If they want to do a non-expandable desktop with a higher end SoC than the Ultra, they already have the Studio for that.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Silicon Mac Pro Said to Feature Same Design as 2019 Model, No User-Upgradable RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think the Studio was a temporary product. Only reason Apple would cancel it is if it didn't sell enough. I do believe sales on the Mac Studio have been a bit lower than Apple was hoping for, but that comes down to two reasons -- One is there are people holding out for the new Mac Pro. Second reason is they priced the Studio a bit too high for the upper RAM and SSD options. I almost bought the M1 Ultra Studio with 128GB and 4TB SSD, but at $5700 + tax, I was out and decided to wait for the Pro. Didn't expect to wait this long...
While I can see it happening, I have serious doubts that an Apple Silicon Mac Pro will keep the same design as the current Intel based Pro, there really isn't much advantage here to doing so and there is a lot of extra unnecessary expense rolled into that design, as cool as it is.
Are we sure that Apple will continue to use AMD GPUs? Or will they try to court nVidia again (I think that ship sailed permanently due to other overlapping objectives). Perhaps Apple will produce their own GPU modules for the Pro since the GPUs being incorporated into the M1 and M2 are rather stellar.
While I can see it happening, I have serious doubts that an Apple Silicon Mac Pro will keep the same design as the current Intel based Pro, there really isn't much advantage here to doing so and there is a lot of extra unnecessary expense rolled into that design, as cool as it is.
Are we sure that Apple will continue to use AMD GPUs? Or will they try to court nVidia again (I think that ship sailed permanently due to other overlapping objectives). Perhaps Apple will produce their own GPU modules for the Pro since the GPUs being incorporated into the M1 and M2 are rather stellar.
Apple designs the friggin' chips now. What it supports and doesn't support is entirely up to Apple. The ARM architecture has no problems with standard memory modules or any other traditional PC components. It is Apple who chooses what and what not to support in their designs. There is no law of nature that says Apple Silicon cannot support "non-unified" memory. If they don't, it's because Apple chooses not to.
Whether these choices are informed by lock-in, money, industrial design, or some combination thereof, the fact remains that Apple has no more excuses on why it can or cannot do something when they are designing their own processors. If they decide to only release locked-down processors that do not permit expandability, then that is entirely on them.
Don't let Apple gaslight you.
The only idea I can think of is making M2 Extreme chip with 192gb of memory and then use multiple M2 Extreme chip or together just like they did with Mac Pro series. Each slots take one or two M2 Extreme. Easy to upgrade, easy to replace. The only question is how to connect them all together with fast speed.
The rumor is that the high-end mini gets M2 Pro. Mac Pro will be M2 Ultra. So keeping the Studio will be redundant, except for the M2 Max version. It'll be interesting to see what Apple decides to offer. I don't care that much though. I'm happy with the existing Intel Mac Pro.
Last edited:
Say what we want about the processors…. But the up charge on SSD and RAM (even that much of it) is just absolutely obscene.
That pricing is just utterly ludicrous gouging
It can't be 16GB of RAM. The Max SoC minimally starts off at 32GB. The Ultra minimally starts off a 64GB of RAM.
The RAM here is mostly skewed toward keeping the GPU feed with data; not CPU data demands. Apple needs data spread out over a lot of different LPDDR5 RAM dies to be able to access lots of different data locations concurrently at high aggregate bandwidths. Basically it is a "poor man's HBM" memory. So there is a 'floor' of just how few concurrent dies can go to. (the number of memory controllers in an Ultra is > 2x the number in the current Mac Pro. more controllers talking to nothing isn't going to help. )
Defacto that pushes the memory floor of the larger M-series systems up higher than it used to be with the Intel ones. (where no high performance iGPU was attached. )
As for SSD. There might be a 512GB one. That is more so to placate the folks who don't want to use Apple's SSD at all ( or nothing much else other than a maintenance boot disk , hypervisor only disk , etc. )
If have a rack mounted server where 99% of the data is stored off on the local SAN/NAS network then 612 isn't really going to make a difference. Even less so if the persistent store for VM images are also off in the SAN/NAS network. So the client apps/home directory/mac os files aren't really on the internal drive either.
There are other folks who don't like that Apple's SSD encrypt the data all the time (no matter what the FileVault settings are). They 'hate' Apple SSDs so giving them a smaller one to buy at a lower price helps makes them more happy. A Mac Pro with several internal PCI-e slots allows a user to trivally step around buy Apple SSD capacity. ( even more trivial if Apple just relented and just added two standard M.2 PCI-e v4 sockets on the logicboard. ). Once there is multiple internal slots, Apple doesn't have huge leverage to making folks only use their drive. A substantial number of folks are going to say "screw those prices , I'm skipping theirs.". Making them buy a 1TB drive that they aren't going to use accomplishes what????? Probably less money for Apple as more folks just skip buying the whole system altogether. ).
