Hard Truths About The Apple Silicon Replacement to the Mac Pro (2019)

[Yebubbleman]

I don't know who needs to hear this. Based on the hubbub on multiple Mac news sites, I'm guessing many. Here are some truths based on knowns and unknowns regarding whatever machine Apple is going to replace the Mac Pro (2019) aka MacPro7,1 with:


1. The RAM will not be separately user-upgradeable; it will be tied to the SoC.

2. There will be no PCIe GPU nor eGPU upgradability or expansion; the only GPU will be the one on the SoC.

Before anyone challenges me with that, make sure you have watched this video from WWDC 2020 (where the Intel to Apple Silicon transition was first announced): https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2020/10686/ (at about the 1-minute mark)

3. This doesn't mean that there's no point to a Mac tower with PCIe expansion; there are plenty of professionals that need broadcast cards or special video tuners or audio interface boards in their Mac Pro; these things are not the kinds of things you can solve with Thunderbolt 4 or a Thunderbolt 3/4 breakout box. It's just not practical.

4. There's nothing in the referenced video above that negates the notion that Apple could socket the SoC and/or make it user-upgradeable/replaceable. Those of you that have used or operated a 2009-2012 Mac Pro (aka MacPro4,1 or MacPro5,1) have seen a similar concept in the form of the processor tray and backplane. There's nothing stopping Apple from doing something similar here. That's not to say that SoC upgrades likely won't cost an arm and a leg. They probably will be very expensive (assuming Apple goes this route). But it will still be possible to upgrade RAM and graphics this way.

5. The internal SSD on a 2019 Mac Pro is already proprietary, requires a DFU restore of the T2 chip in order to replace the storage; modules become useless when removed from the Mac Pro they came from; this won't be different on an Apple Silicon Mac Pro replacement either. Furthermore, if the SoC is to be user-replaceable due to being socketed or on a processor tray, the internal storage will need to be wiped when performing an SoC replacement/upgrade. This is how Apple Silicon and T2 Mac Storage works. This has no bearing on SATA or PCIe SSDs; just storage controlled by the SoC.

6. The base model SoC offered for this new Mac Pro will most likely run rings around the least expensive Mac Pro (2019) MPX AMD video card option. This is a safe bet. Less safe of a bet, but still perfectly plausible, is that it also runs rings around the MOST expensive Mac Pro (2019) MPX AMD video card option. This won't fully soften the blow of having the GPU be tied to the SoC and not upgradeable separately from it, but it will soften it for a decent amount of Mac Pro customers.

7. Apple likely won't introduce a dual-socket Apple Silicon Mac, let alone Mac Pro. This isn't a guarantee, but given everything that they said about using two discrete SoCs when first unveiling the M1 Ultra shows that they'd rather take two SoCs and bridge them internally into one mega SoC than go the dual-socket route. They could introduce a totally different technology that makes this feasible for the Mac Pro, but this seems unlikely.

8. "M2 Extreme" may have been cancelled, but it is extremely unlikely that an M2 Ultra, born out of two M2 Max SoCs with "Ultra-Fusion" will be the only SoC going into the next Mac Pro. You can customize a Mac Pro (2019) with 1.5TB of RAM. I'm sure that very few Mac Pro customers do this, but I'm also sure that there are some that do. Apple may not replace the current Mac Pro with a Mac Pro that goes all the way to 1.5TB of RAM, but it's safe to assume that they'd at least try to get halfway there. At best, an M2 Ultra, born out of the highest end M2 Max SoC times 2 would only yield 192GB of RAM. I'm not saying that isn't a ton of RAM even still. But a far cry from even half of the current Mac Pro's maximum. Let's assume that M3 Max is able to offer 128GB of RAM (by virtue of M3 being able to go to 32GB of RAM from M2's maximum of 24GB - up from M1's 16GB). That still only gives M3 Ultra a maximum of 256GB. Apple is going to continue the Intel Mac Pro's tradition of offering an entirely different class of SoC unique to Mac Pro. That's not to say that a "Max" or "Ultra" SoC won't still be on offer. That's totally possible too. There are probably many folks that would be fine with a "Max" chip's performance, but needing PCIe slots for specialized cards. But, you'd probably also have folks that would need to go to Ultra before eventually building a Mac Pro with that next level tier.

