M4+ Chip Generation - Speculation Megathread [MERGED]

[frogleader12]

Curious on what yall will think

I think m4 Pro will come in a 6P 6E and 8P 6E configuration

m4 max will probably by 12P 4E, though theres a chance of even higher than 16 cores as all mx max chips have gotten more cpu cores each time

m4 ultra seems to be a new chip instead of 2 m4 max's glued together so it could have a interesting core count as well.

 

[DrWojtek]

I am also banking on the "fact" that the base M4 MBP starting at 16GB, meaning the M4 Pro base staying at 18GB will be deemed too close. With the extra TB4 port on the M4 base, the M4 Pro will need more than a few differentiators to justify the price difference.

As with the M4 Pro Mac mini, there have been conflicting rumors saying the small form factor is only for the M4, while the M4 Pro stays in the current old chassis. This was when the rumors were saying the M4 Pro M4 Max needed more time and the October releases are only M4 Macs. But now even Gurman says the 14" 16" are coming so the M4 Pro mini may as well also launch. Whether the M4 Pro mini comes with a smaller chassis can be a deal breaker, if it means poorer cooling system than the eventual Mac Studio with M4 Max.

I just hope Apple could speed up their Mac update schedule, the M4 has been in the iPad Pros for months now, and we are not going to see M4 Max Studio until next June WWDC?

I really don't think they'd keep the old mini chassi for the 'Pro' if they are both called Mini. And I find it unlikely that the base M4, with the new chassi, would get front connectors and the Pro would be stuck in the old Mini chassi without.

They are either releasing both in the new chassis or they are killing off the Pro for the mini.

 

[Chancha]

I really don't think they'd keep the old mini chassi for the 'Pro' if they are both called Mini. And I find it unlikely that the base M4, with the new chassi, would get front connectors and the Pro would be stuck in the old Mini chassi without.

They are either releasing both in the new chassis or they are killing off the Pro for the mini.

For years, the mini staying in the same chassis was due to mass deployment in racks, at least that's the general consensus. If that's case, keeping at least the M4 Pro model in this chassis makes some sense, but yes it would be quite un-Apple since it just adds much more logistical overhead to maintain 4 headless Mac desktop form factors now.

Also back on topic with chip speculation; since the M4 base MBP is already confirmed to gain a TB4 port and display limit is now lifted, I stand to reason that the M4 Pro shall also get some upgrades, the 14" 16" chassis may get 4 TB4 ports, and then the reported 5-port Mac mini with M4 Pro can also skew the line between it and the Mac Studio. Like many others, I opt for the Studio mainly for the I/O, then RAM amount, over the CPU GPU performances. The M4 Pro mini may get positioned slightly up so that it overlaps or offsets the base Mac Studio with this release.

 

[EugW]

As with the M4 Pro Mac mini, there have been conflicting rumors saying the small form factor is only for the M4, while the M4 Pro stays in the current old chassis. This was when the rumors were saying the M4 Pro M4 Max needed more time and the October releases are only M4 Macs.

I have not seen that rumour, at least not from anyone with an established rumour mill track record.

I just hope Apple could speed up their Mac update schedule, the M4 has been in the iPad Pros for months now, and we are not going to see M4 Max Studio until next June WWDC?

The issue is not M4 Max, but M4 Ultra. M4 Ultra is not rumoured to arrive until next year.

 

[DrWojtek]

For years, the mini staying in the same chassis was due to mass deployment in racks, at least that's the general consensus. If that's case, keeping at least the M4 Pro model in this chassis makes some sense, but yes it would be quite un-Apple since it just adds much more logistical overhead to maintain 4 headless Mac desktop form factors now.

Also back on topic with chip speculation; since the M4 base MBP is already confirmed to gain a TB4 port and display limit is now lifted, I stand to reason that the M4 Pro shall also get some upgrades, the 14" 16" chassis may get 4 TB4 ports, and then the reported 5-port Mac mini with M4 Pro can also skew the line between it and the Mac Studio. Like many others, I opt for the Studio mainly for the I/O, then RAM amount, over the CPU GPU performances. The M4 Pro mini may get positioned slightly up so that it overlaps or offsets the base Mac Studio with this release.

