I see several main use cases for the Mac Pro. Running Windows software (whether in Boot Camp or virtualization), scientific computing that needs that 1.5TB of memory or CUDA, or needing scads of IO ports not provided (I have heard of people maxing out audio ports using all PCIe ports on the Mac Pro, for instance). There's also the quasi-use case of (non-CUDA) GPU-bound performance where you plan on regularly upgrading your external GPUs (presumably cheaper than buying new Mac Studios on a similar schedule).
I do wonder about the PCIe port maximizing case, though. Can 6 ThunderBolt ports with external chasses get you anything similar? I have no personal interest in that market, so I don't have any idea.
Also, I want to point out several problems with the chart. First, the Studio with Ultra is not available with 512GB SSD. Second, both Studio columns only list the minimum number of GPU cores (especially egregious in the case of the Ultra, since only the maximum price is listed there). Third, the ethernet ports on the Max Pro are listed twice (under Ports and under Connectivity). Fourth, the "top" Mac Pro (with dual W6800X Duo cards) is over $52k.
On a semi-related note, though, on the 'Mac' page at apple.com, the Mac mini, iMac, and Mac Pro are all easy to miss.
Here's my idea for a Mac Pro replacement that's user modifiable. Unfortunately for many people, I believe the only replaceable parts will come from Apple but they would (might) allow the Mac Pro to be actually upgradeable where it counts.
Here's my idea for the replacement Mac Pro.
1. Stays modular with an UltraFusion backplane.
2. Uses socketed M1 Ultra SoC cards to allow replacement of SoC when things like video encode/decode requirements change. No reason to re-purchase everything, just the things that have major updates.
3. High capacity memory cards, allowing Unified Memory over UltraFusion backplane, built by Apple, not OTS RAM (which is a waste of space and speed)
4. High capacity GPU cards built by Apple, not third-party.
5. PCIe ver4/5/? slots for specialized I/O cards. Might be sold as a separate, matching enclosure with very high-speed interconnect.
6. Maybe high capacity storage cards using same storage chips but possibly with RAID controller front-end. Could be only Apple built but also 3rd party NVMe cards although these cards will definitely need additional cooling.
7. Enclosure could match old G4 cube style instead of taller, all aluminum Studio case, so user can change cards but pulling rack out of enclosure. I don't think Apple would need a huge enclosure like the current Mac Pro. If Apple wants to allow third-party GPU cards, they'd need to create a very high speed interface between the M-Mac Pro and an eGPU enclosure that works with Apple Silicon.
Of course I don't think all of this will happen but I do believe to get anything more powerful than the Studio Mac, Apple will need to develop an UltraFusion backplane to keep from having to splice even more chips together. Adding UltraFusion connections on more than the one end might be more complex than slipping an M1 Max/Ultra chip into a vertical backplane. If the M1 Ultra is doubled (or more) the required footprint starts to get rather large. Using a backplane construction, Apple could provide equivalent Studio Mac power in the base Mac Pro along with another 10 SoC card slots allowing for a Cray level type of computing system. My plan would be to start the Mac Pro with a bunch of backplane slots at $10K, $2K (or is it $4K for an M1 Ultra?) for each Ultra SoC card, and whatever memory and storage cards would cost. In some ways I think putting all of this in one enclosure is insane but after the Studio Mac, Apple is designing insane computers and I wouldn't put it past them to come out with an absolutely incredible Mac Pro. We're talking about the M1 Ultra providing 21 Tflops. If Apple really want to blow away not only the consumer market but the supercomputing marketplace they'd need as fast of an interconnect capability as they could design along with software that's capable of controlling many Mac Pros together without using something slow like ethernet.
The current 500th fastest supercomputer runs at ~2000 Tflops using 57K cores. Put 100 M1 Ultras together and the Mac Pro would be back in the Top500 list for a whole lot less cost than anything above it. The fastest runs at 442 Pflops using 7,630,848 cores and 5,087,232 GB memory. It also takes 29,899.23 kW of power and it's using an ARM A64FX 48C 2.2GHz CPU. I have no idea how many millions of dollars (or billions of ¥) it cost but it would be interesting if Apple were able to connect maybe 10 Mac Pros together over an UltraFusion link.
Here's my idea for a Mac Pro replacement that's user modifiable. Unfortunately for many people, I believe the only replaceable parts will come from Apple but they would (might) allow the Mac Pro to be actually upgradeable where it counts.
Here's my idea for the replacement Mac Pro.
1. Stays modular with an UltraFusion backplane.
2. Uses socketed M1 Ultra SoC cards to allow replacement of SoC when things like video encode/decode requirements change. No reason to re-purchase everything, just the things that have major updates.
3. High capacity memory cards, allowing Unified Memory over UltraFusion backplane, built by Apple, not OTS RAM (which is a waste of space and speed)
4. High capacity GPU cards built by Apple, not third-party.
5. PCIe ver4/5/? slots for specialized I/O cards. Might be sold as a separate, matching enclosure with very high-speed interconnect.
6. Maybe high capacity storage cards using same storage chips but possibly with RAID controller front-end. Could be only Apple built but also 3rd party NVMe cards although these cards will definitely need additional cooling.
