Hacker News Reader

Comment by lauritz | Hacker News Reader

They update the Studio to M3 Ultra now, so M4 Ultra can presumably go directly into the Mac Pro at WWDC? Interesting timing. Maybe they'll change the form factor of the Mac Pro, too?

Additionally, I would assume this is a very low-volume product, so it being on N3B isn't a dealbreaker. At the same time, these chips must be very expensive to make, so tying them with luxury-priced RAM makes some kind of sense.

View on HN

Interestingly, Apple apparently confirmed to a French website that M4 lacks the interconnect required to make an "Ultra" [0][1], so contrary to what I originally thought, they maybe won't make this after all? I'll take this report with a grain of salt, but apparently it's coming directly from Apple.

Makes it even more puzzling what they are doing with the M2 Mac Pro.

[0] https://www.numerama.com/tech/1919213-m4-max-et-m3-ultra-let...

[1] More context on Macrumors: https://www.macrumors.com/2025/03/05/apple-confirms-m4-max-l...

Apple says that not every generation will get an “Ultra” variant: https://arstechnica.com/apple/2025/03/apple-announces-m3-ult...

My understanding was that Apple wanted to figure out how to build systems with multi-SOCs to replace the Ultra chips. The way it is currently done means that the Max chips need to be designed around the interconnect. Theoretically speaking, a multi-SOC setup could also scale beyond two chips and into a wider set of products.

I'm not sure if multi-SoC is possible because having 2 GPUs together such that the OS sees it as one big GPU is not very possible if the SoCs are separated.

Ultra is already two big M3 chips coupled through an interposer. Apple is curiously not going the way of chiplets like the big CPU crowd is.

Honestly I don't think we'll see the M4 Ultra at all this year. That they introduced the Studio with an M3 Ultra tells me M4 Ultras are too costly or they don't have capacity to build them.

And anyway, I think the M2 Mac Pro was Apple asking customers "hey, can you do anything interesting with these PCIe slots? because we can't think of anything outside of connectivity expansion really"

RIP Mac Pro unless they redesign Apple Silicon to allow for upgradeable GPUs.

> Maybe they'll change the form factor of the Mac Pro, too?

Either that or kill the Mac Pro altogether, the current iteration is such a half-assed design and blatantly terrible value compared to the Studio that it feels like an end-of-the-road product just meant to tide PCIe users over until they can migrate everything to Thunderbolt.

They recycled a design meant to accommodate multiple beefy GPUs even though GPUs are no longer supported, so most of the cooling and power delivery is vestigial. Plus the PCIe expansion was quietly downgraded, Apple Silicon doesn't have a ton of PCIe lanes so the slots are heavily oversubscribed with PCIe switches.

I've always maintained that the M2 Mac Pro was really a dev kit for manufacturers of PCI parts. It's such a meaningless product otherwise.

IMO they had plans for a Mac Pro chip that didn’t work out, so they released the M2 version to let their Mac Pro customers know that they’re still committed to the product in the Apple Silicon era.

Could be. I'm not sure if this current incarnation of the Mac Pro signals a commitment to the product though. Same performance as the Mac Studio but 2-3x the price just to get PCI slots.

I agree. Nonetheless, I agree with Siracusa that the Mac Pro makes sense as a "halo car" in the Mac lineup.

I just find it interesting that you can currently buy a M2 Ultra Mac Pro that is weaker than the Mac Studio (for a comparable config) at a higher price. I guess it "remains a product in their lineup" and we'll hear more about it later.

Additionally: If they wanted to scrap it down the road, why would they do this now?

The current Mac Pro is not a "halo car". It's a large USB-A dongle for a Mac Studio.

Agree with this, and it doesn't seem like it's a priority for Apple to bring the kind of expandability back any time soon.

Maybe they can bring back the trash can.

Isn't the Mac Studio the new trash can? I can't think of how a non-expandable Mac Pro could be meaningfully different to the Studio unless they introduce an even bigger chip above the Ultra.

> Mac Studio the new trash can?

Indeed, and tbh it really commits even more to the non-expandability that the Trashcan's designers seemed to be going for. After all, the Trashcan at least had replaceable RAM and storage. The Mac Studio has proprietary storage modules for no reason aside from Apple's convenience/profits (and of course the 'integrated' RAM which I'll charitably assume was done for altruistic reasons because of how it's "shared.")

The difference is that today users are accepting modern Macs where they rejected the Trashcan. I think it's because Apple's practices have become more widespread anyway*, and certain parts of the strategy like the RAM thing at least have upsides. That, and the thermals are better because the Trashcan's thermal design was not fit for purpose.

* I was trying to fix a friend's nice Lenovo laptop recently -- it turned out to just have some bad RAM, but when we opened it up we found it was soldered :(

Oh yea I wasn't clear I just meant bring back the design - agree the studio basically is the trash can.

The Mac Pro could exist as a PCIe expansion slot storage case that accepts a logic board from the frequently updated consumer models. Or multiple Mac Studio logic boards all in one case with your expansion cards all working together.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com