New Mac Pro With M2 Ultra Chip Might Launch This Spring Alongside macOS 13.3

[Tyler O'Bannon]

I’m thinking this possibly won’t be as grand of a release as many have hoped.

It could be more of a “ we are now also introducing a Mac Pro with Apple Silicon” and it is sold alongside the Intel model
For the next couple of years until a brand new Mac Pro comes out with a super-mega Apple Silicon chip. Something built in 3nm with tons of CPU and GPU core options.

 

[bradman83]

I think it will announce in WWDC too. I however got a lot of heat in the past stating Apple doesn’t announce this kind of stuff at WWDC. I don’t agree but you might get the same responses

I'm leaning towards the March event for the Mac Pro, mostly because Apple is going to want to want to give its mixed reality headset as much fanfare as possible and that seems to be the farthest from being ready. The M2 Pro and Max chips will be incremental updates so they could literally refresh the 14/16" MBPs, Studio, Mini, and iMac with a press release like they did the iPad Pro and 10th generation base iPad. Those all seem like they'd be ready sooner, hence why I'm feeling March. They reminded us last year that they absolutely will do hardware announcements at WWDC so you're absolutely right in thinking they could announce these things at WWDC, but I just think this year they'll be all about the headset (unfortunately for users of their other products).

 

[PauloSera]

They should cancel the Mac Pro completely. The M processors are great for consumers. Leave this segment, where is needed expandability, multicores, tons od memory, storage and extreme graphics, for Windows machines. Sorry Mac Pro fans, the majority is happy with Macbooks.

If it makes money, why would they cancel it? People who want performance at the expense of everything else including half the city's electricity can buy something else if they choose.

 

[PauloSera]

The Mac Pro no doubt is due a refresh but I can’t see how it’s relevant for 99.9% of the population. Especially now that the Mac Studio exists, which could be fully maxed out and probably still significantly cheaper.

The top tier Mac has never relevant for the 99%. This is news?

 

[gugy]

I'm hopeful an update XDR display comes along and Apple can sell the current one cheaper. The 27" is too small. 32" is perfect but $$$$.

 

[zorinlynx]

How can you call something a pro machine if you can't even upgrade RAM? What a joke.

Who knows, maybe you WILL be able to upgrade RAM. I don't think there's anything about the Apple Silicon architecture that precludes upgradeable RAM, just because all machines so far have had it soldered to the motherboard.

Apple might pleasantly surprise us. I'd love to see discrete GPU support again, too. This could then come to other Macs via external thunderbolt enclosures.

 

[zorinlynx]

I'm hopeful an update XDR display comes along and Apple can sell the current one cheaper. The 27" is too small. 32" is perfect but $$$$.

And for the love of all that is holy, include a stand this time. There's no reason the stand should be a separate line item.

 

[PauloSera]

I wonder if you will even be able to upgrade the graphics? Storage might be the only upgradable part. That would be a huge letdown.

For who?

Apple is more interested in hitting a performance target for a use case, and selling directly to those people. This idea of needing to upgrade a machine indefinitely with graphics cards larger than most shoeboxes is something I'm thrilled Apple is leaving behind.

 

[FCX]

Who knows, maybe you WILL be able to upgrade RAM. I don't think there's anything about the Apple Silicon architecture that precludes upgradeable RAM, just because all machines so far have had it soldered to the motherboard.

Apple might pleasantly surprise us. I'd love to see discrete GPU support again, too. This could then come to other Macs via external thunderbolt enclosures.

Nope. It used to have it's own bus and controller, and wasn't accessible to the GPU (on Intel). With AS, the RAM is directly addressable by CPU and GPU. You should take a look at the architecture.

 

[realeric]

Mac Pro with soldered RAM... Really? Please give me a Mac :
- DRAM slots
- NVMe slots
- PCIe slots for graphics cards for AMD/Nvidia
Then, I won't complain anymore.

 

[Cromulent]

The thing I am really looking forward to is Apple supporting the ARMv9 instruction set. That'll be the biggest improvement after the 3nm process.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

on die ram is not easy to change (out side of an full CPU card swap)

So why does it have to be on die?

As is, Silicon offers a capped amount of RAM. If applications need more than that, RAM swaps using the SSD kick in. Apparently this is relatively slow (using the SSD as a kind of buffered RAM). So why not a middle tier of traditional, expandable RAM?

