Fully specced best-case-scenarios for every Apple Silicon Mac through 2021

[awesomedeluxe]

Inspired by Boil's post, I have looked thoroughly at the power consumption of Apple's current parts, the viability of different memory systems, and the best available information about Apple's future plans to spec the most powerful machines that I think are reasonable given heat + power consumption, wafer size, and cost. But I did it with a computer engineer helping me. These are all still "dream machines" - they just have one foot in reality.

Core speeds listed are the maximum for one or usually two cores.

2H 2020 or 1H 2021 - TSMC 5 Machines

Macbook Air

4x Firestorm Cores @ 3GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2GHz

10-core Apple Bionic iGPU

16GB LPDDR5 @ 25.6GB/s

• A newly-fanless notebook, it has the same thermal constraints as an iPad Pro and uses the same part.
• The more interesting machines are lower down the list.
• Only one core can run at 3GHz. Clocks scale down in two stages to ~2.7GHz.
• LPDDR5 is layered on to the SoC using Samsung's two-dies-one-module 16bit x 2 design.

Macbook Pro (13”)

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2GHz

20-core Apple Bionic iGPU

32GB LPDDR5 @ 51.2 GB/s

• Two cores can run at 3GHz; clocks scale down in two stages to ~2.7GHz.
• The same chassis as the current MBP13 with no real bells or whistles.
• Two 16x2 LPDDR5 modules.

Mac Mini

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3.3GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2GHz

20-core Apple Bionic iGPU

64GB+ DDR5 @ 51.2 GB/s

• May look familiar.
• Pushes clocks much more aggressively than the MBP13: top speed is 3.3GHz, 2 cores can run at that speed. 8 cores at 3GHz.
• 128GB of DDR5 is available whenever someone starts manufacturing it.

iMac (24)

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3.3GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2GHz

20-core Apple Bionic iGPU+

8GB HBM2E L4 cache @ 384 GB/s

64GB+ DDR5 @ 102.4 GB/s

• First device to attempt HBM2E on package. Also upgradable to 2x2 channel DDR5.
• 16GB of HBM2E is possible, but there is just no point at this level of performance.
• GPU cores are clocked up ~15% and use around 1W (note the +)
• Still the Bloomberg APU, CPU cores operating in the same fashion as the Mac Mini.
• Prime candidate to be upgradable with the better APUs released on N5P

2H 2021 - TSMC 5NP Machines

Macbook Pro 14” (Mini LED)

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2.15GHz

20-core Apple Bionic iGPU

8GB HBM2E L4 cache @ 192 GB/s

64GB+ DDR5 @ 51.2 GB/s

• The MBP14 debuts on N5P, replacing the 13. Rather than raising clocks, it uses power savings to afford an HBM stack.
• It also squeezes in a DDR5 module, so someday you can pay $2,000 for 128GB.
• 8GB is the maximum amount of HBM2E, in part because we need to limit the number of channels for power consumption purposes.
• The APUs debuting in the MBP16 and MBP14 become available in earlier models as upgrades.

Macbook Pro 16” (Mini LED)

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3.2GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2.15GHz

40-core Apple Bionic iGPU

16GB HBM2E L4 cache @ 384 GB/s

128GB+ DDR5 @ 102.4 GB/s

• N5P brings 7% higher clocks than other mobile parts in the same 5W envelope. 2 cores run at 3.2GHz, 8 cores run around 2.9GHz. The GPU clocks are 7% higher than other mobile parts, too.
• The GPU cores doubled - raison d'etre for higher density HBM2E.
• It also uses two dual-channel DDR5 modules (2 x 2 x 32bit).

iMac 29.5”

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3.5GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2.15GHz

40-core Apple Bionic iGPU+

16GB HBM2E L4 cache @ 512 GB/s

128GB+ DDR5 @ 102.4 GB/s

• Don’t call it “Pro,” but it's no slouch.
• CPU and GPU clocks are aggressive. The HBM is clocked faster, too.
• I do think this GPU can exceed the 5700 XT.

Guidelines used (for nerds)

I generally stayed within the thermal constraints of currently-used Intel APUs, but allowed the 16" APU 65W (the amount used by Kaby G in the Dell XPS 15) and the iMac 24 80W (It's not actually thermal constrained).

I pegged a single Firestorm Core on TSMC 5 to use about 5W at 3GHz. There is not as much clock speed variation as you might expect. This is primarily because Apple already pushes their A-series chips fairly far up the exponential power curve, and where you see chips running at 3.3GHz on N5 I'm expecting them to use 15W+ a core. All chips scale down in two stages: 3% as more than 25% of cores come online, and an additional 8% as more than 50% of cores come online.

The transition to N5P nets 7% clock boosts or 15% efficiency savings. Only the MBP14 leverages the efficiency savings.

I put an individual iGPU core at .7W, and the iGPU+ cores at 1W.

I reuse SoCs to save costs and try to keep the architectures similar so as much design could be reused as possible. There are only 2 Mac exclusive SoCs.

I generally left about 5W for the Neural Engine, efficiency cores, and other parts on the larger APUs.

 

[thenewperson]

You don't think the iMac 30" will get more firestorm cores?

 

[awesomedeluxe]

You don't think the iMac 30" will get more firestorm cores?

This is a good point, especially since the machine was recently refreshed to be configurable with up to ten cores.