9. No, Apple hasn't forgotten about the Pros. In 2019, they released two products that all but outright admitted that they messed up. One was the current Mac Pro. The other was the first and last Intel 16-inch MacBook Pro (the first Mac since the butterfly keyboard to not have a butterfly keyboard and to be thicker than its predecessor for the sake of better performance). They did these moves for Pros. We're not getting another trash can. The "Ultra" configuration of Mac Studio is not going to be the best high-end desktop Mac that Apple is going to offer. You won't see regular upgrades to the Mac Pro. And, per that video linked above (which is to say "per how Apple Silicon is fundamentally designed as a Macintosh hardware platform"), you will not have the level of easy aftermarket upgradeability you had with the 2019 (let alone 2009-2012) Mac Pro. But it ought to still be a decent upgrade and not a trash can upgrade.

 

[Colstan]

1. The RAM will not be separately user-upgradeable; it will be tied to the SoC.

2. There will be no PCIe GPU nor eGPU upgradability or expansion; the only GPU will be the one on the SoC.

This has been obvious since the introduction of Apple Silicon. It's also been confirmed by the two most reliable leakers, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, and our own @Amethyst who leaked all of the details about the Mac Studio before Apple announced it.

There are folks on here that don't want to hear any of this, because it doesn't fit the mold of what they want in a Mac Pro, but the era of the Xeon is over. Some won't realize it until Apple actually announces it, but denial ain't just a river in Africa.

 

[Yebubbleman]

This has been obvious since the introduction of Apple Silicon.

EXACTLY! It blows my mind that MacRumors, 9to5Mac, and AppleInsider are all bringing those points up now like it wasn't already a stated given from Apple themselves!

It's also been confirmed by the two most reliable leakers, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, and our own @Amethyst who leaked all of the details about the Mac Studio before Apple announced it.

I don't have the utmost of faith in Gurman. His track records have been spotty enough times. However, I didn't need him stating the obvious as he's done recently about this.

There are folks on here that don't want to hear any of this, because it doesn't fit the mold of what they want in a Mac Pro, but the era of the Xeon is over. Some won't realize it until Apple actually announces it, but denial ain't just a river in Africa.

I wouldn't say the era of Xeon is over. It's probably Intel's most successful product currently (and the one area where they aren't being taken down a few pegs by AMD, Apple, and everyone else in between). Maybe for the Mac it is, though Mac Pros are tanks. My guess is that Xeon Macs will be in use for a good while longer.

 

[Joe Dohn]

There are folks on here that don't want to hear any of this, because it doesn't fit the mold of what they want in a Mac Pro, but the era of the Xeon is over. Some won't realize it until Apple actually announces it, but denial ain't just a river in Africa.

Except only Apple thinks it's over.
The top of the market WANTS flexibility and upgradability over a portable computer.
Xeons will deliver speed and stability for servers if they are willing to shed the money.
Apple is not delivering on that, while charging much more.

Remember, this is the most rational part of the market, in theory. They're very sensitive on "bang for the buck", while end consumers are instead more loyal to the brand.

 

[leman]

The top of the market WANTS flexibility and upgradability over a portable computer.

Top of the market wants performance and reliability. Nobody in the enterprise gives even the smallest damn about upgradeability. The only people upgrading are hobbyists and smaller companies who’s IT departments are run by PC enthusiasts. Most professionals don’t care about that stuff.

Xeons will deliver speed and stability for servers if they are willing to shed the money.
Apple is not delivering on that, while charging much more.

Xeons right now are dead in the water. The only things that keeps them going is the established name. Anyway, you got a point there. Apple needs to deliver performance and reliability. If they can’t a Mac Pro doesn’t make much sense.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Top of the market wants performance and reliability. Nobody in the enterprise gives even the smallest damn about upgradeability. The only people upgrading are hobbyists and smaller companies who’s IT departments are run by PC enthusiasts. Most professionals don’t care about that stuff.

There are much better ways to achieve that performance and reliability, from custom ARM processors to x86 / x64 server farms (as opposed to Xeon).

Remember, the first Google servers actually started with farms of regular HDDs in RAID mode.

Apple will NOT be able to become a hit on this part of the market charging many times more without upgradeability options and a lack of flexibility (their current top notch machines max out at 96 GB RAM, as opposed to their own Intel server, maxing out at 1.5 TB RAM).

So much so they HAVE tried this strategy before with the Mac Pro in 2013 and 2019, but utterly failed.

