $6k computer or whatever, they will be fine with a reasonably priced one.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people actually need more than 192GB of RAM?
Wait, no, let me rephrase: How many *Mac users* actually need more than 192GB of RAM?
That said, I do despise the trend toward "appliance-ified" computers. The fact that having PCI slots is a selling point for a desktop computer is just frelling shameful.
It would be interesting to see a system with a two-tier RAM architecture. Like, "this CPU has so much integrated cache that almost nobody actually needs any slow external RAM, but you can add it if you
Re: (Score:2)
How many people actually need more than 192GB of RAM?
How many users need a $6,000 PC (not counting peripherals, storage, etc.) that can't be expanded past 192GB of RAM? That's the point here. This is not an unreasonable machine, but the price tag is ludicrous since it's just a Studio with expansion slots (and probably ones you can't use at full speed if you use more than one of them, too.)
Re: (Score:2)
Come now, the ludicrous price tag is how you know it's from Apple. If you can't use your computer and gadgets to project the image that you have way too much disposable income, what's even the point? You could just buy a comparable PC with enormous upgrade potential for a small fraction of the price.
Re: 192GB max ram shared with video is low for an (Score:2)
Just because you cant use it effectively, doesnt mean others cant either. These are not consumer devices. I assure you, those market segments are well serviced by Apples other pro
Re: (Score:2)
It always boggles my mind when people look at these computers and think no one needs them
It always boggles my mind when people who can't read think they can.
I didn't say nobody needs this much computer. What I said is that someone who needs this much computer needs more than this much memory. If they don't now, they will within the lifespan of the machine. People expect to keep these expensive macs for much longer than the average system. I know some of them, and they loooove to talk about them. One of them I know in particular just bought the Studio when this was announced because this pricing
Re: (Score:2)
$3,000 price increase, not $5,000. The version of the Mac Studio with the M2 Ultra costs $3,999; the comparable Mac Pro is $6,999. The prices of the available upgrades (CPU with more graphics cores, additional unified memory, larger SSD) are identical.
That's still a big jump to get slots that aren't as useful as they look, one reason being that the system's power supply only has 300W of auxiliary power available and one serious GPU card (graphics or AI acceleration) will use that up. Any other cards will be
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the memory specs on this architecture are about equivalent to AMD workstation class with socketed memory. A single socket workstation would advertise the same specs memory wise, and a dual socket would be about twice that. I couldn't find how Apple arranged the memory into channels, but the number looks about right for 12 channels at DDR5 speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember the specs offhand, but I think it was more like 8 channels, but clocked faster than standard DDR5 DIMMs.
I'll grant you it's not as big of a deal when you're comparing it to Epyc systems, but it's a massive win on the products lower down the product line.
Re: 192GB max ram shared with video is low for an (Score:3, Funny)
I donâ(TM)t get whatâ(TM)s with the price. Literally they only thing this has that the Mac Studio doesnâ(TM)t is occur slots, and somehow that is meant to justify a $5000 price increase. No slots for ram to make up the 1.5TB the previous generation could have. No multiple CPUs. No option for a beefier GPU. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Studio looks a better deal...but if you have to max out the RAM at purchase..that gets a bit steep.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I know that's intended as a joke, but keep in mind that, at the time, the iPod released at a somewhat lower price point than a Nomad.
It was 'near-Nomad' capability in a somewhat cheaper product. Much has been said of Apple's more polished execution, but we also must keep in mind that back then, they tried to be price competitive. They weren't "Apple the premium brand that can command a high price", they were "Apple just being a somewhat viable desktop vendor releasing an MP3 player"
Re: (Score:2)
A temporary setback. They've since recovered, and indoctrinated a new generation with grossly overpriced smart phones, and tablets with zero expansion capabilities, and a fast-paced upgrade cycle.
Apple is back baby!
No, not the slick styling and ease of use.
No, not the quality either. God no, what are you smoking?
The profit margins damn it! I'm talking about the profit margins! Why would anyone care about those other things?
will next years system have an m3 extreme? (Score:1)
will next years system have an m3 extreme?
192GB RAM may not be enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't seem to have RAM sockets either. So you have to pay Apple prices for RAM, and buy as much as you will ever need up front.
Re: (Score:2)
What is being done on these "professional workstations" which need anywhere near 192GB of RAM? Anything needing that much RAM sounds more like a server than a workstation. I'm actually curious, not just being argumentative. You mention massive data sets, but I thought most use cases requiring near this amount of RAM have more to do with rendering for digital media, engineers, architects, etc. Even then, though, I'm surprised any job which requires that kind of RAM wouldn't be offloaded to a server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Computational fluid dynamics is a workstation use case that can require a fuckton of RAM; it's advantageous to load the entire dataset into memory to most effectively feed the processing units. It's not uncommon for engineers in the automotive or aerospace industries to have a 5-figure tower (x86 Mac Pro, HP Z, Dell Precision) with over a terabyte of RAM and several RTX/Radeon Pro cards at their desks so they can do CFD runs on whatever they're designing at their leisure – it's a lot more effective an
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the info. I haven't worked in that industry before.
