M2 MacBook Pro

[Kpjoslee]

Which will make it to the M2... I don't see what your point is

Oh, nvm. I was thinking of M2 Pro/Max which is almost likely to be released in 2023 and completely forgot about M2 is going to be released in H1 of next year. Yeah, it is going to be Avalanche variant.

The cores are not identical.

Only the changes to accommodate new MMU and bigger cache, it basically performs like A14 with higher frequency, which means inner workings of the architecture remained pretty much unchanged.

 

[loby]

Eventually Apple will release an "M2 Pro" and "M2 MAX" SoC for the MacBook Pro line. I would not expect them much before mid-2023, frankly (figuring Apple wanted to launch the M1 Pro/MAX at WWDC this year and calculating a two-year product lifecycle).

I would agree with this also. There will probably not be a big push to update MacBook Pro since it is a power house right now and the industry will have to take some time to catch up. iMac will be the center of attention probably in Spring and then Mac Pro in June (my thoughts). Mac mini in the fall. My guess is easy spring 2023 at the earliest.

 

[SirAnthonyHopkins]

Were they? I mean, looking at the timeline of the 15" model (just a slice), we had updates:

October 14, 2008
March 3, 2009
June 8, 2009
April 13, 2010
February 24, 2011
October 24, 2011
June 11, 2012
February 13, 2013
October 22, 2013
July 29, 2014
May 19, 2015

And from there it slowed down because that was exactly the time of Intel stagnation...

Was the 15" MacBook Pro really updated twice within the space of three months in 2009?!

 

[leman]

Was the 15" MacBook Pro really updated twice within the space of three months in 2009?!

Apparently, although I am not quite sure what exactly the change was. There was probably a tiny spec bump in early 2009 and then a bigger change in June.

MacBook Pro "Core 2 Duo" 2.66 15" (Unibody) Specs (Late 2008/Early 2009*, MC026LL/A, MacBookPro5,1, A1286, 2255): EveryMac.com

Technical specifications for the MacBook Pro "Core 2 Duo" 2.66 15" (Unibody). Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.

everymac.com

Lookup Mac Specs By Serial Number, Order, Model & EMC Number, Model ID @ EveryMac.com

EveryMac.com's Ultimate Mac Lookup - lookup Apple Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad specs by serial number, order number, model number, model ID, EMC number and more.

everymac.com

 

[cmaier]

Well, A15 cores aren't really much different from A14 other than amount of L2 cache and frequency. A15 was like M1 minus 2 big cores lol. I expect M2 to be close to A16 than A15.

Blizzard begs to differ with you.

 

[Serban55]

well, except M1 Max in the 14" chassis

If you ramp up the fans in the 14" even with the M1 max with 24gpu cores you still have under 90C , from what ive seen around 81C
So even the 14" has a very good cooling for this silicon..again, an freaking 14" laptop, picture with the fans at maxRMP
So i expect in the future, Apple to ramp up sooner the fans if the next M2 Max will produce even more heat than the m1 max

 

[Serban55]

Blizzard begs to differ with you.

what do you expect from that rumoured 1 M2 to gain in gpu segment ?
If M2 is based on A15 cores...than just from that, the gpu should be better around 20% ?
And if we add those rumoured extra 2 gpu cores...so we can expect an gpu gain of at least 30% vs the M1 ?
Or i am wrong ?

 

[cmaier]

what do you expect from that rumoured 1 M2 to gain in gpu segment ?
If M2 is based on A15 cores...than just from that, the gpu should be better around 20% ?
And if we add those rumoured extra 2 gpu cores...so we can expect an gpu gain of at least 30% vs the M1 ?
Or i am wrong ?

I don’t know whether M2 will be based on A15 GPU cores or not. The GPU team can proceed at a different cadence than the CPU team.

 

[Serban55]

I don’t know whether M2 will be based on A15 GPU cores or not. The GPU team can proceed at a different cadence than the CPU team.

but if it does come out based on A15...how much improvement will be on gpu segment
M1 8 gpu cores vs M2 10 gpu cores ?

 

[TinyMito]

Is there any rumor about m2 MacBook Pro?
I saw about Air but not pro.
Is it going to be like 2016 models or something else or not at all?

lol...

