Apple should have gone AMD

[hishnash]

8 minutes ago, Luscious said:

The fact that Apple's boxes are using LAST GEN Xeon parts probably means they're getting a significant price cut from Intel alongside now being the clearing house for old inventory.

the mac Pro has the latest gen Xeons.
 

8 minutes ago, Luscious said:

I am thinking this is the same deal with Mac OS as well. The 256GB RAM limit of TR is a moot point if the OS you want to use isn't supported, and MacOS doesn't even have a server variant.

MacOS is based on BSD and have in the past shipped with multi CPU solutions, like linux there is not need for a server variant as the kernel is already very capable of many numa nodes. Like linux developers are encouraged to use many threads: for example PyCharm on my system sitting in the background idle is using 72 threads and the OS has no issues with this. Most applications will sit idle between 30 and 80 threads on macOS, the kernel can handle this without an issue. While sitting just editing this page my Kernel is currently using 296 threads. Also as a 64bit only OS all parts of the system can make use of way more memory than the 1.5TB limit of the macPro.
 

8 minutes ago, Luscious said:

Sure, in an ideal world we could choose between a 2P Rome or Xeon workstation, but we have reached the point where the operating system is now the bottleneck.

MacOS would not have any issus with using such a setup.

[Luscious]

8 hours ago, hishnash said:

the mac Pro has the latest gen Xeons.
 

MacOS is based on BSD and have in the past shipped with multi CPU solutions, like linux there is not need for a server variant as the kernel is already very capable of many numa nodes. Like linux developers are encouraged to use many threads: for example PyCharm on my system sitting in the background idle is using 72 threads and the OS has no issues with this. Most applications will sit idle between 30 and 80 threads on macOS, the kernel can handle this without an issue. While sitting just editing this page my Kernel is currently using 296 threads. Also as a 64bit only OS all parts of the system can make use of way more memory than the 1.5TB limit of the macPro.
 

MacOS would not have any issus with using such a setup.

1. My bad. I was looking at the 2P Xeon variants.

 

2. Didn't know MacOS was based on BSD/Linux.

 

3. True except if you need consumer Windows. That rules Epyc out and leaves 1P TR as the only AMD option. But without Apple support (and drivers) I doubt MacOS in the future will be able to be installed on non-Apple hardware. The days of the Hackintosh are numbered, more so with that T2 chip now soldered to the boards. It would be a fun experiment though - Dual Rome running MacOS.

[SupaKomputa]

1 hour ago, Luscious said:

True except if you need consumer Windows. That rules Epyc out and leaves 1P TR as the only AMD option. But without Apple support (and drivers) I doubt MacOS in the future will be able to be installed on non-Apple hardware. The days of the Hackintosh are numbered, more so with that T2 chip now soldered to the boards. It would be a fun experiment though - Dual Rome running MacOS.

On the contrary. Ryzentosh will florish. Even without official support amd cpu and nvidia gpu is relatively usable.

 

Apple dont care with hackintosh community. I even think they can be a free Guinea Pig bug tester.

 

Enthusiast was never their market to begin with.

[GoldenLag]

14 hours ago, hishnash said:

But that would then have the price tag of an Epyc

i think you shouldnt forget that Epyc is actually rather cheap..........

 

there is certainly a markup, but its not a big one. 

[AirieFenix]

4 hours ago, Luscious said:

 

 

2. Didn't know MacOS was based on BSD/Linux.

 

 

BSD, not Linux.

 

See this image: UNIX tree

[spartaman64]

17 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

It really shouldn't. It's completely missing workstation features, most glaringly error correcting memory, 6/8 channel memory support, dramatically less PCI lanes, etc.

but doesnt even ryzen support ecc memory they just dont support registered memory

[spartaman64]

but intel has better gaming performance

[Zberg]

13 hours ago, Luscious said:

Only Apple can get away with marking up last gen tech for the ripoff prices they're asking LOL.

Ya this is so true.  Part of this is also coming from apple only user-reviewers who are firing it up and going crazy for how fast it is, with their main comparison being either an imac pro or their macbook pro (I know, an absolutely ludacris comparison, but for some reason multiple reviewers seem to think this is relevant).  "Hey look how great this is, it beats the pants off of my last gen apple product that had overpriced, throttled, underperforming hardware on a completely different SKU, so it must be a beast!"  No comparisons ever really offered to actual alternative products which is why they tend to be more fanboy / "look how shiny and pretty!" reviews than anything of actual substance. 

 

It would be like getting a ferrari with a 4 cylinder engine in it and being thrilled that it goes faster than your e-bike for a markup of 5000%.

[SolarNova]

19 hours ago, CPotter said:

 

Headline: Apply products, Overly Expensive !

 

In other news

 

Water, Wet !

[alextulu]

Why do you need special bootcamp divers for the GPU? Does AMD make different SKUs just for the Mac?

 

If you get an off the shelf AMD graphics card, can you use the regular drivers?

[hishnash]

8 hours ago, Luscious said:

1. My bad. I was looking at the 2P Xeon variants.

 

2. Didn't know MacOS was based on BSD/Linux.

 

3. True except if you need consumer Windows. That rules Epyc out and leaves 1P TR as the only AMD option. But without Apple support (and drivers) I doubt MacOS in the future will be able to be installed on non-Apple hardware. The days of the Hackintosh are numbered, more so with that T2 chip now soldered to the boards. It would be a fun experiment though - Dual Rome running MacOS.

apple is not going to right drivers for hardware they dont sell. but since macos kernel is open source it would be very hard for apple to stop hackentosh completely. 

