3 ms·

These are minor improvements over the M1 series in line with the other released M2 chips. For a 1 year delay to the original transition timeline and skipping th

by stirlo 3y ago

These are minor improvements over the M1 series in line with the other released M2 chips. For a 1 year delay to the original transition timeline and skipping the first generation it's reasonable to expect something more than the high end Ultra chip in a new form factor. How about a 4x, 8x and 16x M2 Max chiplet design which would have truly been next level...

gjsman-1000 3y ago
> How about a 4x, 8x and 16x M2 Max chiplet design which would have truly been next level... That was entirely Bloomberg BSing. The people working on reverse-engineering Apple Silicon said that idea was infeasible all the way back in 2021.
- stirlo 3y ago
  Its true that Hector Martin said they didn't have the ability to add another interconnect like they did to double the Max to get Ultra. But that ignores the entirely different chip design T6500 which was assumed to be for the new Mac Pro. No technical details of it ever leaked but its reasonable to assume it would offer higher performance than the T6002 chips which became M1 Max/Ultra
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    > But that ignores the entirely different chip design T6500 which was assumed to be for the new Mac Pro. The thing about leaks is that they aren't confirmed and might, literally, not exist. In which case, you might be upset at Apple for not releasing a chip that they literally never made. Anyone can make up a fake chip number, create a Chinese account, and make a fake leak for clicks or the lulz, or reach out to a legitimate leaker and mislead them. But let's say it did exist. You are assuming that it can be mass-produced, even in small quantities, without immense waste or excessive resources, or at a R&D cost or tooling cost so large that it will never break even. Some things are just experiments.
throw74775 3y ago
You said: > So Apple wasn't able to increase performance (or even ram capacity) You were simply wrong. Why not just admit that?
- stirlo 3y ago
  I never mentioned a comparison with M1 Ultra. I was referring to a step above the Ultra series. From the moment the M2 chip was announced with increased RAM, CPU and graphics cores it was obvious all these benefits would come to Pro/Max and Ultra series. The point is that Ultra remains the top of the line chip. There's no Mac Pro exclusive chip that lives on another level of performance.
  - throw74775 3y ago
    This is true, but I also don’t see why it matters. In practice most users who want the highest performance level will choose the Mac Studio form factor, which is far more convenient. The Pro chassis is an alternative enclosure for use cases that require PCI expansion cards for niche applications.
    - stirlo 3y ago
      In the pre Apple Silicon days the highest performance was always exclusive to the Mac Pro. It’s disappointing that Apple wasn’t able to make something better than an Ultra chip and the RAM limit for the new Mac Pro has decreased and is no different to the studio.
      - throw74775 3y ago
        Why? Nostalgia for an old product range? It seems better not to have to buy that clunky enclosure if you don’t need it.
- helmholtz 3y ago
  I think what the parent meant is that, once Apple decided that the Mac Pro should have the M2 chips, they must have targetted feature parity with the intel versions, aka in the amount of RAM. But presumably, they couldn't get there despite the extra year.

by stirlo 3y ago

gjsman-1000 3y ago

> How about a 4x, 8x and 16x M2 Max chiplet design which would have truly been next level... That was entirely Bloomberg BSing. The people working on reverse-engineering Apple Silicon said that idea was infeasible all the way back in 2021.

stirlo 3y ago
Its true that Hector Martin said they didn't have the ability to add another interconnect like they did to double the Max to get Ultra. But that ignores the entirely different chip design T6500 which was assumed to be for the new Mac Pro. No technical details of it ever leaked but its reasonable to assume it would offer higher performance than the T6002 chips which became M1 Max/Ultra
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  > But that ignores the entirely different chip design T6500 which was assumed to be for the new Mac Pro. The thing about leaks is that they aren't confirmed and might, literally, not exist. In which case, you might be upset at Apple for not releasing a chip that they literally never made. Anyone can make up a fake chip number, create a Chinese account, and make a fake leak for clicks or the lulz, or reach out to a legitimate leaker and mislead them. But let's say it did exist. You are assuming that it can be mass-produced, even in small quantities, without immense waste or excessive resources, or at a R&D cost or tooling cost so large that it will never break even. Some things are just experiments.

throw74775 3y ago

You said: > So Apple wasn't able to increase performance (or even ram capacity) You were simply wrong. Why not just admit that?

stirlo 3y ago
I never mentioned a comparison with M1 Ultra. I was referring to a step above the Ultra series. From the moment the M2 chip was announced with increased RAM, CPU and graphics cores it was obvious all these benefits would come to Pro/Max and Ultra series. The point is that Ultra remains the top of the line chip. There's no Mac Pro exclusive chip that lives on another level of performance.
- throw74775 3y ago
  This is true, but I also don’t see why it matters. In practice most users who want the highest performance level will choose the Mac Studio form factor, which is far more convenient. The Pro chassis is an alternative enclosure for use cases that require PCI expansion cards for niche applications.
  - stirlo 3y ago
    In the pre Apple Silicon days the highest performance was always exclusive to the Mac Pro. It’s disappointing that Apple wasn’t able to make something better than an Ultra chip and the RAM limit for the new Mac Pro has decreased and is no different to the studio.
    - throw74775 3y ago
      Why? Nostalgia for an old product range? It seems better not to have to buy that clunky enclosure if you don’t need it.
helmholtz 3y ago
I think what the parent meant is that, once Apple decided that the Mac Pro should have the M2 chips, they must have targetted feature parity with the intel versions, aka in the amount of RAM. But presumably, they couldn't get there despite the extra year.