 

[Serban55]

Is there any rumor about m2 MacBook Pro?
I saw about Air but not pro.
Is it going to be like 2016 models or something else or not at all?

Probably not...the M2 macbook air , based on rumours it will have the same flat design as the pros
M2 with probably 10 cpu cores and 10 gpus cores...and if its based on the latest iphone gpu core, i suspect we could see an 30% gpu improvement
The rumors did not tell us nothing about max ram or max displays support...probably still 16 gb of ram, 2 usb4 ports one on each side

 

[CWallace]

I suspect that Apple would want to update the M, M Pro, and the M Max chips on a yearly cadence and the Mac Pro SoC every 2 years so they can quiet down the Intel marketing. There is no reason they can't do it every year.

I doubt Apple cares about winning the "best synthetic benchmarks" award. Apple Silicon will be optimized for the work macOS users do and that will likely mean that in real-world tasks, ASi will continue to outperform Intel. Plus Alder Lake doesn't run macOS so it's irrelevant to those using macOS.*

* - And yes, I know about Hackintoshes, but they are also irrelevant to those using macOS except for the fringe.

I would expect the current 13" MacBook Air & MacBook Pro to be discontinued; replaced by 12" & 14" M2 SoC powered MacBook laptops...?

I think the MacBook Air will stay at 13.3", but I do believe the 13.3" MacBook Pro is not long for the world. Tim does like to keep old tech around if people still buy it, but the 13.3" MBP is now a definite outlier within the MacBook Pro family because of the lack of ports and still having the TouchBar and with the MacBook Air being redesigned, I see no reason why it could not add a low-RPM fan if that is necessary to support future SoCs.

 

[cmaier]

but if it does come out based on A15...how much improvement will be on gpu segment
M1 8 gpu cores vs M2 10 gpu cores ?

Well, it scales mostly linearly, so 2 more cores would get you 25%, then you’d have to multiply by the ratio of single GPU core performance (A15/A14). I haven’t been following GPU benchmarks closely for A15, so I am not sure how much more capable they are than the A14 cores.

You may also get a further boost if M2 increases the SLC again, or does something else to increase memory bandwidth.

 

[Kpjoslee]

Blizzard begs to differ with you.

I was referring to Firestorm vs Avalanche…but yeah, I should have worded differently. There are some changes on Icestorm vs Blizzard

 

[Tagbert]

Sorry my bad. You're right, you didn't write 14" Macbook Pro.

I would be surprised if the 12" came back. Anyone who wants to carry around a 12" Macbook could be served just as easily by an iPad Air or iPad Pro 11". When the 12" Macbook came out, it made sense at that time but iPads have gotten much better with a very well rounded lineup.

I really don't think we'll see an 18" Macbook Pro. Even the 16" is already very bulky for the vast majority of people.

If Apple really does slim down the Air for this next design, they can likely get a 13" screen in a case that is nearly as small and thin as the old 12" MacBook. I don't think that the market is big enough for a smaller screen, but there is one for a smaller case.

 

[Analog Kid]

Well, yes, M2 was rumored to have 10 GPU cores long before A15 was released with 5 GPU cores. Seeing how M series is an upscale A-series, it’s almost a given that M2 is A15-based.



Why a two year cadence? The only reason why Mac updates slowed down in recent years is Intels inability to deliver. The current Apple Silicon release dates don’t tell us much since there are too many confounding factors: supply issues, the fact that some models are waiting for a redesign etc…

Some of the rumored timelines have M2 Airs coming out in the summer or early fall - before the next iPhone. While they could still be A16 cores, that would be unusual. Plus certain aspects of their rumored design could be doubled A15s like the 10 core GPU. Even with that, could still be A16s, but more likely A15s.

Supposedly the MBP with Pro/Max chips were supposed to be out this summer at WWDC and were delayed by unavailability of the new miniLED screens. As others have pointed out, pre-stagnation Macs were updated more frequently than every two years. Right now things may be moving more slowly because Apple is updating the chassis and the screens and we’re still in the middle of a global supply chain crisis slowing everything down. I wouldn’t place any bets on what the actual cadence of updates will be or how they’ll relate to iPhone updates based on what’s happening right now during this transitory period.