7. Enclosure could match old G4 cube style instead of taller, all aluminum Studio case, so user can change cards but pulling rack out of enclosure. I don't think Apple would need a huge enclosure like the current Mac Pro. If Apple wants to allow third-party GPU cards, they'd need to create a very high speed interface between the M-Mac Pro and an eGPU enclosure that works with Apple Silicon.
Of course I don't think all of this will happen but I do believe to get anything more powerful than the Studio Mac, Apple will need to develop an UltraFusion backplane to keep from having to splice even more chips together. Adding UltraFusion connections on more than the one end might be more complex than slipping an M1 Max/Ultra chip into a vertical backplane. If the M1 Ultra is doubled (or more) the required footprint starts to get rather large. Using a backplane construction, Apple could provide equivalent Studio Mac power in the base Mac Pro along with another 10 SoC card slots allowing for a Cray level type of computing system.
My plan would be to start the Mac Pro with a bunch of backplane slots at $10K, $2K (or is it $4K for an M1 Ultra?) for each Ultra SoC card, and whatever memory and storage cards would cost. In some ways I think putting all of this in one enclosure is insane but after the Studio Mac, Apple is designing insane computers and I wouldn't put it past them to come out with an absolutely incredible Mac Pro. We're talking about the M1 Ultra providing 21 Tflops. If Apple really want to blow away not only the consumer market but the supercomputing marketplace they'd need as fast of an interconnect capability as they could design along with software that's capable of controlling many Mac Pros together without using something slow like ethernet.
The current 500th fastest supercomputer runs at ~2000 Tflops using 57K cores. Put 100 M1 Ultras together and the Mac Pro would be back in the Top500 list for a whole lot less cost than anything above it. The fastest runs at 442 Pflops using 7,630,848 cores and 5,087,232 GB memory. It also takes 29,899.23 kW of power and it's using an ARM A64FX 48C 2.2GHz CPU. I have no idea how many millions of dollars (or billions of ¥) it cost but it would be interesting if Apple were able to connect maybe 10 Mac Pros together over an UltraFusion link.
The number of connections and the tiny scale of everything involved including the maximum signal length makes the backplane idea very improbable at best. If there’s anything resembling a backplane, it would be something factory-assembled. Remember the mention on the video of over 10,000 signals and connections?
Here's my idea for a Mac Pro replacement that's user modifiable. Unfortunately for many people, I believe the only replaceable parts will come from Apple but they would (might) allow the Mac Pro to be actually upgradeable where it counts.
...
The number of connections and the tiny scale of everything involved including the maximum signal length makes the backplane idea very improbable at best. If there’s anything resembling a backplane, it would be something factory-assembled. Remember the mention on the video of over 10,000 signals and connections?
I totally understand the amount of connections. I have to wonder whether Apple could build a vertical stack of M1 Maxes to sell as a pluggable stack into the motherboard. What connections actually come out of the SoC? How many?
Here's my idea for a Mac Pro replacement that's user modifiable. Unfortunately for many people, I believe the only replaceable parts will come from Apple but they would (might) allow the Mac Pro to be actually upgradeable where it counts.
...
The number of connections and the tiny scale of everything involved including the maximum signal length makes the backplane idea very improbable at best. If there’s anything resembling a backplane, it would be something factory-assembled. Remember the mention on the video of over 10,000 signals and connections?
I totally understand the amount of connections. I have to wonder whether Apple could build a vertical stack of M1 Maxes to sell as a pluggable stack into the motherboard. What connections actually come out of the SoC? How many?
I watched this video earlier today that goes into both that and what they’ve already done: https://youtu.be/8Yz1pqX_eC0 “Apple’s M2 Ultra DUO Mac Pro will be LEGENDARY! (Leaks).
I have no connection with that other than being a viewer. As explained on the video, how the “interposer” is done is the simplest possible way during manufacturing to join two dies: never cut them to start with!
In theory, Apple could have a single socketed SoC on the main board that has the relatively few other chips that are required, but in practice, it may lock them down too much in designing where pins go versus where they’re at on the die making it limited to a single chip generation design, so it’d make it slightly less expensive for repairs, but soldered down chips tend to be more reliable in systems, so it’s a tradeoff.
If all the system RAM and GPU and all the other things now on the M1 series remains on that die, that greatly reduces the number of pins needed for other than ground and power; a large portion of pins on such BGA sockets tend to be either one of those, as electrical needs for impedance dictates where they’re needed, and you can’t provide all the power the chip needs through too small of a number.
I would guess all the Apple Silicon SoCs have a rather small number (relatively speaking) of pins because of their integration, and lower power requirements than AMD/Intel chips on average. Keep in mind AMD/Intel BGA chips have sockets for over 1000 pins for many of their sockets historically.
I’m not persuaded Apple will make their boards with sockets, as I’m expecting they’ve already got final board yields high enough that adding sockets into the mix just adds expense.
Here's my idea for a Mac Pro replacement that's user modifiable. Unfortunately for many people, I believe the only replaceable parts will come from Apple but they would (might) allow the Mac Pro to be actually upgradeable where it counts.
...
