as a Maya user i could see myself buying at least one...but for now, ill wait to see what it offers
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.
Claim - New 12 CPU Core M1 SoC for iMac Pro
- Thread starter CWallace
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Would 12-core CPU be decisive factor or is it the larger screen? For the little modelling and render in Blender and Fusion360 I do, screen size is far more important than 2 extra cores. My point is that 2 extra cores is not sufficient differentiator to the MBP. The screen is though.
Does a 27 inch M1 Pro/Max iMac, possibly with two extra cores, make sense? Yes, but not to replace the "old iMac Pro" for that Apple needs to come up with something more than 2 extra cores. 32 inch MiniLED screen driven by a Jade 2C seem like a proper iMac Pro replacement to me.
i dont have the former imac pro so...for me the whole package matters...so both the extra cores (i hope for extra gpu cores), the screen size as well , the Ram amount...but i guess it will tops at 64 i guess
But again, these are still just speculation from a reliable leaker...but if the imac doesnt come this spring, then, the difference in timeline between this imac and the apple silicon mac pro it will be so close that i will wait for the mac pro,and continue to use the 16" mbp
Last edited:
...but that's one of the consequences of Apple Silicon - by delivering midrange-desktop-level performance at laptop-level power consumption it has made the choice more about preferred form-factor than power. That's already shown up with MBPs - the 15/16" Intel had a significantly better CPU and GPU than even the higher-end 13" Now the 14" and 16" have, broadly, the same processor and RAM options and comparable performance - it's much more about what screen size you want.
I think a lot of people would be very happy with a M1 Pro in a re-vamped 27" 5k iMac form-factor. 99% of the computing world are still using 4k, if not 1080p displays so, even though the 5k display is "mature" it is still comfortably ahead of the game and part of what makes the 5k iMac possible Apple's best-value machine - and I'm sure Apple could squeeze in some improvements or a bezel shrink... but if it involves adding $1000 to the price (and claiming it as a bargain c.f. the Pro XDR) then they're risking making the iMac another niche machine.
...well, that's hard to prove when there was no updated model to buy (and, for the last year, we've known that Apple Silicon was coming Real Soon Now). It's Apple's job to produce products that make people want to upgrade. Also, if they're relying on buyers of $5000 "pro" computers to upgrade every year or two then they're making the mistake of treating pro computers as if they were fashion items like iPhones and Watches (or even lower-end MacBooks). If there is a cycle it's more like 3-5 years based on equipment leases or the rate at which businesses can claim equipment costs against tax. But then there are all those people with older Macs, or who want to shift to a desktop + iPad model or (heaven forfend) might want to switch from PC who also need to be offered something exciting and up-to-date, whenever they come along. The iMP was, maybe, a contender in 2017/18 - when the iMP spec was fresh and the top-end iMac less powerful - but Apple did nothing (I think there was a minor spec bump) to keep it current. By 2020, even a regular Core i iMac with the pro's improved cooling system would have been a more attractive product, especially for people who didn't already own an iMP.
Anyway, back to the original point, the price of the iMac Pro was laughable unless you factored in the premium that Intel, and the whole industry, charges for Xeon/ECC/"Workstation-class" graphics - and even that seems to be partly down to artificial scarcity on Intel's part and a "nobody ever got fired for buying Xeon" mentality in the industry, otherwise AMD would be cleaning up even more than they are. The only way such a distinction will exist in the Apple Silicon world is if Apple go out of their way to try and create one (but they're not going to be able to create the "nobody got fired" aspect of Xeon) - which, unless they have something else up their sleeves - would have to be based on either Jade 2C or 4C. Of course, if they limit the 2C or 4C to the most expensive, lowest selling Macs, they'll only be making them in (relatively) tiny quantities so they will be hideously expensive. Or, they could use the 2C right across the desktop range and enjoy the economies of scale - including a market for all the dies with up to 40% dead cores and an eye-watering mark-up for the fully functional 20 core version.