I do think Apple will stick with the Bloomberg APU through 2021, and will just market it as 12-core because it also has four efficiency cores. I'm shy about committing Apple to designing an APU just for the larger iMac, and I don't think a 10-or-12-firestorm core part works well anywhere else. On the higher end, I think the iMac Pro and Mac Pro will share a solution that either drops the APU design or is designed around manufacturing technology not available until 2022 (like Samsung's GAA). On the lower end, you could try to squeeze ten cores into the MBP16 design by adding stages, but this is right on the border of what I'd consider reasonable.

 

[Kostask]

your configurations may or may not be true. According to everybody who has any credibility with Apple leaks, the first AS Macs will be the smaller MBP. I think the MB/MB Sir and the Mac Mini will either launch at the same time, or shortly thereafter.

 

[Boil]

Inspired by Boil's post...
These are all still "dream machines" - they just have one foot in reality.

I feel personally attacked...! ;^p

 

[awesomedeluxe]

your configurations may or may not be true.

This statement, however, is 100% guaranteed to be true.

According to everybody who has any credibility with Apple leaks, the first AS Macs will be the smaller MBP. I think the MB/MB Sir and the Mac Mini will either launch at the same time, or shortly thereafter.

Yeah, I took the 13" MBP straight from Kuo. I including other models that could share the same part in the late 2020 / early 2021 window. I also included the Air due to rumors of an iPad Pro being early 2021, and due to the relative ease with which an Air's SoC could be designed. I don't think it matters whether you call it an "Air" or a "MB"; there only needs to be one 13" fanless ultralight notebook.

Is "MB Sir" supposed to be the "Macbook Sixteen inch retina" ? Why do you anticipate it coming in the earlier launch window? I think the MBP16 has very different needs for an SoC than other anticipated launch models, and I imagine Apple would like a little time to see how less complex SoCs are performing before launching the more complex parts.

I feel personally attacked...! ;^p

Even if you weren't flying my attacks could never pierce your 128-core shield

 

[Kostask]

The MB Sir is the MacBook Air with a typo.

 

[Boil]

The MB Sir is the MacBook Air with a typo.

Bummer, I thought we were getting a new digital assistant; Jeeves, or Jarvis...

But only available in the new Mac Sir...!!!

 

[Yebubbleman]

Inspired by Boil's post, I have looked thoroughly at the power consumption of Apple's current parts, the viability of different memory systems, and the best available information about Apple's future plans to spec the most powerful machines that I think are reasonable given heat + power consumption, wafer size, and cost. But I did it with a computer engineer helping me. These are all still "dream machines" - they just have one foot in reality.

Core speeds listed are the maximum for one or usually two cores.

2H 2020 or 1H 2021 - TSMC 5 Machines

Macbook Air

4x Firestorm Cores @ 3GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2GHz

10-core Apple Bionic iGPU

16GB LPDDR5 @ 25.6GB/s

• A newly-fanless notebook, it has the same thermal constraints as an iPad Pro and uses the same part.
• The more interesting machines are lower down the list.
• Only one core can run at 3GHz. Clocks scale down in two stages to ~2.7GHz.
• LPDDR5 is layered on to the SoC using Samsung's two-dies-one-module 16bit x 2 design.

Macbook Pro (13”)

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2GHz

20-core Apple Bionic iGPU

32GB LPDDR5 @ 51.2 GB/s

• Two cores can run at 3GHz; clocks scale down in two stages to ~2.7GHz.
• The same chassis as the current MBP13 with no real bells or whistles.
• Two 16x2 LPDDR5 modules.

Mac Mini

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3.3GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2GHz

20-core Apple Bionic iGPU

64GB+ DDR5 @ 51.2 GB/s

• May look familiar.
• Pushes clocks much more aggressively than the MBP13: top speed is 3.3GHz, 2 cores can run at that speed. 8 cores at 3GHz.
• 128GB of DDR5 is available whenever someone starts manufacturing it.

iMac (24)

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3.3GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2GHz

20-core Apple Bionic iGPU+

8GB HBM2E L4 cache @ 384 GB/s

64GB+ DDR5 @ 102.4 GB/s

• First device to attempt HBM2E on package. Also upgradable to 2x2 channel DDR5.
• 16GB of HBM2E is possible, but there is just no point at this level of performance.
• GPU cores are clocked up ~15% and use around 1W (note the +)
• Still the Bloomberg APU, CPU cores operating in the same fashion as the Mac Mini.
• Prime candidate to be upgradable with the better APUs released on N5P

2H 2021 - TSMC 5NP Machines

Macbook Pro 14” (Mini LED)

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2.15GHz

20-core Apple Bionic iGPU

8GB HBM2E L4 cache @ 192 GB/s

64GB+ DDR5 @ 51.2 GB/s

• The MBP14 debuts on N5P, replacing the 13. Rather than raising clocks, it uses power savings to afford an HBM stack.
• It also squeezes in a DDR5 module, so someday you can pay $2,000 for 128GB.
• 8GB is the maximum amount of HBM2E, in part because we need to limit the number of channels for power consumption purposes.
• The APUs debuting in the MBP16 and MBP14 become available in earlier models as upgrades.

