Apple Developing 'Mac Studio,' Described as a Mac Mini and Mac Pro Hybrid

[sublunar]

I'd really like to see the MacPro (full size) continue to use an Intel (or AMD) CPU. For desktop purposes, power consumption is typically not a concern. Having access to Windows and OS X on the same tower is more important than the power efficiency of Apple's chips.
I'm actually due for an upgrade to my desktop and would love to replace it with a Mac Pro (instead of having both a Mac and Windows desktop), but cannot justify a purchase if they won't be supported by the new OS-X in 2-3 years.

I’d argue that in the current world that power consumption could be a major factor with the price of energy potentially skyrocketing for the next few years.

we could easily see Apple pushing performance per watt going forward, it might even have made this rumoured Studio machine a go if they think people are more likely to cut their energy budget and reuse existing monitors. For people who can afford new screens then clearly the new Apple displays rumoured may fit the bill.

 

[opeter]

Macrumors ideal Mac:

Windows compatibility
AMD threadripper cpu
Dual 3090 gpu
Retails for $50 and a case of beer

I will take two. Thanks. ?

 

[polyphenol]

I’d argue that in the current world that power consumption could be a major factor with the price of energy potentially skyrocketing for the next few years.

we could easily see Apple pushing performance per watt going forward, it might even have made this rumoured Studio machine a go if they think people are more likely to cut their energy budget and reuse existing monitors. For people who can afford new screens then clearly the new Apple displays rumoured may fit the bill.

I very much agree.

Although it wasn't actually my electricity bill, I decided that the M1 mini gave excellent performance per watt. The almost total lack of fan noise was a major factor - especially as it delivers that without getting hot. Now, though, the cost of all energy has rocketed enough to make it a true decision point for many.

I knew after that jump, my next laptop would be a MacBook Pro - which I am typing on.

Whether mains or battery, the M1 series (and future models) make good performance per watt accessible to many. Trouble is, the bill savings are likely wiped out by the Apple price list.

 

[norwaypianoman]

What comes to the surface just a few days before the conference are usually things that are going to be released at the conference.

Usually, everything that is said on the conference, is already known the night before.

This rumor is likely to be true.

 

[sublunar]

personally I saw the current Mac Pro as a bit of a vanity project for Apple in a way that, lets see how far we can push the desktop, and then show how amazing we are.

the thing is the Mac Pro, once configured up, was beyond my studio budgets and mainly due to all the expensive expansion ability, xeon CPU's we didn't need and then the rubbish GPU in the base model needing upgrades.

This Mac Studio, should however meet the speeds we want and the cost level.
I dont care about upgradability - it will be written off in a year.
I care about day to day speed, getting productive, and not having a furnace under the desk like I do now with the PC.

The current Mac Pro in my opinion was at least partly a halo product to encourage professionals not to abandon the Mac platform after the misstep of the 2013 Trashcan model.

It remains to be seen if Apple let the current Mac Pro die slowly, it would certainly not be a great idea to have an ARM Mac Pro competitor while the Intel one is still a current product. How would Apple explain the pricing difference between ARM products and Intel ones given they would have a full slate of other ARM products on the ground by the end of the year?

If people considered $3k to be too pricey for the trash can then $6k for the current Mac Pro is just a fantasy product for many of the people like myself who thought the 2012 cheese grater for $2k was a significant increase over various G4 and G5 Power Macs which were a lot cheaper still but in the 'affordable' zone that the Mac mini eventually fell into.

This 'Studio Mac' has the improved graphics grunt that should make it more popular for users who would have more than the anaemic HD630 graphics on the 2018 Mac mini has.

The other factor for me is ability for it to be transported from work location to home location if 'plans change', the current Mac Pro doesn't look conducive to a trip home on public transport. Even without considering transportation, a smaller form factor - like the Mini - is just better for the desk. Especially if Apple can make it quiet.

 

[mjtomlin71]

Dude over here (who "broke" this rumor before 9to5 Mac...?) indicates numerous things:

• System was hidden in a G4 Cube size black cardboard box
• System very quiet
• States system being looked at was "20/48 with 32GB RAM"
• States possible system configurations - 10/24, 10/32, 20/48, & 20/64
• States max RAM is 128GB

The 32GB RAM thing is a little odd, because the minimum RAM for a M1 Max SoC is 32GB, so a 20/48 system would have had 64GB RAM minimum; maybe Apple has sourced some 4GB LPDDR5 chips, so we could see RAM options of 16GB / 32GB / 64GB on the single SoC systems, and 32GB / 64GB / 128GB on the dual SoC systems...?

