iFixit Tears Down Mac Studio and Studio Display

[Abazigal]

As someone who, over the past 30 years, has purchased half my Macs second hand, having the ability to upgrade the RAM and HDD are essential.

Frankly, I suspect if Apple continue with their notably higher prices, and combine that with an inability to upgrade after purchase - they are going to shoot themselves in the foot.

The long life of their products helps to ensure a strong second hand market, and as such people who do buy new can sell their old Mac to help finance an upgrade. But, if these machines lifespan is reduced by the lack of upgradability - resale falls, and eagerness to buy new may lag.

My point is that the M1 chip was never designed to be upgradable. We get superior performance from having all the components soldered onto the same chip, at the expense of being able to upgrade them after the fact.

Apple isn’t doing anything to stop users from upgrading their hardware. You just can’t, and I believe that’s a trade off most people are willing to make. Not everyone will upgrade their devices even if the opportunity presents itself, but everyone will be able to benefit from the improved performance.

There is no conspiracy here. We couldn’t upgrade the ram or storage in the Mac mini and iMac, and I don’t see why people would expect any different for these new line of Mac desktops.

 

[jjcs]

Pros are Video Editors, Audio Producers, Actually those People the Mac Pro and Mac Studio are meant for.

That's likely (almost certainly) what Apple thinks "pros" are. Prosumer entertainment content producers. Seems a blanket statement to claim that these people never or never want to upgrade their existing hardware.

 

[jjcs]

My point is that the M1 chip was never designed to be upgradable. We get superior performance from having all the components soldered onto the same chip, at the expense of being able to upgrade them after the fact.

Apple isn’t doing anything to stop users from upgrading their hardware. You just can’t, and I believe that’s a trade off most people are willing to make. Not everyone will upgrade their devices even if the opportunity presents itself, but everyone will be able to benefit from the improved performance.

There is no conspiracy here. We couldn’t upgrade the ram or storage in the Mac mini and iMac, and I don’t see why people would expect any different for these new line of Mac desktops.

You're also limited to the configurations Apple wants to sell, not what you actually might need. Hence their competition in this space (high-end desktops) isn't too worried.

 

[theluggage]

There is no conspiracy here. We couldn’t upgrade the ram or storage in the Mac mini and iMac, and I don’t see why people would expect any different for these new line of Mac desktops.

...actually the 27" iMac did have officially (and very easily) user-upgradeable RAM, and the Intel Mac Mini could be unofficially upgraded. On the other hand, the move to LPDDR RAM - first for Intel MacBooks, now for M1 desktops as well - pretty much knocks the idea of user-upgradeable RAM on the head since you can't get LPDDR in plug-in form, for sound electronic reasons.

One problem is that Apple charge so much for their BTO RAM upgrades - $200 per extra 8GB, even on Intel systems which just take standard SODIMMs, about 3-4x the going rate. LPDDR isn't that much more expensive than DDR4 so Apple are still coining it in. That does encourage people to skimp on RAM when they purchase and regret it later. At least with the Studio, the base RAM is a sensible 32GB, unlike the old iMacs which came with a measly 8GB across the board, even for the higher-end configs.

SSD is a different kettle of fish - what the teardowns have shown is that there is no reason whatsoever why Apple couldn't offer SSD upgrades for the Studio - even if it was only via approved engineers who had the necessary configurator software. If the PSU issue does make it too dangerous for a.n.other to do it themselves, that's purely a result of design decisions at Apple not to have "user replaceable storage" on the list of constraints. Deliberate conspiracy by Apple to evade future "right to repair" laws by playing the safety card? Probably not - I'm a great fan of Hanlon's Razor - but who knows?

However, at least the SSDs (a component which can wear out or be damaged by a software fault) can be replaced without a whole new logic board and processor.

 

[BradMacPro]

I think not ready for the pros refers to a lack of slots, and still pales in RAM capability compared to the current Mac Pro. It would have been nice to see them try to put a larger SSD in just to rule out the possibilities.

The current top model, the M1 Ultra uses 32-channel memory to achieve the 800 GB/sec memory bandwidth and DDR5-6400 RAM in those tiny RAM chips. As each socketed RAM is a channel, even if SO-DIMM or full size DIMMs at this speed existed, which they don't, can you envision a Mac Pro with 32 memory sockets, and could that even work as well? And of course, you would have to replace all 32 with with larger capacity memory if you wanted to upgrade. And the storage modules, which are controlled and encrypted by the M1 Ultra or M1 Max, that at least has a possibility. The existing M.2 sticks are whole SSDs with controllers, so this technology won't work. Apple's current technology has 3.7 GB/sec storage modules per custom socket. The small 512 GB, 1 TB and 2 TB versions are relatively slow and use just one socket. The faster and larger capacity choices use both sockets. They tore down the low capacity models and found the empty socket. It would have been better to open up a 4 TB model to get a better view of how it's done. The x-ray views show both sockets used. Now if you look at something like a Seagate FireCuda 530 NVMe stick, it can do 7300 MB/sec, so a pair of this kind of storage would net more like 14 GB/sec speed with the right controller. That could be a nice option for the Mac Pro, give us an option to RAID four of these for amazing storage.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

