Mac Pro Enthusiasts Raise Concerns Over Upgrade Limitations of Apple Silicon

[NT1440]

Since the Ultra chips were not able to scale the performance of the individual chips, and since these are really niche machines that sell in such small volumes, I think Apple decided that they could not justify investing the resources required to recoup their investment on such dedicated chips for these niche machines.

I am wondering if Apple will instead do what Intel did with their Xeon chips (or still does, I do not follow Intel anymore) and just use complete dual chips on their machines instead of custom fusing them together as they were said to do with the Super Duper Ultra Supreme Deluxe XXL chips for the new Mac Pros.

I believe the original Ultras “couldn’t scale” given the A series starting point.

As pointed out by people like CMaier there is a difference in the next (now released) architecture that doesn’t have that limitation.

I know members here are adamant that Apple is failing here, but it really does look like M2 was always supposed to be N3 and then the world blew up.

 

[obviouslogic]

The biggest benefit of Apple Silicon’s Unified Memory Architecture is that is no longer the case. However, arguing that everyone should give up the benefit of UMA because some people do not need it does not make a lot of sense.

I agree that there will be performance trade-offs, I just disagree with you as to which make sense. I think having PCIe cards is important, I do not think that having expandable memory is.

Everyone? We're talking about Mac Pro users, not all Mac users. I'm not saying Apple needs to remove unified memory from all their systems, as I agree with you, that most people do not need to upgrade memory.

 

[MikeZTM]

Except that no-one is going to be sticking GTX4090 level silicon inside an SoC, with all the other stuff. So regardless of the advantages you mention (which are real), there is a downside to the SoC approach too.

Plus for many use cases, you can load data into the GPU VRAM and let it get on with it, unimpeded by 'bottlenecks' (which are somewhat relative anyway if we consider the bandwidth of PCIe 5.0 x16).

RTX4090 is a SoC by itself. It contains a CPU a GPU and a ram system.
All Nvidia "GPU" since RTX2000 are SoCs with arm core on it for communicating with driver.

 

[jicon]

If you are going to pay a hefty price for a Mac Apple should let you consider customizing it the way you want. It’s simple as that.

Why else do we pay premium prices for Apple products?

You must be new here... Thin and quiet have now long been hallmarks of their design philosophy. How the Mac Pro hasn't been given frequent internal upgrade options every quarter to half year is baffling. I've heard of a few fighting for extra backup components needed on their rack mount Mac Pros that Apple sell, but unknown options to staff at Apple... this won't occur on the Dell or HP side. You get multiple backup components, same day delivery on most replacements, no hassle.

 

[obviouslogic]

Since the Ultra chips were not able to scale the performance of the individual chips, and since these are really niche machines that sell in such small volumes, I think Apple decided that they could not justify investing the resources required to recoup their investment on such dedicated chips for these niche machines.

I am wondering if Apple will instead do what Intel did with their Xeon chips (or still does, I do not follow Intel anymore) and just use complete dual chips on their machines instead of custom fusing them together as they were said to do with the Super Duper Ultra Supreme Deluxe XXL chips for the new Mac Pros.

CPU cores never scale linearly. GPU cores should as long as you can keep power consistent (thermals under control) and have the memory bandwidth to feed them. The fact that the Max and Ultra didn't scale properly could be a design issue as these GPUs were mainly designed for mobile and never meant to scale that high. It was a great effort on Apple's part, but still, it's a first generation desktop SOC and did have issues.

Newer generations will be redesigned and refined and hopefully solve those issues. The M2 is a good step forward, but I don't think we'll get what's expected until at least the M3. (Hopefully late Fall and based on the A17, as the A16 wasn't a marked improvement, especially in GPU. Although Apple could design a separate GPU just for the M-series, if they felt they needed to.)

 

[H2SO4]

One would even assume by this point that “paying more for it” is table stakes in understanding Apple.

BTW, so why is water ALWAYS wet? Like, for as long as I can remember water has been wet. But, for some reason it seems to me that, right now, water shouldn’t be expected to be wet anymore. Let me check…

Yup. Still wet. Surprises me every time, though.

They are taking the mickey a bit now. I want a MacPro, (don't need one), but I might buy a nice refurb intel before the Intel versions become sought after, (maybe).