I don't think there's any doubt that a true replacement for the "old iMac Pro" would need to be something like Jade 2C - if Apple is inclined to replace it. However, the name "pro" no longer works as a distinguishing mark when lower-tier computers have a processor called "M1 Pro".
It's also worth re-reading the original tweet:
...i.e. it is not saying that the iMac Pro will necessarily start at 12 core, nor is it saying that it will max out at 12 cores. Just that they've seen a reference to a 12-core config in an iMac. Which could be a Jade 2C with 6 dead (or deliberately disabled) cores. In which case there could be options all the way up to 20 cores.
It's also saying nothing about GPU cores - that's probably a bigger factor in whether it could "replace" the old iMac Pro in terms of performance. A M1 Max is easily going to give a 2017 10-core Xeon a run for its money CPU-wise - it's being up against the iMPs discrete graphics that could be the problem. Meanwhile, any Apple Silicon iMac should beat the old iMP on noise/heat.
As for the screen - I don't look at my iMac 5k and think "gosh, what this needs is a better screen". Mini LED would be nice, the 28-29" that could be achieved with smaller bezels and a tiny size increase, maybe - if Apple can squeeze it in for a comparable price, but I really don't want to invest any more cash in a screen that dies with the computer, can't be positioned independently of the computer, can't be paired with a matching screen, etc. 32" would be making an already large all-in-one even larger, and the ports even harder to reach.
Scientists and engineers needing big compute power use massive clusters. Not all scientific problems need that kind of power, of course, but the number of problems for which a 10-core M1 chip is inadequate but a 12-core chip would be fine must be rather small.
For video editing, the 5K display is a big advantage. It allows an editor to display a 4K video at full resolution and still have tool windows open on the same screen. Adding two additional CPU cores is just icing on the cake. I’m hoping that Apple will likely also throw in a few additional GPU cores, because this display is pushing more pixels than the MacBook Pro. You know what the trolls will say if the iMac Pro display isn’t as snappy as the MacBook Pro.
For 3D modeling and CAD, a bigger screen is always nice but requirements don’t have the same step function driven by video resolution that editing does. For 3D rendering, additional CPU cores are important right now, but they will be less important when Apple and 3rd party developers get Metal working with the GPU cores.
I consider this to be a machine for “mid-range” power users like me. People who do more than the average user but not enough to require a top-of-the-line PC or Mac Pro.
A fair number of people buying the new iMac Pro will be upgrading from an older iMac, though, and a lot of them are already used to 5K displays. For those who are satisfied with a 4K display, there’s the 24-inch iMac.
You have to distinguish between people who *want* a larger screen and people who *need* a larger screen (usually because of photo or video resolutions). But the next big “have to have it” size is 8K, and it will be a while before displays reach that size. Anything between 5K and 8K is merely “nice to have”.
When I was at Microsoft, we got new machines every year and kept the older one as a second machine for testing. (Well, in theory. I sometimes turned down a new machine because the Dells we got were so unreliable, often failing within less than six months, so once I got one that worked, I wanted to hang onto it.)
We use all sorts of computing power - yes access to large powerful clusters can be important or even necessary, but we also use everything from laptops to workstations depending on what’s available, the size of the problem, and the immediacy of the work. The relative prevalence of workstations and HEDT to total compute has definitely decreased as clusters have increased, but they’re still there and still used.
Last edited:
The larger iMac has two separate target audiences. Roughly speaking, those who want a $2k Mac desktop with a normal-sized display, and those who want a $5k high-end Mac desktop.
I'm in the latter group as a scientist/engineer/software developer. While automated tests run in the cloud and production runs are also in the cloud, I need some computing power for development and testing potential solutions. I could use the cloud for that as well, but it would be slower than running the tests locally. Especially now, as working from home has become the norm and internet connections are not as reliable as they were in the office.
