Does on SoC RAM and lack of PCIe over TB a signal Apple is moving to a more closed hardware architecture?

[widEyed]

The A$300 extra (US$200) for 8->16 GB on chip RAM suggests Apple tax in play, can only imagine what a 64 GB 1/2 sized Mac Pro might be going to cost (yeah I read all the commentary about compressed instruction code making RAM requirements lower on M1 but large video and audio data is hard to compress any more (losslessly that is)).


no PCIe over TB3 like the current Intel mini, Pros and iMacs is possibly just in the works and not considered relevant to the lowest Macs in the new range. But A/V/3D pros need these options to interface with their audio racks and Blackmagic Design type of 4K+ multichannel encoders/decoders.

also what do the tech heads know about the bus that comes off the M1 to the internal SSD? Is there potential for multi-M1x chip high end Macs sharing data cia a high speed bus and shared motherboard RAM? (Knowing that Intel and AMD design a huge varient of chips and have many customers at all levels while for iOS Apple has only designed one or two for each iteration of hardware designs for phones and iPads). Is there potential for on chip RAM and conventional motherboard RAM like we see in Intel Macs as an intermediate level of memory between M1 SoC and the SDD / Ethernet based storage?

I was holding off on an i7 Mac mini for video and live-streaming for the Apple silicon announcement. The no PCIe isn’t entirely a dealbreaker (disappointing as wanted to add eGPU and option to add BMD 4K decklink card on seperate TB buses which means 4 TB ports not two on Intel Macs). I could upgrade in a year if that’s on the cards with a higher end mini or 16” MBP or even half sized Mac Pro.

 

[Erehy Dobon]

Probably too early to come to a conclusion. Apple did say that Apple Silicon on Macs would be a family of processors and that this would be a two-year transition.

Trying to predict what Apple will do has always been a very perilous game.

My guess is that we will have a slightly clear picture a year from now. I wouldn't bet anything on anyone's predictions right now.

99% of Apple rumors are incorrect and have been for years.

 

[macfanboy]

What leads you to believe PCIe over TB3 is not supported? eGPUs aren't supported because drivers don't exist for the Apple Silicon architecture

 

[widEyed]

Understood. I thought at least people who know a lot about processors and motherboards might be able to comment on the motherboard bus situation?

 

[widEyed]

What leads you to believe PCIe over TB3 is not supported? eGPUs aren't supported because drivers doesn't exist for the Apple Silicon architecture

That’s what people in the field are saying. And eGPU over TB/PCIe has been tested (and failed) by lots of reviewers and I think even precluded for this range of M1 Macs by Apple spokespeople. Any news of PCIe success over TB3 on M1?

 

[Erehy Dobon]

Again, probably too early to come to a conclusion. Support can be added later via software.

 

[AVonGauss]

Deleted.

 

[ght56]

Has anyone reported using any M1 Mac with an external TB3-NVMe SSD? Correct me if I am wrong, but if one of those SSDs work, then that would answer the question?

 

[NT1440]

I think the M1 shows Apple designed their entry level machines to be entry level.

 

[ArPe]

PCIe is part of Thunderbolt, there’s no loss there. If you connect a Thunderbolt eGPU enclosure with USB ports you will have access to the USB ports. If you don’t have GPU drivers and install an NVME or other type of SSD card in the PCIe slot it will work as normal.

 

[DeanL]

Has anyone reported using any M1 Mac with an external TB3-NVMe SSD? Correct me if I am wrong, but if one of those SSDs work, then that would answer the question?

I have one myself and it works... I think OP is lost. Thunderbolt IS PCIe.

 

[leman]

The A$300 extra (US$200) for 8->16 GB on chip RAM suggests Apple tax in play

If I am not mistaken this is the same upgrade price as before?

no PCIe over TB3 like the current Intel mini, Pros and iMacs

Of course they have PCI-e over TB3. That's like the entire point of having TB3 support.

Is there potential for multi-M1x chip high end Macs sharing data cia a high speed bus and shared motherboard RAM?

Why would you want to do that? You'd be killing performance.

Is there potential for on chip RAM and conventional motherboard RAM like we see in Intel Macs as an intermediate level of memory between M1 SoC and the SDD / Ethernet based storage?

What would be the purpose? This would be making the system more complex and more expensive for no benefit whatsoever.

