Apple Silicon Mac Pro Said to Feature Same Design as 2019 Model, No User-Upgradable RAM

[Velli]

The upcoming high-end Apple silicon Mac Pro will feature the same design as the 2019 model, with no user-upgradeable RAM given the all-on-chip architecture of Apple silicon.

In his latest Power On newsletter, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman has revealed that Apple's upcoming Mac Pro, which is the final product to make the transition to Apple silicon, will feature the same design as the current Mac Pro from 2019. Unlike the current Intel-based Mac Pro, the upcoming model will also not feature user-upgradeable RAM.

Gurman has reported that Apple has canceled plans to release a higher-end model of the upcoming Mac Pro with 48 CPU cores and 152 GPU cores given its high cost and likely niche market.

Article Link: Apple Silicon Mac Pro Said to Feature Same Design as 2019 Model, No User-Upgradable RAM

This is exactly the computer that makes sense, based on Apple’s own comments.

I’m still arguing that there should be sn upgrade path for existing users to replace their Intel morherboard with an Apple Silicon one. I don’t see why not, if the case and all daughterboards except RAM is the same. With the modular design, replacing it should be dead simple.

What were you expecting from a new design? To take away the espansion slots that are the only reason to buy one over a Studio? To take away the integrated RAM that is a key feature of Apple Silicon? This is the only AS Mac Pro product that makes sense.

 

[Onelifenofear]

For multiple potential reasons:

- Cooling issues. Having multiple of these CPUs combined into one may result into a heat buildup that expotential to the increase of CPU die surface. So you need a better cooling solution. Take Mac Studio for comparison, how large that heatsink is. And now double or quadruple the CPU die size -> You will need some space to install some really effective bad ass quiet cooling

- Time restrictions: They just didn't have enough time to invent a better casing. And out of practicality - and maybe because current users are already using and daved the space for this form factor - they keep it.

They have all the time in the world.

And you missed the main reason. It has PCIE slots so it can have much beefier GPUS as the current one does.

 

[Velli]

I’m assuming the Mac Pro Wheels are going to cost about the same as well?

Why does anyone expect it not to be literally the same box?

 

[Onelifenofear]

It’s apple silicon, why would you think you could upgrade ram?

Because the chip wiring that go to the internal ram could just go to an external Ram controller. It's not hard it may not be as fast but the more RAM you have the slower things can be.

If it doesn't have the ability to upgrade RAM over time. it's not a pro machine in the same way as the current one.

I've gone from 32gb to 192 on my pro and thinking about doubling it. I need it for large scale 3D work.

Actually the easiest way they can do this it's to have 2 level RAM. The internal that can act like a large Cache and external as a huge buffer.

 

[Onelifenofear]

Why does anyone expect it not to be literally the same box?

Don't know... it's a great box. Holds loads of PCIE.

 

[Abstract]

If Gurman releases enough rumours, he's far more likely to hit. 🎯

 

[mward333]

I'm a computational scientist. My current 2019 Mac Pro has 1.5 TB of RAM and, of course, I purchased the RAM from a third party. My computations often fill the full 1.5 TB of RAM. It is chugging away on 40 computational tasks for a week (right now) and the RAM is almost full throughout the computation. For context: I setup jobs on my Mac Pro, test them extensively, and then batch out thousands of jobs on our high performance computing cluster once I am sure everything works well.

If the 2023/2024 Mac Pro doesn't have an option with a ton of cores, and doesn't have an option for a ton of user-upgradable RAM, that is a deal breaker for me. I'll just stick with my 2019 Mac Pro, which I love, and which should keep working for many years to come. I used my 2008 Mac Pro (the older Octo-Core!) for a long long time.

Just my two cents.

 

[Onelifenofear]

The other hidden presumption here is that more future discrete GPU from AMD would get covered with drivers. (it magically happens by default on the general PC market side , but not necesarily going to happen on the Mac side.)
As Apple's iGPU cover more and more of the preformance range of AMD GPU product range what is going to be the large motivator to cover the parts that Apple already covers (even if extend that out to the eGPU deployments. )

I and not sure what you mean by magically. Nvidia / AMD have to make drivers for all their cards and it's up to them to optimise and maintain them

With apple AMD as the only 3rd party currently they work with apple. However Technically AMD only has to Build drivers that are Metal compatible. All the optimisation is handled by Apple.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

8 GB on the base model.

 

[DailySlow]

So, let's put this whole thing in perspective.

