M3 Ultra Mac Studio Rumored to Launch in Mid-2024, But No Sign of New Mac Pro

[theorist9]

There are two things Apple could do to increase the RAM capacity of the Ultra, either or both of which could be non-viable in a laptop. They use 8 x 16 GB RAM packages (one per channel) on the top M3 Max. 32 GB packages may well be available, but they might be too costly or power hungry for the laptop (I don't know exactly what type of RAM packaging Apple is using, but 32 GB is a pretty standard capacity for one package on a 64-bit channel). If they CAN get 32 GB packages in there, they could double the M3 Ultra's projected 256 GB capacity to 512 GB. Alternatively, many processors/chipsets can run two RAM packages per channel. There almost certainly isn't room for that in a MacBook Pro, but there could be in a desktop. Either way, they can offer 512 GB, and if they could do both at once, they might offer a terabyte of RAM to those few who needed it (I don't want to THINK about the price)...

Apple should be able to double the max RAM of its Macs, without increasing the number of physical RAM modules, by switching to LPDDR5x RAM.

For instance, the Max, with its current 4 memory modules, could have up to 256 GB RAM if outfitted with LPDDR5x (64 GB/module), as compared with the 128 GB LPDDR5 RAM (32 GB/module) available currently.

We can see this with the NVIDIA Grace-Hopper superchip, which uses 8 LPDDR5x modules to obtain 480 GB RAM, which would be 512 GB (64 GB/module) after adding back what's set aside for ECC.

Thus Apple should be able to offer a 512 GB Ultra (the Ultra also has 8 RAM modules), once it moves to LPDDR5x.

According to the JEDEC standard, the max density for LPDDR5 and 5x are the same; so it appears this difference is due more to the practicalities of production, rather than inherent differences between the two.

 

[sunny5]

Apple should be able to approximately double the max RAM of its Macs, without increasing the number of physical RAM modules, by switching to LPDDR5x RAM, which is available in chips with double the capacity of LPDDR5.

Unified memory is just for mobile devices. Not really meant for desktop. Apple should bring back regular RAMs at least for Mac Pro.

 

[AF_APPLETALK]

The Quicksilver G4 is the most beautiful Mac ever.

I thought the MDD was top until I got a QS in my collection, and now I agree.

The older graphite looks very handsome, and the MDD looks great, but there's something very nice about how they did the power button, reset buttons and speaker on the QS

 

[MNWildFan]

We've been wanting this since 2007. I don't think it's going to happen.

Yeah, I don't think it is either

In short, it looks like Apple is more than happy with the Studio effectively being the Pro's replacement with it being almost the same footprint as the Mini but with a few notable differences to differenciate it and the Mini

 

[Gloor]

Hell no. You clearly don't see the benefits of unified memory. That is by far one of the best things about AS. The fact that GPU can tap in so much ram is mindblowing. 3D artists are so happy (among other professionals)

regular ram is old tech.

Unified memory is just for mobile devices. Not really meant for desktop. Apple should bring back regular RAMs at least for Mac Pro.

 

[sunny5]

Hell no. You clearly don't see the benefits of unified memory. That is by far one of the best things about AS. The fact that GPU can tap in so much ram is mindblowing. 3D artists are so happy (among other professionals)

regular ram is old tech.

3D artists lol, Mac Pro only supports up to 192GB of RAM. Where is 1.5TB? Huh? Beside, GPU itself is slower than RTX 40 series which defeats its purpose.

 

[splifingate]

The Mac Pro is dead. My guess is that some engineers working on the Mac Pro left the company when Apple decided that the Mac Pro would just be a Mac Studio with PCI-E, that’s why it took so long. The current Mac Pro won’t sell enough to make a profit from, so they’ll axe it. Just like they did with

the iPhone 13-mini

Xserve: blame the buyers, not themselves.

Simple accounting; though AAPL appears to be more into Fade than Axe these days

 

[splifingate]

The thought process just doesn't make sense to me and the 6 month gaps.