 

[ww1971]

Has anyone reported using any M1 Mac with an external TB3-NVMe SSD? Correct me if I am wrong, but if one of those SSDs work, then that would answer the question?

depends if there are the drivers for it. If not it will be sometime away

 

[Gnattu]

no PCIe over TB3 like the current Intel mini

Wrong. Thunderbolt function is basically "PCIe over USB-C", what's the point for not having PCIe? If there is no PCIe, most Thunderbolt docks will not even function.

also what do the tech heads know about the bus that comes off the M1 to the internal SSD

Unlike most PC, Apple's SSD controller is integrated in the SOC. The bus from SOC to NAND Flash is definitely not PCIe, but they are doing this since T2-equipped macs. T2 function as the SSD controller in those macs. But CPU to T2 is still on PCIe. M1's intra-soc bus is harder to learn about, but it is not slower than PCIe T2 SSD, so whatever it uses, it is not "worse" anyway. As long as we have T2, we will not able to replace the internal SSD with a non-Apple one in most macs. This is not new to M1.

Is there potential for on chip RAM and conventional motherboard RAM like we see in Intel Macs as an intermediate level of memory between M1 SoC and the SDD / Ethernet based storage

This is totally up to Apple. To be honest, I'm also interested in how Apple would scale their SOCs. The M1 is not a scalable chip at all to me. The on-package LPDDR RAM are not available in modules anyway, but regular DDR RAM are. If you want to scale with mult-chiplets and using on-package RAM, the latency inconsistency between "local RAM" and "remote RAM" will require a lot of engineering time to deal with.

Apple is moving to a more closed hardware architecture​

Yes, they are always closed, even when they are still on Intel. The T2 chip made Intel Macs "more closed" already.
On iOS, even software is closed, all Apps must be approved by Apple to be available on this platform, or you have to use some unsupported methods to "make it work". I personally not a big fan of this, and I think it limits the potential for very powerful devices like the iPad Pros, but it's Apple's style. If some day, Apple closed the Macs like iPads, I will not buy Macs.

 

[ww1971]

This is totally up to Apple. To be honest, I'm also interested in how Apple would scale their SOCs. The M1 is not a scalable chip at all to me. The on-package LPDDR RAM are not available in modules anyway, but regular DDR RAM are. If you want to scale with mult-chiplets and using on-package RAM, the latency inconsistency between "local RAM" and "remote RAM" will require a lot of engineering time to deal with.

the general rule with the systems on chip is that people cannot add more RAM once the system is bought. With intel systems people had the choice of whether to add more ram or not. And SDDs cannot be replaced either on SOCs

 

[Gnattu]

the general rule with the systems on chip is that people cannot add more RAM once the system is bought. With intel systems people had the choice of whether to add more ram or not. And SDDs cannot be replaced either on SOCs

It is up to Apple if they want you to add more RAM or replace SSDs on their machine, not the technology they are using.

MacBooks have non-upgradable RAM and SSD for years despite "possibilities with technology" using Intel processors.

And no, SOCs can let you upgrade RAMs or let you to replace SSDs. Apple choose to use integrated SSD controllers and on-package RAM does not mean SOCs can only use on-package RAM or integrated SSDs.

It was Apple, not the underlying technology, decided not to make a user upgradable system. There are so many ARM SOC boards having user-accessible memory, storage and even PCIe slots like this one.

 

[Pressure]

Technically if you own a very, very expensive BGA soldering station you could swap the LPDDR modules out with higher capacities ones.

I believe a 32GB IC is like €50 each from mouser.

 

[Gnattu]

Technically if you own a very, very expensive BGA soldering station you could swap the LPDDR modules out with higher capacities ones.

I believe a 32GB IC is like €50 each from mouser.

There is no single package 32GByte LPDDR4X IC. The 32Gb usually labelled are bits not bytes. 32Gbit = 32 /8 Gbyte = 4GB. You are not upgrading as two of these will add up to 8GB which is, the base configuration for M1 Macs.

 

[Pressure]

There is no single package 32GByte LPDDR4X IC. The 32Gb usually labelled are bits not bytes. 32Gbit = 32 /8 Gbyte = 4GB. You are not upgrading as two of these will add up to 8GB which is, the base configuration for M1 Macs.

They use normal LPDDR4 (without the X).

Micron has 16GB / 24GB and 32GB LPDDR4 ICs although Apple uses SK Hynix (at least from the part number ifixit have taken).

