[HN Gopher] Apple unveils new Mac Studio and brings Apple Silico... ___________________________________________________________________ Apple unveils new Mac Studio and brings Apple Silicon to Mac Pro Author : 0xedb Score : 335 points Date : 2023-06-05 17:22 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.apple.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com) | KennyBlanken wrote: | In this discussion: people who know little about Apple Silicon | architecture ("no discreet GPU, not buying"), who are not the | target audience for this ("$77k for a comoputer!?!?!"), who do | have no idea what video creatives need (see: discreet GPU), | raging. | | These systems (especially the Pro) are for people who spend all | day working on 4k and up video. | | Also, guys: do you really think that any of you are smarter than | Apple? That Apple doesn't spend a lot of time talking to top | creative professionals? | | These systems aren't developed in a vacuum, especially at these | price points. | wmf wrote: | $3,000 just for slots certainly sends the message that Apple | views their customers as completely captive though. | sbierwagen wrote: | The press release mentions a bunch of use cases for the | slots, but does anyone actually sell Apple Silicon-compatible | cards yet? It's a brand new processor architecture after all. | I checked the store page and it doesn't show any. (The old | page would let you configure a Pro with more GPUs or | afterburner cards) | wmf wrote: | People will need to get the new Mac Pro in their hands to | develop and test drivers, although any card that works in a | Thunderbolt enclosure should also work when plugged in | directly. | newaccount74 wrote: | Two questions I'm interested in: | | 1) Are these machines still limited to running a maximum of two | macOS VMs? | | 2) Can they drive more than a single 8k display? | 1Y3 wrote: | Yes to 2), the Max can run 3 8k60 displays and 6 6k60 displays. | Which are pretty crazy specs considering my Air can only push a | single display of any resolution. | browningstreet wrote: | Amazing how often they directly dogged Intel, PCs and Intel based | Macs. | ThinkBeat wrote: | How is 192GB of RAM impressive? Why not 32TB? | | Esp given the unified ram you cannot upgrade it later on either. | (I think?) | nojito wrote: | Unified with the GPU | | You aren't getting that much vram in a single product. | lalaithion wrote: | Example of a desktop computer that comes with 32 TB ram? | Dylan16807 wrote: | Last gen threadripper pro can "only" do 2TB, so 10x as much | memory. | | The upcoming models should allow 6TB, which you can also get | today with a server chip. | | I can't find much using the newest workstation Xeons but they | supposedly will do 4TB. | renewiltord wrote: | Will the 192 GiB of RAM be properly addressable by all GPU for AI | stuff or are there some NUMA-style constraints? | xwowsersx wrote: | Would the Mac Pro help me at all for my computing needs? I write | code all day and have several IDEs and DataGrip running, use | Docker, etc. I currently use an MBP with the Apple Chip. Would a | beefier machine actually do anything for me, in the form of | faster compilation or anything...or nah? | chillbill wrote: | The best thing about this whole event is that they didn't mention | AI even once, all they're saying is ML. Which is what it is. AI | is a hype word. | gumby wrote: | Yes, and it's shameful when people descibe a wrong or bogus | answer as "hallucination". They are just stimulating | unknowledgeable people's fears and/or fanboiism. | throwaway675309 wrote: | Hallucination is a far better word than the recent verbiage | I've seen around LLM's lying to you. | musicale wrote: | BS and travesty generation are well attested. | DonaldPShimoda wrote: | I agree. I was really impressed that even with regard to the | Autocorrect update, they used technical terms like "transformer | model" without using hype words. They very clearly labeled it | as a predictive text engine rather than some magical pseudo- | sentient enigma or something. | dheera wrote: | Much better than their previous marketing 15 years ago | measuring hard drive capacities in "songs". | neilalexander wrote: | How dare they speak in a language their users might | understand! | safog wrote: | And yet somehow it's better to say transformer models and | not AI? | jkestner wrote: | Sir, this is a developer conference. | jedberg wrote: | They also mentioned transformers a few times, without saying | AI. | zbowling wrote: | ML is subset of AI. AI that is inclusive of other concepts and | it's not a buzzword. It's valid to call anything ML as AI. Sure | there is a lot of AI hype but it's not some made up marketing | jargon. | version_five wrote: | Not anymore in common usage. ML is roughly "learning from | data". AI has had some historical meanings, but in the last | 10 years became first a marketing term for Deep Learning (a | subset of ML) and now a term for LLMs and Diffusion Models | (and the like). Which are subsets of deep learning. | | There still exist people who refer to AI as the general study | of computerizing intelligence, just like somebody somewhere | is still telling people that "begs the question" means | dodging it. But the most applicable definition of AI as it's | commonly used right now is the as the brand under which | OpenAI and friends are releasing generative neutral neural | network models. | renonce wrote: | So is AGI AI? Why use such a broad term that puts AGI, a term | defined by science fiction, with Transformer, a practical | next token predictor based on gradient descent and attention | mechanism, in the same basket? | colechristensen wrote: | AI has been used in a lot of ways, from a philosophy | standpoint I'd like to insist it be used only when a | meaningful definition of intelligence is applicable and other | usages be considered incorrect going forward. | ghaff wrote: | You're technically right that AI is a superset. But, at least | in a computational context, "AI" is hardly ever being used to | refer to cognitive science and other AI subsets that are not | directly related to ML. So ML is usually the more precise | terminology. But I've pretty much given up on that one. | adastra22 wrote: | Large language models are definitely AI. | thewataccount wrote: | The best example I've seen to contest that LLM's are "AI" | is to make it print the total number of line's it's | response will be, essentially add | | "First answer with the total number of lines your total | message will be, including the line with this number" | | For example, GPT4 said "12" for this prompt: "First | answer with the total number of lines your total message | will be, including the line with this number | | Make a program in Cpp that sums all prime numbers from 1 | to 100" | | LLM's cannot "think", they can only make sequential | predictions based on their previous answers - so they | cannot formulate a response and then modify that response | on-the-fly | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | GPT very much can, in a limited way. It responds to | feedback. | | It's not exactly a huge leap of imagination to suggest | that it won't be long before it can create an internal | feedback loop by comparing its own abstractions with its | memories and live experiences of external feedback. | renonce wrote: | That's more like an inherent limitation of autoregressive | prediction than that of LLM. Maybe LLMs can be trained or | finetuned in other ways that allows it to think before | answering. