You must log in or register to comment.

deputytech t1_itiwxez wrote

Man that thing would be perfect for my professional life of browsing Reddit all day.


dotmax t1_itk3x12 wrote

And you’d still get “This Website Is Using Significant Memory” message.


contactlite t1_itkoxm7 wrote

If only we could download the iPad app on MacOS. The any browser version is a pig.


spaceraingame t1_itiwd38 wrote

And it’ll only cost at least $25,000!


TwitchFunnyguy77 t1_itjoxp5 wrote

I know Reddit is anti-Apple anything so I'll probably be downvoted, but people do realize this is not marketed to general / avg consumers, right? $25,000 workstations are nothing new, regardless if they're made by Apple or not.


spaceraingame t1_itjqqjw wrote

That $25,000 was a joke. I made that figure up. I have no idea what it costs.


drjonase t1_itkahqf wrote

It’s realistic. But you can use it at least 3-4 years to make 300-800k and the expanse is 100% deductible.

Apple has some ridiculous pricing on some parts but their original hardware is really good and comparing to pro workstations by Dell and HP not much more expansive


johansugarev t1_itl8ogd wrote

The current one costs between $6k-$45k. I suspect the higher end configs will come down in price but the ones that make sense will be around the $10-15k range as they have always been.


ArionIV t1_itkacg7 wrote

Nah you're not allowed to kid about Apple ever /s


mangodelvxe t1_itkvp3i wrote

Wtf do yo you mean? Reddit is constantly sucking off Apple in every tech sub on here


Nytonial t1_itkoln9 wrote

So because insulin isn't aimed at the average person we can charge 20k for it?

Apple making something cost an obscene amount of money, with an obscene markup, for no reason other than pure greed is why we hate them


benanderson89 t1_itkp4j2 wrote

The MacPro and MacBook Pros in the workstation market are some of the more affordable options


Nytonial t1_itkpaci wrote

Because they aren't workstation spec unless you mean "contain software you're trapped into" as a reason they are a workstation

They are average hardware with shocking thermals, untill m1, which isn't compatible with enough yet


benanderson89 t1_itkqkww wrote

They've always been workstation grade hardware because they've been designed for specialised tasks with certifications from software vendors and optimised for a strict subset of tasks. The previous intel systems had dedicated hardware for video (EG the T2 chip in many models doubled as a transcode processor), ECC Graphics RAM and were highly optimised 2D Image and Audio processing. Current ARM systems are highly optimised for high memory throughput applications and multi-processing (and the genius NUMA implementation in the M1 Max Ultra is a legitimately innovative piece of technology; the interconnect between the two domains being as fast as local node memory is a stunning achievement).

The reason Apple sell so many systems to business is because they're a good buy for business and price and feature competitive with other *nix systems like the Dell Precision, Lenovo ThinkPad or HP Z. Not checked the pricing on the IBM Power systems recently but I imagine those are going to be astronomically priced by comparison.


Nytonial t1_itku879 wrote

"designed for specialised tasks" is that a fancy way of saying browsing Facebook? Since anything else would cook them down to 1ghz speeds.

While I agree m1 is a big change and actually incredible development, nothing about intel Mac's was workstation class without excessive gatekeeping mentality.


mocha-only t1_itkqjbi wrote

What a shit comparison—lifesaving drug for some vs. powerful computer. Gunna hit you with a wild thought: if you don’t like apple no one’s gunna make you buy it.


Nytonial t1_itkul08 wrote

The issue is apple sets examples and pushes stupid design choices into the industry.

I complain because if apple fans stopped just accepting single usb ports, no expandable storage on iPhones and removal of basic features to charge more to users it wouldn't be so prevalent across the rest of the industry. I'm equally critical of Samsung and many pc manufacturers for example.

If people are valuing brushed aluminium and a high pixel count over actual computing ability AT AN EXTRA PREMIUM PRICE, yeah I'm going to ridicule it


mocha-only t1_itl2e0u wrote

Can you see Tim Apple in the room with you right now?


podaypodayson t1_itmbzwg wrote

The great thing about computers is that there are plenty of options to choose from. Apple hasn’t supported removable memory in iPhones since day one. If consumers really cared, android OEMs would have continued supporting it and grown market share. But the market has spoken. Most people don’t care (and one should note that android doesn’t officially support removable memory anyway).