AAPL is still (even after their release from INTC) beholden to the actual system manufacturers . . . who, I have no doubt, are salivating/sweating as best they can, to meet Expectation

 

[Gloor]

I can see that you've never worked in 3D. Do you really think that in big VFX studios artists have 1.5TB ram? ROFL!

At my workstation at work I have 128gb. Most artists have 64gb.

My GPU at work is only 6 (or 8gb).

So, I'll take 192GB unified any time of the day!

Pls don't talk badly about something that you clearly don't know much about.

Are there uses for 1.5TB Ram? Yes, absolutely but that probably elsewhere. 3D is not it

3D artists lol, Mac Pro only supports up to 192GB of RAM. Where is 1.5TB? Huh? Beside, GPU itself is slower than RTX 40 series which defeats its purpose.

 

[sunny5]

I can see that you've never worked in 3D. Do you really think that in big VFX studios artists have 1.5TB ram? ROFL!

At my workstation at work I have 128gb. Most artists have 64gb.

My GPU at work is only 6 (or 8gb).

So, I'll take 192GB unified any time of the day!

Pls don't talk badly about something that you clearly don't know much about.

Are there uses for 1.5TB Ram? Yes, absolutely but that probably elsewhere. 3D is not it

That's because you dont need Mac Pro and therefore, it defeats your own statement. Whenever you say "My", doesn't mean you represent the market. I have PC with high specs for 3D and I can tell you that you are totally wrong. Dont be fooled by Apple Silicon magic.

 

[Gloor]

sure, my experience from big studios is not relevant - ok ok, gotcha. Case closed

That's because you dont need Mac Pro and therefore, it defeats your own statement. Whenever you say "My", doesn't mean you represent the market. I have PC with high specs for 3D and I can tell you that you are totally wrong. Dont be fooled by Apple Silicon magic.

 

[danwells]

How much difference would 512 GB make to those who need it? My own RAM requirements as a photographer are currently handled by 64 GB, and 128 GB will give significant room to grow (I'll get 128 GB on my next Mac, but mostly as future-proofing).

The reason I ask about 512 GB is because there are three possible technical paths to that capacity that don't involve a whole new memory architecture for a small number of machines. If two of the paths are combined, they could open up 1 TB unified memory capacities. I'm not sure whether there would be physical constraints to some of these paths (the logic works, but trace length restrictions or limitations of Apple Silicon may come into play)?

1.) If Apple's unified memory architecture supports two piggybacked memory packages per channel (many architectures do, but I don't know if Apple Silicon does), it's really easy when the M3 Ultra comes out. Use the existing 16 GB packages that allow 128 GB on the M3 Max, but you have 16 channels on the M3 Ultra (256 GB), and if you can do two packages per channel, you can reach 512 GB. You might even get 256 GB in an M3 Max laptop this way, depending on space.

2.) Use 32 GB packages. I don't know if they exist in the format Apple's using, but they're common in general. Apple's huge number of memory channels hides that their memory per channel is actually on the lower side. All PC laptops including the biggest workstations and gaming machines have at most two memory channels (some economy models are actually single-channel), while Apple only uses dual-channel memory at the low end. Their M3 Pro machines are triple channel, while the Max models are six and eight channel. On the desktop PC side, quad-channel RAM is not unheard of, but it's rare (Xeon and Threadripper CPUs support it, but no standard desktop chip does). Eight-channel RAM is vanishingly rare, supported on a few $10,000 and up machines that use Intel Xeon-W 3400 or AMD Threadripper PRO CPUs. Apple is using eight channels on a $1999 desktop and on some laptops. I'm not aware of ANY reasonable desktop PC that uses sixteen RAM channels - but the M2 Ultra does (and presumably the M3 Ultra will). The reason I say "reasonable desktop PC" is that there's probably somebody out there using a dual-processor server as an odd desktop!