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _large language models are definitely AI_ | | The term "AI" is becoming over inclusive to the point of | meaninglessness. Cupertino is smart enough to pick up on | that. "Statistical linguistics" is the best general term | for LLMs I've come across. | airgapstopgap wrote: | LLMs are the apex of NLP research to date, and NLP is | obviously a branch of AI. You may have some sophisticated | notion of AI, AGI, human-level or human-like AI or | whatever, but NLP has been considered AI for generations | now. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _NLP has been considered AI for generations now_ | | I'm arguing the term AI has become "inclusive to the | point of meaninglessness." That doesn't mean it was | always meaningless. | kimixa wrote: | Expert systems used to be considered "AI". Certainly some | optimization algorithms like genetic algorithms were | "AI". Pretty much any system that makes a decision was | considered "AI" at some point. | | The problem is the general use of the term changes in a | way to often make the meaning unclear to the point of | being near useless. Outside of marketing, of course. | nightski wrote: | AI is a pretty well defined field I feel like. It | combines symbolists, connectionists, evolutionaries, | bayesians, and analogizers. Just because those not in the | field misuse the term does not make it less useful. | TuringTest wrote: | It is useful when you use it like those knowledgeable of | the field. Marketing departments are not using it that | way. | joshspankit wrote: | The general public assumes AGI when they hear AI and that's a | problem worth fighting against. | lukifer wrote: | The goalpost keeps moving on what is sufficiently "general" | to meet a hypothetical AGI definition. At one point the | distinction was more meaningful: AIs were always highly | domain-specific (eg, playing chess). Now the same | transformer model can write a string-parsing JS function, | concoct a recipe that uses six arbitrary ingredients, pass | a biology exam, sort unstructured data, and give tax | advice, but somehow that still isn't general enough to | qualify. | valine wrote: | It's a chameleon of a term that can mean anything you want. | That's not a good thing. | reaperducer wrote: | See also: "Best practices." | dheera wrote: | If it's written in Python, it's probably ML | | If it's written in PowerPoint, it's probably AI | miohtama wrote: | They need to leave some hype for the next year as well. | wilg wrote: | This is a very specific type of virtue signaling that I find | very funny | jeffybefffy519 wrote: | Yet all of their other marketing is convoluted non sense. It | just shows them being more tactical with marketing to knock | some competition down a notch. | Solvency wrote: | Games have talked about "enemy AI" for 25+ years. Hell, Halo 1 | was considered revolutionary for its advanced enemy AI. Was | that a hype word? Was that an incorrect misnomer? | pantalaimon wrote: | The enemies didn't learn though, so it definitely wasn't | machine learning. | Rebelgecko wrote: | The AI was pre-trained before the game shipped. Kinda like | how you can have a conversation with ChatGPT and it will | eventually forget what you've "taught" it | halostatue wrote: | Pre-programmed. | munificent wrote: | Different fields use the same term to mean unrelated things. | "AI" in gaming just means "non-player-controlled entity | behavior" and has meant that all the way back to the first | chess computer games (when they _did_ think what they were | doing was "AI"). | | "Theory" in law, versus in science is another example. | TuringTest wrote: | Scripted enemies are "non-player-controlled entity | behavior", yet they are not AI. For NPC behaviours to be | considered game AI, there needs to be some calculation | depending on the current state of the game and objectives | of the character. What makes a game behaviour "AI" is its | feedback with the player actions and/or events evolving in | the game. | | Super Mario mushrooms and turtles are not AI controlled; | Pac-Man ghosts are. (Possibly the earliest and simplest | form of game AI, but quite effective for its purpose). | chillbill wrote: | Yes | riceart wrote: | No. In games AI is a jargon term for the behavior of an | NPC. It has a long history in this use. When people talk | about a game's AI it is often clear what is being discussed | regardless of the specific technology used. It is therefore | useful for communicating an idea and that's usually all | that really matters. | | There's even a distinct Wikipedia article on this use: http | s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_in_vid... | mciancia wrote: | Kinda unimpressive since it seems that it's just mac studio with | pci-e expansion | BXlnt2EachOther wrote: | Config/pricing pages are open now, and it looks like the Pro | does match the higher-end Studio configuration. The upgrade | choices and prices match too, so they top out at the same spec. | Minus the tiny detail of PCIe expansion of course. Pro has a | few more ports (extra HDMI and 10GbE, couple more TB4s) as | well. | ganoushoreilly wrote: | More so given the drivers issue.. I expect OWC and a few | companies like AVID will develop proper tools for their | hardware but all in it's not going to be nearly as | approachable. Also the limit of 192gb on Unified Memory might | still be an issue too. | | We'll see what happens with release, but as someone with two | Intel Mac Pros in use, not quite sure I see a reason to switch | still (though my laptop is the M1 Air released 2 years ago). | BXlnt2EachOther wrote: | Since they've now completed the transition to Apple Silicon, | I wonder if that starts the timer on deprecating MacOS Intel | compatibility. Though plenty media industry users especially | stay on older OSes for stability. | digitallyfree wrote: | It also doesn't have ECC as well which was a staple of the | previous Mac Pro line. | JohnBooty wrote: | I wonder if on-die RAM is less susceptible to memory errors? | | I suspect that it is. Feels like less can go wrong. You have | physically shorter interconnects, and the RAM is perhaps more | of a known quantity relative to | $SOME_RANDOM_MANUFACTURERS_DIMMS. But that is only a guess. | | However, I don't know if that's true. I guess it's not | necessarily more resistant to random cosmic rays or whatever. | lemetr0l wrote: | For the modest price of 77k dollars!!! | | I will use vectorization and multithreading instead, thanks! | bee_rider wrote: | Are you off by one order of magnitude? Or does this cost as | much as a couple quite nice cars. | rch wrote: | I was looking at a six figure workstation last week, | including GPUs. The goal is to replace 2-3 loud servers in my | home lab with something more compact and quiet. | umanwizard wrote: | What do you do with your "home lab" that can't run on a | consumer-level desktop? I'm genuinely curious. | rch wrote: | Currently I'm revisiting some proteomics work I did as | part of a DARPA project a while ago, as well as | experiments with cinema ready geo-located media | workflows. | | It