[chucker]

Originally Posted by dglow Or three Mac minis stacked atop each other? iMac Pro was designed for a world in which the 2019 Mac Pro didn’t happen. Either way, a headless desktop is the compare. xMac 4eva.

The iMac Pro is a better analogy because in terms of pricing and capabilities, it was between their midrange desktops and the Mac Pro.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker The iMac Pro is a better analogy because in terms of pricing and capabilities, it was between their midrange desktops and the Mac Pro.

This is probably true, except that since the Studio showed up, the 'midrange' 27-inch iMac has gone missing.

[dglow]

I hope the iMac Pro is not the best analogy. Like the Trash Can, the iMac Pro was a one-and-done design for Apple, never iterated upon. Great machine, but bad follow-through.
I'm sure none here want or expect a similar fate for the Mac Studio.


Back to the forthcoming Apple Silicon Mac Pro: I'm very excited to see what direction Apple takes; as discussed above, the areas of greatest interest are RAM, expansion, and the GPU. I'll recap my speculation below, and welcome others' predictions along these lines...


Apple Silicon Mac Pro

RAM:
- user-expandable via standard, off-the-shelf DIMMs
- a separate tier from on-package RAM, enabled via an Apple-designed bridge chip
- macOS will automatically manage this new RAM pool unless an app requests explicit control

Expansion:
- PCIe, either 4.0 or 5.0, via standard slots located inside the primary chassis of the machine
- (Apple will not rely on PCI-over-Thunderbolt, external card cages, etc.)

GPU:
- most apps will use the GPU found on the Mac Pro's SoC – like the Ultra, this will be surfaced as a 'single GPU'
- apps requiring additional GPU horsepower will need to explicitly code for it (as is the case today)
- upon reflection I think it most likely that Apple will lean on AMD for Metal-compatible GPU expansion cards
- if so, these cards will use an evolution of the 2019 Pro's MPX standard
- while I'd love to see it, I think the odds are only 1 in 4 that Apple offers a GPU expansion cards with their own Apple Silicon design

[PB PM]

I highly suspect there won't be user accessible RAM, just doesn't fit the way Apple is going. They will just offer higher limits. If it is up-gradable, I think it might be through some kind of add-on card or something, only available and install-able from Apple so it works with the T2 chip.

PCI-E cards, kind of must for the high end work stations, so this just has to be there if there is going to be a Mac Pro with Apple silicon. Question is, who's going to make cards for them? I can see there being very few available, maybe some for direct video importing and such. Doubt there will be any GPU options to be honest, AMD has bigger fish to fry than making a few custom firmware GPU's for a tiny number of machines.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM I highly suspect there won't be user accessible RAM, just doesn't fit the way Apple is going. They will just offer higher limits. If it is up-gradable, I think it might be through some kind of add-on card or something, only available and install-able from Apple so it works with the T2 chip.

They could do that, but it would still have significantly worse performance characteristics that way. At the very least, far higher latency.

So unless they remove the on-package RAM altogether, they'd still have a heterogenous approach.

[drewprops]

The question of whether they build a user-expandable box or a (mostly) sealed monolith is interesting. I hope it looks like Darth Vader.


...

[dglow]

Originally Posted by drewprops I hope it looks like Darth Vader. ...

[PB PM]

Mac Vader Pro, starting at only $9999. $999 for the Vader breath fan and cape stand. Got to pay those royalties to Disney after all.

[turtle]

I would struggle to not justify buying that.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker And yeah, the holidays are only relevant for consumer products.

Hmmm.

[Frank777]

I'm about to buy a used 2019 27" iMac because there's no current machine in the lineup that fits my budget and needs.

But Apple apparently has the time to consider moving into sports team ownership.

[chucker]

I don't really follow what a 2019 iMac does that a 2022 Mac Studio doesn't, other than the monitor.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker I don't really follow what a 2019 iMac does that a 2022 Mac Studio doesn't, other than the monitor.

I'd love the Studio + Display if money was no object. But a Mac Studio with 32/4TB is $4,000, plus another grand - at least - for the monitor.
The iMac is $2100, with the same 32/4TB specs, and obviously the built-in display.

I'd normally buy a new 27" iMac at the lower end of the range. But I don't see anything for me, at least right now.