Because Apple has all the RAM channels, they aren't pushing capacity per channel hard at all. Most Mac memory configurations use 6 or 8 GB per channel, with 16 GB per channel reserved for a few M3 Max models with maximum RAM. A few low-end machines use 4 GB per channel, and a couple of oddities use 12 GB per channel. While I've never heard of a PC using 6 or 12 GB per channel, 4, 8 and 16 are all common - but 32 GB per channel is just as common. A few laptop workstations get to 128 GB on only two channels by using two piggybacked 32 GB SODIMMs per channel, and four RAM slot desktop motherboards allow the same configuration. Even without piggybacking, simply using 32 GB packages would double maximum RAM capacity (512 GB in an M3 Ultra).

3.) Put an M3 Extreme chip in the Mac Pro. If they succeed in linking 4 Max chips, it'll have 32 memory channels, and that means that they can get to 512 GB with the existing modules.

Getting to 1 TB of RAM would require any two of these strategies combined, but would still be possible in Apple's unified memory architecture. Of course, the tightly coupled unified memory DOES preclude socketed RAM, so these upgrades will be VERY expensive.

 

[chucker23n1]

2.) Use 32 GB packages. I don't know if they exist in the format Apple's using,

Samsung has announced one. But that gives you 8*32 = 256 GiB, not 512.

Apple is using eight channels on a $1999 desktop and on some laptops. I'm not aware of ANY reasonable desktop PC that uses sixteen RAM channels - but the M2 Ultra does (and presumably the M3 Ultra will).

Aren't your numbers off here? I think the M1/M2 Ultra have eight channels (and therefore eight LPDDR chips), and the M1/M2/M3 Max have four.

 

[Gloor]

now that the AVP is out and behind us, do you think we could get the studio sooner than WWDC?

 

[danwells]

Samsung has announced one. But that gives you 8*32 = 256 GiB, not 512.



Aren't your numbers off here? I think the M1/M2 Ultra have eight channels (and therefore eight LPDDR chips), and the M1/M2/M3 Max have four.

Nope - the Maxes are eight channel (with the "lite" M3 Max having six, and the Ultras are sixteen. Each channel is 50 GB/second.

 

[danwells]

I don't think we're going to see the Studio sooner than WWDC, and I think later (October or even January) is disturbingly likely.

The March introduction is already very full with multiple iPads and maybe the MacBook Air(s).

WWDC would make sense, but I've seen conflicting rumors between WWDC and "end of year".

 

[Gloor]

I hear you but how long is Apple going to screw with us when the Max chip is already out? I hope that we get it by WWDC the latest.

I don't think we're going to see the Studio sooner than WWDC, and I think later (October or even January) is disturbingly likely.

The March introduction is already very full with multiple iPads and maybe the MacBook Air(s).

WWDC would make sense, but I've seen conflicting rumors between WWDC and "end of year".

 

[danwells]

I wish I were more optimistic - I do think WWDC makes good sense. Most years, this will be much less of an issue. With a typical ~15% annual performance increase, a M(N) Ultra will still significantly outperform an M(N+1) Max.

What is making it a big issue this year is the 50% P-core count boost on the M3 Max - which they certainly can't do every year. The M3 Max has a P-core count exactly halfway in between the M2 Max and M2 Ultra, and coupled with a typical per-core performance boost, the M3 Max is as fast as the M2 ULTRA (except for the GPU).

This was made worse by the fact that the higher-powered M2 chips were delayed, causing a very short interval between the M2 Ultra Mac Studio and the M3 Max MacBook Pro. The short interval looked ridiculous, especially because M1 anything -M2 anything is a pretty minor upgrade, while M2 Max-M3 Max is huge (the Mini doesn't have the same problem, because M2 PRO-M3 PRO is a sidegrade).

Apple should rejigger their product timing so that the M(N) Max and M(N) Ultra come out together. If the Max stays significantly more powerful than the Pro, I'm not sure Pro and Max need to - but they're available in the same chassis, so the MBP presents a challenge.

