Apple please ditch the Mac Pro and embrace a modular Mac Mini

[Oculus Mentis]

Many think the Mac Pro is too niche unflexible and expensive. When Apple said it would deliver a smaller mac pro I wish they meant a modular Mac Mini Pro...

This is not a new idea but with M1, Apple could finally embrace those modern hardware disaggregation principles from the data center into the personal computing arena and finally deliver modular stackable units for CPU, GPU, IO ports, all flash storage and maybe even RAM modules as well: all units connected to each other by QSFP DAC cables.

Think of a Mac Pro family consisting of "mini" stackable units. A CPU module would be based on the unified M1 architecture and have only a power port, a USB-C port and a 200 GbE QSFP NIC: a stand alone equivalent of NVidia Bluefield DPUs. Multiple CPU modules if connected together would act like a cluster. It's a shame that Apple gave up attempts at turning mac OS into a proper enterprise OS.

Apple would be happy to sell modules and users would be happy to upgrade as they feel. In my opinion this stuff would sell like hot cakes among all user categories from hobbyists to professionals...

 

[senttoschool]

I'm sorry, what? Why?

Having completely different computers stacked together and connected by an adapter/cable is far less efficient than just having a single computer with more CPU/GPU cores inside.

In addition, good luck trying to optimize the OS and applications for a multi-computer architecture.

It would be far smarter for Apple to just deploy their SoCs in the cloud like what AWS does and offer rented computer power than to somehow make stackable Mac Minis work. And/Or, just offer a future Mac Pro with 8 - 64 core chips.

 

[cupcakes2000]

I like this idea, I like modular computing in this kind of respect, I do it already to a point, Mac mini + raid array + Server + Apple TV + iPad Pro.

Also if only to see macrumours forum posters lose their sh_t like never before ?

 

[iApplereviews]

I think a modular Mac mini would be quite difficult. The Mac mini isn't any standard size in terms of components and everything would need to be custom.

 

[Lihp8270]

I like this idea, I like modular computing in this kind of respect, I do it already to a point, Mac mini + raid array + Server + Apple TV + iPad Pro.

Also if only to see macrumours forum posters lose their sh_t like never before ?

That’s really nothing like what is being proposed.

The OP is talking about essentially using Mac mini’s as a plug and play distributed computing option. In addition to having graphics modules etc.

 

[cupcakes2000]

That’s really nothing like what is being proposed.

The OP is talking about essentially using Mac mini’s as a plug and play distributed computing option. In addition to having graphics modules etc.

I understand what is being proposed.

 

[Lihp8270]

I understand what is being proposed.

So how is having a couple of devices accessing network storage relevant?

 

[cupcakes2000]

So how is having a couple of devices accessing network storage relevant?

Because it’s not set up like that. The Mac mini is headless and serves macos as an app to my iPad, like a powerful hub/dock. The server serves apps and files to my Mac, TV and iPad, the Raid is high speed drives. Everything is operated via my iPad, which in itself can be taken away and used as an iPad. All is available at all times and each is contained within itself, and each piece can be swapped in an out at will.

It’s a modular system, hence my comment: ‘I like modular computing, I do it already to a point.’

 

[jazz1]

Many think the Mac Pro is too niche unflexible and expensive. When Apple said it would deliver a smaller mac pro I wish they meant a modular Mac Mini Pro...

This is not a new idea but with M1, Apple could finally embrace those modern hardware disaggregation principles from the data center into the personal computing arena and finally deliver modular stackable units for CPU, GPU, IO ports, all flash storage and maybe even RAM modules as well: all units connected to each other by QSFP DAC cables.

Think of a Mac Pro family consisting of "mini" stackable units. A CPU module would be based on the unified M1 architecture and have only a power port, a USB-C port and a 200 GbE QSFP NIC: a stand alone equivalent of NVidia Bluefield DPUs. Multiple CPU modules if connected together would act like a cluster. It's a shame that Apple gave up attempts at turning mac OS into a proper enterprise OS.

Apple would be happy to sell modules and users would be happy to upgrade as they feel. In my opinion this stuff would sell like hot cakes among all user categories from hobbyists to professionals...

Dear Apple....Leggo of your Mac Pro and go modular I would love to be able to upgrade my Mac again!

 

[Oculus Mentis]

Having completely different computers stacked together and connected by an adapter/cable is far less efficient than just having a single computer with more CPU/GPU cores inside.

System disaggregation is already established in the data center (in HPC latency matters a lot and it is measured in microseconds) because technology has reached the efficiency limits of stuffing everything on a single motherboard.

In this context the Mac Pro is an obsolete monolith. Of course not in terms of individual components, but in terms of overall architecture.
A system based on modular components connected via a high speed network fabric would allow keeping some modules in the server room and others user’s desk.

pro users and hobbyists alike could then purchase modules and scale accordingly to their needs or their wallet.

