Next workstation-class mac will be called Mac Studio

[Bug-Creator]

because it might impact iMac (Intel and future ARM) sales.

Might be that they have already stopped making anything Intel (except maybe the MacPro) and supply will just run out sometime in Q2.

As for ARM-iMacs, this would only apply to the bigger "Pro" model which might come out at the same time or even later so no sale lost either.

This is assuming that "Studio" will start shipping in Q2.

 

[exoticSpice]

My pal (who i can't really tell yours guy who he is) tell me that, the system he show me is third prototype he got, but the first one that label Mac Studio on About this mac. previous two are just black-box with M1 max system.

Btw the software run on this machine, macOS monteray is still full of bug. According that he suggest we may not ready to get it instantly after Tuesday keynote.

ps. i just give him a link to this thread, hahaha.

What was the name of the new chip in About my mac?

 

[deconstruct60]

The dimension of the box is around G4 Cube, I test in office environment i doesn't hear any fan from that box, it really quiet.

" Dimensions :

9.8 x 7.7 x 7.7

Avg. Weight:

14.0 lbs. (6.4 kg)

Details:

In inches - height by width by depth, (24.8 cm, 19.5 cm, 19.5 cm).

..."

Power Macintosh G4 450 Cube Specs (Power Mac G4 Cube, M7642LL/A, PowerMac5,1, M7886, 1844): EveryMac.com

Technical specifications for the Power Macintosh G4 450 Cube. Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.

everymac.com

That is far closer to Posser's rumor of "3 stacked mini's" than being a "half sized Mac Pro". More like a quarter sized Mac Pro. (so likely a 'spatially challenged' description. If chop all three dimensions it is going to be more than "half" reduction. )


The 7.7 x 7.7 literal desktop footprint dogma is what drives the Mini's footprint also ( and basically the MP 2013 6.6" footprint also. slightly smaller, but same boundary constraint met . ). That was always the potential "Mac Pro criteria" problem here. That Apple would slap some minimizing desktop footprint on the system .

If kill off standard internal card slots then can kill off larger PCI-e bundle provisioning. So a M1 Max with relatively measly x4 PCI-e v4 will "work". If there is an option with a 'plain' Max then really don't have much to work with. ( a kludge of internal TB -> discrete TB controller -> PCI-e switch to get a x4 PCI-e v3 backbone isn't much worth the extra cost. But they might able to get a half length card in there if it was 8x8 inches. ). Hopefully, they don't solder down the SSD NAND ( go with two NAND only blades like iMac Pro and Mac Pro. That will likely eat the potential slot space. Maybe an SATA connector and 3rd party 2.5 SSD bracket; which would eat rest of potential slot space. )

It is good they picked out a different name. Because it really won't be a true inheritor of 'Mac Pro' name. High performance relative to the rest of Mac line up , but likely not really a 'Mac Pro' either.

 

[Bug-Creator]

That is far closer to Posser's rumor of "3 stacked mini's"

I get about "6 stacked mini's" and one has to ask how that space is gonna be used.
The current Mini would have no problem with the thermal output of a M1Max or even a M1DoubleMax.

So if this size is true:
- just leave lots of unused space in there (just like the M1 Mini in it's legacy house)
- some SoC(s?) far beyond the M1QuadrupleMax
- fully passive cooling
- expansion option, but which? Too small for proper PCI-E, too big for just some storage or RAM option (which I doubt we will see).