unfortunately its not as simple as u think. The Ram in M1 Chips is not a normal type of ram u find in Laptops and Desktops in the Windows world. They are Ram which needs to be as close to the SoC as possible. (The same on Smartphone SoCs u find the Ram always directly stacked on to of the CPU) if you would do it with normal ram over a so Dim u would loose a huge chunk of performance since induces huge latency for the SoC to communicate to the Ram.
Ram Tech is simply not enough advanced to perform the same like SoC Ram
Please do some research into Computer & CPU Engineering before making assumptions about that a company makes things out of pure greed

Yep, so there might be both the SoC RAM, and plug-in extra RAM. This plug-in RAM is waaaaaay faster than SSDs (which are all off-SoC, but being the mega Computer & CPU Engineering genius that you are, you already knew this, right).

Apple took away user upgradeable RAM/SSDs a long time before they put RAM on SoC. And they have never put SSDs on SoC. It was pure greed.

 

[Abazigal]

SSD is a different kettle of fish - what the teardowns have shown is that there is no reason whatsoever why Apple couldn't offer SSD upgrades for the Studio - even if it was only via approved engineers who had the necessary configurator software. If the PSU issue does make it too dangerous for a.n.other to do it themselves, that's purely a result of design decisions at Apple not to have "user replaceable storage" on the list of constraints. Deliberate conspiracy by Apple to evade future "right to repair" laws by playing the safety card? Probably not - I'm a great fan of Hanlon's Razor - but who knows?

My guess is that it's somewhere in the middle. It really isn't possible to slot in external SSD modules and expect them to work with the M1 chip on an integrated level because of the way it's designed, and while Apple may not have intentionally set out to design it that way, it's not something they are losing sleep over because like you said, it enables them to sell more pricey spec upgrades.

It's like how the iPhone has never offered expandable storage, because (I do believe) Steve Jobs felt it would be more straightforward and less complicated for the user, and helped simplify and perfect the overall design of the phone, and well, it did help them sell more upgrades, and well, more money is always a bonus.

 

[profcutter]

The current top model, the M1 Ultra uses 32-channel memory to achieve the 800 GB/sec memory bandwidth and DDR5-6400 RAM in those tiny RAM chips. As each socketed RAM is a channel, even if SO-DIMM or full size DIMMs at this speed existed, which they don't, can you envision a Mac Pro with 32 memory sockets, and could that even work as well? And of course, you would have to replace all 32 with with larger capacity memory if you wanted to upgrade. And the storage modules, which are controlled and encrypted by the M1 Ultra or M1 Max, that at least has a possibility. The existing M.2 sticks are whole SSDs with controllers, so this technology won't work. Apple's current technology has 3.7 GB/sec storage modules per custom socket. The small 512 GB, 1 TB and 2 TB versions are relatively slow and use just one socket. The faster and larger capacity choices use both sockets. They tore down the low capacity models and found the empty socket. It would have been better to open up a 4 TB model to get a better view of how it's done. The x-ray views show both sockets used. Now if you look at something like a Seagate FireCuda 530 NVMe stick, it can do 7300 MB/sec, so a pair of this kind of storage would net more like 14 GB/sec speed with the right controller. That could be a nice option for the Mac Pro, give us an option to RAID four of these for amazing storage.

Yes, yes, the RAM is fast. But if you’re doing RAM intensive professional work and you need 1 GB of RAM, even if you have 128 GB, and it’s as fast as the RAM is in the Ultra, it’s just not going to cut it. Imagine a very large aftereffects project where you have massive numbers of layers at 4 or 8k. If you don’t have the RAM, you‘re not getting a RAM preview. What I was saying is that I was disappointed that iFixit didn’t try to replace one of the SSDs with a larger model, just to see if it was possible. It’s clear you can’t just populate the other socket in a 256GB model.

 

[Abazigal]

You're also limited to the configurations Apple wants to sell, not what you actually might need. Hence their competition in this space (high-end desktops) isn't too worried.

I still feel that we are making the mistake of conflating professionals with enthusiasts here. If we were to draw a Venn diagram, there's probably a small segment of the two which overlaps, but I am willing to bet that this overlap is getting smaller and smaller with each passing day.

To put it bluntly, I don't think this is an opinion pool worth trusting.