If the rumors are to be believed, the M2 and M2 Pro/Max have already been taped out, so A15 cores are expected.

As far as the release cadence goes, my intuition leans toward a yearly update. It might be weird while supply chains get sorted, but yearly seems like a sensible goal.

I'm not saying I'm right, but I just don't see the benefit in an annual cadence for every product in the line. Apple hasn't been much of one for releasing products just to say they did-- they want something to show for it. There's a lot of engineering work in releasing each of these products. Each with their own chips, housings, thermal systems, power systems, displays, firmware... They're still running an annual cadence on phones, but they're also selling phones in much higher volumes and in much less variety against much stiffer competition. It's just not a good use of resources to turn that many chips and machines each year.

Staggered 2 year releases as they've been doing so far seems far more sensible to me.

I don't think the only reason Apple didn't update is because of Intel, frankly. Aside from modest processor performance bumps, what do they have to add? Now that they're taking a solid performance lead over Intel, and no longer compete head to head with the Intel world, what would drive them to make 10 or 15% performance updates, rather than 25 or 30 percent updates every two years? Every year they still get to hold an event showing how much faster their new machines are as they put out the base, pro, max and desktop machines.

The M2 probably is taped out. The A16 probably is too. I don't see an issue with releasing the M series before the corresponding A series. It's not like the iPhone world is hanging on incremental CPU improvements- I don't think people buy their iPhones because of the massive performance each year. They're buying it because the massive performance in previous years permits better software this year. Each year's CPU boost is just investment in that future. People still don't know what to do with an M1 in an iPad, but software will have caught up by the time the M3 is in an iPad.

From a marketing perspective, it's actually probably more powerful to say that this new phone is based on the same processor they just announced for their latest laptops than to say that this new laptop is based on the same processor they use in their phones.

Maybe I'm wrong, but for me at least it seems reasonable to update the phones annually but the iPads and Macs every 2 years. The watch might be approaching a 2 year cadence too... It just seems like a better use of engineering and better fits the pace of innovation in these mature platforms.

 

[the8thark]

Was the 15" MacBook Pro really updated twice within the space of three months in 2009?!

The 2009 March update is not in Mactracker so I doubt that actually happened.

 

[CWallace]

Was the 15" MacBook Pro really updated twice within the space of three months in 2009?!

The 2009 March update is not in Mactracker so I doubt that actually happened.

Looking at Wikipedia and EveryMac, the Early 2009 17" model arrived on 6 January, 2009 and the Early 2009 15" model arrived on 3 March, 2009. These models are effectively identical to the Late 2008 models released on 14 October 2008, but had faster Intel Penryn Core 2 Duo CPUs.

There was then a Mid 2009 update on 8 June, 2009 where the 13" model was released and the 15" and 17" received minor CPU updates.

 

[Fabercon]

From a marketing perspective, it's actually probably more powerful to say that this new phone is based on the same processor they just announced for their latest laptops than to say that this new laptop is based on the same processor they use in their phones.

Maybe I'm wrong, but for me at least it seems reasonable to update the phones annually but the iPads and Macs every 2 years. The watch might be approaching a 2 year cadence too... It just seems like a better use of engineering and better fits the pace of innovation in these mature platforms.

The one major difference between iOS and Mac CPUs is the fact that the Mac is SoC design. The iphone is still fragmented into multiple chips including separate modems and a lot of other hardware that just doesn't exist on a Mac.

In order for Mac to update to a newer version of Thunderbolt, Bluetooth or another wireless standard the SoC needs to be updated because the controllers all exist within there... this supports your theory of more spread out releases.

Personally, I feel that 18 month cycles would be better in line, but a lot of that depends on how they address the desktop versions of the chips. Apple could still have 2 or 3 releases per calendar year across their entire lineup with variants of the M# series.

 

[crazy dave]

I'm not saying I'm right, but I just don't see the benefit in an annual cadence for every product in the line. Apple hasn't been much of one for releasing products just to say they did-- they want something to show for it. There's a lot of engineering work in releasing each of these products. Each with their own chips, housings, thermal systems, power systems, displays, firmware... They're still running an annual cadence on phones, but they're also selling phones in much higher volumes and in much less variety against much stiffer competition. It's just not a good use of resources to turn that many chips and machines each year.

