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.
Do you expect an M1X and M2 SoC to be released this year?
- Thread starter Fomalhaut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Intel SoCs have been using unified memory since at least 2012… Apple didn’t invent it. What Apple did however was to put a GPU-like memory controller on it and optimize the hell out of the cache hierarchy and the physical design.
I think for Apple it isn't just unified memory for the CPU & GPU but also for the other subsystems on the SoC. They made a claim during their Apple Silicon keynote last year that they designed the SoC so that all data for all the different subsystems used the same structures and all were available in unified memory including the Neural Engine and Image signal processors. I'm not sure how much difference that makes but they made a big deal about it.
Oh, of course, I was just pointing out that the basic setup is the same as for any Intel or AMD SoC made in the last couple of years. All the processors on the SoC are connected to a common large cache which in turn is connected to the memory controller, so when a processor (CPU, GPU or whatever) makes a data request, it is served through that common system. This is what allows the processors to quickly and correctly see changes made by other processors (coherence). My understanding of these things is very basic, and there are probably important differences in individual implementations (I am sure that we have posters here that can offer more information), but I think it’s unfair to Intel and AMD engineers to trivialize their work. On the fundamental level, the unified memory approach as taken by Apple repeats the same principle as used by x86 chips for a and we should not get into the trap of ridiculing everything Intel does just because we are Apple fans.
I also expect that Apple can leverage their UMA better than other systems because they also write the OS. I wonder if Microsoft is looking into a new kind of driver design that would allow device drivers to better optimize UMA. Right now, device drivers are really single device designs and I would expect that trying to unify them under a single memory and cache structure is very difficult if not impossible.
This is very convincing as long as Apple will use only three tiers of Mac processors. In that case, M plus number plus nothing, or X, or Z, is perfectly fine.
My thought was that Apple could need four tiers. Then I lacked the fantasy what could come after „Z“.
Of course, my idea with the plusses only works if there are no more than four levels. You can utter „triple plus“ without issue, but four plusses would be bad.
I don't think we will be waiting two years for another Mac mini. I expect a new Mac mini later this year. It won't replaced the M1 mini though, I think it will replace the Intel Mac mini.
Apple has used the “S” suffix on the phone models for the speed-focused refreshes. So we could see something like: M1, M1S, M1X, M1Z. Really, M1X in this case is a stand-in for “higher end SoC in the lineup”. I don’t think we should get too hung up on the naming.
I think we will start to see the Mac move to a yearly cycle again, it’s just more of a question of do they complete the transition before or after they do yearly refreshes.
The A15 will launch this year, with updated CPU and GPU cores. An M2 Mini that integrates the new cores wouldn’t be terribly time consuming to do. But it does feel a bit like Apple’s stretched a bit the last couple years, so we indeed might not see it. Who knows.
I'm only on my first MacBook, so I'm unfamiliar with how they rolled their lineups in the past. But it would seem to me they would want to differentiate the MBA and MBP a bit more. I didn't give much thought to the current MBP. Giving the 13" MBP a M1X this year would help. The MBA could catch up next year.
If they did 4 tiers, I’d imagine they would use either M1T or maybe M1Pro or something like that.
Agreed. I think whenever they announce the next chip (likely the M1X - or whatever they decide to call it), that will be when they also announce the higher end Mac mini that will come in space grey and have the same 4 TB ports as the Intel mini does now.
It’s a bit confusing because they have always sold two versions of the 13” model. One has only two ports, and is basically a MacBook Air, and the other has four ports and it’s more powerful. They updated the two port version last year with M1, but the “more powerful” 13” with four ports has not been updated yet.
Well, I wouldn’t say “always”. The two-port 13” was introduced when, 2016? I am fairly certain that Intel’s stagnation and inability to deliver some SKUs was the primary reason behind the current fragmentation of the Mac laptop line. I’m sure that we will see some significant streamlining in the next two years (e.g. the two-port Pro being discontinued etc.)
With the rumor that a 14" MBP is on the way, maybe they'll just discontinue the current 2 port model? That'd be kind of a weird ending to it, though.
But it's kind of a weird spot in general for them right now. I guess I'm a bit surprised they didn't start with the new Apple chips at the top of the lineup and work their way down. Now it seems they have to introduce an upgraded version of the M1 to make the pro a pro.
It makes perfect sense to start at the bottom. Low-end chips are much simpler, so you are not risking too much (the M1 is not that much different from an iPad Pro chip), you don’t need to have all the intricacies (like multi-monitor support) worked out. By selling the entry-level model first, you are quickly increasing the adoption rate, give the software devs time to mature their ports, and gain valuable information while you finish up the feature more important to the pro user.
From the latest rumours it seems we may be skipping straight to the M2X later in the year? I don’t see the point of releasing an M1X (based on firestorm & icestorm) even in July really when the 15th gen chip architecture will be just 2 months away with the September iPhones.
As for nomenclature I think M2X makes sense for a ‘base’ MacBook Pro chip, it could come in 6 and 8 (performance) core variants too, 35W TDP. I also think we could see ‘Lifuka’ incorporated into an M2Z, a higher end chip option, 8 cores or 10 cores or options for both with punchier graphics and maybe an upped 45W TDP to support it.
