I will probably upgrade my M1 Studio Max (no Sales Tax in NH Yay!), and being retired, I no longer need the PCI slots (I would have a few years ago). My only gripe with an otherwise fabulous Mac is the WiFi reception. Compared to my other Macs in the same position, the Studio drops WiFi at intervals and has nowhere near the signal strength. With all my wired connections, this isn't a problem at home in FL. Still, when traveling or in our summer condo in New Hampshire, the Studio's lousy WiFi reception is a significant headache. I have no access to the router as the Wifi is HOA-provided, so extenders seem to be out, and I can't find any antenna boosters that work. If anyone has any tips on how to increase the Studio's reception strength, I am all ears. I thought I had a solution, adding an Apple Airport to an iMac in another room with excellent reception, this worked on a pre-trip test at home, but for some reason, I cannot create a network here, perhaps again due to the WiFi being 'routerless' to me.
Probably this is common knowledge, but why has Apple made so much Not user upgradable? Is it to sell more new machines ? Is it to eliminate technical problems when users upgrade? Conceptually, I want more control of the thing I pay thousands for.
One thing is that all of the RAM in onboard the SOC and shared between the CPU, GPU, and various other systems like the NE. THat's where a lot of the performance comes from in that memory is on the chip and it doesn't have to go to an external bus to get it. Further, moving something like a shader or bitmap from the CPU to the GPU is basically just passing a pointer, as opposed to copying a bunch of bytes back and forth.
Adding external RAM kills off aspect of the performance.
This is incorrect. Apple could get the same capabilities with slotted RAM. They're just using multiple DDR channels. The base M2 uses two DDR5 channels at 50 GB/s each, M2 Pro uses four channels, M2 Mac uses eight channels, and M2 Ultra uses 16 channels. For the laptops, iMac, Mac mini, and Mac Studio, the reason for soldered RAM is space. You need a separate slot per channel. Reserving space for eight SO-DIMM slots for the MacBook Pro would be impractical. Eight or 16 SO-DIMM (let alone full-size DIMM) slots on the Mac Studio would be hilarious to see, but also impractical. It would probably double the volume.
For the Mac Pro, there's no technical reason they could not have used slotted RAM. It definitely has the space and cooling capacity to spare. They simply chose not to.
Probably this is common knowledge, but why has Apple made so much Not user upgradable? Is it to sell more new machines ? Is it to eliminate technical problems when users upgrade? Conceptually, I want more control of the thing I pay thousands for.
The SSD in the Mac Studio actually is upgradable. Apple released the repair manual last December, and it includes details about the flash carts which make up the SSD's storage. 512 GB and 1 TB storage options use a single cart (which limits performance), while the higher capacity options use two carts. The upgrade process involves removing all installed flash carts, installing a new set, then using Apple Configurator on a separate Mac to restore the SSD controller.
There are a few reasons for integrating the SSD controller and only swapping the flash the controller uses. One big one is that it allows Apple to guarantee the security characteristics of the SSD controller. Several SSD vendors have been caught lying to computers about their encryption capabilities. The machine tells the drive to encrypt itself with a particular key, the drive says "On it!", then the drive just ignores the key and leaves the flash encrypted with the default key (typically all-zeros).
It also allows Apple to target their own performance goals rather than simply accepting other vendors' market segmentation strategies (Oh, you want a lot of random IOPS? You'll need to go with an "enterprise" drive at 3x the price and 8x the power draw.)
The RAM isn't upgradable for space reasons, as I explained above.
9to5mac, with a link to a Luke Miani video, is saying that the M2 Max to M2 Ultra is scaling better than the M1 Max to M1 Ultra for certain ops, like a FCP export and perhaps some game benchmarks (don’t recall which ones). They speculate it is due to a better memory controller.
Probably this is common knowledge, but why has Apple made so much Not user upgradable? Is it to sell more new machines ? Is it to eliminate technical problems when users upgrade? Conceptually, I want more control of the thing I pay thousands for.
The new architecture (Apple Silicon; system on a chip) isn't really conducive to upgrades, but as others have said, most people don't do hardware upgrades anyway. Apple was heading that direction with many of Intel models, which could have been made upgradable.
