More evidence that Apple plans to update Apple Silicon yearly

[Confused-User]

Why does everyone here think that commenting on Apple's traditional release schedules is in some way relevant?

It's not.

With Mx chips, it's a whole new ballgame - everything that came before (with Intel chips) is irrelevant. And since the introduction of the M1 everything has been hugely disrupted by the pandemic and supply chain tieups. (I'd argue that getting caught with their pants down by TSMC's screwup on N3B was likely not entirely just due to those two causes, but we'll never know.)

So we literally have NO USEFUL DATA AT ALL about what Apple wanted, or intends in the future.

If I had to bet, I would bet that they do intend to iterate on all the chips in the lineup every year, for as long as they can sustain that for the iphone. After all, once you have new CPU/GPU/NPU/AMX/ISP/etc. designs, you can take it easy on the rest of the design if you need to, reusing a lot of the uncore work from the last year, and still get a decent bump. That means new Pros and Maxes every year along with the base Mx models. It's possible that there could be enough additional complexity in multichip packaging (right now, only the Ultra, using InFO) that that might sometimes lag, and that might also apply to some future chiplet-based design going into the hypothetical Mac Pro, should they go in that direction.

An 18-month cycle is also plausible, but I really doubt it. They do seem to like annual cycles, and if they want to retain an image of leadership in the industry, that's going to be difficult.

 

[Confused-User]

Actually I overstated when I said "So we literally have NO USEFUL DATA AT ALL about what Apple wanted, or intends in the future".

We do have data, it's just that Apple's past product release practices aren't useful data.

The useful data we do have consists of knowledge of TSMCs slipped N3B process availability, likely-true rumors about the M2Pro/Max originally being due to ship last fall, etc. It's still not determinative. Arguing about it is silly... we won't know until we see what happens.

 

[LockOn2B]

Apple does make 140W laptops... the MBP 16" M1 Max.

The 16 inch consumes like 85 to 90 W at most and that’s including every SoC component plus the display/speakers/ports/memory modules/etc...

 

[TechnoMonk]

Why does everyone here think that commenting on Apple's traditional release schedules is in some way relevant?

It's not.

With Mx chips, it's a whole new ballgame - everything that came before (with Intel chips) is irrelevant. And since the introduction of the M1 everything has been hugely disrupted by the pandemic and supply chain tieups. (I'd argue that getting caught with their pants down by TSMC's screwup on N3B was likely not entirely just due to those two causes, but we'll never know.)

So we literally have NO USEFUL DATA AT ALL about what Apple wanted, or intends in the future.

If I had to bet, I would bet that they do intend to iterate on all the chips in the lineup every year, for as long as they can sustain that for the iphone. After all, once you have new CPU/GPU/NPU/AMX/ISP/etc. designs, you can take it easy on the rest of the design if you need to, reusing a lot of the uncore work from the last year, and still get a decent bump. That means new Pros and Maxes every year along with the base Mx models. It's possible that there could be enough additional complexity in multichip packaging (right now, only the Ultra, using InFO) that that might sometimes lag, and that might also apply to some future chiplet-based design going into the hypothetical Mac Pro, should they go in that direction.

An 18-month cycle is also plausible, but I really doubt it. They do seem to like annual cycles, and if they want to retain an image of leadership in the industry, that's going to be difficult.

Sure you can’t use some of the data, but uncertainties and anomalies always exist. There is relevant data to make an educated guess. Apple May spread out the same underlying architecture to more than an annual cycle. iPhone gets the newer Ax chip in Fall, MacBook Air /pro 13 Mx in January, Max and Ultra chips Late spring or summer. Apple doesn’t have to get all the variations out at same time.

 

[ian87w]

Obviously they are gonna update it yearly, all the competition (Intel, AMD and Qualcomm) are doing so.

Intel and AMD might make yearly announcements, but their actual shipping products are varied in timing, with delays and availability often don't follow any particular release schedule, unlike Apple.

I think Apple is at a very comfortable position in the desktop/laptop space right now, and Apple knows it. They are still selling a 2 year old M1 MacBook Air for the same original price.

The wildcard is Qualcomm. Qualcomm is gaining in performance and efficiency, but their desktop/laptop solutions still pale in comparison with Apple's. However, since they also have access to the same TSMC fab, they are definitely gaining in the race.