The majority of people are not going to crack open their PCs to upgrade the internals. Even in companies, nobody is going to upgrade desktops on their own, because 1) nobody wants to take the blame if something goes wrong, 2) it's added work for them for no benefit, and 3) they are typically on a lease, or will simply be replaced after X years anyways.

Nor is any IT manager going to be staying back after office hours to replace the processor or SSD whoever a new model hits the market. They will just put up a tender for additional PCs when time and up, and let the vendor handle the logistics. It's all factored into the company's Capex already for the next 5-10 years.

What we are left with is an echo chamber of technology enthusiasts who either love tinkering, or insist on wanting this functionality simply to save some money by being able to purchase aftermarket parts (or a combination of both), rather than pay Apple's asking price for spec upgrades. The days of PCs being obsolete the week they were purchased because technology was advancing so rapidly is long gone, and the reality is that standard configurations of off-the-shelf computers are now adequate for 99% of work, even for heavy users, so you don't need to spec out your own PC either.

It's simply not a drawback that is going to impact the majority of PC users (be it windows or Macs).

It's the same thing here. The target market for the Mac Studio are simply going to get the model which best suits their needs right now, then replace it 4-5 years down the road when it no longer meets their needs. They are not going to miss what they don't need.

 

[OnawaAfrica]

Yep, so there might be both the SoC RAM, and plug-in extra RAM. This plug-in RAM is waaaaaay faster than SSDs (which are all off-SoC, but being the mega Computer & CPU Engineering genius that you are, you already knew this, right).

Apple took away user upgradeable RAM/SSDs a long time before they put RAM on SoC. And they have never put SSDs on SoC. It was pure greed.

obviously Ram is way faster than a SSD. I say the Type of Ram they Use on A SOC is slightly different than normal Ram.
So Since The Ram on the SOC is very close to the CPU its has instant Access to it. The Longer the distance to the SOC the slower goes the Data Throughput.

Also do some research why there has never been replaceable Ram on a ARM SOC. The Computer Genius u are u should understand pretty fast why its like that.

 

[OnawaAfrica]

That's likely (almost certainly) what Apple thinks "pros" are. Prosumer entertainment content producers. Seems a blanket statement to claim that these people never or never want to upgrade their existing hardware.

If you would work in Those Pro Areas like Video Editors etc you would know they don't care about upgrading the hardware. They just buy a new mashine. And am Not Talking about Youtube Video Creators. Am Taking About Hollywood

 

[chucker23n1]

Yep, so there might be both the SoC RAM, and plug-in extra RAM.

Two levels of RAM? This created a ton of problems at the OS level. Does a process get a mix of LPDDR and DDR RAM? Is the address space shared? If so, as soon as you get to keeping that in sync, you essentially end up with whatever RAM is slowest.

It’s a very expensive exercise with relatively little gain.

Maybe they’ll do that on the Mac Pro nonetheless — essentially making the LPDDR an L4 cache — , but I would bet against it. More likely, we get two or four M2 Ultras, and that way, you end up with up to 512 MiB.

 

[jjcs]

If you would work in Those Pro Areas like Video Editors etc you would know they don't care about upgrading the hardware. They just buy a new mashine. And am Not Talking about Youtube Video Creators. Am Taking About Hollywood

I wonder how much of Hollywood actually uses Macs as their primary platform these days?

I do find Apple's definition of "professional" limited and quite amusing.

 

[OnawaAfrica]

I wonder how much of Hollywood actually uses Macs as their primary platform these days?

I do find Apple's definition of "professional" limited and quite amusing.

actually most of them use. you do some request to them and research. if most of the movie industry wouldn't use them apple wouldn't make machines like the Mac Pro

 

[jjcs]

The majority of people are not going to crack open their PCs to upgrade the internals. Even in companies, nobody is going to upgrade desktops on their own, because 1) nobody wants to take the blame if something goes wrong, 2) it's added work for them for no benefit, and 3) they are typically on a lease, or will simply be replaced after X years anyways.

We do these things not infrequently and none of our hardware is leased. Software, yes. Hardware? No.

Everyone approaches things like this with their own experiences and preconceptions. If their products meet your needs, fine, but my point is that the option list is very small and limited. Especially for the newer hardware. Their way or the highway.

 

[jjcs]

actually most of them use. you do some request to them and research. if most of the movie industry wouldn't use them apple wouldn't make machines like the Mac Pro

I know absolutely no one in the entertainment industry to ask, but I'd bet ILM isn't buying thousands of Mac Pros.

 

[OnawaAfrica]

We do these things not infrequently and none of our hardware is leased. Software, yes. Hardware? No.