helps with my day job too, indirectly. | Doctor_Fegg wrote: | I spend a whole bunch more time at my Mac than I do in a car, | and gain much more value from it too, so that doesn't seem | unreasonable... | bee_rider wrote: | I've connected to plenty of machines that are worth more | than my car (although it isn't as if my car was $35000 in | the first place, that's a bit excessive!). I was just using | cars as a unit of measurement, to aid intuition. Maybe I | was too circuitous in my original comment. | | I only see prices in the 7k range on the site. | ed25519FUUU wrote: | Cars don't usually become obsolete and borderline worthless | after 5 years. | cdelsolar wrote: | i still use my 2013 macbook pro and it still works great | and fast | mk_stjames wrote: | 192GB of memory on the Mac Studio is enough to run Llama 65B in | full FP16. | | And at 800GB/s bandwidth, it will do so pretty quickly. I think | my M1 Pro memory bandwidth is 200GB/s and I was running quantized | 13B Alpaca relatively quickly, I'd say useable for a personal | chatbot, and I think it was swapping every now and then causing | pauses. | | So having 4x the memory bandwidth should allow large models to | run pretty damn fast. Maybe not H100 GPGPU speeds but enough for | people to do some development on. | jyu wrote: | What do you think the odds are we can get H100s or equivalent | in Mac Studio? | kristianp wrote: | Nvidia gpus haven't been supported by Macs for a long time. | Apple and Nvidia relations are not good for some reason. | elorant wrote: | How many tokens per second are you getting from Alpaca? | selectodude wrote: | When llamaCPP came out, I was running 13B at 100ms/token on a | base model MacBook Pro 14". | | Edit: apparently llama.cpp supports running on GPU, so I | imagine it's gonna be a bit faster. Maybe a fun evening | project for me to get going. | mk_stjames wrote: | I got ~45ms/token on the 7B model but the 13B model slows | to ~200 ms/token I noticed, and I have to mess with the # | of threads sometimes, and I have to run it with --no-mmap | or else it wants to swap to disk. | | I have 16gb of ram. | | It's completely memory bandwidth limited. I think with even | more work it will get faster, and so these new M2 machines | with 800GB/s should really fly even with larger models. | | I have not tried the latest llama.cpp and have not ran | anything on the m1 GPU | duskwuff wrote: | > I think it was swapping every now and then causing pauses. | | What you're seeing is probably "context swapping", not swapping | memory to disk. The model can't keep the entire history of its | output in context at all times, so LLaMA periodically resets | the context and re-prompts it with a portion of its recent | output. | | https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/blob/f4c55d3bd7e124b1... | arek_nawo wrote: | Mac Pro is honestly underwhelming. It's entirely for those you | really need macOS + PCIe combo. Other than that, with no | expandable RAM (beyond top 192 GB) and no external GPU support (I | assume), there's no reason to pick it over Mac Studio (when | choosing between the two). | racl101 wrote: | What the hell is that cheese grater looking thing? I can't make | out what that is. | detrites wrote: | It's the front of a desktop tower, except it looks exactly like | a cheese grater and triggers some peoples visual phobias. While | it's claimed functional for quiet airflow, it's also possibly | Apple's worst visual design, ever. | eyelidlessness wrote: | That's the Mac Pro design introduced with the last Intel model. | It's a similar design to the original Mac Pro (before the | "trash can" tube thing), which was very close to the design of | the PowerMac G5. | inasio wrote: | The Mac Pro link in this page shows the Intel Xeon-based system. | I was very confused | [deleted] | jasoneckert wrote: | I own an M1 Ultra Mac Studio that I primarily run Asahi Linux on. | Prior to that, I ran a trashcan 2013 Mac Pro 6-core Xeon that I | primarily ran Ubuntu Linux on. Thus, I buy Apple primarily for | the hardware. | | After watching today's WWDC product announcements regarding the | Mac Studio and Mac Pro updates, I really don't see myself ever | buying a Mac Pro in the future. While I can understand how very | large studios may value the additional expandability, a massive | case with ability for expensive upgrades just isn't something I | would need or pay extra money for. | | It looks like Apple has targeted the Mac Studio for the largest | number of professionals, while reserving the Mac Pro for a niche | high-end market - and in these regards, the Mac Pro is a | continuation of the 2019 Mac Pro, whereas the Mac Studio is a | continuation of the trashcan 2013 Mac Pro. | tostr wrote: | Would you mind expanding a bit on your experiences with running | linux on mac hardware? Especially the M1, what is your daily | experience like? Any pain points or gotchas? | | Reason for my question is that I used to run linux on the mac | as well (10 years ago), and I love the hardware. I don't think | there is anything that even comes close hardware-wise. But | currently I am on mac os, well, because it works basically ;) | But I would be curious to know if switching over again would | make sense now, without too much hassle. | bjelkeman-again wrote: | Was it hard to get Linux to run well on the trashcan? Mine is | still my main machine, but there are no more MacOS upgrades for | it. | davidkuennen wrote: | As a developer I'd be terrified if Apple was showing my app in | one of these events. | llm_nerd wrote: | It's all pre-recorded now, so what would the worry be? | teddyh wrote: | If Apple likes your macOS app, that's the first step to being | sherlocked. | dymk wrote: | Does that mean acquired? 'cause that's more likely | teddyh wrote: | No, it means that Apple rewrites your app and releases | their version for free with macOS, destroying your | business. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sherlock_(soft | war... | DonaldPShimoda wrote: | I'm pretty sure they reach out to the developers in advance if | it's actually used directly (and not just in the background, | like on the Dock or something). But I'll bet it's a real | opportunity to gain new users, so it's probably more exciting | than terrifying! | davidkuennen wrote: | I'm thinking more in the lines of getting this kind of | attention it a strong indicator to get sherlocked [1] by | Apple in the future. For example the hydration app. | | [1] https://www.howtogeek.com/297651/what-does-it-mean-when- | a-co... | float4 wrote: | Developer of Apollo was completely surprised that they | mentioned his app today[0] | | [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/141kfmi/wwdc_2023 | _ev... | DonaldPShimoda wrote: | Oh wow, I didn't realize! Well never mind then, my mistake. | Thanks for the correction -- and with a citation, even! | SquareWheel wrote: | He also says he was invited to the event, so he's likely | saying that he had his mind blown by being offered the | opportunity beforehand. | whalesalad wrote: | I've been draggggggiiinnngggg my feet on a new desktop | workstation. Waiting for the store to come back to truly make a | decision but I think that I'm gonna go for a Studio. The hacker | in me wants to build a beefy Linux workstation but the pragmatist | in me wants a machine