Apple is going to expect the normal user just to reset that to 1TB (or higher) and move on in the BTO configuration. But could keep it around so that next Mac Pro starts at $5,999 also even after inflation and other factors. The user flipping the SSD to 1TB creates a slightly bigger pricing buffer gap between the Mac Studio Ultra and the Mac Pro. That helps with segmentation.
If Apple took away the 512GB option the entry price would only likely just go higher. if the entry RAM is going to 64GB (currently MP 2019 starts at 32GB) there is probably going to be another component 'offset' to keep the price the same.
Apple GPUs are fine for the products they’ve used them in so far… but they don’t really hold a candle to the AMD and NVIDIA high end offerings.
Like I indicated, there’s nothing about the current issues that can’t be resolved, even this proprietary port idea. It’s not “impossible” that such a port could provide bandwidth exactly equaling the bandwidth Apple’s internal GPU has (and, yes, for those that know, I do realize it’s HIGHLY unlikely, but still, it’s technically “doable”). However, on Apple Silicon, Apple only supports Apple GPU’s (and Apple’s GPU’s are TBDR). So, that’s the FIRST thing that would have to change, and developers would hear about it via WWDC first. Once that’s announced, everything’s on the table. Until it is, there’s no non-Apple GPU’s for Apple Silicon.
I think you remember when it was easier to pretend that you DIDN’T own the bits of software you purchased.
Fair enough, but I guess the question is can these expandable options match or exceed the performance of "unified" GPU/RAM? It seems like they would have to be able to, at least for marketing reasons. Mac Pro is about modularity, but it's also about the highest possible performance.
Why have the same form factor? Unless they’re sticking with those MPX modules for graphics cards?
cant See it though with Apple going all in on GPUs on their silicon… maybe a Mac Studio with pci slots and some internal storage capability?
cant See it though with Apple going all in on GPUs on their silicon… maybe a Mac Studio with pci slots and some internal storage capability?
I think it’s more that, even though Apple has defined what’s possible with the current Apple Silicon quite well during past WWDC’s (that text and video is still available), someone saying anything against that will always get a good amount of attention from the user community that just wants Apple Silicon to be “Intel, but faster”. Even after the Pro is released and is pretty much along the lines of what Apple’s been saying all along, there will still be folks that think the NEXT iteration will be compatible with NVidia for sure… and there will be analysts willing to tell them whatever they want to hear for the attention/clicks/ad views.
If Apple wants to include unified memory, great. I have no problem with that. But their design can and should allow for standards DIMMs as well. Sure, maybe it's a little bit slower (not much, most of the rest of the world still gets by more-than-fine with this setup) but then you can upgrade your machine instead of being stuck with what you've got. Heck, Apple did this [built-in + expandable] memory setup with some of their classic machines in the 80's and 90's.
Apple wants you to buy a new machine every time you need to upgrade your specs. Car manufacturers want you to subscribe for f****** heated seats.
Hell NO.
Largely because Apple otherwise takes 5 years to make a computer case
And probably the OS itself wouldn't even allow any low level drivers anyway, they got away with kernel extensions a while ago and that was prior to Apple Silicon.
I'm sure AS version of macOS has no support for any kind of external graphics solutions even if someone wanted to make drivers for one.
The GPU situation in the Mac Pro will be interesting. Will the GPU cards just be AS GPU's in multiple slots or multiple GPU's per slot?
Or worse, it would be really funny if they shipped a newer Intel Mac Pro as a stop-gap
I Doubt there will ever be a way to upgrade ram on a M series chip the chip as it stands cause ram is integrated. I hope that changes but it may not. I think apple will let the super high end go to PC's cause it's not enough money. I wouldn't be shocked if apple doesn't even have a event for this Mac LOl. I have the 2019 Mac Pro and a m1 max 16inch so I'm good for my video production I use the mbp and for my music production the 2019 Mac Pro. I'll wait for the m3 Mac Pro man I hope it has pci slots I have usb cards for my synths and stuff. I hate Hubs Lol
Well they probably spent a good chunk of money on the design, and they already knew they had plans to exit from Intel, so they obviously planned to reuse the chassis design.
Besides, when does Apple ever make a design for something and doesn't reuse it for years to come. Well I guess the Trashcan, but they would have had they not made it so thermally inept.
Every "pro desktop" Apple has released after 2012 has been a boutique one-off.
