Apple Silicon Timeline (Gurman)

[JMacHack]

The funny thing is that the LTT video on the M1 Air concluded that Apple did it right …

LTT knows the YouTube algorithm game and plays it. And their videos shouldn’t be taken as gospel as such.

It's not even necessarily malice. For example, every PC gamer is convinced they know more about cooling Macbook Airs because of that Linus video.

Dunning-Kruger effect, the people who comment the most on it are the same who don’t have a full grasp of the subject.

 

[appleArticulate]

In the latest MacRumors Podcast, Mark Gurman discussed the original timeline for Apple Silicon. He stated the M1 Pro/Max notebooks were supposed to come in the Spring of 2021, and possibly M2 macs in the fall of 2021. Essentially on an annual cadence, with M1/M2/M3 in the fall and the Pro/Max variants mid-cycle in the spring.

We all know it didn’t pan out this way. Gurman suggests Apple delayed the MacBooks Pro not once, but twice. It seems based on current rumors that we may not get M2 macs until this fall.

What do you think Apple is going to do going forward? If Gurman is correct, this means we are essentially 1 year behind the original schedule. I would assume the actual chip team isn’t behind schedule though as we got the A15 this year, meaning they likely have M2 already done. Rumors suggested delays were due to other issues like miniLED.

With the latest AMD and Intel chips as well, Apple also has a bit of catching up to do (not in performance per watt, but single core performance). Do you think Apple will eventually skip a generation (but still call it M2?) to make up for the delays?

Mark Gurman doesn't know squat. Years ago he had a source inside Apple that is long gone. That's his entire claim to fame.

Now he's just a pundit who reads the other rumors that are reported, and weighs in with his own opinion on what he thinks is most likely. I could literally do his job with no other sources than reading a few Apple blogs on a daily basis and paying attention.

The Mac was never going to suddenly move to a yearly upgrade cycle just because the chips are made in house. They simply don't need to be updated that often.

 

[crazy dave]

LTT knows the YouTube algorithm game and plays it. And their videos shouldn’t be taken as gospel as such.


Dunning-Kruger effect, the people who comment the most on it are the same who don’t have a full grasp of the subject.

To be fair, they did title this video "We fix Apple's GOOD engineering" and conclude that their fix, while it does indeed improve throttling, probably wouldn't be legal for Apple to sell. But yes the Youtube algorithm forces more clickbait and less introspection and so while LTT and a couple of others are better than the rest, it can still be grating. I do like their expansion plans to actually create real testing labs though. If that really does happen and they can sustain it, that could improve the quality a lot.

 

[Jorbanead]

The Mac was never going to suddenly move to a yearly upgrade cycle just because the chips are made in house. They simply don't need to be updated that often.

Macs have been updated yearly, and sometimes twice a year for a long time. It wasn’t until recently when Intel slowed their roll that macs have gone towards an annual release cycle.

Typically popular consumer macs got routine updates, while the less-popular macs (Mac mini and Mac pro) were updated less frequently.

 

[splifingate]

What do you think Apple is going to do going forward?

All I can safely say in response is "Make more things." <smile>

At this point in time, I am so spoiled with the power, ports and re-configurability of my MP5,1 that the current offerings just keep me waiting.

The use of my 2015 MBP never seems to tax anything but the battery, yet that's no pressing reason for me to upgrade (esp. at my meager usage level).

Excited to see if we get something stronger, this year.

 

[appleArticulate]

Macs have been updated yearly, and sometimes twice a year for a long time. It wasn’t until recently when Intel slowed their roll that macs have gone towards an annual release cycle.

Typically popular consumer macs got routine updates, while the less-popular macs (Mac mini and Mac pro) were updated less frequently.

What does updated mean in this context? It means microscopic spec bumped processor update, with no other changes to architecture at all. Apple did this simply because they could, and it made more sense to just swap out the now out of date Intel chip for the one Intel replaced it with.

This is COMPLETELY different from the kind of update Apple does with Apple products. Apple creates an entirely new product around an "update". They will design an update around a major new processor, which includes total redesign of the logic board, cooling, the casing, and much more. Only the iPhone is so competitive that it requires Apple to find a way to make annual updates. No other product line is this competitive.

 

[Bug-Creator]

hey will design an update around a major new processor, which includes total redesign of the logic board, cooling, the casing, and much more.

/me looks at the initial batch of M1 Macs.....

Even for stuff like logic boards, remember the Ms are packaged SoC with very little logic on the mobo. So making an M3 that can be just dropped into an M2 based board is a possibility.

Or maybe have a refined process that allows it to clock a bit higher or maybe different levels of binning as the yields get better (pretty much like A12x to A12z on the iPP).

