Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
14” MBP and 16” MBP disappointing launch
- Thread starter UBS28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There’s no product right now that would need an X or Z branding though. That’s why we haven’t seen it recently.
The reason this doesn’t make any sense to me is that the current M1 chip doesn’t have deactivated cores on it. Meaning if they created an 16-core M1 chip, it would be a totally different chip design. If the M1 was already a 16-core chip that had 8 cores deactivated, then I would understand more.
I think they will do an M1X name, but it may have subsets. So you’ll have
8 CPU // 7 GPU M1
8 CPU // 8 GPU M1
12 CPU // 12 GPU M1X
12 CPU // 16 GPU M1X
28 CPU // 20 GPU M1Z
28 CPU // 28 GPU M1Z
Of course this is all just an example I have no idea what the core counts would actually be. But the idea is that you still have different chip names but sub-categories within each chip.
And then each chip will have set ram and IO limits too:
M1 - 16gb and 2Thunderbolt
M1X - 64 gb and 4Tunderbolt
M1Z - 256 gb and 8thunderbolt
again this is just a random guess to show the tiers.
Actually, don't expect the M2, or even the A15, until Apple actually announces them! They aren't real until they are, and a name doesn't mean anything in a rumor...
My brief counter-argument is that there were dual-core and quad-core Intel i5’s but that never meant that two of the cores in the quad-core were disabled, but that it was a different implementation of the same microarchitecture. Just trying to show that there’s precedent.
I do think it would make great sense from a marketing perspective to have that X differentiator in the name so that nobody gets confused and think the iMac Pro runs the same chip as the MBA, but then again it’s easier for people to read “{} core count with {} Thunderbolt ports” and understand that difference than to read an X and try to figure out what that corresponds to.
As nerdy as this sounds I’m incredibly fascinated to see how they end up structuring the naming of the rest of their Mac silicon family.
That’s why I essentially think they’re going to do both.
The new 16” MacBook Pro with a 12-core M1X chip.
I've thoroughly explained why in other threads. In this thread, I'm the one being referred to in post #11, I believe.
Do you work in marketing or know someone in marketing at Apple? I don’t see why they would put an M1 (or M2 or M3 whatever) in a MacBook Air and also a Mac Pro.
From a marketing standpoint that doesn’t make sense to me. I agree they will say “12-core” or “20-core” when you go and buy one, as they do now with M1 on the product page and checkout page, but I think they easily could do this with any type of chip. 12-core M1X for example.
(1) normal people don’t know whether an X is better or worse than a non-X, or how an X or a Z compare. The x/z/nothing distinction accomplishes nothing with apple’s customer base; (2) they don’t sell chips, they sell systems, so they want to market based on the capabilities and features, not based on arbitrary names of chips.
I’m obviously not going to answer your first question.
The M1 is essentially the A14X. Apple added a Thunderbolt controller. But if you compare A12X/Z to the M1, the setup is similar. So you'll likely see A15 with updated cores, then M2 that uses more of them. Since the cores will likely be the same, Apple may just start specifying CPU and GPU core counts, adding more for higher end products. Future entry level products may get the M2 in the current 4/4/7 and 4/4/8 config as the M1, with say a MBP getting 8/4/12 or 12/4/16, etc. I don't know if higher end models will pack in a more powerful Neural Engine as well, but we'll see.
Exactly! Honestly, the "M1" markets itself very well. I think it's simple and understandable to consumers it's a new technology under "Apple Silicon" not ARM or something else with lots of letters appended. I think it's super simple to give any understandable specs and use M1, M2, etc.
This is true. M1 chip design clearly is taken from the experience with A12X/Z chips, and the package is an application of the very same technology.
Here I am not so sure. I would actually expect upcoming Apple Silicon chips to take a more dramatic departure from the mobile line. I think M1 was a careful first attempt, using the proven technology and not taking too many chances. But I am not convinced that the future generations of Mac chips will continue to use the same cores as the mobile chips. I think we might see them diverging a bit more, while still building on the same platform of course.
If I had a source, i certainly wouldn’t name her or him.
Looking through your previous posts it looks like you have experience in engineering and your source is not in marketing, but I could be mistaken on that. In my experience, engineers don’t typically know about marketing terms before release, but I don’t know how Apple operates.
So my issue with just using M1, M2, M3 is all of the professionals who would complain and get confused as to why Apple is using the same chip design as their baseline consumer macs. The X would denote some sort of iteration on the M1 line. With marketing they could make it clear the X-line comes with X-tra cores for X-tra performance (i don’t know I’m not in marketing so these are dumb I know).
Also the reasoning you give makes me wonder why Intel and AMD still differentiate their categories. Ryzen 3, 5, 7, 9 and threadripper or Intel’s i3, i5, i9, or Xeon. I understand Apple isn’t selling their chips like these companies do, but It also makes me wonder why Apple used the X And Z marketing in the first place? It didn’t seem to confuse people then.
