4 ms·
You said: > So Apple wasn't able to increase performance (or even ram capacity) You were simply wrong. Why not just admit that?
by 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 agoI 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 agoThis 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 agoIn 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 agoWhy? 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 agoI 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.