that just works. I think the Apple tax is | worth it here. | speed_spread wrote: | I'm pretty certain you can buy yourself a Linux workstation | that just works. ThreadRipper, ECC, NVidia proprietary drivers. | Put Fedora on it. The trouble is leaving it alone and not | messing with it after you get it going. | rnk wrote: | I bought the prev generation for that kind of purpose, about 3 | months ago. To get 2tb disk/128gb ram cost over $5k. Curious | about new prices. The perf seemed good running 65b models but | not 16bit. You need the ram and disk space, but the cost was | astronomical. | goosedragons wrote: | $5200 for an M2 Ultra Studio with 128GB RAM and 2TB SSD. | Still costs $200 to upgrade a MBA with a 512GB SSD. | eastbound wrote: | Is this event entirely AI-generated? Backgrounds seem too | perfect, speeches seem too tight. | giantrobot wrote: | Apple spends at minimum a month prior to an event rehearsing. | During a live presentation they have people following along | with alternate presentations that can be switched to | immediately. These are full AV productions that would make | producers of Super Bowl halftime shows jealous. | jasonjamerson wrote: | We've been discussing this as well, the Virtual Production | production value is incredible, are they also standing on a | stage outside, and this is all being composited live, with | foreground passes, etc. without green screen? | grouchomarx wrote: | Tim may be live but everything else is prerecorded | jasonjamerson wrote: | Yep, you're right. Still they put a TON of work into this. | Incredible. | jonwinstanley wrote: | Surely it's all pre-recorded and edited together | jasonjamerson wrote: | You're right. I thought this was a live event, but the | people watching it live are just watching a video, just saw | a live photo from twitter. Makes a lot more sense! | delfinom wrote: | Ever since COVID, many companies have basically switched | to these "fake live" announcements. | jonwinstanley wrote: | All the Apple presentations like this are very polished | rektide wrote: | Anyone else look at the motherboard & think, wow, heck yeah? It | was barren. Flat, hugely unpopulated, painted black. | | Seeing such a stark & severely empty slab of pcb is something | I've been looking forward to. With more and more on chip, we | don't need all this extra componentry all over our systems. | | PCB might well be cheaper than cables.. but I can perhaps | envision MCIO (Mini Cool-Edge IO)/SFF-TA-1002 taking over some | day, disaggregating peripheral cards off the motherboard. | beezle wrote: | For all the accolades about the Apple cpus, market share remains | within historical ranges (5-10% per my recollection going back to | the late 80s). | | For Q1 per IDC: The top five PC manufacturers by market share | were Lenovo (23.9%), HP (21.5%), Dell (16.0%), Apple (7.5%), and | Acer (6.4%). | mark_l_watson wrote: | With fairly good support for Apple Silicon, the $4K Mac Studio | might be a reasonable choice for a home deep learning rig. 64G of | shared memory for the GPUs/neural units, and CPUs sounds good. | lvl102 wrote: | Why didn't they release GPUs for those PCIe slots? I just don't | get why they couldn't do a simple thing instead of AR/VR. | runjake wrote: | Because it's not that easy due to Apple Silicon architecture | display controller limitations with the current chips. Note | that none of the PCI-e cards in the demonstration were GPUs. | They were all network/storage/accelerators/etc. | | In the short term, I could see shoving an Nvidia GPU in a slot | for offloading CUDA and GPU compute, but it wouldn't be really | suitable for video gaming and such. | [deleted] | colmmacc wrote: | Congrats to Apple on completing another IA migration! It really | is an incredible accomplishment to get such a massive base of | customers, partners, and developers to run on a new architecture | so quickly and relatively seamlessly. I remember the PPC to Intel | move, which was also well done, and they'd improved even on that | ... with what must be many many more users. Awesome! | | P.S. Hopefully this transition frees someone to make a Pro | Display with a webcam! | ridiculous_fish wrote: | And before that was the 68k -> PPC transition, which was even | smoother: 68k and PPC code could co-exist and call each other | _in the same address space_. | | (Well there was no memory protection in those days, so | everything was in one address space. Still, impressive!) | kamel3d wrote: | The M1 Mac Studio has just disappeared from the Apple website. | Maybe this disappearance could indicate how great of a deal it | would have been if it had remained on sale at a lower price. | RegularOpossum wrote: | I would keep an eye out at Costco, M1 Pro MBPs still pop up on | sale there regularly, they might get some Studios. | mk_stjames wrote: | I'm surprised they kept the cheese grater case for the new Pro. | It is one of my least favorite case designs of any high end mac. | I'm really surprised they didn't go with something simpler and | more like a tall, scaled up Mac Studio. It's strange that given | it is such a big architecture change on the inside isn't mirrored | with a physical change on the outside. | | Mostly I hate the juxtaposition of the chrome legs/handles with | the aluminum case. It's very mixed-material. The chrome reminds | me of the early iPhones with the chrome bezels. | | Meanwhile the Mac Studio design is clean and monolithic in | comparison. | Clamchop wrote: | I love the cheese grater but I don't care for the chrome | handles and feet either. They remind me of bed frames and | office chairs. | | I think the G5 case was peak design for a tower that's hard to | top but Apple's surprised me before. | whatever1 wrote: | Can one install a regular AMD gpu in this? | 1Y3 wrote: | I was asking myself the same, but I am assuming there is no | way. The specs list only 300W of extra power budget (with only | 150W on the single 8-pin PCI-E connector) and the x16 slots are | shown as single height on the images. Also I don't think there | are any drivers for Apple Silicon afaik and using AMD GPUs | purely as accelerator cards seems pointless when you have M2 | Max. | jeffbee wrote: | $7k starting price. High but compared to? Just glancing at the | new HP Z6 G5, which may be a fair comparison, with a 16-core CPU, | 8x16GB of memory (the lowest configuration that populates all 8 | channels of that CPU), minimal storage, and a parts bin GPU that | nobody wants, $6k. To get 8 thunderbolt ports like the mac pro | you'd have to fill each and every one of its add-in card slots | with a HP dual TB4 card. | | Edit: The HP 340L1AA TBT4 card is only compatible with one | expansion slot in that machine, so what I suggested is not even | possible. Perhaps the Mac Pro is the only workstation you can get | with 8 Thunderbolt4 ports. | mhh__ wrote: | I think the lust for ML performance has made people a lot more | likely to arbitrage these costs by building their own machines | so the usual like for like comparison doesn't necessarily hold | the same way it does for Apple Silicon laptops. | moondev wrote: | FWIW Ampere Altra dev kit is $4k for 128 cores and supports | 768GB of RAM. Bring your own memory, storage, PSU, GPU | | https://www.ipi.wiki/products/com-hpc-ampere-altra?variant=4... | gumby wrote: | Curious if you