5+ Things to Know About the Next Mac Studio

[satchmo]

I think the Air is due for a redesign in 2028. Perhaps it will get a smaller design now that Apple has the Neo to be the “budget” option. The A19/A20 Pro Neo will be more than adequate for most people, perhaps giving Apple “space” to make the Air a bit more premium again.

I had both the 11.6” Air and the 12”
MacBook. The 12” was the perfect form factor for traveling. It was so small and light I sometimes had to double check to make sure I put it in my bag.

Wasn’t there a rumour that Apple was going to shift back on slimmer designs (after adding back in port in its current MBP)?

While I doubt we’ll return to the slim wedge of the original MacBook Air, there certainly is room to cut weight. At least something to make it worthy of it’s ‘Air’ name.

 

[ThatGuyInLa]

M5U could finally tempt me away from my Windows workstation for 3D animation. I use GPU rendering and it's so fast that i'd be willing to take what would be only a slight loss in speed going down to a M5U from a RTX5090. That's based on predicted specs. The savings in generated HEAT and summer electricity rates alone make it a consideration. The unified RAM, THAT, is the biggest sell, though. Gobs available for rendering. My current M4M Studio already clocks in around the same speed as a 4070Ti.

 

[Nugget]

lol, sorry, I'm not buying the narrative that "local AI models" are anywhere near that popular. I'm not even convinced they'll offer a 512GB option IF there's an M5 Ultra. I think they're dropping the highest end configurations because they sell very few of them and Tim Cook knows that the same silicon being used for one 512GB Studio can, alternatively, provide enough RAM for over 40 A19 Pro chips.

The 512GB studio wasn't selling because it was a two-year old M3 architecture, not because it was 512GB and not because it was expensive. I'm a day 1 buyer of whatever the max spec Studio is, whenever it is finally released, and I've seen several others in this thread say the same. That's not a "narrative" that's a "market."

 

[theluggage]

the same silicon being used for one 512GB Studio can, alternatively, provide enough RAM for over 40 A19 Pro chips.

Yes, because everybody knows that Apple buys concentrated powdered RAM (just mix with an equal quantity of plain liquid silicon) in 3 Petabyte sacks and has a set of 4GB, 12GB and 64GB measuring spoons which they use to mix up just the right amount to pour into each processor.

It's not like the 512GB M3 Ultra uses eight super-expensive, high-capacity 64GB RAM chips which are not remotely interchangeable with the two 4GB chips on the A19 Pro. That would be silly (and ready-mixed RAM never tastes as good as mixing your own from powder).

 

[MacLawyer]

My M2 Ultra is way faster than what I need. Finally, a model change year when my money stays in my pocket.

 

[drmacnut]

Original Mac Studio came out March 18, 2022. Would people upgrade 4 1/2 years later? Maybe. I don't have one but would like one

I am curently using a Mac Studio M2 Ultra (2023) as my pro machine to edit and output about 25 hours of video every week. I will upgrade to an M5 Ultra the minute it's on offer. These machines are fantastic imo. I don't miss the days running my giant noisy Intel Mac Pro back in the day. 🤙🏽

 

[HVDynamo]

You mean "totally irrelevant from a thermal standpoint". The trashcan was built around 3 vertical circuit boards (not including the power supply and I/O daughterboard) - each with a massive heat source in the centre. Completely wrong for Apple Silicon's single-SoC design with one primary heat source and a logic board smaller than any one of the Trashcan's three boards.

Meanwhile, the Studio sits happily in the wasted space under a display screen, with the front ports accessible, and can be stacked with hubs/storage etc.

Not saying that the Studio couldn't be improved on, but the trashcan isn't the way to go.


There were two "courageous" design decisions with the Trashcan:

1. No internal expansion (beyond RAM & that was still limited c.f. tower workstations) - Even the SSD daughterboard was proprietary and not officially upgradeable. Everything relied on Thunderbolt 2. Just ahead of its time? Maybe.
2. The thermal design locked it into an inflexible 1xCPU + dual medium-power dGPU architecture which never caught on and for which viable upgrades never appeared. Just ahead of its time? - Nope, it was just a straight bad call that took Apple 4 years to admit and 6 years to fix. The cylinder/triangular thermal core idea isn't coming back.