One of the reasons they're so expensive is: Apple doesn't seem to know how to cheaply make a low-volume product?
We're still waiting to find out if the Mac Studio was a one-off, or not.
I kind of always wondered if he or someone he talked was horrible at math and geometry and the "half the size" enclosure was "half the size on each of the three dimensions".
20.8 x 17.7 x 8.58 (inches) =====> 10.4 x 8.85 x 4.29
then remember that the height (first number) includes handles and feet that could go away completely if a literal desktop system. 18.8 --> 9.4 and flip it on its side (with width becomes height ) 4.29 x 9.4 x 8.85
Mac Studio : 3.7 x 7.7 x 7.7 (inches )
That would be in the ballpark of being a 'taller Mac Mini" . But "half the size" is a illustrative example of playing the 'telephone game'.
Another leaker reported that there was a one-slot-wonder M1 "double ultra" Mac Pro prototype so perhaps another enclosure died along with that SoC.
Some folks where trying to chop the dimensions to block full length , full height PCI-e cards which didn't make any sense all along either.
Even if Apple reuses the same case. Not necessarily going to get a whole lot more aggregate bandwidth. That could just be a cost saving measure as much as anything else. They have a subcontractor that can make them and don't have to hire a new one. Just don't fill it up on the inside exactly the same way. ( like the M1 Mini , MBA , MBP 13" ). IF there was a half sized case that spend R&D money on that is going down the drain ... going cheap ( $0.0 R&D would be a likely Apple move to claw the money back. )
If Apple had a M2 Ultra that did just x16 PCI-e v4 and an Extreme that did two x16 PCI-e v4. If feed either of those inputs into a 'dual input' PLEX PCI-e switch like they used in the Mac Pro 2019 then could have 6-8 slots either way. One has better backhaul than the other , but the SoC shift wouldn't impact the most of the rest of the motherboard layout.
Even less so if both the Ultra and Extreme both had two x16 PCI-e v4 coming out or both just one x16 .
Extremely doubtful that Apple was going to try to build an "Extreme" only Mac Pro. That makes about zero sense. The price point is already problematically high. Pushing it higher is only going to put the system on a faster pricing death spiral. What the Mac Pro more so needs is walking back from those far out fringe upper 10% percetile BTO configurations.
THe Mac Studio has one , and only one , internal drive. Zero internal PCI-e slots. Even if the Mac Pro matches on SoC (e.g., M2 Ultra) if the Mac Pro has 4slots (at half the size) and can provision 2-4 M.2 x4 PCI-e v4 internal drives then that is a significant "value add" gap between the two systems. Simply just match a GPU doesn't equate two workstations. Some folks have that narrow viewpoint but not everyone does.
Going from 4 slots to 6-8 slots is incrementally better. It isn't a whole lot better if the backhaul behind those 2-4 more slots is exactly the same as the backhaul behind the 4. Both of them however a load better than the backhaul of just one Thunderbolt 4 port.
If Apple has decide to sell the MP 2019 even longer into the future than having the same case for both lowers bill-of-material (BOM ) costs for both.
If the Extreme was pulled one path for Apple would be to drop the Vega II Pro , lower the W6x000 prices a bit and limp along. If can get discounts out of Intel drop the CPU prices also (although good luck with that now not a prime volume customer anymore).
[ The W6900 is priced higher than a W6800 Duo. one die priced higher than two of the exact same die. Folks talk about gouging .... that's gouging . That was crypto pricing wars on steroids. That mania imploded a while back now. Perpetuating that pricing in 2023 is almost suicidal. ]
Apple abandoned the Mac Pro in 2012. They have purposely released product designs not fit for purpose so they can (wrongly) claim that the consumer doesn’t want a Pro Mac before withdrawing it from the market completely.
The 2013 trashcan Mac Pro was a spectacular failure and was in no way a replacement for a tower based Mac.
The replacement for a tower based Mac is...another tower based Mac!!!!
The ‘all in one unexpandable’ design had been emphatically rejected by the public already with the Cube (which was hastily withdrawn from the lineup after just 6 months), so when the Trashcan design was announced by Apple, they ALREADY knew it wasn't what users wanted.
Then in 2017 they allegedly ‘acknowledge’ their mistakes and promise to 'listen' and subsequently make you wait two more years for a tower for which the base model is more than double the price of its 2012 counterpart!!!
the design isn't the barrier now...the price is.
Apple have since announced another unupgradable Mac (Mac Studio) for those who cannot afford £5k for a Mac Pro (which again isn't an alternative to a tower). My point is Apple have discontinued the Mac Pro already, they keep putting 'gotchas' into it with needlessly imposed limitations that require ridiculously expensive solutions, which results in poor unit sales so then they can claim 'no one wants it'.
