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

The 2019 Mac Pro was likely a defensive play due to Apple losing pro users after the 2013 trashcan release. Trashcan was an okay machine; just before its time. For media production, first-generation Thunderbolt with external devices could not keep up with internal PCIe performance. Plus there were GPU and apparently some USB bandwidth limitations.

My guess is that Apple made a tough management decision to satisfy pro users even while knowing that the upcoming Apple Silicon transition would complicate matters. The 2019 Mac Pro design addressed as many pro concerns as possible. It was Apple’s “now we’re listening” product. Had Apple waited until AS was ready, the first AS Pro would likely be a very different machine than what we believe is coming. But more potential customers would have already abandoned Apple by necessity.

So while I look forward to Apple’s next Mac Pro release, Mac Studio is a nice fit for many mainstream professional applications. What is Mac Studio lacking? Perhaps two internal NVMe slots for library storage, etc. A cooling system that’s easier to clean when dust builds up. A fan tweak to ensure the reported 2.4 kHz whine never happens. More aggressive cooling options to support higher clock rate / single-core performance. Imagine a cool 3nm Studio or Mini running a 5GHz clock.

Finally, some differences between Pro and Studio could be addressed through a hardware ecosystem. Apple has relegated external expansion to third parties, while instead they could offer chassis that neatly expand the Studio (or Mini) engine like lego bricks.

Of course, opinions on all this are my own. 🙂
 
falkon-engine said:
Apple is giving the user the option to upgrade storage and also add PCIe cards... so why not RAM?
Click to expand...
Because with Apple Silicon they've gone for low-power LPDDR RAM mounted directly on the SoC package which has significant advantages in terms of speed/power consumption that are especially beneficial in making Apple's bread-and-butter products - the MacBook Airs and Pros - which they sell by the bucket load. The downside is non-upgradeability (LPDDR has to be soldered in to ensure the fast/low power data path to the processor) and a limit on the maximum amount of RAM that can be fitted.

That's not such a good trade-off when you get to replacing the 2019 Mac Pro (which supports 1.5TB of RAM - and which people probably don't buy for power efficiency) - but the alternative would probably be to build a whole new Apple Silicon processor with a conventional DDR5 RAM controller (sacrificing some of the speed advantages of the M1/M2 design) just for the Mac Pro which would be eye-wateringly expensive because of the low economies of scale (heck, 2019 MP customers are already paying Intel a several thousand buck premium for the M-suffix Xeon-W needed to drive 1.5TB).
 
falkon-engine said:
So the question I have is, if Apple is going to have PCIe slots in the upcoming Mac Pro, will they finally release ARM drivers for AMD video cards, will Apple support RDNA3, will eGPUs finally be able to work with Apple Silicon? Or is Apple releasing its own Video Card and getting rid of AMD altogether?
Click to expand...
If this was after a WWDC where Apple had JUST described the new way graphics would work on the system, then potentially. Coming before WWDC almost guarantees no non-Apple GPU’s.

Actually, I guess if we see updates in places like this:
developer.apple.com

Device Inspection | Apple Developer Documentation

Locate and identify a GPU and the features it supports, and sample its counters.
developer.apple.com developer.apple.com
that allow for non-Apple GPU’s when using Apple Silicon on the same day it’s released, then that’s a possibility, too.
 
djphat2000 said:
Servers are another thing. But, we treat it similarly. 5 year refresh cycle. And we plan ahead. How much we use currently, and forecast as best we can. What we will expect to need over the next 5. Again, best guess. We tend to overshoot as we expect unexpected needs. The solution we have today should cover us VERY well for the next 3 years (2 years into it).
Click to expand...
but being able to swap an failing DISK live is an thing needed for servers. And in some cases workstations may need an lot of storage even if just for temp needs. Like I need an lot of data locally for an project.
And things like editing lots of raw video that can kill the local network and likely overload an ISP link.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
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?
Click to expand...
So what you want is a RAM disk used for the swap file. There was such a thing in the Dark Days of MS-DOS that sat between the 640 K limit and the 1 MB of ram you could actually install.