(1) ...may even have worked if Apple hadn't let the original Mac Pro die on the vine & launched the trashcan as an alternative. By the time the Trashcan launched, the classic Mac Pro was thoroughly outdated and had been discontinued for a year in the EU because Apple couldn't contrive to add a simple fan guard). That was dumb at the time, when Macs were basically PC clones blessed to run MacOS & rolling out an updated Xeon tower alongside it would hardly have been the Manhattan project. Mind you, one and done has been standard operating practice for Mac/iMac Pro for a while...

The Mac Studio came out when:
(a) Apple were in full control of the CPU/GPU design & future roadmap
(b) Thunderbolt and USB 3.x were faster and better supported
(c) The 2019 Mac Pro was still available for a year or so, then the 2023 MP offered a stopgap for users with legacy PCIe I/O cards (that's all it was). So the Studio has had 4 years to establish itself beside a still-current tower Mac Pro.

The thermal design of both the G4 Cube and the trashcan would work just fine with Apple Silicon. The heatsink space is large enough to put a heatsink that will cool just as well as what's in the Mac Studio. One of the side boards could be loaded with a couple M.2 slots for drives, the other could be just for the IO connections. Sure it wouldn't fit under the display like the Studio, but otherwise it really isn't that different.

Your whole comment more or less supports what I am saying.

 

[novagamer]

The 512GB studio wasn't selling because it was a two-year old M3 architecture, not because it was 512GB and not because it was expensive. I'm a day 1 buyer of whatever the max spec Studio is, whenever it is finally released, and I've seen several others in this thread say the same. That's not a "narrative" that's a "market."

The DMP bug being in M3 and not M4 basically made me go with the M4 MBP. Now that I really, really need the memory for my work I have no options. I'd get an M5 MBP tomorrow if it had even 192GB but I absolutely need the 512GB config and, like you say, will be a day one buyer. There is absolutely a market. I do expect a price hike though, even if they didn't do it for MBP configs.

 

[IvyKing]

The Mac Studio really needs a standard M.2 slot in it, and an easier way to take it apart just to clean dust out. The TrashCan design made that super easy.

It would be nice to have an M.2 slot on the Mini as well. Having said that, an M.2 slot on a Studio would make it an instant buy for me.

Definitely agree on making it easier to clean the dust out.

 

[ikramerica]

6th thing to know:

It will cost more

Right now a base Studio Max with 32/512 and 14/32 cores is $1999.

A mini Pro with 24/512 and 14/20 cores with 10G ethernet is only $300 less at $1699.

For $300 you get the studio enclosure, SDXC slot, 8GB RAM and 12 more GPU cores and more Thunderbolt 5 ports.

So, I expect the base M5 Studio to start at $2199 or more.

 

[theluggage]

The thermal design of both the G4 Cube and the trashcan would work just fine with Apple Silicon.

Maybe. Know what is proven to work with Apple Silicon? The thermal design of the Mac Studio!

1/3 of the heatsink in the trashcan would probably work just fine with Apple Silicon. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, I'm saying that it would be massive overkill - splitting what already fits on a single logic board across 3 boards just to fill a Trashcan case complicates things and adds failure-prone interconnects. These studio even already has removable cards for SSDs - it just needs Apple to officially allow third party upgrades & configuration without a second Mac.

I'm sure the Studio design could be improved (although the only major drawback I see is cleaning the fan) - but you don't need to make it 2.5x as tall to fit in 1 extra RJ-45 port and couple of M.2 slots (but if that's what you need there are some neat stackable hubs).

 

[tenthousandthings]

Bottom line, there is no way Apple caps a pro level machine at 256 GB especially when they're leaning hard into using the MXU Studios for local AI models by sending maxed out M3Us to AI influencers to drive up demand ahead of the M5U debut... and you can take that to the bank.