can feed all those Ampere CPUs or if it is | memory bandwidth constrained. | | Disclaimer: this is not a "zomg apple grate; others must | suck" comment. Apple claims that their integrated design | balances things out to get the best performance. It will be | interesting once there are some real benchmarks to see how | well that claim continues to stack up. | | The M transition has been amazing, but not every iteration | can be a winner. | selectodude wrote: | High compared to the Mac Studio, I'd say. $3,000 extra for the | exact same specs and an extra 6 PCI slots. I guess if you need | them, that's the cost of entry, but $500/slot seems like a | tough sell. | twoWhlsGud wrote: | The HP is usually at least 30% off and has ECC memory - so | depending on your use case it may still make sense. | zamadatix wrote: | If you actually want 8 Thunderbolt 4 ports that probably puts | you towards that price range anyways because nobody has really | seen the demand to make a quad Thunderbolt 4 card yet (as far | as I know) so you're eating up a lot of slots which were | probably designed to have way more than PCIe 3.0 x8 plugged | into them. Same with the memory bandwidth, if you actually need | 800 GB/s of RAM bandwidth then there isn't really a traditional | option to compete. | | If you compare with what most people actually need out of a | workstation instead of what this can do as a workstation you | run into a lot of opposites though, and just as easily. 192 GB | as a maximum cap is honestly pretty low for a workstation these | days, as is a max CPU configuration of 2x10+2. | | Overall I don't think it's horrendously priced as some of the | previous Mac workstation components could get, but at the same | time, unless you have a very specific use case or specifically | need macOS, it's not exactly compelling. It is "good enough" to | finally round out the lineup though. | WWLink wrote: | > Overall I don't think it's horrendously priced as some of | the previous Mac workstation components could get, but at the | same time, unless you have a very specific use case or | specifically need macOS, it's not exactly compelling. It is | "good enough" to finally round out the lineup though. | | It's such a specific use case that I'm not entirely sure what | the use case even is. Capturing off an SDI camera? Great! Why | do we need so many pcie cards and so little memory? These | things aren't even setup to hold that much storage. It | appears to not work with PCIE GPUs, so that's out. You | probably don't need additional thunderbolt ports since it | already has those. Maybe additional USB, but probably not | that many cards worth? Most audio equipment is external? | | I get it. Apple is saying "This machine is for a very | specific type of video editor" lol. | USB5 wrote: | I am probably the minimal target market for the mac pro m2 | ultra. I am an artist and I do a lot of 3D rendering. I | think it's a great price and I would love to own one, but I | wouldn't even consider it unless it had support for Nvidia | GPUs. Good GPU-based 3D rendering engines need CUDA. Even | with the ones that don't, GPU rendering on a 4090 is 4x-5x | times more performant than on an M2 Max, and building my | own PC allows me to have multiple of them. Also Octane, the | rendering engine in their demo, is trash. Specifically, | it's fine for fancy titles and cartoons but terrible for | realistic renderings. | | Also, I still have a chip on my shoulder about Apple | failing to update Mac Pros for about a decade and then | rubbing salt in the wound with their pathetic trash can. It | would take A LOT to get me back after that BS. Moving to | Windows was a horrible experience and they gave me no | choice. | | Lastly, VFX software is heartily embracing Linux these days | and I'm loving it, but I did have to invest in a KVM switch | system and 10Gbe network so I can comfortably run Photoshop | and Substance on a separate Windows machine. | derefr wrote: | > It's such a specific use case that I'm not entirely sure | what the use case even is. | | Live TV production, I think. Mostly in the rackmount form- | factor. A plethora of "IO breakout boards" is what turns a | regular computer into a "video production system" head- | unit. | | Though also, at least three of the PCI-e cards shown on the | slide were for fibre-optic networking. So, presumably, this | would be the Mac to get if you're trying to Beowulf the | M2-Ultras together for some kind of NUMA-friendly ML model | training. Or just for a render farm. Insofar as Apple | dogfoods things, I would guess this is what they use them | for themselves. | jeffbee wrote: | I liked how one of the cards on the screen was a sound | card, as if a PCIe slot wasn't 1000x overkill for that | amount of I/O. We had USB ports that could handle that | when Bill Clinton was still president of the United | States. | derefr wrote: | There was also what I believe to be an SDR card (the one | with all the antenna-inputs) -- which is pretty | interesting in its implications, but perhaps not the | brightest one in this context. Aren't RF antennas also | lightning rods? :) | | There was also something there that had DB9 and DB25 | connectors, but both female. (I would think this was a | weird SuperIO card, but the computer side of a serial | port is usually male.) There was also a _lot_ of stuff on | that card. Anyone know what that one was? | acchow wrote: | How many simultaneous 4K input video steams can that HP handle | (input and encoding)? | jeffbee wrote: | I haven't the slightest idea. I assume people with such | requirements know how to specify and buy machines. That said, | these guys who specifically target the video production | market sell machines with the latest Xeons and e.g. an RTX | 4080 (which I suspect is the more relevant part). | https://www.pugetsystems.com/workstations/xeon/w790-e/ | miklosz wrote: | Interesting, only single CPU. I was thinking, that for Mac Pro | they will go somehow with multiple processors and some magic with | shared memory access solved in OS. Interesting though, how the | external GPU support will look like if you have PCI and if it | will be expanded to the TB4 as well. | gumby wrote: | > I was thinking, that for Mac Pro they will go somehow with | multiple processors and some magic with shared memory access... | | That _is_ what they did. Read what they wrote about their | interconnect. It 's just all inside a single package. Look up | "chiplets". | jeffybefffy519 wrote: | Does anyone else find the specs of apple hardware really hard to | understand? | f6v wrote: | Incoming: "Not going to upgrade, I'm fine with my 1996 toaster, | thank you!" | | It'd be actually interesting to read from people who buy a top | config and how they use it. | __loam wrote: | I'm using an M1 pro macbook for work and it's fast as fuck. | Seriously considering getting a studio or a macbook pro for | some home game programming and asset creation work. | imdsm wrote: | I have an M1 Air and an iMac Pro (3.2 GHz 8-Core Intel Xeon | W) and quite often I feel as though the M1 is faster. Seems | to be jumping ahead remarkably! | bee_rider wrote: | I do not understand why people make those comments. All we know | about their systems is that they can load this website. You can | be perfectly happy as a dev running vim on an ancient | netbook... | jmkni wrote: | I'd really love to hear from somebody currently using a 1.5TB | Intel Mac Pro | smoldesu wrote: | My ex-boyfriend had a 128gb Mac he would regularly max out | with nothing more than Spotify and Firefox tabs. I still | don't understand it. | imagetic wrote: | I guess I've never been blessed enough to work at a place that | will spend $7k on a base model edit station. | JohnBooty wrote: | What do you do for a living? | | I'm just curious which kinds of workplaces/industries _are_ | splashing out for $7K workstations. Would love to hear from | people whose workplaces do provide such things. | | I wouldn't expect many software engineers to be answering in | the affirmative but I suspect it may be fairly common in other | realms... | pier25 wrote: | I think this new Mac Pro is more geared for PCIe developers so | they can start testing drivers etc and the big launch will be | with the M3. | | It really doesn't offer any huge benefits over the Mac Studio. | jonwinstanley wrote: | Yes presumably a decent % of previous Mac Pro customers are ok | with a Studio | pier25 wrote: | Yeah. I know a bunch of media composers that switched to the | M1 Studio from a Mac Pro and are very happy. | mhh__ wrote: | I know (of/first hand) a bunch of musicians who buy the top | of the line one every generation because they "need" it. For | video work you do need as much raw power as possible but for | just about anything else you can honestly get by with a | Macbook air these days (especially given that a lot of the | top of the line customers are probably using external inputs | rather than software synths!) | DevKoala wrote: | I didn't see a reason to upgrade and I feel I am their audience | here, I own the last one. | squokko wrote: | People with the immediately previous generation are not usually | the audience. This was only the case for iPhone between about | 2011-2019. | spacedcowboy wrote: | I'm vaguely considering it because it does 8K video, and it'd | be nice to replace three 4K monitors with an 8K screen. | | But that's quite the price bump. The M1 Ultra studio handles my | workload pretty well, so I'll maybe save up my pennies for the | Vision Pro. | justinator wrote: | TBF I had the Macbook from 2015 before I felt like upgrading to | the M1 in 2021. You usually buy Macs every year? | quijoteuniv wrote: | Almost no-one do, however there is a bunch that buys new cars | and flip them all the time! | cpmsmith wrote: | Well, the previous Pro came out in 2019 (and the model before | that 2013). Every four years is not unreasonable. | | https://everymac.com/ultimate-mac- | lookup/?search_keywords=A1... | justinator wrote: | First/last Mac Studio was released in 2022 which is I | thought what we were talking about | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Studio | ghaff wrote: | I did get an Apple Silicon MacBook 18 months or so ago but my | 2015 MacBook Pro is still fine for pretty much everything | except ML and video/image processing. | ttfkam wrote: | Or anything that requires a quieter, fan-noise-less | environment that doesn't burn your lap on direct skin | contact. But yeah, the 2015 MBP was a truly great model | that precedes soldered RAM and USB-C-only port selection. | ghaff wrote: | Yeah, it predated the infamous butterfly keyboard and | touch bar. Mine did have to have its screen replaced | (which Apple extended the warranty on because of a | manufacturing issue) and I've also had a new battery | installed but it still works pretty well on my dining | room table for day to day purposes (which are mostly web- | based use of some sort). | | But it's got a lot of miles on it. No complaints. | CyberDildonics wrote: | Don't you think their audience might be people who do have a | reason to upgrade? | detourdog wrote: | Their audience hasn't had a 6 slotted mac since the 9600. | osti wrote: | Mac Pro and Mac Studio, spec'd to the same max Ultra cpu, 192GB | ram, 1tb ssd, Mac Pro is $9600, while the Mac Studio is $6600. | How many people really need the Mac Pro's PCI-E expandability | (which probably no third party GPU's can use) to justify the | $3000 premium, in an arguably worse form factor? | skunkworker wrote: | It's a little interesting that that are going to the Video 1st/ | Training second model and abandoning the HPC market where they | can't compete with high, multi TB workstations. | | But I guess it's playing to the strength that video decode/encode | has right now with the M series chips. | | I wish that they would have a tiered memory expansion, eg 192gb | fast tier, and expandable to 1.5TB slower but DDR5 expandable. | lowbloodsugar wrote: | I imagine they did the research and found that most people with | HPC needs are just renting it, and those that aren't renting | aren't filling a data center with fucking apples. | vbezhenar wrote: | They're just ridiculous with Mac Pro pricing. $3k for pretty | chassis and $3.5k for chassis with wheels. It's a joke. They | didn't even match specs for previous Intel Mac Pro, when it comes | to RAM. | | IMO this announcement is just a funeral for this product. | | Mac Studio is fine, I guess... I hate small computers so I would | prefer huge empty box with lots of air inside which is likely to | be silent. But not with this overprice. | freeqaz wrote: | Does anybody have the specs on the M2 Ultra chip? Looks like it | supports up to 192GB of unified RAM, which is twice the 96GB of | the M2 Max, so is this just 4 silicon dies jammed up against each | other? (Apple website hasn't been updated yet with this info, but | I'm very curious!) | | Edit: Ah, looks like they made a separate press release with that | info here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36199637 | roughly wrote: | I'd been wondering how they were going to handle expandable | memory with the M chip, since the integrated memory seemed pretty | central to the design - seems like the answer is, "they're not." | Be interested to see if PCI expansion is sufficient to satisfy | the Max Pro market. | kllrnohj wrote: | The integrated memory design doesn't prevent doing it over a | dimm slot. It seems more they just didn't want to deal with a | ddr5 or some bespoke connector. | qwytw wrote: | Also allowing users to upgrade RAM themselves would lower | Apples margin and their computers would remain usable for | much longer which would result in even less profits... Now | Apple can release a 512 GB version in a year or two then a | 1TB one etc. | | The technical issues are totally insignificant compared to | this. | | Edit: having said this extra memory for Mac Pro seems cheap | as f** by Apple standards. Just $800 for 64 -> 128GB. 8 -> | 24GB for Mac mini/Air is $400 and you only get 48GB for $800 | in a MBP. | bee_rider wrote: | Everything seems slightly parallel-universe in Apple world, | looking at it from over here in x86/linux land. | | I can see why they'd decide to go in-package with their memory, | it is really very fast. And 192GB of memory is not a huge | amount of memory in server/HPC land, but it is still a decent | chunk of space. You could load up a Mac Pro with a bunch of | PCIe nvme drives or something, I wonder if it would really be | that hard to adapt to that. | | I certainly wouldn't turn down the chance to try, haha. | AprilArcus wrote: | NVMe wouldn't give you the