CPU is no longer a critical component. The 10-core i9 is already fast enough for this kind of work, and the M1 Max would be a nice incremental upgrade. RAM is far more important. 128 GB is the minimum I would consider for a desktop, and 256 GB would be better, as it's closer to the memory capacity of a typical cloud instance.
The Mac Pro looks kind of nice, but a $10k workstation is beyond my budget.
8k is not going to be something that you "have to have" unless you are also going to have a huge screen.
On a 27" screen at typical "desktop" distances, if you can tell the difference between 4k and 5k you've got very good eyesight and if you can tell the difference between 5k and 6k you've got a really good imagination. Even with current displays, the 24" 4k iMac, the 27" 5k iMac and the 32" Pro XDR display have all stuck at about the same "retina" pixel density and, effectively, added more pixels around the edge to make the display bigger. An 8K display would need to be about 48" for desktop use.
That doesn't mean that nobody would ever want an 8k display, but at that size the iMac format stops making sense - it's something that you're going to want bolted to the wall behind your desk (...in which case you can make it even bigger before you can see the pixels) and you're certainly not gonna want the SD card slot and USB ports tucked around the back.
I really don't think the iMac needs to get any bigger. Apple could maybe get the screen up to maybe 28.5" with a bezel shrink, or 29-30" if they went for a taller aspect ratio and took over the "chin". More than that, though, and it becomes a massive desk hog. Also, there's a point at which multiple screens get easier to manage than one huge screen (e.g. one for source code, one for your app, one for documentation). I'd say that 27" is the limit for that (or you need a telescope to see the far side of the second screen).
27" is still a pretty substantial step up from 24".
My apologies if I missed a reply, but where did Apple make it abundantly clear that the first generation of every Apple Silicon Mac will be an M1 variant? Really the only one left is the Mac Pro and I haven't seen much information regarding it's processors beyond speculation.
There actually isn't any reason NOT to believe that. People who have been unable to stop iOS chip development history from clouding their judgement have been chomping at the bit for an "M2" to show up since the day M1 was released, and they simply don't understand why that isn't going to happen. The M1 is the basis for the first generation of Apple Silicon...all Apple Silicon. Everything Apple has done to this point, and everything that is rumored to come, aligns with it.
Yet. I'm hopefully that the rumors of new stand alone monitors pan out so that we can do exactly what you're saying, whether 27" or larger.
Agreed.
One thing that always bugged me about the 21.5" iMac was that the screen estate was quite modest for a chunky machine. It's an awkward size that's suitable for some tasks, but not really the master of any. Contrast this to the 24" iMac, which works so well (and I do have one) because the overall volume from the front-angle of the machine has been significantly reduced, whilst the screen estate has actually increased by around 2 inches. It just sits in its environment with a lot function and purpose, like a modern TV.
This is partly why I believe the 'new' 27" iMac will indeed retain a 27" panel; if one were to consider just how much volume would be reduced if the current iMac's bezels were narrowed, it would have a completely different look and feel on a desk. And the question then becomes, would you rather have a smaller footprint with the same panel you know, or a larger panel on slightly larger machine?
I believe Apple will segment any size above 27" to external displays as an incentive for creative professionals who actually benefit from the extra screen estate, whilst 27" is suited to more to casual/prosumers. After all, Apple's gotta sell those XDR displays to a lot of Mac mini / Pro customers
Those rumors of a Jade 2C Die and Jade 4C Die have been around for awhile. Maybe Apple was planning on those, but then ran into a few roadblocks trying to implement this multi-die design.
They could have adjusted plans (or maybe always had the contingency) and said, let's make our Max, Maxier - and call it a day for higher power Mac Mini/iMac. Now that Alder Lake is out, Apple has their known target to beat, which I'm assuming the M1 Maxier will beat (subject to fanboi/stockfish wars)
They can then keep working on that multi-die effort for the Mac Pro, even if it's delayed.