The biggest problem I see with this new approach, is that much of the specs have to scale in unison. If you do GPU-heavy stuff, you have to buy the high end chip, even if you don't need as much CPU-grunt or RAM. Same on the CPU side of things. There is a bit of at purchase flexibility on RAM/storage, but but with great external storage options, the RAM is the only one that really matters much (and one of the few things users used to upgrade).
chasm said: I'd like to see Apple rethink the option of letting the graphics part of the Mx chips talk to/work with external graphics cards either over TB or PCIe, but Apple's present view is that the market for people who need that much extra graphics firepower is very small, not very profitable, and better served by others. They're not wrong about that, but it is of course disappointing if you're, for example, a severe weather modeler who prefers Macs.
I have to disagree on this point. I think Apple doesn't want to go that direction, and so far, can't pull off fulfilling those needs. A lot of people need/want GPU power. It's probably the single biggest need, even at the consumer level, let alone pro. That said, they upped the level of GPU power for most of the base users in comparison to the iGPUs of their Intel machines. But, they are quite behind in terms of GPU, even at the top end ($3999 M2 Ultra), compared to a mid-range PC (now like $1500).
I really don't think Apple wants to say... gamers, 3D people, CAD people, etc. you're better served elsewhere. I think they just have no other choice at the moment.
FileMakerFeller said: ... Want a "micro-PC" form factor? Show me a non-Apple device that doesn't include a power brick - pretty rare. The Mac Mini has for years been a leading contender in the smallest physical volume arena; with the M-series chips the performance is now arguably best-in-class. And the noise level is class-leading as well.
... These days, especially if you want high performance, you're much better off going with a complete system from a reputable manufacturer. Look at all the YouTube videos showing issues around graphics cards and power supplies, and the problems with the latest CPUs and motherboards. The amount of time and money that can be lost dealing with these issues is enough to impact even a hard core DIY enthusiast; while you're waiting for the industry players to solve the problems you can spend a little extra money to get a more reliable system that you can enjoy using rather than tinkering with.
Yeah, I know everyone doesn't care so much about quiet (I do), but the overheating was a big problem until recently. You could actually damage your Mac trying to do certain things, and even if it didn't die, it would sound like a hair-dryer. I'm really pleased with this aspect of Apple Silicon, and the Studio is the Mac I've been wanting since pretty much forever.
re: building - Yes, even we who spent many years professionally building machines, are now favoring off-the-shelf. (This happened back in my Novell-tech-work days - early 90s - as well. When I first started, people were building even file servers. I have stories. LOL But, it wasn't all that long until that market died, and they went to factory built/configured systems. It took a bit longer on the desktop, but most business-use buys stopped building as well.
I got back into it a bit in the home-theatre side of things with a MythTV (open-source, Unix-based, video recorder/encoder/server) in the mid-2000s, but eventually threw the towel in on that. If I could regain a fraction of the wasted hours, heh. Though, I guess I did have some fun tech-bonding and forum time over it.
Mike Wuerthele said: Nope. Discrete flash and RAM chips on the motherboard that vary per SKU.
Oh, wow... I thought the RAM was part of the SoC, too. I was kind of wondering how they did that. Makes more sense now... but then why the 'optimal performance' arguments? If it is off-chip anyway, isn't it just a matter of physical connection?
9to5mac, with a link to a Luke Miani video, is saying that the M2 Max to M2 Ultra is scaling better than the M1 Max to M1 Ultra for certain ops, like a FCP export and perhaps some game benchmarks (don’t recall which ones). They speculate it is due to a better memory controller.
AI, you see anything like this?
I've seen multiple sources and types of tests now that show the scaling issues of the M1 Max -> Ultra seem to be fixed on the M2. That's really great news, but I still think I'm holding out for RT hardware (hopefully M3). My son will likely need to buy a new machine this fall, though, so he'll probably go with a M2 Max. I'm really happy it will be as good as it can be, it seems. (I've even heard the noisy-fan issues some were reporting seem to be gone.)
Probably this is common knowledge, but why has Apple made so much Not user upgradable? Is it to sell more new machines ? Is it to eliminate technical problems when users upgrade? Conceptually, I want more control of the thing I pay thousands for.
Apple likely has data that tells them that most users never upgrade a machine, so the extra cost involved in making it upgradeable is just a waste and adds unnecessary cost for everyone involved.
By building a highly-integrated machine, you can deliver optimal performance for users across the full spectrum, and the most common upgrades can be achieved by plugging in external devices.