 

[DeepIn2U]

I've had no interest in Mac pros since the days of the powermac G4/G5. they priced them selves out of reach after that. iMacs became a much better value. now they screwed up the iMac and I don't even know what to buy.

I feel the iMac's are a dead end product.

Great for concierge or for the user with light work / personal computing needs and for those with very limited space for a separated desktop + external monitor setup. For some I completely understand love the iMac or Mac as a central computer. (by Mac I mean the original Macintosh that evolved into the iMac today, so it is truely THE mac, that all others are molded from).

when the screen is done, which occurred often with the NVidia 2016-2018 series (?) iMac's, it is MUCH harder to bring in an iMac to the Apple store vs bringing in a MBP with a screen issue.

It's surely a personal choice. Yet bringing back the iMac Pro with an M2 Pro and M2 Max as an Apple Mac Studio All-In-One alternative would be outstanding.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Yea there will always be users who will pay to get the upgrades done, but let the ones who know how and feel comfortable do it themselves

Some do know how to do the ugprades themselves, do choose to pay for it being done - so that there is NO argument of warranty support and if anything goes wrong the fault falls on the support team NOT the end user

 

[marty1980]

Apple sure has a lot of courage if they are to step on stage and announce a Mac Pro with little to no upgradability, very little performance benefit over a Mac Studio and an overpriced case and cooling system that does little to improve the situation.

What’s even the point? If the theories and rumors prove false, then good on apple, but these have been my concerns for the Mac Pro since they announced the full transition to Apple Silicon.

 

[skiguy45]

I'm still hoping they, at least, come up with some daughter card system. Add additional daughter cards for more RAM, CPU cores, and GPU cores. Far from perfect, but at least it would offer a path to scale performance and capabilities.

-- M2 Ultra Card 1
|
-- M2 Ultra Card 2
|
-- M2 Ultra Card 3
|
-- Open Slot

This sort of hypothetical layout (4 slots) would only support 768GB Memory (vs 1.5TB for current Mac Pro).

If the Apple Silicon Mac Pro doesn't meet or exceed the capabilities of an HP Z8, it's a non-starter. The types of jobs this machine would be used for can be done on Linux too.

 

[Rychiar]

I feel the iMac's are a dead end product.

Great for concierge or for the user with light work / personal computing needs and for those with very limited space for a separated desktop + external monitor setup. For some I completely understand love the iMac or Mac as a central computer. (by Mac I mean the original Macintosh that evolved into the iMac today, so it is truely THE mac, that all others are molded from).

when the screen is done, which occurred often with the NVidia 2016-2018 series (?) iMac's, it is MUCH harder to bring in an iMac to the Apple store vs bringing in a MBP with a screen issue.

It's surely a personal choice. Yet bringing back the iMac Pro with an M2 Pro and M2 Max as an Apple Mac Studio All-In-One alternative would be outstanding.

I like the iMac as a product. I work on extremely large Photoshop files for a vehicle wrap company every day and a maxed out regular 2019 iMac is great for it. No need for "pro". the regular models were always reasonably priced and took enough ram under intel. plus the 5k display. The new ones seem like more consumer lightweight products... but there's no reason they can't do this again.. other than they seem to want to sell these insanely priced displays to people... and they'll claim it cuts down on waste but if I got a Mac Studio and if their first displays aren't even gonna be more advanced than these old iMacs, then I know the display isn't gonna last me long anyways cus ill want the next upgrade one with 120hz and mini LED or whatever they do. It was nice getting new screen tech with every new iMac. what's wasteful is the fact that apple won't let ya use old iMacs as a screen now...

 

[Unregistered 4U]

iGPU in SoC handles display output, utilizing UMA RAM...

ASi GPGPU(s) handles compute/render tasks, using on-card RAM...

Yeah, but Apple’s API’s don’t currently support GPU’s not attached to UMA, there’s nothing in place to populate the RAM on a GPU over PCIe. Apple could update their API’s at WWDC this year indicating that there’s a new Apple GPU flag that allows them to direct a stream externally, but until that happens, there’s no GPU outside of the one on the SoC.

 

[gank41]

I'm wondering if there's a way to ADD to existing un-modifiable memory? It would be cool if they let you buy a Mac Pro with 64GB of Unified Memory but then also included slots to add in your own sticks of RAM (even if it's expensive ECC RAM). Or even add in a card with Storage and Memory?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The only option Apple has is to make their own powerful GPU. It will be horribly expensive to make something that's very competitive or even way better, and Apple would still need to write some very decent libraries for existing ecosystems (pytorch, tensorflow, etc) or hope that someone will do it for free. (hasn't happened yet) There are still very, very few apps that make use of al the special silicon in the new chips, like the 'neural engine'.

They make a powerful GPU. Making a MORE powerful “unsupported by most code libraries” GPU wouldn’t change the current situation very much.

 

[Detnator]

Probably better just to keep x86 going at the pro end, until they come up with a means of supporting pro users, who need to be able to swap out CPU, GPU, Memory and storage. If you need an on premise, expensive professional machine then you will need to be able to upgrade it.

Why?

Why do we NEED to be able to upgrade it for it to qualify as useful for professionals — people who make money doing whatever they do?

 

[Detnator]

I might not buy one for me specifically, but I work in IT, so I might eventually have to support them. Hopefully that justifies at least some of my complaints.


There's a difference between *won't* and *can't*. If Apple products are good enough for you where you don't have to customize them after the fact, great! For me, I'd at least like to have the option to replace components. Both to upgrade and for repairs. I love Apple products, but hate the idea of having to replace the entire computer should the RAM or SSD goes bad.

Why? What’s wrong with that?

If you get AppleCare, which is a bargain and everyone should, it costs nothing to repair or replace if it breaks down.

What’s wrong with replacing the whole thing if it breaks. It’s not wasteful. Apple repairs the old one. It’s not unrepairable. It’s just not user repairable. Why does it need to be?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Valid points all. I just think Apple needs the final slam dunk on Intel that if they make a machine for which power consumption is not a concern that it exceeds Intel's best, while still maybe (or maybe not) being better for power consumption. I am all for computers that use less juice, however, I was hoping that Apple was going to release something ridiculously powerful too. Then it also needs to be upgradable and hopefully compatible with third party graphics cards instead of another closed system like the others.

Now that they’re off on their own architecture with their OS, they don’t need peak performance to beat Intel. They “beat Intel” with every Apple Silicon system that ships. I don’t think there will ever be a time when Apple Silicon will, across a broad set of cross-platform benchmarks, be higher than Intel. And it doesn’t matter because, as long as people continue to have reasons for liking and using macOS and it’s software (half of the folks buying Macs every year are new to Mac), “running macOS” is a benchmark Intel will NEVER be able to claim.

 

[NT1440]

If you work in an industry where things can change rapidly or change on a daily basis, the need to be able to upgrade you computer to adapt to those changes is extremely important. This is why you will find many many businesses using Windows desktop PC's because they can be upgraded. There is always the scenario where a company wins a new contract but finds their current desktop computers cannot handle the requirements of the new client. Many clients will have very strict deadlines that need to be met and thus it would be disastrous for a company to lose out on new business because their desktop computers can not be upgrade and they are not able to afford brand new updated spec'd desktop computers.

If Apple will not allow their desktop computers to be user upgradeable then simply put many many businesses will not buy them.

Can you point to a company that updates their fleet’s components? I’ve worked in several large companies that do video production all day every day and never once did we upgrade a machine. If it wasn’t cutting it a machine with the proper specs was put in its place.

Now that’s just one industry, I’m assuming ones like heavy machining might upgrade because they’re always using systems that are 10+ years behind modern software implementation 🤷‍♂️

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Citation: I worked in a university research center where we maintained two specialized towers for GPU-related research projects. We routinely swapped out Titan cards each time they made a significant upgrade in that series. Occasionally we had to add more primary memory to facilitate some operations hoisting up the GPU testing we were doing.

I DO think you’re describing an “edge case” though. For most organizations, altering the configuration of a computer is like taking a perfectly balanced sculpture and throwing a bowling ball at it. You MAY get back to work quickly, but you MAY also be down for weeks and it’s not worth the potential loss of revenue.

In a university research center where the intent was “evaluating GPU’s”, potentially having a computer not working as expected (such that you have to open it again and do further configuration) is not where the majority of folks are.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I feel the iMac's are a dead end product.

Great for concierge or for the user with light work / personal computing needs and for those with very limited space for a separated desktop + external monitor setup. For some I completely understand love the iMac or Mac as a central computer. (by Mac I mean the original Macintosh that evolved into the iMac today, so it is truely THE mac, that all others are molded from).

when the screen is done, which occurred often with the NVidia 2016-2018 series (?) iMac's, it is MUCH harder to bring in an iMac to the Apple store vs bringing in a MBP with a screen issue.

It's surely a personal choice. Yet bringing back the iMac Pro with an M2 Pro and M2 Max as an Apple Mac Studio All-In-One alternative would be outstanding.

I don't think iMacs are a dead-end product, but I admit that my love for the iMac is mostly on aesthetic grounds. There's no functional reason why it couldn't be replaced by a Studio + display solution. However, hearing about issues with the "overengineered" display, the rumors that the Studio Display was supposed to be an iMac before those plans got scrapped, and the fact that Studio Display + Mac Studio costs way more than the 27" iMac would have makes me think it's not such a great alternative after all.

 

[xnu]

I see the Mac Pro as a tower that will except a few Apple industry specific expansion cards. It was the price of moving away from intel and compatibility, I can't imagine any other expansion will be possible. If Apple could innovate with graphics as fast as it did the M-series it could be viable, but we know Apple's value on graphic performance in the past is an afterthought. I am ready for "twice the speed as previous graphics, # of cores and fastest graphics on the Mac ever." I don't see real competition on that front to intel/nvidia/amd solutions.

 

[DavidSchaub]

I am wondering if Apple will instead do what Intel did with their Xeon chips (or still does, I do not follow Intel anymore) and just use complete dual chips on their machines instead of custom fusing them together as they were said to do with the Super Duper Ultra Supreme Deluxe XXL chips for the new Mac Pros.

Supporting 2 sockets and supporting 2 chips on a package both take tons of custom fusing. Changing the implementation details doesn't make it any more free. It still needs silicon dedicated to a multi-chip fabric to make it work. Doing two sockets just makes it slower.

 

[rgwebb]

I DO think you’re describing an “edge case” though. For most organizations, altering the configuration of a computer is like taking a perfectly balanced sculpture and throwing a bowling ball at it. You MAY get back to work quickly, but you MAY also be down for weeks and it’s not worth the potential loss of revenue.

In a university research center where the intent was “evaluating GPU’s”, potentially having a computer not working as expected (such that you have to open it again and do further configuration) is not where the majority of folks are.

This is a fair assessment but the needs that necessitate a Mac Pro are essentially all “edge cases” in a broader sense. To me, it makes more sense to make this type of computer as expandable as possible.

Apple has done this once before and it was a failure. I feel like they’re going to cede the markets this competes in if they trash can v2 the Apple silicon Mac Pro.

 

[DavidSchaub]

I know members here are adamant that Apple is failing here, but it really does look like M2 was always supposed to be N3 and then the world blew up.

There is no world where Apple can release new Macs every 18 months on a new process node. That is just not how moore's law ever worked, and certainly isn't how it is going to work going forward. There's nothing wrong about some chip releases being purely architectural improvement without a process node change, a lot of that work is just as important as the work done to support smaller processes.

The M2 is a fine revision for a "same process node" release.

As for what is stopping the M* Quadra 4xMax packages, we just don't know.

 

[spaz8]

I'm hoping all the delay on the AS Mac Pro is that it will be the first M3 mac ( I know m1 and m2 lines started with the lowest soc in the range, not the top) - and will as a result have an updated memory controller that will unlock some sort of expandability (daughter cards?) the M1 and M2 Apple Silicon does not allow for. It makes sense performance and feature wise etc to really differentiate it from the Studio. As I have said before the GPU is the real question with the AS Mac Pro.. how will apple get enough GPU compute to be useful for people that want to do 3d, and other graphics intensive work etc on these machines that is in the same zip code as Nvidia?
If ram is not upgradable I think even among mac pro users 256gb of ram will cover 99% of the user base - its the GPU and PCI that would be the selling point over the Studio.