I admit considering the (I am assuming) low number of units sold with the highest RAM configurations, I don't see it beyond Apple to keep having the higher configurations and just, shockingly, ask for more money for them. But for the same reason they could also just not offer them any more. Time will tell.

MR has repeatedly made the argument that the 512 discontinuation is likely due to hold-back for the upcoming launch. Without the Pro and with the rising popularity of local LLMs, it is a certainty they will launch something above 512 (640/768/or most likely 1TB) and they will tax the heck out of buyers for the privilege. I’m guessing $15k+ fully spec’d and many, including myself, will be forking it over 5 minutes after launch.

lol, sorry, I'm not buying the narrative that "local AI models" are anywhere near that popular. I'm not even convinced they'll offer a 512GB option IF there's an M5 Ultra. I think they're dropping the highest end configurations because they sell very few of them and Tim Cook knows that the same silicon being used for one 512GB Studio can, alternatively, provide enough RAM for over 40 A19 Pro chips.

If a model is sold out, all you can really deduce is that Apple don't have any left to sell and it is uneconomic to make any more right now. The "uneconomic" bit could be because of component shortages, it could be because a model isn't selling well or it could be because a refresh is imminent... or - most likely - a combination of all three.

Occam's Razor says the most likely explanation is Apple's sales numbers have run up against the same dynamic as the larger memory industry, where a new AI customers with deep pockets have thrown off the projected balance between top-tier memory demand, versus entry-level and mid-tier demand.

Think of it this way -- when Apple launched the M4 Max/M3 Ultra Mac Studio, they had two previous generations of Mac Studio to model their projected sales numbers on. There is little reason to doubt that Apple has this down to a science, and without the AI boom, we can surmise Apple would have accurately modeled expected sales of the top-tier configurations all the way through to the launch of the next generation. It isn't that the M3 Ultra with top-tier memory configurations weren't selling, instead they were sold out. Apple sold more than expected, not less.

There's an additional factor here, suggested by @Agent007 while missing the mark on sales -- one 512GB Mac Studio can provide Unified Memory for (roughly) ten 48GB Mac Studio, or fourteen entry-level 36GB units (it's not quite that simple, but you get the idea). Even if Apple prices them to absorb that difference, that doesn't change the reality that 10x the number of customers means 10x the revenue from subscriptions and other services, software sales, and so on.

I would expect that the M5 Max/M5 Ultra Mac Studio projections have been adjusted to account for all of the above, both in terms of higher-than-usual demand for top-tier memory configurations and making sure Apple doesn't run out of the bread-and-butter entry-level and mid-tier configurations that drive revenue. We've seen what happens when push comes to shove -- long-term revenue wins out over short-term profit. Apple's success is built upon being able to maximize both of those things, and I think it's reasonable to expect them to be able to return to that.

 

[CWallace]

Original Mac Studio came out March 18, 2022. Would people upgrade 4 1/2 years later? Maybe. I don't have one but would like one

So, I expect the base M5 Studio to start at $2199 or more.

I have a base model M2 Max Studio with 1TB of storage and if the base model M5 Max Studio with 1TB is the same $2199 I paid for the M2, it is a guaranteed buy for me even though I arguably do not need it, but the much higher single-core and SSD read/write speeds make it worth it.

 

[NonAppleHater]

I’ve said this before, but the “trash can” form factor would be absolutely gorgeous for the Studio, and totally viable from a thermal standpoint. It’s a shame that design is essentially “cursed” in Apple’s eyes; otherwise it anticipated the Apple Silicon paradigm shift. It was just seven years too early. The Studio is arguably Apple’s most boring-looking Mac.

Nonsense! The Mac Studio isn't boring. All they have to do is rearrange a few things.

 

[ikramerica]

I have a base model M2 Max Studio with 1TB of storage and if the base model M5 Max Studio with 1TB is the same $2199 I paid for the M2, it is a guaranteed buy for me even though I arguably do not need it, but the much higher single-core and SSD read/write speeds make it worth it.

Configured now 1TB is $200 more, or the $2199 you speak of.

