M1 recap from the keynote

[leman]

How does the new Mac Mini with M1 compare to a 2017 MacBook Pro with 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 and Radeon Pro 555 with 2GB of GDDR5 memory?

Difficult to say pending the benchmarks, but I'd speculate a massive difference in CPU performance (like 1.5 time burst, 4-5x sustained multi-threaded), and comparable GPU (the M1 is probably slightly faster here).

What do you use it for? If its photo or video editing, the difference is likely to blow you away

 

[markiv810]

The Pro and Mac mini have fans. The Pro also has a brlghter screen, TouchBar, and better speakers. But yes, I think the Air is a much better proposition than it was before.

I am in India and many a times it gets really hot, also I think there would be lesser performance hit in the computers with active cooling although battery life would take a hit.

 

[eulslix]

Intel UHD Graphics 630 in Mac Mini 2018: 3.150 GPixel/s, 25.20 GTexel/s, FP32 403.2 GFLOPS

M1 Mac Mini 2020: 41 GPixel/s, 82 GTexel/s, FP32 2.6 TFLOPS

Radeon Pro 560X 2.056 TFLOPS
Radeon Pro 5300M 3.2 TFLOPS
Radeon Pro 5300 4.2 TFLOPS
Radeon Pro 580X 5.530 TFLOPS

The Radeon Pro 5600 has about 5.3 Tflops and is a last generation GPU. By the time Apple will have anything comparable to offer, AMD will be way ahead already. While Apple does convince with their CPU scaling, I hardly doubt they will ever catch up with someone up to their game like AMD or nNvidia. Those companies don't sleep, they keep trading blows since years. If Apple had presented a 5 Tflops GPU today, I would've said they have a good chance at getting ahead of their competition. However, I just don't see it happening with those numbers. And it's the GPU that matters for many of us the most.

 

[Takuro]

What surprised me the most is that the memory is now part of the chip package. This probably marks the beginning of the end of user upgradable memory in any mac.

It really makes me wonder how modular the Apple ARM platform will be or if the goal really is to cram everything into a single SoC, even on the high end. I still can't possibly see Apple catching up with AMD or Nvidia when it comes to discrete GPU's. For CPU processing, sure, they can catch up to Intel and AMD at this rate.

I really can't wrap my head around what Apple is going to do in the next 2 years with the "finish line" being the eventual release an ARM based Mac Pro. Time will tell, and the most interesting stuff is probably yet to come.

In the short-term: I just really want to see somebody connect an eGPU to one of these things next week and see what happens. The answer is probably: Nothing. But I really want that curiosity put to rest.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think what they announced is actually better than what we expected. Notice how they only replaced the low-end 13 MBP (which is more of an Air variant anyway). This means that higher-end Macs will be substantially faster.

We need to run the benchmarks of course, but if we assume that the "latest Intel CPU" is Tiger Lake (which it probably is), then we have the 10W Air being at least comparable to the 30W Tiger Lake. The higher-end 13" and 16" Macs will offer true desktop class performance then.

Yep, I expect the truly crazy stuff lies ahead for the Pros. I'm sure the 13" Pro will be quite speedy, but at the moment I think the MBA is the real breakthrough.

 

[leman]

but at the moment I think the MBA is the real breakthrough.

I agree. This redefines capability of consumer level subnotebooks. They are no longer underpowered toys.

 

[Chozes]

The System on a Chip (SOC) design is fantastic. I really like how efficiency was important and not just about the CPU itself. Apple did a great job. Now for benchmarks and real world usage. These are looking brilliant!

I suspect Intel Macs will get outperformed on Rosetta even. Battery life is going to be killer.

 

[moabal]

Difficult to say pending the benchmarks, but I'd speculate a massive difference in CPU performance (like 1.5 time burst, 4-5x sustained multi-threaded), and comparable GPU (the M1 is probably slightly faster here).