So no I don't expect the 24" iMac or the 14/16" MBPs to see any significant redesign while they will for sure come with M2 (and later M3) variants.

 

[jdb8167]

So no I don't expect the 24" iMac or the 14/16" MBPs to see any significant redesign while they will for sure come with M2 (and later M3) variants.

Everyone seems sure that there are going to be M2 variants of the M1 Pro and Max but I’m not so sure. If the M3 comes out in Summer of 2023, I could see the first M3s being the M3 Pro/Max.

We still don’t have enough releases to really understand Apple’s intended release cadence. There are likely at least a couple of M1 releases upcoming with the desktop pro models. I’d guess those are coming around WWDC. Then the M2 and updates for the November 2020 M1 Macs (MacBooks, 24” iMac, and entry mini).

Everything is just speculation right now but I haven’t seen much in the way of rumors for a M2 Pro/Max yet.

 

[Bug-Creator]

Everyone seems sure that there are going to be M2 variants of the M1 Pro and Max but I’m not so sure. If the M3 comes out in Summer of 2023, I could see the first M3s being the M3 Pro/Max

A M3 coming out in 2023 would suggest that they do annual core updates for the M series instead of skipping the odd numbered A series.

If that ends up being true we will see some of the never designs remaining long enough to get M4 and M5 updates.

All just names and guesses, point is major design changes are 3-5 years apart. Pretty much since forever.

 

[jdb8167]

A M3 coming out in 2023 would suggest that they do annual core updates for the M series instead of skipping the odd numbered A series.

If that ends up being true we will see some of the never designs remaining long enough to get M4 and M5 updates.

All just names and guesses, point is major design changes are 3-5 years apart. Pretty much since forever.

Not every product will necessarily need an update for every Mx generation. It could be that M2 is only replacing consumer level M1 components and M3 is replacing M1 Pro/Max. That leads to an 18-24 month cadence for each segment.

 

[appleArticulate]

Everyone seems sure that there are going to be M2 variants of the M1 Pro and Max but I’m not so sure. If the M3 comes out in Summer of 2023, I could see the first M3s being the M3 Pro/Max.

Who is everyone? There isn't even a prayer of seeing an M2 Pro or M2 Max. For multiple reasons. The next MBP update will be in 2023 with an AS chip based on the 3nm process. Yet another 5 nm process wouldn't produce enough gains to even develop the chip let alone release it. Remember, this is not Apple buying this year's iterative chip off the shelf from Intel and swapping the sku at the factory. If they want this chip they have to make it, and everything that goes into that. There is no reason for them to do that for a modest bump.

By all accounts there aren't many more performance gains to be had from the 5nm process at this point, the M2 chip is being design more around efficiency for the low end products to replace M1.

 

[Jorbanead]

This is COMPLETELY different from the kind of update Apple does with Apple products. Apple creates an entirely new product around an "update". They will design an update around a major new processor, which includes total redesign of the logic board, cooling, the casing, and much more. Only the iPhone is so competitive that it requires Apple to find a way to make annual updates. No other product line is this competitive.

Are they not all Apple products?

And whose to say Apple could do similar updates to popular ASi macs too. Say they update the air this year with a new design and an M2 chip, then come next fall they keep the same design but just slot in an M3 chip. Notebooks alone account for 70% of Mac sales, and a large portion of this is just the air. It would seem minor changes to the MOBO to handle an M3 chip would easily be justified.

 

[Doc C]

Mx Pro/Max are such low volume chips. Annual cadence makes little sense.

Are they anticipated to remain a small fraction of sales? I would think that they have to account for what they expect sales to be in a few years.

I'm actually somewhat unclear on the purpose of having three different chips - why not just the regular and the Max?
I'm not the right person to make the assessment - is the price/performance significantly different for the three?

 

[mr_roboto]

Are they anticipated to remain a small fraction of sales? I would think that they have to account for what they expect sales to be in a few years.

I'm actually somewhat unclear on the purpose of having three different chips - why not just the regular and the Max?
I'm not the right person to make the assessment - is the price/performance significantly different for the three?

M1 Pro is a large chip. M1 Max is an absolute chonker, though. They wouldn't want to manufacture only Max, it's too expensive.

In a sense, however, there is only M1 Max. Apple designed just Max, but included a "cut line", both logical and physical. If you look at a picture of the M1 Max die, everything above a horizontal line is identical to M1 Pro, and everything below that line is the extra stuff (GPU cores, display output controllers, etc) which differentiates Max from Pro.

