M1 as an "Industry Game Changer"

[thisismyusername]

Of course this is a huge game changer for the entire industry. I'm not saying x86 is dead but we'll certainly start seeing more companies trying to adopt what Apple has done. Just because in the Windows world the OS and hardware are created by separate companies doesn't mean they can't do the same thing Apple is doing. If Intel/AMD/etc came up with an SoC that really rivals Apple's chips and makes it possible to create a fan-less laptop with great performance and all day battery life (for example), you can be sure Microsoft would do the work to make sure Windows would run on it. I'd be shocked if all the major processor manufacturers haven't already been working on similar SoCs the past few years in anticipation to what Apple's doing.

What I find funny in all of this is that when we look back on this in a few years, we'll see that it took Apple to get Microsoft to take Windows on ARM seriously.

 

[magbarn]

I think it's a "game changer" in that it proves ARM can be a serious competitor to x86 (even though many of us already knew this years ago with the A series chips), but I don't see that having much of an impact on the market outside of the Apple world.

Maybe some of the big vendors like Dell and HP can work with Microsoft or Qualcomm to offer some Windows 10 ARM devices that will be able to compete on battery life while having good performance, changing the ultrabook market, but for the average business user and enthusiasts who do things like game I don't see ARM replacing x86 any time soon. Most people don't even use a computer anymore outside of work/professional use, and for that usage people only care about price, getting work done, and compatibility.

Pretty much this. Many here are stuck in their university/creative world bubble and don't realize how few people even use PCs let alone macs anymore at home. They mostly use their computer at work and then when they get home use their tablets/smartphones mostly while their 10 year old PC gathers dust.

 

[Pressure]

I believe there are a couple of Ryzen SKUs that can exceed the M1 in mobile computing, but only because of many times more threads. And the M1 still leads in per watt.

The single threaded numbers are the most impressive to me. Next up, release a M1Z with 12 perf cores, and leave the world in the dust.

As for a thermally unconstrained M1, if I could swing a $1500 fun project, I'd buy a Mini, and ice water cool the thing. I bet the numbers would be wild.

Why? The Mac mini isn’t throttling at all. Having it water-cooled doesn’t make it boost any higher than the standard 3.2GHz.

 

[Ethosik]

Think about this. The M1 in some ways competes with more powerful Intel processors in the iMac and in some cases the Mac Pro. And it does this at ONLY 14 watts max, sometimes dropping to 7 watts in the laptop versions. This is incredible. Just imagine an M/P/X processor at 100 or 150 watts and how well it can perform when they replace the Mac Pro with Apple Silicon.

 

[Argon_]

Why? The Mac mini isn’t throttling at all. Having it water-cooled doesn’t make it boost any higher than the standard 3.2GHz.

Cooling it to 10C under full load is effectively an overvolt, due to the reduced resistive losses. I bet that a sub ambient run could put up some great numbers, and it would be fun to try.

 

[magbarn]

Think about this. The M1 in some ways competes with more powerful Intel processors in the iMac and in some cases the Mac Pro. And it does this at ONLY 14 watts max, sometimes dropping to 7 watts in the laptop versions. This is incredible. Just imagine an M/P/X processor at 100 or 150 watts and how well it can perform when they replace the Mac Pro with Apple Silicon.

I think your power estimates are a wee bit optimistic. In the Mac Mini it definitely draws more power than 14 watts.

 

[4sallypat]

...... Those who forgot it, got a nice reminder now that it's still in their DNA. It may look old fashioned, but it may be more relevant than ever now!

Do you mean the Apple PowerPC processors that ran RISC ?

 

[Ethosik]

I think your power estimates are a wee bit optimistic. In the Mac Mini it definitely draws more power than 14 watts.

Not according to Maxs tests. It was 13.7 watts. Those charts are probably the entire device, not just the processor/SOC. It makes sense since it lists "AC Wall Power". I was referring to JUST the M1 wattage.

 

[magbarn]

Not according to Maxs tests. It was 13.7 watts. Those charts are probably the entire device, not just the processor/SOC. It makes sense since it lists "AC Wall Power". I was referring to JUST the M1 wattage.

They used idle power to measure the difference between going idle vs. full tilt. What else would be drawing more power other than the SOC during power intensive tests? Is the Mac Mini's power supply that inefficient?

Intel's docs also say that on chip power monitoring (which is what Max only relies on) is not as accurate as just measuring power draw differences at the wall.