What do you use it for? If its photo or video editing, the difference is likely to blow you away

Nothing crazy. In fact it is my least used machine. I tend to use my iPad Pro for a lot of things at home. It is kinda nice to have a laptop when I need it. However, I typically keep it attached to my external LG Ultrafine monitor. However, I cannot stand the keyboard.

I can get about $800 for it from Apple making a purchase for the new Mac mini very affordable.

 

[Falhófnir]

I think what they announced is actually better than what we expected. Notice how they only replaced the low-end 13 MBP (which is more of an Air variant anyway). This means that higher-end Macs will be substantially faster.

We need to run the benchmarks of course, but if we assume that the "latest Intel CPU" is Tiger Lake (which it probably is), then we have the 10W Air being at least comparable to the 30W Tiger Lake. The higher-end 13" and 16" Macs will offer true desktop class performance then.

I can't speak for anyone else but I've always assumed this 13" was going to be the $1,299 model, and the 14" next year will be what the $1,799 model turns into.

The M1 Pro or M1X or whatever it is will probably be common between the 14 and 16 inch Pro, but maybe even one or both iMacs(!). The chart from WWDC did heavily imply desktop levels of performance from laptop profile chips:

 

[bobmans]

It really makes me wonder how modular the Apple ARM platform will be or if the goal really is to cram everything into a single SoC, even on the high end. I still can't possibly see Apple catching up with AMD or Nvidia when it comes to discrete GPU's. For CPU processing, sure, they can catch up to Intel and AMD at this rate.

I really can't wrap my head around what Apple is going to do in the next 2 years with the "finish line" being the eventual release an ARM based Mac Pro. Time will tell, and the most interesting stuff is probably yet to come.

In the short-term: I just really want to see somebody connect an eGPU and see what happens. The answer is probably: Nothing. But I really want that curiosity put to rest.

Exactly. If they're going to try putting everything in a single SoC then they will push theirself into a corner eventually. Really wondering what an M2 or M1X or whatever comes for the Macbook Pro 16"/iMac will tell us.

The M1 is their "take it as it is" entry-level chip and I think their next chip will reveal more about their strategy on how they're going to please the high-end market.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I am extremely fascinated to see battery life numbers on these. That absurdly long video playback number is probably due to video encoding off the general purpose CPU paired with the efficiency cores handling most of the background stuff. Apple explicitly called out 10w as the MBA thermal profile in the video (have they ever done that before?), which happens to be exactly where the A12z, for example, tends to hang in sustained performance. I don't know if the Intel variant really stuck to 10w in sustained (it certainly blew higher in burst), but it's possible that battery life under load will not be significantly increased versus the Intel version, while battery life for light usage will be significantly better.

 

[awesomedeluxe]

Faster recap:

- Apple made the A12Z, but used A14 cores.
- They put it in the existing MBA, 2 port MBP, and Mac Mini DTK with no changes.

 

[Homy]

The Radeon Pro 5600 has about 5.3 Tflops and is a last generation GPU. By the time Apple will have anything comparable to offer, AMD will be way ahead already. While Apple does convince with their CPU scaling, I hardly doubt they will ever catch up with someone up to their game like AMD or nNvidia. Those companies don't sleep, they keep trading blows since years. If Apple had presented a 5 Tflops GPU today, I would've said they have a good chance at getting ahead of their competition. However, I just don't see it happening with those numbers. And it's the GPU that matters for many of us the most.

This is only iGPU. Apple is also developing more powerful GPUs, codename Lufika, for iMac and Mac Pro

 

[Homy]

I've read that you can use the iMAC monitor with the Mac mini and the keyboard and mouse, so that isn't an issue, what I don't know is can you have the iMac's drive also be set up as another Mac.

