The Apple support page still hasn’t changed, it still lists Mac16,15. But yes, I guess it’s probably an error.
@Confused-User doesn’t mention costs, but that difference is also relative. It isn’t “huge” or “much more,” just like yields aren’t “terrible.” Both N3 and N3E are leading-edge technology, they are both expensive. N3E is lower in cost relative to N3 because it has fewer layers and it is second-generation, so it’s a better deal, and that adds up over millions of chips, but it’s not like it is cheap. It uses the same equipment and fabs that N3 does.
semiengineering.com
Well Apple has been rather chaotic with its Mac info in their website lately. The iMac listed itself being 8k120Hz capable with external display. Then the 70W type-C charger lists compatibility for iMac and Mac mini. And now this.The Apple support page still hasn’t changed, it still lists Mac16,15. But yes, I guess it’s probably an error.
Identify your Mac mini model - Apple Support
Learn all the ways to identify your Mac mini model.support.apple.com
Note: It would be funny if this apparent error turns out to be a leak, and Mac16,15 is something else!
I don't know about "much", but clearly it's more expensive. It has more layers and more EUV and it uses double-patterning EUV layers, which N3E does not. My point was that the claims of terrible yields (which BTW went hand-in-hand with claims of terrible performance, which were also false) were nonsense.
You're right, when I said that they would make choices for M5 based on their market intel, I should have said M6. ...which makes it an interesting question, what will they choose to do with M5?
I suppose it depends on your perspective. From a user's perspective, it doesn't matter. If you're interested from an engineering standpoint, it's different.
We've been through this, in this very forum, before. It's not my job to do your homework. However I did mention the sources you can look at. TSMC's financials and public statements, which can to a reasonable extent be relied upon since they are legally liable to their stockholders for lying. Had N3B been a failure, you'd have been able to see it in their numbers. (And also Intel wouldn't be using it for Lunar Lake, though that's a less-strong argument as you could imagine a scenario where yields were bad but eventually improved... though then you'd have to invent an explanation for why the yield curve for N3B were so atypical.)
So I guess that means we can now expect to pair Mac16,15 with an 8K 120Hz Pro Display XDR!
Not this year or next one...while it would be nice to release a new Pro Display along side with new Mac Pro..
eclecticlight.co
eclecticlight.co
They didn’t use the “die-shot” graphics that were used at launch to show the relative sizes in M1-M2-M3, which also showed the “connector” and its lack. As a result, we’re waiting for actual die shots, and I have no idea when or where those will appear, or even if they will be useful. Maybe others can guess.Has anyone seen a video or something about how the new M4 Max chip is build ?
I mean does it have the same connector like M1 and M2 Max chips or will there be a M4 Ultra standalone chip.
I'm curious
eclecticlight.co
eclecticlight.co
eclecticlight.co
wccftech.com
Don't forget about M4 Ultra next year! (I'm assuming it's M4 based.)Apple's M4 Max Chip Trails NVIDIA's RTX 4090 By Nearly 30 Percent In Blender GPU Benchmarks But Outpaces The RTX 4070 and RTX 3080 Ti
Apple's latest M4 Max chip beats NVIDIA's RTX 4070 and RTX 3080 TI in Blender benchmarks, but lags behind the RTX 4090.
M4 Max is now better than mobile RTX 4070 which is 30% slower than mobile RTX 4090 so I believe M5 series will be better than mobile RTX 4080 and desktop 4080.
Lets hope it is not just 2x Max but something better with more GPU power, i would love to ditch Nvidia on my desktop even if i trade it for few less P-cores.
I doubt it since adding two chips didnt really improve twice than Max chip due to the limitation of ultrafusion and McM. They would probably need to make a whole new chip just for Ultra and Extreme.
Are we sure blender isn’t bandwidth sensitive? The 4090 has 2x the bandwidth of the 4070 which matches the performance increase. (I guess I am asking if the 4090 has 3 times the bandwidth would the scores go up all else being the same).
How do you know, people thought N3E would be worse than N3B but here were are with the M4, and also Apple could improve the architecture so we will see next year.
Not really. N3E may be a bit less dense but most here didn’t think it was worse than N3B.
The rumors are a little confusing. The best I can make out parsing the oracle of Bloomberg is that there will indeed be an Ultra that is 2x Max (has any 3rd party die shots with Ultra Fusion happened yet?), but there is also a desktop specific Hidra chip in the works maybe destined for the Mac Pro only, maybe by the end of 2025.
As @Mac_fan75 said, it's true that the improvements from node alone will be relatively small compared to 2026 and 2027, that doesn't mean Apple won't make larger architectural changes that may or may not allow immediate performance improvements (and may certainly improve with future software).
True, there were a couple of voices that did imply that, but not many. Most kept ragging on N3B being a "failure". It may not have been as successful a node as TSMC had initially hoped, but we should all be so lucky to have such failures in our work.