As for nomenclature I think M2X makes sense for a ‘base’ MacBook Pro chip, it could come in 6 and 8 (performance) core variants too, 35W TDP. I also think we could see ‘Lifuka’ incorporated into an M2Z, a higher end chip option, 8 cores or 10 cores or options for both with punchier graphics and maybe an upped 45W TDP to support it.
I would think that for me personally coming from an 09 Mac Pro that the SOC ssd would also accommodate virtual RAM in a way that would make it seem like 16GB was as good or better than the 24GB in my mac pro.
I'm in the same boat in terms of RAM, most people really don't make the sort of use of RAM they think they do. I mostly do audio with my MP and I've only maxed out the 24GB in it maybe once. I do some heavy sample based orchestral library stuff and even then 24GB is way more than I need. That said I'm in the process of using the MP as a slave for libraries and at that point I will really see the use of massive amounts of RAM, having dozens of sample libraries loaded and ready to go etc.
Seems the bottom line Pro and Air, and mini, were a 'beta test' for the public
They should bring the ruckus later this year. M1 won't have the same appeal to iMac, higher end and bigger MBP's imo
but I have an M1 air and plan on staying put
They should bring the ruckus later this year. M1 won't have the same appeal to iMac, higher end and bigger MBP's imo
but I have an M1 air and plan on staying put
I might be just exposing how uninformed of a consumer I am, but I didn't give much thought to the MBP's because the current MBA looked so strong in comparison. Typically, they'd easily upsell me to the pro, and if they'd top-downed it, that's the way I would've gone. But I'm sure you're right regarding the technical aspects of it.
Fair I should have used “recently” you’re right. I agree though their notebook line is going to streamline. I could see them doing a small/large screen version of both the air and pro MacBooks. Maybe something like:
MacBook Air 13”
MacBook Air 15”
MacBook Pro 14”
MacBook Pro 16”
So the pro’s have bigger screens (but with the same basic dimensions as the air as the bezels will be super thin on the pro) and also more powerful chips inside.
Chip design isn’t quick. It’s normal even for a company like Intel to be selling high-end chips that are made using last years architecture. The lowest tier chips always pave the way - and the higher end chips always come later with refinements and improvements along with more power. Plus consumers don’t understand that A14 and M1 share a common architecture so going to A15 in September doesn’t really effect how an M1X would be perceived. As long as that M1X is plenty powerful that’s all we really care about.
They’ve sold a lower tier 13” versions that was basically an air inside a pro body for years now so I don’t see any issue with them selling a 13” Pro and a 14” pro. I could see them eventually getting rid of the 13” and sort of adding in a larger 15” MacBook air instead to fill that gap.
They’ve said their designing a family of chips and M1 is just the start. The key word is ‘family’ (not series) which implies multiple chip designs within the same architecture. So there is going to be an upgraded M1 variant coming out, likely called the M1X if they follow their naming scheme with their other chips.
It’s also good practice to start at the bottom and scale upward rather than scale down. Intel has done this for years which is why their Xeon processors are often the last processors to get updated (and by then Intel is usually onto the next gen chips with their lowest tier). It allows them to refine their designs and “perfect” them as much as possible before attempting a Goliath chip design used by professionals who cannot afford to buy a $15,000 machine that fails.
Last edited:
I can see apple only releasing a new mini every other year if it sells to well and people aren’t buying as many of the AS iMacs.
Any upgrades from m1 to m1x this year are unlikely. Any m1x in the low end pro line will be the same one that will eventually go into a higher priced low end model. They might just be able to overclock the m1 to do their speed bumps for a year or two on the low end.
The m1x that will go to the high end of the pro line will be seen this year. Because that’s the one they can charge the most for. It will be just like their new display. Way overpriced for mac users but an excellent value to those who are always buying computers at that level. Basically something Apple can brag about that leaves the rest of the base out in the rain.
If I were to compare it to the iPad line the low end is the iPad with the oldest chip and features. The mid range is the new iPad Air, more expensive than the last airs, that’s the $2k macs, the pro end will be like the soon to be release 12 in iPad Pro. But starting closer to $3k and only going up.
m1x will be the mid range, m2 will be the top that will take 3-4 years to reach the low end line. By then they should be able to raid the price of the mid and top end several hundreds of dollars more than today. That’s Apple being Apple.
The m1x that will go to the high end of the pro line will be seen this year. Because that’s the one they can charge the most for. It will be just like their new display. Way overpriced for mac users but an excellent value to those who are always buying computers at that level. Basically something Apple can brag about that leaves the rest of the base out in the rain.
If I were to compare it to the iPad line the low end is the iPad with the oldest chip and features. The mid range is the new iPad Air, more expensive than the last airs, that’s the $2k macs, the pro end will be like the soon to be release 12 in iPad Pro. But starting closer to $3k and only going up.
m1x will be the mid range, m2 will be the top that will take 3-4 years to reach the low end line. By then they should be able to raid the price of the mid and top end several hundreds of dollars more than today. That’s Apple being Apple.
Discussing naming scheme is nearly pointless with only one point, the M1. I think it is more value to discuss what is suitable in terms of core counts, node processes and frequency of updates for the different Macs. When we have the naming of the next M chip addressing the low end iMac, hopefully next week, we can speculate on naming schemes again with a better foundation.
Personally I think the number will be the chip generation and not the tier but I can be very wrong
Personally I think the number will be the chip generation and not the tier but I can be very wrong
It also made perfect sense to use the existing chassises... to say "look what these chips can do" so it's easier to compare.