When you put it like that, I'd actually not be surprised (but then again my insight in how well their different chips are selling is zero) if they killed off the 'Pro' chip.

Because: The base M4 is already about on par with M3 Pro multi-core performance. It is just lacking a bit in the GPU. But what was that GPU for? For media production the M4 uses other engines than GPU.

So now that the M4 is sufficient for most work-flow that required the M3 Pro, they could save on R&D by killing off that chip entirely and focus on M4, M4 Max and Ultra. That would streamline the line up, too. And would explain why now suddenly the base M4 gets 2 screen output.

 

[thenewperson]

When you put it like that, I'd actually not be surprised (but then again my insight in how well their different chips are selling is zero) if they killed off the 'Pro' chip.

Because: The base M4 is already about on par with M3 Pro multi-core performance. It is just lacking a bit in the GPU. But what was that GPU for? For media production the M4 uses other engines than GPU.

So now that the M4 is sufficient for most work-flow that required the M3 Pro, they could save on R&D by killing off that chip entirely and focus on M4, M4 Max and Ultra. That would streamline the line up, too. And would explain why now suddenly the base M4 gets 2 screen output.

Hmm, not really sure I see this. In laptops especially the Pro SKUs essentially handle the 2k-3k price range and if they remove it there’ll be a gap there that I don’t expect the max to suddenly be priced lower to fill.

 

[Confused-User]

When you put it like that, I'd actually not be surprised (but then again my insight in how well their different chips are selling is zero) if they killed off the 'Pro' chip.

Because: The base M4 is already about on par with M3 Pro multi-core performance. It is just lacking a bit in the GPU. But what was that GPU for? For media production the M4 uses other engines than GPU.

So now that the M4 is sufficient for most work-flow that required the M3 Pro, they could save on R&D by killing off that chip entirely and focus on M4, M4 Max and Ultra. That would streamline the line up, too. And would explain why now suddenly the base M4 gets 2 screen output.

Your argument, essentially, is that there isn't a market for products spaced smoothly along the price/performance curve - or perhaps, simply the performance curve, but that's debatable - but rather that they clump up (around the base and the Max).

I think that's very unlikely. There does seem to be a customer base spread across the performance spectrum in the larger PC market. Intel's product segmentation strategy would be an abysmal failure if that weren't true. (Not to say they're doing a good job, but there is clearly a market for all those different SKUs or they wouldn't have gone to all that trouble in every generation.) Even AMD, much less obnoxious than Intel in this way, has a bunch of different products, not just a "small" and "big" CPU.

 

[DrWojtek]

Your argument, essentially, is that there isn't a market for products spaced smoothly along the price/performance curve - or perhaps, simply the performance curve, but that's debatable - but rather that they clump up (around the base and the Max).

I think that's very unlikely. There does seem to be a customer base spread across the performance spectrum in the larger PC market. Intel's product segmentation strategy would be an abysmal failure if that weren't true. (Not to say they're doing a good job, but there is clearly a market for all those different SKUs or they wouldn't have gone to all that trouble in every generation.) Even AMD, much less obnoxious than Intel in this way, has a bunch of different products, not just a "small" and "big" CPU.

This is probably the case. I was just thinking that the base M4 now is so powerful that some Pro users might feel content with it. And/or that people who usually had to go with the Max now will be content with the Pro.

And knowing how much Apple wants to upsell, I could see them killing the Pro off so that anyone who does require a bit GPU have to go all the way to Max.

 

[thenewperson]

This is probably the case. I was just thinking that the base M4 now is so powerful that some Pro users might feel content with it. And/or that people who usually had to go with the Max now will be content with the Pro.

And knowing how much Apple wants to upsell, I could see them killing the Pro off so that anyone who does require a bit GPU have to go all the way to Max.

