Mac Pro Enthusiasts Raise Concerns Over Upgrade Limitations of Apple Silicon

[HobeSoundDarryl]

and why have an build in apple only added ssd? when there are lot's of good / fast / way cheaper m.2 pci-e ssds out there.

I'm very much FOR that... but I look solely through a consumer lens. Apple looks through a seller lens. Locking down to their own RAM + storage is VERY profitable if we consumers will buy anyway and pay whatever they ask.

I can crack my Studio Ultra open right now and find a SSD module in a slot and another slot empty. I can't do anything with that empty slot. And only a SSD module from Apple chosen at time of purchase can be used in that other slot.

That gets me a VERY fast SSD. 🎉

However, I'd happily trade some speed for a few standardized slots for m.2. It looks like at least 4 such slots could easily fit in there. Buy some fast ones and RAID 0 them together and I could probably beat the speeds of the proprietary single in there now while having up to 4X the max storage. Even better, I could also start with needs in 2023 and expand into needs in 2026+.

But again, that's imagining through a CONSUMER lens. There's nowhere near the profit for Apple if I buy my storage (or RAM) from third parties. Profit > Consumer wants/benefits if the consumers will fall all over themselves buying anyway... and then make efforts to convince others why this way is the one and only best way for everyone else too.

 

[Rychiar]

Man, how can you lose with a pimped out M2 Mac Mini?

Having to buy a studio display for the same price lol

 

[SAIRUS]

Consumer component doesn’t scale up to professional component specifications…but it’s cheaper so managers listen to what their board of advisors recommends.

 

[Sasparilla]

It's hard to see them doing a true Mac Pro with their SOC Apple Silicon (there just isn't much they can do without getting rid of alot of advantages of SOC and if the quantity isn't there you don't want to go make Apple silicon with external memory and graphics, the investment wouldn't be worth it).

Might be better for them to update the Intel Mac Pro to the latest and keep on selling it and its wheels as there isn't much they can do over the Studio with a SOC, which is all they do for their own silicon.

 

[PowerButton]

🤔 These seem like non issues to me.

The current Apple silicone uses memory swapping to gain more “RAM”. Apple could easy make a motherboard that has RAM memory sockets and use those for the swap.

Secondly they can still use PCIe for GPUs. Just because it’s an SOC doesn’t mean it can’t utilize external components. They might even make their own PCIe GPUs.

 

[alpi123]

2021 was Apple's last best year. It all went downhill after that

 

[anthogag]

The trick is to upgrade to a new Mac Pro every year.

 

[Apple of my eye]

2021 was Apple's last best year. It all went downhill after that

IMO, 2011 was their last best year.

 

[FelixDerKater]

Soon we will be back to 68K Macs, but this time there will be a dollar sign out front.

 

[H2SO4]

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?

Normally, I'd say something along the lines of, "You must be new around here".

But, as I'm sure you are aware, you pay the premium for the Apple experience and the kudos.

 

[Rigby]

On chip memory is exactly what makes M1 and M2 so powerful and this is also coming to x86 etc. It's the only way to reduce memory latency. This should maybe be stated in the article, but I understand users want flexibility, but I would not sacrifice efficiency and latency for that.

The new Xeon's can use on-package HBM *and* DDR modules though. If both are present, the HBM can either appear as a separate NUMA node (the OS or application then has to manage what goes into which address space), or it can be used as a fast cache (which does not require special software support).

 

[Realityck]

Considering the end user the Mac Pro (and rack mountable Mac Pro) are aimed at, this would be a total mistake. PCIe support and huge user-upgradable RAM quantities are a requirement for people that are interested in buying a 50k$ rack-mountable Mac. Otherwise, buy Mac Studio.

So this is an another dead on arrival speculation? What happens if this is using something new along the lines of Intel® NUC Compute Elements?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It's hard to see them doing a true Mac Pro with their SOC Apple Silicon (there just isn't much they can do without getting rid of alot of advantages of SOC and if the quantity isn't there you don't want to go make Apple silicon with external memory and graphics, the investment wouldn't be worth it).

Might be better for them to update the Intel Mac Pro to the latest and keep on selling it and its wheels as there isn't much they can do over the Studio with a SOC, which is all they do for their own silicon.

The great consumer benefit here would be that macOS would then continue to support Intel CPUs for at least 5+ more years. Mac Pro buyers would be outraged if new macOS features were excluded from macOS, so those leaning on Intel Macs would have a good chance of not feeling the slow obsolescence by exclusion of desirable new features that is likely to occur during the next few macOS updates.

However, I just don't see that path. Mac Pro is billed as "Our most powerful Mac." I don't see Apple Marketing dancing on argument of Silicon > x86 vs. Mac Pro x86 is "our more powerful Mac." Apple would basically be very tangibly conceding that if anyone wants POWER (as opposed to PPW), x86 is superior to Silicon. For this reason alone, I don't see a new Mac Pro NOT including some kind of new Silicon-based "brain."

