Very unlikely ProMotion will happen. Apple relies on Thunderbolt, and Thunderbolt 4 is not capable of 6K/120 or higher (rumors are for a 7K display). Thunderbolt 5 is not ready yet for at least a year. HDMI 2.1 is capable of 6K/120 but only with DSC or DisplayPort 1.4 with DSC, but no Mac supports HDMI 2.1 or DP 1.4. I don’t think Apple will issue a monitor that is only supported by the Mac Pro and nothing else. It’s a stretch to think the Mac Pro will support anything other than Thunderbolt.
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.
Gurman: Apple Silicon Mac Pro Testing Ramping Up, New MacBook Pro and Mac Mini to Launch Within Months
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why can’t Thunderbolt DisplayPort with DSC do 120Hz 6K?
120Hz 6K 10 bit colour is about 68 Gbps, but DSC with HDR is pretty efficient, and should easily be able to get that down below 34 Gbps (the rate a none-DSC 60Hz 6K HDR XDR stream requires).
Last edited:
The idea of new M2 Mini is indeed interesting. What ports, what display capability, what RAM options?
Existing M1 and Intel Minis are wildly different boxes, but they were built before the very competent Studio was in the headless desktop mix. A fully configured Intel Mini ends up similar in price to a Studio, so it seems illogical for Apple to make an M2 Pro Mini with all the capabilities of an Intel Mini, because that would about be a Studio, but without the heat management.
Ideal would be to announce M2 Mini and M2 Studio at the same time, so the product lineup could be fully rational. However Studio is very recent M1, so Apple is unlikely to upgrade to M2 so quickly; Pshaw.
Like Mrkevin said, New Mac mini is interesting, hope they don't gimp it. My guess is that an M2 Mini will likely have the port, etc. limitations of the M1 Mini; i.e. gimped.
Last edited:
The current Pro Display XDR already uses DSC and it can't produce 120Hz. That's at 6K. If the next XDR is 6K or 7K, it'll be 60Hz. If DSC isn't used, the other USB-C ports turn into USB 2.0 ports.
The current XDR optionally uses DSC.
The base Mac Pro shipped with a video card that couldn't even do DSC.
The only reason DSC is used on the XDR is so that that the USB ports on the XDR can do more than USB 2.0 speeds. With DSC, there's lots of bandwidth leftover for the XDR's dock.
I would definitely bet that the M2 Mac Mini will be identical to the M1 Mac Mini, but the M2 Pro Mac mini should more closer match the M1 Pro MBPs... but time will tell:
(I added the RAM and fixed SD card typo, as that is *way* more interesting)
Last edited:
I would be very surprised to see an M2 Pro Mini with those heavy specs prior to an M2 Studio being announced, because that box would hamstring the recently-released M1 Studio. If I was Apple I would release an M2 Studio or gimp the M2 Pro Mini to two displays and 24 GB or 32 GB RAM.
If they sell it for enough money, why would they care?
I could see them dropping the SD Card slot from the mini.
... and they are "replacing" an Intel Mac that had up to 64 GB of RAM.
The RAM is the big question, yes. It *should* go up to 48 GB (for *all* the money)
I technically already said that. Oddly, I did a quick edit because I got it backwards, but your quote isn't what I edited. So yeah, I totally agree with what you said. You must have responded very quickly because I edited it in less than 20 seconds.
1) They care because they need to lay out their product lines properly. A bit of a challenge with the Studio products still at M1.
2) The Studio rearranged the product placement and replaced the Intel Mini.
3) More RAM directly correlates with heavier workflow and more heat. Again, it will be interesting to see what Apple does.
I don't think the Studio is meant to replace the Intel mini because the mini is still for sale. I suspect when the M2 mini is introduced, they will also have an M2 Pro version to replace the Intel version. The mini will be M2 to M2 Pro while the Studio is M2 Max to M2 Ultra.
According to the specifications, the USB ports on the XDR can’t do more than USB 2.
Three USB-C (USB 2) ports for charging or syncing
When I looked into this awhile ago (after someone informed me about DSC), the numbers looked like the XDR could JUST manage over Thunderbolt ONLY if there were no data channels, just all display.
Without DSC, that is right: TB3 data bandwidth is basically maxed out by the video signal.
With DSC, that isn't the case. The specifications says what it *can* do, not what it *can't*. Later on there is this footnote:
"3. For the 16-inch MacBook Pro, USB-C ports have USB 3.1 Gen 1 data transfer speeds."
The reality is "It Depends".