 

[Joe Dohn]

EXACTLY! It blows my mind that MacRumors, 9to5Mac, and AppleInsider are all bringing those points up now like it wasn't already a stated given from Apple themselves!

It's not as obvious as it seems because Apple designs their own processors. Of course they CAN design a version of Apple Silicon that is upgradeable and has a larger memory limit. Everyone was expecting them to because not doing so in this upper part of the market is stupid.

Remember, this Pro machine is sold to people who need MAXIMUM performance, and are willing to spend top dollar for that.

 

[orionquest]

There are no facts here just speculation. Until Apple releases or announces the new Mac Pro there are no hard truths.

If you want to get wrapped up in rumours, go ahead, I heard they will offer a pink colour version for gamers with LED light strip options.

 

[Joe Dohn]

There are no facts here just speculation. Until Apple releases or announces the new Mac Pro there are no hard truths.

You realize this website is literally called Mac RUMORS, right?
Not Mac DATA or Mac EVIDENCE.

Besides, there's some leaked data that supports that reasoning.
Of course the data COULD be wrong or Apple could change their minds, but it's what we have currently.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Top of the market wants performance and reliability.

True.

Nobody in the enterprise gives even the smallest damn about upgradeability.

Mostly true. I've worked in IT shops that care about it. But, certainly, if this Mac Pro is in a large business, then it's likely not being regularly upgraded the way it would be in a post-production house, edit bay, or other high-end setting.

The only people upgrading are hobbyists and smaller companies who’s IT departments are run by PC enthusiasts. Most professionals don’t care about that stuff.

Not necessarily true. Hobbyists aren't the ones needing to stuff special capture cards into Mac Pros. Hobbyists probably are the ones making more than a single GPU upgrade throughout the machine's lifetime. If the concession is that upgrading the graphics means upgrading the SoC, then I think that will largely be acceptable for most Mac Pro customers. Mac rental shops will also have issues with a relatively reduced upgradeability when it comes to GPUs. Definitely more than hobbyists or, PC enthusiasts that work in IT (and, by the way, us PC enthusiasts working in IT are definitely not the types of folks that want to have to worry about swapping Mac Pro innards, even if, for us, the ability to upgrade and expand is more a concern out of principle. ).

Xeons right now are dead in the water.

How so? They're still sold and they hold a much larger marketshare than EPYC (and both hold a much higher marketshare than anything ARM64-based).

The only things that keeps them going is the established name.

Eh...it's one area where Intel isn't messing up too bad. But it's also probably their most important product right now. Way more than endpoint CPUs by a long shot.

Anyway, you got a point there. Apple needs to deliver performance and reliability. If they can’t a Mac Pro doesn’t make much sense.

True. Mac Pros are supposed to be reliable tanks. If they don't have that going for them, then one might as well just get a Mac Studio and call it a day.

 

[Xiao_Xi]

Apple often tends to challenge the status quo, so I find it more interesting to try to guess what Apple thinks it needs to do to convince Mac Pro users without offering the features listed by OP. For instance, could hardware subscription alleviate some concerns?

 

[Yebubbleman]

There are no facts here just speculation. Until Apple releases or announces the new Mac Pro there are no hard truths.

No, actually pretty much everything I posted here is fact or a stated likelihood (which, itself is factual). The first two points come from Apple in a video I reference from WWDC 2020.

If you want to get wrapped up in rumours, go ahead, I heard they will offer a pink colour version for gamers with LED light strip options.

I'm actually doing the exact opposite of getting wrapped up in rumors. For those actually paying attention, nothing I'm stating here is news. If anything, I'm providing reason for those who actually are getting wrapped up in rumors.

You realize this website is literally called Mac RUMORS, right?
Not Mac DATA or Mac EVIDENCE.

Besides, there's some leaked data that supports that reasoning.
Of course the data COULD be wrong or Apple could change their minds, but it's what we have currently.

Currently there's POSTED data that supports that reasoning.

 

[leman]

There are much better ways to achieve that performance and reliability, from custom ARM processors to x86 / x64 server farms (as opposed to Xeon).

Remember, the first Google servers actually started with farms of regular HDDs in RAID mode.

Apple will NOT be able to become a hit on this part of the market charging many times more without upgradeability options and a lack of flexibility (their current top notch machines max out at 96 GB RAM, as opposed to their own Intel server, maxing out at 1.5 TB RAM).