The same follows here. If the Mac Pro isn’t a good value for the intended audience, that audience will leave the building.


podaypodayson t1_itkvd06 wrote

Well this is the dumbest take I’ve seen in years. Let me know when a Mac Pro is a lifesaving medication.


Nytonial t1_itkw4gc wrote

What does something not being life saving medication mean it's then absolutely ok to be bent over by a company charging a 200% markup?

Why be soo proud that you're making some apple shareholders ridiculously rich so you can have an underperforming fashion statement?


podaypodayson t1_itkwq4l wrote

I can’t believe you’re actually this daft.

• People who buy insulin do so in order to not die

• People who buy Apple products do so because they feel like it

If you think Apple products are too expensive, simply don’t buy them, and their pricing structure has no effect on your life. It’s pretty cool how easy it is!


[deleted] t1_itix1bt wrote



typehyDro t1_itiz9mn wrote

The link says it’s 999.00, which is still an absurd price for a stand. Want you Mac Pro on wheels? 699.00


[deleted] t1_itizmtv wrote



typehyDro t1_itjxb1e wrote

Don’t see the 2k version although a maxed out max pro right now is over 54k (not including any optional software)


TacosFixEverything t1_itjpqfh wrote

This whole comment thread stinks of poverty


spaceraingame t1_itjirbp wrote

It's $1k, but they STILL sell that thing? For that price you can buy a 3D printer and literally PRINT your own monitor stand!


Solid_Hunter_4188 t1_itk7zar wrote

Not saying the stand is worth it, but a $1000 printer is absolutely not going to have the tolerances to make you a a better stand.


APIPAMinusOneHundred t1_itk35er wrote

Don't forget that the power cord will not only not be included but you'll have to pay extra for the dongle to make it work.


babybambam t1_itk2uz1 wrote

Those specs sound $25k worthy…


dade35 t1_itl3bkp wrote

except those are like $10k worth of specs and its usually outclassed in every way by the cheaper option


Vizslaraptor t1_itixl5c wrote

No components are upgradable.


m0stly_toast t1_itjdqdz wrote

If you look at those specs and complain about not being able to upgrade the machine you’re just being obtuse.


KaJashey t1_itj3n4u wrote

It may not be. We been waiting to see what a pro machine would look like in the system on a chip world of apple silicon.

So far the nearest has been the Apple Studio where it's not internally upgradable.


cheekybeakykiwi t1_itjrlab wrote

Pro here.

Okay soooooooo expansion options and bus limits? All my workloads are shoveling data to expansion, or the number of I/O interfaces I can use.

Give me the number of pcie lanes and what version. 🤌🤌🤌


Saaihead t1_itkgm5e wrote

Yeah, this is exactly what I thought. The big pro of the Pro is the option to expand your Mac, I'm really curious how (or if) they are going to support PCI-E expansions. And if the huge amount of GPU cores will bring the same performance as a high end AMD GPU. Cause to me this sounds like a Mac Pro becoming less Pro.


yabaitanidehyousu t1_itktew4 wrote

Non-pro here.

I think they would have to be daft to force customers to move away from (end support for) their existing GPU dependencies (and investments), but then again, Apple is more focused on partner solutions, and they are in a position to support all major software vendors to switching their Metal implementations to any Apple Silicon based implementation.

Apple aims to make a workstation for high-brand software workflows and that is what they will do.

However, I think they have a long way to go to make a compelling ecosystem for high-end development. It’s already very restrictive with only one (edit: non-Apple) choice (AMD), and making that completely closed to Apple’s fledgling ecosystem is not attractive to me as a potential investment.


ShutterBun t1_itldgxq wrote

Fledgling ecosystem? Seriously?


yabaitanidehyousu t1_itngl9g wrote

We’re talking about removing support for PCIe expansion and depending on Apple Silicon. The whole transition to AS isn’t even complete yet. So, yes, fledgeling.

They have no discrete GPU, only SoC implementation.

Their ANE (APU) is the same and you need to convert into Core ML format.