Everything is operated via my iPad, which in itself can be taken away and used as an iPad. All is available at all times and each is contained within itself, and each piece can be swapped in an out at will.

You definitely went the extra mile! I’m not sure even 5G can deliver the network speed necessary to implement this concept today.

I think a modular Mac mini would be quite difficult. The Mac mini isn't any standard size in terms of components and everything would need to be custom.

That’s true but I’m sure that Apple, a company so conscious on design and ergonomics, would find a way to cut itself a niche in both the server room or the CEO office

 

[cupcakes2000]

You definitely went the extra mile! I’m not sure even 5G can deliver the network speed necessary to implement this concept today.

It works as a bodged together system, for critical work I need wires due to latency though.

I really hope for some sort of workable ‘official’ way though. A more fully baked sidecar would help, especially with remote ability - an important key would be to just enable the ability to enable launching sidecar from the iPad side. At the moment if you restart the max you need to attach a screen to access it before the iPad can get in, unless I disable FileVault, which I’m not going to do. Some way for the mac to actually be a dock for the iPad, including shared use of the peripherals attached to it.
A better integration of macos and servers/external drives built in to a better version of the files app, all with proper native remote ability.

I dunno. I can dream.

 

[Stephen.R]

When Apple said it would deliver a smaller mac pro I wish they meant a modular Mac Mini Pro...

When did apple say this?

 

[Oculus Mentis]

When did apple say this?

My apologies. I just realised it was a Bloomberg rumor rather than an Apple statement.

 

[JMacHack]

How about this: single box with some ports on the inside, that way you don’t have to buy external modules. They can connect by a bus of some sort.

Apple can provide ASICs for video acceleration to enhance the m-series processor, and if the “bus slots” are compatible, other manufacturers can make peripherals for networking, expansion, storage or anything really.

Oh, and the ram and storage chips can be on replaceable “sticks”.

The box would allow the fans to cool multiple parts and be more efficient than multiple little fans, and there wouldn’t be cables going every which way to manage, since all the modules would be inside that box!

 

[JouniS]

System disaggregation is already established in the data center (in HPC latency matters a lot and it is measured in microseconds) because technology has reached the efficiency limits of stuffing everything on a single motherboard.

In this context the Mac Pro is an obsolete monolith. Of course not in terms of individual components, but in terms of overall architecture.

In this context, the Mac Pro is half a computer. Data centers usually use Xeons in pairs, because it's faster, more cost-effective, and easier for the developers than having twice as many computers with half the performance each. When the latency is measured in microseconds, it's good enough for network and SSD but completely unacceptable for RAM. Modularity is ultimately the way to go, but it's counterproductive with small computers such as the Mac Pro.

 

[cosmichobo]

Sadly, I can't see Apple taking this idea onboard. Whilst the MacPro does offer flexibility, nothing else in their computer line does. And, if they did offer a modular range of products as suggested, you could guarantee the prices for these components would be exhorbitant, to place it "above" the MacPro in its price point.

 

[UBS28]

That’s really nothing like what is being proposed.

The OP is talking about essentially using Mac mini’s as a plug and play distributed computing option. In addition to having graphics modules etc.

It is a terrible idea. It has already been proven that external GPU's perform worse than internal GPU's.

So a Mac Pro will perform better than one that relies on external "boxes" connected with a cable.

 

[senttoschool]

System disaggregation is already established in the data center (in HPC latency matters a lot and it is measured in microseconds) because technology has reached the efficiency limits of stuffing everything on a single motherboard.

In this context the Mac Pro is an obsolete monolith. Of course not in terms of individual components, but in terms of overall architecture.
A system based on modular components connected via a high speed network fabric would allow keeping some modules in the server room and others user’s desk.

pro users and hobbyists alike could then purchase modules and scale accordingly to their needs or their wallet.



You definitely went the extra mile! I’m not sure even 5G can deliver the network speed necessary to implement this concept today.


That’s true but I’m sure that Apple, a company so conscious on design and ergonomics, would find a way to cut itself a niche in both the server room or the CEO office

1. HPC and cloud companies can do this because they run uniquely enterprise software that can take advantage of multiple computers interconnected together such as simulations or virtualization. In addition, they use extremely expensive interconnects and software with highly qualified engineers to make this all work. Hobbyists and pro users don't need this. If they do, they can go to AWS and get something similar for way less cost.

2. Latency and bandwidth will never match an integrated computer. A microsecond is an eternity for RAM and cache.

3. If Apple does this, they'd have to completely re-engineer MacOS for a very small number of "hobbyists" and "pro users". Rewriting MacOS for something like this would take years and probably hundreds of millions of dollars or more. I'm a software engineer.