So I suppose if they make the BASE 1TB, then $2199 is the same price, but if the base remains at 512GB, then it is a price increase.

 

[Aslak3]

RAM

Because of the ongoing RAM crisis, the amount of RAM in the Mac Studio is being constrained. Tim Cook was quoted as saying “The base model will come with 128 KB of RAM. The Ultra version will ship with 512 KB. For an additional $200. If it was good enough in 1984 it’s good enough today!”

 

[ikramerica]

RAM

Because of the ongoing RAM crisis, the amount of RAM in the Mac Studio is being constrained. Tim Cook was quoted as saying “The base model will come with 128 KB of RAM. The Ultra version will ship with 512 KB. For an additional $200. If it was good enough in 1984 it’s good enough today!”

“You’re really gonna want the booster.”

 

[1d1otic]

The Studio and the Pro had exactly the same chips and ran the same speed - the only differences were the PCIE and Thunderbolt 5 is way more than 99% of what people need. I certainly agreed when thunderbolt 3 was the around in 2019.

The GPUs are now integrated and are way more efficient that any PCIE card... my Mac Pro has a dual Vega 2 and while still a beast 7 years on it's SO power hungry. the latest Mac Studio whole machine runs at about 1/5th the power than just my card.

While some insane raid configs in PCIE can hit huge figures - like 80GB/s they require more x16 Pcie 5 slots that A Mac Pro would ever have or even fit.

I always thought they would go for a stacked system with an External GPU/ML module. There were rumors of them producing separate GPUs using apple silicon.

Same chips mean Apple cant make chips for Mac Pro.

 

[1d1otic]

They killed that Mac Pro market when they released the Apple Silicon Mac Pro with such limited uses for the slots. From that point on, most people either switched to a Studio or move on to a custom PC.

Then why not make Apple only GPU with PCIe slot just like Nvidia did?

 

[Tagbert]

Then why not make Apple only GPU with PCIe slot just like Nvidia did?

A separate GPU with its own memory doesn’t fit with the Apple Silicon unified memory approach. Technically they could do it but Apple clearly doesn’t see that as a worthwhile pursuit. It is likely a very small market compared to the large investment to build a machine that is so different than their others. Apple doesn’t want to play in that space.

 

[iAssimilated]

I have a base model M2 Max Studio with 1TB of storage and if the base model M5 Max Studio with 1TB is the same $2199 I paid for the M2, it is a guaranteed buy for me even though I arguably do not need it, but the much higher single-core and SSD read/write speeds make it worth it.

I am in the same boat. I currently have an M1 Max 64GB/1TB. I also want the M5 for the newer GPU.

 

[eifelbube]

Nonsense! The Mac Studio isn't boring. All they have to do is rearrange a few things.

View attachment 2623213

You forgot the stickers … 😊

 

[1d1otic]

A separate GPU with its own memory doesn’t fit with the Apple Silicon unified memory approach. Technically they could do it but Apple clearly doesn’t see that as a worthwhile pursuit. It is likely a very small market compared to the large investment to build a machine that is so different than their others. Apple doesn’t want to play in that space.

And unified memory has its own problems such as bandwidth. Why is it a problem to expand when PC and servers have no issues especially since Apple built professional markets for a long time? Besides, Mac Pro sold 3 times more than Mac Studio and it's the only B2B product that Apple has. All workstations are niche so not a good excuse.

 

[Tagbert]

And unified memory has its own problems such as bandwidth. Why is it a problem to expand when PC and servers have no issues especially since Apple built professional markets for a long time? Besides, Mac Pro sold 3 times more than Mac Studio and it's the only B2B product that Apple has. All workstations are niche so not a good excuse.

Apple solves that problem by giving their unified memory huge bandwidth.

The Graphic/AI GPU workstation does not seem to be a business that Apple wants to be in. It would require them to completely change their tech stack for a small return.

I suspect that “3 times” number is a revenue not unit sales number. The Mac Pro base price was about three times the base price of the Mac Studio so no big surprise there.

 

[tonmischa]

Besides, Mac Pro sold 3 times more than Mac Studio

Please quote your source for that claim.