 

[cgsnipinva]

I am not sure Apple is looking to move to a closed environment. I think their goal is to develop a platform that allows them the most flexibility and scale to deliver features across platforms that differentiate them from the competition. That might result in a "closed system" but not necessarily as their prime objective.

People look to the post purchase upgradeability of RAM as their main concern, but I see Apple being able to offer a variety of RAM choices on their M processors as yields and volumes improve. Given this is a SOC approach - there are development vectors that we don't know about that will make the value proposition of a closed system attractive.

 

[Gnattu]

They use normal LPDDR4 (without the X).

Micron has 16GB / 24GB and 32GB LPDDR4 ICs although Apple uses SK Hynix (at least from the part number ifixit have taken).

They are using LPDDR4X, according to ifixit.
According to Micron, their LPDDR4 ICs are ranging from 4Gb to 96Gb , which is 512MB to 12GB translated to bytes. 32GBytes LPDDR4 ICs do not exist.

 

[theluggage]

no PCIe over TB3 like the current Intel mini, Pros and iMacs is possibly just in the works and not considered relevant to the lowest Macs in the new range.

As others have said, the M1 has PCIe over TB3. TB3 without PCIe over TB3 isn't TB3.

The issue is the lack of drivers. Some PCIe devices work with generic drivers already built-in to MacOS, others need third-party drivers which will need to be updated for both Big Sur and Apple Silicon. Things like A/V interfaces that need specialised drivers should work once the manufacturers have got around to updating their drivers. Of course, some manufacturers have gone bust, or won't update their older drivers if they think they have half a chance of selling you a new device - but that happens to some extent with every MacOS release.

Then there are eGPU drivers which Apple doesn't currently seem inclined to support at all.

As for things like expandable RAM, SSD and PCIe slots in desktops - Apple have always been somewhat opposed to those, and are unlikely to change. I doubt we'll see PCIe slots in machines below the Mac Pro price level , on-board SSDs have always been proprietary rather than M.2 and the introduction of the T2 as the primary disc controller sealed that. The "RAM hatch" on the iMac has been living on borrowed time because Apple never got round to re-designing the iMac - and I sadly suspect that where machines like the Mac Mini have socketed RAM (that you have to dismantle the machine to get near) it is because it suits Apple's logistics for those models to add RAM after fabrication.

On the flipside, the M1 is Apple's entry level chip for ultraportables - giving it external PCIe or expandable RAM would have been overkill for that market - and if you look at competing ultraportables like the Dell XPS, MS Surface Laptop etc. then a choice of 8GB or 16BG of soldered-in LPDDR RAM and nothing more is par for the course. You can't get LPDDR4 RAM in DIY plug-in form, anyway - and it gets a speed boost by being soldered in with very short links to the CPU. When the higher-end Macs start coming out, I'd expect to see something a bit different.

In a sense, Apple's "non-upgradeable" policy is more defensible when you're getting the speed/efficiency advantage of having all the major components in the same IC package, or even the same die. If you're worried about the penguins - look at the size of the logic board in the M1 Mac Mini c.f. a handful of RAM SODIMMS (...and the extra socketry and PCB area to make them replaceable). Maybe its better to keep the M1 Mini as a working computer and repurpose it than upgrade it - a chain which always ends with a bunch of old components being thrown away.

 

[Pressure]

They are using LPDDR4X, according to ifixit.
According to Micron, their LPDDR4 ICs are ranging from 4Gb to 96Gb , which is 512MB to 12GB translated to bytes. 32GBytes LPDDR4 ICs do not exist.

Then I stand corrected

 

[ght56]

I have one myself and it works... I think OP is lost. Thunderbolt IS PCIe.

I think that proves it then lol

I thought the initial post was kind of strange

 

[widEyed]

I think that proves it then lol

I thought the initial post was kind of strange

There was commentary that PCIe devices (not least eGPUs which Apple has already stated “no dice” on at launch) were not going to be working on PCIe. TB3 is a number of I/O standards in one. You can use USB 2 drives over it.

but I stand corrected. Be excellent see links or hear first hand knowledge of BlackMagic Design Decklink cards in external PCI housing working is be glad to know. M1’s internal GPU and high speed links to CPU and RAm might be good enough to cope with the Decklink 4K multichannel streams of video I/O.