Even further back you could use the RAM disk (S3, D2) in ProDos to hold small files you wanted fast. Now I've really dated myself. 😗
 
zorinlynx said:
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.
Click to expand...
That would be nice but I doubt Apple will do it. I'm hopeful the current XDR drops in price to $2500 and the stand/nano options at $300 each. I know still a lot but that's Apple for you.
 
coolfactor said:
It would awesome if they could figure out a fusion architecture. blending Intel and Apple silicon into a single, unified system. Best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Everything old is new again:

pccompatibilitycard.jpg
 
Without the option of a daughter card interface to the motherboard backplane for RAM and SoC upgrades it’s DOA. I’d rather move to Pro Tools under Windows and have a Zen 4 Threadripper Pro or EPYC 4 server running Vienna Software offload my plugins in VST3 format and stick with my Mac Mini hosting Pro Tools knowing I have a viable hardware for a decade than have overpriced/underspec’d unupgradable Art collecting dust in five years with a fraction of the performance options.

If they plan to say buy this $3k Afterburner 2.0 and this $5k-$10k Compute accelerator so on and so forth then there was no point in lying to everyone when they announced the 2019 Pro demoed fully loaded running a massive orchestral presentation in real-time, and saying we’ve heard what you’d want and we are listening and your long term investment is secure.
 
Apple is just making their product lines more and more convoluted. The Mac desktop line just doesn’t make a lot of sense anymore. You think they would have learned their lesson. Heading down the same road they did when they kicked Steve Jobs out. The question is who is going to rescue them this time. Tim Cook is a money guy. He is not a visionary. Apple is going to keep going downhill while he is at the helm.
 
Ethosik said:
But generalizations like we shouldn’t call this system Pro because of non upgradeable RAM is okay? Not all pros upgrade Ram.
Click to expand...
Agreed, many pros don't upgrade RAM. And if you had simply said that, I wouldn't have had an issue. But you went to the other extreme of saying upgradeable RAM isn't relevant to pros—that it's only hobbyists ('enthusiasts') that do this. Your further implied that those who do upgrade aren't doing serious work, they're just playing with their machines; and that those who find themselves needing to upgrade haven't planned properly:
Ethosik said:
Upgrading RAM is enthusiastic level not pro level...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....
Click to expand...
Those statements are often not true, as I illustrated with my own example. I don't think this was your intention, but implying that pros who do need to upgrade are just playing and not doing serious work can appear demeaning. And when you lecture those whose needs change in an unanticipated way (as is often the nature of science) that they didn't 'plan properly', you're inappropriately generalizing your indvidual experience to fields with which you're not familiar.
 
The RAM issue was always writing on the wall once they went to Mx chips with onboard RAM, so no surprise there. Low volume chips, with high complexity and low per-wafer yield, are expensive.

The only other thing I could see is if they move the CPU to a card, and let you add multiple CPU cards, and get around the need for an extreme series of chips. That'd be both innovative and old-school, and not sure how it'd perform.

So what does this really get you over a mac studio with a thunderbolt 4 dock and external storage? About the only thing is support for a real graphics card (or cards). But if they added eGPU support to the studio, there's not much left (and there would be FAR more people who'd use eGPU support than would ever buy a MacPro).
 
theorist9 said:
Agreed, many pros don't upgrade RAM. And if you had simply said that, I wouldn't have had an issue. But you went to the other extreme of saying upgradeable RAM isn't relevant to pros—that it's only hobbyists ('enthusiasts') that do this. Your further implied that those who do upgrade aren't doing serious work, they're just playing with their machines; and that those who find themselves needing to upgrade haven't planned properly:

Those statements are often not true, as I illustrated with my own example. I don't think this was your intention, but implying that pros who do need to upgrade are just playing and not doing serious work can appear demeaning. And when you lecture those whose needs change in an unanticipated way (as is often the nature of science) that they didn't 'plan properly', you're inappropriately generalizing your indvidual experience to fields with which you're not familiar.
Click to expand...
It’s more in line to enthusiasts than a general “Professional use case of a computer”. Gamers upgrade RAM more than Pros do generally speaking. Are the lines blurred? Yes. Are there overlaps? Yes. It’s a venn diagram.