[chucker]

Hm, I can't quickly find old versions of the BTO options.

But I can't imagine the 27" iMac with 32 GB RAM and 4 TB SSD was $2100. Maybe if the 4 TB was a HDD? But the RAM alone surely was another $400. I would guess that configuration was more like $3700 US. The equivalent Mac Studio (again, US) is $3200.

The monitor… yeah, I know. Save yourself the pain and money and don't get Apple's. Third-party ones aren't as nice as far as the panel goes, but the price is just unjustifiable.

I'd also argue getting a 4 TB internal disk is silly. Yes, it'll be fast, but also not upgradeable. Save $1k and get 1 TB. Then get a Crucial X6 4TB for $260. Or an OWC Envoy Pro 4 TB for $779.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker Hm, I can't quickly find old versions of the BTO options. But I can't imagine the 27" iMac with 32 GB RAM and 4 TB SSD was $2100. Maybe if the 4 TB was a HDD? But the RAM alone surely was another $400. I would guess that configuration was more like $3700 US. The equivalent Mac Studio (again, US) is $3200. The monitor… yeah, I know. Save yourself the pain and money and don't get Apple's. Third-party ones aren't as nice as far as the panel goes, but the price is just unjustifiable. I'd also argue getting a 4 TB internal disk is silly. Yes, it'll be fast, but also not upgradeable. Save $1k and get 1 TB. Then get a Crucial X6 4TB for $260. Or an OWC Envoy Pro 4 TB for $779.

It certainly wasn't that price brand new, I'm looking at buying an almost three-year-old computer


The Disk thing is something I've always wondered about. I've never had my apps on one drive (the iMac's) and my documents on another. And then I hook up a Time Machine drive to back them both up on? That seems a bit convoluted to me. How does that work out in real life?

I don't think you can just ignore the main machine drive and set an iMac to boot from the external, can you?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Frank777 It certainly wasn't that price brand new, I'm looking at buying an almost three-year-old computer

Ohhhh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, that makes sense.

Originally Posted by Frank777 The Disk thing is something I've always wondered about. I've never had my apps on one drive (the iMac's) and my documents on another. And then I hook up a Time Machine drive to back them both up on? That seems a bit convoluted to me. How does that work out in real life?

The Time Machine part isn't really a big deal. It's just two folders, really. One with your internal, one with your external.

Yes, it isn't as nice as having everything be the same volume, but it saves you a whole lot of money and gives you more flexibility to upgrade in the future.

Originally Posted by Frank777 I don't think you can just ignore the main machine drive and set an iMac to boot from the external, can you?

You could, and then get an even smaller internal disk, but Apple's internal disks are very fast, so having the OS on internal does benefit you.

[Frank777]

Thanks. Maybe I will look for one with a smaller SSD and go with the larger external.

[Frank777]

The hotly-anticipated Mac Pro might kill off the Studio?

[kscherer]

That's not really what the rumor states. It alludes to the lack of inclusion of the M2 Ultra as an option, reserving it for the Mac Pro tower, instead. The rest of the Studio line will likely remain for now.

[chucker]

Yeah, it could be something like M1 Mac Studio (Max, Ultra), M2 Mac Pro (Ultra, Extreme), M3 Mac Studio, etc.

Seems plausible to me. Effectively increases the interval to 24 or 36 month for each model, but that’s not really worse than it has been for the Pro in the past…

[psmith2.0]

I'm already completely confused by all the variants and their naming. I have to look at Apple's site to see what's what. Ultra, MegaMax, Pro, Really Pro, Max, Pro Ultra Max, MaXtreme, etc. Man, they make a lot of stuff.

[kscherer]

The P is back! Good to read you!

Oh, hell, try selling the stuff and trying to explain all the Max's and Min's and Pro this and Air that.

It's getting very 90's around the Apple product line, and I don't think Tim Cook has a strong enough grasp on inventory simplification the way that Steve Jobs did. I'm not sure it will end until the Performa line is back with 97 models.

[chucker]

It's simple.

You have the iPhone, and then you have the iPhone Plus, which is larger. Unless it's the iPhone XS or newer, in which case the larger size is called Max, perhaps to avoid confusion with their subscription services. Unless it's the iPhone 14 non-Pro, in which case the larger size is called Plus again.