 

[chucker23n1]

I just don't think they can win on that issue. They're not going to delay their Mac line-up so that the entire M microarchitecture is released in sync, and I think releasing mid-range Macs before the Air is something they usually want to do. The Air is the big seller, and its sales help recoup development costs of higher-end Macs.

So there'll always be someone who feels "screwed", which I really think is a stretch. The M2 Ultra isn't suddenly a bad chip because the M3 Max exists. On the contrary, it suggests exciting news for the M3 Ultra.

 

[john1970]

I would strongly consider a new M3 Ultra Mac Studio as the replacement for my current Mac. I agree that the Mac Pro should be canceled. With the M3 Ultra Studio why would anyone buy a Mac Pro?

 

[Alex Cumbers]

Who’s buying the AS Mac Pro? It’s a terrible product.

Exactly, what a waste of space & for ridiculous price. True innovation would have allowed upgradeable and multiple SoC, e.g: multiple slots to install M series SoC with various RAM configs.

 

[danwells]

There are two niche reasons for the Mac Pro, one of which is true of the current Mac Pro, while the other is not. The reason that IS true of the current Mac Pro is folks who need a PCIe card cage (for reasons other than GPUs), either with a lot of slots OR faster than Thunderbolt. If you need less than three slots and Thunderbolt speed is OK, a Mac Studio and an external card cage is quite a bit cheaper. Probably the most common example is to stuff cards full of SSDs in there - a Mac Studio can have 8 TB of internal storage, while a Mac Pro can have at least 264 TB (two Accelsior 8M2s or equivalent with 64 TB each in the two x16 slots, with four 4M2s (32 TB each) in the 8x slots, plus 8 TB in the internal slots). Most people don't need a quarter of a petabyte of SSD, nor can most people afford nearly $50,000 worth of storage!

It may even be possible to cram in 392 TB if a quarter of a petabyte just isn't enough, though - the 8x slots might be able to take an 8M2 each (it's a 16x card, but those 8x slots are physically the same as 16x, and most cards can step down (not sure if the RAID cards can). That would depend on the ability to run at 8x and also on power availability.

There is a vast world between 8 TB and 392 TB, and there is a role for the Mac Pro there (not to mention that an 8 TB Mac Pro using commodity SSDs on a PCIe to NVMe board is only marginally more expensive than an equivalent 8 TB Mac Studio using Apple's storage. If you need 8 TB AND one additional PCIe card (audio interface?), it's probably cheaper than paying Apple's high storage price on a Mac Studio and using a card cage (assuming that having the 8 TB mostly on Thunderbolt isn't fast enough).

The second reason is if an M3 (or M4, etc.) Extreme were ever to appear. Given that the M3 Max has been seen to peak over 120 watts (and an Extreme should be four times as much), the Studio's 375W power supply couldn't handle the probable maximum draw of an Extreme. The chip might or might not fit in a Studio case, and the necessary heat sink probably wouldn't. The Mac Pro case offers plenty of space, power and cooling capacity.

The Mac Pro case is pretty easy to live with (not as easy as the Studio, but not as bad as big PC workstations). It'll plug into a standard household 15 amp 110 volt circuit, and it can share that circuit with a few small loads, even if it has half a dozen hungry PCIe cards in it . On a 20 amp circuit found in most office buildings, it's fine sharing with a variety of small to medium sized loads, including a couple of monitors and just about any non-laser printer. It is fine with a random Best Buy 1500 VA UPS.

A PC workstation anywhere near as powerful as a hypothetical M(n) Extreme would almost certainly need at least a 20 amp dedicated line and a 2200 VA UPS, both a significant step up in complexity from a Mac Pro's power needs. If the PC were dual processor, it might very well need TWO dedicated lines or a 240 volt line (and a 3000 VA UPS). A 240 volt, 30 amp line is a dryer outlet, so it's not hard for an electrician to install - but most offices don't have one lying around (except the one the copier is already using).