Macbook Pro 16” (Mini LED)

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3.2GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2.15GHz

40-core Apple Bionic iGPU

16GB HBM2E L4 cache @ 384 GB/s

128GB+ DDR5 @ 102.4 GB/s

• N5P brings 7% higher clocks than other mobile parts in the same 5W envelope. 2 cores run at 3.2GHz, 8 cores run around 2.9GHz. The GPU clocks are 7% higher than other mobile parts, too.
• The GPU cores doubled - raison d'etre for higher density HBM2E.
• It also uses two dual-channel DDR5 modules (2 x 2 x 32bit).

iMac 29.5”

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3.5GHz

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2.15GHz

40-core Apple Bionic iGPU+

16GB HBM2E L4 cache @ 512 GB/s

128GB+ DDR5 @ 102.4 GB/s

• Don’t call it “Pro,” but it's no slouch.
• CPU and GPU clocks are aggressive. The HBM is clocked faster, too.
• I do think this GPU can exceed the 5700 XT.

Guidelines used (for nerds)

I generally stayed within the thermal constraints of currently-used Intel APUs, but allowed the 16" APU 65W (the amount used by Kaby G in the Dell XPS 15) and the iMac 24 80W (It's not actually thermal constrained).

I pegged a single Firestorm Core on TSMC 5 to use about 5W at 3GHz. There is not as much clock speed variation as you might expect. This is primarily because Apple already pushes their A-series chips fairly far up the exponential power curve, and where you see chips running at 3.3GHz on N5 I'm expecting them to use 15W+ a core. All chips scale down in two stages: 3% as more than 25% of cores come online, and an additional 8% as more than 50% of cores come online.

The transition to N5P nets 7% clock boosts or 15% efficiency savings. Only the MBP14 leverages the efficiency savings.

I put an individual iGPU core at .7W, and the iGPU+ cores at 1W.

I reuse SoCs to save costs and try to keep the architectures similar so as much design could be reused as possible. There are only 2 Mac exclusive SoCs.

I generally left about 5W for the Neural Engine, efficiency cores, and other parts on the larger APUs.

I'm wary of only a few elements of these predictions:

1. The 13" MacBook Pro is slated to make the jump first (alongside or not alongside the 21.5" iMac successor 24" iMac); yet we've only seen part leaks for the MacBook Air so far. This is odd as the 13" MacBook Pro was, next to this most recent 27" iMac update, the most recent Mac update this year.

2. There hasn't been ANY word about the Mac mini and some leakers aren't even including it in their leaks/predictions

3. It seems odd to update the 13" MacBook Pro three times in the same span of ~16 months, even if the third time transitions it to a 14" MacBook Pro and to only update the 16" MacBook Pro once in ~24 months. I get the importance of having it go first. But with three current 13" Mac notebooks, even shrinking that down to two (when the Apple Silicon MacBook Air model will be easily able to achieve greater levels of performance than has ever been had by any Intel 13" MacBook Pro) seems redundant. A 13" Air, followed by a 14" MacBook, followed by a 16" MacBook Pro would make a ton of sense (give or take swapping "MacBook" for "MacBook Air" in that example).

4. I'm also not sure why you peg the Air and the 13" Pro as having a 4-core difference between them considering the thermal limitations between the two machines had more to do with the thermal inefficiencies of Intel's CPUs and than with the reasonable differences in limitation of those same thermal envelopes on ARM (which is to say that, unless Apple is looking to push each enclosure to its limit, we won't have the need for the Air to have a less performant CPU than would've been in a 13" Pro).

5. I'm not sure why you don't think the 27" iMac replacement won't be called "iMac Pro". Given that (a) it will be having to top a 3-year old Xeon and a 10th Gen 10-core CPU that gives said Xeon a run for its money and (b) Apple has been slowly pushing the 27" iMac as the iMac that can be used in some professional level workflows, it wouldn't surprise me to see the 24" Apple Silicon iMac merely branded as "iMac" while the larger iMac is branded "iMac Pro". Makes the lineup way clearer and cleaner. I anticipate they'll do the same with the MacBook Pro, considering that, unless this changes drastically upon the switch to Apple Silicon, the 13" MacBook Pro never had anything prosumer level (let alone professional level) inside of it; it was just a high-end ultrabook from the Retina era onwards.

 

[Boil]

Maybe a return to the 3x3 product matrix...?


Three laptops:

12" MacBook Air (entry-level)
14" MacBook (mid-range)
16" MacBook Pro (high-end)


Three AIOs:

24" iMac (entry-level)
27" iMac (mid-range)
30" iMac Pro (high-end)


Three desktops:

Mac mini (entry-level)
xMac (mid-range)
Mac Pro (high-end)


I would just hope Apple could get a xMac down to less than 20 liters of volume, so I can have a properly performant Small Form Factor computer from Apple...!!!

 

[Kostask]

I really think there will be 3 main laptop models, an entry level ultra-light, a 14" MacBook Pro, and a 16" MacBook Pro. The entry level will have the same SoC as the lower end MacBook Pro, passive cooling, and a 32GB max Memory size, with 16GB on SoC, and the same screen as today's MacBook Air, and 2 ports, emphasis being battery life; the base 14" MacBook Pro will have 4 ports, a better screen, a higher clocked SoC, active cooling, and higher maximum RAM size. There will be a higher end MacBook 14", with the "midrange" SoC, that adds more CPU Cores, more GPU cores, maybe more ML/AI cores, better screen (3200X1800?). The MacBook Pro 16" will have the midrange SoC as well, with a higher clock, 4K screen, more base and higher maximum RAM size.