As far as I know that was true for old iMacs. If you're talking about Target Display mode it only works with iMac 2009-2014. You can also start your iMac in Target Disk Mode to transfer files to another Mac but not to boot the system on iMac from another computer as far as I know. (Sorry for going off topic)

 

[leman]

The Radeon Pro 5600 has about 5.3 Tflops and is a last generation GPU. By the time Apple will have anything comparable to offer, AMD will be way ahead already. While Apple does convince with their CPU scaling, I hardly doubt they will ever catch up with someone up to their game like AMD or nNvidia. Those companies don't sleep, they keep trading blows since years. If Apple had presented a 5 Tflops GPU today, I would've said they have a good chance at getting ahead of their competition. However, I just don't see it happening with those numbers. And it's the GPU that matters for many of us the most.

I am afraid you are looking at this from the wrong angle. We are talking here about a 15W chip — that is combined power for CPU, GPU and everything else - which manages to get quite close to much larger dedicated GPUs. Of course 5600 is faster... it's a humongous chip with 40 compute clusters that consumes 3.3 times more power than the entirety of M1 chip! And yet Apple still manages to extract over 2 TFLOPS out of this tiny 8-core GPU. Yes, next year AMD will come with Navi 2 that will be maybe 20-30% faster than their current 5600M. But the thing is, Apple doesn't even need to improve the performance of their GPU cores... they just need more of them. An 16-core Apple GPU (using same GPU cores as the M1) will match the 5600M pro. A 32-core will be twice as fast — while still consuming less power.

I can't speak for anyone else but I've always assumed this 13" was going to be the $1,299 model, and the 14" next year will be what the $1,799 model turns into.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[leman]

Faster recap:

- Apple made the A12Z, but used A14 cores.
- They put it in the existing MBA, 2 port MBP, and Mac Mini DTK with no changes.

A bit crude, but nevertheless accurate

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I can't speak for anyone else but I've always assumed this 13" was going to be the $1,299 model, and the 14" next year will be what the $1,799 model turns into.

The M1 Pro or M1X or whatever it is will probably be common between the 14 and 16 inch Pro, but maybe even one or both iMacs(!). The chart from WWDC did heavily imply desktop levels of performance from laptop profile chips:

Yeah, this feels right on the money to me too.

 

[Muyfa666]

Nice to see that they will continue to support Intel for a long time, but I'll switch to Apple ARM right away. That battery life... om nom nom!

 

[dugbug]

The Radeon Pro 5600 has about 5.3 Tflops and is a last generation GPU. By the time Apple will have anything comparable to offer, AMD will be way ahead already. While Apple does convince with their CPU scaling, I hardly doubt they will ever catch up with someone up to their game like AMD or nNvidia. Those companies don't sleep, they keep trading blows since years. If Apple had presented a 5 Tflops GPU today, I would've said they have a good chance at getting ahead of their competition. However, I just don't see it happening with those numbers. And it's the GPU that matters for many of us the most.

you were always going to get the intel integrated gfx in the air though right?

 

[eulslix]

I am afraid you are looking at this from the wrong angle. We are talking here about a 15W chip — that is combined power for CPU, GPU and everything else - which manages to get quite close to much larger dedicated GPUs. Of course 5600 is faster... it's a humongous chip with 40 compute clusters that consumes 3.3 times more power than the entirety of M1 chip! And yet Apple still manages to extract over 2 TFLOPS out of this tiny 8-core GPU. Yes, next year AMD will come with Navi 2 that will be maybe 20-30% faster than their current 5600M. But the thing is, Apple doesn't even need to improve the performance of their GPU cores... they just need more of them. An 16-core Apple GPU (using same GPU cores as the M1) will match the 5600M pro. A 32-core will be twice as fast — while still consuming less power.



Makes perfect sense to me.

Not sure its as easy as that. If chip efficiency just scaled linearly with chip size, we would have way more efficient chips from Intel, AMD, Nvidia, ... nowadays. That's not the case however. Maybe someone with more knowledge in this matter can chip in, but I don't see Apple being able to quadruple it's GPU core count while keeping the same efficiency.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not sure its as easy as that. If chip efficiency just scaled linearly with chip size, we would have way more efficient chips from Intel, AMD, Nvidia, ... nowadays. That's not the case however. Maybe someone with more knowledge in this matter can chip in, but I don't see Apple being able to quadruple it's GPU core count while keeping the same efficiency.

