Apple Silicon 27"+ iMac GPU expectations?

[jdb8167]

Your statement is true about CPUs, but not GPUs as I have learned from several sources. GPU cores can actually scale lineary like that or almost. Twice the cores - twice the performance. Regarding ARMv9 Apple already uses many features of it as many have stated so there won't be much performance increase from that. It's ARM who is catching up to Apple with ARMv9.

They can but the more GPU cores the more memory bandwidth is required. With the Apple Silicon design using unified memory that memory bandwidth is also shared with the CPU cores. Right now the M1 has about 68 GB/s memory bandwidth which is pretty good for a low power notebook. But according to testing on anandtech.com a single M1 core can almost saturate that total available bandwidth at about 58-62 GB/s. Reference.

So any new cores for either the GPU or CPU are going to be heavily dependent on a new memory architecture too. Within whatever budget the next gen ASi chip is defined for there is a limit to scaling. I trust Apple will get it right but it will be interesting to see how they go about it.

 

[Homy]

They can but the more GPU cores the more memory bandwidth is required. With the Apple Silicon design using unified memory that memory bandwidth is also shared with the CPU cores. Right now the M1 has about 68 GB/s memory bandwidth which is pretty good for a low power notebook. But according to testing on anandtech.com a single M1 core can almost saturate that total available bandwidth at about 58-62 GB/s. Reference.

So any new cores for either the GPU or CPU are going to be heavily dependent on a new memory architecture too. Within whatever budget the next gen ASi chip is defined for there is a limit to scaling. I trust Apple will get it right but it will be interesting to see how they go about it.

Of course! New Apple GPUs will require changes to M1. That's why they won't be called M1.

 

[Jorbanead]

Your statement is true about CPUs, but not GPUs as I have learned from several sources. GPU cores can actually scale lineary like that or almost. Twice the cores - twice the performance.

Oh thank you I didn’t know this. Interesting! Well that is very exciting then.

 

[jinnyman]

With the crazy price of Mac Pro, iMac is pretty much only solution for desktop enthusiasts wanting Mac.

What I hope to see is user replaceable memory and beefed up GPU.
If Apple's upgrade price belongs to sanity level, I'm ok with built-in ram, but I can't even dare to consider how much tax Apple is going to charge going to 64 gig ram.

 

[Jorbanead]

With the crazy price of Mac Pro, iMac is pretty much only solution for desktop enthusiasts wanting Mac.

What I hope to see is user replaceable memory and beefed up GPU.
If Apple's upgrade price belongs to sanity level, I'm ok with built-in ram, but I can't even dare to consider how much tax Apple is going to charge going to 64 gig ram.

M1X Mac mini or possibly a Mac Pro Lite. Those would also be a lower cost desktop solution.

 

[jinnyman]

M1X Mac mini or possibly a Mac Pro Lite. Those would also be a lower cost desktop solution.

Yes I’ve heard the rumors. I will believe when I see it

 

[Homy]

Oh thank you I didn’t know this. Interesting! Well that is very exciting then.

It's because GPUs are good at simple parallel processing and CPUs good at complex serial processing.

Parallel Computing — Upgrade Your Data Science with GPU Computing

A Study on How GPUs Accelerate the Data Science Workflow

towardsdatascience.com

 

[EntropyQ3]

My "realistic" expectation for a big iMac is that Apple will keep using mobile parts for memory to benefit from their existing supply chain and piggyback off those deals for maximum profit. (It also gives some flexibility in allocating resources between lines, but stationary Macs are a tiny, tiny part of Apples business, so it's a flexibility that realistically only works one way.)

Napkin estimation pegs the memory interface at 256-bit wide LPDDR5, or 200GB/s nominal. This could support maybe four times the M1 in terms of GPU performance at similar utilisation of resources.
Performance wise this would very broadly be in line with the current 5700xt for gaming graphics, if coded to the strengths of Apples GPU architecture. If not, it would be more sharply hampered by available bandwidth.

It would however also reduce power draw over current offerings, to the extent that matters much for a very stationary big screen. Should at least be silent, unless they let their designers do something stupid with the enclosure.

What I hope they do is a cheap dual stack HBM solution, and let SoC size grow to 300mm2 or so, yielding performance that starts to approach current (difficult to purchase) discrete GPU performance levels. Still wouldn't have to either cost too much for a big iMac or draw too much power to allow silent cooling in a reasonably built enclosure. But it would be a bit costlier to design. The main justifications would be to offer a clear step up from what Apple has already had on offer for a long time, and thus help justify the price tag, and to offer something that just cannot be done with current PC parts, thus demonstrating benefits to moving to Apple Silicon.