 

[deconstruct60]

SoC	CPU	P/E	GPU	RAM	SSD	Ethernet
M1 Pro	8-core	6P/2E	14-core	16GB/32GB​	512GB/1TB/2TB/4TB/8TB​	Gigabit/10Gb​
M1 Pro	10-core	6P/2E	14-core	16GB/32GB​	512GB/1TB/2TB/4TB/8TB​	Gigabit/10Gb​
M1 Pro	10-core	8P/2E	16-core	16GB/32GB​	512GB/1TB/2TB/4TB/8TB​	Gigabit/10Gb​
M1 Max	10-core	8P/2E	24-core	16GB/32GB/64GB​	512GB1TB/2TB/4TB/8TB​	Gigabit/10Gb​
M1 Max	10-core	8P/2E	32-core	16GB/32GB/64GB​	512GB/1TB/2TB/4TB/8TB​	Gigabit/10Gb​
Dual M1 Max	20-core	16P/4E	48-core	32GB/64GB/128GB​	512GB/1TB/2TB/4TB/8TB​	Dual Gigabit/Dual 10Gb​
Dual M1 Max	20-core	16P/4E	64-core	32GB/64GB/128GB​	512GB/1TB/2TB/4TB/8TB​	Dual Gigabit/Dual 10Gb​

If the chassis has enough thermal coverage to cover a Dual Max ( 20 core + 64 GPU thermals ) , then it is doubtful they would do a M1 Pro variant. That is yet another logic board for them to so that would leave lots of empty space inside. If this thing is 3x tall as a Mini , then need to do 'something' with that space.

If there is a M1 Pro Mini and there are not internal expansion options here, then that is also too much of an overlap. ( maybe there are some optional internal storage options , but decent chance there is not if the height expansion here is only about 3 old mini's worth. Going to be squatter than an actual 'cube'. )

Likewise with the Dual 10GbE versus. single 1GbE. One or the other. Single 1GbE is so already covered by the Mini. Although for Dual 10GbE they'd need to make case footprint a bit bigger than a Mini. Apple could do a gimmick by copying the iMac 24" thing here so that second Ethernet was on the external power brick. Folks could potentially buy the more expensive power brick to get the second one. So 10GbE standard on case and optional. 1GbE in power brick.


Dual 10GbE will drive up the price, but I suspect probably do want to drive up the price across the board here anyway. Just make that standard. ( or at least start at 2.5GbE. 2.5GbE is standard supported starting point for Intel Gen12 desktops. Apple doing 1GbE in the close to $2K system space is quite lame for 2022. )

Probably starts at Max options. I suspect this is not the replacement for the "upper" Mini and pricing starts very close to $2K (or higher). There is a humongous gap between. Mini and current Mac Pro's. $6k starting points. Apple is going to want to minimize fratricide on the iMac 24" minially and probably a bit of breathing room for the iMac 27". If raise the base of this studio so that "Studio + mainstream decent 27" monitor" is < new iMac Pro 27" entry configuration price, then I suspect that will be close to the starting point. )

 

[deconstruct60]

I get about "6 stacked mini's" and one has to ask how that space is gonna be used.
The current Mini would have no problem with the thermal output of a M1Max or even a M1DoubleMax.

So if this size is true:
- just leave lots of unused space in there (just like the M1 Mini in it's legacy house)
- some SoC(s?) far beyond the M1QuadrupleMax
- fully passive cooling
- expansion option, but which? Too small for proper PCI-E, too big for just some storage or RAM option (which I doubt we will see).

6 stacked mini? I think you are trying to make it a Cube. Not really confirmed so far. If it was in a shroud the only good estimate would be the footprint. If the shroud doesn't have many holes in it for ventilations then would need some 'extra' air inside the shroud to get some better flow through the actual box. ( I highly doubt Apple shipped a cardboard box for a shroud. Pretty good chance this was a "save my ass on NDA" construct someone else came up with. )

The Mini probably doesn't cover a double Max.

Apple's M1 Pro, M1 Max SoCs Investigated: New Performance and Efficiency Heights

www.anandtech.com

The peak max load there is 92W for the package and a full 120 from the wall. 184W in the current Mini case? No.
Apple could shoehorn in a Max if willing to keep the fan noise back at Intel levels. More likely Apple is going to try to push down the noise levels lower. So either larger diameter fan or multiple fans (at slower speeds).