 

[Ethosik]

They used idle power to measure the difference between going idle vs. full tilt. What else would be drawing more power other than the SOC during power intensive tests? Is the Mac Mini's power supply that inefficient?

Intel's docs also say that on chip power monitoring (which is what Max only relies on) is not as accurate as just measuring power draw differences at the wall.

It does have a fan you know. That takes power to run. And its not powered by the SOC directly. Which means that the M1 is less than those numbers if you need to include the power to run the fan too.

 

[magbarn]

It does have a fan you know. That takes power to run. And its not powered by the SOC directly. Which means that the M1 is less than those numbers if you need to include the power to run the fan too.

Ummm, no. Even my PC's Noctua 120mm fans draws 0.6 watts at full tilt. I don't think that piddly fan in my Mac Mini would ever come close to that.

 

[Ethosik]

Ummm, no. Even my PC's Noctua 120mm fans draws 0.6 watts at full tilt. I don't think that piddly fan in my Mac Mini would ever come close to that.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1327306039071551490

"According to this interview the M1 can go for 10 watts to 15 watts."

I have seen far more evidence of it being between 10-15 watts than 30 watts.

Mac

The most powerful Mac laptops and desktops ever. Supercharged by Apple silicon. MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro.

www.apple.com

At just 10 watts (the thermal envelope of a MacBook Air), M1 delivers up to 2x the CPU performance of the PC chip. And M1 can match the peak performance of the PC chip while using just a quarter of the power.

 

[JohnnyGo]

I totally agree.
At those times, each computer brought something really new on the market.
Atari ST, Amiga, of course Macs, etc.
There was such excitement, for the really new and cool stuff, back then.

And yes, remembering these old but historical days,
for the first time in decades,
I felt the same excitement when Apple presented Apple Silicons,
like back in 80's!!!

Wow, this is really something new, something better by many views, something alternative,
a new way of better computing.
So yes, this is a totally a game changer move.
Also I feel it like a 'chain reaction' to the computer industry.

This

 

[JohnnyGo]

It's going to be a bloodbath when the Adobe Apple Silicon native apps are released.

Barbaric no rules UFC like take down

 

[user_xyz]

The M1 has been lauded, by tech journalists and users alike, as an industry game changer for personal computing. I'm curious: Do you agree with that statement? If so, how do you think the personal computing industry has been forever changed by the advent of the M1 and Apple Silicon Macs at large?

Personally, I do think it was a fantastic move for Apple and I would argue that it's a game-changer for the Mac. But I don't see the personal computer industry changing or adopting similar strategies to this as a result of Apple doing it. Do I think we'll see more SoCs in non-Mac personal computers? Abso-friggin-lutely. But we're never going to see a computer maker own the entire hardware and software stack the way Apple now does with Apple Silicon Macs like the ones we now have with M1. Microsoft may have an SQ1 or SQ2 for the Surface Pro X, but that thing is a Qualcomm SoC. Samsung makes SoCs for its phones and tablets, but Samsung isn't Samsung's only customer for those SoCs. And while they do have their own version of Android (albeit one of the worst ones out there), it's not their OS underneath it all! I think Microsoft and Samsung have the best chance of trying to follow Apple on something like this. Maybe NVIDIA, now that they own ARM Holdings. But I think any one of the three of them doing it would take so much time to catch up to Apple. So, no, I don't think it's an "Industry Game Changer"; though I do think it's a massive game changer for the Mac itself. What say you all on this? Do you think the personal computing industry will forever be changed by this? And if so, how and when?

It's Amazing!!!
It will allow all to become a Unicorn like Tim Apple!!!! ?

Seriously: It's a great Start!!

 

[rezwits]

So, after reading this exciting thread, without OWNING an M1 just yet, I can completely say this changes the industry, on it's way to FULLY changing the industry.

Here is what I gather:

Intel is toast, they tried to do a simple SoC, back in the day with Iris GPUs etc, but that basically failed, and big desktop builders are going with AMD now.

So you have Apple with the triple threat, Hardware, Internals, and macOS.

The closest "change" coming up would be NVIDIA, managing to get Hardware and Internals with an SoC (mentioned in this thread) but NO OS, NO OS! wait WinArm? hehe ok...