They could have adjusted plans (or maybe always had the contingency) and said, let's make our Max, Maxier - and call it a day for higher power Mac Mini/iMac. Now that Alder Lake is out, Apple has their known target to beat, which I'm assuming the M1 Maxier will beat (subject to fanboi/stockfish wars)
They can then keep working on that multi-die effort for the Mac Pro, even if it's delayed.
Last edited:
I don't think there's any need to send out a search party for Jade 2C/4C yet - plenty of other reasons for the no-show of the larger iMac and Mini in the current climate - those have never been first in line when it comes to upgrades. The Mac Pro (the only machine that will definitely need the 4C) was always likely to be the last thing to go Apple Silicon (and the big pro apps that they run, with their large ecologies of plug-ins and supporting hardware, will be the last to be fully ASi native).
The 12-core iMac thing could just be a false rumour, but if you accept it the question becomes which of these is more likely:
1. Apple develops a whole new 12 CPU core die just for the higher-end iMac (and maybe Mac Mini) - not their biggest-selling machine, considering that a lot of people would be very, very happy with a M1 Pro or Max in an iMac or Mini form factor.
2. The economies of scale of re-using the same basic dies over the whole mid/high-end desktop range make a 12-core Jade 2C (with an as yet undefined performance/economy core ratio and number of GPU cores) using "binned" (naturally or artificially) parts an economical option.
Bear in mind that (2) wouldn't just bring two more CPU cores to the party: it would bring more GPU cores, more neural engines etc., more TB4 ports, more external displays and more/higher RAM options - all of which would be vital if they wanted a worthy replacement for the "old iMac Pro" and possibly more significant than a couple of extra CPU cores.
For the lower-end 5k iMac replacements - they could still outperform the MBPs with the "same" SoCs due to better thermals and, effectively, being able to run in "high power" mode all the time.
I think Apple are going to have a bit of a battle with their desktop systems: the huge advantage of going to ARM was always going to be performance-per-watt (ARM has been handing that to Intel since the 1980s) rather than raw performance. That's great for laptops and mobiles (which are probably Apple's bread-and-butter) but it's never going to be that much of an advantage on the desktop. With the highest end Mac Pros etc. they can cram in lots of (expensive) processors and accelerators - but that makes them increasingly "specialist" machines since not every task benefits from extreme multi-threading. For lower/mid range desktops, the laptop-class processors are increasingly more than good enough, and it's really about what form factor you prefer. I hope Apple don't mess things up by adopting a "desktop must be faster than laptop" fixation and only producing super-expensive desktops with silly numbers of cores.
Personally, I don't really need much more than a regular M1 compute wise - just better connectivity and multiple external displays.
Yes, the M1 is the basis for all Apple Silicon. However, is the opinion that Apple will never release an improved, next generation? Presumably they will and for convenience the public calls it M2. Expectations are that the MacPro will take longer to be updated to Apple Silicon, something that has been the case thus far.
So at some point in the future presumably a new generation of Apple Silicon will be released. Also at some point in the future presumably an Apple Silicon Mac Pro will be released. The order of these two is unknown. If Apple releases a new Apple Silicon generation before an Apple Silicon Mac Pro, it would be rather odd for the Mac Pro, Apple's highest performing Mac, to use a previous generation Apple Silicon chip.
Frankly, I can't make sense of your reply as it doesn't actually address anything related to if the Mac Pro will have the first generation Apples Silicon or a future generation.
Per Bloomberg and Mark German, the Apple Silicon Mac Pro is believed to be using a version of the M1 MAX in either a dual (20C/64G) or quad (40C/128G) configuration.
Dennis Ma has subsequently noted that Apple is also working on a quad-configuration of the M3 which will also have 40 CPU cores (no mention of how many GPU cores). If true, this could be the next generation of SoC that goes into the ASi Mac Pro in 2024 or so.
Dennis Ma has subsequently noted that Apple is also working on a quad-configuration of the M3 which will also have 40 CPU cores (no mention of how many GPU cores). If true, this could be the next generation of SoC that goes into the ASi Mac Pro in 2024 or so.