Everyone approaches things like this with their own experiences and preconceptions.

well maybe ur small company doesn't do it like that but imagine a big 500+ company and upgrading all those machine all the time? NO ONE WILL DO THAT.

 

[jjcs]

well maybe ur small company doesn't do it like that but imagine a big 500+ company and upgrading all those machine all the time? NO ONE WILL DO THAT.

I don't work for a small company. No one would be "upgrading all those machine all of the time". It's just more cost effective to add storage or graphics hardware as the need arises to relatively expensive machines. It's also nice to have flexibility in options when you configure the system.

 

[OnawaAfrica]

I don't work for a small company. No one would be "upgrading all those machine all of the time". It's just more cost effective to add storage or graphics hardware as the need arises to relatively expensive machines. It's also nice to have flexibility in options when you configure the system.

well i work at a ISP and we don't bother with upgrading our machines after 1 year lease they go back to the leasing company and we get new ones

 

[jjcs]

well i work at a ISP and we don't bother with upgrading our machines after 1 year lease they go back to the leasing company and we get new ones

Good for you. Different business models are different.

 

[InuNacho]

Apple isn’t doing anything to stop users from upgrading their hardware. You just can’t, and I believe that’s a trade off most people are willing to make.

Making it un-upgradable by design is stopping users from upgrading.

 

[Abazigal]

Making it un-upgradable by design is stopping users from upgrading.

No different from people unable to upgrade the ram or storage in their smartphones and tablets. I feel this is simply a new paradigm shift in PC design that most people have already grown accustomed to, and we are just waiting for the remainder to finally come round. It doesn’t make them whining about this in forums any less eye-rolling, but it’s just something they are going through have to accept. The improved performance of the M1 chip (which everyone can benefit from) in exchange for not being able to upgrade the internals (which most users are simply not going to be concerned about).

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Two levels of RAM? This created a ton of problems at the OS level. Does a process get a mix of LPDDR and DDR RAM? Is the address space shared? If so, as soon as you get to keeping that in sync, you essentially end up with whatever RAM is slowest.

It’s a very expensive exercise with relatively little gain.

Maybe they’ll do that on the Mac Pro nonetheless — essentially making the LPDDR an L4 cache — , but I would bet against it. More likely, we get two or four M2 Ultras, and that way, you end up with up to 512 MiB.

You are aware of multiples levels of cache RAM, RAM, and swap space to SSD that the OS already has to deal with, right? And no, you don't end up with the slowest RAM level as the OS deals with all this, sheesh.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

obviously Ram is way faster than a SSD. I say the Type of Ram they Use on A SOC is slightly different than normal Ram.
So Since The Ram on the SOC is very close to the CPU its has instant Access to it. The Longer the distance to the SOC the slower goes the Data Throughput.

Also do some research why there has never been replaceable Ram on a ARM SOC. The Computer Genius u are u should understand pretty fast why its like that.

Yep, so the SoC RAM might be like an extra, much much bigger, layer of cache RAM. Just like the main RAM at the moment, is in a way, like a layer of cache for the swap space on the SSD. Although, in the case of swap space, if the OS needs swap space on the SSD, then you have a problem, and you need more RAM.

If the Mac Pro M1 Extreme is, as presumed, limited to 256GB on-SoC, but has up to 6TB* of plug in RAM, then this idea of the SoC RAM being a "cache" layer, might actually make sense.

*The Intel Mac Pro has 12 slots of DDR4 with a max of 128GB per slot, thus the 1.5TB limit. The M1 Mac Pro should be DDR5, which currently has up to 512GB DIMMs, so if 12 slots, is 6TB, but could be 6 lots, so 3TB.

I'm not actually sure how much faster SoC RAM is compared to plug-in RAM, though, does anyone know? Surely it is nowhere near the difference between RAM and SSD speeds?

 

[InuNacho]

No different from people unable to upgrade the ram or storage in their smartphones and tablets. I feel this is simply a new paradigm shift in PC design that most people have already grown accustomed to, and we are just waiting for the remainder to finally come round. It doesn’t make them whining about this in forums any less eye-rolling, but it’s just something they are going through have to accept. The improved performance of the M1 chip (which everyone can benefit from) in exchange for not being able to upgrade the internals (which most users are simply not going to be concerned about).

There are roughly 1.7 BILLION people who play PC games on this planet. If only 10% of them upgrade their PC in any way that is still 170 Million users upgrading their computers. The worldwide Mac usage rate as of 2018 was 100 million if I recall correctly.
The world may someday be an un-upgradable ARM only world but we aren't anywhere close to that now.

Maybe in the magic world of Apple yes people aren't upgrading because there hasn't been an upgradable machine that was reasonably affordable since the 2010 Mac Pro, but to count the entire PC world is laughable.