 

[sam_dean]

The 16 inch consumes like 85 to 90 W at most and that’s including every SoC component plus the display/speakers/ports/memory modules/etc...

No charger or PSU has an efficiency of 140W. So there is an allowance for that and to allow for Fast Charging.

Max to Ultra chips have a power input diff of +100W. The 240W USB PD charger would easily cover that.

 

[sam_dean]

My MacBook Pro M1 Max 16 runs fine on a 65 W charger for the heaviest of my use cases. I rarely use a 140W charger, mostly if I need quick charging. I don’t want Apple getting into those ridiculously powered laptops. I tried a few of those intel ones; they are like mini furnaces and throttle a lot.
Buy a PC laptop if you need those high-powered heat furnaces.

Those PC laptops use 330W chargers.

Any Ultra chip now only require a 240W USB charger when placed into a MBP 16".

 

[sam_dean]

At full load, it comsumes less than 100 watts and that also includes the screen etc. Not just the chip itself. I do have an M1 Max MacBook Pro 16" and, connected to my Apple Studio Display which provides 96 watts of power, it has no trouble providing sustained full load.



Probably the main reason has nothing to do with being able to keep max power consumption below 240 watts but because it would make a loud machine with significant performance drop while used on battery, which goes against everything Apple Silicon MacBooks are good for.

People buying an MBP 16" M2 Ultra would accept the limitations that it would have half the rated

- Up to 22 hours Apple TV app movie playback
- Up to 15 hours wireless web

They want the raw performance of a 24-core CPU like the Core i9-13980HX, portability of a laptop with 8 efficiency cores and would accept the need to keep it plugged in when using the 16 performance cores.

If not for the demand then for the purpose of marketing. Reviewers are comparing other laptops in the $3899 price range of the Intel 24-core CPU laptop chip to those from Apple & even AMD.

Many here will say you're comparing an Intel laptop requiring a 330W charger to a Apple laptop requiring a 96W charger but only uses a 140W charger to fast charge.

But many still will say they prioritize raw performance with portability rather than performance per watt with portability.

Many again would argue that these are gaming PCs. There are gaming PCs that are also used as desktop workstation replacements.

Isn't Apple trying to break into PC gaming? A MBP 16" M2 Ultra would help with that marketing push.

- https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...2-chips-gaming-on-mac-intel-and-more.2379860/
- https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-wwdc-metal-3-resident-evil-thoughts.2347213/
- https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...le-of-playing-aaa-games-will-be-macs.2275962/

 

[TechnoMonk]

Those PC laptops use 330W chargers.

Any Ultra chip now only require a 240W USB charger when placed into a MBP 16".

They can also cook eggs. I don’t want ultra on a laptop generating lot of heat and fans going off.

 

[TechnoMonk]

People buying an MBP 16" M2 Ultra would accept the limitations that it would have half the rated

- Up to 22 hours Apple TV app movie playback
- Up to 15 hours wireless web

They want the raw performance of a 24-core CPU like the Core i9-13980HX, portability of a laptop with 8 efficiency cores and would accept the need to keep it plugged in when using the 16 performance cores.

If not for the demand then for the purpose of marketing. Reviewers are comparing other laptops in the $3899 price range of the Intel 24-core CPU laptop chip to those from Apple & even AMD.

Just buy the Intel laptop, have you seen those laptops are severely under volted and under-clocked, but lot of reviewers use the benchmarks of a desktop. The 4090 in laptops is maxed out at 100-150W, my 4090 on workstation draws 500-600 W pretty effortlessly. I can only imagine how throttled the performance is at 150 W. The laptop version of 4090 comes with 16GB ram, unlike the 24GB on a desktop/workstation.

 

[sam_dean]

They can also cook eggs. I don’t want ultra on a laptop generating lot of heat and fans going off.

Then do not buy it. Others will. Desktop workstation replacements are a market that Intel/AMD has a monopoly in.

Buyers accept those limitations.

 

[sam_dean]

Just buy the Intel laptop, have you seen those laptops are severely under volted and under-clocked, but lot of reviewers use the benchmarks of a desktop. The 4090 in laptops is maxed out at 100-150W, my 4090 on workstation draws 500-600 W pretty effortlessly. I can only imagine how throttled the performance is at 150 W. The laptop version of 4090 comes with 16GB ram, unlike the 24GB on a desktop/workstation.

