Mac Pro Reportedly on 'Back Burner' and 'Largely Written Off' at Apple

[egdiroh]

Gurman, a man whose livelihood is to say multiple potentially market moving things about Apple says, something that is unlikely to be demonstrably false within the duration of most people’s memory.

Gurman makes 3 types of claim:
- those already being reported
- those guessable by most apple watchers
- those that no one will remember

at least he does brag about drunk driving without a license like Jon Gruber

 

[Happy_John]

Even having Apples special modules for the Main drive is fine. But not having additional M.2 slots is the real problem. I should be able to drop in an aftermarket 4TB drive as an extra drive without replacing the main OS drive storage.

Apple's answer to that will be "TB5".

 

[deconstruct60]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the M5 is the first AS chip to use PCIe5 SSDs,

Reported throughput of the M5 MBP is about 7GB/s

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/14-inch-macbook-pro-with-m5-chip-reviews-how-much-faster-is-ssd.2469541/

PCI-e v4 x16 is about 32GB/s

List of interface bit rates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

32/16 -> 2Gb/s per lane. x4 lanes 8GB/s Not seeing the case for PCI-e v5 here at all. Apple's SSDs were slacking all through the PCI-e v4 era. Just catching up now.

so the next step up for the Mac Pro in terms of PCIe speed would be the may-or-may-not-happen M5 Ultra. An M3 Ultra Mac Pro would have other advantages, but no improvement in PCIe bandwidth.

The M3 Ultra could have backslid on PCI-e backhaul if Apple decided early enough that they didn't want to deploy it in a Mac Pro. Just drop it from the die and save space. Ultra pushed TBv5 to a 'M3' variant. TSMC N3B was expensive. Apple could have just dropped it. The backaul provisioning is invisible in Mac Studio (not physically hooked to anything).

PCI-e 5 backhaul without support CXL would be relatively muted. Indications are that Apple isn't a big fan of CXL. ( in fact the memory mapping in anything other than internal 'Apple control/style' is low on list ; e.g., mapping of slots to VM instances. )

If the Mac Pro is off quick updates and the Broadcomm/Apple future PCC SoC is going to chiplet integrate very high speed Ethernet without PCI-e , then suspect Apple won't care much if stuck in the PCI-e v4 era.

 

[deconstruct60]

Even having Apples special modules for the Main drive is fine. But not having additional M.2 slots is the real problem. I should be able to drop in an aftermarket 4TB drive as an extra drive without replacing the main OS drive storage.

There is no physical room inside of the Studio ( or Mini or iMac) for an additional drive. The Mac Pro has room (to spare) so that 2,4,8, or 12 M.2 slots can be provisioned with the appropriate cards.

 

[macduke]

Imagine what they could do here if they actually built a chip that could use the thermal headroom of that massive enclosure! I think they originally built this with that rumored M Extreme chip variant in mind, but it never panned out for whatever reason.

At the very least I want Apple to roll out a 6K 32” iMac Studio with M5 Ultra. But mostly because I think they could use the same panel in a new Studio Display to help keep the price within reason!

 

[Happy_John]

Not a bad idea - you could have a tower into which you could plug Apple Silicon-based "compute modules". The snag is that Apple Silicon doesn't offer great PCIe bandwidth beyond what you get from the unused SSD interface on the second die of an Ultra. Although it's better than Thunderbolt 3/4, even the current Mac Pro still doesn't have the sort of PCIe bandwidth that the 2019 Mac Pro did & certainly doesn't compare to an up-to-date Threadripper (or suchlike) system.

Apple have bet the farm on Thunderbolt and - once that offers enough bandwidth - you could have rack-mounted modules interconnected with Thunderbolt, with the big advantage that the modules would also work with laptops. Where TB isn't enough... Apple would really need a new Apple Silicon chip that emphasised PCIe.

It's a great idea, and I bang on a lot about how I think Apple really missed a chance with the 8.1 Mac Pro by NOT put the whole SoC on a massive socket interconnect, so that Apple could, down the road, sell (still very expensive) SoCs on a sockets to upgrade the Mac Pro. Hell, put more than one of these sockets on the backplane.

I don't think it's going to happen, just as I don't think Apple are going to do anything about improving PCIe integration on their SoCs.

As you've said, they've gone all in on Thunderbolt, and that will be their answer to any question of expandability. Need more fast storage? RAID DAS connected via Thunderbolt. Need PCIe card slots? Breakout box via Thunderbolt. Need more I/O? Thunderbolt dock... etc.

 

[deconstruct60]

Too soon to start a Mac Pro counterpart to this legendary thread?

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/the-new-mac-mini-is-almost-certainly-coming.1681773/

Mac Pro forum that put that one to shame running from late 2013 until 2019.

Most of what going to get with such a thread is lots of complaints about non-modular GPUs which very likely is a road to no-where. Honestly, more threads of folks mostly grumbling about that likely will only reinforce Apple's decision to "Rip van Winkle" the Mac Pro.