best latency, but a 16x PCIe card | loaded with DRAM and addressable as a scratch disk doesn't | sound bananas. I wonder why Apple didn't market something | like that as a first party solution. | tiffanyh wrote: | Mac Pro = Mac Studio + Expansion Cards | | I have to imagine this will be a huge disappointment to some, | because 192GB of shared memory is way less than the 1.5TB of | RAM available on the "old" Mac Pro. | peoplearepeople wrote: | Perhaps someone will come out with a new PCIe card with a | load of RAM slots on it, and then writes a kernel driver to | map the pcie card pages to appear as regular pages | PlutoIsAPlanet wrote: | You could use them as some kind of swap or ram disk, but I | don't believe as normal RAM would be possible due to how | CPUs work. | Kon-Peki wrote: | That's an interesting idea. But do you actually need to go | all the way to making the extra memory appear as a | contiguous part of the system memory? I am thinking about | CUDA unified memory and perhaps some parallels to your | idea. | | The number of applications that are likely to use the extra | memory is probably pretty small. So if you have some sort | of framework that those developers can integrate into their | software, you've probably done everything you need to do. | sliken wrote: | 192GB ram does seem like enough for a large fraction of the | potential market, especially @ 800GB/sec which makes it much | more usable than similar amounts of ram on Intel/AMD desktops | at 1/8th the bandwidth. | StillBored wrote: | Except that my fairly modest upper midrange desktop has | ~1.2TB/sec of memory bandwidth... | | Cause, I just added the GPU and system RAM bandwidth numbers | together. Which is what needs to be kept in mind with much of | this. Yes that is a lot of memory bandwidth and its hella | useful for some subset of users, but its shared, and largely | pointless for a lot of CPU bound tasks. But OTOH, may not be | enough for many GPU bound ones. | | It also assumes that pretty much every other CPU manufacture | on the planet are idiots for optimizing for latency and | putting in large caches to compensate (aka the desktop parts | from AMD/intel have only _two_ channels, vs the 8+ in the | server/workstation parts) and price discriminating for the | parts that have more CPU bandwidth. AKA, you can get amd | machines in the same ballpark (or possibly faster depending | on how fast you can get 24 channels of DDR5 to run). | | So, I'm not saying which is better because its likely | workload dependent, but to claim its a blanket insurmountable | advantage is questionable. Particularly since the price | ranges we are talking about a similar machine is probably a | 64 core threadripper plus a fat nvidia GPU or four and the | shear core count and raw GPU compute is probably a win in | most workloads. | USB5 wrote: | I just built a workstation with a 32 core Threadripper Pro, | 128 GB ECC RAM, Thunderbolt 4, and an RTX 4090 for $6,500. | sliken wrote: | Likely better on any workloads that are GPU heavy and fit | in 24GB of vram. | | Two data points from Apple: a) M2 Ultra | 24 cores, 128GB ram, 2TB storage = $5,200 b) M2 | ultra 24 cores, 192GB ram, 4GB storage = $6,600 | | Likely 1/4th the size, 1/4th the power consumption, and | 4x the ram bandwidth. Have you by chance played with any | LLMs? Just saw a post that someone managed 5 tokens/sec | with the llama 65B model. | sliken wrote: | Sure, but what if a normal C code needs more bandwidth? | | Or if a GPU code needs more than 12-16GB of memory (normal | cards) or 24GB (if you get a 4090)? | | What I like about the apple approach is that low end | laptops/desktops get 100GB/sec. Pay another $500 get | 200GB/sec. Pay another $500 get 400GB/sec. Pay another | $1000 get 800GB/sec and still fits in a small desktop. On | the PC side with AMD/Intel you get the same memory | bandwidth for the low, medium, and high end chips. Until | you upgrade to a threadripper, which is a 280 watt chip, on | an expensive motherboard, usually in a rather large PC case | and makes the mac studio look cheap. | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | This is competing with servers though, and Epyc 9004 series | has 460 GB/sec (and up to 6TB of ram per socket). Apple still | gives you faster connection, but I feel like servers below | 256GB ram are pretty rare these days. | 221qqwe wrote: | > much more usable than similar amounts of ram | | People keep repeating this but how does higher bandwidth | (probably not 8x higher though) compensate for a lower amount | of RAM? | | It's not quite as silly as the people saying that 8GB in the | base config 'feels' much faster than 8GB on a PC cause the | drive/swap are "so fast" but still.. | lambdasquirrel wrote: | Maybe it adds another step to the memory mountain? Folks | who use these kinds of workstations might think of in- | package RAM as just the next level of cache, if someone | goes ahead and makes a card with comparatively slower | memory card slots. | pwthornton wrote: | The approach they took is certainly enough to satisfy the video | and related markets. It won't help those who need truly | staggering amounts of ram for their workloads. It may not be a | big use case for the Intel Mac Pro, but it a use case | nonetheless. | | For video editing, color grading, audio editing, 3D animation, | etc. this new machine seems really strong. I am not sure if | there is anything beyond that, however. | USB5 wrote: | >3D animation | | Disagree. All the good GPU-based rendering engines need CUDA, | and none of them are optimized for Apple silicon. Octane (the | one in the demo) is trash, only good for fancy titles and | that sort of thing. | WWLink wrote: | I think that was deliberate. I am kinda amused at how they | keep on narrowing the scope of what the mac pro is intended | to be used for lol. | gumby wrote: | They probably have very good data on how their machines are | used, and are optimizing for the fat part of the market. | | This may not be a great machine for training models, which | is what I happen care about (I couldn't care less about | video). I wonder how big the model generation market | actually is though. | tibbydudeza wrote: | Damm the annotated voice mail feature seems awesome feature. | tiffanyh wrote: | Seems clear to me that Apple never wanted to launch the Intel Mac | Pro (cheese grater), but they saw a timing gap between the trash- | can Mac Pro and the Mac Studio that needed to be filled. | mschuster91 wrote: | The return of the rack-mount Mac? Nice one, Apple. | | But do I get it right, a _professional_ machine with zero ways to | upgrade the system? Come on. | robertoandred wrote: | They've sold rack-mount Mac Pros since 2019. | mixmastamyk wrote: | Did you miss the 6 expansion slots? The 8 TB ports? | mschuster91 wrote: | I was talking about RAM and the CPU. | ohgodplsno wrote: | >Today, Apple is carbon neutral for global corporate operations | and is focused on its Apple 2030 goal to make every product | carbon neutral. This means every Mac Apple creates, from design | to manufacturing to customer use, will have net-zero climate | impact. | | I love my bullshit green washing of hunks of metal produced by | the millions too. Buying carbon credits from I-Promise-I-Will- | Plant-Trees Inc. is still lying, Apple. | nojito wrote: | Just 1/5 