Not sure who is expected to have a worse year... Disney Parks or Apple products.
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
The male lifespan for someone living in Canada is 81.5... how long do you keep your computer?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm no expert so take this as pure what if speculation...
As I understand Thunberbolt, it is grounded in PCI-e.
So if the desire is for expansion that doesn't show in external things like more storage (enclosures + cable), etc attached to a Mac Mini or Studio, Apple could put Thunderbolt jacks and shelves INSIDE the Mac Pro case in which one could insert third party storage, etc and it would be hidden inside the case. Through an aesthetics lens, this would be a Thunderbolt-expandable Mac Pro that is very clean in terms of things attached to it (because they disappear inside).
Apparently, Thunderbolt is tied to PCI-e and PCI-e slots is the primary desire in a Mac Pro vs. a Studio. So instead of delivering as many Thunderbolt jacks for external connections, maybe the "lanes" for Thunderbolt input/output are repurposed as traditional PCI-e slots. These lanes already exist in Studio now but it lacks any card slot structure inside for traditional cards. If we assume that's doable, it's about Silicon drivers being created to work with cards in a much more traditional way.
Unless someone with more knowledge of PCI-e/Thunderbolt wants to correct me, BOTH seem plausible for a new Mac Pro. The first option seems ridiculously doable if Apple wanted... and fully compatible with how Apple seems to want Silicon to go.
The second option seems shaky because it would imply that Apple would have to allow third parties to "expand"/"enhance" a Silicon Mac... which seems only a short hop from third party RAM cards and third party (internal) storage expansion, potentially motivating buyers to NOT pay Apple premiums for as much of those and settling for slower traditional RAM and SSD speeds, which, for the most part, should feel as fast in general computing uses as Silicon RAM and SSD does now. Does your ancient Intel Macs running on third party RAM and SSD feel significantly slower when you still use them for typical computing tasks?
No doubt that Apple RAM and SSD is much faster than off-the-shelf in benchmarks, etc. But can we perceive that speed difference in typical tasks? If so, we should notice some dramatic slow down when we dust off the Intel Macs.
Yes there would be a benefit. If your data size exceeds the size of a given storage, you have to use the slower storage that is bigger. RAM is much faster than a SSD/HDD. Yes, another tier of storage can add a bit of latency but the benefits would usually outweigh the downsides. Some previous Mac Pros have had similar trade offs: populating all the available RAM slots would slow the memory down slightly, but the increased available RAM would be a net benefit in all but some very odd use cases.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm no expert but as is when a Silicon Mac needs more RAM, it starts leveraging the relatively SLOW SSD for swaps.
Conceptually, some actual RAM should be faster than the SSD, even if only used for SWAPS too.
I (perhaps foolishly) imagine that it should be possible to have a Silicon Mac with FASTEST (Apple) RAM + FAST (third party RAM) + SLOW (faux RAM) SSD (for overloaded RAM swaps). I suspect such a configuration would be overall faster RAM processing than leaning solely on Apple RAM with SSD for swaps. Presumably, this new middle speed tier of RAM would be faster than swapping overages in and out of the SSD when RAM demands exceed supply.
But again, I'm no expert at this- just speculating.
likely PCIe in m.2 form factor so people don't get upset when the GPU they plug in doesn't function.
Thunderbolt is an external PCIe, but much slower. Currently it is three generations behind internal PCIe slots and has 4 times less lanes. It's not suitable for things like RAM and internal storage that require A LOT more bandwidth these days.
Is funny this has been known for such a long time and yet when it finally come to news headline people are raging over it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Thanks for the clarification.
The implication from that would then be: can Apple allocate PCI-e (is latest 5 or maybe 6 now) lanes for "latest & greatest" PCI-e speeds or does Silicon have some limited capacity to offer more lanes than allocated to Thunderbolt now in a product like Studio?
I'll have to assume that PCI-e lanes are as abundantly available as a chip designer wants to allocate them... so that future existing Macs can have faster Thunderbolt jacks as Thunderbolt standards are upgraded. Could a Mac Pro not offer several PCI-e 5 (or 6) slots in 2023?
Could the lanes allocated to 2+ Thunderbolt jacks now not be shared (thus more lanes) for a single PCI-e slot in a Mac Pro?
I don't know the answer to this but I assume if Apple wants to deliver PCI-e (latest) expansion slots, Silicon shouldn't be the hinderance.
3 years for a MacBook Pro with a couple of PCI-E slots? I don't think so. This report will be proven quite, quite wrong.
No, because it's not supposed to be used internally and is becoming integrated with the USB spec. Intel controls the spec more than Apple does.
Well that suck's. I love my brand new Mac studio i just got but would be nice to add more Storage for the future & memory..