But generally speaking it IS more enthusiasts than “Professional use case of a computer”.

I never got denied a job as a graphic designer or software engineer because I didn’t want to upgrade RAM. And every time I requested an upgrade in the workplace they gave me a higher spec computer anyway vs just upgrading RAM.

And I would certainly be fired on the spot if I tried to upgrade the RAM of my work computer. Also, when I was in charge of an IT department it was our policy to NOT upgrade RAM and just hand out higher spec ones. We need machines to match. If someone has a blue screen or their computer dies, we have X number on hand to immediately replace. Now can we do that if we just upgrade the RAM? What if the RAM was bad? It just causes all sorts of issues in a business setting.

We recently purchased a server with 4TB of RAM. We did not buy 4TB of the RAM from Newegg. We calculated what we expect in the next 3-4 years and purchased the RAM accordingly from the server itself. That way it comes with the warranty.

Let me make it simple: We are aligned. Many pros don't upgrade RAM (your words) which aligns to it being more of an enthusiast action than a "Pro" action.

I never said it isn't relevant for Pros. I just said it's more enthusiast than Pro. It's not an inherit "Pro" action if you don't upgrade your computer you aren't a pro? Gamers that upgrade their RAM are pros now?

My very last line in my original post also states this:

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

Which means there very well COULD be Pros that want to upgrade their RAM. It can definitely be relevant to SOME pros.

I could also be an old dinosaur :)
 
Last edited:
Woochoo said:
"Pro" is just a marketing gimmick, it doesn't mean for professionals anymore, it means "better version". Take the iPhone Pro, the Macbook Pro M2 or whatever thing just slightly better labeled Pro to charge you more.
Click to expand...
True, people keep trying to assign a meaning to “pro” that it simply doesn’t have in the context of products. Pro can mean “professional” (which can also mean different things itself)—like “he’s a real pro”—but here it does not have the same meaning. As you said, it’s just a marketing term that means “better” ie. “more expensive”.

This crossover confusion of definitions happens all the time. Another example is Apple calling the Mac Studio “modular”. It was in reference to its comparison to the iMac Pro, which is an all-in-one, so it is indeed more modular in that you can use it with any display and it has more port options. But some people think modular can only mean a computer with upgradeable internal parts.

Of course, it can be a little confusing at first when people use words differently than what other people are used to, even if they’re technically using it correctly. But this word pro has been used this way by many companies for ages now, so it’s no longer about confusion. This is more about people wanting a word to mean what they want it to mean because they want the device to be what they want it to be.

I will say, what is potentially confusing, and at least extremely awkward, is Apple’s naming schemes for their chips. These are the kind of confusing conversations that Apple has almost certainly caused people to have (imagine audibly):
“How many M1 Max Macs do you have?”
“I have five M1 Macs.”
“With M1 Max?”
“Um huh? Yes, M1 Macs.”

“My daughter wants an M1 MacBook Pro.”
“Ok, so M1, not M1 Pro?”
“She said Pro, yes.”
“MacBook Pro or M1 Pro?”
“M1 MacBook Pro, yes.”
“I need to know if she said Pro twice.”
 
DaPizzaMan said:
How can you call something a pro machine if you can't even upgrade RAM? What a joke.
Click to expand...
How do you know it can't upgrade RAM?

Do you think Apple are too stupid to not provide SOME compelling reasons for this product over a Studio? And one of those reasons may well be something like CXL to allow for a certain type of DRAM expansion (which will doubtless be pooh-poohed by people who have never in their lives owned a machine with more than 256GB of DRAM, but who consider themselves experts on what "the market" wants from large DRAM machine...)
 