Starting at $4k to $5k is too close to the 2019 Intel Mac Pro at $6k, and too far from the 2018 Intel Mac mini at $1.1k; 9to5 Mac article indicates the Mac Studio is the replacement for the high-end 2018 Intel Mac mini, and intended to bridge the gap between the low-end Mn Mac mini & the high-end multi Mn Max SoC Mac Pro...?

I would put the base model Mac Studio (as I have outlined elsewhere in the thread) at $2.5k for a 10/24, 32/512, Dual Gigabit Ethernet configuration, maybe Apple goes $2,749 to cover their Pro apps bundle...?

At one point Gurman stated:

​

"...the new ‌Mac Pro‌ will feature a smaller design that "could invoke nostalgia for the Power Mac G4 Cube..."​

​

One would wonder if Apple would go with an entirely new design for the Mac Studio, or if some elements from the 2019 Intel Mac Pro might carry over...?

One thought would be a chassis with the G4 Cube dimensions (9.8" x 7.7" x 7.7" - H x W x D) and front venting like on the current Mac Pro, I would think a 200mm x 30mm fan would work well as front intake, with positive pressure rear exhaust...

No feet or handles on this one...!

Apple could also go with an all-new design, still a Cube in dimensions (including feet), but aluminum exterior shell, add discrete feet for bottom intake with 180mm fan / massive 2019 Mac Pro-style vertically-oriented heat sink / top exhaust with 180mm fan / thermal chimney done right style active air cooling...!

I think I might favor the second one, lower cost than the high CNC time 3D venting & higher cooling potential...?

So a Mac Studio with an M1 Max (10/24) for $2,500 which is $500 less than a MacBook Pro with the same SoC? Don’t see the point in this system at all. Why not just buy a MBP? You get a display and can take it with you. Apple would rather have their customers buy both systems; a workhorse for the studio and a very capable laptop for on the go. And you do this by making the base desktop much more powerful, not the same. To sell in any volume, these systems will have to compliment the MBP’s not compete with them.

For all the source knows, that system (20/48) was the base model, and Apple only let that one out of the bag so as to not show their entire hand.

Furthermore, consider the fact that an M1 Max SoC would be more than comfortable running inside the current mini chassis, a Max Duo would not need 3 to 4 times the volume for cooling. On the other hand, a Max Quad might need it for a large heat sync to keep it cool as it could potentially run at well above the highest end Intel CPU at 285W.

 

[polyphenol]

For all the source knows, that system (20/48) was the base model, and Apple only let that one out of the bag so as to not show their entire hand.

That could even be the basis of "peek"?

They have, at launch, a base model, but you can have a peek at what is coming - e.g. more cores, more memory, more storage. Just not quite yet.

 

[sublunar]

So a Mac Studio with an M1 Max (10/24) for $2,500 which is $500 less than a MacBook Pro with the same SoC? Don’t see the point in this system at all. Why not just buy a MBP? You get a display and can take it with you. Apple would rather have their customers buy both systems; a workhorse for the studio and a very capable laptop for on the go. And you do this by making the base desktop much more powerful, not the same. To sell in any volume, these systems will have to compliment the MBP’s not compete with them.

For all the source knows, that system (20/48) was the base model, and Apple only let that one out of the bag so as to not show their entire hand.

Furthermore, consider the fact that an M1 Max SoC would be more than comfortable running inside the current mini chassis, a Max Duo would not need 3 to 4 times the volume for cooling. On the other hand, a Max Quad might need it for a large heat sync to keep it cool as it could potentially run at well above the highest end Intel CPU at 285W.

You do wonder if Apple's 7k display is made possible with Thunderbolt 4 (as opposed to Thunderbolt 3) giving Apple the chance to make a one cable display without needing to build that custom TCON chip that they needed for the iMac 5k. The link suggests that 8k at 60Hz should be feasible using Thunderbolt 4.

7k at 60Hz (say, on a 36" display, 7040x3960) would in theory leave a bit of bandwidth available to put a full speed USB hub (for example) on an external display.