Even if those are "wrong" and it is in the 75W range, then 150W is still really to high for a Mini chassis. Intel's 'low ball' , base-rate-only TDPs are not a complete picture but the Mac model's top BTO of i7-8700B TDP is 65W

Intel® Core™ i7-8700B Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.60 GHz) Product Specifications

Intel® Core™ i7-8700B Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.60 GHz) quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.

ark.intel.com

Even if double that to 130W still short of 150W.



If Apple chooses to keep the power supply internal that will grow over the Mini's size also to cover the requirements for the full "double Max' requirements. Secondary internal drives would only add to that. 8-9" tall would likely mean they have gone for an internal card slot ... which again brings more power utilization even if just "slot powered only" (75W).

 

[Bug-Creator]

6 stacked mini? I think you are trying to make it a Cube.

I'm neither trying or making anything, I'm just referring to the 9.8" height listed in the leaked (or fabricated) spec sheet.

As for M1Max in the current Mini case, yeah that seems to have a similar power usage as the I7-8700B that is top end for the Intel versions. So sure with a M1DoubleMax they would either need to increase the size or move the PSU to external.

Still no need for 9.8" height with a M1QuadrupleMax and active cooling.

 

[MayaUser]

My pal (who i can't really tell yours guy who he is) tell me that, the system he show me is third prototype he got, but the first one that label Mac Studio on About this mac. previous two are just black-box with M1 max system.

I wonder if his name is Serban or something like that?! Or are you him ?!You sound like him, he also saw 2 or 3 prototypes of the "2016 macbook pros"
In late 2015/2016 we had this kind of topic before

 

[randomdude83]

I think you guys are missing the 40 CPU thats been rumored. its likely to show in that Mac Studio for a 256GB of Ram as well.

Also the size being discussed here gives me a hint that maybe just maybe....a potential PCI slot or two?

 

[deconstruct60]

The Mac Studio might replace the high-end 2018 Intel Mac mini, which has a base price of $1.1k; so an argument could be made for Apple also offering models with the M1 Pro SoC (single SoC only)...

That $1.1K start point is flawed because neither the M1 Pro , Max , or "Double Max" can limbo down to 8GB of RAM. The 16GB minimal on that same system is $1299. And that would only if a M1 Pro was going in there which is highly doubtful. The "floor" for M1 Max RAM is 32GB for which the current Intel Mini starts at $1,699. That would be the minimally creditable starting point.

However, if starting with a M1 Max , instead of a Pro , then $400-700 needs to be added on (gap between Pro and Max in BTO). So probably this would start around $2,099.

That is probably closer to the what it will be. First, that cleans out any substantive fratricide for the iMac 24". It probably also clears the entry iMac Pro (with a M1 Pro) also once add a decent 3rd party screen to this "Studio" entry configuration.

Between the MBP 14" and 16" and upcoming iMac 27" and likely M1 Pro Mini , Apple probably doesn't have a problem generating unit volume consumption to drive economies of scale for the M1 Pro die. The more pressing problem is going to be the M1 Max and any double configuration of the Max sized dies. That is where they need the unit volume build. Stuffing Pro sized dies into the Studio doesn't make much sense.

Either Apple keeps the current Mini case and stuffs a M1 Pro and Max in it for a "mini pro" or they chop down the case to the M1 Pro size thermals and do a M1 / M1 Pro class variant. Either way the volume contribution for a "Pro" die volume is met.

Apple set the stage for a $2-3K in-between headless Mac when they jack the entry point of the Mac Pro up to $6K.
That is probably the hole they are probably going to try to plug with this headless option.

If Apple does a $1,200-2000 27" screen ( more affordable than an XDR). then iMac 27" will look like a bargain if the "studio + Apple 27" is > $3K.

The "double Max" will likely be up in the over $3K range. Around $700 for the additional die and bleeding edge packaging and the RAM floor will be 64GB (so at least another $400) for that also.


If there is no internal storage expansion, then 10GbE should be the minimal networking on this thing. That will add to the base entry configuration cost also. [ if forcing folks off onto NAS/SAN storage then it is time to get into 21st century NAS/SAN storage speeds standard. ] . Again, Apple has the Mini for the folks with limited spend budgets. About zero sense if making "another" mini in the line up.