So much so they HAVE tried this strategy before with the Mac Pro in 2013 and 2019, but utterly failed.

I’m not sure why you mention servers? Apple has abandoned the server market long time ago. Mac Pro is not a server.

 

[neuropsychguy]

No, actually pretty much everything I posted here is fact or a stated likelihood (which, itself is factual). The first two points come from Apple in a video I reference from WWDC 2020.

No, what you wrote is speculation and rumor until Apple announces something. Facts are not generated a priori. That's just not how they work. Logic does not equal fact except in specific legal situations. What you wrote is by and large a logical conclusion but again, until we have hard evidence, none of it is factual. I think much of what you wrote is very reasonable but again, it's not factual.

 

[djcerla]

Speculation & fiction.

 

[kschendel]

(re Xeon being dead in the water)
How so? They're still sold and they hold a much larger marketshare than EPYC (and both hold a much higher marketshare than anything ARM64-based).

An excellent example of inertia, of the sort that was expressed back in my earlier days as "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." The Genoa series of EPYC processors are objectively better than current Xeon's in almost every metric, including value.

 

[BWNYC]

3. This doesn't mean that there's no point to a Mac tower with PCIe expansion; there are plenty of professionals that need broadcast cards or special video tuners or audio interface boards in their Mac Pro; these things are not the kinds of things you can solve with Thunderbolt 4 or a Thunderbolt 3/4 breakout box. It's just not practical.

First off, who am I? I am a prime customer for using PCIe expansion cards in a Mac computer. Primary use-case is using SMPTE 2110-22 video transport into the Mac Pro for live multi-camera video switching / mixing / graphics overlays, etc. in a live production environment.

But, here's the clincher, even IF Apple makes a new Mac Pro with astounding performance and even IF this computer has PCIe expansion, there's another factor that makes macOS the wrong choice for live multi-camera video switching / mixing workflows: the macOS windowserver. It adds latency and there's no way to go around it, like there is on both Windows PCs (DX12 offers a way to bypass the window server) and also on Linux (which can be altered to bypass the window server).

And, that's why we see LITERALLY ALL professional live switching software only be available on the Windows and Linux platforms. Products like Vizrt Viz Vectar Plus (Windows-only) and also Panasonic Kairos (a turnkey embedded system running on Linux). Both of these product lines use operating systems that can bypass the window server in the OS for minimal latency of the live cameras from input to output. macOS CANNOT DO THIS.

I filed a request to the Apple Final Cut Pro / Pro Apps team a year ago saying something to the effect of, "wouldn't it be cool if, for Apple's live presentations, like at WWDC, for the entire live video production pipeline in the theater to be running on macOS? If so, for that to ever happen, there needs to be a way for live video software to bypass the window server and reduce the latency from input to output."

I never heard back!

The reality is: there now exists a company making SMPTE 2110 SDK for macOS called TicoXS from intoPIX. Yet, to me anyway, it seems like macOS is STILL not a good choice for live video workflows, because of the inherent latency of windowserver. And, the fact is this problem is NOT A PROBLEM on Linux and Windows. So, given the choice between a macOS-based live switching system, even with native support for ProRes 4444 playback (which is awesome), and all of the AMAZING live visual effects that Core Image can offer, EASILY, on the macOS platform, I am still going to have to go with a Windows or Linux-based system, because of latency. Latency is the #1 factor which determines the suitability of a general purpose operating system for live video workflows. And, unfortunately, macOS is DEAD LAST in this department.

I use macOS for everything else, though. The company I work with is all Mac-based. Hundreds of Mac's.

But, unfortunately, until Apple offers a way for developers to bypass the windowserver, we can't use macOS for live.

: (

 

[i486dx2-66]

4. There's nothing in the referenced video above that negates the notion that Apple could socket the SoC and/or make it user-upgradeable/replaceable.

With how integrated the Apple Silicon SoCs are, at that point the rest of the machine is basically just a Thunderbolt docking station / expansion chassis?

If so, it would be hilarious if the "Replaceable Processor Modules" were just Mac Minis.

We could finally get back to talking about Beowulf clusters again. It's been way too long.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I’m not sure why you mention servers? Apple has abandoned the server market long time ago. Mac Pro is not a server.

Although the Mac Pro is marketed as a workstation, current versions do come with server hardware, and they ARE used in server scenarios. For example, GPU farms. For nearly all desktop applications, the Mac Studio works for most desktop users.