Desktops come in 2 major sizes. The 24" will have a base model with the entry level SoC, with the 4 ports. Screen will be 5K, the rest pretty much as the 14" base model, above, with the maximum RAM being higher and an ethernet port. The higher end 24" and base 30" will use the midrange SoC, with a 5K and 6K screens, probably clocked higher, and an ethernet port. The high end 30" iMac will use the MacPros SoC and probably a dGPU.

There will be two Mac Minis. The "regular" one using the entry level SoC, pretty much as per the MacBook Pro 14" base model, but with an added ethernet port. There will be a "server" Mac Mini, with the midrange CPU, again with an added ethernet port. The server Mac Mini will use the same case as the current Mac Mini, the regular Mac Mini may use a different case, I am thinking about half the height of today's Mac Mini, but other dimensions the same.

The laptops make up the vast majority of Mac Sales, yet you are reducing the number of Mac Laptops, and have more Mac desktops than laptops.

 

[iPadified]

I wished that "Consumer", "Prosumer" and "Pro" where not used. It says very little. Using these classifiers to screen size illustrates this clearly. I get you point but people needs are very different. I get your point that larger screens are likely contain more powerful processors.

Office/home (low end), video/photo (mid end), Gaming/CAD/3D (high end) would be more descriptive classifiers.

24 inch: Office/home to video/photo (4k? that requires a 21.5 inch screen or lower dpi)
27 inch: video/photo to Gaming/CAD/3D (5k)
32 inch: Gaming/CAD/3D (higher end) (6k)

I agree, three laptops are sufficient and could be target to different work types as the iMac range.

You should answer as few questions as possible such as:

What will you use the computer for?
Laptop or desktop?
Which screen size do you prefer?
How much SSD do you need?

Choices of RAM only applies for specialists in the field so perhaps that will be a choice as well.

 

[Jorbanead]

2. There hasn't been ANY word about the Mac mini and some leakers aren't even including it in their leaks/predictions

It's been awhile, so I could be misremembering, but I don't really recall a ton of rumors about a new Mac mini back in 2018 when we got the massive internal upgrade.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I really think there will be 3 main laptop models, an entry level ultra-light, a 14" MacBook Pro, and a 16" MacBook Pro. The entry level will have the same SoC as the lower end MacBook Pro, passive cooling, and a 32GB max Memory size, with 16GB on SoC, and the same screen as today's MacBook Air, and 2 ports, empahsis being battery life; the base 14" MacBook Pro will have 4 ports, a better screen, a higher clocked SoC, active cooling, and higher maximum RAM size. There will be a higher end MacBook 14", with the "midrange" SoC, that adds more CPU Cores, more GPU cores, maybe more ML/AI cores, better screen (3200X1800?). The MacBook Pro 16" will have the midrange SoC as well, with a higher clock, 4K screen, more base and higher maximum RAM size.

Desktops come in 2 major sizes. The 24" will have a base model with the entry level SoC, with the 4 ports. Screen will be 5K, the rest pretty much as the 14" base model, above, with the maximum RAM being higher and an ethernet port. The higher end 24" and base 30" will use the midrange SoC, with a 5K and 6K screens, probably clocked higher, and an ethernet port. The high end 30" iMac will use the MacPros SoC and probably a dGPU.

There will be two Mac Minis. The "regular" one using the entry level SoC, pretty much as per the MacBook Pro 14" base model, but with an added ethernet port. There will be a "server" Mac Mini, with the midrange CPU, again with an added ethernet port. The server Mac Mini will use the same case as the current Mac Mini, the regular Mac Mini may use a different case, I am thinking about half the height of today's Mac Mini, but other dimensions the same.

The laptops make up the vast majority of Mac Sales, yet you are reducing the number of Mac Laptops, and have more Mac desktops than laptops.

For a computer company, Apple has a remarkably small number of notebook offerings. Apple does this because, relative to the platform, they do not need the kind of sprawl in their product lines that Dell, HP, or Lenovo have (especially since most of that sprawl goes to business-specific offerings). That said, of the current 4 notebook offerings, 3 of them are 13". Admittedly, this is largely because each processor offering has different performance maximums and requires different chassis to accommodate for three different sets of thermal restrictions.

There is no other practical reason to offer so many 13" notebooks once you remove the thermal restrictions in place that justifies there being three different categories of machine. Citing marketing reasons is great and all, but if I'm shopping for a 13" Mac notebook and the lowest end one checks all of the boxes because Apple Silicon enables Apple to put every desired feature from a 13" Pro into the Air, what reason do I have to buy a 13" Pro?

Making a 14" MacBook Pro would be one thing. But that only serves a purpose if Apple keeps the performance closer to the 16" model. Otherwise, an Apple Silicon MacBook Air would easily be able to cannibalize it because, especially during an economy-devastating pandemic, people are going to be less inclined to spend more for what doesn't serve a practical function.

It's been awhile, so I could be misremembering, but I don't really recall a ton of rumors about a new Mac mini back in 2018 when we got the massive internal upgrade.