T2 has no effect on hackentosh at all since the protections it provides are there to stop someone intercepting the secure boot and running other code before the OS start us, however if your on a system without a T2 chip you can run any code you like before the OS boots (that is how a hackentosh boots)

Apple could make changes to the OS that require a T2 but that will be at least 5 years away since apple arer still selling machines without T2 chips and they tend to support new OS releases for at least 5 years on new hardware.

Also even if they did put in such requirements due to the kernel being open source it would not be impossible to bypass them, (if you control the kernel you control what runs and you can patch any executable at any time).

The only thing they could do is move large segments of the OS to run exclusively on the T2, this would be a lot of work, it would have a large perfomance hit and would not benefit apple in any way. The lost sales due to hackentosh (if there are any lost sales at all) is not worth the development effort and drop in performance (and thus real lost sales) for all their real customers.

[Commodus]

3 hours ago, Zberg said:

Ya this is so true.  Part of this is also coming from apple only user-reviewers who are firing it up and going crazy for how fast it is, with their main comparison being either an imac pro or their macbook pro (I know, an absolutely ludacris comparison, but for some reason multiple reviewers seem to think this is relevant).  "Hey look how great this is, it beats the pants off of my last gen apple product that had overpriced, throttled, underperforming hardware on a completely different SKU, so it must be a beast!"  No comparisons ever really offered to actual alternative products which is why they tend to be more fanboy / "look how shiny and pretty!" reviews than anything of actual substance. 

 

It would be like getting a ferrari with a 4 cylinder engine in it and being thrilled that it goes faster than your e-bike for a markup of 5000%.

How is that an irrelevant comparison?

 

Unless you're completely new to the media editing landscape, you're probably going to compare the Mac Pro to systems that would fit inside your existing workflow.  And two of the biggest questions for people in the Mac workflow are "should I get this or an iMac Pro?" and "just how much of a gain will I see over my MacBook Pro?"  Unless you're so absolutely, completely frustrated with your toolset that you're willing to spend many thousands of dollars (plus weeks or months of retraining) to switch workflows, this holds up.

 

Plus, it's a bit rich to complain about benchmarking comparisons when LTT practically went out of its way to avoid testing in the areas where Apple is marketing the machine; I saw a couple of things like a narrow After Effects test, but not much else.  While it is fair to ask if a Mac Pro would be the best possible 3D modelling machine, LTT is glossing over some pretty important real-world questions.  And why the hell would you even look at gaming benchmarks?  They're not representative of pro 3D modelling, and no one is buying a high-end workstation (regardless of manufacturer) to see how well it handles their game library.

 

Besides, whether or not Apple could have asked AMD for custom chips, the truth is that Threadripper as-is would've been a no-go given the Mac Pro's intended market.  You can't sell a machine with a 256GB practical memory ceiling to audio and video editors who either need more RAM right now or will likely need more within a few years.  Hell, there are even photographers who can use more than 256GB.  Apple may be trying to satisfy a fairly specific market, but it has to meet that market's broader needs... and in some cases, RAM matters more than core count.

 

 

[hishnash]

18 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Besides, whether or not Apple could have asked AMD for custom chips, the truth is that Threadripper as-is would've been a no-go given the Mac Pro's intended market.  You can't sell a machine with a 256GB practical memory ceiling to audio and video editors who either need more RAM right now or will likely need more within a few years.  Hell, there are even photographers who can use more than 256GB.  Apple may be trying to satisfy a fairly specific market, but it has to meet that market's broader needs... and in some cases, RAM matters more than core count.

Well put. 

I think a lot of youtuber's want a macPro to fit their use-case, but in reality youtube level editing/composing/3d is amateur compared to the market the macPro is targeting.  

The idea that a consumer GPU with 12GB of VRAM is even compatible to a gpu with 32GB of VRAM is a clear example of this. If your task needs 12.1GB of VRAM that gpu will perform massively worse than the (otherwise on paper slower) 32GB VRAM gpu.

[Bradamante]

OK video, but there are a few points you missed (probably because you are not really coming from a Mac user or hackintosh perspective) that I would have mentioned:

_ One of the big innovations of the iMac Pro was the Raid 0 SSD setup, achieving data rates above 3GB/s (roughly speaking here). It continues on the Mac Pro. The Raid 0 pushes that to somewhere between 4-6 GB/s. Interestingly the Corsair MP600 (i.e. the PCI 4 SSD) does work under macOS (see Snazzy Labs video) achieving similiar data rates, making the Raid 0 kinda obsolete. Another point for AMD.

_ One important reason why pros shy away from hackintoshes (which have been an attractive alternative for years now) is the lack of support for ECC RAM on Intel desktop or HEDT platforms. Now I doubt that every "pro" I see in discussions on Mac online forums actually needs ECC RAM, but it's often the killer argument. In comes Ryzen and Threadripper which do support ECC RAM. Unfortunately I haven't seen anyone test that out on a hackintosh yet though.

_ AMD for Apple is not entirely unheard of. Many moons ago - I think it was in the early days of the Intel Core i platform - there was a rumor saying that Steve Jobs was pissed about Intel not supplying chips for the Mac Book Air and therefore threatening to buy AMD triple cores. Didn't come to fruition, obviously.

 

There is a reason however that speaks against Apple and AMD - and that's Thunderbolt. Despite recent developments TB is still pretty much Intel-only, yet a lot of Apple pros own TB devices. Not sure what Apple's solution could have been in this regard.

[williamcll]

Mind you, recent apple software did hint of using Zen 2 APUs and the fact that most hackintoshes could operate ryzen this isn't too far fetched.