GPUs do scale at least close to linearly, unlike CPUs. The SoCs in the Xbox Series X and PS5 are instructive comparisons. They are true SoCs in regards to packaging and cooling but have the performance of fairly high-end discrete GPUs. They also consume around 180w if I remember correctly, but they're on a larger process than the Apple chips so there's some savings to be had there. And a 180w SoC is no problem at all for a large iMac, for example, which currently uses a CPU and GPU combination with a larger combined TDP than that.

 

[theSeb]

I think what they announced is actually better than what we expected. Notice how they only replaced the low-end 13 MBP (which is more of an Air variant anyway). This means that higher-end Macs will be substantially faster.

We need to run the benchmarks of course, but if we assume that the "latest Intel CPU" is Tiger Lake (which it probably is), then we have the 10W Air being at least comparable to the 30W Tiger Lake. The higher-end 13" and 16" Macs will offer true desktop class performance then.

I am expecting some kind of m1 x/pro, or M2, or something that will be the high end 13” and low end 16” and then another ‘something’ for the iMac and high end 16” MBP

 

[leman]

Not sure its as easy as that. If chip efficiency just scaled linearly with chip size, we would have way more efficient chips from Intel, AMD, Nvidia, ... nowadays. That's not the case however. Maybe someone with more knowledge in this matter can chip in, but I don't see Apple being able to quadruple it's GPU core count while keeping the same efficiency.

As @IvanKaramazov poins to above, this reasoning does not apply to GPUs. GPUs are massively parallel processors that have to do massive amounts of work, so adding more processors will scale linearly — provided memory etc. can keep up. CPUs don't scale the same way simply because the work they have to do is not as parallel.

By the way, you don't have to believe us: go check out benchmarks of any desktop GPU and you will see it scales pretty much linearly with the number of shader cores etc. — if you factor in the clocks and RAM bus width.

 

[Boil]

the performance boosts are unheard of (6x, etc. wow). I wonder what the active cooling does for the chip in terms of sustainment. Can't wait for the reviews to come out.

According to the sildes apple showed, comparing performance gains over the pervious matching Intel model:

13" MacBook Air - 3.5x CPU / 5x GPU / 9x ML

Mac mini - 3x CPU / 6x GPU / 15x ML

13" MacBook Pro - 2.8x CPU / 5x GPU / 11x ML

I am afraid you are looking at this from the wrong angle. We are talking here about a 15W chip — that is combined power for CPU, GPU and everything else - which manages to get quite close to much larger dedicated GPUs. Of course 5600 is faster... it's a humongous chip with 40 compute clusters that consumes 3.3 times more power than the entirety of M1 chip! And yet Apple still manages to extract over 2 TFLOPS out of this tiny 8-core GPU. Yes, next year AMD will come with Navi 2 that will be maybe 20-30% faster than their current 5600M. But the thing is, Apple doesn't even need to improve the performance of their GPU cores... they just need more of them. An 16-core Apple GPU (using same GPU cores as the M1) will match the 5600M pro. A 32-core will be twice as fast — while still consuming less power.

Makes perfect sense to me.

5600 has 32CUs...

I want to see that massive Threadripper-sized Mac Pro SoC...!

24 Performance cores / 6 Efficiency cores / 48 GPU cores / 32 Neural Engine cores / up to 128GB RAM

 

[acidfast7_redux]

I have an iMac from early-2008 that I use every day (last 12 years). That was worth upgrading.

I bought the first alu-unibody-MacBook in 2008 as well.
In 2012, I upgraded to the retina MBP.
Tonight, I upgraded as well.

I only upgrade when it is TRANSFORMATIVE and this is such an example.