 

[deconstruct60]

I'm neither trying or making anything, I'm just referring to the 9.8" height listed in the leaked (or fabricated) spec sheet.

That was the cube. It isn't "leaked"; it shipped long, long ago. I didn't link in Apple's website tech specs because it is so old Apple appears to have deleted them from their website. (over an extended period of time even support docs die). I doubt Apple is exactly trying to duplicate the Cube anymore than exactly duplicate the MP 2013 container.

The cube had to deal with 3.5" and Optical disk drives. Apple extremely likely will not ship one of those in any of their configurations. Nor a 2.5" drive. Apple is done with spinning rust drives. That is over. (and optiical was over years ago.) Will be highly lucky if they ship something for optional bracket to a provisioned internal SATA port like the Mac Pro 2019. I wouldn't hold my breath on that, but it is plausible.

The other height issue with the cube is that they were trying to do bottom to top cooling. (so needed stand off feet from the desktop surface ). I would be surprised if Apple was still trying to hang onto the Mini (and Cube) suck air in from the bottom solution with this new device. Front to back cooling would be more effective and quieter. If they are abandoning slots even more so.

As for M1Max in the current Mini case, yeah that seems to have a similar power usage as the I7-8700B that is top end for the Intel versions. So sure with a M1DoubleMax they would either need to increase the size or move the PSU to external.

Taking the power supply out of the Mini case doesn't help much. The major cooling flaw of the current Mini case is that the it has the constraints of putting lots of effort into hiding the air vents. For twice as much thermal load going to need to move twice as much air. Given that Apple generally doesn't want to make loud systems that would mean giving up on the "magically cooled by unseen vents" dogma.

That whole "magically cooled with no vents" dogma could end up keeping the "double Max" out of the iMac 27" also if they thin it out in a similar fashion they didn't the iMac 24".

If Apple isn't shooting for a lowest cost case for the "Studio" system they could do the same thing they did with the Mac Pro 2019 front and drill some expensive holes in very high end aluminum to vent this system front to back. If a > $2K system might as well since not charging minimal pricing anyway. ( that would loop in the "Mac Pro half sized" commentary since from front would look more like a Mac Pro than a smooth skinned Mini. ) .

Still no need for 9.8" height with a M1QuadrupleMax and active cooling.

Quad: 4 * 80-90W => 320-360W ... That runs hotter than the Mac Pro 2019 CPU. About as hot as the W-3300 (Ice Lake) would run. The heat sink that Apple runs on the Mac Pro 2019 is relatively tall.


I won't be surprised if Apple canceled the M1-Quattro and went with this case and decided to coast on the Intel Mac Pro 2019 for another year or so. Wait for M3 generation (and N3 process) to go quad and hope to squeeze it into a this relatively smaller 'box'.


P.S. Mini is 1.4" inches (36mm ). 3 * 40 mm => 120mm. So in the ballpark of getting at least one 120mm fan out front. ( or two 100mm fans ).

 

[Boil]

That was the cube. It isn't "leaked"; it shipped long, long ago. I didn't link in Apple's website tech specs because it is so old Apple appears to have deleted them from their website. (over an extended period of time even support docs die). I doubt Apple is exactly trying to duplicate the Cube anymore than exactly duplicate the MP 2013 container.

I like Low End Mac for older Mac specs...!

The cube had to deal with 3.5" and Optical disk drives. Apple extremely likely will not ship one of those in any of their configurations. Nor a 2.5" drive. Apple is done with spinning rust drives. That is over. (and optiical was over years ago.) Will be highly lucky if they ship something for optional bracket to a provisioned internal SATA port like the Mac Pro 2019. I wouldn't hold my breath on that, but it is plausible.

I feel a 3.5" HDD still has a place as a high-capacity Time Machine backup drive...?

