No but I would get a gaming PC or console if I was into gaming.Ever played Civ VI which by the way is a port from the desktop version? Then you know. 4Gb is a balance act.
I wouldn't complain, Elon Musk ruined the letter for meYeah, I've been saying that here and there. I think they're done with the "X" branding but I was thinking an M3 Plus to go along with M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max. Plus would have more neural engine cores and be between the M3 and Pro.
M2 - T8112
M3 - T8122
T8132 - M4?
I said this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here.
The M3's chip ID also supports this. Generally, for a given A chip, the corresponding base M chip has a chip ID number that is increased by two. For example:
A14: T8101 -> M1: T8103
A15: T8110 -> M2: T8112
A16: T8120 -> M3: T8122
A17 is T8130, so a base M-series chip based on it would be expected to be T8132. However, M3 is T8122, suggesting that it is based (at least in part) on A16, which is T8120.
If it's possible I would still wait for the 32Core NPU. Don't see it coming with the N3E M4.If we're indeed getting the 'T8132', it certainly looks like the M4 chip (or wahtever it will be called) will at least get the same ML/AI-cores that the A17 Pro has. Good news!
Honestly, if they adopt the A17 Pro architecture than that isn't necessary!If it's possible I would still wait for the 32Core NPU. Don't see it coming with the N3E M4.
Then this is my written proof that I think this chip will not be an M4, but also not an M3. No guess to naming thoughJust for fun, this is my written proof that I do believe the iPad Pros will come with the M4 chip. Then on Tuesday, I can refer back to this post to see if I’m right. 😜
But, of course, if I am right, @Jamie I will be the real MVP who discovered this on their own weeks ago. We’ll need to buy them a drink.
It was the Macs that received the iPad chip, granted some adjustments made for the platform and Rosetta. Marketing changed the naming scheme.Then this is my written proof that I think this chip will not be an M4, but also not an M3. No guess to naming though
I always found it odd for Apple to simpy re-use the Mac chip for iPad. One of the major benefits of designing their own chips, is the ability to customize the chip for the particular purpose. I think the M1 and M2 in iPads were a stop-gap solution, until they were ready with a chip designed specifically for iPad. Like others have pointed out, iPad sells in higher numbers than Macs. It doesn't make sense to have the iPad be compromised to piggy-back off the Mac chips.
It could even be the hint behind the "let loose" moniker. The iPad is finally ready to cut the leash, and be it's own thing rather than being tethered to either the iPhone or the Mac. The first step was iPadOS, now it's time for the CPU.
I don't have enough insight to make an educated guess as to exactly which chip layout makes more sense for the iPad, in terms of core counts etc. I do believe it will be M3 technology though, and not the premiere for M4.
Curveball: They might even release it in two variants (Pro and non-Pro obviously), to differentiate the Air and the Pro. Which would explain the alignment to release them together.
If you want to use that argument, they both received the iPhone chip. Doesn't change that there are legitimate reasons to differentiate the balance between CPU, GPU, Neutral Engine and power consumption in an iPad vs an iMac. Give them two different variations of the iPhone chip then - my points still apply.It was the Macs that received the iPad chip, granted some adjustments made for the platform and Rosetta. Marketing changed the naming scheme.
Nevertheless, until M1 was introduced, they developed chip variants specifically for iPad Pro, while the standard iPad always just used an iPhone CPU. It is not at all unimaginable to create a version specific for iPad Air and/or Pro.There are significant savings in having multiple devices using the same design.
Also, hard to imagine that the Pros and Airs are what's holding high sales numbers for iPads.
The point is that it makes economic sense to use the same chip for multiple devices. Given that we have had an AS transition for the Mac now and that's the current situation: what's so special about the iPad that they would still need to spend engineering resources to have a wholly unique chip for it? Just include what needs to be included and have it go into the Macs as well.If you want to use that argument, they both received the iPhone chip. Doesn't change that there are legitimate reasons to differentiate the balance between CPU, GPU, Neutral Engine and power consumption in an iPad vs an iMac. Give them two different variations of the iPhone chip then - my points still apply.
Nevertheless, until M1 was introduced, they developed chip variants specifically for iPad Pro, while the standard iPad always just used an iPhone CPU. It is not at all unimaginable to create a version specific for iPad Air and/or Pro.
That said, I would not be particularly surprised to see an M3. More likely than M4, in my opinion, but there is usually a reason for the leaked code names. I could be wrong, I just don't see them releasing M4 yet.
Congratulations! You win Macrumors this month!(...)
But these new iPad identifiers have skipped 15 and went straight to 16. Are we about to get an M4 iPad Pro?
I admit it. I was wrongiPad Pro - M3 with 8GB RAM with OLED display and WiFi 6E
iPad Air - A17Pro with 8GB RAM and WiFi 6E
iPad with M4 at least 12 months away probably longer
I admit it. I was wrong
struggling to justify spending over $2500 on a 1TB 13" 5G + MK + pencil pro, when I already have a 5G 12.9" M1 with MK and pencil 2... but the nano display and the lower weight are so tempting...All that matters is... did y'all preorder a max spec 2024 iPad Pro?
Zero chances of M4, zero. M4 is coming either in Autumn or next year, iPad pro is coming in May, regardless of what these codes mean
Things that didn’t age well for $400, Alex
I hereby grant you five being right points 😁The point is that it makes economic sense to use the same chip for multiple devices. Given that we have had an AS transition for the Mac now and that's the current situation: what's so special about the iPad that they would still need to spend engineering resources to have a wholly unique chip for it? Just include what needs to be included and have it go into the Macs as well.
Whatever we see being put into the iPad tomorrow, expect it to go into other things later on as well.
To be fair, so far it's just in the iPad!I hereby grant you five being right points 😁