There's been nothing since the Apple Silicon announcement talking about a Mac mini. Hell, I haven't heard anything since the 2018 Mac mini launch. It's clear that they do not need to keep it updated as frequently as the other Macs (however annoying that may be to Mac mini customers), but given that they're looking to eventually kill off every Intel Mac, they're at least going to need a plan on what to do with the Mac mini currently being sold.

 

[Kostask]

The 14" MacBook Pro (entry level) will have more ports, a faster clocked SoC, a higher resolution screen, and can be ordered with more RAM, all of which gives it more capability that the MB/MBA. It will also have active cooling (=fan) to allow it to work for longer at top speed. The MBA will dispense with 2 ports, have a lower resolution screen, max out at 32GB RAM, and a slower SoC, and be passively cooled in order to try and maximize battery life.

The higher end 14" MacBook Pro will have the midrange SoC (more CPU and GPU cores) at a midrange clock speed, an even higher resolution screen, and again, active cooling.

My thought is that the MB/MBAir Soc will be running at 2.4-2.5 Ghz, and have 8 high power cores/4 efficiency cored. The Entry Level 14" MBP has the same SoC, but running at 3.0GHz, and be able to be orderd with >32GB RAM. The higher end MBP gets the midrange SoC, so 10-12 high power cores/4 efficiency cores, running at around 2.8Ghz, a few more GPU cores, probably running 2.6-2.8GHz. All SoCs will have 4 USB4/TB4 ports, but only two will be brought out to the case sides for the MB/MBAir.

This should allow for enough differentiation between models to allow each to find their buyers.

 

[Jorbanead]

There's been nothing since the Apple Silicon announcement talking about a Mac mini. Hell, I haven't heard anything since the 2018 Mac mini launch. It's clear that they do not need to keep it updated as frequently as the other Macs (however annoying that may be to Mac mini customers), but given that they're looking to eventually kill off every Intel Mac, they're at least going to need a plan on what to do with the Mac mini currently being sold.

The only possible clue that’s been hinted is the Bloomberg report that they are working on 3 12-core chips. Looking over the thermals for the entire Mac lineup, my guess is the MBP, iMac 24” and Mac Mini are all going to use the same 12-core chip (they will just be clocked slightly differently). Traditionally the 21.5” iMac and Mac Mini share the same processor options. It’s just my speculation of course.

 

[MalcolmH]

I don’t think the Apple ARM cores do SMT (hyperthreading), so I’d hope for a higher core count, especially on the form factors where the chip could be actively cooled. Ampere has just announced an 80 core ARM chip for servers, so there should be enough room on the soc for say 16, 24, 32 cores for an actively cooled chip ?

 

[the8thark]

I don’t think the Apple ARM cores do SMT (hyperthreading), so I’d hope for a higher core count, especially on the form factors where the chip could be actively cooled. Ampere has just announced an 80 core ARM chip for servers, so there should be enough room on the soc for say 16, 24, 32 cores for an actively cooled chip ?

That's the intel way of thinking. Just throw more cores at the problem without actually dealing with the real issues there. Apple is taking the opposite approach and making each individual core better performing and more efficient.

 

[MalcolmH]

There are some cases where more cores is beneficial. Eg running VMs. But I agree, we are seeing more work offloaded to gpus and specialised work units for other use cases.

 

[Kostask]

There will be clock speed variations, even within a "range". As I wrote above, the low end MBP/MBA14", gets the slowest clock speed, the same Soc clocked faster could be in the 14" MBP base level, and the fastest clocked SoC could be in the Mac Mini regular model (=non-server version).

I think the 12 Core that Bloomberg is talking about is the entry level SoC with 8 performance and 4 efficiency cores. I don't think that we will see anything less than 8 performance cores, as Apple has stated they aren't using SMT/Hyperthreading.

 

[awesomedeluxe]

Wow this blew up a little bit. So many thanks for all the thoughtful replies!

I'm wary of only a few elements of these predictions:

1. The 13" MacBook Pro is slated to make the jump first (alongside or not alongside the 21.5" iMac successor 24" iMac); yet we've only seen part leaks for the MacBook Air so far. This is odd as the 13" MacBook Pro was, next to this most recent 27" iMac update, the most recent Mac update this year.

2. There hasn't been ANY word about the Mac mini and some leakers aren't even including it in their leaks/predictions

3. It seems odd to update the 13" MacBook Pro three times in the same span of ~16 months, even if the third time transitions it to a 14" MacBook Pro and to only update the 16" MacBook Pro once in ~24 months. I get the importance of having it go first. But with three current 13" Mac notebooks, even shrinking that down to two (when the Apple Silicon MacBook Air model will be easily able to achieve greater levels of performance than has ever been had by any Intel 13" MacBook Pro) seems redundant. A 13" Air, followed by a 14" MacBook, followed by a 16" MacBook Pro would make a ton of sense (give or take swapping "MacBook" for "MacBook Air" in that example).

4. I'm also not sure why you peg the Air and the 13" Pro as having a 4-core difference between them considering the thermal limitations between the two machines had more to do with the thermal inefficiencies of Intel's CPUs and than with the reasonable differences in limitation of those same thermal envelopes on ARM (which is to say that, unless Apple is looking to push each enclosure to its limit, we won't have the need for the Air to have a less performant CPU than would've been in a 13" Pro).

5. I'm not sure why you don't think the 27" iMac replacement won't be called "iMac Pro". Given that (a) it will be having to top a 3-year old Xeon and a 10th Gen 10-core CPU that gives said Xeon a run for its money and (b) Apple has been slowly pushing the 27" iMac as the iMac that can be used in some professional level workflows, it wouldn't surprise me to see the 24" Apple Silicon iMac merely branded as "iMac" while the larger iMac is branded "iMac Pro". Makes the lineup way clearer and cleaner. I anticipate they'll do the same with the MacBook Pro, considering that, unless this changes drastically upon the switch to Apple Silicon, the 13" MacBook Pro never had anything prosumer level (let alone professional level) inside of it; it was just a high-end ultrabook from the Retina era onwards.

I agree the 13" MBP struck me as weird at first. But it does makes sense because the Bloomberg APU we've heard about would be a perfect fit for that size machine. And I think it's kind of their "launch APU" for AS Macs, so to the extent that it can be shoved into existing chassis I think it will be. I included the Mac Mini because I think with just a little clock speed variation, that same APU would work. The Mac Mini doesn't have a dedicated graphics part which is really the key here.

Point 4... I honestly think you are relying on wrong assumptions. The gap between the MBP13 and the Air is pretty wide. The Air uses a 9W TDP APU in one configuration, the MBP13 uses a 28W APU and definitely has at least one more memory channel. What does Intel's inefficiency (?) have to do with it? The machines are specced to their relative thermal envelopes, and the MBP13 has three times more room to play.

5, it is because the machine I specced out is not competitive with the current iMac Pro in terms of graphics. You are focused on the wrong place looking at the Xeon. I don't think it's impossible that the iMac 27 and iMac Pro will merge, but it will require a sophisticated graphics solution that I don't think will be available until 2022.

Maybe a return to the 3x3 product matrix...?


Three laptops:

12" MacBook Air (entry-level)
14" MacBook (mid-range)
16" MacBook Pro (high-end)


Three AIOs:

24" iMac (entry-level)
27" iMac (mid-range)
30" iMac Pro (high-end)


Three desktops:

Mac mini (entry-level)
xMac (mid-range)
Mac Pro (high-end)


I would just hope Apple could get a xMac down to less than 20 liters of volume, so I can have a properly performant Small Form Factor computer from Apple...!!!

I think that's more or less how notebooks will shake out, although I think the thin and light will stick with the Air's 13" screen and just drop the fan.

I don't think we'll see the xMac, mostly because I think the APU in the Mac mini will be very impressive relative to the machine's current performance.

I really think there will be 3 main laptop models, an entry level ultra-light, a 14" MacBook Pro, and a 16" MacBook Pro. The entry level will have the same SoC as the lower end MacBook Pro, passive cooling, and a 32GB max Memory size, with 16GB on SoC, and the same screen as today's MacBook Air, and 2 ports, emphasis being battery life; the base 14" MacBook Pro will have 4 ports, a better screen, a higher clocked SoC, active cooling, and higher maximum RAM size. There will be a higher end MacBook 14", with the "midrange" SoC, that adds more CPU Cores, more GPU cores, maybe more ML/AI cores, better screen (3200X1800?). The MacBook Pro 16" will have the midrange SoC as well, with a higher clock, 4K screen, more base and higher maximum RAM size.

Desktops come in 2 major sizes. The 24" will have a base model with the entry level SoC, with the 4 ports. Screen will be 5K, the rest pretty much as the 14" base model, above, with the maximum RAM being higher and an ethernet port. The higher end 24" and base 30" will use the midrange SoC, with a 5K and 6K screens, probably clocked higher, and an ethernet port. The high end 30" iMac will use the MacPros SoC and probably a dGPU.

There will be two Mac Minis. The "regular" one using the entry level SoC, pretty much as per the MacBook Pro 14" base model, but with an added ethernet port. There will be a "server" Mac Mini, with the midrange CPU, again with an added ethernet port. The server Mac Mini will use the same case as the current Mac Mini, the regular Mac Mini may use a different case, I am thinking about half the height of today's Mac Mini, but other dimensions the same.

The laptops make up the vast majority of Mac Sales, yet you are reducing the number of Mac Laptops, and have more Mac desktops than laptops.

This is more or less my thinking for the laptops as well, except that the Air will have the iPad SoC. But I'll think about it.

The thing with the elimination of the "Pro" models is that a big differentiator of those machines is actually graphics. So as much sense as it might seem to make to consolidate, Apple still has to have a part that's competitive with the Radeon Pro Vega 64X before they can release an iMac Pro and I do not think that is possible in the near term.

The server Mac Mini seems viable as an alternative to resurrecting an xMac. I would love it if such a machine existed.

There is no other practical reason to offer so many 13" notebooks once you remove the thermal restrictions in place that justifies there being three different categories of machine. Citing marketing reasons is great and all, but if I'm shopping for a 13" Mac notebook and the lowest end one checks all of the boxes because Apple Silicon enables Apple to put every desired feature from a 13" Pro into the Air, what reason do I have to buy a 13" Pro?

Again I think you do not understand the vast difference in the thermal envelopes of these machines. There is a ton you can do with that extra space. You can certainly accomplish a lot more than they are right now.

But to begin with, why don't you just look at what the difference is right now? The MBP 13 can run four cores at 2.3GHz and the Air can run four cores at 1.2GHz. The MBP13 has an extra memory channel for up to 32GB of faster memory and tons more I/O. Surely the performance difference is clear? It's not like the Apple Silicon part wouldn't be capable of scaling the same way.

The only possible clue that’s been hinted is the Bloomberg report that they are working on 3 12-core chips. Looking over the thermals for the entire Mac lineup, my guess is the MBP, iMac 24” and Mac Mini are all going to use the same 12-core chip (they will just be clocked slightly differently). Traditionally the 21.5” iMac and Mac Mini share the same processor options. It’s just my speculation of course.

Hey, that's my guess too!

I think the big differentiator for the Bloomberg APU is actually in the GPU needs. Some machines have AMD parts with HBM2. So yeah, you can't plug the same 12-core APU into everything.

That's the intel way of thinking. Just throw more cores at the problem without actually dealing with the real issues there. Apple is taking the opposite approach and making each individual core better performing and more efficient.

Yes. But the reasonable people on this board are the ones only trying to put 8-12 cores in Macbook Air. I am a heretic for suggesting we go as low as four.

There are some cases where more cores is beneficial. Eg running VMs. But I agree, we are seeing more work offloaded to gpus and specialised work units for other use cases.

We have infinite discussions about how Apple is going to use unified memory to maximize GPGPU computing. All of my designs do this too, but i have no idea what happens when we get to the high high end.

There will be clock speed variations, even within a "range". As I wrote above, the low end MBP/MBA14", gets the slowest clock speed, the same Soc clocked faster could be in the 14" MBP base level, and the fastest clocked SoC could be in the Mac Mini regular model (=non-server version).

I think the 12 Core that Bloomberg is talking about is the entry level SoC with 8 performance and 4 efficiency cores. I don't think that we will see anything less than 8 performance cores, as Apple has stated they aren't using SMT/Hyperthreading.

OK. @Kostask @Yebubbleman @MalcolmH and @Boil, I will try to look at this your way. We will try to shove a 12-core Bloomberg SOC into the Air together. But first, I want to clarify that this is not the Air's base part, nor is it the same part I have in the high-end MBP13. As you're going to see, it needs a different solution than the Bloomberg APU I outlined above and this solution can only be shared with a 2 USB port MBP13 (which will have to keep existing). The Air is supposed to be cheap, and if it is getting its own bespoke Bloomberg APU then that will have to come with a price raise. With that out of the way, let's get started.

The Air's top-end APU is a 9W part and we are trying to fit 8 firestorm cores in the same space. Some things have to go. We also have to power our GPU in this space, our neural engine, our cache, and our efficiency cores. This is a tight squeeze.

We can start by lopping off four GPU cores and using less cache. We can probably give these firestorm cores most of a watt each as long as the GPU isn't doing anything intense. If our GPU needs to do something, we'll just drop four of our perf cores like the dead weight they are and have the efficiency cores take over instead.

The Air can't use fancy memory because that creates too much heat, so let's lop off memory pinouts. We want one 2x16 LPDDR5 module from Samsung and we will just put it on the other side of the board. Still faster than the Air's current config.

On a machine the size of the Air power consumed by I/O is nontrivial, so we will cut off the I/O channels we are not using and stick with the current two-port design.

Lastly, we'll need to leave the fan. This is a non-change, but we can't transition the Air to a fanless design with this part which probably consumes as much or more power than Intel's Ice Lake part.

So it looks like this:

8x Firestorm Cores @ 3GHz (2.15GHz with all cores in use)

4x Icestorm Cores @ 2GHz

12-core Apple Bionic iGPU

16GB LPDDR5 @ 25.6GB/s

What do you think? Feel free to offer changes and corrections. This is an upgrade over the A14X, but it's honestly a small upgrade since 1) the situations where all 8 firestorm cores can actually turn on are pretty niche 2) they won't substantially outperform the efficiency cores + GPGPU with less than a watt behind them anyway. However, having a bespoke part for the Air probably allows us to use a few extra GPU cores (I have 12 here, and while I originally gave the A14X 10 it might have just 8 in the scenario where this upgrade exists) which is nice.

 

[thenewperson]

Is anyone actually suggesting the Air get the 8P+4E configuration? As far as I've understood the thread so far, the Air will get the same 4+4 as the iPad and (potentially) go fanless like it too. That should be enough to give it a very huge lead over the current 10th gen parts it has now, and maybe even beat the 13" MBPs in any config. I think that's where the Air replacing the 13" Pro idea comes from. Then there's space for the 14" to be the new 4-port smaller machine, hopefully getting much closer to the 16" configs than the 13" did.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Point 4... I honestly think you are relying on wrong assumptions. The gap between the MBP13 and the Air is pretty wide. The Air uses a 9W TDP APU in one configuration, the MBP13 uses a 28W APU and definitely has at least one more memory channel. What does Intel's inefficiency (?) have to do with it? The machines are specced to their relative thermal envelopes, and the MBP13 has three times more room to play.

You're still looking at this from the standpoint of Intel's offerings and not from the standpoint of Apple's. Apple can use a 9W TDP SoC on a MacBook Air that utterly decimates the 28W 10th Gen chips in the current 2020 Intel 4-port 13" MacBook Pro. Similarly, you are speaking of Intel-defined memory channels and memory channel limitations on Intel CPUs. Apple doesn't have to follow Intel's playbook when designing chips just because Intel did it a certain way with x86-64.