 

[chucker23n1]

Reported throughput of the M5 MBP is about 7GB/s

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/14-inch-macbook-pro-with-m5-chip-reviews-how-much-faster-is-ssd.2469541/

PCI-e v4 x16 is about 32GB/s

List of interface bit rates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

32/16 -> 2Gb/s per lane. x4 lanes 8GB/s Not seeing the case for PCI-e v5 here at all. Apple's SSDs were slacking all through the PCI-e v4 era. Just catching up now.

Apple's SSDs were advertised as 7.4 GB/s for the 2021 14-inch MacBook Pro.

 

[HVDynamo]

Apple's answer to that will be "TB5".

But I don't want extra crap external. I want it IN the computer.

 

[chucker23n1]

But I don't want extra crap external. I want it IN the computer.

Yes, but the amount of people for whom that is interesting keeps on shrinking.

 

[HVDynamo]

There is no physical room inside of the Studio ( or Mini or iMac) for an additional drive. The Mac Pro has room (to spare) so that 2,4,8, or 12 M.2 slots can be provisioned with the appropriate cards.

They could make the room in the Studio, or even the Macbook Pro's. I can understand the argument to not have an M.2 slot in the Macbook Air, or in the Mini. Those are specifically designed to be small and making that sacrifice makes sense on those. But the Pro level machines (including Studio) should all at least have one additional standard M.2 slot in addition to Apples storage solution they have today.

 

[Happy_John]

But I don't want extra crap external. I want it IN the computer.

Yep, and the only way to get that from Apple is to spent a hefty premium to have an external case. And currently with an older ultra chip.

Realistically, a better bet will be to see if there are any 3rd party companies making a good big enclosure to put the Studio + peripheral boxes into (probably with an integrated thunderbolt dock and UPS). If someone isn't selling one now, they will be, because it's a niche product but one people like you will look for, and as long as they charge less than then (Price of Mac Pro less price of Mac Studio), they've got a marketable product.

Or just make such an enclosure ( or get it made for you ) Getting a design custom cut from aluminum would cost in the region of $2,000 - $2,500. Not cheap, but still in the price range.

As it is, there are rack mountable enclosures already available for the Mac Studio, so it's not a complete pipe dream product...

 

[deconstruct60]

I have a hard time believing that they wont update the MP with the next Ultra chip, if for no other reason than producing M2 Ultras at that point seems like it would cost more than just using the same M5 Ultras that’ll be in the studio

No way. The M2 Ultra is on TSMC N5 (still very much in volume production. Can even slap a "made in USA" label on the wafer. Apple has 'spend in the USA' commitments ). N5 is on TSMC N3P . No way that is moving to something 'cheaper'. The ony way N3P is going to be cheaper is if it is dramatically smaller die. Anything "Ultra" class probably is not smaller.

There are reports that the PCC nodes are M2 Ultra. If so that is the other psudo-product keeping the volume high enough to put through wafers at a low rate. Mac Pro actually produces revenues in that case ( where PCC really produces nothing. pure cost center).

If PCC moved over to M4/M5 generation then perhaps a change in the months ahead, but Studio dumping the M2 Ultra relatively quickly pragmatically meant that the Mac Pro needed to keep consuming them (even at a relatively very low rate) since can't dump these sized SoC into the trash can on a almost yearly basis. ( I suspect the M3 Ultra may be a money looser chip and get dumped at some point. But Apple isn't going to do that every generation. )

 

[iPadified]

The problem is, this wasn't Apple's first time mis-reading. The trash can mac, failed precisely because Apple failed to see where the industry was moving.

The hedged on rumours at the time of node shrinkage and better efficacy. That did not come due to being stuck at 14 nm. Guess that was the first step to Apple Silicon. Well along with intel/AMD egg frying chips in MPB. At the time there were setups from AMD/NVIDIA with up to 4 GPU so Apple was far from alone of multi GPU.

 

[deconstruct60]

Maybe they have enough backstock that they don't have to continue producing it.

Reportedly Apple was using them for some Private Cloud Compute nodes. But yes, if Mac Pro was the only consumer and wanted to take the invenstory cost hit. They could be coasting on inventories.

 

[ikramerica]

Where's the PCIe coming from? Only the super-expensive Ultra chips have significant PCIe to spare.

There are already various third-party hubs/docks that "stack" with the studio - and with short Thunderbolt cables they can be quite neat.

That might’ve be the real key you have stumbled upon.

The pci bandwidth is all apportioned to thunderbolt, so internal slots would mean removing thunderbolt ports or the dreaded “using slot 1 disables TB port 1, etc” compromises that occurred in the past with various computers.

 

[bernuli]

Soldered RAM on Mac Pro = instant removal from my purchase list.

Plenty of room and reserve power in that case for 12 RAM slots.

Ability to upgrade RAM later was the remaining justification to purchase a Mac Pro.

Buying any new Mac really feels like bait and switch when you realize the base config not enough for future or even today proofing. RAM upgrade options at purchase are too much $$$ and I end up not buying a new machine.

 

[deconstruct60]

They could make the room in the Studio, or even the Macbook Pro's.