I'm not convinced that will be ULTRA and/or not the same ULTRA that will be in the next Studio... UNLESS, Mac Pro slots Ultras together so that it could be like dual ULTRAs able to work together but not be hardware joined on one piece of Silicon (as the EXTREME was rumored to be). If so, maybe Mac Pro will have ULTRA boards in slots starting with 2 of them and configurable to up to 4 or 8 and some macOS enhancements that make them effectively work together like that PowerPC technology that let multiple Macs team up to share processing horsepower.

 

[mikas]

Mac Cube Pro confirmed

 

[krakman]

The Mac Studio is the Trash Can Mac Pro, but implemented in 2021 when Thunderbolt 4 can actually handle the external expansion Apple envisioned

And ironically apple don’t allow use of eGPU now that the thunderbolt port can easily handle it!

 

[goodcow]

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.

While they'll likely keep maintaining an x86 build of macOS just in case, actively supporting an x86 build just for one very niche hardware model probably isn't cost effective at all.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Mac Enthusiasts are JUST getting around to noticing this? Myself and others have been saying for YEARS that RAM upgradability is likely gone the way of the dodo across the entire lineup… some were saying that even before the first M1 shipped. And, since it shipped, that thinking has held true for every Mac they’ve released since then.

(I’m sure I can find one of my old posts somewhere out there…)

 

[compwiz1202]

I'm very much FOR that... but I look solely through a consumer lens. Apple looks through a seller lens. Locking down to their own RAM + storage is VERY profitable if we consumers will buy anyway and pay whatever they ask.

I can crack my Studio Ultra open right now and find a SSD module in a slot and another slot empty. I can't do anything with that empty slot. And only a SSD module from Apple chosen at time of purchase can be used in that other slot.

That gets me a VERY fast SSD. 🎉

However, I'd happily trade some speed for a few standardized slots for m.2. It looks like at least 4 such slots could easily fit in there. Buy some fast ones and RAID 0 them together and I could probably beat the speeds of the proprietary single in there now while having up to 4X the max storage. Even better, I could also start with needs in 2023 and expand into needs in 2026+.

But again, that's imagining through a CONSUMER lens. There's nowhere near the profit for Apple if I buy my storage (or RAM) from third parties. Profit > Consumer wants/benefits if the consumers will fall all over themselves buying anyway... and then make efforts to convince others why this way is the one and only best way for everyone else too.

Problem is even if it's less profit, it's still profit. They will get ZERO if it's too expensive to pay their prices at sale for more specs.

 

[dmr727]

IMO, 2011 was their last best year.

I doubt Apple stockholders feel the same. And unfortunately they're the only ones that matter to the folks pulling the levers at headquarters.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Until the Fans quit buying them, Apple will continue this trend. They will never allow users to have the option to upgrade certain components over a 5-10 year span, when they can force them to buy every 3-5 years to keep up with what’s needed.

But, by default, if they’ve fans, they probably ARE buying them. Those that aren’t fans aren’t buying them, sure, but as long as Apple can find 20-30 million fans (out of the over 7 billion in the world), then they’ll be making Macs for THOSE folks. Not for the ex-fans.

 

[rpmurray]

According to Apple, having a Mac Pro that would be user serviceable and upgradable would be a big security and privacy concern, so they'll make sure that neither of those become a thing. And it'll probably have lightning ports because EU.

 

[avkills]

While they'll likely keep maintaining an x86 build of macOS just in case, actively supporting an x86 build just for one very niche hardware model probably isn't cost effective at all.

But they are doing it now, so what is the big deal? For all but the most performant code it probably amounts to checking the right box in Xcode. And since OS X supports multiple binary Apps, it is isn't really that big of a deal for devs either.

 

[innerproduct]

Thanks GPT:
Introducing the all-new Mac Pro, the ultimate powerhouse for all your professional needs. With its impressive and modern design, the Mac Pro is built for performance, speed, and efficiency.

Powered by the revolutionary M2 Ultra Apple Silicon processor, the Mac Pro is faster and more efficient than ever before. With this state-of-the-art technology, you can expect lightning-fast performance and seamless multitasking, allowing you to tackle even the most demanding tasks with ease.

The Mac Pro also comes in an almost empty tower design, which is not only sleek and modern but it also eliminates the need for user upgradable GPU. The lack of a user upgradeable GPU is a great idea because it eliminates the hassle of upgrading and it also ensures that you always have the latest technology. It is also super efficent for cooling the miniscule silicon parts that still is housed within its vast inner space.

Despite the underpowered GPU, the Mac Pro still delivers stunning visual quality and smooth performance. And with its $10000 price tag, it offers unbeatable value for a machine of this caliber.

Experience the ultimate in professional performance with the all-new Mac Pro. Order yours today and elevate your work to new heights. Please note that the GPU is underpowered and may not perform as well as other options in the market.

 

[sunny5]

Trash can Mac Pro is one of the worst Mac in Apple's history and yet they learned nothing. If they really make non upgradable Mac Pro, it will be dead in the water.

 

[nikaru]

I also don't think that RAM or GPU would be upgradable. The Mac Pro would be just modular, allowing to stack M Ultra chips (up to 6) in a single case, and when connected these SoC would work as single one. You cannot upgrade only the RAM or the GPU, you just buy an additional M Ultra modules with the complete SoC. There would be plenty of ports and also full size PCI ports.