Apple views their devices as "appliances". You aren't pulling apart your microwave and doing upgrades on that, or your flatscreen TV. You expect them to "just work" for what you bought them for at the time.
Sometimes users needs changes with time. We had a customer that had Lenovo workstations for CAD / Revit. 2-3 years later they received larger projects, and the GPU we had in the initial purchase was not good enough. We solved the issue just by replacing the GPU with a higher model. If the customer had Apple "appliances", they would had to replace the whole device.
Another benefit of upgradable devices is warranty services. With an Apple device, if there is a RAM, CPU or motherboard failure, you have to replace everything, resulting in data loss, or you have to start a restore process. With PCs, you just replace the part, and there is no data loss, unless is a SSD / HDD issue.
As you said, maybe Apple has data we don't have. But if you ask me, the kind of customer that has an Apple Studio / Mac Pro or PC / workstation benefits from upgrading or replacing some parts.
Mike Wuerthele said: Nope. Discrete flash and RAM chips on the motherboard that vary per SKU.
Oh, wow... I thought the RAM was part of the SoC, too. I was kind of wondering how they did that. Makes more sense now... but then why the 'optimal performance' arguments? If it is off-chip anyway, isn't it just a matter of physical connection?
All Apple silicon, currently, have LPDDR DRAM in the SoC package, basically a BGA "daughter" board, like all CPU packages are these days. Mike was just having a brain fart. In the case of an Ultra, the SoC package has 2 Max silicon chips connected with a silicon bridge (itself a piece of silicon), and 8 packages of LPDDR DRAM connected through the SoC PCB substrate. Each LPDDR package has 2 channels. Each LPDDR package contains two commodity LPDDR packages up to 12 GB each. 8 packages, 2 LPDDR inside at 12 GB makes for 192 GB of RAM.
Here's Apple's M1 Ultra graphic. This is the whole SoC:
Here's an M2 Ultra delidded with a Xeon for scale:
NAND chips are on daughter boards on Studio and Mac Pro hardware, 2 sticks. The SSD controller is in the Max chip itself, directly on the fabric bus, not on an on-chip PCIe link.
The local Best Buy has never had a Mac Studio on display in their mini Apple Store. They have the Studio Display but it is connected to a Mac Mini. They used to at least have a label on the table for the Mac Studio but now they don’t even have that. There is an actual Apple representative there on the weekends so I assume Apple maintains that section themselves.
Mike Wuerthele said: Nope. Discrete flash and RAM chips on the motherboard that vary per SKU.
Oh, wow... I thought the RAM was part of the SoC, too. I was kind of wondering how they did that. Makes more sense now... but then why the 'optimal performance' arguments? If it is off-chip anyway, isn't it just a matter of physical connection?
All Apple silicon, currently, have LPDDR DRAM in the SoC package, basically a BGA "daughter" board…
NAND chips are on daughter boards on Studio and Mac Pro hardware, 2 sticks. The SSD controller is in the Max chip itself, directly on the fabric bus, not on an on-chip PCIe link.
The local Best Buy has never had a Mac Studio on display in their mini Apple Store. They have the Studio Display but it is connected to a Mac Mini. They used to at least have a label on the table for the Mac Studio but now they don’t even have that. There is an actual Apple representative there on the weekends so I assume Apple maintains that section themselves.
I’m glad they at least have/sell the stuff. I have one I can walk to, so it has been nice for some immediate tech wants/needs at times. But, I kind of feel we’re back to the ‘old days’ of Apple in non-Apple-retail (at least for Macs), it just isn’t as hidden. LOL And, as I’ve noted in other threads, even the Apple Retail experience isn’t what it was in the first decade of the Stores (that said, I was walking distance from work to the flagship SF one… so maybe smaller outlets were always more like now).
I ordered a Studio from the online Apple Store with the M2 Ultra, 24-core CPU/60-core GPU "base" processor, 128 GByte of memory, and 2 Tbyte of storage last week and was surprised to find it had a two-week delivery time. The lead time was the same or longer ("2 - 4 weeks") at B&H. B&H also has the same lead time for a similarly speced system, but with 1 Tbyte of storage. Is the supply of the Flash chips used in the lower-end (if you can all 1 or 2 Tbyte "lower-end") storage configs constrained? Sure looks like it.
Comments
For the Mac Pro, there's no technical reason they could not have used slotted RAM. It definitely has the space and cooling capacity to spare. They simply chose not to.