 

[Chuckeee]

There are two niche reasons for the Mac Pro, one of which is true of the current Mac Pro, while the other is not. The reason that IS true of the current Mac Pro is folks who need a PCIe card cage (for reasons other than GPUs), either with a lot of slots OR faster than Thunderbolt. If you need less than three slots and Thunderbolt speed is OK, a Mac Studio and an external card cage is quite a bit cheaper. Probably the most common example is to stuff cards full of SSDs in there - a Mac Studio can have 8 TB of internal storage, while a Mac Pro can have at least 264 TB (two Accelsior 8M2s or equivalent with 64 TB each in the two x16 slots, with four 4M2s (32 TB each) in the 8x slots, plus 8 TB in the internal slots). Most people don't need a quarter of a petabyte of SSD, nor can most people afford nearly $50,000 worth of storage!

It may even be possible to cram in 392 TB if a quarter of a petabyte just isn't enough, though - the 8x slots might be able to take an 8M2 each (it's a 16x card, but those 8x slots are physically the same as 16x, and most cards can step down (not sure if the RAID cards can). That would depend on the ability to run at 8x and also on power availability.

There is a vast world between 8 TB and 392 TB, and there is a role for the Mac Pro there (not to mention that an 8 TB Mac Pro using commodity SSDs on a PCIe to NVMe board is only marginally more expensive than an equivalent 8 TB Mac Studio using Apple's storage. If you need 8 TB AND one additional PCIe card (audio interface?), it's probably cheaper than paying Apple's high storage price on a Mac Studio and using a card cage (assuming that having the 8 TB mostly on Thunderbolt isn't fast enough).

The second reason is if an M3 (or M4, etc.) Extreme were ever to appear. Given that the M3 Max has been seen to peak over 120 watts (and an Extreme should be four times as much), the Studio's 375W power supply couldn't handle the probable maximum draw of an Extreme. The chip might or might not fit in a Studio case, and the necessary heat sink probably wouldn't. The Mac Pro case offers plenty of space, power and cooling capacity.

The Mac Pro case is pretty easy to live with (not as easy as the Studio, but not as bad as big PC workstations). It'll plug into a standard household 15 amp 110 volt circuit, and it can share that circuit with a few small loads, even if it has half a dozen hungry PCIe cards in it . On a 20 amp circuit found in most office buildings, it's fine sharing with a variety of small to medium sized loads, including a couple of monitors and just about any non-laser printer. It is fine with a random Best Buy 1500 VA UPS.

A PC workstation anywhere near as powerful as a hypothetical M(n) Extreme would almost certainly need at least a 20 amp dedicated line and a 2200 VA UPS, both a significant step up in complexity from a Mac Pro's power needs. If the PC were dual processor, it might very well need TWO dedicated lines or a 240 volt line (and a 3000 VA UPS). A 240 volt, 30 amp line is a dryer outlet, so it's not hard for an electrician to install - but most offices don't have one lying around (except the one the copier is already using).

Basing continuation of Mac Pro based on an hypothetical M(n) Extreme is pure fantasy, except for wishful thinking there is zero evidence of such a chip. A patent from a few years ago is not proof. No M(x) chip shows compatibility with die level interconnects along 2 edges. In the future chiplets may provide an avenue for an enhancements beyond Ultra but the future definitely shows a path towards TB5 interfaces. And TB5 interface will provide Mac Studio the ability for higher speed external PCIe chassis and larger higher speed external SSD RAID storage, minimizing Mac Pro advantages.

 

[danwells]

Quite possibly true, both double-edged interposers and Thunderbolt 5 don't exist yet...

 

[theorist9]

Who’s buying the AS Mac Pro? It’s a terrible product.

It's not an ideal product. I've read Apple did try to create a 2x Ultra chip for it, but was unsuccessful, which is why it lacks sufficient differentiation from the Ultra Studio.

Having said that, there are two reasons people are buying it:
1) They have PCIe cards and want to be able to continue to install them directly in the machine.
2) It offers substantially more I/O bandwidth than the Ultra Studio.