Edit: I do not think they will actually drop support for PCIe because ARM-based SoCs can already implement PCIe.

But how support will look for existing devices is up to Apple and the vendors.

Putting expandability back into the pro was one of the major returns to form (as well as rack-mount), so I don’t see them going anywhere.


Skips-T t1_itk5a67 wrote



cheekybeakykiwi t1_itk780a wrote

is there a new bus technology you'd like to educate me about?

I know IBM/Mainframes tend to be on the front foot on this stuff and they havent reported any new standard or tech.


Skips-T t1_itmty9p wrote

Sorry, what I mean is, you're expecting Apple to use an industry standard expansion bus?


cheekybeakykiwi t1_itntyja wrote

Unless they are manufacturing every single chip on their boards, which they aren't, they have use pci-e.


Skips-T t1_ito3h0a wrote

Lmao damn got wrecked on karma 😂 And yeah they probably will use PCIE bit it's bold to assume you'll have expansion capabilies would've been the better way to phrase it


Adeep187 t1_itjyzrp wrote

does it still grate cheese tho?


PotatoSlayerChip t1_itkk3m7 wrote

it has been the design for the mac pro since the early 2000s so it wouldn't surprise me if it did


MarcusAurelius68 t1_itkrzw4 wrote

Except for the 2013 trash can


IcyButters t1_itqipw3 wrote

I loved that stupid thing. It reminds me of 90s video game consoles, just a huge swing and a miss.


MarcusAurelius68 t1_itqkcsf wrote

I still have mine, will be relegating it to sampler duty after I got my Studio.


ObscureBen t1_itks9co wrote

This is trash can Mac Pro erasure


PotatoSlayerChip t1_itksd55 wrote

True, completely forgot about the subwoofer


Adeep187 t1_itla9f0 wrote

So same lol. Thing legit looks like my bathroom trash can. There's no way nobody accidentally threw garbage in someone's computer.


PotatoSlayerChip t1_itlaolv wrote

Fairly unlikely given the noise and the fact that it would be sitting on a desk but i see where you are coming from ahahah


ShutterBun t1_itld6rl wrote

No it hasn’t


PotatoSlayerChip t1_itldcly wrote

if you could just read the other comments instead of replying randomly you'd know i already acknowledged my tremendous error forgetting about the 2013 model


ShutterBun t1_itlfc0n wrote

The design before the trash can was different than this.


PotatoSlayerChip t1_itlfki6 wrote

i perfectly know, i was referring to the peculiar desing of the chase grater look, that has always been in use other than the 2013 model. Obviously not referring to just the model w spherical holes divided in 3.


capthook2 t1_itj6i99 wrote

I thought the thumbnail was a cheese grater


PotatoSlayerChip t1_itkk50n wrote

it has been the design for the mac pro since the early 2000s surprising how you never seen one


ShutterBun t1_itlelyx wrote

This specific “cheese grater” case has only been in use since 2019. Before that it was the trash can, and before that was the old PowerMac aluminum design (which is decidedly less cheese-gratery)


PotatoSlayerChip t1_itlez9r wrote

Which is exactly what i was saying! It has always been a cheese grater except in 2013. glad we agree on this one


ShutterBun t1_itlf7nc wrote

You’re wrong though.


PotatoSlayerChip t1_itlfbhw wrote

Even if we are saying the exact same thing? i am confused. What model didn't follow the trend other than 2013 that you didn't highlight?


Major_Pixel t1_itjc93o wrote

Mmm, expensive cheese grater for expensive cheese.


Ragnarok_619 t1_itka6s7 wrote

So it's 192gb of RAM? Wow that's massive!

But can it run Crysis?


silverjad3 t1_itkn9vt wrote

No, but it can probably run an emulated version since Crysis wasn't made for mac.


johansugarev t1_itl8d1p wrote

Pretty modest for a pro machine. The current Mac Pro can be configure with up to 1.5TB of ram.


srfrosky t1_itjk9nr wrote

I want to hear from the nerds versed in 3D animation. How well would this architecture fare with Cinema 3D/Blender/Maya et al? I’ve heard that the current issue is the application software itself not being sufficiently optimized for the M1/2 studio/ultra macs. Is that still the case and the outlook?


drjonase t1_itk8vux wrote

I am completely on C4D which runs exceptionally well. After effects itself supports m1 but we use ae only as a platform whilst the plugins are most important and they perform very well on m1.