The number of connections and the tiny scale of everything involved including the maximum signal length makes the backplane idea very improbable at best. If there’s anything resembling a backplane, it would be something factory-assembled. Remember the mention on the video of over 10,000 signals and connections?
I totally understand the amount of connections. I have to wonder whether Apple could build a vertical stack of M1 Maxes to sell as a pluggable stack into the motherboard. What connections actually come out of the SoC? How many?
I watched this video earlier today that goes into both that and what they’ve already done: https://youtu.be/8Yz1pqX_eC0 “Apple’s M2 Ultra DUO Mac Pro will be LEGENDARY! (Leaks).
I have no connection with that other than being a viewer. As explained on the video, how the “interposer” is done is the simplest possible way during manufacturing to join two dies: never cut them to start with!
In theory, Apple could have a single socketed SoC on the main board that has the relatively few other chips that are required, but in practice, it may lock them down too much in designing where pins go versus where they’re at on the die making it limited to a single chip generation design, so it’d make it slightly less expensive for repairs, but soldered down chips tend to be more reliable in systems, so it’s a tradeoff.
If all the system RAM and GPU and all the other things now on the M1 series remains on that die, that greatly reduces the number of pins needed for other than ground and power; a large portion of pins on such BGA sockets tend to be either one of those, as electrical needs for impedance dictates where they’re needed, and you can’t provide all the power the chip needs through too small of a number.
I would guess all the Apple Silicon SoCs have a rather small number (relatively speaking) of pins because of their integration, and lower power requirements than AMD/Intel chips on average. Keep in mind AMD/Intel BGA chips have sockets for over 1000 pins for many of their sockets historically.
I’m not persuaded Apple will make their boards with sockets, as I’m expecting they’ve already got final board yields high enough that adding sockets into the mix just adds expense.
My reason for putting the SoCs into sockets is so the SoC can be upgraded without upgrading everything else. This keeps the new Mac Pro user configurable, something many current Mac Pro users complain about. The typically need to keep them longer than consumers to pay off their obscenely high cost. Keep it upgradeable and the SoC can be switched out gaining additional power without buying everything again. Of course, the SoC has just about everything in it so you're buying a new computer anyway.
Even our ancient 2012 Mac Pros have been running 128 GB for years (and our previous 2009's but we ditched them a while a go) The move to fianlly break the 128 GB limit with the 2019 Mac Pro was huge (for us & our workstations)
Here's my idea for a Mac Pro replacement that's user modifiable. Unfortunately for many people, I believe the only replaceable parts will come from Apple but they would (might) allow the Mac Pro to be actually upgradeable where it counts.
...
The number of connections and the tiny scale of everything involved including the maximum signal length makes the backplane idea very improbable at best. If there’s anything resembling a backplane, it would be something factory-assembled. Remember the mention on the video of over 10,000 signals and connections?
I totally understand the amount of connections. I have to wonder whether Apple could build a vertical stack of M1 Maxes to sell as a pluggable stack into the motherboard. What connections actually come out of the SoC? How many?
I watched this video earlier today that goes into both that and what they’ve already done: https://youtu.be/8Yz1pqX_eC0 “Apple’s M2 Ultra DUO Mac Pro will be LEGENDARY! (Leaks).
I have no connection with that other than being a viewer. As explained on the video, how the “interposer” is done is the simplest possible way during manufacturing to join two dies: never cut them to start with!
In theory, Apple could have a single socketed SoC on the main board that has the relatively few other chips that are required, but in practice, it may lock them down too much in designing where pins go versus where they’re at on the die making it limited to a single chip generation design, so it’d make it slightly less expensive for repairs, but soldered down chips tend to be more reliable in systems, so it’s a tradeoff.
If all the system RAM and GPU and all the other things now on the M1 series remains on that die, that greatly reduces the number of pins needed for other than ground and power; a large portion of pins on such BGA sockets tend to be either one of those, as electrical needs for impedance dictates where they’re needed, and you can’t provide all the power the chip needs through too small of a number.
I would guess all the Apple Silicon SoCs have a rather small number (relatively speaking) of pins because of their integration, and lower power requirements than AMD/Intel chips on average. Keep in mind AMD/Intel BGA chips have sockets for over 1000 pins for many of their sockets historically.
I’m not persuaded Apple will make their boards with sockets, as I’m expecting they’ve already got final board yields high enough that adding sockets into the mix just adds expense.
My reason for putting the SoCs into sockets is so the SoC can be upgraded without upgrading everything else. This keeps the new Mac Pro user configurable, something many current Mac Pro users complain about. The typically need to keep them longer than consumers to pay off their obscenely high cost. Keep it upgradeable and the SoC can be switched out gaining additional power without buying everything again. Of course, the SoC has just about everything in it so you're buying a new computer anyway.
The only thing that really even starts to make sense for Apple to do in this case is to create a PCIe backplane with however many slots, put the non-SoC base ports hardware on the main board with the backplane, and put the SoC on a whole card.