Apple wanting to upsell is all the more reason the Pro will remain, as leaving that big of a price gap (not to mention the increasing capability of the base M4 as you mentioned) will have people simply settling for the base M4 for lower cost than shelling out 3.3K they never intended to spend.

 

[DrWojtek]

I think you're both right!

 

[altaic]

😭😭😔

 

[Chancha]

This is probably the case. I was just thinking that the base M4 now is so powerful that some Pro users might feel content with it. And/or that people who usually had to go with the Max now will be content with the Pro.

And knowing how much Apple wants to upsell, I could see them killing the Pro off so that anyone who does require a bit GPU have to go all the way to Max.

They wouldn't do that. They would rather increase both the performance and price of the Pro chip instead. In fact they already did that with the M3 Max vs M2 Max.

 

[tenthousandthings]

Well, I’ve got M4 Pro Mac Studio on my bingo card, so fingers crossed…

The unknown factor is the new Mini: if it’s a sort of mini Studio, then I lose at bingo, but if it’s a sort of mini Mini, on the same tier as the current iMac, then maybe I win?

The thing that the Studio chassis allows them to offer (to those willing to pay) is more memory, better thermals. Trying to fit all that in a mini Mini doesn’t make sense.

 

[Chancha]

Well, I’ve got M4 Pro Mac Studio on my bingo card, so fingers crossed…

The unknown factor is the new Mini: if it’s a sort of mini Studio, then I lose at bingo, but if it’s a sort of mini Mini, on the same tier as the current iMac, then maybe I win?

The thing that the Studio chassis allows them to offer (to those willing to pay) is more memory, better thermals. Trying to fit all that in a mini Mini doesn’t make sense.

The M2 Pro mini board actually was quite filled. There were 8 NAND pads which was why a 8TB config was possible. If the base M4 mini chassis scales down to a point that limits the M4 Pro board to a certain degree, we may see an exclusive chassis for M4 Pro, or like you said stuff it into the Studio chassis. Though the Studio heatsink is already comically overkill for the Max chip, and I don't think we will see dramatic TDP changes for the Pro/Max chips since they are prioritized for laptops, I am inclined to think the M4 Pro will share the same chassis with the M4 but with some catch.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Well, I’ve got M4 Pro Mac Studio on my bingo card, so fingers crossed…

The unknown factor is the new Mini: if it’s a sort of mini Studio, then I lose at bingo, but if it’s a sort of mini Mini, on the same tier as the current iMac, then maybe I win?

The thing that the Studio chassis allows them to offer (to those willing to pay) is more memory, better thermals. Trying to fit all that in a mini Mini doesn’t make sense.

Not sure I follow this logic. The Mac Mini chassis has already proved to be sufficient for the Pro SoC, and a downsized one with a Mac Studio style heat sink and fan should also be more than adequate. Bear in mind the Pro SoC runs fine in a 14” MBP, which has far less cooling space than the Mini.

I don’t expect the “mini Mini” to be the size of the Apple TV - more like a 2/3 size Mac Studio. Maybe 5-5.5” (125-140mm) square

Putting a Pro SoC in a Mac Studio chassis seems excessive unless the thing is going to be running at 100% 24x7.

 

[EugW]

The M2 Pro mini board actually was quite filled. There were 8 NAND pads which was why a 8TB config was possible. If the base M4 mini chassis scales down to a point that limits the M4 Pro board to a certain degree, we may see an exclusive chassis for M4 Pro, or like you said stuff it into the Studio chassis. Though the Studio heatsink is already comically overkill for the Max chip, and I don't think we will see dramatic TDP changes for the Pro/Max chips since they are prioritized for laptops, I am inclined to think the M4 Pro will share the same chassis with the M4 but with some catch.