 

[Colstan]

I don't have the utmost of faith in Gurman. His track records have been spotty enough times. However, I didn't need him stating the obvious as he's done recently about this.

I don't either, which is why I brought up @Amethyst, who has a proven record, and has specifically said that Gurman's reporting is correct.

I wouldn't say the era of Xeon is over.

I should have specified that the era of Xeon is over on the Mac. There are still folks pining for a new Xeon model, even with the transition nearly complete.

No, actually pretty much everything I posted here is fact or a stated likelihood (which, itself is factual). The first two points come from Apple in a video I reference from WWDC 2020.

There are people who still think Boot Camp is coming back, even though Craig Federighi specifically said that it won't happen in an interview with Gruber. I'm sure in five years, people will still be asking for Boot Camp, along with eGPUs, third-party graphics cards, new x86 models, and even a switch to Ryzen. The Mac Pro holdouts will await another apology tour, one which will never come.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think simple deductive reasoning says otherwise. Regardless, I look forward to its announcement, including witnessing the reaction on this forum.

 

[Joe Dohn]

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think simple deductive reasoning says otherwise. Regardless, I look forward to its announcement, including witnessing the reaction on this forum.

Depends on how much of a flop Apple Silicon is in five years.

If they reach a ceiling in this time frame and have trouble bumping the specs, losing their market share to Intel / AMD, the logical step would be going back to x86 / x64. But considering this is Apple, they might refuse even if the keeping Apple Silicon is not favorable to them.

 

[Yebubbleman]

No, what you wrote is speculation and rumor until Apple announces something. Facts are not generated a priori. That's just not how they work, except in specific legal situations. Logic does not equal fact. What you wrote is by and large a logical conclusion but again, until we have hard evidence, none of it is factual. I think much of what you wrote is very reasonable but again, it's not factual.

Alright, clearly I need to break down my own original post:

Points one and two are actual facts, cited straight from Apple. Two and a half years ago. Look it up if you do not believe me.

Point three (about how there's still a point to a Mac desktop that you can't swap GPU expansion cards or FB-DIMMs in or out of) is a fact. You could debate me on whether or not you agree with that sentiment, but that one is fact.

Point four (about how there's nothing in the cited video that points one and two come from that disprove a possible socketed SoC) is also a fact. Does it lead into speculation, yes. Absolutely. Is it speculation in and of itself, no.

Point five (about how storage works) is more or less proven by (a) the Apple Platform Security guide and (b) literally every other piece of written documentation about storage security on Apple's website. This is not conjecture. If you know how storage works on a T2 Intel Mac or an Apple Silicon Mac, then I'm merely stating what you already know.

Points six through eight state "likely". Is the text after that a definite, no. Hence the word "likely". However, the fact that there is such likelihood is a fact.

I'll grant you point nine is riddled with speculation, but it's safe enough that if that's what you or anyone is picking apart, then it's a pretty nit-picky thing to pick apart.

Speculation & fiction.

Not for anyone who has actually been paying attention to the Apple Silicon transition beyond hardware releases.

First off, who am I? I am a prime customer for using PCIe expansion cards in a Mac computer. Primary use-case is using SMPTE 2110-22 video transport into the Mac Pro for live multi-camera video switching / mixing / graphics overlays, etc. in a live production environment.

But, here's the clincher, even IF Apple makes a new Mac Pro with astounding performance and even IF this computer has PCIe expansion, there's another factor that makes macOS the wrong choice for live multi-camera video switching / mixing workflows: the macOS windowserver. It adds latency and there's no way to go around it, like there is on both Windows PCs (DX12 offers a way to bypass the window server) and also on Linux (which can be altered to bypass the window server).

And, that's why we see LITERALLY ALL professional live switching software only be available on the Windows and Linux platforms. Products like Vizrt Viz Vectar Plus (Windows-only) and also Panasonic Kairos (a turnkey embedded system running on Linux). Both of these product lines use operating systems that can bypass the window server in the OS for minimal latency of the live cameras from input to output. macOS CANNOT DO THIS.

I filed a request to the Apple Final Cut Pro / Pro Apps team a year ago saying something to the effect of, "wouldn't it be cool if, for Apple's live presentations, like at WWDC, for the entire live video production pipeline in the theater to be running on macOS? If so, for that to ever happen, there needs to be a way for live video software to bypass the window server and reduce the latency from input to output."