Realityck said:
I kinda wished that the high end model represents a doubling of what the M1 ultra offers even if it isn't all one big SoC.

Imagine if it offered 40 core CPU, 128 core GPU, 64 core neural engine, 1.6 TB/s memory bandwidth, 256 GB RAM. Then with SSD storage I wonder how much it can offer? :cool:
Click to expand...
My personal hope was that they would go with an M"x" route. So they wouldn't provide some of the things the current M1/2 does. Similar to a Xeon, where there is no built in GPU.
It would be a monster, with just performance cores. Maybe 2 efficiency cores (why not). No onboard GPU, and more room for AI/ML. They could also remove the decoder/encoders and offer the accelerator board like they do now. If you don't need it, you don't buy it. Same for the GPU. Offer it as an accelerator board with similar M1/2 GPU but on a card and have it go up to as much as they can do within the laws of physics. Built in ram on the card can be whatever it can handle (up to of course). Then they can offer you the ability to add RAM. And whatever storage you want.

However, it wouldn't be the same as the current M1/2 system. 800GBs memory speed, etc. It would be whatever the fastest ram is today, and so on. Losing in some areas, gaining in others. Since there are those that want and or need expandability, and 3rd party offerings of GPU's and MORE ram than they can maybe stick on a SOC. This approach is back to what it was under intel. But, with M series type CPU's and AI/ML at maybe 5-6GHz!!! LOL.
 
Analog Kid said:
No upgradable RAM and a delay for the M2 Ultra suggest to me that the MP will be scalable through the number of Ultra chips you have installed. CPU/GPU/NE/RAM will come as a package.

I'd asked in another thread whether "cluster in a box" was a reasonable model. It got some pushback, but I think it's because we're thinking of "cluster" in different ways or maybe I'm just using that term incorrectly-- but I imagine this won't be an enormous number of cores all accessing a massive common pool of RAM with GPU resources out on a bus with a different RAM pool. I think this will be a federation of SoCs linked together each with fast access to local on package RAM and high speed interconnect among them. Adding RAM will mean adding processing at the same time.
Click to expand...
That sounds eminently reasonable. Less something like the old dual-CPU approach, and more like a small blade server, using the same type of "fabric" interconnect that's used between dies, but between the blades, with additional lanes to connect to the motherboard.

I can imagine 1-4 blades in a standard machine; or a lot more in a box devoted solely to additional horsepower that you connect to over 10GbE. Even if each blade is a glorified M1 Ultra with additional pipes for connectivity, that could be 80 cores of CPU and 256 graphics cores.

That said, the on-die RAM would have to double to meet the current Intel Mac Pro. 128*4 only gets you to 512GB, so it'd need to be 256GB per SOC, at least.

One CPU runs the OS and manages tasking / thread assignments etc, the others run the apps, maybe.

If they can run threads across multiple SOCs that would be great for high performance tasks.

Then, the motherboard doesn't have to have its own RAM (except maybe for a RAM disk?) but run the infrastructure stuff like i/O, storage, baseband radios, power management, cooling, Secure Enclave etc.

What I'd want to have otherwise would be pretty simple - a bunch of TB4 ports and a bunch of USB-C ports, and some PCIe slots for specialty hardware like 4K capture cards, ProTools HDX etc.
 
How often is Gurman wrong?

What if this is all misinformation, and Apple really did nail the M2 Extreme with two way ultra fusion plus the interconnect to an external memory cluster?

Remember the white papers and parents that surfaced showing those very things that Max Tech did videos on?

Everything was pointing to a Quad-Max monolithic die with access to RAM banks as well as on-die RAM.

Apple is wealthy, and full of smart people. I just can’t see them waiting this long to release something that seems somewhat constrained compared to the original rumoured vision.

Maybe Max Tech got too close to the reality and apple wanted to stifle the rumours so keep it a surprise?

Or, possibly sadly, Gurman is being used as a muse to leak real information to help curb our expectations of this first iteration of the Mac Pro ASi?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top