While the M2 Pro Mac mini logic board is bigger than say the M1 Mac mini logic board, it's still way smaller than the actual current Mac mini chassis, meaning there is still a lot of empty space in the current Mac mini. And while there are 8 NAND pads on the M2 Pro Mac mini logic board, they don't truly take up that much space as there are only 4 pads per side of the logic board. Basically in terms of logic board area, it only takes up the real estate of 4 pads, because both sides of the logic board are used. Furthermore, the current logic board has some areas of empty space with no chips at all. So, I don't see much of an issue putting the M4 Pro into a reduced Mac mini. BTW, I should point out that the Mac mini is quite a bit larger in volume than the M3 Max MacBook Pro, and the Mac mini doesn't even have a screen, keyboard, or touchpad.

My main wonder is how big the heatsink and fan will be, and what will be the configuration of the power supply.

 

[deconstruct60]

As Feregrini says to Wired: Unlike these consumer devices, though, PCC servers are as bare-bones as possible.

Considering about what has been said about it, I was daydreaming that we may see benefits of PCC achievements in a form of office-ready-farm-computing devices at some point.

Apple sold the Afterburner card. It just wasn't affordable for most people. The article also points out that there is no (substantive) local persistent storage. That makes it even easier to put on a card (that much more less logic board area for storage subsystem to consume. Likely some for some 'scratch'/working space storage and some minimal area for the customized iOS-sized operating system. ). Dump Wi-Fi , bluetooth, vast majority of USB sockets. even more logic board space savings. Two 10GbE ports and a diagnosis USB-C socket would be a minimum set of I/O ports.


PCI-e edge and standard 8-pin/12-pin card connector would be something that fit in a standard server enclosure used for scale out. ( if could use 8-pin combo 6-pin would work with a Mac Pro. ) . Stripping these from requiring datacenter racks for installment actually would open physical deployment options; not narrow them. If they shrank the whole thing down to a OCP OAM standard module coupled to some datacenter virtual networking host system, then perhaps not. But just getting rid of putting it in a fancy aluminum case isn't necessarily a blocking issue.


"...

• We’ll release a PCC Virtual Research Environment: a set of tools and images that simulate a PCC node on a Mac with Apple silicon, and that can boot a version of PCC software minimally modified for successful virtualization.

..."

Blog - Private Cloud Compute: A new frontier for AI privacy in the cloud - Apple Security Research

Secure and private AI processing in the cloud poses a formidable new challenge. To support advanced features of Apple Intelligence with larger foundation models, we created Private Cloud Compute (PCC), a groundbreaking cloud intelligence system designed specifically for private AI processing...

security.apple.com

It really depends not so much on the 'server' as much as how much external custom infrastructure needs to surround the 'server'. If basically can just feed it packets of work over the general internet and answers come back then really shouldn't be much of a deployment problem. If it needs 'local' taps into the iCloud storage backend... then no. That it runs in a local VM image , but with some additional modifications and 'tools' (e.g., virtual network set up) that hardware isn't the major blocking issue.


Similar with how to software upgrades get distributed into the securely validated "cluster".

It is a 'server' is a broad technical sense of the term, but the description much more is that of a 'fixed function' , compute card than a 'server' in the normal use of the word. It is mostly only getting 'server' thrown at it because it is physically located far away from the user (so it is compute served over the Internet). There is no 'state' or 'data' there past just getting the job done. Then it is all tossed. The iPhone/Macs are the systems that are 'handing out'/delegating the work. And if your iPhone/Mac generally can't even be pointed at a local PCC closure in the software ... it isn't a local 'server' hardware issue.

 

[tenthousandthings]

I don’t expect the “mini Mini” to be the size of the Apple TV - more like a 2/3 size Mac Studio. Maybe 5-5.5” (125-140mm) square

So, basically a mini Studio… 😊

Here’s another unlikely lineup:

Mac mini (M4)
Mac Studio mini (M4, M4 Pro)
Mac Studio (M4 Max, M4 Ultra)
Mac Pro (M4 Ultra)

 

[deconstruct60]

While the M2 Pro Mac mini logic board is bigger than say the M1 Mac mini logic board, it's still way smaller than the actual current Mac mini chassis, meaning there is still a lot of empty space in the current Mac mini.