The next would be AMD+ATI (merged better and fully), they could attempt an "almost" SoC x86_64 with a really good Zen plus "Radeon" innards, but they are limited by Power Consumption and Fans, but PS5s and Xboxes are completely built on this ARCH, which will provide them much needed monies, along with other "builders."

Then you have Qualcomm, but man they don't really have a super GPU going forward, at least not like Apple's planning to get gains from/with. Then Android? man Android/Samsung uh? or once again WinArm.

THIS is the IMMEDIATE change. The reason is because these companies aren't going to be STUPID like Intel, and say oh we don't have to worry about Apple, (I mean one of them might) but, in general they HAVE to reposition themselves, or they could end up in the dust!

(oh and some of you haven't been reading other articles enough, the whole server/cloud etc discussion is covered by some posts I have read "around", about the Ampere 128 core ARM chips which makes perfect sense, because of INSTANCES, and Virtual Desktops, etc...)

One other note, I have an idea or prediction I want to throw out there:

I think when APPLE ZOOMS OUT, of the shrinking process then the M1s are gonna finally go "Dual" or "Quad", or even "Hex." Here is my thinking, Apple is going to keep going smaller and smaller for iPhones, there's NO stopping that except physics, but when Apple thinks to themselves, "We have enough room to put 4 "Mx" chips in a MacBook Pro and it's the same size as the original M1 (I am thinking around 2025), but the 4 chips use twice as much power as an M1. So think 4 (of an M4) (16 of an M1) times the power but twice the battery drain IF using H.E. (High Efficiency Cores), but you would be willing to crank something out at 4 times faster, but could be like 16 times faster because it would effectively be like an M4 TIMES 4!

So for Macs Apple Zooms out, but whilst still going small for iPhones, watches, and glasses, etc... I mean my gosh have you seen the mother/circuit/board for the M1s? There's nothing there.

Oh one last note, Apple has SUPER SECRET TECH advantage with (USB4+) Thunderbolt 3+ going forward, which other companies still can't seem to put in their devices.

Laters...

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

I mean my gosh have you seen the mother/circuit/board for the M1s? There's nothing there.

Yep story checks out.

 

[IceMacMac]

Apple could now crush anyone if they simply decided to add enough cores. But they won't. They won't because they want to hold back tech to store up enticing upgrades for the next 10 years.

They could add touch screen...but will delay as it will entice future buyers. They could add 5G but will delay to entice future buyers. They could have upgraded the case and bevel size but they held off...for future buyers. We will only see such features if/when they are competitive necessities to drive sales--and can be nominally priced en masse.

Cook and Co know that the M1 and M1x as is...will suffice to pull in lots of customers. They don't need to over-sell. They want to sell you a computer now, AND then another in a few years. And then another.

 

[magbarn]

Yep story checks out.

I like this for my Mini and I've learned to accept this on my MacBooks, but for the love of Pete, I hope this never permeates the PC Gaming market. I like being able to pick and choose my CPU, ram capacity/speeds, video card, SSD capacity/format and speeds. I would hate to be locked to a Dell Gaming "Pro" desktop that forces me to buy their soldered memory, soldered SSDs and soldered GPUs.... with nary a chance of upgrading.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

I like this for my Mini and I've learned to accept this on my MacBooks, but for the love of Pete, I hope this never permeates the PC Gaming market. I like being able to pick and choose my CPU, ram capacity/speeds, video card, SSD capacity/format and speeds. I would hate to locked to a Dell Gaming "Pro" desktop that forces me to buy their soldered memory, soldered SSDs and soldered GPUs.... with nary a chance of upgrading.

In all fairness, the type of consumer that purchases this...

... and this...

... cares more about the 'building' and aesthetic (or rather, lack of) aspects of PC architecture than the actual value for money or longevity. They will never be satisfied, because they want an excuse to keep tinkering. I'm not saying this is right or wrong since it's primarily a hobby.

But my point is, even if PC manufacturers did begin to make Mac mini style products, it would likely be cheaper to upgrade the product to the newest version on a regular basis than to continually replace graphics cards, RAM etc. in the traditional format.

 

[Joelist]

Let's remember that M1 is not a "chip" per se but an SoC. As such you won't see more than one in a single Mac.

What we WILL see (likely next year) is a version with more performance cores, more GPU cores and more cache - and of course more RAM. Then 2022 will be the successor to the Firestorm microarchitecture where I suspect we will see them go even wider to 12 decoders and more ALU to support them.