So, to make M1 Pro they took the final M1 Max artwork, cropped it, modified the edge along the cut line to properly terminate the dangling connections, and that became the M1 Pro artwork. Doing things this way saved Apple a lot of money on design costs.

 

[Jorbanead]

Mx Pro/Max are such low volume chips. Annual cadence makes little sense.

I would not expect annual cadence for those chips, but the M1 I would. It’s in 5 different products, and some of those are the most popular macs.

 

[Doc C]

M1 Pro is a large chip. M1 Max is an absolute chonker, though. They wouldn't want to manufacture only Max, it's too expensive.

In a sense, however, there is only M1 Max. Apple designed just Max, but included a "cut line", both logical and physical. If you look at a picture of the M1 Max die, everything above a horizontal line is identical to M1 Pro, and everything below that line is the extra stuff (GPU cores, display output controllers, etc) which differentiates Max from Pro.

So, to make M1 Pro they took the final M1 Max artwork, cropped it, modified the edge along the cut line to properly terminate the dangling connections, and that became the M1 Pro artwork. Doing things this way saved Apple a lot of money on design costs.

I would guess that what you described addresses the profit side of the equation
But from a consumer standpoint, other than those who run high-end graphics or audio editing software, is there a significant benefit in getting the M1 Pro or Max?
(for clarity, I have tended to purchase MBPs with upgraded RAM and CPUs because I figured that they would be useful for longer, even if only as a hand-me-down to my parents. I'm wondering if the same is expected to be true for the M1 series, or if might be reasonable to stick with the base CPU?)

 

[boak]

I would not expect annual cadence for those chips, but the M1 I would. It’s in 5 different products, and some of those are the most popular macs.

True. I'm also wondering if the 5 products will receive any other updates other than the chip when they're updated.

 

[Boil]

Current Apple silicon powered Macs:

• 13" MacBook Air (M1) - old design
• 13" MacBook Pro (M1) - old design
• 14" MacBook Pro (M1 Pro/Max) - new design
• 16" MacBook Pro (M1 Pro/Max) - new design
• 24" iMac (M1) - new design
• Mac mini (M1) - old design

The two 13" laptops might both be replaced by a new design MacBook, no Air or Pro suffixes...

The Mn-powered Mac mini is rumored for a new design as well...

As for the remaining Intel Macs, they should move to Apple silicon & receive new designs as well:

• High-end Mac mini (M1 Pro/Max)
• 27" iMac (M1 Pro/Max)
• Mac Pro (Dual/Quad M1 Max)

 

[crazy dave]

I would guess that what you described addresses the profit side of the equation
But from a consumer standpoint, other than those who run high-end graphics or audio editing software, is there a significant benefit in getting the M1 Pro or Max?
(for clarity, I have tended to purchase MBPs with upgraded RAM and CPUs because I figured that they would be useful for longer, even if only as a hand-me-down to my parents. I'm wondering if the same is expected to be true for the M1 series, or if might be reasonable to stick with the base CPU?)

There are a lot of threads and reviews that you can consult on this topic. But the summary is that if you don’t care about graphics and CPU compute bandwidth, stick with the regular M1. The single core performance is basically identical across all the platforms and you can get 16GB if you are concerned about your programs now or in the future being memory hogs. Just make sure to get the internal hard drive storage size you think you’ll need and you’ll be just as fine on the base M1 as the others. If you want something with a bit more compute and graphical power but still a really good value, the M1 Pro 8 core (6+2) might be what you’re looking for. On the other end of the spectrum, maxing out the GPU in the Max in the 14” Pro seems to net you diminishing returns, but can still be a viable option.

Without knowing more about what your daily compute requirements are, it’s hard to give more specific advice than that. Oh and of corse there is screen size and quality and even other factors such beyond the chip like speakers, weight, battery life, noise which can make a big difference to you day to day depending on how you use your computer.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

The two 13" laptops might both be replaced by a new design MacBook, no Air or Pro suffixes...

No chance they'll drop the 13" MBA. It's still an iconic design and more than capable for mass deployment, such as in education. I'd even bet that they'll keep the M1 in it until at least next year and drop the price by $100.

 

[thedocbwarren]

No chance they'll drop the 13" MBA. It's still an iconic design and more than capable for mass deployment, such as in education. I'd even bet that they'll keep the M1 in it until at least next year and drop the price by $100.

I say there is a strong chance as the 13 MBP is redundant and has a touch bar. Saything that as a very happy owner of the 13 M1 MBP.

 

[crazy dave]

I say there is a strong chance as the 13 MBP is redundant and has a touch bar. Saything that as a very happy owner of the 13 M1 MBP.

He’s talking about the MB air - ie his argument is that they might drop the pro but not the air.