M4+ Chip Generation - Speculation Megathread [MERGED]

[tenthousandthings]

Mac16,10 is M4 mini
Mac16,11 is M4 Pro mini (full / binned)

Don't think 16,15 has been used yet.

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!

 

[tenthousandthings]

he doesnt have evidence but for sure M3 could be more expensive to make for no good reasons, fact that Apple moved for M4 more quickly than they did with the M1-2-3 with still good gains, he is an confused user, so dont take it too much personally

@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.

The argument that the difference in production costs between N3 and N3E is so large that it would affect Apple’s architectural decisions (made more than a year before volume production) is not quite as unlikely as the idea that a relative improvement in production yields (which would only be certain long after those decisions were made) affect them, but it’s still unlikely.

 

[Antony Newman]

Loosening up the aggressive dimensional spec of N3B allowed for increased yields in N3E.
Reducing EUV layers increased Wafers Per Hour rate - and reduced client design & simulation cost.

TSMC knows what is most cost effective on a global scale. If you look at backside power delivery, TSMC were due to release it in N2P - only for them to pull it when a more efficient (and cost effective solution) was found.

Intel pushed forward with version of this (PowerVia). TSMC are due to bring their improved solution (SuperPowerRail) to the masses in A16.

TSMC Uncorks A16 With Super Power Rail

Reporter's Notebook: Aggressive roadmap ramps up competition at the leading edge.

semiengineering.com

 

[Chancha]

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!

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.

Though I share your line of thinking: 16,15 must have been in use for at least a brief while, it is too off from 10/11 to be just a typo.

 

[Confused-User]

Even if it has no "terrible yield", it can still be much more expensive and if you have evidence against this claim please elaborate.

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.

I highly doubt this because silicon developments has to take some time and it is very unlikely to make such decisions based on the actual sales data because the time frame will be way too tight. Or you can say that Apple designed two plans for the Pro and they can make a decision to pick one to mass production in the last minute, this is more realistic but why wasting efforts for a silicon that will never bing released at all? I'm confused and it looks like waste of R&D money to me.

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?

It does not make much difference with just fuse off a core and physically remove a core, that is why I'm calling both a 5-core cluster, because it is very unlikely to redesign the cache and the interconnect just for this 5-core cluster.

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.

He said that hes speculating while you are saying with confidence that it wasnt, please provide with your proof otherwise we let this just an attempt of your love to argue with almost everybody

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.)

 

[tenthousandthings]

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.

Though I share your line of thinking: 16,15 must have been in use for at least a brief while, it is too off from 10/11 to be just a typo.

So I guess that means we can now expect to pair Mac16,15 with an 8K 120Hz Pro Display XDR!

On the subject of support-documentation errors, if you want to see one of Apple’s all-time train wrecks in that regard, see the discussion here: https://www.earlymacintosh.org/cd.html

(In short, in 1989, “Phil and Dave” gave the job of compiling the first developer CD archive of Mac system software to someone with no institutional knowledge, with predictable results, mistakes that were never corrected.)

 

[MayaUser]

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..
They fix the imac capable of 8k60hz

 

[Icelus]

Inside M4 chips: P cores

Details of their frequency, ISA, power use, and how macOS allocates threads to P cores and relocates them. Supported by data from an M4 Pro.

eclecticlight.co

Last Week on My Mac: Mac mini M4 Pro first impressions, cores and more

Set up from unboxing in under 2 hours, its CPU cores perform better than those in the M3, differences that are magnified.

eclecticlight.co

 

[MayaUser]

 

[Wedlock]

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

 

[tenthousandthings]

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

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.

Why Apple eliminated the graphics can be argued both ways, I tend to think it’s because there is a connector and they didn’t want its return to steal the show, to take the spotlight away from the Max itself… On the other hand, the lack of a visible connector would set off a firestorm of speculation, and no good can come from that. So better just to kill the graphic.

 

[Icelus]

Inside M4 chips: P cores hosting a VM

macOS virtual machines are preferentially run on P cores. Details on their performance, core allocation, frequencies and power use/

eclecticlight.co

 

[Icelus]

M4 Macs can’t virtualise older macOS

A bug, most probably in the early part of kernel boot in guest macOS, prevents M4 Macs virtualising macOS prior to 13.4.

eclecticlight.co