All the other devices hook up (likely) via PCIe otherwise, though not certain about the SSD. This would result in the motherboard with I/O for the base system and no main system CPU or memory on the motherboard, working on the reasonable assumption Apple is going to keep all memory unified for speed and power efficiency. In theory they could allow users to add more processor cards in a localized distributed processing design, where it’s not just NUMA with sockets, but communication over the backplane, which won’t be typical main memory access, and is likely slower than what Apple already has. There are use-cases where that’d work fine, and those that need it, they know who they are. For right now, the biggest constraint for a Mac Studio and big jobs are the 128 GB RAM limit and no slots for multiple GPUs.
I’m laughing to myself as I type up those constraints, remembering as a teenager when the first Mac came out, and being accustomed to 8-bit machines of the day. I didn’t consider what computers would be like this far ahead, that we’d be arguing about the limited upgrade options for a compact machine that by the standards of the day would have beaten all the supercomputers of 1984.
Interesting that there is no space grey option for the studio or display. Ye ol’ silver is to be the sole “pro” color? Interesting.
The ultra chip is pretty awesome. Can’t wait for future versions to come in other form factors.
One bummer is it seems like Apple’s aesthetics sort of nosedived on this design. The Porte on the front look a bit haphazard like on a PC. ID HAVE EXPECTED apple to dial them into a cohesive look, like one long pill engraving housing the cdxc slot and TB4/USB-C slots (mounted horizontally) together. Seems like a kind of strange look now. It works, but doesn’t necessarily have that apple attention to aesthetics.
At least Apple did the right thing and put the power supply where it belongs - inside. That’s awesome. In that one move, apple reduced clutter. So at least apple is getting back to some of its attention to detail.
Still hoping for an iMac Pro - even up to 32 inches. The studio display is 5k which we’ve had for 12 years in iMacs already and the pro display is rumored to move to 7k, which opens up a slot for the iMac Pro to go 6k. Pack in the ultra, and that would be a true dream machine.
Can’t see a real honest upgradeable Mac Pro in the future.
It will have to come down to the way the SOC is installed, leaving Apple to sell newer SOC MODULES as they become available. This could be something akin to swapping a module in the current Mac Pro. Also depends on the cooling apple supplies with Mac Pro. Either every machine gets a monster cooling setup, or more likely, the SOC module comes with its own cooling hardware included. As you’ll be buying the CPU/GPU/RAM all at once, you’ll have to decide on three things at once just like now with AS.
After the SOC, we will have the usual hard drive swaps and probably some IO modules to add/change as desired.
We really should not have to wait for Mac Pro with this. The Mac Studio could offer an SOC/cooling swap right now. The mini tower config makes it a no brainer. Shame. It could be easily done by making the case come off like a jacket - or pull out from the back. It’s simply that apple doesn’t want that for us.
Interesting that there is no space grey option for the studio or display. Ye ol’ silver is to be the sole “pro” color? Interesting.
The ultra chip is pretty awesome. Can’t wait for future versions to come in other form factors.
One bummer is it seems like Apple’s aesthetics sort of nosedived on this design. The Porte on the front look a bit haphazard like on a PC. ID HAVE EXPECTED apple to dial them into a cohesive look, like one long pill engraving housing the cdxc slot and TB4/USB-C slots (mounted horizontally) together. Seems like a kind of strange look now. It works, but doesn’t necessarily have that apple attention to aesthetics.
At least Apple did the right thing and put the power supply where it belongs - inside. That’s awesome. In that one move, apple reduced clutter. So at least apple is getting back to some of its attention to detail.
Still hoping for an iMac Pro - even up to 32 inches. The studio display is 5k which we’ve had for 12 years in iMacs already and the pro display is rumored to move to 7k, which opens up a slot for the iMac Pro to go 6k. Pack in the ultra, and that would be a true dream machine.
My 2014 Retina iMac is the first 5k Apple screen and iMac, are you using a weird different number base?
Interesting that there is no space grey option for the studio or display. Ye ol’ silver is to be the sole “pro” color? Interesting.
The ultra chip is pretty awesome. Can’t wait for future versions to come in other form factors.
One bummer is it seems like Apple’s aesthetics sort of nosedived on this design. The Porte on the front look a bit haphazard like on a PC. ID HAVE EXPECTED apple to dial them into a cohesive look, like one long pill engraving housing the cdxc slot and TB4/USB-C slots (mounted horizontally) together. Seems like a kind of strange look now. It works, but doesn’t necessarily have that apple attention to aesthetics.
At least Apple did the right thing and put the power supply where it belongs - inside. That’s awesome. In that one move, apple reduced clutter. So at least apple is getting back to some of its attention to detail.
Still hoping for an iMac Pro - even up to 32 inches. The studio display is 5k which we’ve had for 12 years in iMacs already and the pro display is rumored to move to 7k, which opens up a slot for the iMac Pro to go 6k. Pack in the ultra, and that would be a true dream machine.
My 2014 Retina iMac is the first 5k Apple screen and iMac, are you using a weird different number base?
Negative. Human error. Meant to say 8. But typed 12. Likely thinking about something else entirely. Elsewhere in these forums, I said 7 years, but that relates to my 2015 iMac 5k. Lol.
Interesting that there is no space grey option for the studio or display. Ye ol’ silver is to be the sole “pro” color? Interesting.
The ultra chip is pretty awesome. Can’t wait for future versions to come in other form factors.
