AnandTech: What to expect, based on A14.

[Pressure]

Just reading through this A14 deep dive and seeing what that mobile SoC is capable of limited to 5 Watt really says a lot. Apple M1 is quite the beast.

Apple claims the M1 to be the fastest CPU in the world. Given our data on the A14, beating all of Intel’s designs, and just falling short of AMD’s newest 5950X Zen3 – a higher clocked Firestorm above 3GHz, the 50% larger L2 cache, and an unleashed TDP, we can certainly believe Apple and the M1 to be able to achieve that claim.

 

[jav6454]

While the A14 is limited, the M1 might be unleashed to up to 15W (or perhaps 18W). Remember that phones tend to have smaller batteries and less thermal dissipation vs a laptop.

Also, we need to see if the M1 is based on the A14 design; which in theory it should.

 

[leman]

Also, we need to see if the M1 is based on the A14 design; which in theory it should.

All evidence points to M1 being essentially the same as expected A14X/Z, with added USB 4 controllers and other stuff.

 

[jav6454]

We still need to wait for final confirmation.

 

[Henk van Ess]

Some evidence of that is found here: https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/tech-talks/10859 Apple talks about M1, but shows A14. Posted a few hours ago

 

[KPOM]

While the A14 is limited, the M1 might be unleashed to up to 15W (or perhaps 18W). Remember that phones tend to have smaller batteries and less thermal dissipation vs a laptop.

Also, we need to see if the M1 is based on the A14 design; which in theory it should.

Apple said for the MacBook Air it is 10W. The previous base MacBook Pro was stated to be 15W TDP, but in reality would Turbo Boost to 25W.

 

[JMacHack]

The 16GB of RAM limit was somewhat disappointing to me, but other than that it seems promising. If Anandtech is optimistic about it then I'd say Apple did good. (speaking of which, check the comment section for delicious, delicious salt)

 

[omenatarhuri]

Finding all of this hard to believe. I mean that ARM CPU is an 800 dollar, 16-core chip.

Super exciting to see actual benchmarks when these puppies ship

 

[Pressure]

Finding all of this hard to believe. I mean that ARM CPU is an 800 dollar, 16-core chip.

Super exciting to see actual benchmarks when these puppies ship

Have in mind it is single threaded performance.

 

[jav6454]

Apple said for the MacBook Air it is 10W. The previous base MacBook Pro was stated to be 15W TDP, but in reality would Turbo Boost to 25W.

10W is TDP (Heat dissipation) not power draw.

 

[Dovahkiing]

The 16GB of RAM limit was somewhat disappointing to me, but other than that it seems promising. If Anandtech is optimistic about it then I'd say Apple did good. (speaking of which, check the comment section for delicious, delicious salt)

I don't mean to get too off topic, but the number of people disappointed in 16GB for this chip is surprising to me. It's their low end machine. The target consumers at this price point don't need more than 16GB. For most of them, 8 is plenty. Since RAM is now unified into the SoC, I don't doubt that volume above 16GB would be so small as to make it not worth the manufacturing effort.

 

[thenewperson]

I don't mean to get too off topic, but the number of people disappointed in 16GB for this chip is surprising to me. It's their low end machine. The target consumers at this price point don't need more than 16GB. For most of them, 8 is plenty. Since RAM is now unified into the SoC, I don't doubt that volume above 16GB would be so small as to make it not worth the manufacturing effort.

It's really only Mac mini people that could be disappointed really, as they can't get more than 16GB RAM/2TB SSD/Gigabit ethernet unless they wait (and that's assuming all that arrives next year in a higher end chip).

 

[satchmo]

I don't mean to get too off topic, but the number of people disappointed in 16GB for this chip is surprising to me. It's their low end machine. The target consumers at this price point don't need more than 16GB. For most of them, 8 is plenty. Since RAM is now unified into the SoC, I don't doubt that volume above 16GB would be so small as to make it not worth the manufacturing effort.

Exactly. The max RAM for previous Air was 16gb.

Its more an issue perhaps with the mini and MBP where users could load up on RAM..

 

[jav6454]

I don't mean to get too off topic, but the number of people disappointed in 16GB for this chip is surprising to me. It's their low end machine. The target consumers at this price point don't need more than 16GB. For most of them, 8 is plenty. Since RAM is now unified into the SoC, I don't doubt that volume above 16GB would be so small as to make it not worth the manufacturing effort.

People are complaining about being limited to 16GB or RAM and still haven't used an M1 Mac. We have no idea how well the new macOS will handle under M1. Hence, we have no idea how to gauge how much RAM is needed.

In comparison, iPhones have 4GB or 3GB of RAM and handle all A14/A13 without hiccups. Now imagine those chips at 8GB limits. Goes to show 16GB might be overkill.

My advice to all complaining about the 16GB limit is wait and see how the new architecture and new OS handles RAM and multitasking before complaining. I personally think 16GB will be more than enough given how well Apple tailors its software to the hardware.

Granted these are laptops with more demands, but iPads can be considered a form of laptop (they go vs Surface) and they don't have 8GB or 16GB. More to that, iPads already handle various multitasking abilities on par with laptops.

 

[Joelist]

We don't actually know whether M1 uses the A14 core designs. We do know it is a 4x4 setup with an 8 core GPU and that it has more cache than the A14 SOCs also. Also I don't think the 16GB RAM current limit is a big deal - the vast majority of software doesn't even hit that number and also this SOC has very fast memory tied to a VERY fast memory architecture.

 

[Serban55]

Exactly. The max RAM for previous Air was 16gb.

Its more an issue perhaps with the mini and MBP where users could load up on RAM..

Only with the mac mini, because the base 13" Mbp 2 ports also was maxed at 16 gb Ram

 

[Loge]

Those disappointed about the RAM should remember that we had to wait until mid-2018 to get more than 16GB in *any* MacBook Pro.

 

[JMacHack]

I don't mean to get too off topic, but the number of people disappointed in 16GB for this chip is surprising to me. It's their low end machine. The target consumers at this price point don't need more than 16GB. For most of them, 8 is plenty. Since RAM is now unified into the SoC, I don't doubt that volume above 16GB would be so small as to make it not worth the manufacturing effort.

That's fair, I guess I was expecting some more full-featured(dunno how to word it) parts. Like how the Intel variants were able to drive two external displays instead of just one, or the apparent maximum of two Thunderbolt ports. It seems to share some of the limitations of the A-Series chips, which caught me from left field.

I expect this to be rectified by the next round of M-Series processors, but this also begs the question of how Apple's going to deal with the absurd amount of memory that the Mac Pro (or even iMac) can address. I don't think there's DDR chips with enough density to fit 32 or 64gb on a single module, let alone the 1.5 TB the Mac Pro can address.

I'm willing to say that I should've kept my expectations in check better, and I'm excited as a whole.