I never heard back!

The reality is: there now exists a company making SMPTE 2110 SDK for macOS called TicoXS from intoPIX. Yet, to me anyway, it seems like macOS is STILL not a good choice for live video workflows, because of the inherent latency of windowserver. And, the fact is this problem is NOT A PROBLEM on Linux and Windows. So, given the choice between a macOS-based live switching system, even with native support for ProRes 4444 playback (which is awesome), and all of the AMAZING live visual effects that Core Image can offer, EASILY, on the macOS platform, I am still going to have to go with a Windows or Linux-based system, because of latency. Latency is the #1 factor which determines the suitability of a general purpose operating system for live video workflows. And, unfortunately, macOS is DEAD LAST in this department.

I use macOS for everything else, though. The company I work with is all Mac-based. Hundreds of Mac's.

But, unfortunately, until Apple offers a way for developers to bypass the windowserver, we can't use macOS for live.

: (

I definitely don't doubt that Apple has lost marketshare for these sorts of things by not producing more regular Mac Pro towers. I'm also not surprised to see that windowserver causes those kinds of problems. You'd think they'd have learned a thing or two by now.

With how integrated the Apple Silicon SoCs are, at that point the rest of the machine is basically just a Thunderbolt docking station / expansion chassis?

I think that might be an oversimplification. The bandwidth between the SoC and the I/O of the rest of the machine ought to smoke Thunderbolt.

If so, it would be hilarious if the "Replaceable Processor Modules" were just Mac Minis.

We could finally get back to talking about Beowulf clusters again. It's been way too long.

Considering processors went through that weird phase in the late 90's where they were on daughter cards (and that the logic board of the M1 Mac mini is around the size of the I/O board in the current Mac Pro, that's totally possible!

 

[257Loner]

If Apple gives customers zero of what they want, Apple will have zero customers. No one will buy a $6000-$24000 Mac Studio Pro for internal expansion when you can buy a $2000-$4000 Mac Studio and use Thunderbolt for external expansion.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Alright, clearly I need to break down my own original post:

Points one and two are actual facts, cited straight from Apple. Two and a half years ago. Look it up if you do not believe me.

Point three (about how there's still a point to a Mac desktop that you can't swap GPU expansion cards or FB-DIMMs in or out of) is a fact. You could debate me on whether or not you agree with that sentiment, but that one is fact.

Point four (about how there's nothing in the cited video that points one and two come from that disprove a possible socketed SoC) is also a fact. Does it lead into speculation, yes. Absolutely. Is it speculation in and of itself, no.

Point five (about how storage works) is more or less proven by (a) the Apple Platform Security guide and (b) literally every other piece of written documentation about storage security on Apple's website. This is not conjecture. If you know how storage works on a T2 Intel Mac or an Apple Silicon Mac, then I'm merely stating what you already know.

Points six through eight state "likely". Is the text after that a definite, no. Hence the word "likely". However, the fact that there is such likelihood is a fact.

I'll grant you point nine is riddled with speculation, but it's safe enough that if that's what you or anyone is picking apart, then it's a pretty nit-picky thing to pick apart.



Not for anyone who has actually been paying attention to the Apple Silicon transition beyond hardware releases.



I definitely don't doubt that Apple has lost marketshare for these sorts of things by not producing more regular Mac Pro towers. I'm also not surprised to see that windowserver causes those kinds of problems. You'd think they'd have learned a thing or two by now.



I think that might be an oversimplification. The bandwidth between the SoC and the I/O of the rest of the machine ought to smoke Thunderbolt.



Considering processors went through that weird phase in the late 90's where they were on daughter cards (and that the logic board of the M1 Mac mini is around the size of the I/O board in the current Mac Pro, that's totally possible!

Well thought out logical post but stop misusing the word fact. What apple stated 2.5 years back is their strategy/approach at that time, and Apple can change their approach any time. It’s more logical to believe what apple says over other clickbait analysts.

 

[BWNYC]

No one will buy a $6000-$24000 Mac Studio Pro for internal expansion when you can buy a $2000-$4000 Mac Studio and use Thunderbolt for external expansion.

But, what if someone wants to use a 100Gbps network card? Or, what if someone wants to use a quad-link 12G SDI card? That's 48Gbps... Thunderbolt is only 40Gbps... and only 32Gbps of that is usable for data.