4. Imagine a scenario where the A15 SoC is completely different from the A14 architecturally. Now the 2021 Mac Minis can't "stack" with the 2020 Mac Minis without another monumental effort in updating MacOS.

5. If Apple just sells you a Mac Pro with many available PCI-E lanes and SoCs that go from 8 cores all the way to 128 cores (very possible with future TSMC nodes), then what the hell is the point of this "stackable" Mac Minis? Makes no sense. Let's say a Mac Mini comes with 8 CPU cores. You'd need to stack 16 Mac Minis to get the same number of cores but it'd still have way less performance because you can't share cache/RAM easily.

Sorry, this is a really bad idea. There are so many reasons why no consumer company supports this concept.

 

[Varmann]

There are very strong reasons why this approach is used by HPC centers, but not in consumer workstations.

Even the modularization of components like external GPU, storage, etc. has been rather slow in consumer space. If it had been a great idea it would have been a dominating concept.

In reality you end up paying for features you will never use and upgradability that might be rather limited.

 

[Fomalhaut]

I'm sorry, what? Why?

Having completely different computers stacked together and connected by an adapter/cable is far less efficient than just having a single computer with more CPU/GPU cores inside.

In addition, good luck trying to optimize the OS and applications for a multi-computer architecture.

It would be far smarter for Apple to just deploy their SoCs in the cloud like what AWS does and offer rented computer power than to somehow make stackable Mac Minis work. And/Or, just offer a future Mac Pro with 8 - 64 core chips.

In fact, a lot of AWS hardware instances use a similar kind of modular approach to computer, storage & networking with their Nitro cards: https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/nitro/

 

[Fomalhaut]

How about this: single box with some ports on the inside, that way you don’t have to buy external modules. They can connect by a bus of some sort.

Apple can provide ASICs for video acceleration to enhance the m-series processor, and if the “bus slots” are compatible, other manufacturers can make peripherals for networking, expansion, storage or anything really.

Oh, and the ram and storage chips can be on replaceable “sticks”.

The box would allow the fans to cool multiple parts and be more efficient than multiple little fans, and there wouldn’t be cables going every which way to manage, since all the modules would be inside that box!

That will never catch on.... pure fantasy

 

[AVonGauss]

Deleted.

 

[BobHinden]

My take is that the advantage (price and size) of the Mac Mini is that it is a small fixed configuration.

Making it modular would both increase the size and cost. Essentially turning into a new MacPro. For example, adding the ability to plug modules into it, will require a bigger power supply to support them all at the same time. Connector for modules mean a bigger logic board. More stuff probably means a bigger fan for cooling. Flexibility comes with cost and space.

I bought a M1 Mac Mini because it was small and not too expensive. I hope Apple keeps the Mac Mini mini.

 

[Oculus Mentis]

It is a terrible idea. It has already been proven that external GPU's perform worse than internal GPU's.

So a Mac Pro will perform better than one that relies on external "boxes" connected with a cable.

eGPUs are based on thunderbolt connectivity which offers a maximum speed of "only" 40Gbps vs the 200Gbps (and growing) of latest available network technology.

I'm aware I'm only making speculations here but the launch of M1 is a complete paradigm shift that is far too big to be boxed-in the concept of single user, single workflow monolithic workstations.

Outside of the data center, on the consumer and small/medium company space, the "unified" philosophy of Apple Silicon (a single module) together with technologies like RDMA and NVMe-oF (connectivity between multiple modules) finally breaks the need, perceived or real, of upgradeability in favour of modularity avoiding users to buy larger than needed system to future proof their investments.

Apple certainly has the money and the creed to shape the way people produce, consume and manipulate today's exponentially growing amount of data.

In these terms for example the iMac could even become the terminal of a multi user over fabric (for video editing, development, research, AI, etc.) system with decentralised storage, CPUs and GPUs.
The Mac Pro would cease to exist in its current purpose and shape be replaced by modules of various specs and functions that can be linked up over fabrics (super fast low latency networks).

Historically Apple has never been in favour of users tampering with their Macs. Modularity on the other hand, for a company like Apple, allows continued sales of sealed (in both hardware and software terms) proprietary modules that can either replace or be added to an existing platform capable of serving a single user or a whole team.

 

[Quixotic3]

Given the size of the motherboard on the m1 chips it is more likely that a Mac Pro would be made with the ability to add extra motherboards in expansion slots similar to a GPU etc. So same basic idea as having a bunch of Mac minis working together but housed in a large case. The benefit would be easier to have bus speed between chipsets at full speed, non redundancy of extra ports, power etc. and would give Apple an enterprise system that is unmatched in performance, scalability and versatility (and cost ... I love your idea but I don't think it would be the way Apple would go.