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

[Le0M]

Again, if these all are true, why is this different from a Mac Studio with an upcoming M2 Ultra??

Same thought of mine. I think either the report is wrong, or Apple is using this update as a gap-mac for a future, much better Mac Pro to come, so not to disappoint on the time-frame it set for itself when it announced it would switch to in-house chips throughout the whole mac line.

 

[jhende7]

No user upgradable RAM? Is this a joke???

One of the main benefits (that contribute to the performance) of the M series chips is that Apple uses DDR5 unified memory. Having user upgradable ram would fundamentally break that. I have a lot of doubt regarding this computer (if Gurman can be trusted) but no one should be surprised or worried about this in particular.

 

[Le0M]

Question: is it possible to add an external GPU to the Mac Studio?

 

[ericwn]

"...no user-upgradeable RAM"
After two decades of owning macs I am thinking more and more of going back to a windows machine for this reason.
Who wants to pay inflated prices for ram?

I have a hard time believing the presence of user accessible RAM is your main concern after accumulating two decades of user experience.
And, while totally a downside, one could see where the puck was headed with Apple’s other machines, for years now.

 

[maflynn]

Question: is it possible to add an external GPU to the Mac Studio?

Technically you can connect a EGPU but lack of drivers doom it, so no I don't believe you can

 

[maflynn]

So probably no ECC-Ram.

I'm going to say no. How does this impact the pro-worthiness of a Mac Pro?

 

[MDomino]

That's because the memory is tied directly to the M2 Ultra's motherboard.

Ah good, for a hot second there I thought it was because of corporate greed ...

 

[Le0M]

I'm going to say no. How does this impact the pro-worthiness of a Mac Pro?

A lot, if the computer can "only" reach 128GB.
The actual Mac Pro can be upgraded with up to 1.5TB of RAM.

 

[maflynn]

Again, if these all are true, why is this different from a Mac Studio with an upcoming M2 Ultra??

Indeed, I suspect that you'll be able to add storage after the fact with the Mac Pro, where as Apple artificially prohibits adding storage to the Studio

 

[gnipgnop]

No user upgradable RAM? Is this a joke???

It's a trade-off. Integrated RAM is not user upgradeable but it's far more efficient than non-integrated RAM. In general, you would need twice the amount of non-integrated RAM to equal the performance of integrated RAM. Example: 256 GB of integrated RAM is the equivalent of 512 GB of non-integrated RAM.

 

[Michael.S]

"...no user-upgradeable RAM"
After two decades of owning macs I am thinking more and more of going back to a windows machine for this reason.
Who wants to pay inflated prices for ram?

It's Apple strategy. We've seen it before.
And it's because it's a SoC. That is it's Achilles' foot. But it doesn't hurt Apple but us.

Anyway, I believe anyone who is seriuosly buying such a computer runs it for years. And what comes preconfigured won't become extended. Rather the old computer will be sold and a new one will be bought.

That is how it is in the industry nowadays. Even with Windows desktops. You buy them - or lease them - for some time. And when their purpose is done - or lease time is over - they will be scrapped or sold or given back. And new computers will be bought or rented. At least that is how I experienced it in the last 15 years of my career.

Only private customers want ot extend their computers.

But this is not for the private audience. For that you have the MacBook Pros and the Mac Studio.

 

[maflynn]

A lot, if the computer can "only" reach 128GB.

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

 

[JMStearnsX2]

If Apple wouldn't charge 4x the market rate for memory, this wouldn't be such an issue.

 

[Aaargh!]

- 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.

I would suggest it's more calculated than that. They've done this every time they make a significant change to the internals. The first Intel iMacs had the exact same design as the PPC ones, the first M1 MacBooks and Mini looked the same as the Intel ones.

I think they do it to make a point. When they switched to Intel, there was a lot of anxiety about the switch. People were uncertain what it meant for them. Will stuff break ? Is it still a 'real' Mac ? Then they deliver a machine that looks and works exactly the same as the existing iMac. The vast majority of users cannot tell the difference other than that the new machine is much faster. It's the exact same UX, it's the exact same Mac, just with better performance.