• Those who want FASTEST RAM should consider MAXing out Apple RAM
• Those who need more than Apple's MAX, could add this traditional, not-quite-as-fast RAM
• Those who want to sacrifice speed for lower cost can continue with the "as is" approach of leveraging the SSD to kick in for swaps when needed.

FASTEST RAM in silicon, almost as fast RAM as traditional RAM of nearly any size and SSD as last resort for swaps.

If Silicon RAM overload can swap to SSD, why couldn't it swap to traditional RAM, which should be much faster than SSD for that purpose?

And this would deliver best of both worlds. Those happy with only FASTEST Silicon RAM (and those limits) buy a Mac Pro with nothing in the FAST RAM slots. Those who need much more RAM than Apple Silicon offers could get what they want too in the traditional way. RAM slots being available would scratch the "future expansion" itch too.

There must be some flaw in this thinking but it is not evident to me. If swaps work to SSD, why not to traditional (much faster) RAM too?

macOS could offer a Grand Central-like RAM manager that puts most RAM-demanding stuff in FASTEST (Apple) RAM and less demanding stuff in traditional RAM.

To my imagination, that sounds like a great Silicon Mac Pro.

 

[zorinlynx]

Nope. It used to have it's own bus and controller, and wasn't accessible to the GPU (on Intel). With AS, the RAM is directly addressable by CPU and GPU. You should take a look at the architecture.

Is it not just DDR4 RAM? Why wouldn't the SOC be able to access it just becuase it's on a DIMM instead of soldered to the board?

 

[_Spinn_]

For who?

Apple is more interested in hitting a performance target for a use case, and selling directly to those people. This idea of needing to upgrade a machine indefinitely with graphics cards larger than most shoeboxes is something I'm thrilled Apple is leaving behind.

If storage is the only thing that can be expanded then what is the of the Mac Pro over the Mac Studio?

 

[Ethosik]

Intel vs Apple Silicon, I totally agree. I’m simply stating to give us the best chip on pro devices and the others can have leftovers after they properly trickle through the lineup.

M1 max/ultra/extreme vs M2 in terms of performance is too confusing. A consumer sees the higher number and naturally think it’s a better product. So yeah, I want the M3 chip if I’m getting the new and upcoming Mac Pro.

Yeah I agree. Say what you want about Intel and their naming but it’s easy to tell i9-9900k vs i9-10900k. One is 9th gen. One is 10th gen.

 

[Ethosik]

So why does it have to be on die?

As is, Silicon offers a capped amount of RAM. If applications need more than that, RAM swaps using the SSD kick in. Apparently this is relatively slow (using the SSD as a kind of buffered RAM). So why not a middle tier of traditional, expandable RAM?

• Those who want FASTEST RAM should consider MAXing out Apple RAM
• Those who need more than Apple's MAX, could add this traditional, not-quite-as-fast RAM
• Those who want to sacrifice speed for lower cost can continue with the "as is" approach of leveraging the SSD to kick in for swaps when needed.

FASTEST RAM in silicon, almost as fast RAM as traditional RAM of nearly any size and SSD as last resort for swaps.

If Silicon RAM overload can swap to SSD, why couldn't it swap to traditional RAM, which should be much faster than SSD for that purpose?

And this would deliver best of both worlds. Those happy with only FASTEST Silicon RAM (and those limits) buy a Mac Pro with nothing in the FAST RAM slots. Those who need much more RAM than Apple Silicon offers could get what they want too in the traditional way. RAM slots being available would scratch the "future expansion" itch too.

There must be some flaw in this thinking but it is not evident to me. If swaps work to SSD, why not to traditional (much faster) RAM too?

macOS could offer a Grand Central-like RAM manager that puts most RAM-demanding stuff in FASTEST (Apple) RAM and less demanding stuff in traditional RAM.

To my imagination, that sounds like a great Silicon Mac Pro.

Sorry working off memory of an Anandtech article but for the Ultra you would need either 16 or 32 memory slots/channels to achieve the Sam speeds as we get. That’s why it has to be on die.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

But that's the point, I'm not suggesting the SAME speeds.

