What's in a name, anyway? I don't recall anyone predicting "Pro" and "Max." The most important thing this naming convention does IMO is make it clear that these SoCs are built with the same-generation tech as the original M1. Not, "We'll build M1, see how it goes, and then improve it for the 'better' Macs" but rather, "This has been the roadmap since Day One. We have faith in our architecture and execution."Kind of wonder though if Jade2C and Jade4C got cancelled in favor of just skipping the mostly M1 foundation and going on to M2 ( probably TSMC N4 based) one.
Minimally it is likely a different die layout than what the M1 Max uses. That "Max" is the other issue. How do they go "up" from the name 'Max'. What is bigger than the Maximum?
Could be M1 Max2 and M1 Max4 . Or perhaps get on a better name track with the M2 prefix.
Apple has plenty of naming choices when it comes to the Silicon for the Mac Pro (or whatever they name it - I think something that separates this particular model from MBP and a hypothetical big-screen iMac equipped with a Max). Since "Max" is already spoken for (what's bigger than max?), and it's almost inevitable it has to be "more"....
Well, I recall back when I was racing whitewater slalom (before the turn of the century), there was a series of C-1 boats
with names like Max, Bat Max, Cuda Max, and Ultra Max (iirc) - I owned one of those, but can't recall which. So I guess Ultra Max, Super-Double-Secret Max or some such could still be in the cards for Apple.
However, there's also the possibility they could establish an entirely separate processor line, akin to Xeon, especially optimized for higher-end computing. Why just have more of the same CPU and GPU cores as the mass market Macs when you could have cores with entirely different optimization? If they're intended solely for desktops they don't have to consider efficiency cores at all - more space for performance cores (although there's also not a particular reason to skip performance cores as an energy efficiency move, as long as TSMC can build a big enough die at a sustainable yield). There is the question of how large an SoC with 1.5 GB (or more) of RAM would be, especially when you add in all the additional CPU and GPU cores...
I don't think M2 would make sense under this scenario. M2 implies the next-generation M-series. No, they'd use another letter entirely.
Despite this little flight of fancy, it makes far more sense to assume Apple intends to stick to a single, highly scalable architecture. I can see the 2022 Mac Pros being the first to sport the next-gen M2 architecture, with scaled-down versions making their way into the mass-market Macs afterwards.
It now seems pretty likely that the upcoming big-screen iMacs will be offered with similar configurations as the new Mac Pros; something closer to the iMac Pro than a bigger-screen version of the 24" iMac. Doesn't seem wonderful for my budget - while I want something bigger than the 24", these days I don't need more performance than a garden-variety M1.