• Apple's Mac sales grew 40% last year, in an overall declining PC market. Obviously people are buying them, because they like them, and trust them to get work done.
• The M-series chips offer plenty of performance. I call a Mac Mini running over 900 tracks in Logic, each with their own instance of Space Designer, pro level.
• Apple's approach, working forward from the iPhone, seems to be 'the computer as console,' i.e. a smaller set of known hardware that is easy to develop for and debug. I don't see this as a bad thing. If we're talking about 'pro' systems, i.e. systems we use to earn a living, then the simpler and more standardized, the better. The less often I have to be a sysadmin, or trying to juggle weird drivers in Safe Mode, the more time I can devote to actually working.
• Let's say this rumor is true and the Pro SoC doesn't have expandable RAM. The question we're not asking is: How much RAM do pro users actually need?
• The M1 Ultra currently tops out at 128GB, which is 1/12th of the potential maximum RAM in an Intel Mac Pro. and yet, it's still edging out the biggest Xeon they ship, performancewise.
• A lot of pro software has surprisingly light RAM requirements (even supposed heavyweights like AutoCAD, Maya, etc.). Some pro tasks are more bound to the CPU, others to the GPU, others handled by specialized signal processing chips or sub-sections of chips. Other tasks are more dependent on speed and width of data lanes to and from disk storage.
• Where having huge amounts of RAM helps is when you have to work with many very large image layers (Photoshop, or compositing tools for film); huge datasets in live memory (vs. paging in and out to disk); or tasks like OS virtualization. And even in compositing, that task is highly CPU-bound, too.
• So "huge RAM requirements" are really more in the realm of scientific or enterprise computing. Is this an area Apple wants/needs to compete in, can be profitable in, or has anything to change the game? I argue no, at least not for now.
• Will an Apple Silicon Mac Pro have enough memory to run something like, say, Foundry's Nuke VFX compositing software? I think yes. If the current M1 Ultra has 128GB of SoC RAM, it's not a stretch to think that an M2 / M3 version could have 256 / 512 / 1TB. It just won't be expandable, unless the SoC is on some sort of swappable daughtercard.
• Next: Will it need expandable graphics? Maybe. We've already seen that the AS GPU cores are quite competitive, and could be scaled up. I don't see Apple willingly throwing money to AMD unless they have something that Apple needs. We know Apple is very unwilling to work with Nvidia right now, and has already spent a lot of money acquiring smaller graphics companies. If there's a card in it, it might be a new Apple one, but I'm betting on beefed-up GPU cores.

I like “daughtercards”

 

[playtech1]

Since this is basically a Mac Studio with a few relatively minor bells and whistles, pricing should really be in the same ballpark as that model, but I fear Apple will mess this up and add $1k+ for the privilege of basic expansion options.

 

[DailySlow]

I wish Apple would move on from the cheese grater. It wore out its welcome when it first came out 20 years ago.
They need to bring back the mirrored drive door style G4 case! Now THAT was a great looking machine!!!

Yup, like the conning center of the #RedOctober.

 

[ascender]

I still think the Mac Studio is the machine Gurman and others thought was going to be the new Mac Pro.

The current Mac Pro case still looks great, is very well laid-out inside, easy to work in, has lots of expansion etc, so this kind of makes sense doesn't it? Why would they change it for the sake of it?

The RAM situation is as-expected given the SOC, so it will be interesting to see what configurations are available. I also wonder how many people who may have gone for a Mac Pro, have instead gone for a Mac Studio?

 

[Asbow]

But is non-ECC ram an issue? I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, I really don't know. Apple felt it was needed for the current Mac Pro, but now not

It is if the integrity of the data is important.

Right right, bear with me here ...

The report says two slots free? I would guess PCIe compatible slots, yeah?

And since these Apple Silicon chips are SoCs and you can't upgrade them, what if the whole Motherboard for the next decade of Mac Pros is actually removable?

You still get PCIe slots for bespoke hardware and users can upgrade the SoC like they would a GPU.

View attachment 2139303

MPX SoC blades. Only plausible solution. Base MacPro specification then SoC blades for expansion. Sold as Built to Order parts/add later.

SoCs are all about compromise. They’re are great for devices like phones, laptops and cars. The M* is a Great SoC and tying RAM to the package works on a Mobile/Portable Device but it’s a mobile platform. For workstations the use case is different. Yes power efficiency is a concern but with this power constraints aren’t defined by batteries?

 

[maflynn]

It is if the integrity of the data is important.

I understand the function of ECC ram, but it seems Apple may not care, so do people who use workstation class machines really want it in this day and age?

 

[Anaxarxes]

I think having RAM upgradability is a manageable compromise if you think of abundance of RAM offered in the first place.

Starting with 128GB, offering 256 and 512GB as options should eliminate the need of upgrading RAM for a pro machine, which have shorter renew cycles than consumer machines.

The most important factor here is a full size PCI-E slot for graphics and add-on cards. PCI-E 6.0 was released last year, support for that should be a great start.

 

[jimw]

The upcoming high-end Apple silicon Mac Pro will feature the same design as the 2019 model, with no user-upgradeable RAM given the all-on-chip architecture of Apple silicon.