That is completely untrue. Apple silicon Macs RAM usage is virtually identical to Intel Macs. The difference with integrated and unified memory is speed - being directly attached to the SoC die means significantly higher memory bandwidth, and having the CPU and GPU share the same pool of RAM means data doesn’t need to be transferred between primary RAM and VRAM for the CPU and GPU to both work on it. This doesn’t magically reduce the amount of RAM that programs need or change the threshold for when the system needs to start using the swap file. Quite the opposite - because RAM is shared between the CPU and GPU as opposed to a discrete GPU with its own VRAM memory in Apple silicon systems actually doesn’t go as far. The saving grace is that Apple’s SSD speeds are so fast that swap file usage doesn’t incur the same performance hit that it did just a few generations ago.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Or in the unused proprietary slot that already exists in Mac Studio Ultra. There are TWO of them now but only one is used for Apple SSD storage. The other is empty. Conceptually, the other could be activated in a PRO for double the storage (16TB MAX) and maybe as a RAID-0 configuration for fastest possible speed.
In that imagined scenario, a base Mac Pro would be SSD expandable... but only if you get the modules from Apple- at Apple pricing. Conceptually, the current Mac Studio Ultra is SSD expandable too in the very same way... but only if Apple will sell a SSD module for the second slot and make it accessible by the system.
Last edited:
You can get an Air every three years, save a lot of money, and be happier to boot.
Hypothetical question. If you have 150KB of image and you only have 150KB of RAM, a much much faster RAM, would you prefer that or have a bit slower 512KB of RAM?
You don't have to upgrade your everything after 6 years.
For example RAM, yes you can and should be able to upgrade your RAM and say internal SSD. Even GPU if you want to.
I have my current PC 8 years now. About 2 years ago I upgraded my GPU from my then GTX 970 to my current GTX 1660 Super. My RAM from 32GB to 64GB. While my system is not going to compete with modern systems, it is still capable of running anything I through at it with ease. 6 years even in the 2020s, is not the same as 6 years in the 1990s.
Probably a missing conjunction there or something. Could have been trying to say something like:
"Still , there are two Apple SSD module slots and other slots for graphics , media, and networking cards ...".
If Apple is taking heavy feature cures from the MP 2019 then it would have the exact same two Apple SSD module (not SSD) slots. In Apple's parlance the 'SSD' in 'SSD module' is an adjective , not a noun. Those are not SSDs that go into those slots. It is more accurately 'NAND modules' where what is normally a single SSD is 'chopped up' into three parts. The SSD controller (brains) inside the Apple SoC (previously T2 chip) and the NAND modules (which wear out over time) placed on removable cards. ( So when one or both fail can replace them without having to replace the whole logicboard. They are not a slot for commodity parts or casual upgrades. )
At a very low level they use a modified PCI-e protocol to ship data from the Apple SoC to very limited transciever on the NAND module. ( that is only to send the data over a distance. It is just a data communication buffer, not a SSD controller). So it is kind of remotely related to a regular PCI-e slot, but also incompatible with a regular PCI-e slot.
He is hand waving a grouping that is tenuous. It is doing more harm than good in that sentence.
If the new system has the same size then it extremely likely has more than two standard PCI-e slots. The current one has 8. Might loose 1 or 2 but to use a case that size for 2 slots would be 'looney tunes'. It is the slots that made it that large. So they much be catering to a decent number of slots.
IMHO, graphics as one of the primary candidates for those slots is a bit of a huge leap. At least the classic focus on display GPU cards from off-the-shelf retail sources. Apple has provided no hints or signs of support for that for over 2 years now.
I suspect that this case reuse is similar to Apple's cost saving strategy of putting the M1 into the same Intel MBA , MBP 13" , and Mini chassis and just "getting it out the door" with minimal Industrial Design gyrations and gestation time. Apple continues to sell $400 wheels and contractors use same established jigs/tools to make the cases , space frame , etc. except down to the logic boards. Same power supply. Same fans and many of same logic board parts.
Also probably allows them to reuse all the jigs/tools/templates to produce the Rack versions. Possibly could be using the same contractors as before in China but ship the assembly to Vietnam. That would be the lowest cost path for a relative very low volume system.
Probably have an updated Plex PCI-e switch to feed most , if not all , the slots with bandwidth. So something like a two x16 PCI-e v4 provisioning off the SoC is expanded out to 6-8 slots. That is the same overall system bandwidth as the current one. And if only 6 slots then like the M1 Mini there could be empty space in side the case that just doesn't get used.
If they place an internal USB/SATA adapter in the same place then folks who buy J2i frames for HDDs could use the same equipment. ( Again Apple lowers costs for the peripheral makers who bought into the 'bolt to the space frame' ride. )
Pretty good chance that MPX modules and AMD GPUs are skipped though. Unless Apple 100% stripped Thunderbolt out of the SoC , MPX is a solution in search of a problem in the new system. It is a solution of how to provision TB controllers at the fringes of the system. If the TB controllers are in the middle of the system that specific problem is gone.
What if it lacks DIMM slots but supports this via PCIE slots:
www.anandtech.com
Using a PCIe Slot to Install DRAM: New Samsung CXL.mem Expansion Module
Honestly, there’s no reason to change the chassis. Many companies are already using the rack-mounted versions, too, so it makes sense from a modularity point of view, too, and this gives them plenty of physical room to work with— and the current case looks fantastic.