I'm still surprised it is more cost effective to have a $20k computer in front of every engineer, unless they really are keeping their computers running jobs for 100+ hours per week. If they were perhaps only running jobs for 50 hours per week, I'd think they could spend half as much to buy enough servers to run these jobs while rarely waiting in a queue. Maybe it's just how the software companies building their modeling tools have designed the s
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more about the minute flexibility – if you have 5,000 engineers, a request per head every hour is trivial, but a request for every little "let me change the shape of this part by just this much, show me" could easily add up, if it can be processed in less time locally. I am just spitballing, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, not being able to upgrade the memory or GPU on this system is pretty idiotic.
Also, you can't seem to be able to spec it higher than the latest M2 Ultra Mac Studio at the moment, which is cheaper.
You might as well just get the Mac Studio and a Thunderbolt enclosure if you need expansion later.
Re: (Score:2)
The Macs I'm using are roughly 10y old and have 8GB of ram ...
Re: (Score:2)
Hell of a big laptop if it really does have 6 pci slots like the article says. Same with dual 10gb ethernet ports.
Re: (Score:1)
Who the fuck is the target market for a 7k laptop?
Spotted the clueless Windows user!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Who the fuck is the target market for a 7k laptop?
Spotted the clueless Windows user!
Well you didn't have to insult him TWICE...
Re: (Score:2)
No no no. They're just playing some 4D chess. Remember he AmWaySmarterThanYou.
Sidenote: They're completely clueless about windows as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck is the target market for a 7k laptop?
People who can rack-mount shit on a 19" wide ass, and measure their height in rack units?
Or maybe...that's not a fucking laptop. At all.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple cultists. They'll buy anything with an Apple brand.
Re: (Score:1)
Lol, my error, thanks.
7k is still crazy.
power gimped by memory (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
the extreme chip did not work out maybe with m3
Apple bribes? (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Guess you forgot what unix boxes used to cost. $20k for a Sun or $60k for an SGI Indigo.
Re: (Score:2)
$7k seems like a bargain when you're talking $20k in 1994 dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Apple bribes? (Score:1)
My IndigoÂ, OÂ, and Fuel all had modular CPUs and RAM, and the Indigo and Fuel even had multiple graphics options. (The O has shared memory, so up to a gig of texture RAM, which was more than it could ever use.)
The new Mac Pro is just a convenience box for customers who don't want an external Thunderbolt to PCIe enclosure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They had the insane balls to announce that customers can pay ~$10k for a personal computer, and now they're surfing on the shockwaves rippling through the media.
Don't forget they did the exact same thing before. When the Lisa came out, it was $10,000. And that was forty years ago in 1983...
Re: (Score:2)
Did Apple bribe Slashdot?
Literally the last 7 stories are Apple related O.o
It's almost as if you don't know that Apple just spent the entire afternoon announcing new products. What's a tech site to do?
Re: (Score:2)
Can I just buy the case? (Score:2)
It would be interesting to cover the Apple logo and put something useful in it.
If they're going to call it M2... (Score:3)
It they are going to call it M2 the least that they could do would be give it some M.2 NVMe storage slots! For a machine who's supposed advantage over the M2 Ultra Studio is that it's expandable, the lack of expandability of RAM and storage is sort of limiting.
I get that you can't achieve 800GB/s memory bandwidth with separate DIMMS, but tiered memory support is well-understood technology and Apple could/should add it to the Darwin kernel.
It may be that their target market (media production people) expects and requires content to be stored on central servers rather than desktop machines, but having more local storage for your work-in-progress data would be sort of helpful, especially given limits to RAM limit the space that can be used as a cache.
The other mis-step seems to be that they gave this two 10GB/s ethernet ports but both are 10Gbase-T. Why not one 10Gbase-T and one SFP+? For a machine targeting the professional market surely having the option to use fibre (with it's longer cable lengths and better reliability on middle-distance runs) rather than copper, would make more sense.
I know I'm not the target market, so I'm not going to worry, but it seems like for a flagship "Pro" machine, Apple missed a few tricks here.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be that their target market (media production people) expects and requires content to be stored on central servers rather than desktop machines
IME they expect content to be stored on central servers, but they expect to work on it on local arrays for performance reasons.
I get that you can't achieve 800GB/s memory bandwidth with separate DIMMS
Yes of course you can, if you have enough of them, and memory is interleaved.
Re: (Score:3)
To be clear, a dual socket EPYC server can get about 1500 GB/s memory bandwidth with socketed memory in theory. Note that 'interleaved' will probably measure lower than one stream per memory domain, but that's largely beside the point as we are talking about marketing cap to marketing cap.
Re: (Score:2)
You can also get better aggregate memory bandwidth with NUMA, it's true, although that can be uneven depending on the type of workload.
Re: (Score:2)
SFP+ and apple ??? so you want to be locked into apple only transceivers at 200%+ markup over others?