Nope.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/m2-pro-mac-mini-teardown-via-macstadium.2378200/

If the board was substantively smaller than the enclosure there would be ZERO reason to put a fan cut out into the board. The cut out is there precisely because it DOES run out of space. ( e.g., regular mini logic board; no cut out present at all. )

The internal power supply takes up a substantial amount of internal volume. That long straigt edge on the right above forces the board to 'flow' much closer to 'front' of the Mini chassis to the point that the fan and board come into conflict on internal space. Hence the cut out.


The rumor design makes the new chassis taller so can remove the board vs. fan conflict likely in a similar way the Mac Studio does; puts them (and power supply ) effectively on different layers vertically.

P.S. the cut out isn't huge and the board isn't physically bumping into the front chassis way, but "way smaller" is over the top. A huge cut out would be a deeper space compete conflict, but the "no conflict" threshold is passed here.

 

[EugW]

Nope.

Yep.

This picture provides more context. The top of the picture includes the plate with all the ports, indicating just how wide the Mac mini chassis is, meaning the logic board only takes up about 3/4 of the width of the chassis. Furthermore, there is quite a bit empty space above and below the logic board. As I have already indicated, the MacBook Pro M3 Max is considerably smaller in volume than the M2 Pro Mac mini, despite the fact that MacBook Pro includes an entire screen, keyboard and trackpad in that smaller volume.

Furthermore, you can see that some of the logic board to the right of the NAND pads is just largely empty.

You mention the power supply. Yes, that takes up substantial space, but we don't know the height of the unit yet, or even if the power supply will be internal.

 

[Chancha]

Re: the above board examining;

That's why I think Apple will come up with a dual use chassis that is barely enough for the M4 Pro, but use the exact same dimension also for the M4 base with empty space. Take just the square of the board area, cram the soldering a bit to shave a few centimetres, we come pretty closer to Apple TV size (but not literally that size). Then sandwich the board between the PSU and the heatsink like they did with the Studio.

The rumored 2+3 = 5 port layout also suggests this. The figure-8 AC power in, full size HDMI, three vertical type-C TB4, laid out flat is quite close to that board width.

 

[EugW]

That's why I think Apple will come up with a dual use chassis that is barely enough for the M4 Pro, but use the exact same dimension also for the M4 base with empty space. Take just the square of the board area, cram the soldering a bit to shave a few centimetres, we come pretty closer to Apple TV size (but not literally that size). Then sandwich the board between the PSU and the heatsink like they did with the Studio.

The rumored 2+3 = 5 port layout also suggests this. The figure-8 AC power in, full size HDMI, three vertical type-C TB4, laid out flat is quite close to that board width.

Yeah, I don't think the width will be anywhere near as small as Apple TV. The Apple TV only is 3.66 inches wide, and has very little room for ports. It will merely look like Apple TV, but that's kind of meaningless because the Mac mini already looks like Apple TV.

Mac mini on left, and Apple TV on right:

I'm too am thinking the new Mac mini will be closer to 5-6 inches wide, and will be taller than Apple TV.

 

[Chancha]

I am actually more concerned, or let's say more interested in how Apple tackles the height. The current mini height has a perhaps coincidental ideal height of less than 1U. Many of the 1 Litre small form factor PC kind of followed this dimension blue print since people found out this is nice size for half rack deployment. If you are just putting one or two in your cabinet you won't turn it sideways like the data center would. Being less than 1U means you can easily slide it in a 1U shelf, or a drawer even.

As a result I think less than 2U height is going to be its limit. Apple may look at the Studio's ratio between its dimensions, and just down scale it for the new mini, so to maintain a consistent look.

 

[EugW]

I am actually more concerned, or let's say more interested in how Apple tackles the height. The current mini height has a perhaps coincidental ideal height of less than 1U. Many of the 1 Litre small form factor PC kind of followed this dimension blue print since people found out this is nice size for half rack deployment. If you are just putting one or two in your cabinet you won't turn it sideways like the data center would. Being less than 1U means you can easily slide it in a 1U shelf, or a drawer even.