There’s been rumors about consumer displays also being available. One rumor suggested 3 new displays, which I would assume to be the 24”, 27”, and 32” displays from the iMac and the ProDisplay. It’s a bit silly to buy a $700 Mac mini and then use a $5000 display. But a $1,799 mini with a $999 display makes way more sense.After all, Apple's gotta sell those XDR displays to a lot of Mac mini / Pro customers
With the rumors of new Apple-branded displays:
- 24" 4.5K
- 27" 5K
- 32" 6K
- 24" 4.5K M1 iMac
- 27" 5K M1 Pro iMac Pro
- 27" 5K M1 Max iMac Pro
- 32" 6K M1 Ultra iMac Pro
- 32" 6K Dual M1 Ultra iMac Pro
- M1 - 8-core CPU (4P/4E) / 8-core GPU / 16-core NPU / 16GB LPDDR4X RAM / 68GB/s UMA
- M1 Pro - 10-core CPU (8P/2E) / 16-core GPU / 16-core NPU / 32GB LPDDR5 RAM / 200GB/s UMA
- M1 Max - 10-core CPU (8P/2E) / 32-core GPU / 16-core NPU / 64GB LPDDR5 RAM / 400GB/s UMA
- M1 Ultra - 12-core CPU (12P/0E) / 48-core GPU / 16-core NPU / 256GB LPDDR5X RAM / 500GB/s UMA
- Dual M1 Ultra - 24-core CPU (24P/0E) / 96-core GPU / 32-core NPU / 512GB LPDDR5X RAM / 1TB/s UMA
- M1 Pro Mac mini Pro
- M1 Max Mac mini Pro
- M1 Ultra Mac Pro Cube
- Dual M1 Ultra Mac Pro Cube
Last edited:
I kinda see why Apple'd consider higher specced M1 (aka 12 cores).
Based on my experience with MBP M1 Max, I'm fully contend with it in a mobile form, but wanting more if this was going to be in a desktop.
I really don't care power usage or at least not limited by 30watts, and already feel needs for more performance.
I wouldn't buy a desktop with the exact same performance of my laptop, it has to perform better. This is sole reason I wouldn't buy M1 24" iMac.
Based on my experience with MBP M1 Max, I'm fully contend with it in a mobile form, but wanting more if this was going to be in a desktop.
I really don't care power usage or at least not limited by 30watts, and already feel needs for more performance.
I wouldn't buy a desktop with the exact same performance of my laptop, it has to perform better. This is sole reason I wouldn't buy M1 24" iMac.
Well it seems Dylandkt was spot on with the top CPU specs:
M1 Ultra:
20-core CPU
64-core GPU
but the surprise was the 128GB unified memory at a much fater 800GB/s memory bandwidth!
Ok, for the people who kept suggesting that Apple would disable 8 good cores on the M1 Ultra so they can make a 12-CPU version, where you at?
As of right now, there isn't even a 16 or 18 core option. TSMC 5nm yields are that good.
Disabling 8-good cores just for segmentation was simply a silly suggestion.
Mark Gurman leaked the entire M1 roadmap back in May 2021, though at the time he only knew the codenames, core counts and memory capacities:
- JadeC-Chop, which became M1 Pro;
- JadeC-Die, which became M1 Max;
- Jade2C-Die, which became M1 Ultra;
- Jade4C-Die, which will be two M1 Ultras in a "chiplet" or some other package.
Apple Readies MacBook Pro, MacBook Air Revamps
Apple Inc. is preparing to release several new Mac laptops and desktops with faster processors, new designs and improved connectivity to external devices, accelerating the company’s effort to replace Intel Corp. chips and leapfrog rival PC makers.
www.bloomberg.com
This is interesting. I don't know that it's aimed at consumers though. I still wish that they'd do an M1 Pro iMac 27. Or even an M1 iMac 27.