Staggered 2 year releases as they've been doing so far seems far more sensible to me.

I don't think the only reason Apple didn't update is because of Intel, frankly. Aside from modest processor performance bumps, what do they have to add? Now that they're taking a solid performance lead over Intel, and no longer compete head to head with the Intel world, what would drive them to make 10 or 15% performance updates, rather than 25 or 30 percent updates every two years? Every year they still get to hold an event showing how much faster their new machines are as they put out the base, pro, max and desktop machines.

The M2 probably is taped out. The A16 probably is too. I don't see an issue with releasing the M series before the corresponding A series. It's not like the iPhone world is hanging on incremental CPU improvements- I don't think people buy their iPhones because of the massive performance each year. They're buying it because the massive performance in previous years permits better software this year. Each year's CPU boost is just investment in that future. People still don't know what to do with an M1 in an iPad, but software will have caught up by the time the M3 is in an iPad.

From a marketing perspective, it's actually probably more powerful to say that this new phone is based on the same processor they just announced for their latest laptops than to say that this new laptop is based on the same processor they use in their phones.

Maybe I'm wrong, but for me at least it seems reasonable to update the phones annually but the iPads and Macs every 2 years. The watch might be approaching a 2 year cadence too... It just seems like a better use of engineering and better fits the pace of innovation in these mature platforms.

For my part I can envision and justify all sorts of upgrade cycles including ones like: yearly for the regular M-series chips in the Air/iPad Pro to every three years for the huge multi-die chips in the forthcoming Mac Pro. I could absolutely see them skipping the A15 and going to A16s, I could see them doing all sorts of things.

What I’m trying to stress is regardless of what Apple’s preferred internal roadmap is to settle on, it will be compressed and stretched, especially in this interval. If these MBPs were indeed delayed as is rumored, that doesn’t mean that Apple will shift back everything else for all eternity. Let’s say Apple’s preferred update window is 18 months, the next MBP will almost certainly arrive before 18 months from *now* if those computers don’t themselves suffer delays (not a guarantee as fabrication nodes get delayed). Basically right now we’re in a state of flux for multiple reasons. Judging what the product cycles will be and when releases will come is almost impossible unless they’re right around the corner and the leaks start coming out.

The only product that Apple will probably move heaven and earth to keep on a truly regular schedule is the mainline iPhone products. And even then if they absolutely had to, I could see them delaying a release and then compressing the next one though the circumstances would have to pretty extreme.

 

[neinjohn]

I'm not saying I'm right, but I just don't see the benefit in an annual cadence for every product in the line. Apple hasn't been much of one for releasing products just to say they did-- they want something to show for it. There's a lot of engineering work in releasing each of these products. Each with their own chips, housings, thermal systems, power systems, displays, firmware... They're still running an annual cadence on phones, but they're also selling phones in much higher volumes and in much less variety against much stiffer competition. It's just not a good use of resources to turn that many chips and machines each year.

Staggered 2 year releases as they've been doing so far seems far more sensible to me.

I don't think the only reason Apple didn't update is because of Intel, frankly. Aside from modest processor performance bumps, what do they have to add? Now that they're taking a solid performance lead over Intel, and no longer compete head to head with the Intel world, what would drive them to make 10 or 15% performance updates, rather than 25 or 30 percent updates every two years? Every year they still get to hold an event showing how much faster their new machines are as they put out the base, pro, max and desktop machines.

The M2 probably is taped out. The A16 probably is too. I don't see an issue with releasing the M series before the corresponding A series. It's not like the iPhone world is hanging on incremental CPU improvements- I don't think people buy their iPhones because of the massive performance each year. They're buying it because the massive performance in previous years permits better software this year. Each year's CPU boost is just investment in that future. People still don't know what to do with an M1 in an iPad, but software will have caught up by the time the M3 is in an iPad.

From a marketing perspective, it's actually probably more powerful to say that this new phone is based on the same processor they just announced for their latest laptops than to say that this new laptop is based on the same processor they use in their phones.