The iMac has been basically the same design since 2009 - the Mac Pro could have been too. Based on the feedback on this forum and on my own (all be it VERY small) sample base of users it's all most existing Mac Pro users wanted.
We just needed an updated version of the 2006-2012 Mac Pro. Faster more efficient processors, faster RAM, better GPU etc etc and tweaks for it to be quieter maybe and more energy efficient etc, but we needed to be able to add our own storage, own RAM and our own PCIe cards so that the system could grow with us and be tailored to our needs...just like it could before.
Apple aren't stupid...not giving the users this option was a DELIBERATE act - it was a choice.
It was a big F**K YOU to many long standing existing, loyal Mac Tower users, but they didn't care...and they still don't.
It's shameful, but it's true.
Last edited:
So in the first 2 pages of replies, I realized that for Apple silicon devices, I don't really care if the RAM is user upgradable. And that's because I'm buying a SYSTEM that is going to be used for a specific type of work.
At work, that's an i5 with whatever-whatever memory. I don't even know. We don't even let people futz with virtual memory, because they invariably start doing crap they shouldn't do, like deleting their swap files entirely. Everybody thinks they're a power user.
Also at my job, when we build somebody a server, we don't even LET them order RAM. They have to tell us what the server is going to be used for and we will build the thing they need.
Yes, we can add more RAM later to these servers. But most of the time, if the customer has told us the truth about the work they're doing, we won't even need to add memory until it's time for a new system refresh.
Now with respect to Apple: I only ran out of RAM on one device, and that was my iPhone 5 way back in the day. I had more than 32 MB of MP3s.
But since that day, I had an iPhone 6, 7(work), 8, and now 10, 11(work), and 12. I'm on my 3rd iPad and my 1st MacBook Pro. It seems that I'm doing okay ordering what I need, because I don't come back and say "I should have ordered the one with more RAM, more this, or more that.
My iPhone 12 probably won't get upgraded until the 15 or even the 16 comes out. My iPad Pro M1 probably will not get swapped out for another 3+ years. My MBP M1 will be here for a few more years too, until the M3 or even the M4 become available. Or if I start doing things that it can't handle. But so far, that hasn't even been possible.
There was a time once when fixed memory kept me from buying Apple products. Now it just doesn't matter anymore, as long as I don't start cheaping out when I do upgrade, lol!
At work, that's an i5 with whatever-whatever memory. I don't even know. We don't even let people futz with virtual memory, because they invariably start doing crap they shouldn't do, like deleting their swap files entirely. Everybody thinks they're a power user.
Also at my job, when we build somebody a server, we don't even LET them order RAM. They have to tell us what the server is going to be used for and we will build the thing they need.
Yes, we can add more RAM later to these servers. But most of the time, if the customer has told us the truth about the work they're doing, we won't even need to add memory until it's time for a new system refresh.
Now with respect to Apple: I only ran out of RAM on one device, and that was my iPhone 5 way back in the day. I had more than 32 MB of MP3s.
But since that day, I had an iPhone 6, 7(work), 8, and now 10, 11(work), and 12. I'm on my 3rd iPad and my 1st MacBook Pro. It seems that I'm doing okay ordering what I need, because I don't come back and say "I should have ordered the one with more RAM, more this, or more that.
My iPhone 12 probably won't get upgraded until the 15 or even the 16 comes out. My iPad Pro M1 probably will not get swapped out for another 3+ years. My MBP M1 will be here for a few more years too, until the M3 or even the M4 become available. Or if I start doing things that it can't handle. But so far, that hasn't even been possible.
There was a time once when fixed memory kept me from buying Apple products. Now it just doesn't matter anymore, as long as I don't start cheaping out when I do upgrade, lol!
So they can't sell you $1600 wheels and charge a premium for the cheese grater, er, case.
The MP 2019 has already past 3 years. If Apple goes into early 2024 ( perhaps didn't plan to but if the M2 Extreme unexpectedly fell through there isn't really another cheaper "Plan B" option. Just keep selling the old stuff), then that is year 4. If they couldn't get return on investment in 4 years with those kind of margins then there is a huge problem.
MP 2019 case has been reused as they have rolled out new MPX GPU cards each year (2020 , 2021 , 2022 ).
If Apple wants to sell the MP 2019 and new MP side by side for 12-18 months then it is cheaper just to do the same thing like the M1 Mini and 2018 Mini. Same case. Different usage on the inside. Lower bill of materials costs for both in the basic chassis department.