Likewise, the AirPods Max are larger than the AirPods Pro. They're also a completely different product, but they're also larger!

Then there's the M1. The high-end version of that is the M1 Pro. But there's a higher-end version of that called the M1 Max. Which is the maximum. Except it's not, because there's also the M1 Ultra.

You can get the Mac mini with the M2 Pro and the MacBook Pro with the M2 Max, and you can get the MacBook Pro with the M2 Pro, but you cannot get the Mac mini with the M2 Max, because obviously not.

Like I said, simple.

[drewprops]

Golly crap.

...

[psmith2.0]

Oh, it's a scene, man.

I was trying to explain this stuff to my dad a while back. About two minutes in, I realized I didn't know what I was talking about and couldn't make any real sense of it and just gave up. I just gave the general outline of the product offerings and said "plus a boatload of options within...processor variants, core counts/specs, etc.".

He got an M1 Mac mini a good while back and absolutely loves it. He was asking about the M2 stuff, so that's what got the conversation going.

"Well, it's one number higher so, automatically, it's more gooder...".

[PB PM]

Other than that all the M2 Macs have slower SSDs, yes they are better. Like noticeably slower SSDs, good job Apple.

[Frank777]

Isn't that just the base configs? If you upgrade to the 1 or 2 TB options, don't you get the old speeds?

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, what's the real story here. I've read about how they use a single 256GB SSD in the entry models vs. two 128GB ones as before, and it's slower.

Real-world, noticeably slower to regular Air-type users (in what way, exactly) or is it one of those things the Internet has decided to collectively wet itself over? I don't know, I'm asking. Is it "for certain tasks" or just overall, day-to-day?

What, specifically, is slower? And slower coming from an M1 or slower coming from anything, even a 5-8 year-old SSD-based MacBook of some sort?

These new M2-based MacBook Pros don't do that, surely (one 512GB SSD vs. two 256GB on the entry level).

I assume the new M2-based Mac mini, with 256GB, is doing the same thing.

Is it a cost-cutting thing, because the new mini is cheaper (but the new Air wasn't)? Or is it upsell tactics/shenanigans?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 Yeah, what's the real story here. I've read about how they use a single 256GB SSD in the entry models vs. two 128GB ones as before, and it's slower. Real-world, noticeably slower to regular Air-type users (in what way, exactly) or is it one of those things the Internet has decided to collectively wet itself over? I don't know, I'm asking. Is it "for certain tasks" or just overall, day-to-day? What, specifically, is slower?

The technical answer is that it's one physical chip rather than two running in parallel, if you don't upgrade the SSD.

The effect on performance depends on how oftne you need sustained high-bandwidth file transfers. The answer for many users is probably "not often". The answer for most users who don't also upgrade their SSD is probably "almost never".

You want more SSD speed? You probably also want more SSD capacity.

My only real criticism here is that Apple's online store should clarify this. Change the BTO options from:

256GB SSD storage

512GB SSD storage
+ $200.00

1TB SSD storage
+ $400.00

2TB SSD storage
+ $800.00

To

256GB SSD fast storage

512GB SSD fastest storage
+ $200.00

1TB SSD fastest storage
+ $400.00

2TB SSD fastest storage
+ $800.00

Done. A bit sneaky and euphemistic, but enough to make you realize "oh, the bigger ones are also faster".

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 And slower coming from an M1

Yes.

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 These new M2-based MacBook Pros don't do that, surely (one 512GB SSD vs. two 256GB on the entry level).

They do.

Originally Posted by psmith2.0 Is it a cost-cutting thing, because the new mini is cheaper (but the new Air wasn't)? Or is it upsell tactics/shenanigans?

We don't know if it's a cost-cutting thing; another theory is that it's a supply chain thing, i.e. that Apple has been unable to source enough of the lower-capacity chips.

[psmith2.0]

Interesting. Yeah, I’d probably never notice such a thing in what I do. Anything’s fast to me anymore.

PS - Why am I wide awake at 6:15am on a Saturday?! I’ve got two days to sleep in, guilt-free, and I’ve already blown the first one…gonna be a loooonnnng day.