The SSD in the Mac Studio actually is upgradable. Apple released the repair manual last December, and it includes details about the flash carts which make up the SSD's storage. 512 GB and 1 TB storage options use a single cart (which limits performance), while the higher capacity options use two carts. The upgrade process involves removing all installed flash carts, installing a new set, then using Apple Configurator on a separate Mac to restore the SSD controller.
There are a few reasons for integrating the SSD controller and only swapping the flash the controller uses. One big one is that it allows Apple to guarantee the security characteristics of the SSD controller. Several SSD vendors have been caught lying to computers about their encryption capabilities. The machine tells the drive to encrypt itself with a particular key, the drive says "On it!", then the drive just ignores the key and leaves the flash encrypted with the default key (typically all-zeros).
It also allows Apple to target their own performance goals rather than simply accepting other vendors' market segmentation strategies (Oh, you want a lot of random IOPS? You'll need to go with an "enterprise" drive at 3x the price and 8x the power draw.)
The RAM isn't upgradable for space reasons, as I explained above.
The biggest problem I see with this new approach, is that much of the specs have to scale in unison. If you do GPU-heavy stuff, you have to buy the high end chip, even if you don't need as much CPU-grunt or RAM. Same on the CPU side of things. There is a bit of at purchase flexibility on RAM/storage, but but with great external storage options, the RAM is the only one that really matters much (and one of the few things users used to upgrade).
I have to disagree on this point. I think Apple doesn't want to go that direction, and so far, can't pull off fulfilling those needs. A lot of people need/want GPU power. It's probably the single biggest need, even at the consumer level, let alone pro. That said, they upped the level of GPU power for most of the base users in comparison to the iGPUs of their Intel machines. But, they are quite behind in terms of GPU, even at the top end ($3999 M2 Ultra), compared to a mid-range PC (now like $1500).
I really don't think Apple wants to say... gamers, 3D people, CAD people, etc. you're better served elsewhere. I think they just have no other choice at the moment.
Yeah, I know everyone doesn't care so much about quiet (I do), but the overheating was a big problem until recently. You could actually damage your Mac trying to do certain things, and even if it didn't die, it would sound like a hair-dryer. I'm really pleased with this aspect of Apple Silicon, and the Studio is the Mac I've been wanting since pretty much forever.
re: building - Yes, even we who spent many years professionally building machines, are now favoring off-the-shelf. (This happened back in my Novell-tech-work days - early 90s - as well. When I first started, people were building even file servers. I have stories. LOL But, it wasn't all that long until that market died, and they went to factory built/configured systems. It took a bit longer on the desktop, but most business-use buys stopped building as well.
I got back into it a bit in the home-theatre side of things with a MythTV (open-source, Unix-based, video recorder/encoder/server) in the mid-2000s, but eventually threw the towel in on that. If I could regain a fraction of the wasted hours, heh. Though, I guess I did have some fun tech-bonding and forum time over it.
Oh, wow... I thought the RAM was part of the SoC, too. I was kind of wondering how they did that. Makes more sense now... but then why the 'optimal performance' arguments? If it is off-chip anyway, isn't it just a matter of physical connection?
Another benefit of upgradable devices is warranty services. With an Apple device, if there is a RAM, CPU or motherboard failure, you have to replace everything, resulting in data loss, or you have to start a restore process. With PCs, you just replace the part, and there is no data loss, unless is a SSD / HDD issue.
As you said, maybe Apple has data we don't have. But if you ask me, the kind of customer that has an Apple Studio / Mac Pro or PC / workstation benefits from upgrading or replacing some parts.
Here's Apple's M1 Ultra graphic. This is the whole SoC:
Here's an M2 Ultra delidded with a Xeon for scale:
NAND chips are on daughter boards on Studio and Mac Pro hardware, 2 sticks. The SSD controller is in the Max chip itself, directly on the fabric bus, not on an on-chip PCIe link.
I’m glad they at least have/sell the stuff. I have one I can walk to, so it has been nice for some immediate tech wants/needs at times. But, I kind of feel we’re back to the ‘old days’ of Apple in non-Apple-retail (at least for Macs), it just isn’t as hidden. LOL And, as I’ve noted in other threads, even the Apple Retail experience isn’t what it was in the first decade of the Stores (that said, I was walking distance from work to the flagship SF one… so maybe smaller outlets were always more like now).