Here's a great form post:
In what way would an M2 Pro Mini hamstring an M1 Max Studio? This happens all the time with different models getting updated at different times. The M2 Pro would be incrementally faster in basic CPU than the M1 Max but if you need GPU the Studio would be your choice. The M2 Pro Mini would probably push up uncomfortably close to the Studio in price as well. In any case, it is likely to only be a problem for a few months until the rest of the chip line comes out.
Ah, missed the footnote. AND, it likely shouldn’t indicate JUST the 16-inch MBP if there’s actually other configurations that would yield that. I’ll send feedback regarding that page to see if they change it
I think I was specifically looking at that resolution at 120Hz.
Ah, missed the footnote. AND, it likely shouldn’t indicate JUST the 16-inch MBP if there’s actually other configurations that would yield that. I’ll send feedback regarding that page to see if they change it
I think I was specifically looking at that resolution at 120Hz.
I was digging into it and I was trying to tell how accurate this spreadsheet I made was:
DisplayPortAltModeThunderBoltDataRates
The compression ratios for DSC are not quite fixed, but I think that is realistic?
Also the exact savings for how TB can transport DisplayPort in with less padding isn't entirely clear to me.
The best thing I loved about the M2 was the bump up to a max of 24GB RAM. That actually puts it in the ballpark of genuinely useful for me. And for me, I most certainly don't need the power of the M1 Pro/Max chips. I got a 16" M1 Pro MBP for 2 reasons: the 16" screen; and 32GB RAM. If they make a 15" MBA, then that will quite likely be my next machine. A 15" M2 MBA w 24GB/2TB will probably be perfectly capable for me. If they bumped it up to a max 32GB RAM or higher, that would be even better.
Before I bought my machine, I was also really really looking forward to the "superior" audio of the new MBP's, but wow, what a disappointment, and although I haven't had a decent test of one in a quiet room, I highly suspect the audio of the MBA is actually much better than the MBP.
If I was a bored billionaire's son, I would set about starting my own computing company, purely out of frustration at the direction Apple keeps heading. So many compromises of functionality these days, all in the name of extreme greed.
Removing self-upgrading of RAM/SSD has been extremely profitable for Apple, but damn, as a user, it makes me furious. The SSD's aren't even on-SoC, so there's zero excuse for soldering them in. Sure, on-SoC RAM is presumably faster (I'd like to see the actual data though, I suspect it's a trivial difference, limited by the rating of the RAM more than anything), but there is absolutely nothing stopping Apple adding plug in off-SoC RAM as well. Which surely they will be doing for the Mac Pro, else it will be a laughing stock, with the Intel version supporting up to 1.5TB, and the AS version supporting up to only 256GB, lol. And then there is the Mac Studio, which actually does have 2 plug in SSD slots, but they only support Apple brand SSD's ha ha ha hahaaaaaagh. Oh yeah, I know "privacy and security", I know, Apple has my back, because I am incapable of looking after my own security and need Apple to change my nappies, sheesh.
And then there's the declining software quality control. Do they even have a testing team???
And the constant removal of advanced functionality in macOS, the constant dumbing down, locking down, and barriers to freedom and choice. They desperately want to turn it into iOS so that they can whack a massively profitable 15/30% Apple Tax on every single software purchase and sub on macOS. They can't do it, but keep pushing the boundaries, nudging it in that direction to see what the corporate customers are willing to suck on.
And iOS, wow, don't get me started. What a waste. The underlying *nix OS is already there, just the same as macOS, but it's so utterly locked down to the point of just nope. There's no *nix terminal, and files system for you kid, if you want that, you have to go and suck on Android and the mess that's over that fence. Gah, if only I could have the sweet Steve Jobs genius of the iPhone, with the Steve Jobs genius of macOS, without the lock down, without the dumbing down, without the constantly declining quality control.
If I was a billionaire, there would be a new competitor in town. And profits at all costs would not be the driving force. The driving force would be simply to make laptops and phones that I myself would want to use. It would have the old school mottos of both Apple and Google "It just works" AND "Do no evil". Sure, it would generate profits, so that it could fund constant development, but it most certainly wouldn't be set up as a public company with legally mandated requirement to maximise profits for the shareholders. It most certainly wouldn't have a structure where if the costs of product A were reduced by $0.10, then the CEO gets another $1M bonus, causing CEO's to behave in nasty ways, such as screwing workers over, screwing the environment over, and screwing over functionality. Oh, and it also wouldn't be headquartered in the west coast of USA, dominated by cancel culture, blerk.
Well that was a random rant. Lazy Saturday breakfast done. Adios amigo.
Well you're gonna love M3, when they bump up the clock speed even more
If you don't like the 16" MBPs speakers, you're going to hate the MBA's speakers.