Maybe I'm wrong, but for me at least it seems reasonable to update the phones annually but the iPads and Macs every 2 years. The watch might be approaching a 2 year cadence too... It just seems like a better use of engineering and better fits the pace of innovation in these mature platforms.

A yearly cadence may make a lot of sense on the supply chain side of things.

Imagine they go for a Mini-LED display on the Air 13'' and keep the same base price. Keeping the design for three years (with minor/partial updates on some componentes) and releasing new models with specs upgrades yearly can provide a needed base with yearly renewed purchases spikes for huge backorders and cheaper prices for parts on the long run and increased margins. On the iPhones for example, with huge sales compared to Macs, the display is basically the same for the X>XS, XR>11, 12>13, only minor changes on components but not the whole display assembly.

Besides there is the Air 13'' (or others product) that we have now and Apple being Apple what product they want to ship and to road there and yearly interactions may help or be needed.

 

[dgdosen]

I see references to future M2 chips with the code name "Staten" with what looks like 8 CPU cores (4 power/4 efficiency) with 9-10 GPU cores. Seems pretty reasonable.

I'm confused about the notion of "dual-die" Staten chips. Would a notion of a dual-die M2 be the evolution of the presumed "Jade2CDie"? or might it be a plain old, simpler, M2-dual-die? Falling somewhere between a single "M2" and "M2 Max Dual/Quad"?

Any SOC like that might be used in an updated Mac mini or low end MBP... Or maybe allow more memory on those options.

It'll be interesting to see how Apple ships these systems.

 

[CWallace]

I see references to future M2 chips with the code name "Staten" with what looks like 8 CPU cores (4 power/4 efficiency) with 9-10 GPU cores. Seems pretty reasonable.

I'm confused about the notion of a "dual-die" Staten chips. Would a notion of a dual-die M2 be the evolution of the presumed "Jade2CDie"? or might it be a plain old, simpler, M2 dual-die? Falling somewhere between a single "M2" and "M2 Max Dual/Quad"?

Based on the original article by Wayne Ma in The Information, "M2 Duo" would have 8 Avalanche (performance) and 8 Blizzard (efficiency) cores and (up to) 20 GPU cores.

There also at the moment is no mention of an "M2 Pro" or "M2 MAX", but there is a mention of M3, M3 Pro and M3 MAX.

So it might be that Pro and MAX are on a every-other cycle (M1, M3, M5, M7) and likely so would be the dual-MAX and quad-MAX designs expected for the Apple Silicon Mac Pro (Jade2C-Die and Jade4C-Die).

In such a scenario, "M2 Duo" (and, presumably, "M4 Duo" and "M6 Duo") would be more powerful BTO options perhaps for the 24" iMac and maybe the Mac mini (if the mini does not get a "Pro" version with Pro and MAX).

 

[leman]

Based on the original article by Wayne Ma in The Information, "M2 Duo" would have 8 Avalanche (performance) and 8 Blizzard (efficiency) cores and (up to) 20 GPU cores.

Is there any way to read this article without paying $$? I understand that the journalists have to eat, but I don't feel like subscribing for a journal just to read a single article.

 

[senttoschool]

Based on the original article by Wayne Ma in The Information, "M2 Duo" would have 8 Avalanche (performance) and 8 Blizzard (efficiency) cores and (up to) 20 GPU cores.

There also at the moment is no mention of an "M2 Pro" or "M2 MAX", but there is a mention of M3, M3 Pro and M3 MAX.

So it might be that Pro and MAX are on a every-other cycle (M1, M3, M5, M7) and likely so would be the dual-MAX and quad-MAX designs expected for the Apple Silicon Mac Pro (Jade2C-Die and Jade4C-Die).

In such a scenario, "M2 Duo" (and, presumably, "M4 Duo" and "M6 Duo") would be more powerful BTO options perhaps for the 24" iMac and maybe the Mac mini (if the mini does not get a "Pro" version with Pro and MAX).

Interesting.

A 20-core GPU option for the base M2. That's very interesting. I wonder if that means we will see something like the 16" Macbook Air which will be equipped with the 20-core GPU.

I'm hopeful that we're going to see M2 Pro/Max. I think a 2 year update cadence is too slow to compete with Intel and AMD in terms of raw performance.