I guess I would just need to see this whole thing you mentioned in actual marketing materials to see how it all translates. I have seen how A12X translates when comparing to A12, but a universal M1 chip always having to specify core counts seems a little clunky to me.
”M1” and “M1 Pro” as so forth. I’m calling it
I found it a bit a of shock that Apple would put a full named M1 without compromises into the iPad Pro but it's a great idea to unify the CPU across the range inside a 10W TDP fanless enclosure. It's just a pity that the MBA remains better value for money for macOS users invested in the technology.
That said, marketing wise, I note that Apple has used the X and Z nomenclature in the past with ARM CPUs going into iOS products to denote extra CPU and graphics prowess in iPads or AppleTV.
What they have never done is deliver clock speed binned variants of specific CPUs. They don't want the comparisons with Intel and AMD x86 CPUs which is completely fair enough.
If you think Apple are going to use custom numbers of cores I will respond by saying that if they do that they'll not be using different numbers of cores across the same products except where binning has produced faulty GPU cores which will be used in a base model.
For example, a 14" MBP might have 8+4 CPU cores with 8 GPU cores and 4 Thunderbolt ports.
Mac mini with 4 Thunderbolt ports might have the same 8+4 Cores with 8-16 GPU cores.
16" MBP might have 8+4 Cores and 8-16 GPU cores.
iMac Pro might go with 12+4 Cores and even more GPU Cores
So by this theory, we're saying that Apple will be declaring everything is an M1 and depending on what product you buy you're getting a fixed number of cores. Apple's binning will see stable product falling into the lower product so the very best product goes into the highest end gear.
And with higher core counts we could see the base and turbo clock speed profiles of specific Macs change - could 12+4 M1 CPUs see lower clock speed or will Apple stick with the same base MHz speed and boost regardless of number of cores?
The confusion quotient could be high with this, My thinking is still pointing towards suffix indicating an on-the-face number of CPU cores while allowing number of GPU cores to be quoted separately.
Eg M1X = 8+4 cores, M1Z = 12+4 cores.
And then quote a number of GPU cores like they do now - allowing G-1 number of cores for a base SKU. All of these CPUs would have 4x Thunderbolt 4 as standard.
Differentiation there allows Apple to set a different standard for clock speed/core count and then allows punters to tell more powerful Macs apart without having to pore over the small print. If Apple have to lower the base clock speed to allow for 12 cores over 8 then they are describing separate CPUs.
We might not see an ARM powered Mac Pro till next year when the M2 comes out. This would be based off the tech that is the basis of the A15 which comes out in September.
It's too early to see what Apple's release priority with ARM silicon going into the future but iPhone with A series CPU will come first because it's nearly the most valuable line. If we don't see the higher end M1 hardware till October - after the A15/M2 comes out - we might be seeing a strategy where Apple aren't going to go with annual updates.
And as opposed to Intel, Apple control the release schedule of subsequent M1X, M2 product. Whatever they choose to call it.
Like I said - AMD and Intel sell chips. Apple does not. AMD and Intel are marketing chips. Apple is not.
And ask your mom the difference between a Ryzen 3 and 7. Or an Intel Xeon and i9.
Right, but that doesnt explain why Apple used X and Z beforehand. They weren’t selling chips beforehand. So why did they do that?
And an M1X isn’t a machine my mom would buy. So it doesn’t matter if she knows the difference. My mom is part of the M1 demographic. Now If I asked someone who buys i9 and Xeons, or a ryzen 7 or threadripper, they would very much be able to tell me the difference.
That’s why I think the name M1X isn’t for consumers. It’s for power users. And to my knowledge every power user I know would be able to tell you at least the basic difference between Intel models.
To your point: my mom wouldn’t understand core counts either. So the other method proposed isn’t any more clear for her. She just wants to know real world examples (which is what Apple does so well on their product pages).
Last edited:
They used x and z beforehand because the idea of using a “phone” processor in a device like an ipad may have turned people off - phone processors don’t have the reputation of being very powerful. And in 2020 they needed to say “this is better than 2019, because…reasons.”
Power users understand the difference between 12 cores and 6 cores. They don’t need, or care, about the chip having the same name. There will be M1s and M2s but no M1x’s or M1z’s. Mark my words.
Fair enough. That makes sense. Whatever it’s called I will be excited about it either way. It’s just fun to speculate and go through the thought process.
Can you share any info on core counts? (Of course I understand if you’re under an NDA or can’t comment on it).
I wish I knew. I don’t. Nobody who knows would dare say a word about anything technical.
Sorry but what is the point of this post? We don't know what is coming or when. Everyone is speculating but nobody really knows. There will certainly be new pro devices coming by the end of year or even maybe next year. I would suggest we wait and see. Speculating doesn't help.