I completely switched from intel to m1 and never was happier in the last 20 years about a system change :)


sparda4glol t1_itq6tei wrote

I don’t know how you manage to get plugins to run well. My AE gets choked up hard with memory issues with just a Red giant/maxon FX or after cleaning roto footage. The thing just gets to choked up. Have to purge constantly. Work for 10 minutes. locks up, purge again. I’ve tried running them on rosetta as well


drjonase t1_itqc4sx wrote

I am experiencing RAM issues when other Adobe Apps are open although I set their allowed RAM usage to the minimum amount. This is different to x86 where this setting really had an effect.

So even a passive Media Encoder or Illustrator are slowing down AE on M1, but when AE is running alone, its very smooth here.


shotsallover t1_itk5coy wrote

Blender runs OK on my M1 Max. It's roughly the equivalent of a GTX1080/1090 in a laptop form factor. You'd have to check out other benchmarks to see if it'll do what you want. But a current-get Nvidia GPU is gonna run circles around it.


[deleted] t1_itkknqx wrote



ten-million t1_itkosqg wrote

>I don’t see anyone who genuinely works with computers using Apple anytime soon


>22yo. So I don't know too much



PhysicsMan12 t1_itkttwb wrote

Maybe you should go watch some reviews benchmarking Apple silicon before you write this stuff. Apple silicon is absolutely incredible is many workloads. The performance per watt is out of this world (in many tasks) And the flat out performance (in many tasks) is just plain superb. Go watch some reviews/benchmarking videos.


alc4pwned t1_itl7n52 wrote

> I don’t see anyone who genuinely works with computers using Apple anytime soon

A ton of programmers use macs. Software engineers at Google use macs, even.


cpraxis t1_itjnodv wrote

They don’t run that well on current gen macs so safe to say that tradition will continue


sparda4glol t1_itk7x7o wrote

i completely had to ditch my 16in m1 pro and still just use my PC. It works on the max but crazy slow compared to just an I7 and 3070ti desktop


benanderson89 t1_itkp999 wrote

You bought a laptop thinking it would out perform a full sized desktop?


sparda4glol t1_itq6hsg wrote

No i bought a laptop as a toy to mess around with. I have a 3070 laptop. 3070 desktop rig and a dual 3090 rig. The m1 render times are significantly slower for octane and AE on the m1 compared to the 3070 laptop. Not all workloads get hit so hard. But larger pipelines will eat away at the memory. Like the difference in my render times is nearly 3-4x. It’s just upsetting because the m1 was over 1k more than the 3070 laptop. The performance for my sled at 3.5k was just a lot of money to put in the table for what i felt were not the best returns. Just my personal experience.


junglehypothesis t1_itkczkp wrote

But how many PCIe slots? That’s the decider and apparent weakness of Apple Silicon.


Mortcarpediem t1_itkckly wrote

As an owner of one of the previous Mac Pro’s from New. I just hope that the lower tier models will be fast enough for my needs without costing the same as a brand new car. The last specification practically cost 13 grand to get it to a comfortable spec which was nuts. Bought a trash can Mac Pro on release at a decent spec for under £3,000


Rrraou t1_itjzn0i wrote

Ok, you have my attention.


tomistruth t1_itktd56 wrote

In all seriousnes, this will be good to heat my apartment this winter.


OGShrimpPatrol t1_itkr4hh wrote

But it still won’t be able to run cyberpunk


No-Protection8322 t1_itks692 wrote

Isn’t that what a ps4 is for?


OGShrimpPatrol t1_itl49na wrote

Lol. In all seriousness, I love macs and have had a mbp for years but for the life of me, I don’t understand why they won’t build them with good gpus or the ability to add one. I have a pc now and will stick with a pc because it does everything, including gaming. What I really want though is a Mac, which is already great, that can also game. I would go back to mac tomorrow if that were the case.


alc4pwned t1_itl8xq5 wrote

The problem is really compatibility at this point. The M1 Max performs about the same as a mobile 3070 in the few games that it can run.