I'm suggesting some number of RAM slots for much faster than SWAPS in and out of SSD when RAM demand > supply.

FASTEST (Apple RAM) + FAST (traditional RAM) + SLOW SSD (as RAM swaps last resort).

The crowd happy with only Apple RAM can buy it. Those who want or need more RAM would have an option too.

 

[Cromulent]

But that's the point, I'm not suggesting the SAME speeds.

I'm suggesting some number of RAM slots for much faster than SWAPS in and out of SSD when RAM demand > supply.

FASEST (Apple RAM) + FAST (traditional RAM) + SLOW SSD (as RAM swaps last resort).

The same idea is already used in CPUs with Level 1 cache, Level 2 cache and Level 3 cache.

 

[djphat2000]

And just because YOU don't have to upgrade, does not mean other professionals don't. I work in IT, and we upgrade machines all the time - ESPECIALLY the RAM and hard drive (swapping to SSD, or upgrading storage size).

I work in IT as well. We don't update RAM or HD. We purchase on an 3 to 5 year refresh. So everyone gets new computers. Upgrading ram and HD used to be a thing. But, all the data is on the servers, very little on an actual local computer. RAM being important is between 8-16GB standard (depending on department).

Everyones IT is different. But, there should be better planning when purchasing computers to make sure you have enough to get them through 3-5 years before a refresh.

 

[atomic.flip]

Upgrading RAM is enthusiastic level not pro level. I never upgrade my RAM. Businesses I worked for in the past never upgraded RAM. We bulk order products. I use my system for work not opening it up. If my system starts lacking RAM, I order a new one which will also come with better CPU, type/speed of memory, faster SSD, better GPU etc.

You need to plan properly so you don’t fall into this trap of constant upgrades. It’s good to over buy ahead of time from a CapEx perspective where you value your computer purchase across many years. This is what I did for my Mac Studio. I have stalled on 32GB of RAM for about a decade now, but I went ahead and upped it to 64 since I want my Studio to last a good 4-5 years.

Your mileage can very! Want to upgrade? Go ahead! But the whole concept of “Pro NEEDS to be upgradeable” needs to just stop.

Sorry I beg to differ here. In data centers it is routine business to add more storage and MEMORY to servers as applications and capacity demands accumulate. You usually lease equipment if you aren’t doing your accounting to capitalize expenses and amortize over time. So it would make no sense to lease for 6 months only to find you need a NEW multi thousand dollar machine to replace the old one because you lacked some memory. It’s just asinine.

Now if you’re running your computer in a small office and just using it for single threaded (single user) tasks. Then that’s a bit different. But that’s not really where I would put the pro category and the performance and cost of the Mac Pros of late definitely lend themselves to workloads more appropriate for data centers and server applications.

 

[djphat2000]

I never said it's not a pro device. I said it's a joke of a pro device. There are other devices that are just as capable for pros with even more upgradability. There's no reason for them not to offer upgradable RAM.

There is, as the current SOC design doesn't allow for it.

 

[Ethosik]

But that's the point, I'm not suggesting the SAME speeds.

I'm suggesting some number of RAM slots for much faster than SWAPS in and out of SSD when RAM demand > supply.

FASEST (Apple RAM) + FAST (traditional RAM) + SLOW SSD (as RAM swaps last resort).

The crowd happy with only Apple RAM can buy it. Those who want or need more RAM would have an option too.

Oh I gotcha. I do recall a rumor and twitter post of Apple working on something like that. It’s a rumor and twitter post so take it with a grain of salt. We might be surprised.

 

[Matt Leaf]

Announced/releasing alongside the headset possibly, with dev apps and everything demo'd on the Mac Pro.

 

[Spock]

Just update it to the latest Intel chipset and leave it alone.

 

[Ethosik]

I work in IT as well. We don't update RAM or HD. We purchase on an 3 to 5 year refresh. So everyone gets new computers. Upgrading ram and HD used to be a thing. But, all the data is on the servers, very little on an actual local computer. RAM being important is between 8-16GB standard (depending on department).

Everyones IT is different. But, there should be better planning when purchasing computers to make sure you have enough to get them through 3-5 years before a refresh.

Agreed. Again it depends how you operate your company. Planning and “over buying” to have room for growth in 3-5 years helps from a CapEx perspective.