In his latest Power On newsletter, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman has revealed that Apple's upcoming Mac Pro, which is the final product to make the transition to Apple silicon, will feature the same design as the current Mac Pro from 2019. Unlike the current Intel-based Mac Pro, the upcoming model will also not feature user-upgradeable RAM.

Gurman has reported that Apple has canceled plans to release a higher-end model of the upcoming Mac Pro with 48 CPU cores and 152 GPU cores given its high cost and likely niche market.

Article Link: Apple Silicon Mac Pro Said to Feature Same Design as 2019 Model, No User-Upgradable RAM

Hopefully, the recent announcements for IOS, the pricing of its new VR, the stripping of the planned MacPro Desktop, and the wasted millions on Apple's secret' new car (likely high-priced and too late into the market) will send Apple sales into the tank, finally upsetting shareholders and the Board of Directors to the point of shoving Tim Cook out the door to settle down in his new $10 million dollar home in LA much earlier that he had planned.

With such a change hopefully with new management, Apple will revert back to its original paradigm of putting the customer first instead of next quarter's profits first at the expense of customer satisfaction and support. It is that former paradigm that made Apple historically such a successful company. What they don't seem to understand under its current management is that its customers want and are willing to pay a bit extra for is solid, friendly trouble-free, and extremely reliable products with superior support as opposed to constant security annoyances, complex settings with mediocre documentation, a fix-it-yourself support mentality, numerous hardware and software glitches that kill productivity and often never get fixed, forced obsolescence, and razzle-dazzle new features that many to most do not understand, have no need for or never use.

 

[DailySlow]

It’s apple silicon, why would you think you could upgrade ram?

“We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the [PC] streets. Corruption is why we win.” ((Danny Dalton) = (Tim B. Nelson) in (Syriana))

 

[Asbow]

I’m a graphic designer so it’s not really that important for me. However if I was a data scientist and I’m using say Mathematica, I want to know that my data is solid.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

My thoughts on the Mac Pro are this:

Apple's focus is on providing accelerated solutions to workflows that people do frequently on the device they are using.

Apple ticked a lot of classical 'tower PC' boxes with the 2019 Mac Pro, insofar as it offered all the usual things, with the exception of the clever integration of Thunderbolt passthrough and the MPX format for the cards. Other than that, it was, ultimately, a workstation XEON tower, much like the competitors with a nicer chassis.

2022/2023 is a bit different. Apple's shift to Apple Silicon has allowed it to be more feature oriented, hence the media encoders and neural engine, Secure Enclave etc.

I highly doubt that Apple will just 'tick the boxes' again on this one. If anything, I believe that the boxes floating around the traps now in the rumours are test machines.

This is Apple's halo Mac product. It always has been. I believe Apple will continue to innovate and push boundaries in the form of accelerated engines for common tasks in professional situations that call for a tower-like machine.

So, just like afterburner before it, we may see either additional custom cards that accelerate certain tasks, or we will have a unique chipset with that integrated into the board/chip like the media encoders on M1/M2.

I believe Apple will continue to provide a unique professional machine that is both future focused and backwards compatible with PCIe slots. Unsure how many, but I can't see them backtracking too far after the friction they caused in the past by removing slots. Yes it might even ditch banks of RAM in favour of on-die solutions, and I would not be surprised to see a custom GPU card from Apple with a ton more of the upcoming "too hot for A16" GPU cores.

It might use the 'same design' as the current Mac Pro. But that doesn't mean it's the exact same chassis. It could just be the exact same design aesthetic with cheese grater look, but a smaller overall accounting for slightly less power consumption?

Happy to be wrong about this one. But I just can't see Apple going backwards on this one. They have taken their time to get this right for a reason.

They have the VR/AR industry to take by storm. And thus, need a beast of a machine that can build/design/develop for that new medium.

I would expect Apple announces the new Mac Pro when they announce the VR Headset as a companion product for developers to use to make content for the headset.

Apple could care less about VR. They care about AR. just like 99.9% of the industry not Meta.

 

[Basic75]

I understand the function of ECC ram, but it seems Apple may not care, so do people who use workstation class machines really want it in this day and age?

Everybody should care about and want ECC RAM! There is nothing that would make this less desirable than 2 or 20 years ago. Apple made IPS and retina displays mainstream, they could do the same with ECC, but no, it's not flashy enough to advertise less random crashes and less random data corruptions. **** the users' data like it's only Facebook and Flappy Birds.

 

[Basic75]

It is if the integrity of the data is important.

People do online banking on their phones, the whole product stack should switch to ECC.

 

[DailySlow]

Gurman is wrong. Prepare to be pleasantly surprised.

 

[baryon]

It would be very lame if even the Mac Pro didn't have upgradeable RAM. At least it should have the ability to have an nVidia GPU since that's kind of a huge deal with machine learning. Neither of those will happen of course.

 

[maflynn]

Everybody should care about and want ECC RAM!

I don't see it that way. I think the stability and reliability or ram is such that its a not a concern