One bummer is it seems like Apple’s aesthetics sort of nosedived on this design. The Porte on the front look a bit haphazard like on a PC.
I think the 2013 model was a nicer and more iconic design, they could have reused this for the Studio, maybe shorter in height but they have to mount them sideways in a server environment. One of the design choices for the Studio was to have a minimal footprint and the marketing photos of the Studio show it positioned under the display so that it uses less desk area. This is likely one of the reasons for the ports on the front as it's harder to get to the back when the computer is tucked under the display.
A 2019 style in a smaller form factor would have been nice, even though it would use more desk space:
It wouldn't need the handles at the top and it could have a single fan at the front like in the 2019 that blows through a heatsink. It doesn't need ports at the front either. Apple (Jony Ive) put ports on the front of the old Mac Pros so it's not like it's a new thing but it doesn't look good with cables coming from the front and people who need easier access to the ports can buy a hub:
Internally they could allow for two M.2 SSDs on top of internal soldered SSD so people could buy 1TB and add dual 8TB M.2. Maybe a cube is the design they will use for the Mac Pro.
Here's my idea for a Mac Pro replacement that's user modifiable. Unfortunately for many people, I believe the only replaceable parts will come from Apple but they would (might) allow the Mac Pro to be actually upgradeable where it counts.
...
The number of connections and the tiny scale of everything involved including the maximum signal length makes the backplane idea very improbable at best. If there’s anything resembling a backplane, it would be something factory-assembled. Remember the mention on the video of over 10,000 signals and connections?
I totally understand the amount of connections. I have to wonder whether Apple could build a vertical stack of M1 Maxes to sell as a pluggable stack into the motherboard. What connections actually come out of the SoC? How many?
I watched this video earlier today that goes into both that and what they’ve already done: https://youtu.be/8Yz1pqX_eC0 “Apple’s M2 Ultra DUO Mac Pro will be LEGENDARY! (Leaks).
I have no connection with that other than being a viewer. As explained on the video, how the “interposer” is done is the simplest possible way during manufacturing to join two dies: never cut them to start with!
In theory, Apple could have a single socketed SoC on the main board that has the relatively few other chips that are required, but in practice, it may lock them down too much in designing where pins go versus where they’re at on the die making it limited to a single chip generation design, so it’d make it slightly less expensive for repairs, but soldered down chips tend to be more reliable in systems, so it’s a tradeoff.
If all the system RAM and GPU and all the other things now on the M1 series remains on that die, that greatly reduces the number of pins needed for other than ground and power; a large portion of pins on such BGA sockets tend to be either one of those, as electrical needs for impedance dictates where they’re needed, and you can’t provide all the power the chip needs through too small of a number.
I would guess all the Apple Silicon SoCs have a rather small number (relatively speaking) of pins because of their integration, and lower power requirements than AMD/Intel chips on average. Keep in mind AMD/Intel BGA chips have sockets for over 1000 pins for many of their sockets historically.
I’m not persuaded Apple will make their boards with sockets, as I’m expecting they’ve already got final board yields high enough that adding sockets into the mix just adds expense.
My reason for putting the SoCs into sockets is so the SoC can be upgraded without upgrading everything else. This keeps the new Mac Pro user configurable, something many current Mac Pro users complain about. The typically need to keep them longer than consumers to pay off their obscenely high cost. Keep it upgradeable and the SoC can be switched out gaining additional power without buying everything again. Of course, the SoC has just about everything in it so you're buying a new computer anyway.
There is an assumption that Mac Pro users are complaining about things but Apple knows how the votes are being cast with the purchases. Often people talk about the Mac Pro not offering the highest performance but Apple compares the Studio to the most popular Mac Pro configurations, which are the mid-range models.
All Apple needs to offer in the Mac Pro is an Ultra Duo. That will be competitive with most high-end PCs.
That can fit in a cube like the above design. If it needs PCIe expansion, they can add an expansion box outside for the few people who will use it. GPUs aren't going to be needed by most users when they have 40TFLOPs internally.
I suspect they will use a dual stack M1 Ultra. A design like having 4 boards with an Ultra chip each and have one as the controlling board would be powerful but a configurable design has to be practical. It's not likely that people would swap single boards in and out and mismatch them. If they upgrade all of the units, they have effectively bought a new machine and there's not much chance they can sell the old boards.
A Mac Pro with an M1 Ultra Duo would likely cost around $10k. There's not much point in selling $3-4k boards with Ultras on them each when someone can easily buy a new $10k model and resell the old one for $5k+. Because every Mac is based on the same chips, they can all be refreshed on the same cycle, every model can get an M1, M2, M3. No skipping years like with Xeon chips.
WWDC launch, Mac Pro Cube with M1 Ultra 128GB for $5999 and M1 Ultra Duo 256GB $9999.
It can have a PCIe 5 connector for external expansion and a box that supports MPX modules. Most users won't need them when there's so much performance internally but it allows for edge cases and for optical connections if Apple doesn't bundle this by default.
