the big question is, does Apple have any plans to make the Mac Pro a viable alternative?
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.
MP All Models Is the Mac Pro still relevant in 2025
- Thread starter maflynn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
An interesting point to make is that, if Apple retired the Mac Pro, there would be some naming discrepancy between their highest-end portable (MacBook Pro) and desktop (Mac Studio) devices.
I don't believe there's an argument that the desktop is any more 'studio-qualified' than a notebook these days, as even Apple itself positions their MacBook Pro as a portable powerhouse - which it most certainly is.
So perhaps another direction is that Apple replaces both the Mac Studio and Mac Pro with a system that takes advantage of both worlds. Yes it would be Mac Pro in name, but if Apple were to do this they would need a good reason to; and I think the reason is that the Mac mini has quickly caught up in the professional space by serving many demographics even on its (more modest) 'Pro' chip. This chip is ridiculously good today: now imagine what it will be like come two, even three years time. It will likely serve the majority of Pro users well, leaving the Max and Ultra as a niche for the highest-end.
This leaves the Studio in something of a strange position, because although it aims to be a compact desktop computer, it is neither as small as the Mini nor as expandable (by internal means) as the Pro. It is also means that the current Pro must be priced significantly more to justify the enclosure.
I think a new replacement system would likely find a compromise, starting somewhere around $2,999 for the Max chip with perhaps as few as 4 x PCIe slots, and that's it. A much more compact and simpler-engineered system than the current Pro, more expandable than the Studio, and a fairer price relative to the Mac mini.
I don't believe there's an argument that the desktop is any more 'studio-qualified' than a notebook these days, as even Apple itself positions their MacBook Pro as a portable powerhouse - which it most certainly is.
So perhaps another direction is that Apple replaces both the Mac Studio and Mac Pro with a system that takes advantage of both worlds. Yes it would be Mac Pro in name, but if Apple were to do this they would need a good reason to; and I think the reason is that the Mac mini has quickly caught up in the professional space by serving many demographics even on its (more modest) 'Pro' chip. This chip is ridiculously good today: now imagine what it will be like come two, even three years time. It will likely serve the majority of Pro users well, leaving the Max and Ultra as a niche for the highest-end.
This leaves the Studio in something of a strange position, because although it aims to be a compact desktop computer, it is neither as small as the Mini nor as expandable (by internal means) as the Pro. It is also means that the current Pro must be priced significantly more to justify the enclosure.
I think a new replacement system would likely find a compromise, starting somewhere around $2,999 for the Max chip with perhaps as few as 4 x PCIe slots, and that's it. A much more compact and simpler-engineered system than the current Pro, more expandable than the Studio, and a fairer price relative to the Mac mini.
The problem there is that the Mx Max only supplies a handful of PCIe lanes (4?) which are needed for "built-in" interfaces like Ethernet and SD readers. You could maybe use a PCIe switch to get a couple of internal PCIe cards, but the bandwidth would probably be worse than you'd get in a TB-to-PCIe enclosure. Or they could "steal" one of the 4 TB ports for internal use but, again, that;s going to be no better than an external PCIe enclosure.
The 2023 Pro uses the Ultra chip - effectively two interconnected Max dies - and, as I understand it, 16 of the PCIe lanes come from the unused SSD controller on the second Max. So even a "smaller" PCIe Mac Pro would need the expensive Ultra chip to support even 4 PCIe slots with respectable bandwidth - which is going to push up the price point.
I don't see the problem with the Studio vs. the Mini - the prices only overlap the Studio if you pick all of the BTO CPU/GPU options on a M4 Pro Mini - and even the binned 14 core CPU Studio Max beats out the M4 Pro in other respects. Worst case - don't bother with the $2000 binned 14 core Studio and go straight to the $2500 16/40 core/48G RAM one.
I think you can read too much into names. I mean, we're already in a world where neither 2/3 of "MacBook Pro" models nor the "Mac Pro" actually have a "M4 Pro" processor...
If Apple dropped the Mac Pro then the field would be clear for both the Studios - or just the Studio Ultra - to be renamed "Mac Pro" - if the market research showed that would be popular.
I have no idea nor am I going to take a guess. I'd be more likely to predict a jury verdict than predict what Apple is going to do with the Mac Pro.
Many have been wanting this xMac for quite some time. It would be nice if Apple would release such a thing but I wouldn't recommend getting ones hopes up.
xMac would have been easy with Intel (just an "official" Hackintosh) but Apple Silicon chips just aren't the best tools for making a PCIe tower. See discussion above.
Was just laughing the other day that this was veering dangerously close to xMac territory. Great times. 😂
But where does the apples server plans fit into all of this?
an server with the locked in storage that is raid 0 with needing DFU mode to replace storage may not be them. (Maybe have an IPMI that can do DFU mode)
Will they add some kind of raid 1 mode? raid 5/6?
ram on cards?
cpu / ram on an card that slots into an MB?
they will need to have some pci-e for networking (NOT TB) / or replace build in networking with some kind of SFP.
maybe pci-e m.2 based storage with apples on build in storage just for boot? or have no build in storage at all and just netboot?