I wonder if Apple were facing serious chip shortages (or price increases?) for the custom TCON in the 5k retina iMac going forward and this was the right time to remove it from the supply chain?

Back to the reply though - I really would have thought that Apple would be happy leaving minimum RAM high to give some reasonable price segmentation above the base Mac mini as per the MacBook Pros.

 

[mjs916]

Anyone remember AirPods Studio?
Those became AirPods Max.
So… Mac Studio?
More like Mac Max

Mac Max: Beyond Thunderbolt?

 

[coolkid93]

okay and? Something only the rich can afford to get

 

[Bodhitree]

I think there is a market for people who don’t want to change the screen and other components of their setup, but do want to upgrade the SoC every so often. An iMac would cause a lot of wastage for those people, so a separate component makes sense.

Really the big question is how will they differentiate it from the Mac Mini, and what upgrade options will it have inside the chassis. If its a smaller case as rumoured it should be easy to pick up and carry.

Whats the betting they will remove the high-end Mac Mini from the lineup if this comes out, and it will be priced quite a bit higher.

 

[incoherent_1]

Would love this. We don’t have the space for a Mac Pro tower, but something beefier and more modular than an iMac or MBP would definitely have some potential for us.

 

[TracerAnalog]

Apple has to be careful when it comes to form over function, fragmentation, all that stuff.

??

 

[Defoler]

I think there is a market for people who don’t want to change the screen and other components of their setup, but do want to upgrade the SoC every so often. An iMac would cause a lot of wastage for those people, so a separate component makes sense.

Really the big question is how will they differentiate it from the Mac Mini, and what upgrade options will it have inside the chassis. If its a smaller case as rumoured it should be easy to pick up and carry.

Whats the betting they will remove the high-end Mac Mini from the lineup if this comes out, and it will be priced quite a bit higher.

That would depends if it support a dGPU or not.
If there is no dGPU support, than this rumor is just about a stronger mac mini, not a smaller mac pro.
If it does going to support dGPU, than I don't think it is going to be using the M1 chip and its different variations (As it is currently not supporting eGPUs or contain any dGPU, unless apple are going to release the M2 with dGPU/eGPU support).
If it is going to be similar to the mac pro (AMD based with replaceable hardware), than it will only support smaller GPUs (no longer the duo versions) making it just physically smaller (though I expect still costly).

 

[nexusrule]

Interesting.
However I can't wait for this summer for a new machine.
While more power would be good, the M1 Max is a sweet spot for my workflow and I'm not made of money...therefore it'll probably be M1 max mini.

Even if you were made of money I don't think you would have wanted to part away with literally essential parts of yourself just to buy a computer.

 

[Defoler]

I guess it will use 20 CPU cores + 64 GPU cores if Mac Studio is a small version of Mac Pro.

The M1 max is already pretty big (for a 5mm manufacturing process). I doubt they are going to make such a big core which will be almost twice as big.
Unless they are going to split it into 2 chips (CPU and GPU), but I'm not sure that is their plan.

 

[JippaLippa]

Even if you were made of money I don't think you would have wanted to part away with literally essential parts of yourself just to buy a computer.

Don't test me ???

 

[Manzanito]

If you think this will flop, you’re wrong. Think G4 Cube 2.0!

Wait…

I wasn’t implying it will flop. It may flop, it may not. I was comparing it with the trashcan in terms of expandability. For the right price it could sell very well.

 

[wonderings]

Why can't Apple just make a tower Mac that lets the user add and remove hard drives, swap ram, basically be a G4 or G5 tower, with specs that are not needed beyond a niche segment of the pro user base? There really is no in between with Apple. A powerful CPU/GPU in a form factor that allows the user to add more hard drives and RAM to save from all the dongles and clutter of externals, this is what pros want.... as well as the price to not be obnoxiously high.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Arguably the reason why Apples desktops sell like canned dog **** compared to their laptops is because they just aren’t that desireable relatively. At this point there is the completely unupgradeable M1 mini, (that no longer supports even external GPUs, and has questionable monitor compatibility) and the Mac Pro with Very Exclusive Wheels.

No, they’re not desirable. Number one reason? They’re desktops. In fact, no one’s desktops are desirable to the vast majority of folks buying computers today, Mac or PC. Apple, Dell, HP, they’re all selling far more laptops than desktops. (And, on top of that, Apple’s selling more iPads than HP sells laptops.) This isn’t even new news. Laptops outsold desktops for a period the first time way back in 2003. By 2008, laptops were consistently outselling continuously as that has continued to today.