Talking of Apple and Pro Macs... It amazes me that macOS itself hasn't had its RAW capability updated to read Sony A7IV RAW files yet. I installed a new dev Beta 12.3 yesterday in a VM, and it can't read them yet either. LUCKILY, Adobe RAW and Capture One programmers were on the ball, and both can read the files.
Interesting that there is no space grey option for the studio or display. Ye ol’ silver is to be the sole “pro” color? Interesting.
The ultra chip is pretty awesome. Can’t wait for future versions to come in other form factors.
One bummer is it seems like Apple’s aesthetics sort of nosedived on this design. The Porte on the front look a bit haphazard like on a PC.
I think the 2013 model was a nicer and more iconic design, they could have reused this for the Studio, maybe shorter in height but they have to mount them sideways in a server environment. One of the design choices for the Studio was to have a minimal footprint and the marketing photos of the Studio show it positioned under the display so that it uses less desk area. This is likely one of the reasons for the ports on the front as it's harder to get to the back when the computer is tucked under the display.
A 2019 style in a smaller form factor would have been nice, even though it would use more desk space:
It wouldn't need the handles at the top and it could have a single fan at the front like in the 2019 that blows through a heatsink. It doesn't need ports at the front either. Apple (Jony Ive) put ports on the front of the old Mac Pros so it's not like it's a new thing but it doesn't look good with cables coming from the front and people who need easier access to the ports can buy a hub:
Internally they could allow for two M.2 SSDs on top of internal soldered SSD so people could buy 1TB and add dual 8TB M.2. Maybe a cube is the design they will use for the Mac Pro.
Here's my idea for a Mac Pro replacement that's user modifiable. Unfortunately for many people, I believe the only replaceable parts will come from Apple but they would (might) allow the Mac Pro to be actually upgradeable where it counts.
...
The number of connections and the tiny scale of everything involved including the maximum signal length makes the backplane idea very improbable at best. If there’s anything resembling a backplane, it would be something factory-assembled. Remember the mention on the video of over 10,000 signals and connections?
I totally understand the amount of connections. I have to wonder whether Apple could build a vertical stack of M1 Maxes to sell as a pluggable stack into the motherboard. What connections actually come out of the SoC? How many?
I watched this video earlier today that goes into both that and what they’ve already done: https://youtu.be/8Yz1pqX_eC0 “Apple’s M2 Ultra DUO Mac Pro will be LEGENDARY! (Leaks).
I have no connection with that other than being a viewer. As explained on the video, how the “interposer” is done is the simplest possible way during manufacturing to join two dies: never cut them to start with!
In theory, Apple could have a single socketed SoC on the main board that has the relatively few other chips that are required, but in practice, it may lock them down too much in designing where pins go versus where they’re at on the die making it limited to a single chip generation design, so it’d make it slightly less expensive for repairs, but soldered down chips tend to be more reliable in systems, so it’s a tradeoff.
If all the system RAM and GPU and all the other things now on the M1 series remains on that die, that greatly reduces the number of pins needed for other than ground and power; a large portion of pins on such BGA sockets tend to be either one of those, as electrical needs for impedance dictates where they’re needed, and you can’t provide all the power the chip needs through too small of a number.
I would guess all the Apple Silicon SoCs have a rather small number (relatively speaking) of pins because of their integration, and lower power requirements than AMD/Intel chips on average. Keep in mind AMD/Intel BGA chips have sockets for over 1000 pins for many of their sockets historically.
I’m not persuaded Apple will make their boards with sockets, as I’m expecting they’ve already got final board yields high enough that adding sockets into the mix just adds expense.
My reason for putting the SoCs into sockets is so the SoC can be upgraded without upgrading everything else. This keeps the new Mac Pro user configurable, something many current Mac Pro users complain about. The typically need to keep them longer than consumers to pay off their obscenely high cost. Keep it upgradeable and the SoC can be switched out gaining additional power without buying everything again. Of course, the SoC has just about everything in it so you're buying a new computer anyway.
There is an assumption that Mac Pro users are complaining about things but Apple knows how the votes are being cast with the purchases. Often people talk about the Mac Pro not offering the highest performance but Apple compares the Studio to the most popular Mac Pro configurations, which are the mid-range models.
All Apple needs to offer in the Mac Pro is an Ultra Duo. That will be competitive with most high-end PCs.
That can fit in a cube like the above design. If it needs PCIe expansion, they can add an expansion box outside for the few people who will use it. GPUs aren't going to be needed by most users when they have 40TFLOPs internally.
I suspect they will use a dual stack M1 Ultra. A design like having 4 boards with an Ultra chip each and have one as the controlling board would be powerful but a configurable design has to be practical. It's not likely that people would swap single boards in and out and mismatch them. If they upgrade all of the units, they have effectively bought a new machine and there's not much chance they can sell the old boards.
A Mac Pro with an M1 Ultra Duo would likely cost around $10k. There's not much point in selling $3-4k boards with Ultras on them each when someone can easily buy a new $10k model and resell the old one for $5k+. Because every Mac is based on the same chips, they can all be refreshed on the same cycle, every model can get an M1, M2, M3. No skipping years like with Xeon chips.
WWDC launch, Mac Pro Cube with M1 Ultra 128GB for $5999 and M1 Ultra Duo 256GB $9999.