 

[UBS28]

Hello,

I know there's nothing concrete yet. Nevertheless, is there a rumors consensus on what we're expecting from Apple in terms of the big iMac GPU?

Can they make on-board GPUs that are competitive high-end discrete GPUs?
Is it possible that they'll include 3rd party discrete GPUs as an option in the bigger iMac?

Thanks.

It is simple. The 21.5 iMac only gets updated. The rest stays the same.

 

[Jorbanead]

It is simple. The 21.5 iMac only gets updated. The rest stays the same.

Well long-term everything is getting updated with Apple silicon. Apple said so themselves.

 

[UBS28]

Well long-term everything is getting updated with Apple silicon. Apple said so themselves.

But not on the 20th April 2021.

 

[EntropyQ3]

Well long-term everything is getting updated with Apple silicon. Apple said so themselves.

Well, not quite. They will transition but it may not be a transition to exactly the same product matrix.

 

[jdb8167]

Well, not quite. They will transition but it may not be a transition to exactly the same product matrix.

Any speculation about what they might leave out or change—besides the obvious case of the iMac Pro? I’m having a hard time envisioning a new product matrix.

 

[JMacHack]

Any speculation about what they might leave out or change—besides the obvious case of the iMac Pro? I’m having a hard time envisioning a new product matrix.

Potentially the Mac pro 7,1, there’s rumors that they’re working on a smaller tower, but nothing indicates that they’ll keep the big one. I’m on the side that they will keep it personally.

 

[jdb8167]

Potentially the Mac pro 7,1, there’s rumors that they’re working on a smaller tower, but nothing indicates that they’ll keep the big one. I’m on the side that they will keep it personally.

How about eliminating the high end mini and replace it with a low-end somewhat upgradeable small tower (mini Mac Pro)? Keep the big Mac Pro with a Apple designed Apple Silicon GPU(s).

I'm not an iMac person so I don't have a good sense of where that line should go. To me an Apple designed 5k-6k monitor and the mini Mac Pro would be an easy replacement for the high-end iMac. But I'm the wrong person to judge. I probably would never buy an iMac.

To me the MacBook line seems fine with the current predicted updates. Keep the 13" MacBook Air. Next year drop the 13" MacBook Pro. Add 14" MacBook Pro and the 16" MacBook Pro. Maybe bring back the 12" MacBook. That seems to cover all the bases not covered by the iPad Pro.

Mostly though, I just get the sense that Apple wants to keep their line-up pretty close to the Intel generation. Changing one thing is radical enough in changing the system architecture, making wholesale changes to the Mac line-ups is probably a step too far.

 

[ader42]

Apple has a range of Macs to transition from cheap budget Mac Mini to Mac Pro.
They also have a timeline for doing so and a roadmap for the tech they intend to use to do this.
There are only so many large jumps they can do in performance and they have to, absolutely have to, make sure the new AS Mac Pro is on timeline and performance-wise better than the machine it replaces. So we can likely extrapolate back from that a little.

For that reason I see the first AS iMacs using an M1 variant (M1X?), new MBP and MBA later in the year or early next year using M2 with Mac Pro in 2022 using M2 variant (M2X?).

Let’s say the first base AS iMacs are 12 core M1X with a 16 core (M1Y) option for the 27” replacement.

In 2022 they could offer a higher core iMac (24 cores M1Z?). M2 will bring a performance improvement that is not as large a jump as going from M1 to M1X let alone M1Z. Expect an M2 to be less powerful than an M1X. So an M1X would need to be replaced by an M2X - maybe early 2023.

On the GPU front we will have to just wait and see, but the principle of Apple Silicon Macs being ahead of the machines they replace is sacrosanct. I therefore expect big jumps there too - especially if Apple want their new AS Macs to be taken seriously for creative work such as 3D / Animation - and I think they do given how they showed Maya at the M1 launch. I am hoping for twice the GPU cores on M1X as a starting point. Exciting times.

 

[l0stl0rd]

yea same here I hope the iMac comes with twice as many GPU cores but it would be great if 3-4 times more was an option.

Same for the high performance cores and memory.

I will buy one if they do that