Anyone else feel that Apple nailed it with the new Apple Silicon machines?

[MVMNT]

There's no benchmarks. '

THey've adopted an iPad Strategy to try and differentiate a linearised spec, that's going to be the model for all their products now to get a "Pro" tag.

No sign of these chips working well with discreet graphics or eGPUs (shocking for any Mac mini users) Will that be an M2 thing?

This first wave of machines is - like any 1st gen Apple tech - a test pool in the wild that they will try and cover the gaps up sooner rather than later.

 

[badawat]

During yesterday's announcement, I got fed up reading all the negative comments about what was being released. I for one felt they had exactly the right approach to this.

They've started with entry level machines, so we shouldn't be comparing to high end specs of the Intel options which are still available to order. We need to compare entry level Intel to entry level AS Macs. From my perspective..

• Entry level machines are typically bought on getting acceptable performance for the right price. They are less likely to be the power users. These new machines push battery life to new levels AND give a performance boost, both of which will appeal to this market.
• Whilst quicker Intel chips remain availablle if performance is your thing, you need to pay more dollar and accept a significant battery life drop.
• As the target market is not the Pro user, any compatibility issues with higher end 'pro' software can be worked on for the next 'x' months as things settle down, ready for the next phase of releases.
• Given the performance bump, the MB Air now becomes a feasible 2nd machine for those who can afford it. You have you max spec machine at home, but have the £999 MB Air as your travel machine that is good enough for being on the road.

If they'd gone the performance route first, I can only imagine the negative comments where people say they have good speed, but no App compatibility.

For me, they did it right. They can learn valuable lessons with the lower end machines so that when they get to the high end stuff, there is less pain to be had.

Thoughts?

I think on the whole in the context of entry machines you are correct. However, I think the Mini is undeserved with x2 TB ports whereas it previously had x4 across all configurations. The Intel version still does. I worry of a future without any IO and the gradual removal of ports seems to be a signpost of this path for me.

 

[MVMNT]

I really don't understand why you are so upset. Yes, the high-end Mac mini was canned. Maybe a replacement with a more powerful chip is coming, maybe it is not. For now the mini is back to it's roots. Maybe they determined that the "big mini" was not performing well. Who knows.

I think the Big Mini was performing too well

 

[GalileoSeven]

For entry level machines geared toward low-end/general-purpose use cases, yeah, this will work just fine IMO. As to the ports, the lack of such is a bit disconcerting IMO.

 

[4sallypat]

Love the first iteration of Apple's M1 release.

Just like the PPC to Intel changeover when Apple introduced them in pretty much the same packaging, Apple did it again maintaining the same Intel cased Macs.

I am looking at the M1 Mini to replace my 2012 i7 quad core that I love so dearly and use daily for work....

Too bad the education pricing isn't as nice as the Pro and Air - it's priced at a measly $20 off consumer pricing ($679)....

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple nailed it with the Air. Much more powerful (especially for the base model, which until yesterday, was still was equipped with only a dual-core Intel CPU). Completely silent fanless design. Instant wake from sleep. These are all very good things for the Air.

This.

- They absolutely nailed it on the MacBook Air. And 16 GB and two ports is enough for its target audience.

- MacBook Pro 13“ seems kind of limited with just two ports, for a (supposedly) „Pro“ machine. 16GB RAM might be OK on ARM, but why offer 8GB on a (supposedly) Pro machine? Touch Bar lovers only, basically. Otherwise, why not get a cheaper Air?

- Mac mini: bit of a dud as a desktop, with the reduction in ports. The move back to a silver case seems a bit unexpected. However, the Intel 6- and 8-core versions are still on sale, alongside the new M1 models. I‘m having a hunch that we might be seeing something like a „Mac mini Pro“ sooner or later, with more than 2 Thunderbolt ports and a(n) even beefier processor.

 

[NT1440]

We can only wait for the professionals to run tests to see which Apple Marketing is truthful and which is creative.

But there are clear architectural changes that make the 1:1 RAM behavior expectations irrelevant.

I can’t wait for the testing, but NOBODY should be under the impression that you need 16GB on the M1 to match the experience of 16GB on Intel. The unified memory makes the usual spec shopper’s comparison completely irrelevant. People are going to be shocked with performance when working on files that are bigger than 16GB on the Mac when an Intel machine is going to choke by comparison. Intel’s architecture simply can’t keep up under than condition, it can’t feed data quick enough from the disk.

 

[Sanpete]

They made it so that there was no clear explanation as to why one would go for a 13" Pro with M1 when the higher-end Air with M1 has the same exact specs under the hood (with the only computing power difference seeming to be passive vs. active cooling). If the Air is just as good, but I'm only sacrificing 100 nits of brightness and the Touch Bar, why do I care to go Pro?