OGShrimpPatrol t1_itla64k wrote

Ya but that’s still not going to win over people who game. I get that it’s the trade off for Apple but I wish they would come up with a better solution. I much prefer Mac OS to windows but I need more flexibility than what Apple offers.


TDI_Wagen t1_itje8yf wrote

All that power and Logic will still crash on it after loading a few plugins. I’ll put tree fiddy on it.


unclefipps t1_itk3m49 wrote

And it'll only cost $10,000 and a very special hug from Tim Cook.


YourMomsFishBowl t1_itjocfj wrote

I'm sure Apple is also testing thier ability to slow it down for when the new edition is released.


T3rribl3Gam3D3v t1_itji1j4 wrote

Fewer cores than amd and likely 2-4x the price, not worth it


drgeta84 t1_itjnhte wrote

But you can’t get an AMD in a cheese grater


help_me44 t1_itjxbd5 wrote

How about you buy a real computer for quarter of a price?


ImVeryUnimaginative t1_itk8gju wrote

As much as I don't like Apple, this is still a real computer, just an extremely expensive one.


help_me44 t1_itkcszi wrote

Zero upgrades, limited software, I never understood this apple religion. Users just think they're better than anyone else just because they have something more expensive while they're the fool ones trapped in continuous spending cycle.


benjackal t1_itkd0m9 wrote

Mac pro has upgrades tho


PaulR79 t1_itked3d wrote

Out of curiousity what upgrades? CPU, GPU, RAM, STORAGE? I know nothing of them.


mBertin t1_itkyhze wrote

All of those. The current Mac Pro has like 7 PCIE slots and supports up to 1,5 tb ram.


gizm770o t1_itk3in5 wrote

I get complaining about price. But claiming it isn’t a “real computer” just makes you look silly.


help_me44 t1_itkcu8r wrote

Don't take this too literally boy.


IrreverentHippie t1_itiz1ke wrote

An apple dGPU would be cool, especially if it’s available for both Mac and PC, it would add a 4th player to the GPU market.


DefinitelyNotMasterS t1_itizpr3 wrote

Surely Apple, the highest valued company ever, is going to change their philosophy on creating things for other systems


IrreverentHippie t1_itj041h wrote

Knowing how good their video acceleration hardware is, they could easily dominate that market on all platforms. I’d personally expect the pro GPU market to be where they would probably try to compete if they did made a PCIe GPU+Video acceleration card available for the general computer market.

And having more options to pick from is always good.


MrChip53 t1_itj0s1g wrote

Apple sells an ecosystem though. Not hardware components.


IrreverentHippie t1_itj1spt wrote

Well, yes. But if they also sold hardware components they could probably do very well in that area too


acsmars t1_itj2rwc wrote

Every sale of a high end GPU would mean one less entire workstation sale they could’ve forced into their camp.

It’s like asking them to sell their iphone software or SoC. They can make more money selling the whole phone, it’d cost them sales to sell it piecemeal . If you’ve got a killer market leading feature and an industry leading product you’re selling, you don’t sell the secret sauce to your competitors.


MrChip53 t1_itjbtiz wrote

And don't forget that when you buy the whole device they now have you locked in on software sales too.


IrreverentHippie t1_itjqbpq wrote

Think of it like this, they sell an accelerator card, people go “hey, this apple GPU is awesome”. then apple tells them it works even better in their own computers, because it does, and people go “I guess I should buy an apple computer, I can run my video editing software even faster.”

And then you have people both. Buying your accelerators, and entire systems. Now the ecosystem caters to a wide variety of users, not just “Pros, and facebook scrollers”.

Now apple would have to directly compete with AMD, Nvidia, and Intel. But this competition should potentially help drive innovation, which would help rapidly accelerate the growth and development of computer technology in a 4 way arms race.


acsmars t1_itjtg4y wrote

Apple does not benefit from increased competition or innovation. Competitive markets are bad for business. GPU chip making is also less profitable than their current markets. This is also why they don’t manufacture their products in house, device manufacturing is a much less profitable business than the product design and software services that they currently operate in.

