One thing that is obvious is that all these M1 computers packaging are small so all the Apple stores can stock lots of them for consumers this holiday season, provided they don’t have issues maintaining stock. 
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.
Last minute Apple silicon Mac thoughts
- Thread starter DHagan4755
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wait, so if you say this is based on A14, does it mean we will see same chip in iPads Pro soon?
Also: how 4 performance + 4 efficient compare to 4 intel cores? I'm guessing it means same, just more power efficiency (like 4 intel's are both performance and efficiency in one) ?
Also: how 4 performance + 4 efficient compare to 4 intel cores? I'm guessing it means same, just more power efficiency (like 4 intel's are both performance and efficiency in one) ?
As in a discrete Apple GPU, an actual PCIe add-in card...? More info needed...!!!
I would think there could be up to four different models in the M-series family of Mac APUs:
M1 - 4 P / 4 E / 8 GPU / 16 Neural Engine / 16GB RAM
13" MacBook Air / 13" MacBook Pro / Mac mini
M2 - 8 P / 4 E / 12 GPU / 16 Neural Engine / 32GB RAM
16" MacBook Pro / 24" iMac
M3 - 12 P / 4 E / 16 GPU / 24 Neural Engine / 64GB RAM
27" iMac / Mac Cube
M4 - 16 P / 6 E / 24 GPU / 32 Neural Engine / 128GB RAM
Mac Pro
The RAM is on the same package as the SoC, but it is not an integrated part of the SoC that is being fabbed by TSMC @ 5nm...
See those two big black rectangles to the left of the M1 SoC proper...? That is the RAM...
See the above...
Not bad points, but keep in mind they did not replace the 4 port 13” MBP, just the entry level 2 port machine. I have a feeling they are going to do an “M1X” with the new redesigned 14” and 16” MBP’s as well as the 24” iMac. These will be the 8+4 12 core CPU and 12 core GPU SoC’s, and will have the I/O for 4 full USB4 ports and in the iMac’s case 10GbE.
According to Apple’s website, the ports are full TB3/USB4, so...???
Last edited:
This. The 13" MBP seems tempting, depending on where it falls, especially on the GPU side. But I really want to see a 16" and where it winds up.
I think we will see either a "M1, M1X, M1Z" or "M1, P1, X1" naming here. Using different numbers for the same generation will get confusing quick.
I also think you've sliced things up a bit much, looking at what Apple announced today. In addition to the M1, I would suggest the new chips will look more like:
M1X - 16" MacBook Pro, iMac
- Second integrated TB controller
- 32 or 64GB RAM Limit (32GB seems more likely)
- 6~8P cores, where the design is 8 core, but to improve yields, a cut down 6 core makes the baseline.
- Apple may be able to ditch the dGPU here, it feels like a toss-up. Benchmarks of the M1 should give us a clearer picture of just how much ground Apple has made up here.
M1Z - iMac Pro, Mac Pro
- Adds a full PCIe controller, possibly even moving the TB controllers off die to make room.
- May as well consult a crystal ball here about the GPU. It's going to be difficult to beat Vega or Big Navi with an integrated GPU in a die that's also loaded down with CPU cores without tanking yields. But there are many ways Apple can go here.
- >=10P cores. Possibly starting from a 16P design, and disabling bad cores to get the baseline versions like above.
- However much RAM they feel like making available. Machines using this chip may be the only ones that support DIMMs.
Mac Pro needs to support at least 1 TB RAM so maybe some on-die and a memory controller to connect to however much more.
I was thinking that Apple could build something with 128 cores and start a cloud service. If they really have a good advantage over Intel and AMD, then that advantage would transfer to the cloud.
The M1 already needs a memory controller to talk to the on-package RAM. No need for a separate one, really. But if you are going to support DIMMs on a logic board, you may as well just use DIMMs. I'm not aware of a real latency win by putting them on the package (could be wrong). Just a space savings win.
Well, we got (predictably) better battery life?
More limited BTO options re: ram and storage, yikes!
.. and not a single "Bake-off"???
Huh...
I think that they're going to move a lot of these at Target and WalMart in the next seven weeks.