of their total carbon neutral claim is from purchasing | credits. I am sure it is even lower in 2023. | hollerith wrote: | >This means every Mac Apple creates, from design to | manufacturing to customer use, will have net-zero climate | impact. | | My guess is that the largest contributor to carbon emissions | comes from Apple's employees living their lives: Apple pays the | employee a salary, then the employee uses that salary in a way | that result in heavy carbon emissions unless that employee is | one of the very few who seriously rearrange their lives to | intentionally pessimize their climate impact. | | I doubt Apple is counting that. | threeseed wrote: | > I doubt Apple is counting that. | | Actually Apple hires private investigators to spy on the | activities of their employees in order to determine how much | carbon to offset. | | Common knowledge. | modeless wrote: | I wouldn't buy a $7000 computer without a discrete GPU. | throw74775 wrote: | What if you needed its other features? | thx-2718 wrote: | It's a computer. I'm sure the other features are available in | other packages in one form or another. | | That said, for business-to-business I bet these are great | machines. | throw74775 wrote: | [flagged] | bee_rider wrote: | If one of your requirements is running macOS, I guess it | will be hard to get elsewhere. | dralley wrote: | Depends. The "integrated" GPU shares a memory address space | with the CPU. Depending on the workload that can compensate | quite a bit. | dvwobuq wrote: | Bad news everyone, modeless isn't buying one. On the other hand | I look forward to the steep discounts to be had at Apple's | going out of business sale... | emmelaich wrote: | With all those thunderbolt ports you could add eight eGPUs. | wmf wrote: | No you couldn't because eGPUs are not supported. | freen wrote: | Not yet. | Grazester wrote: | Yeah and when it is it would be for next generation | hardware. | bee_rider wrote: | The PCIe slots look easy enough to get at. | jsheard wrote: | Apple showed a lineup of compatible PCIe cards, with a | variety of accelerators and I/O hardware but conspicuously no | GPUs. | | https://i.imgur.com/28J1KfN.jpg | | The Apple Silicon transition ended support for external GPUs, | so I think it's safe to assume they won't support internal | ones either. | jmkni wrote: | Man I'm so out of what's going on with desktop computing | lol, feeling old | | Could somebody explain what these are? | BXlnt2EachOther wrote: | left to right, had to search a few of them. You're | probably not out of it, it's just relatively niche | professional stuff. Half of them are only relevant for | media professionals for example. | | Sonnet card - adds storage via a couple SATA SSDs | | OWC 8M2 - adds storage via up to 8 NVME drives | | Avid HDX card, runs DSP for ProTools (audio) | | Kona 5, video capture and I/O | | Lynx E44, high-quality audio I/O | | Blackmagic decklink SDI 4k - SDI video capture | | ATTO high-speed ethernet card, maybe 50GbE | | ATTO Celerity Fibre Channel Adapter - Storage HBA | | edit to add linebreaks | jmkni wrote: | Nice thankyou! | mixmastamyk wrote: | Expansion cards, they were supported by the original PC | from the 80s and even before that. | jmkni wrote: | I'm not that old lol, was wondering specifically what | they were | mixmastamyk wrote: | As you can see they're still a thing, so you could be any | age from 0-60. | 0xcde4c3db wrote: | The product page specifically touts the Radeon Pro W6800X | Duo. | jsheard wrote: | The product page hasn't been updated yet, it's still | describing the Intel model. | | If it were current then they'd have something newer than | the years-old W6800X Duo. | 0xcde4c3db wrote: | Sorry, you're right. I thought I saw a mention of an M2 | spec, but it must have been something else. | musicale wrote: | > conspicuously no GPUs | | That is interesting. I wonder how hard it would be to do | PCI passthrough to enable GPUs to work with Windows 11 ARM | running in a VM? | | I wonder if it is even possible to write a driver for an | external GPU for macOS on Apple Silicon? It seems that | Metal on macOS Sonoma intel still supports external GPUs. | bee_rider wrote: | I guess (although, I don't actually know, low level stuff | is confusing) this is an OS thing, right? Rather than | hardware. Of course since it is Apple, the concept is | bundled together anyway. But I wonder if Asahi Linux could | bring support? | modeless wrote: | Anything you install is a brick unless hardware vendors port | their drivers. | whynotminot wrote: | Isn't that true of any PCIe device? Is Apple supposed to | develop their drivers too? | modeless wrote: | Apple is supposed to maintain good relationships with | hardware vendors and support them in porting their | drivers. Apple has done a poor job of this. They are | practically enemies with Nvidia due to legal disputes and | as a result I don't expect to see an Nvidia driver for | Apple Silicon in the foreseeable future. Maybe AMD or | Intel will write one but at least one should have | happened before launch. | whynotminot wrote: | Are they? I think you want a PC. Which is totally fine. | | Microsoft goes around playing nice with every Tom, Dick | and Harry with a hardware device and a dream. Apple in | recent memory has never been that company. | alwillis wrote: | You're not the target audience. | Octoth0rpe wrote: | I would consider that for many people in your position, the | desire for a discrete GPU is a proxy for the real desire, which | could be one of several things: - Performance, which apple's | GPUs may compete sufficiently with - Upgradeability, which | apple's GPUs may not compete sufficiently with | | If all you care about is the performance, does it really matter | if that perf is achieved via a discrete or integrated GPU? | modeless wrote: | Apple's GPU does not compete sufficiently with the discrete | GPUs one would put in a $7000 PC. | imdsm wrote: | Out of curiosity, what is your benchmark here? I have a | $2000 RTX card that is great for games, but pretty poor for | LLMs. For LLM development, I'd be much happier with a | Studio and an M2 Ultra. How much would it cost me to get | 192 GB in discreet cards I wonder? | singhrac wrote: | I think the statement "I'd be much happier with a Studio" | is a little hypothetical? Sorry if that's not true, but | everywhere I've looked, it seems like these are not ML | training chips, and people are just hoping they will | handle LLMs well. | | You can absolutely build (with real support from the | PyTorch folks) a 4x3090 deep learning workstation that | has 96 GB of VRAM for roughly $7k. Or, more likely, | you'll rent a A100 from AWS for ~$0.15/hr. | tolmasky wrote: | The best part to me is that this looks like a "platform" that can | be updated year over year. They can just keep putting the updated | M-whatever chip in it (and hopefully eventually figure out how to | quadruple it vs. just having the Ultra). Ideally they can bump it | up to PCIe 5 and Thunderbolt 5 "easily" too. In other words, the | fact that this is so similar to the Mac Studio means it hopefully | won't suffer the same fate as the previous "one-hit wonder" Mac | Pros. An M3 (3nm) Mac Pro with PCIe5 and Thunderbolt 5 would be a | very good machine I think. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-05 23:01 UTC)