Apple’s play is and always has been total design and control of the user experience. That’s their differentiator. They’ve no incentive to release a less profitable product, in a competitive market segment, that they can’t fully control, and which is less compatible with their software/services businesses. They will continue to cater to their demographic: people who want their wholistic designed experience and are willing to pay up to get it. That’s how they became the most valuable company.


IrreverentHippie t1_itkl0ra wrote

Not entirely. They became the most valuable company by having hardware and software that work well together


acsmars t1_itlkxhq wrote

Which you get by selling complete platforms, not oem parts or components.


MrChip53 t1_itj2s0p wrote

I'm sure they could but I really don't think Apple cares. Their product isn't Mac books or iPhones either. It's the apple ecosystem. Itunes, icloud, Siri, home thing if thats what it's called, etc. They want you stuck in it so you keep coming back to give them money. A GPU wouldn't cut it so isn't worth the investment to put on shelves. If you want to use their chips you need to buy their devices and be in their ecosystem.


IrreverentHippie t1_itjpnrd wrote

I don’t care, a balanced economy is needed, and this is a way to do it.


MrChip53 t1_itjrrba wrote

Apple couldn't give two shits about a balanced economy or the way you think to do it..


IrreverentHippie t1_itjspgl wrote

Well, I don’t think it matters anyway, the world is already ending, so who cares?


jaceapoc t1_itj73zo wrote

They kinda do now tho. Their M chips in their latest computers are now a big reason people go for Apple. More and more pros are buying Apple computers for the sole reason that the M chip in it is more powerful than quite a few PC chips for a lot of tasks. People used to buy MacBooks and iMacs mostly because it was “cool”, beautiful, functional out of the box, etc. Apple was for the most part a hype brand, only the “cool” people had those. They bought into the marketing just so they could be mostly showing off. Now people are starting to buy it for the hardware in those machines, because they’re actually that much better at actual benchmarks etc.


MrChip53 t1_itj9ll4 wrote

Yes but you get stuck in the ecosystem when you buy it and that is what they really want. They want you giving them a cut everytime you buy a song, app, etc.

They used to use Intel chips to tie the apple ecosystem together on desktop. Now they have their own chips that make their desktop experience better in their apple ecosystem. But it's still all about the ecosystem.


Larsaf t1_itklycv wrote

So you confirm that you your forever stuck with x86-PCs, because your sunk cost is so damn high.


MrChip53 t1_itl3dmu wrote

No, what would make you draw that conclusion? Lol


johansugarev t1_itla42o wrote

We go for Apple because of the whole ecosystem. The chips are great but they’re nothing without the software and hardware around them. That’s what Apple is great at and that is a fact.

People who buy computers to show off do not make Apples bottom line.


acsmars t1_itj2g4v wrote

If it would be dominant, they’d rather sell a $6k workstation than a $2k part. Less driver support/compatibility to manage and more money.

Every other hardware company wishes they could pull in buyers and revenue like Apple does, why would Apple change?


wosmo t1_itjjorb wrote

I'm not sure it'd work out. A lot of what makes M1 work is having everything on the same fabric. It gives them awesome memory bandwidth, unity memory so the gpu properly shares the cpu's ram, giving zero transfer time, etc. A lot of the gains come from architecture that wouldn't survive being taken off the SoC package.

That said, I'd love to be proven wrong, because competition is good.

(On the down side, it's also why we're unlikely going to see replaceable RAM - taking it off the chiplets would take it off the fabric, and lose that bandwidth. Best-case scenario is the on-package RAM and the replaceable RAM would work on different tiers, making the on-package RAM the mother of all caches.)


IrreverentHippie t1_itjpk4o wrote

They do have their afterburner card, and the Mac Pro already uses a modified version of PCIe. The key difference is the M1 macs are laptops and all in ones, and the Mac Pro is a modular system. It’s a different beast. The MacBook Pro has to be power efficient as well as fast, where a desktop computer like the Mac Pro does not have that limitation. The current Mac Pro already uses infinity fabric bridges to link the graphics cards. Apple could easily design an accelerator card that has everything you need in one card. A GPGPU isn’t hard to design. You just have to understand form factors.


xKILLTHEGOVx t1_itjm3s8 wrote

Can some explain to me why anyone would buy a laptop with 192GB of memory? My Xbox one x has a terabyte and I bought it years ago. I’m genuinely confused.


hiddenblader905 t1_itjn68y wrote

192 gb is of ram not storage, the Xbox has 1 terabyte of storage and probably only like 8-16 gb of ram not really sure. But ram allows you to run multiple applications at once whereas those applications are stored in storage when you install them


benjackal t1_itjqjix wrote

You know they aren’t talking about a laptop yea?