While there are still 10’s of millions of desktop systems being sold, there are 100’s of millions of laptop systems being sold.

 

[jjcs]

??

You don't really want products that compete against each other. Too much overlap is a bad thing and producing a bunch of overlapping products that mostly differ in looks, not function, would be inefficient. So, basically having a mini sold as currently and also offering a mini in essentially just a different case, wouldn't be a good idea.

 

[chrono1081]

I'm so excited for this if it happens. I could really use a Mac Pro but financially I just can't do it. Something smaller like this I could beef up would really help me a lot as long as it's relatively affordable.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Firstly I ignore analysts, they do not now the hard facts as Apple won’t tell them. And 20% is not single digits either as was being implied, it’s double. And unless you’ve spoken to ever ‘Pro’ out there you do not know if they prefer laptops, it’s not just Pros buying laptopa so you cannot go by what analysts predict with that opinion either.
I’m not stating laptops don’t sell well, but as your comment proves it’s is incorrect to claim they only sell in single digit percentages, and it makes it very difficult for you to present opinion as fact like you have here.

These were the numbers provided by Apple. I mean, if it’s your idea that Phil Schiller, Craig Federighi, and John Ternus have no idea about how many laptops versus desktop systems they sell, and who’s buying them, there’s no one here that’s going to be able to convince you otherwise!

Just to be clear, I said

There’s probably a single digit percentage of anything that’s not mobile and not an iMac being sold.

you said

If that were the case the Mac Pro and Mac Mini wouldn’t have existed through several iterations spanning several years now, this new Mac could fill a hole and boost those desktop sales.

I pointed to the story where Apple had the following to say about the Mac Pro share

Apple declined to describe the Mac Pro’s share of all Mac sales any more specifically than “a single-digit percent”

For 2021, that’s still roughly 1-2 million Mac Pro’s or Mac Mini’s a year which is certainly enough for Apple to make a profit from and continue to produce. Still, though, they sold 26-28 million of “every other Mac”.

 

[theluggage]

No, they’re not desirable. Number one reason? They’re desktops. In fact, no one’s desktops are desirable to the vast majority of folks buying computers today, Mac or PC. Apple, Dell, HP, they’re all selling far more laptops than desktops.

That's true - but then regular desktops are far easier/cheaper to develop than laptops (you can buy a bunch of generic components and build a desktop PC on your kitchen table with a screwdriver). If Apple had wanted to make the proverbial xMac - which, pre-Apple-Silicon, would have amounted to a bog-standard PC motherboard with a firmware patch in a nicer-than-average MiniATX case - they could probably have phoned Foxconn and had a dozen container-loads of them by the end of the month... and they'd still have sold for a significant premium by virtue of being officially blessed to run MacOS.

Meanwhile, Apple have continued to make iMacs and Mac Minis, and if larger Mac desktops have failed to sell, there are a couple of unsurprising reasons for this:
1. The classic Mac Pro was effectively abandoned in ~ 2011
2. In 2012/2013 it was replaced by the trashcan, and we all know how that went...
3. It's not clear exactly what happened in 2017 but it sure looks like they tried to replace the trashcan with the iMac Pro, showed a prototype to a few key customers/developers, got knocked back and had that unprecedented "whoops, we messed up" press briefing promising the then mythical modular Mac Pro.
4. Mac Pro finally shows up in 2019 and its $6k - twice the price of the old Mac Pro - for a configuration less powerful than a $3k full-spec iMac. Now, turns out that if you were gong to spend $20k+ on a top-end Xeon, top-end workstation GPUs and a terabyte of RAM anyway that initial $6k is chump change... but for anybody who just wanted something a bit more powerful than an iMac with some internal expansion, it was a joke. Lots of us wanted a VW pick-up truck, not a Bugatti (not even a nonsensical 'entry level' Bugatti with a 1400cc 4 cylinder engine and PVC upholstery, which is teh best description of the entry-level pro).
5. The $1k display stand and $700 wheels might not matter, cosmically speaking, but they really are a good way of insulting customers and making Apple a laughing stock amongst PC users.

 

[Candlelight]

Maxy McMacFace.