It can have a PCIe 5 connector for external expansion and a box that supports MPX modules. Most users won't need them when there's so much performance internally but it allows for edge cases and for optical connections if Apple doesn't bundle this by default.
It immediately occurred to me when I saw the M1 released that the 2013 Mac Pro design would work, at least for a low-end M1Max, I doubt it could cool the Ultra and Quad Ultra though. A silver version would be cool.
I think that since Apple said "modularity" was one of the features pros are expecting, and that the Mac Pro is coming as a higher end Mac, above the Mac Studio, I think it means Apple will just use the 2019 Mac Pro box, or something very similar to it. Perhaps less wide, maybe 7" wide rather than 8.6" wide that is today.
So, something like 4 double wide PCIe slots, and maybe 2 single wide PCIe slots, with both desktop and rack mount cases. It will be compatible with MPX modules. I think it will support 1 TB of DRAM, whether soldered or in DIMMs, I don't know. Obviously storage is only user expandable through PCIe slots, or perhaps they will have the SATA drive arrangement they have for the 2019 Mac Pro. I'm expecting Apple will offer an MPX module with an M1 Ultra or two.
There isn't a benefit for Apple to make another integrated, closed box, especially at a $6000 starting price.
And if you need to expand your internal fast SSD storage after you buy your Mac Studio, what then? How does that compare to the Mac Pro?
the solid-state storage it the only thing that is alterable with a SoC based Mac so it doesn't seem impossible to address that in a Mac Pro you'd think.
And if you need to expand your internal fast SSD storage after you buy your Mac Studio, what then? How does that compare to the Mac Pro?
Unless you have too many TB4 ports used up for displays, remember they’re good for 40 Gb/s EACH. Even assuming 10 bits per byte due to overhead, that’s still 4 GB/s, admittedly not as fast as built-in is advertised as, but you have more than one port, too, so if top SSD/storage speed is the focus, you can do that with RAID.
This external solution is available on both as of this time, and I expect that won’t go away for the next Max Pro, but nobody can say with certainty what the next Max Pro will or won’t have internally.
Comments
Here's my idea for the replacement Mac Pro.
1. Stays modular with an UltraFusion backplane.
2. Uses socketed M1 Ultra SoC cards to allow replacement of SoC when things like video encode/decode requirements change. No reason to re-purchase everything, just the things that have major updates.
3. High capacity memory cards, allowing Unified Memory over UltraFusion backplane, built by Apple, not OTS RAM (which is a waste of space and speed)
4. High capacity GPU cards built by Apple, not third-party.
5. PCIe ver4/5/? slots for specialized I/O cards. Might be sold as a separate, matching enclosure with very high-speed interconnect.
6. Maybe high capacity storage cards using same storage chips but possibly with RAID controller front-end. Could be only Apple built but also 3rd party NVMe cards although these cards will definitely need additional cooling.
7. Enclosure could match old G4 cube style instead of taller, all aluminum Studio case, so user can change cards but pulling rack out of enclosure. I don't think Apple would need a huge enclosure like the current Mac Pro. If Apple wants to allow third-party GPU cards, they'd need to create a very high speed interface between the M-Mac Pro and an eGPU enclosure that works with Apple Silicon.
Of course I don't think all of this will happen but I do believe to get anything more powerful than the Studio Mac, Apple will need to develop an UltraFusion backplane to keep from having to splice even more chips together. Adding UltraFusion connections on more than the one end might be more complex than slipping an M1 Max/Ultra chip into a vertical backplane. If the M1 Ultra is doubled (or more) the required footprint starts to get rather large. Using a backplane construction, Apple could provide equivalent Studio Mac power in the base Mac Pro along with another 10 SoC card slots allowing for a Cray level type of computing system.
My plan would be to start the Mac Pro with a bunch of backplane slots at $10K, $2K (or is it $4K for an M1 Ultra?) for each Ultra SoC card, and whatever memory and storage cards would cost. In some ways I think putting all of this in one enclosure is insane but after the Studio Mac, Apple is designing insane computers and I wouldn't put it past them to come out with an absolutely incredible Mac Pro. We're talking about the M1 Ultra providing 21 Tflops. If Apple really want to blow away not only the consumer market but the supercomputing marketplace they'd need as fast of an interconnect capability as they could design along with software that's capable of controlling many Mac Pros together without using something slow like ethernet.
The current 500th fastest supercomputer runs at ~2000 Tflops using 57K cores. Put 100 M1 Ultras together and the Mac Pro would be back in the Top500 list for a whole lot less cost than anything above it. The fastest runs at 442 Pflops using 7,630,848 cores and 5,087,232 GB memory. It also takes 29,899.23 kW of power and it's using an ARM A64FX 48C 2.2GHz CPU. I have no idea how many millions of dollars (or billions of ¥) it cost but it would be interesting if Apple were able to connect maybe 10 Mac Pros together over an UltraFusion link.
I have no connection with that other than being a viewer. As explained on the video, how the “interposer” is done is the simplest possible way during manufacturing to join two dies: never cut them to start with!