I think it's pretty obvious this is a test run. same chip, cooled and clocked slightly differently in three shells. I think the real leap in performance will be with 12-16 core iterations for the Macbook Pro and iMac. Most of us forget that most people buy the Air. They don't care about complex setups, fast computers etc. So getting the Air out before Christmas makes sense.
When I say "most of us" I mean myself. I'm waiting on the 16" model with at least 8 performance cores. Hopefully it's earlier than March like everyone predicts.
The RAM is on the same package as the SoC, but it is not an integrated part of the SoC that is being fabbed by TSMC @ 5nm...
the SoC is is the package. "Chip" --- package. The die itself isn't really the normal usage of "chip".
SoC's can consist of multiple chips. The A14 (and other plain 'A-series' the RAM is layered on top.). The assembly of dies is the SoC. Doesn't really have to have the RAM in it either. ( exceedingly few of these are 100% complete systems. ) SoC is more so an indication of high (not necessarily total) integration.
Apple didn't get rid of the Intel Mini either. A M1X with perhaps some GPU and/or CPU cores winked off ( 6+4 and 10 GPU ) would probably fit is a "best " mini that didn't loose I/O but would be seperated from an iMac.
Apple's press release says they have their own homeground Thunderbolt controller.
The laptops can't be TBv4 because can only drive one display. If the M1X gets out of the "can only drive 2 display" hole then perhaps could get to TBv4. I suspect that Apple just isn't. Hopefully the 1X can get past this only 2 display limitation. Otherwise the MBP 16" is in same boat.
No, a SoC is always one piece of silicon. That is both how the term is defined for example at Wikipedia and how it is used in general by the industry.
System on a chip - Wikipedia
Intel performance cores use "Core" branding, and their efficiency cores use "Atom" branding. Apple's performance cores are better than Intel's, so if you're looking at a 4P+4E Apple chip compared to an Intel chip with just 4P, the Apple chip has more options for running software in an extremely low power state.
Intel's a little late to the game with CPUs that combine both types of core. They launched their first one very recently, in a 1P+4E config. It's pretty underwhelming compared to Apple's A14 (2P+4E):
Keep in mind that the Intel chip here has a 7W TDP, while the Apple A14 is thought to have roughly a 5W TDP (Apple doesn't publish specs). The A14 uses less power, has double the single-thread performance, and more than double the multi-thread. And its GPU is probably a lot stronger too.
Agreed on the Mac mini - although based on the M1 - I think the binning will be fairly limited, probably only two versions, not several different bin levels, especially since they are not going to name the bin levels differently. As for the custom made TB controller absolutely, but I just expect them to put another one in there so it will be two controllers and get to more displays that way.
I guess I was really hoping to see at least *one* "Whew! OK, they didn't just remove key functionality that many buyers still need (Windows/Intel VM capability) to make even thinner even more compromised Macs"... thing? Just .. one?
Instead, if "Thin" was the drinking word of the day, quite a few viewers would have had liver damage before we even got to the Mac mini...
I had a totally unrealistic hope in the back of my mind.. I really wanted to see a Cube-like Mac that blew the doors off everything, that could even emulate W10 at i5 speeds... then, the "Oh, no, no, no... that's not the new Mac Pro, that's the new Mac Cube. The transitioned Mac Pro is coming... later.." .. I wanted something that people would assume was the new Mac Pro.. performance-wise ... targeting us old crusty IIci/Centris 650 fans... A new pro-sumer Mac.. Including the price...
Totally unrealistic, yes.. but..
What I didn't want, was total focus on the low-end.. 16GB max ram and limited storage options compared to the versions they replace? Especially looking side-by-side at the new vs old Mac mini?
I really felt that Apple needed to come out swinging hard.. and feels like they did just the opposite?
I'm not mad, not even surprised. Just disappointed.
Shrug?
Apple's in the business of making money. As a shareholder, I applaud what they are doing. As a user - meh.
True.
What's also true? Sooner or later, if they want to make money from any of my money, they're going to have to sell something I actually.. want? ;-)
I'm sure that they will get there. In the meantime, I will keep using what I have. I'll order one of these AS machines if I get an AS project.