 

[IceMacMac]

Let's remember that M1 is not a "chip" per se but an SoC. As such you won't see more than one in a single Mac.

What we WILL see (likely next year) is a version with more performance cores, more GPU cores and more cache - and of course more RAM. Then 2022 will be the successor to the Firestorm microarchitecture where I suspect we will see them go even wider to 12 decoders and more ALU to support them.

I suspect it'll roll out like this:
4 Firestorm cores = entry level products
8 Firestorm cores = higher end MacBookPros and most iMacs
12 Firestorm cores = MacPro (maybe with an option for 16)

Even though heat is less of an issue w/RISC...if you start to concentrate a lot of cores (12 or more) in a very small space...heat becomes a big issue. So I think they'll work out some way to create a larger footprint to dissipate heat.

 

[curmudgeonette]

Let's remember that M1 is not a "chip" per se but an SoC. As such you won't see more than one in a single Mac.

Just because it is an SoC does not mean that there can't be a machine with multiple M1's.

AMD's Zen 1 (i.e. Ryzen) is/was essentially an SoC. The memory controller(s) and all the standard x86 support modules are on the die with the CPU. And they put two in one package for Threadripper, and four in a package for Epyc. Plus, two Epyc's could be cross connected on a mother board. All the duplicate I/O is simply not used.

The die photo of the M1 that is circulating shows there might be some sort of bus on the left side. Unfortunately, the image is cropped just a little too tight. If the regular dots are a bus, they could be something like what Xeon's use to make 2/4/8 processor systems.

I give it 50% odds that the MBP16 and iMacs use multiple processor dies. This lets Apple double the cores, double the GPU cores, double the RAM, and double the Thunderbolt ports.

 

[dmccloud]

They'll also enable quieter computers in the same thermal envelope. Not a big deal for me, but vital for someone who makes music or edits video.

I was watching a review of the M1 Mini last night, and the guy was talking about how he could record right in front of the Mini because of the lack of fan noise. He had been using a 16" MBP, but always had to record his overdubs away from the machine because of the fan noise.

 

[dmccloud]

Of course this is a huge game changer for the entire industry. I'm not saying x86 is dead but we'll certainly start seeing more companies trying to adopt what Apple has done. Just because in the Windows world the OS and hardware are created by separate companies doesn't mean they can't do the same thing Apple is doing. If Intel/AMD/etc came up with an SoC that really rivals Apple's chips and makes it possible to create a fan-less laptop with great performance and all day battery life (for example), you can be sure Microsoft would do the work to make sure Windows would run on it. I'd be shocked if all the major processor manufacturers haven't already been working on similar SoCs the past few years in anticipation to what Apple's doing.

What I find funny in all of this is that when we look back on this in a few years, we'll see that it took Apple to get Microsoft to take Windows on ARM seriously.

I think Microsoft will have to allow Windows on ARM (WoA) to run on the new Macs for one big reason. Microsoft has been wanting to make this switch for some time, which is why Samsung and Lenovo both have laptops running WoA as well. The key is that if the performance gains of the M1 translate to WoA, Microsoft will have made its best use case for switching from x86 to ARM. That will force Dell, HP, ASUS, etc. to take notice and actually begin to invest in ARM-based hardware designs. The second factor is that if Apple is soundly beating new Intel and AMD parts in terms of battery life and performance, there will be some migration from Windows to the Mac, primarily among those users who value battery life and overall efficiency over raw power. While Microsoft may make up for that in part due to increased licensing of WoA from the Mac userbase, the aforementioned PC manufacturers would not have that type of revenue fallback to rely on. This would effectively force these manufacturers to invest in support for the ARM architecture in order to keep pace with Apple. I think that what Apple ultimately releases in 2021 will also place a lot of pressure on PC manufacturers, especially if they go thinner and lighter with their entire lineup as many people are speculating.

I do not think the industry will even completely move to ARM-based systems, however. The so-called "power users" will never be swayed, especially since so many of them still believe that clock speeds are the ultimate benchmark for performance, overlooking every other factor that plays a role on overall performance. Hardcore gamers will most likely stick with x86 because of the sheer scope of games that support the platform, many of which are no longer actively developed, updated, or supported in any way. Businesses such as healthcare facilities and other organizations which rely on highly specialized software would not be able to transition unless those applications are first rewritten for the ARM architecture as well.