In theory, Apple could have a single socketed SoC on the main board that has the relatively few other chips that are required, but in practice, it may lock them down too much in designing where pins go versus where they’re at on the die making it limited to a single chip generation design, so it’d make it slightly less expensive for repairs, but soldered down chips tend to be more reliable in systems, so it’s a tradeoff.
If all the system RAM and GPU and all the other things now on the M1 series remains on that die, that greatly reduces the number of pins needed for other than ground and power; a large portion of pins on such BGA sockets tend to be either one of those, as electrical needs for impedance dictates where they’re needed, and you can’t provide all the power the chip needs through too small of a number.
I would guess all the Apple Silicon SoCs have a rather small number (relatively speaking) of pins because of their integration, and lower power requirements than AMD/Intel chips on average. Keep in mind AMD/Intel BGA chips have sockets for over 1000 pins for many of their sockets historically.
I’m not persuaded Apple will make their boards with sockets, as I’m expecting they’ve already got final board yields high enough that adding sockets into the mix just adds expense.
Even our ancient 2012 Mac Pros have been running 128 GB for years (and our previous 2009's but we ditched them a while a go)
The move to fianlly break the 128 GB limit with the 2019 Mac Pro was huge (for us & our workstations)
All the other devices hook up (likely) via PCIe otherwise, though not certain about the SSD. This would result in the motherboard with I/O for the base system and no main system CPU or memory on the motherboard, working on the reasonable assumption Apple is going to keep all memory unified for speed and power efficiency. In theory they could allow users to add more processor cards in a localized distributed processing design, where it’s not just NUMA with sockets, but communication over the backplane, which won’t be typical main memory access, and is likely slower than what Apple already has. There are use-cases where that’d work fine, and those that need it, they know who they are. For right now, the biggest constraint for a Mac Studio and big jobs are the 128 GB RAM limit and no slots for multiple GPUs.
I’m laughing to myself as I type up those constraints, remembering as a teenager when the first Mac came out, and being accustomed to 8-bit machines of the day. I didn’t consider what computers would be like this far ahead, that we’d be arguing about the limited upgrade options for a compact machine that by the standards of the day would have beaten all the supercomputers of 1984.
We really should not have to wait for Mac Pro with this. The Mac Studio could offer an SOC/cooling swap right now. The mini tower config makes it a no brainer. Shame. It could be easily done by making the case come off like a jacket - or pull out from the back. It’s simply that apple doesn’t want that for us.
A 2019 style in a smaller form factor would have been nice, even though it would use more desk space:
It wouldn't need the handles at the top and it could have a single fan at the front like in the 2019 that blows through a heatsink. It doesn't need ports at the front either. Apple (Jony Ive) put ports on the front of the old Mac Pros so it's not like it's a new thing but it doesn't look good with cables coming from the front and people who need easier access to the ports can buy a hub:
Internally they could allow for two M.2 SSDs on top of internal soldered SSD so people could buy 1TB and add dual 8TB M.2. Maybe a cube is the design they will use for the Mac Pro.
There is an assumption that Mac Pro users are complaining about things but Apple knows how the votes are being cast with the purchases. Often people talk about the Mac Pro not offering the highest performance but Apple compares the Studio to the most popular Mac Pro configurations, which are the mid-range models.
All Apple needs to offer in the Mac Pro is an Ultra Duo. That will be competitive with most high-end PCs.
That can fit in a cube like the above design. If it needs PCIe expansion, they can add an expansion box outside for the few people who will use it. GPUs aren't going to be needed by most users when they have 40TFLOPs internally.
I suspect they will use a dual stack M1 Ultra. A design like having 4 boards with an Ultra chip each and have one as the controlling board would be powerful but a configurable design has to be practical. It's not likely that people would swap single boards in and out and mismatch them. If they upgrade all of the units, they have effectively bought a new machine and there's not much chance they can sell the old boards.
A Mac Pro with an M1 Ultra Duo would likely cost around $10k. There's not much point in selling $3-4k boards with Ultras on them each when someone can easily buy a new $10k model and resell the old one for $5k+. Because every Mac is based on the same chips, they can all be refreshed on the same cycle, every model can get an M1, M2, M3. No skipping years like with Xeon chips.
WWDC launch, Mac Pro Cube with M1 Ultra 128GB for $5999 and M1 Ultra Duo 256GB $9999.
It can have a PCIe 5 connector for external expansion and a box that supports MPX modules. Most users won't need them when there's so much performance internally but it allows for edge cases and for optical connections if Apple doesn't bundle this by default.
So, something like 4 double wide PCIe slots, and maybe 2 single wide PCIe slots, with both desktop and rack mount cases. It will be compatible with MPX modules. I think it will support 1 TB of DRAM, whether soldered or in DIMMs, I don't know. Obviously storage is only user expandable through PCIe slots, or perhaps they will have the SATA drive arrangement they have for the 2019 Mac Pro. I'm expecting Apple will offer an MPX module with an M1 Ultra or two.
There isn't a benefit for Apple to make another integrated, closed box, especially at a $6000 starting price.
Even assuming 10 bits per byte due to overhead, that’s still 4 GB/s, admittedly not as fast as built-in is advertised as, but you have more than one port, too, so if top SSD/storage speed is the focus, you can do that with RAID.