You covered a key difference in the cooling, which will most likely affect sustained power. The prices aren't that far apart, so the features shouldn't be either. (Besides the screen brightness, there are also better speakers, and other stuff you may or may not care about.)

no matter how ARM handles memory it doesn't change the fact that some projects just need more memory. Doing 3D work is one of those fields. You can easily fill up 16gigs of memory with high poly counts, sub polygon displacement and big rendering resolutions. These things just gobble up memory. It's just a lot of data that need to be processed.

On top of that memory is now shared between the CPU and GPU which makes things even worse
I've easily had GPU renders taking 12 gigs of GPU memory which means the system now has to work with the 4 gigs left.

And we haven't even covered multitasking and other memory hungry apps like Photoshop or music.
No matter how you cut it 16GB of RAM is not enough in 2020. 10 years ago would be fine. But now no. It's not enough.

The Macbook Pro and Mac Mini now only have 16 GB of RAM as their highest option.

16 is plenty for most people who buy base models. You can still get more RAM with the non-AS, non-base models.

The ARM Mini only supports a quarter of the memory the Intel Mini does. One quarter. 25%.

So get the Intel Mini if you need more, or wait until the AS chips that will accept more RAM are ready next year. Highly likely they'll stick those in the Mini too.

I buy my computing HW for my convenience, not Apple's. I see ARM Macs as Apple's attempt to exert and dominate their users to the extreme. I've no interest in being constrained like so which is why ARM Macs is not something that interests me in the long run. With x86 I am able to re-purpose my Macs after Mac OS X is no longer supported. Apple wants to get Macs into an iPad/iPhone style upgrade path which is the control that these ARM chips allow them to do. That and Big Sur's UI is a bit of a step too fan in trying to make it look like iPAD OS. As I say, it's not for me.

The psychology of posts here is fascinating. The new chips will sell precisely because they'll be more convenient for many, not because customers are dominated in the extreme.

 

[RobbieTT]

You kind of have to compare that to the total number of cores in an Intel Mac: All those now redundant components that are now embedded.

Ok, 10900K then - you get little more than the 10 cores, some cache, some IO, a barebones GPU and some ancillary functions.

Put another way, the Intel 10900K die area is dominated by the 10 cores alone.

Now view the M1 die in the same light.

If Apple was out to play core top-trumps it could have used the area reserved for the NE as CPU cores. Same for the GPU, reserving all but one as CPU cores. You could probably add the ISP to that too.

Apple has moved way beyond the simplistic 'add more cores' approach with a more fluid design that both divides the functional cores nominally between the CPU/GPU/NE whilst allowing the system to use a blend of each for a given task. Apple clearly has serious plans for the NE given the prominence of these cores in the M1 package.

 

[anthony13]

It was just reported that the M1 only supports a single external display over USB-C, (The new mini has and HDMI port, so it can run two). This means a 13” MBP is limited to one external display. Can we formally petition apple to stop calling it a ‘pro’ now?

 

[Sanpete]

It was just reported that the M1 only supports a single external display over USB-C, (The new mini has and HDMI port, so it can run two). This means a 13” MBP is limited to one external display. Can we formally petition apple to stop calling it a ‘pro’ now?

Because pros only use two monitors or more? I did not know that.

 

[anthony13]

Because pros only use two monitors or more? I did not know that.

Now you do! You’re welcome.

 

[averagenerd81]

I am happy with the lineup.

People being negative is just the reality of the world we live in. Few people are happy about anything because they enjoy being miserable.

The reality is the people complaining about X Y or Z have no idea (just like me) about what these devices will turn out to be. They are not Intel machines so there are going to be some differences. I ordered a 13" MBP with 16GB RAM and I am excited for it to arrive. Let's let the chips fall where they do rather than tell Apple they have done something wrong with zero insight into what they have a full picture of.

In regards to the "Pro" moniker .. who cares. What defines a Pro is so vast that it's just strange to try and say "this is what Pros need" because we're all different. I run two monitors on the machine I am typing this on ... but it's a desktop.

 

[Sanpete]

Now you do! You’re welcome.

One can learn all kinds of fascinating things here. Some are even true!

 

[NT1440]

It was just reported that the M1 only supports a single external display over USB-C, (The new mini has and HDMI port, so it can run two). This means a 13” MBP is limited to one external display. Can we formally petition apple to stop calling it a ‘pro’ now?

I still think this is a confused subject, has anyone actually reported this is the case or is it still idle speculation on these forums from Apple’s VERY unclear listing?

Edit: it appears you can run dual external monitors in clamshell mode, but when the built in screen is on it counts against the two monitor count limit. I can see why there would be disappointment here, but personally I’ve been enjoying one 27” 4K display for work over my old dual monitor setup anyway.