I’m confused as to why the purported new Mac Pro will need to be so BIG!
As big as the original! Either Apple has a lot of these “housings” already manufactured and warehoused, or Apple doesn’t want to retool manufacturing for a total redesign — OR, Apple has a very specific reason for using such large housing: a huge power supply that will need lots of cooling? An M[#] SoC that combines 4 M2 Ultras (8?!) that will run at 5 Ghz+ and will need LOTS of heat dissipation/fan cooling? Although, Apple’s new M[#] logic boards are tiny compared to motherboards and even daughter cards of yesteryear.
The inclusion of Industry Standard slots for SSDs makes sense, but how could Apple allow for Third Party GPU cards?
I mean it would be great to install 2 or 4 GPU cards that run in parallel and that vastly increase the speed/performance of graphics instructions and GPGPU instructions alike.
But aren’t AMD and NVidia graphics cards tied to the Intel PC hardware architecture and the Intel ISA? (Am I wrong?)
(Are Apple’s Afterburner DSP cards compatible with Apple’s new & different M[#] architect/ISA?)
Rhetorical questions: does Apple plan on designing Apple Silicon PURE GPU chips housed on expansion cards? Say a 512 core “(solely) GPU” chip or chips on a card that a User can add to the new Mac Pro? And will the User be able to add 2 of such cards? 4?
Akin to an eGPU, but way better hardware integration for way faster I/O speeds than the Thunderbolt I/O connection that eGPUs used?
🤔
As big as the original! Either Apple has a lot of these “housings” already manufactured and warehoused, or Apple doesn’t want to retool manufacturing for a total redesign — OR, Apple has a very specific reason for using such large housing: a huge power supply that will need lots of cooling? An M[#] SoC that combines 4 M2 Ultras (8?!) that will run at 5 Ghz+ and will need LOTS of heat dissipation/fan cooling? Although, Apple’s new M[#] logic boards are tiny compared to motherboards and even daughter cards of yesteryear.
The inclusion of Industry Standard slots for SSDs makes sense, but how could Apple allow for Third Party GPU cards?
I mean it would be great to install 2 or 4 GPU cards that run in parallel and that vastly increase the speed/performance of graphics instructions and GPGPU instructions alike.
But aren’t AMD and NVidia graphics cards tied to the Intel PC hardware architecture and the Intel ISA? (Am I wrong?)
(Are Apple’s Afterburner DSP cards compatible with Apple’s new & different M[#] architect/ISA?)
Rhetorical questions: does Apple plan on designing Apple Silicon PURE GPU chips housed on expansion cards? Say a 512 core “(solely) GPU” chip or chips on a card that a User can add to the new Mac Pro? And will the User be able to add 2 of such cards? 4?
Akin to an eGPU, but way better hardware integration for way faster I/O speeds than the Thunderbolt I/O connection that eGPUs used?
🤔
First, you don't need to buy something like :
https://www.sonnettech.com/product/xmac-studio/overview.html
for another $1,000. If the MP is priced at $5,999 and a full Ultra Studio is priced at $4,999 then the Mac Pro would be the far better deal if those internal slots are provisioned with two x16 PCI-e v4 lane bundles through a PLEX switch similar to the one in the current Mac Pro. More bandwidth , more flexibility in bandwidth allocation , more slots at the same price. If actually need bandwidth the question would be why would you not buy it?
Thunderbolt 4 is great right up until you have a card that actually need x8 PCI-e v3 let alone x8 PCI-e v4 or heaven forbid x16 PCI-e v4 (e.g. a four M.2 SSD PCI-e v4 card if need an internal > 16TB internal drive. ).
"Leaning too hard on Thunderbolt" is exactly one of the limitations Apple outlined as to why the Mac Pro 2013 went sideways. Why would they repeat it again in another Mac Pro? They might backslide on a few things but that one is not. Even if it was just x16 PCI-e v4 lane bundle added to the M2 Ultra that would make a difference if allotted more space around the SoC in a Mac Pro.
P.S. There are already over 50 PCI-e cards that work in external Thunderbolt enclosures attached to M1 systems. The notion that "nobody uses cards" is well grounded as to why all those vendors spent time making their cards work. People do use those cards. Not 90% of the Mac user base , but enough to be economically viable to put the work in.
The Xmac Studio would still have utility for those on lower budgets ( only using a Max powered Studio) and more limited I/O bandwidth ( Thunderbolt as a backhaul is OK.)
Last edited:
The Mac Studio gets smoked by a RTX3090. It doesn't matter matter what Mac Studio you get, it cannot compete with a dedicated graphics card this time around.
Perhaps the new Mac Pro's plugged into a dedicated graphics cards can outperform a Window PC. We will see.
And that is probably why the Mac Pro will remain as big as it is. It would require every inch of it to cool the monstrosity that is a RTX4090.
Last edited: