Mac Pro Enthusiasts Raise Concerns Over Upgrade Limitations of Apple Silicon

[retta283]

Best case scenario, Apple makes M3 pro-extreme daughter cards that can be added or removed for RAM and CPU upgrades. One motherboard for those that want PCIe slots with fewer daughter cards and another motherboard for those that want more daughter cards with no PCIe.

I'd hope that they'd make the Mac Pro chassis for years letting an aftermarket grow for used modules every time they come out with a new SoC.

I’d love this. Sell expansion/upgrade cards so that once you’ve bought into the Mac Pro, you maintain your investment instead of an outright new machine every time you need an upgrade. Upgrade what you need when you need… Power Macs used to be like this 20+ years ago. It would be very generous of Apple, so I fear it is unlikely.

This has been a major turn-off for me with AS, great hardware but the idea of buying a computer that is absolutely final and offers no chance for revision leaves me dismayed. Fine for most, but it’s a real bummer for those who care.

 

[avkills]

Because keeping around X86 on the Mac Pro means they have to keep around a version of macOS for X86, and… Apple will absolutely not under any circumstances do that.
I expect in 2025, five years after the last Intel Mac was introduced, the very first ARM only version of macOS.
Apples not gonna go backwards for their least popular, most niche, doesn’t even sell in the millions product.

I believe you are wrong on this one. When Apple made the Intel transition Steve specifically said that they compile OS X for multiple CPU architectures so they can easily slip through other doors if needed.

I would not be surprised if Apple has OS X compiled still for PowerPC, Intel, AMD and Apple Silicon.

 

[fwmireault]

It's worth noting that on the subject of non-upgradeable GPUs, Gurman appears to be reaching this conclusion based on logical reasoning rather than specific insider information

This is a shocker, he never did that before

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

"Popular with Creative Professionals"

I'm wondering who the market is for $20-50,000 Mac Pros, outside of Pixar and Marvel Studios.

Graphic Designers? Print Publishing? Web design? software development? Photographers? Audio rendering? 3D modellers?

There's nothing in those workflows that a Mac Studio or M2 Pro Mini can't handle easily, with spare capacity left over.

An M2 Pro Geekbench-marks above a 16-core 2019 Mac Pro. The M2 Max Studio is going to be insane. For which creatives is that not enough?

Clearly the creatives who spend less time actually doing creative work, and more time tinkering with their RAM.
It’s gonna be even funnier when people find out the baseline MacPro has 256GB of storage all on a single chip and is still 5NM.
It’s going to be one interesting year here…

 

[Bustycat]

Apple to pro users: iPad Pro is your next computer.

 

[guzhogi]

There would be a small problem though, one of those companies would be hugely profitable… The other would not.

While I like making enough profit in order to grow, increase quality and set aside some money for a rainy day fund, for me, it's not the end-all, be-all of a business. This is just me, but I'd like to see Apple (and by extension its suppliers) make its employees full time, good enough salaries and benefits so they don't have to take other jobs (unless they *want* to), and lower prices so more people can actually afford to get Apple products. Yes, I know, that's not how the world works. Doesn't mean we shouldn't make it that way.

Also, if they were two separate companies, you’d lose all of the fantastic integration between the phone, tablet and computer

Fair enough. I like integration very much, as long as there are some safeguards to prevent one component from bringing down the whole system.

 

[Siliconguy]

They should just put the SoC on a "compute card", so people can at least upgrade that way. Want more RAM, more GPU cores, or an upgrade to M3? Just buy a new compute card and swap them. Would be the most elegant way of combining upgradability with the unified architecture of Apple Silicon.

That makes sense. Back in the early PPC days the CPU was on a card. On my 7500 I changed out the 100 MHz 601 processor for a 120 MHz 604, then that got upgraded to a 180 MHz 604 when those sowed up on the used market.

So let's imagine a Mac Pro where the motherboard has slots for SOC compute cards as well as slots for on onboard NVME Raid array, and a set of PCI-e slots. That would be worthy of a Mac Pro.

How to sort out who is in charge of the video is an open question.

 

[Rob__Mac]

I'm a Mac Pro (2019) user, not an enthusiast and I've been wondering about Apple Silicon for a while.

I work in 2D and 3D animation. I was about to transition over to PC in 2019, I even had a Nvidia card in an eGPU attached to my MacBook Pro so I could learn some new 3D software using Boot Camp, but the Mac Pro kept me on the Mac. Just.

It's a lot of money, but I've been using Mac OS for 20 years. I would really rather keep going with it if I can, but Apple is going to have to have to deliver a user upgradeable Mac Pro or there really is no point. I want to be able to throw new GPU's in there for years to come, because that's really something that changes a lot in my industry.

I think they'd have to do something fundamentally different to what they've done so far with Apple Silicon to enable a Mac Pro with user upgradeable parts. Currently the SoC integrates the CPU, GPU and RAM, which is great for other devices, but not the Mac Pro.

 

[tomscott1988]

Its funny, Apple silicon is a revelation for the entry point but its squeezing the high end so much it makes no sense.

Their strategy is mental. The new M2 Mac mini looks amazing until you start putting any upgrades - £200 increase for 8gb to 16gb LOL!!!! How much is 8gb like £30 probably costs them about £2.

Once you get into the mid range the pro chip from the binned to full fat its £350! like really... 16 to 32gb £400!!! Like what planet are they on. £800 to go from 32 to 96gb.

Im a graphic designer and photographer, my workflow isnt intensive but its ram and storage hungry. I have 64gb in my iMac and often max that, 16gb in my MacBook air and max that without trying. So 32GB max on the pro chip... it's still not enough so that means you have to go up to the Max chip which is overkill in performance.

All they have done is make a decision which means there is no user choice after the fact and make you pay extortionate fees for the bits that actually make a difference like ram.

Ideally I would love 128gb but the price is insane. The Mac Pro to only be available with 192gb...

For mobile products its not as bad but desktops its silly.

This basically makes the viability of the Mac Pro redundant.

All the 27" i9 2020 iMacs have shot up in value recently in the UK probably because its still a pretty viable option as its similar performance to the M1/2 Pro and you dont get sucked into spending crazy money for ram.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As offered in other threads, Mac Pro is a computer for the few (with plenty of cash) who want/need a very flexible, easily expandable & upgradable Mac. Those who do not need that have plenty of Mac options from which to choose. If this Mac Pro doesn't deliver on that, it faces the same issues that make the Trashcan and Mac Studio NOT be the new Mac Pro.

So I'm 'thinking different' about Mac Pro potential...

Just because Silicon locks down RAM & GRAPHICS & SSD doesn't mean a Mac Pro must too.

For RAM:

• Slot the Ultras, so that someone needing more than the MAX associated with one Ultra can simply add another Ultra: 192GB RAM becomes 384GB. Create a "grand central"-like way to make them work together, like that technology on the old PowerPC Macs (what was that called???) that allowed tasks to be spread over several Macs linked together. Someone needs more than 384GB RAM? Slot in another ULTRA for 576GB. Make all 3 work together. Yes, this wouldn't be as fast as the EXTREME concept or jamming all of that extra RAM on one piece of silicon but it seems it could be as FAST as current Mac Pro slotted RAM modules.
• AND/OR support third party RAM anyway. It will simply be a little slower than the Silicon RAM. Again, in software, use a "Grand Central"-like approach to put most RAM demanding processing in FASTEST silicon RAM and put slower RAM processing needs in expansion RAM. Think of this like various caches in CPUs. This would introduce a concept of having FASTEST (Silicon) + FAST (regular RAM) + SLOW (SSD Swap "ram") in this setup. Those interested in buying Mac Pros now could still get their 1.5TB of "high performance" RAM made up of 192GB of fastest Silicon RAM and then traditional RAM that should be as fast as what it can be in the existing (aging) Mac Pro (if not faster).
• BOTH: slotted ULTRAS for those who need more FASTEST RAM AND traditional RAM to the moon for those who need more than however many slotted ULTRAS could be put in the case.

This idea of slower RAM gets attacked but anyone who hops on an Intel Mac is unlikely to notice a RAM-based difference in speed of computing. Slotted RAM is no big speed bottleneck in typical uses of Macs. Yes, Silicon RAM is benchmark FASTER than slotted but real work experience probably can't notice except in very specific tasks. Every current Mac Pro user in the world only knows the speed of slotted RAM. So slotted RAM in this new one can't possibly feel any slower than what they know.

In many other threads, "we" are making justification arguments for half speed SSD chips in new M2 Macs because they are "good enough" and "no one can notice in real world use." That same logic(?) can apply here. Slotted RAM as an augment to Silicon RAM should not be slower or noticeably slower.

For GRAPHICS:

Anyone with an objective mind can find hard evidence that third party graphics are faster-to-much-faster than Silicon graphics (albeit at the expense of power vs. power per watt). I own a M1 Ultra myself and freely accept that to be true. Nevertheless, some people would like to use more power to get processing done faster than save a couple of dollars on a monthly electric bill so they can get things done slower but spin PPW as a huge benefit.

For those who need FASTEST graphics, Mac Pro should deliver the option of third-party graphics cards. Else that business that cares about power more than tiny PPW dollar savings goes to PC options. Mac Pro has no concern for battery life so Power should trump PPW anyway.

I see no way around this. If the existing market for existing Mac Pro is X and a chunk of X pays up for Mac Pro for the easy ability to keep up with graphics processing advancements, I doubt that chunk can be sold on "good enough" for life of device for ANY generation of Silicon graphics processing. Deliver the flexibility to use third party graphics card or just about force those people to buy their next Pro from PC makers. Those who feel it is Mac or bust will simply buy an Ultra in Studio, accept the full lockdown, and pay much less a Mac Pro... then "throw baby out with the bathwater" over and over to "keep up with" the latest Silicon graphics power.

Exception: revive the external graphics card option via thunderbolt connection? But do that and it seems it would have to be spread to all other Macs. So make this an exception INSIDE of Mac Pro and all other Macs are logically excluded from the option, while delivering a very clear differentiator in support of paying wayyyyyyy up for a Mac Pro.

For SSD:

Up to 8TB is great (and insanely expensive when there's only one source of that storage). And Silicon SSD is VERY FAST. But even 8TB is not enough for everyone. Mac Pro owners enjoy the capability of using some of that internal space to fatten up their storage options, very cleanly, INSIDE the case.

This one seems easiest to address. The weakest way to support this need would be having some Thunderbolt ports INSIDE the case and basically shelves on which drives can be mounted. Plug into internal thunderbolt jacks just like one can plug an external enclosure into Thunderbolt jacks on the outside.

The best way to support this is to simply use the PCI-E lanes that will be necessary to support any cards and allow some of them to connect with storage on cards. Conceptually, this could lead to cards with many m.2 sticks mounted on them for gigantic and very fast RAID storage in a relatively small amount of space. Yes, this storage would probably not be as fast as Silicon storage but see the 3 tiers of RAM concept: Fastest SSD (Silicon) + Not Quite as Fast SSD (expansion cards/storage/internal Thunderbolt option) + External storage options like all Macs have now.

Just my "think different" 2 cents. Mac Pro has historically been positioned as "our more powerful Mac" not our most PPW-efficient Mac. I think new Mac Pro must be the most powerful Mac... not the same powerful (as Studio)... and not just as locked down as Studio.

 

[Joe Dohn]

I doubt Apple would do something dumb like limit memory to 192GB on a Pro machine.

Never say never!

 

[centauratlas]

IF this is true, Apple should keep a Mac Pro Intel option. Keep both the M series and Intel. Of course this costs more, but it gives flexibility.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

I believe you are wrong on this one. When Apple made the Intel transition Steve specifically said that they compile OS X for multiple CPU architectures so they can easily slip through other doors if needed.

I would not be surprised if Apple has OS X compiled still for PowerPC, Intel, AMD and Apple Silicon.

Yes, they were internally testing versions of macOS made for different architectures… This is not news.
What they’ve never done is simultaneously supported two different types of architecture’s without one of them being phased out.
Everything from snow leopard to Catalina was Intel only.
No idea why anyone would expect them to be releasing new X86 computers in 2023.
It would also be a huge mixed signal for developers, who right now are being encouraged to develop all of their future applications specifically for Apple Silicon.
It would be a huge slap in the face to literally everybody, including themselves, for Apple to be like “ we’re actually gonna have to ask you to make Intel versions of all of these applications to because we’re gonna have one computer in the lineup on a completely different architecture.”
Not going to happen

 

[1557750]

here come the pages of people who never even planned on purchasing the thing complaining…
It was inevitable.
Steve certainly knew it, he worked on their first MacBooks without replaceable batteries, and the first MacBooks without upgradable ram came out only a few short months after his death, and he obviously knew about the trashcan MacPro.
But I’m sure we’ll have some “but Steve would never” comments in here.
It’s really simple, the Macpro doesn’t even sell in the millions per year. Neither does the Mac Studio.
The cost of making custom parts for it that make the computer totally upgradable is a huge waste of money for them.

I never plan on buying one and I’m still complaining. What’s wrong with that? I quit using a PC when Photoshop went sub and the iPad Pro came out with all my graphic needs on a slab.

But it was sure nice being able to swap out a graphics card or memory on my PC whenever needed to keep up with what I was working on.

Who’s to say the Mac Pro wouldn’t sell by the millions if Apple offered what others do? Then making upgradable components would make sense and still be cost efficient. It’s not like Apple wouldn’t charge 3x for what the same part would be on a PC anyway.

“Huge waste of money”??? This is Apple we’re talking about. 👊😝👍

 

[Dreamail]

If the recent reports turn out to be true, then an "M2 Ultra" Mac Pro really is dead in the water, a laughing stock meme.
Certainly for the price.

It would be much better Apple sits this one out for yet another year, and provides a proper "M3 Extreme" Mac Pro with massive GPU power, huge EEC memory support etc.
Otherwise this "Pro" machine is pointless. In that case the Mac Pro itself will finally join the price/usability ratio of the Mac Pro Wheels Kit...

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Apple Silicon was the best thing that ever happened to portable Macs, but as low TDP doesn't matter for the Mac Pro, I don't see why they are transitioning away from x86. A Mac Pro with AMD Epyc would be unbeatable.

Marketing positioning would be significantly complicated if "Our most powerful Mac" continues running on x86.

If a Silicon Pro cannot support traditional Mac Pro flexibility (ignoring you Trashcan Pro), I agree that sticking with x86 seems the only option for this type of Mac... BECAUSE what makes Mac Pro a unique Mac is the very flexibility that Silicon seems to undermine.

However, I just don't see Apple conceding x86 at the pinnacle of the product mix. I suspect this Ultra platform WILL deliver the flexibility of traditional Mac Pro and that flexibility will be exclusive to only Mac Pro as part of justifying its very high price... AND maintaining the tremendously profitable "buy upgrades only from us at whatever we want to charge" stance for all other Macs.

 

[DTphonehome]

SSD is already socketed in the Studio, so I don’t see expandable storage as an issue and you can always go external for that.

Tiered memory is a thing so they can implement that so users can expand RAM. It won’t be as fast as the integrated system RAM but it shiuld work well if that integrated amount is exceeded.

While Apple Silicon doesn’t support PCIe currently, I don’t know of any technical reasons it couldn’t. I can’t imagine they’re simply going to throw a massive fan inside that big case to boost performance and call it a day. They’ve go to to have a plan to utilize that space for expansion of some sort.

 

[yeahmeknows]

Can this hardware even reach the peak performance Apple has presented us with their silicone chips and still keep it upgradeable? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

Just scrap the Mac Pro. The point of the Mac Pro was the maximum processing power along with modularity and customizability. If the maximum processing power can be incorporated into the Mac Studio and the Mac Pro won’t have any customizability or expansion options, then the Mac Studio can be the top-of-the-line machine. The Mac Pro is already a very niche product, given its price. Maybe this is the time to retire it.

 

[guzhogi]

I kinda miss the Xserve and server apps, too. Too bad it's such a low volume & low margin device. I'd love to see the power of a server & server software, with the simplicity of an Mac/iOS. Unfortunately, Apple lately seems to think "simplicity" means "lack of features."

Considering how small Apple Silicon motherboards are, it would be interesting to see an Apple blade server. Really curious to see how much performance it can eek out of a 3U or so enclosure.

 

[guzhogi]

Just scrap the Mac Pro. The point of the Mac Pro was the maximum processing power along with modularity and customizability. If the maximum processing power can be incorporated into the Mac Studio and the Mac Pro won’t have any customizability or *internal* expansion options, then the Mac Studio can be the top-of-the-line machine. The Mac Pro is already a very niche product, given its price. Maybe this is the time to retire it.

Fixed that for you. For the 2013 Mac Pro, didn't they say something along the lines of "You can just add *external* expansion!" That may be true, but having internal expansion really reduces desk clutter.

 

[johnmarki]

I'd love for Apple to bring back the days of the G5 PowerMac and the Intel Mac Pro. "Heres the case, plug in these Apple approved/configured boards, ports, silicon, etc. and have a blast!"

I know, I know... its just a dream 🤣

 

[segfaultdotorg]

Apple should bring back Slot 1 for use with Apple Silicon! Super easy to upgrade those.

 

[Kylo83]

Apple silicon can’t be as good as a high end pc with nvidia 4090 etc so what’s the point the m1 ultra studio is fine for 99.9% of pros the Mac Pro was a huge con and waste of money they never really upgraded the cards so what’s the point of it exactly you spend £50,000 for what exactly nothing

 

[guzhogi]

Can this hardware even reach the peak performance Apple has presented us with their silicone chips and still keep it upgradeable? I'm genuinely interested.

Doubtful. However, I'd still like some expandability options so you can add additional storage or processing power. I'd love to see some M.2 or U.2 slots for additional storage. Might not be as fast as the builtin memory, but have the capability to add more storage.

3rd party GPU support would be nice too. Maybe have the builtin GPU drive the monitors, and 3rd party GPUs run processing or vice-versa.