 

[prombough]

Thanks for this post. Indeed, I am sick of some of the negative comments. It seems no one reads the notes on the page which says specifically which Macs they are comparing the new ones too. The Mac Mini was compared to the i3 with same ram. If I can get 3 times the performance than that Mac mini for the price I paid, then I am going to be super happy, but if the graphics are 5 to 7 times better, I will be ecstatic. People forget one basic thing. A consumer (me) needs a Mac mini now, has a certain budget now, sees his iPad Pro rendering video twice as fast as my my 2017 MacBook Pro 13inch using iMovie, so ya, I will be quite happy if the new Mac mini even equals that, but I expect it will far exceed that. I only need two thunderbolt ports, 16 gigs of Ram on a normal machine is fine. I get an educational discount. I don't use other apps. So what else would anyone expect, that I wait a year for another Mac mini. Of course, this is what I was hoping for, exactly. Yes, they did it right for me anyway. I am sure I am not alone.

 

[anthony13]

I am happy with the lineup.

People being negative is just the reality of the world we live in. Few people are happy about anything because they enjoy being miserable.

The reality is the people complaining about X Y or Z have no idea (just like me) about what these devices will turn out to be. They are not Intel machines so there are going to be some differences. I ordered a 13" MBP with 16GB RAM and I am excited for it to arrive. Let's let the chips fall where they do rather than tell Apple they have done something wrong with zero insight into what they have a full picture of.

In regards to the "Pro" moniker .. who cares. What defines a Pro is so vast that it's just strange to try and say "this is what Pros need" because we're all different. I run two monitors on the machine I am typing this on ... but it's a desktop.

That’s a good point, it is just semantics in that regard. I’m still a bit surprised by it however, considering here intel 13” can run more than one external display.

 

[crofford]

Thoughts?

Seriously...how hard would it have been to add a cellular modem?

 

[NT1440]

Seriously...how hard would it have been to add a cellular modem?

I mean, it sure would be nice and long overdue, but with iPhone Instant Hotspot and the ******** with Qualcomm I totally get it.

 

[DNichter]

it's tough... i think for end users a redesign would highlight that the entire computer, including the CPU/GPU were different... BUT at the same time many are fearful of a chip change, starting with corporations who buy these en masse. By keeping them looking the same it actually psychologically reinforces that there is nothing to worry about, the new computers will "work" because they look and feel the same. Apple didn't change the design of the first intel Macs for the exact same reason.

I think your logic makes a lot of sense. Selfishly, I was hoping for the redesign.

 

[clevins]

They totally nailed it not only for the reasons in OP but also because the machines they launched are the ones regular people buy. These will produce the most sales esp in the holiday season since they're the core of Mac sales (along with the iMac). Relatively few people trick out a 15" MBP with as much RAM as possible etc and those people who do that, generally buy new machines when they need them, not because it's the holidays.

Fact is that for most of us, these are really big upgrades. A 2-3x boost in performance and several more hours of battery on the Air and MBP? That's massive.

Yeah, if you are a spec geek, you can pick these to death... and if you truly need 32g or more of RAM these aren't for you. But people who need serious trucks look silly complaining that the mid-sized sedan isn't for them because it can't tow a tractor. No kidding it's not. Your machines are coming.

 

[Jeaz]

It was spot on. Sure, some updates to the design would have brought a bigger bang but this was the safe and sensible choice.

 

[brdeveloper]

It's a great move, and that's why professionals (not the ones who can use even a tablet for work, like lawyers) will keep their Intel Macs or will even upgrade to a faster Intel one before moving to AS.

 

[gnomeisland]

I feel that they almost nailed it. If they had offered a 32 GB RAM option for the 13" MacBook Pro I think they would have nailed it. Then I and many others could have used one for portable needs. The CPU and GPU performance is great, but that doesn't help if there isn't enough RAM to load what has to be loaded. For me that would have been lots of big sampled instruments in Logic/Mainstage for example. Or the occasional processing of HDR panoramas in Lightroom.

Sure I get the argument that they are entry level machines but the MacBook Pro does have "Pro" in its name and is not slow by any means.

I do think they nailed the Air though. Fanless with better performance and battery life? Yes please.

This. RAM for the “Pro” and mini is the big hang up. Personally, I think the laptops, especially the Air are great.

The mini is the big disappointment, probably because it is the system I was most likely to buy until I drilled into the specs. The combo of no built-in screen (duh), HDMI 2.0 (no VFR, no 4k+ resolutions), and only two USB 4.0 (AKA Thunderbolt 3) ports is a let down. If you need one USB-C port for your screen you're left with only ONE for all your other high-speed I/O—yes, there are the two USB-A ports but those don't help if you need to attach a display or thunderbolt device. A hub helps, but those won't give you more thunderbolt ports (that requires Thunderbolt 4) and that's an extra $200-300 on top of an already surprisingly expensive machine.

The RAM is also a let down, 16GB is just not enough for what I need my Mac to do. I get that some ARM-based OSes (like iOS) are better about managing less RAM but if I buy an AS Mac I'll need to run legacy apps which will likely need *more* RAM than they currently use on my nMP.

I'm hoping the higher-powered processor also finds it's way to a Mac mini chassis but this looks like a return to 2014 when Apple decided the mini would be solidly consumer.

 

[Realityck]

I thought they picked the best examples to start a transition, but really waiting for performance comparisons.