Same when they released the first M1 Macs. Same anxieties from users. Same way of dealing with it. The new MacBooks and mini looked the same, just faster, quieter and with better battery life. It's still the same Mac you know and love.

Then, once people have decided they love the new hardware, they can change the way it looks.

They need to do the same with the Mac Pro's as it's a different market than the existing line of Mac's. Mac Studio had a little overlap, but the real high-end users of Mac Pros are still going to be very wary of the radical new architecture and what it means for them. So they deliver a machine that will just be a drop-in replacement, business as usual. Wait a year or so, then drop the user-visible changes.

 

[foobarbaz]

As another disappointment, the new Mac Pro will look identical to the 2019 model

I'm sorry, but who exactly was supposedly excited about a new Mac Pro "design"?
Did anybody expect a Mac Pro to look like anything but a Mac Pro? Do any Mac Pro buyers care? No Mac Pro fans want an exciting or extravagant new design (hello trashcan), they want a reliable work horse without compromises.

 

[gnipgnop]

If Apple wouldn't charge 4x the market rate for memory, this wouldn't be such an issue.

The M series systems aren't using non-integrated RAM.

 

[Le0M]

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

I know what you mean. I'm not so sure about those technicalities, yet I'm quite sure that between 128GB and 1,5TB there's a lot of space to fill, and I don't think RAM speed would make up for that.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is just a gap-mac, in wait of a much more powerful Mac Pro coming later on.

 

[MarkC426]

At least this means we're not getting Trashcan 2.0.

Maybe not in form/looks, but sounds like another step-back.

 

[Dan From Canada]

I have a hard time believing the presence of user accessible RAM is your main concern after accumulating two decades of user experience.
And, while totally a downside, one could see where the puck was headed with Apple’s other machines, for years now.

Ram is not my only concern.
It is the accessability and affordability of computer.
If I can get more punch per dollar, that is where I will go.
To each his/her own.

 

[Dan From Canada]

It's Apple strategy. We've seen it before.
And it's because it's a SoC. That is it's Achilles' foot. But it doesn't hurt Apple but us.

Anyway, I believe anyone who is seriuosly buying such a computer runs it for years. And what comes preconfigured won't become extended. Rather the old computer will be sold and a new one will be bought.

That is how it is in the industry nowadays. Even with Windows desktops. You buy them - or lease them - for some time. And when their purpose is done - or lease time is over - they will be scrapped or sold or given back. And new computers will be bought or rented. At least that is how I experienced it in the last 15 years of my career.

Only private customers want ot extend their computers.

But this is not for the private audience. For that you have the MacBook Pros and the Mac Studio.

I'm 68 years old now.
My next computer will probably be my last and I intend it to be upgradeable especially as price becomes a concern.

 

[Kazgarth]

I lost track on how many false rumors this guy have pushed to us.

 

[maflynn]

At least this means we're not getting Trashcan 2.0.

We are sort of are. Yes, not the looks of the trashcan, but the functionality, i.e., lack of expandability. The lack of expandability is what doomed that Mac Pro

 

[ericwn]

Ram is not my only concern.
It is the accessability and affordability of computer.
If I can get more punch per dollar, that is where I will go.
To each his/her own.

Affordability with a Mac Pro is hardly a concern for Apple with its decades long history of making money on RAM. This thing will be niche and they’ll charge an arm and a leg for it as they usually do.

 

[rp2011]

At the moment I have a high end Windows PC parked alongside my Mac Studio. Seems like that is the way it's going to remain. I think it is going to be a long time to never for Apple to match the performance and value of a high end Windows machine for graphics intensive work.

 

[XXPP]

Again, if these all are true, why is this different from a Mac Studio with an upcoming M2 Ultra??

slots for SSD and cards.