Also, Apple will VERY LIKELY not push each chassis to their respective thermal limits. Why? Because they won't have to in order to resoundingly best the performance of current Intel Macs. That's the whole reason why an Apple Silicon MacBook Air will be able to cannibalize the Intel 13" MacBook Pro. That's not to say that an Apple Silicon 14" MacBook Pro is out of the question, but, assuming Apple's intent is to make a machine closer to the 16" MacBook Pro, said machine would be little like the 13" MacBook Pro, which was and is about as "Pro in name only" as any Apple product can get.

5, it is because the machine I specced out is not competitive with the current iMac Pro in terms of graphics. You are focused on the wrong place looking at the Xeon. I don't think it's impossible that the iMac 27 and iMac Pro will merge, but it will require a sophisticated graphics solution that I don't think will be available until 2022.

Have you not been paying attention to the CURRENT level of graphics performance on Apple Silicon? They took the A12Z from this year's iPad Pro (which is basically the A12X from 2018's iPad Pros with one extra GPU core enabled), slapped it into a Mac mini chassis, slapped on the Apple Silicon version of Big Sur, and threw on a natively running Final Cut Pro with three simultaneous 4K streams running on it.

To quote Craig Federighi, that's with Apple "not even trying". The graphics that we're going to see on these first wave of Apple Silicon Macs (which, again, will be lower-end Macs) will be insane. And we're very likely not going to see the higher-end Macs (16" MacBook Pro, aforementioned higher-end iMacs, etc.) make the jump from Intel to Apple Silicon until Apple has even better GPUs in tow. So, no, we'll definitely see that level of performance in 2021.

 

[awesomedeluxe]

Is anyone actually suggesting the Air get the 8P+4E configuration? As far as I've understood the thread so far, the Air will get the same 4+4 as the iPad and (potentially) go fanless like it too. That should be enough to give it a very huge lead over the current 10th gen parts it has now, and maybe even beat the 13" MBPs in any config. I think that's where the Air replacing the 13" Pro idea comes from. Then there's space for the 14" to be the new 4-port smaller machine, hopefully getting much closer to the 16" configs than the 13" did.

Yes. Literally everyone is suggesting this.

As I (sort of) illustrate above, an 8+4 processor in the Air is not a technical impossibility so much as not really worth it. On the other hand, the A14X has roughly the same thermals, I/O, and memory as the Air requires and is an almost-perfect fit as is. And as you say, everything we know suggests that the A14X is well positioned to compete with Tiger Lake. So I I agree on balance that the A14X is the likely top end part.

Still, I am trying to give other points of view full credit. Bloomberg did say Apple was developing 3 SoCs. If the two port MBP13 sticks around, an APU like I outlined above would make sense as an upgrade for the Air and as the base part for the two port MBP. Note that this APU wouldn't require any original research; it's basically just the same APU with things removed.

You're still looking at this from the standpoint of Intel's offerings and not from the standpoint of Apple's. Apple can use a 9W TDP SoC on a MacBook Air that utterly decimates the 28W 10th Gen chips in the current 2020 Intel 4-port 13" MacBook Pro. Similarly, you are speaking of Intel-defined memory channels and memory channel limitations on Intel CPUs. Apple doesn't have to follow Intel's playbook when designing chips just because Intel did it a certain way with x86-64.

Also, Apple will VERY LIKELY not push each chassis to their respective thermal limits. Why? Because they won't have to in order to resoundingly best the performance of current Intel Macs. That's the whole reason why an Apple Silicon MacBook Air will be able to cannibalize the Intel 13" MacBook Pro. That's not to say that an Apple Silicon 14" MacBook Pro is out of the question, but, assuming Apple's intent is to make a machine closer to the 16" MacBook Pro, said machine would be little like the 13" MacBook Pro, which was and is about as "Pro in name only" as any Apple product can get.

Let's assume you are correct that Apple can make a 9W APU competitive with Intel's 28W Tiger Lake offering.

Why would Apple not also make a 28W part competitive with Intel's 45W offerings for an MBP14? I said it before: the Apple Silicon part can scale up too. It's not about the starting line of performance, it's about the distance that can be covered with three times the amount of performance capacity.

You seem like you're both quite smart and quite passionate about Apple's upcoming products. So why not put in the effort to build a solid foundation of what is achievable using numbers instead of talking points? For instance, you mention memory channels on the Air as if it's some kind of arbitrary Intel limitation, but the reality is that more memory channels use more power. How much power would additional channels of LPDDR5 use? Why don't you look it up? Here is a starting point for you: the Air needs to use no more than 10W for its APU and memory if we want to get similar or better battery life to the current machine. Make your own estimate for what is possible in a 10W space

 

[MalcolmH]

Is anyone actually suggesting the Air get the 8P+4E configuration? As far as I've understood the thread so far, the Air will get the same 4+4 as the iPad and (potentially) go fanless like it too. That should be enough to give it a very huge lead over the current 10th gen parts it has now, and maybe even beat the 13" MBPs in any config. I think that's where the Air replacing the 13" Pro idea comes from. Then there's space for the 14" to be the new 4-port smaller machine, hopefully getting much closer to the 16" configs than the 13" did.

If it’s 4+4 then I assume it will be the same chip with some cores switched off (binned) ?