ImnTheGreat t1_itjn72p wrote

The 192 GB refers to memory, aka RAM, not storage. RAM stands for Random Access Memory, which is used for holding data for running applications and is randomly accessible, meaning the CPU can access data from any address in memory. Large amounts of RAM like this may be used for rendering 3d environments, editing high resolution footage, or other intensive applications. For reference, your xbox has 12 GB of RAM, and my mid-tier PC has 16 GB of RAM, so 192 is quite a lot. Also this is a desktop computer, not a laptop.


JimJava t1_itk2q5m wrote

You are right about being confused.


l3kim t1_itjnhk3 wrote

I believe it’s 192gb of RAM - not storage.


gnapster t1_itjnkys wrote

That much RAM is for high end video processing and other intensive situations.


PaulR79 t1_itkea34 wrote

As someone else already explained it I'll just add that RAM is what is traditionally called 'memory' in a system with HDD and SSD being storage. Some companies started saying memory when they meant storage a while ago and I've hated it from the start for the reason you were confused. They are not the same at all.


ButtonholePhotophile t1_itjcu5b wrote

And that’s going to be the minimum specs to run their next operating system version, in six months.


LouKrazy t1_itjh38s wrote

I have a 2014 Mac mini running the latest OS no problem. I don’t get your point


rdyplr1 t1_itjhp2t wrote

Point: Mac bad! Apple bad! Fire baad!


resfan t1_itjr8nt wrote

And it'll perform about the same as a self built PC for a fraction of the cost.


APIPAMinusOneHundred t1_itk39rk wrote

Apple fanboys downvoting you because they know you're right.


resfan t1_itk5am3 wrote

Apple sheep think more expensive = more betters

If they'd at least TRY then maybe they'd understand they're just paying for name branding

Then they'd see that they could build an even better PC if you spent the same amount of money as the mac cost


benanderson89 t1_itkpoi0 wrote


The MacBook Pro and MacPro are some of the more affordable workstation systems available. These aren't generic "gaming" PCs. A business after a high availability, certified, high stress and purpose designed computer aren't going to slam a 3080 in a Corsair case and call it a day; they're spending £50k on a MacPro for multimedia production or £100k on a Dell Precision for Engineering and simulation, because systems like this are designed to do very specific tasks reliably and consistently.


Exarctus t1_itl63zr wrote

Hi. I work in simulation.

Absolutely nobody is spending 100K on a single (laptop) workstation. What a ridiculously made up number. You can buy a reasonably large GPU farm for that amount of cash investment and have several orders of magnitude more compute. The vast majority of simulation codes are designed to scale well with problem size on GPUs.


PotatoSlayerChip t1_itkkq9a wrote

apple fan boy here, recently switched to a 3080 ti w a 12600k because i couldn't afford apple's prices anymore. Gotta be honest, kinda sucks, not only the available OS are awful (Windows being the most used one, tried linux which is absolutely useless if you don't wanna waste hours setting it up and stuff). Not only talking about the countless bugs that continuously pop out, but specifically about the softwares that are just straight up hell for how they are optimized, i am a photoshop daily user and premiere as well. Compared to the Macs that friends let me use to work it's just a burning pile of trash, horrendous performance with what was considered pretty much the top of the range just couple months ago. If i could go back i'd def spend that extra thousand to actually have a working machine that WORKS. On the other hand, i do see where redditors are coming since pretty much all of you use a pc just to game, and gotta admit the experience on that side is amazing! Also given the fact that apple won't optimize their cpu and gpu better for already existing games and won't try to make some contracts to get more games on the platform.


V_es t1_itl1ffq wrote

Mmm.. no? Find me a laptop of the same weight, build quality and performance but cheaper than a macbook pro.