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

[widEyed]

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.

When they charge the same price for an additional 8 GB of RAM for the M1 mini as 64 GB of new OWC RAM for the fastest current Mac Pro you know Apple are up to their Luxe (ex-Burberry VC of retail) old pricing bs and it’s not cost reflective, it’s geared to maximise the dint.

 

[widEyed]

Apple makes devices, not general purpose computing hardware. We'll see what they end up doing for their higher end products, but I wouldn't expect them to change course on the midrange and entry level devices anytime soon. The thunderbolt ports on the M1 devices are fully functional, it's a lack of drivers that is keeping some devices from working with the M1 Macs.

Thanks, so eGPUs in a years time is not out of the question then?

 

[widEyed]

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

Thanks for your contribution. Invaluable information. How does that sit with the capabilities of the Intel Mac mini entry level headless Macs?

 

[widEyed]

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

It’s PCIe serialised to run over a narrow bus. And it’s also USB and a bunch of other things. There were reports of external PCI enclosures not working with the M1 mini.

 

[AVonGauss]

Deleted.

 

[theluggage]

I don't think there's a limitation at the hardware level, but until Apple states they are going to support it officially, I wouldn't make any assumptions. You'll definitely have an idea by the time they start releasing the Mac Pro, they might continue the AMD partnership or they may have their own aspirations like Intel and as such may only support that platform.

I think a big part of the Apple Silicon master plan is to take advantage of having RAM, GPU, CPU and things like the Neural Engine either on the same die, the same package or, at least, hooked together with short, fast proprietary links. Also, to have GPUs that are ground-up designed for Metal and other MacOS frameworks, rather than ground-up designed for DirectX/OpenGL/CL/CUDA etc.

Frankly, eGPUs seem to me like a bit of a kludge reaction to the inadequacy of low-power mobile GPUs.

 

[ArPe]

Thanks, so eGPUs in a years time is not out of the question then?

If they do support an eGPU there would be no graphics processing in the unified memory. SGI’s Visual Workstations had UMA but if you added a third party graphics card then the SGI’s graphics chip which used unified memory would do nothing. There are positives and negatives depending on application.

 

[Luposian]

I think the SoC route is going to remain. It guarantees profits, because, if your RAM/SSD dies after the AppleCare extended warranty period (assuming you bought it with AppleCare), you will HAVE to buy a new M1 (or M-whatever) Mac... or pay gobs of moolah to get it fixed by Apple.

This is my biggest concern... IF the memory/SSD dies, after AppleCare expires... what do I do then?

 

[ArPe]

I think the SoC route is going to remain. It guarantees profits, because, if your RAM/SSD dies after the AppleCare extended warranty period (assuming you bought it with AppleCare), you will HAVE to buy a new M1 (or M-whatever) Mac... or pay gobs of moolah to get it fixed by Apple.

This is my biggest concern... IF the memory/SSD dies, after AppleCare expires... what do I do then?

SOCs have less point of failures than separate chips. As you reduce the number of separate components and test the silicon before mass production there is high confidence a chip can last a long time.

At some point in the future, in about a decade, all memory and storage will be one giant pool. You won’t choose between a 128GB or 256GB RAM model and then choose how much storage. You will simply choose the total UMA.

If you have 10TB UMA and your app in 2030 needs to grab half a terabyte for memory then the system or app will create an invisible RAM drive in real time and use it. The size of the RAM drive will go up and down in real time.

 

[Fomalhaut]

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.

Including the rumor that 99% of rumors are incorrect?

 

[widEyed]

not looking for predictions, looking for what is known about M1 mac motherboards and M1 processor family.

 

[widEyed]

If they do support an eGPU there would be no graphics processing in the unified memory. SGI’s Visual Workstations had UMA but if you added a third party graphics card then the SGI’s graphics chip which used unified memory would do nothing. There are positives and negatives depending on application.

obviously the only advantage in connecting an eGPU would be if it's power (and number of display connections) was great enough to overcome the slower data transfer of the TB3 serial bus c.f. the integrated GPU SoC. if it wasn't significantly more powerful, no point.

 

[widEyed]

I don't think there's a limitation at the hardware level, but until Apple states they are going to support it officially, I wouldn't make any assumptions. You'll definitely have an idea by the time they start releasing the Mac Pro, they might continue the AMD partnership or they may have their own aspirations like Intel and as such may only support that platform.

expecting an Apple Silicon Mac Pro to be at least two years away, for so many reasons… lowest production volume, requires most advanced chips, requires most support for 3rd party hardware and Pro applications, so many markets to grab first, intel and AMD (who Apple don't seem to get along with) are still leaders at the high end of personal computing microprocessors, that may well fall, but it wont happen overnight or over a couple of years.