As a result I think less than 2U height is going to be its limit. Apple may look at the Studio's ratio between its dimensions, and just down scale it for the new mini, so to maintain a consistent look.

To be honest, I'm still not convinced Apple really cares much about this. BTW, this same rack mounting argument was why other people in these forums said they wouldn't change the Mac mini form factor, yet here we are.

Anyhow, I agree it's definitely going to be shorter than 2U in height, not because of rack mounting, but just because that much height won't be needed. 2U is 3.5", but I'd be surprised if it's much taller than 2.5". In fact, if rackmounters really do matter to Apple, perhaps they could keep it under 1U height, even with an internal power supply.

EDIT:

How about this, to appease those rackmounters:

5.7" x 5.7" x 1.5" - If the Mac mini actually came to about this size, we then would know Apple actually cares about rack mounting, as it would mean 1U rackmounts could hold 3 Mac minis across.

 

[Antony Newman]

While the M2 Pro Mac mini logic board is bigger than say the M1 Mac mini logic board, it's still way smaller than the actual current Mac mini chassis, meaning there is still a lot of empty space in the current Mac mini. And while there are 8 NAND pads on the M2 Pro Mac mini logic board, they don't truly take up that much space as there are only 4 pads per side of the logic board. Basically in terms of logic board area, it only takes up the real estate of 4 pads, because both sides of the logic board are used. Furthermore, the current logic board has some areas of empty space with no chips at all. So, I don't see much of an issue putting the M4 Pro into a reduced Mac mini. BTW, I should point out that the Mac mini is quite a bit larger in volume than the M3 Max MacBook Pro, and the Mac mini doesn't even have a screen, keyboard, or touchpad.

My main wonder is how big the heatsink and fan will be, and what will be the configuration of the power supply.

+) 185 W max continuous : M2 Pro : Mac Mini : https://www.apple.com/in/mac-mini/specs/

If the average computer wattage of home users is reducing year on year (but the heavy lifting users needs is outpacing the performance per watt gains in transistor lithography) then for the Mac Mini, Apple can fix the maximum internal volume that an aluminium heatsink can dissipate heat in 2024.

(My guess is the new max continuous power will be 125 watts)

M6 on (2027 on TSMC 1.4nm) would give Apple plenty of capacity to grow the NPU / GPU without being thermally constrained.

+) 295 W max continuous : M2 Ultra : Mac Studio : https://support.apple.com/en-gb/102027

It has been reported that the 2025 Mac Studio (and Pro) is being beefed up in response to underwhelmed users that compared it to the Nvidia 4090 (roughly twice as performant as the highest spec Apple).

If a hypothetical 600W Apple M2 machine was required to compete with the Nvidia 4090, and next year, power users will be comparing the Mac to the 5090 (which is being estimated as 50%-70% faster than the 4090) - then what Apple needs to build will need to be something equivalent to a 960W M2 machine.

If the M4 is twice the performance per watt of the M2 - this would necessitate a 500W continuous output machine.

If Apple increase the height of the Mac Studio by 30% - and upgraded one side of each of the Copper heatsink finds to have a 17micrometer PGS (Pyrolytic Graphite sheet) which has 4 x the thermal conductivity of Raw Copper : https://docs.rs-online.com/aff4/0900766b811810f2.pdf - it would not surprise me if this could add at least another 30% of cooling rate - enough to increase the continuous heat output to be 500W of power.

As (I believe) this is doable in a 30% taller Mac Studio - and also don't think existing Mac Studio users would upgrade to the heft of an Mac Pro - I wonder one reason the Mac Studio is being delayed is fine tune an uprated maximum thermal capacity; And if the new Studio Can dissipate 500Watts continuously - its seems more likely to me than not that the Studio and the Pro will both offer same highest spec SoC.