The other height issue with the cube is that they were trying to do bottom to top cooling. (so needed stand off feet from the desktop surface ). I would be surprised if Apple was still trying to hang onto the Mini (and Cube) suck air in from the bottom solution with this new device. Front to back cooling would be more effective and quieter. If they are abandoning slots even more so.

Bottom intake fan, massive 2019 Mac Pro-style (widely-spaced fat fins), top exhaust fan; this keeps a good thermal chimney thing going...?

But if we are gonna do front fan intake, positive pressure rear exhaust, then this might be a way to go...?

If Apple isn't shooting for a lowest cost case for the "Studio" system they could do the same thing they did with the Mac Pro 2019 front and drill some expensive holes in very high end aluminum to vent this system front to back. If a > $2K system might as well since not charging minimal pricing anyway. ( that would loop in the "Mac Pro half sized" commentary since from front would look more like a Mac Pro than a smooth skinned Mini. ) .

See above pic...?

 

[exoticSpice]

That $1.1K start point is flawed because neither the M1 Pro , Max , or "Double Max" can limbo down to 8GB of RAM. The 16GB minimal on that same system is $1299. And that would only if a M1 Pro was going in there which is highly doubtful. The "floor" for M1 Max RAM is 32GB for which the current Intel Mini starts at $1,699. That would be the minimally creditable starting point.

However, if starting with a M1 Max , instead of a Pro , then $400-700 needs to be added on (gap between Pro and Max in BTO). So probably this would start around $2,099.

That is probably closer to the what it will be. First, that cleans out any substantive fratricide for the iMac 24". It probably also clears the entry iMac Pro (with a M1 Pro) also once add a decent 3rd party screen to this "Studio" entry configuration.

Between the MBP 14" and 16" and upcoming iMac 27" and likely M1 Pro Mini , Apple probably doesn't have a problem generating unit volume consumption to drive economies of scale for the M1 Pro die. The more pressing problem is going to be the M1 Max and any double configuration of the Max sized dies. That is where they need the unit volume build. Stuffing Pro sized dies into the Studio doesn't make much sense.

Either Apple keeps the current Mini case and stuffs a M1 Pro and Max in it for a "mini pro" or they chop down the case to the M1 Pro size thermals and do a M1 / M1 Pro class variant. Either way the volume contribution for a "Pro" die volume is met.

Apple set the stage for a $2-3K in-between headless Mac when they jack the entry point of the Mac Pro up to $6K.
That is probably the hole they are probably going to try to plug with this headless option.

If Apple does a $1,200-2000 27" screen ( more affordable than an XDR). then iMac 27" will look like a bargain if the "studio + Apple 27" is > $3K.

The "double Max" will likely be up in the over $3K range. Around $700 for the additional die and bleeding edge packaging and the RAM floor will be 64GB (so at least another $400) for that also.


If there is no internal storage expansion, then 10GbE should be the minimal networking on this thing. That will add to the base entry configuration cost also. [ if forcing folks off onto NAS/SAN storage then it is time to get into 21st century NAS/SAN storage speeds standard. ] . Again, Apple has the Mini for the folks with limited spend budgets. About zero sense if making "another" mini in the line up.

I mean you don't have to go with Apples display if you brought a headless Mac

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Given how small the heat spreaders and fans are on the latest MBPs - which are for just one M1 Pro/Max chip - I can’t see why Apple would go for a quarter size machine, like in the mock-up being floated around. From an economy standpoint it would make much more sense to use the ‘Mini’ sized enclosure for all M-series chips, with customers using BTO to max it out. Heck, they could probably just fill the space with a huge heat sink and go fanless for the M1 at least.

If this smaller Mac Studio/Pro does turn out to be true, then I can only guess that it will include a small number of PCiE slots for regular (non-MPX) cards.

 

[deconstruct60]

I feel a 3.5" HDD still has a place as a high-capacity Time Machine backup drive...?

The 3.5" HDD space in the Mac Pro 2019 came for "free" because there was empty space "behind" the CPU head sink on the logicboard ( and the RAM was on the bottom also. ). [as long as willing to let Apple blow heated air all over your 3.5" drives. ].

If the width and depth have been almost cut in half and the height even more dramatically chopped off then probably not much extra free space left. The RAM has shifted to the front side. Likely means the SoC NAND chips did also (and the backside blower killed off to save height/width). Very good chance that all that free space is mostly gone. A single 2.5" drive is significantly small than a 3.5" drive so perhaps enough space to squeeze that in. But I suspect the heat sink for the "double Max + RAM packages " is going to be bigger than folks think. If Apple pulled the power supply out then thats more wiggle room.

Scratch , working set, cache drive would be more useful than Time Machine. However, it is a somewhat common idiom from the Mac Pro 2007-2012 days of internal drive. APFS has snapshots built in. Don't really need Time Machine as much for short term snapshot errors

Bottom intake fan, massive 2019 Mac Pro-style (widely-spaced fat fins), top exhaust fan; this keeps a good thermal chimney thing going...?

If I was apple I would be trying to put the "trash can" methphor behind me as the go to nickname.

But if we are gonna do front fan intake, positive pressure rear exhaust, then this might be a way to go...?

No where near that tall, but yes same kind of relatively expensive holes.

 

[Boil]

Scratch , working set, cache drive would be more useful than Time Machine.

I was thinking purely from a "regular back-ups" point-of-view...?

If I was apple I would be trying to put the "trash can" methphor behind me as the go to nickname.

Fair enough...!

No where near that tall, but yes same kind of relatively expensive holes.

Gotta have the height, gotta have my Cube...! ;^p

Imagine G4 Cube-sized chassis, but like the pic I posted earlier...

Vertical double-sided mobo on left wall of chassis; SoC, RAM, SSD chips on inner side; user accessible storage connections (M.2 NVMe/SATAIII) on other side...

Mac mini-style PSU on right wall of chassis...

200mm front intake fan, rear positive pressure exhaust, 2019 Mac Pro-style heat sink (wide-spaced fat fins) filling remaining interior volume between mobo & PSU...

 

[Boil]

 

[Amethyst]

Guys, my pal tell me one interesting info.

There are one unreleased 38 core Mac Pro prototype, he has been tested last year,

 

[Boil]

Guys, my pal tell me one interesting info.

There are one unreleased 38 core Mac Pro prototype, he has been tested last year,

38 core what...? CPU, GPU, combination...? Monolithic die, chiplets, multi SoC...?

 

[MayaUser]

Guys, my pal tell me one interesting info.

There are one unreleased 38 core Mac Pro prototype, he has been tested last year,

yea and my pal tested 138 core mac pro prototype 2 years ago...

 

[MayaUser]

38 core what...? CPU, GPU, combination...? Monolithic die, chiplets, multi SoC...?

i think he is just guessing, there is no source from him, no nothing, lets wait until Tomorrow

 

[Amethyst]

38 core what...? CPU, GPU, combination...? Monolithic die, chiplets, multi SoC...?

I'm so sorry i doesn't check that some passage in my post is dissapear.

There are one unreleased 38 core Mac Pro prototype, he has been tested last year, this just like spec update from current. the cpu is 1 x 38-cores intel xeon, with w6800xt MPX module.

 

[exoticSpice]

i think he is just guessing, there is no source from him, no nothing, lets wait until Tomorrow

how can he be guessing when OP reported the Mac Studio name before anyone did.

 

[exoticSpice]

I'm so sorry i doesn't check that some passage in my post is dissapear.

There are one unreleased 38 core Mac Pro prototype, he has been tested last year, this just like spec update from current. the cpu is 1 x 38-cores intel xeon, with w6800xt MPX module.

Yeah that makes sense. an update to the Intel Mac Pro is due too.

Also do you think the Mac Studio will come out in this march event?

 

[Amethyst]

i think he is just guessing, there is no source from him, no nothing, lets wait until Tomorrow

It's more than OK, to not believe in my post because i can not tell you about who is my source.