Go look at some actual teardowns. Apple could change the size of the cases to make them larger, but the cases and internals as they exist have zero copious extra space. The MBP have two fans (for the Max ) and a large battery which dramatically shrink the possible logic board. The Ultra package basically does the same thing to what is available for the Studio's logic board. Dumping the Max/Ultra to make run for M.2 slots is very dubious trade-off. What the Max and Ultra can do in that kind of space is the major differentiator that Apple has. Throwing that away for a commodity feature that others have just dramatically lowers differentiation.

The studio is constrained the legacy Mac Mini footprint. ( similar issues true in the Intel Mini era if just made the container much larger could have put a soldered dGPU in there (similar to MPB 15"). That never happened. )

 

[Happy_John]

No way. The M2 Ultra is on TSMC N5 (still very much in volume production. Can even slap a "made in USA" label on the wafer. Apple has 'spend in the USA' commitments ).

It's only my personal opinion, but I think this is the only reason why the Mac Pro hasn't been discontinued already.

 

[Happy_John]

Go look at some actual teardowns. Apple could change the size of the cases to make them larger, but the cases and internals as they exist have zero copious extra space. The MBP have two fans (for the Max ) and a large battery which dramatically shrink the possible logic board. The Ultra package basically does the same thing to what is available for the Studio's logic board. Dumping the Max/Ultra to make run for M.2 slots is very dubious trade-off. What the Max and Ultra can do in that kind of space is the major differentiator that Apple has. Throwing that away for a commodity feature that others have just dramatically lowers differentiation.

The studio is constrained the legacy Mac Mini footprint. ( similar issues true in the Intel Mini era if just made the container much larger could have put a soldered dGPU in there (similar to MPB 15"). That never happened. )

What you're saying could be done, and it would be great if it were done.

But I don't believe it will be done.

I very much believe that if users want extra storage after purchase, Apple's line will be "external storage via TB". I don't think they're going to change their position on that anytime soon.

 

[chucker23n1]

The studio is constrained the legacy Mac Mini footprint. ( similar issues true in the Intel Mini era if just made the container much larger could have put a soldered dGPU in there (similar to MPB 15"). That never happened. )

The Radeon HD 6630M on some Intel minis arguably counts as a soldered dGPU.

 

[deconstruct60]

Damn. We really could have used a workstation with terabytes of memory for Local LLMs. Every startup is doing something with LLMs, both for training and inference.

Highly unlikely that a new, updated Mac Pro was going to provision "terabyes" ( >= 2 ). And multiple Terabytes with no ECC is kind of goofy ( or at least limited to don't care about data integrity folks).
[ The M3 Studio went to 512GB . Even with a doubling in capacity that is just 1TB. ]

And TBs for inference isn't all that necessary to get useful work done. The largest possible model is a path to diminishing returns. There is far more to ML/AI than just LLMs. LLM are not == 'AI'.

Kinda disappointed that Apple gave up on the AI developer market so easily. They had all the parts in place: GPUs, systems, etc. they could have been a strong contender.

The AI developer maket giiven up? Not. Tilting at mega sized, power grid draining, LLM windmills .. yeah. but that isn't the whole AI development market.

 

[HVDynamo]

Go look at some actual teardowns. Apple could change the size of the cases to make them larger, but the cases and internals as they exist have zero copious extra space. The MBP have two fans (for the Max ) and a large battery which dramatically shrink the possible logic board. The Ultra package basically does the same thing to what is available for the Studio's logic board. Dumping the Max/Ultra to make run for M.2 slots is very dubious trade-off. What the Max and Ultra can do in that kind of space is the major differentiator that Apple has. Throwing that away for a commodity feature that others have just dramatically lowers differentiation.

The studio is constrained the legacy Mac Mini footprint. ( similar issues true in the Intel Mini era if just made the container much larger could have put a soldered dGPU in there (similar to MPB 15"). That never happened. )

I have looked at teardowns. They could make it work. They just aren't designed around it today so yes, they are stuffed. But if they made some small adjustments they could make it work. Even if it only allowed a short M.2 that would be fine for the macbook Pro. Hell, I'd be OK if the latptop got slightly thicker to accommodate it. It's a Pro machine after all, if you want ultra portability and the trade-offs that go along with it, get the Air.

 

[deconstruct60]

The Radeon HD 6630M on some Intel minis arguably counts as a soldered dGPU.

Yeah, shouldn't have said 'never' . I think Apple tried twice and both had crippling long term limitations. I tend to forget them because they really weren't that good.

 

[QuarterSwede]

The Mac pro is dead, not sure why people are still holding out hope. I mean back in the day, it was a professional level desktop computer with expansion cability to add ram, storage, GPU and other professional level expansion cards. Today in 2025, Macs are not expandable. The studio is the heir apparent to the mac pro

They’re not internally expandable. They’re definitely expandable using a dock or external devices. Today’s cable speeds and controllers are incredibly capable of handling high speed data with ease and the devices they connect to are much smaller than they used to be.