This thread now has different uses of the names juggling around. In the above quoted context he meant the M4 Max would be the new M4 Ultra, but still can fit in a laptop thermal envelop. Or that's what I understood the conversation?That P-core count is way too high in terms of die area and power consumption for the Max SKU. With that spec the non-binned version of the Max chip would cost as much as the Ultra chip of the prior generation and be unsuitable for a 14" MacBook Pro's thermal and power envelope.
It could just be that the M4 Air is coming early next year and they don't want to sell any devices that can't run Apple Intelligence in the meantime. No way to know until it happens.@mslilyelise for the win! So pleased they did this! In retrospect, it makes sense especially if no M4 is coming. In my mind, this move practically confirms Mac17,1 and Mac17,2 are the M5 MacBook Air.
Um, no. The differences between the two are enormous. The CPU and GPU cores, NPU, display controllers, TB controllers, memory controllers, etc... almost everything has seen meaningful improvements.Speculation ended: m4max is basically m3 max on another node but clocked higher and some minor tweaks?
There is no way to know what the cluster configuration is until we have one in hand (to run cache and latency tests), or a real die shot. Apple did not provide any die shots. In fact without die shots we still may not know if the Pro is a chop of the Max or not (if we're surprised by 3x4, then we'll know it's not, but with 2x6 we won't).Now that we know M4 Max is 12P + 4E, what does the P-core cluster look like? Does M4 Max have two 6P clusters different from the 5P ones in M4 Pro, or even the 14-core variant M4 Pro has two P cores fused off?
From the “die shot” Apple gives in the press release, can we know whether M4 Max supports UltraFusion?
I still find it hard to believe M4 Ultra, if exists, will be a new design rather than two Max fusion. For such a large chip selling at very low volume, the cost must be too high, no?
@mslilyelise for the win! So pleased they did this! In retrospect, it makes sense especially if no M4 is coming. In my mind, this move practically confirms Mac17,1 and Mac17,2 are the M5 MacBook Air.
You are describing exactly what Gurman claims is going to happen middle of next year.If I may say my guess on Apple's chip scaling strategy will be, I think that depends on how high they're still planning to scale up. If they still want to make a chip that is a tier above the Ultra chip, which is the highest tier today, one that will exclusively go into the highest-end Mac Pro, I think they might make the Ultra chip a monolithic chip instead of consisting of two Max chips in the future, and give that chip an interconnect to make the highest tier chip by connecting two Ultra chips, if they don't run into reticle size issues (which might be the whole reason why they made the Ultra chip out of 2 chips to begin with).
Yes, that’s what I was referring to. You called it — I don’t recall anyone else suggesting it in endless discussion around here about it.Hey they doubled the memory in the Air! They announced it at the end of the Pro video! That’s nice. While watching the video on the Pro today I was feeling kinda bummed when they said this was the last day of announcements, cause I figured we’d have to wait, but the whole lineup basically got the 16GB RAM bump. And I mean you could argue they should have done that a couple years ago, but at least it’s there now. Pushes me much closer to buying a new Air since I won’t have to pay for the 16GB upgrade. 😆 A new Mini for my desktop work and a new Air are in my future now.
One thing to keep in mind is that Apple needs these for their own use now with the push to private cloud compute. That may justify some pretty nice R&D expenses that trickle down into the low-volume high end.Now that we know M4 Max is 12P + 4E, what does the P-core cluster look like? Does M4 Max have two 6P clusters different from the 5P ones in M4 Pro, or even the 14-core variant M4 Pro has two P cores fused off?
From the “die shot” Apple gives in the press release, can we know whether M4 Max supports UltraFusion?
I still find it hard to believe M4 Ultra, if exists, will be a new design rather than two Max fusion. For such a large chip selling at very low volume, the cost must be too high, no?
Not to answer this (sensible, rhetorical) question but to steer this thread back to something vaguely technical, and based on chiplets.M1 Max to M3 Max are all single-die chips. Why would Apple move from monolithic to fusion at the Max tier?
Good point. But still, if we assume a slight increase in transistor count from M2 Ultra, M4 Ultra would be a massive >140B transistors chip. Huge chips are inherently expensive to make (yield, etc.).One thing to keep in mind is that Apple needs these for their own use now with the push to private cloud compute. That may justify some pretty nice R&D expenses that trickle down into the low-volume high end.
The highest end Apple products have ALWAYS been updated on a slower cadence than the mainstream products.Wasn't it Steve Jobs who said something along the lines of, "if we won't get our own lunch someone else will"?
To me it makes very little sense to not roll out say an M3 Max Mac Studio despite the M3 Ultra not being ready or even not existed. But Apple decided to go that route, letting both Studio and Mac Pro rot at M2 gen.
As for the Studio/Pro, my prediction is the the Studio will focus on the Ultra chip and the Pro will focus on the "Extreme" These will be chips that will be relevant within a 4-year timespan.
one wonders what that hidra chip will be then and if there will be any max version of the studio at all.
Sad that there is no actual hidra rumors but maybe you more competent people might have some clue based on the pro and max configs?
I still find it hard to believe M4 Ultra, if exists, will be a new design rather than two Max fusion. For such a large chip selling at very low volume, the cost must be too high, no?
One thing to keep in mind is that Apple needs these for their own use now with the push to private cloud compute. That may justify some pretty nice R&D expenses that trickle down into the low-volume high end.
Good point. But still, if we assume a slight increase in transistor count from M2 Ultra, M4 Ultra would be a massive >140B transistors chip. Huge chips are inherently expensive to make (yield, etc.).
The existing M2 Ultra Mac Studio has 6 x TB4 - and had a maximum continuous power of 370W.Is that also taking into account powering devices over Thunderbolt?
Let's test that hypothesis out.The highest end Apple products have ALWAYS been updated on a slower cadence than the mainstream products.
It's hardly an outrage, or even surprising, that the Ultra tier and the Studios skipped M3 (and will likely skip M5 and so on).
That would push far beyond the current reticle limit, not going to happen anytime soon.I think they might make the Ultra chip a monolithic chip instead of consisting of two Max chips in the future
How’d they present the M4 Max that gives you that impression?So next year Macbook air and mac studio/pro will be probably on M5 family since Apple presented the way they did the M4 Max
Would it make sense for Apple to release new Mx SoCs every year, but not update all products with them?So next year Macbook air and mac studio/pro will be probably on M5 family since Apple presented the way they did the M4 Max
The iMac skipped the M2, the Mac mini, Pro and Studio skipped the M3, must have made some sense to Apple.Would it make sense for Apple to release new Mx SoCs every year, but not update all products with them?
I think you are right about “single Hidra chip for M4 Ultra, dual Hidra chips for M4 Extreme” but the core counts are too big to fit in one chip. And also if the Ultra and Extreme are designated to power desktops only I think the E-core are redundant.My totally non-engineer layman thoughts; single Hidra chip for M4 Ultra, dual Hidra chips for M4 Extreme...
M4 Ultra
- 32-core CPU (24P/8E)
- 96-core GPU
- 32-core Neural Engine
- 256GB LPDDR5X RAM
- 1TB/s UMA bandwidth
M4 Extreme
- 64-core CPU (48P/16E)
- 192-core GPU
- 64-core Neural Engine
- 512GB LPDDR5X RAM
- 2TB/s UMA bandwidth
There could be more RAM, there could be RAM with an inline-ECC set-up, there could be faster RAM if using the 9600MT/s chips...
Apple using the same Hidra chips in their private cloud compute server farm would allow overall lower costs for the personal workstation end-user market...?