M Silicon vs M Co-processors?

[GaelenSky]

Anyone else wondering how Apple will navigate this obvious overlap in future?

If you’re not already aware, Apple have already - for a number of years - referred to their co-processors in the A-series of chips as ‘M’. For example, an iPad Pro 2020 has the M12.

An interesting discussion to be had as to why the ‘M’ is important in the naming scheme (Macintosh, presumably) and how secure it is in Apple’s product roadmap.

What’s your thoughts?

 

[satcomer]

No a laptop and Mac Mini are use for two different reasons! So Apple just the Chips, modify with extra bits and realized it as the M1! So in way they are modified!

 

[GaelenSky]

No a laptop and Mac Mini are use for two different reasons! So Apple just the Chips, modify with extra bits and realized it as the M1! So in way they are modified!

My point is, apple has two chips/components in their fabrication process with the prefix letter 'M'.

 

[mi7chy]

Good point. Apple has until M7 when the names overlap. Obviously oversight. Should've called the new SoCs something else like MM or MX.

 

[satcomer]

My point is, apple has two chips/components in their fabrication process with the prefix letter 'M'.

That because it’s the fourth chip in it’s line so I guess they decided to use the M!

 

[ader42]

They will likely change the name of the motion co-processors to MC or something.

 

[haralds]

The naming is "markitecture." Apple purpose designs blocks that are assembled into SoCs for specific OS and system requirements.

 

[GaelenSky]

The naming is "markitecture." Apple purpose designs blocks that are assembled into SoCs for specific OS and system requirements.

Interesting, but how does "markitecture" fit in this naming scheme? I'm struggling to grasp what it truly represents from descriptions elsewhere, perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

[xraydoc]

Good point. Apple has until M7 when the names overlap. Obviously oversight. Shouldn't called the new SoCs something else like MM or MX.

Or not an oversight and they just don't care. The iPhone/iPad "M" chips aren't even separate chips any more as far as I can tell. Not sure they're using it in marketing any more like when having motion-activated sensors in a phone was a new thing. I think they're just going to pretend the 'original' M-chips don't count.

 

[AppleB]

I forgot about the M named co processor. I don’t see any confusion. M1  Silicon is what everyone is focused on currently.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Anyone else wondering how Apple will navigate this obvious overlap in future?

If you’re not already aware, Apple have already - for a number of years - referred to their co-processors in the A-series of chips as ‘M’. For example, an iPad Pro 2020 has the M12.

An interesting discussion to be had as to why the ‘M’ is important in the naming scheme (Macintosh, presumably) and how secure it is in Apple’s product roadmap.

What’s your thoughts?

I have wondered this too. They're safe up until M6. Then it gets silly thereafter.

 

[thisismyusername]

They don't need to do anything. Those coprocessors are now embedded into the main processor. Plus, to my knowledge, they don't even advertise those things anymore or at least I don't think they reference them by their M-names externally. For those that are technical enough to know they even exist and what their names are, not a single one of them would ever confuse them with the similarly named Mac processors. I mean, I doubt there's a single person on this planet that would ever be confused enough by this and think their shiny new iPad contains not only an A-series processor but the same M-series processor found in the new Macs.

 

[macsound1]

Yea, I just searched through all the iPhones listed on Apple's website and there's no mention of the M series co-processor.
I think they are just going to ignore the old naming scheme by the time there's overlap.

 

[thenewperson]

Anyone else wondering how Apple will navigate this obvious overlap in future?

By ignoring it.

 

[GaelenSky]

By ignoring it.

Certainly would seem like the most plausible outcome especially regarding the replies on here. It's not big deal, obviously. But I was curious all the same - even if anyone else knew there already was a (co)processor with the prefix 'M'.