When Apple has a surplus of Ultra chips then it will find a home beyond the Mac Studio.

Same occurred with the M1/M2 Mac chips when it went into a iPad Air & iPad Pro. Initially many here thought it is overkill to put a laptop chip into a tablet.

Same thing occurred again with the M2 Pro chip that found itself into a Mac mini.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Then do not buy it. Others will. Desktop workstation replacements are a market that Intel/AMD has a monopoly in.

Buyers accept those limitations.

Apple is not chasing specs like max tech click bait reviewers. These reviewers removed heat sink to make MacBook Air look bad, imagine what they will do to an ultra on MacBook Pro. Heck Apple can barely get handle on a ultra in studio, let alone a laptop. If these Intel ovens performed anywhere close to the specs, they would be selling like hot cakes. You can fantasize all you want about specs, I don’t see Apple trying to cram an ultra to look good on spec sheet.

 

[sam_dean]

Apple is not chasing specs like max tech click bait reviewers. These reviewers removed heat sink to make MacBook Air look bad, imagine what they will do to an ultra on MacBook Pro. Heck Apple can barely get handle on a ultra in studio, let alone a laptop. If these Intel ovens performed anywhere close to the specs, they would be selling like hot cakes. You can fantasize all you want about specs, I don’t see Apple trying to cram an ultra to look good on spec sheet.

Who ever would have thought a M1/M2 laptop chip being placed in a tablet? I, like many here, thought it was overkill. Then I remembered economies of scale and excess yield so there is an abundance of chips.

Mac Studio HSF takes up half the volume of the desktop because users demanded a silent PC without the drawbacks of a liquid-cooled one.

With a MBP 16" M2 Ultra it is a given that it will run hot and half the battery life if the enclosre remains the same.

Buyers will accept that.

It will only happen if there is a surplus of Ultra chips and enough of a marketing reason to do so.

In agriculture when there's an over supply of tomatoes they divert it from the fresh produce section onto the canned or bottled tomatoes to make sauce that will be good for a few months/years on the shelf.

 

[257Loner]

Apple execs on M2 chips, winning gamers and when to buy a Mac | TechCrunch

Apple's M series chips were incredibly well telegraphed when they arrived in late 2020. Apple had been designing its own silicon since the A4 appeared in

techcrunch.com

The most interesting thing I read in that article is that the Apple Silicon team is eager to "seed" Macs with more powerful GPUs and a more sophisticated Metal API as soon as possible to entice game developers to sell their games on the Mac. Now that Apple is in charge of what kind of iGPU finds its way into a Mac and not Intel, whether or not the Mac becomes a gaming platform will be their responsibility going forward.

 

[TechnoMonk]

When Apple has a surplus of Ultra chips then it will find a home beyond the Mac Studio.

Same occurred with the M1/M2 Mac chips when it went into a iPad Air & iPad Pro. Initially many here thought it is overkill to put a laptop chip into a tablet.

Same thing occurred again with the M2 Pro chip that found itself into a Mac mini.

That’s not the reason, you are just making stuff up now. Apple went in to the details on why Mac Studio with M1 Max was much lighter than Studio Ultra. Ultra uses almost a 2 Lb copper heat sink compared to Aluminum in M1 Max Studio. I don’t see how Apple is gonna put a 2 Lb heat sink in laptop, and then modify to use bigger fans.
Chip yield is not gonna magically alter the thermodynamics, it will have to be more efficient or need a metal conductor which can regulate the heat better.

 

[sam_dean]

The most interesting thing I read in that article is that the Apple Silicon team is eager to "seed" Macs with more and more powerful GPUs as soon as possible to entice game developers to sell their games on the Mac. Now that Apple is in charge of what kind of iGPU finds its way into a Mac and not Intel, whether or not the Mac becomes a gaming platform will be their responsibility going forward.

At the time of release of the M1 in Nov 2020 it had the most powerful iGPU of any laptop/desktop chip

When the M1 Ultra was released it had the iGPU equivalent of a RTX 3090 built-in at 200W less power requirement.

When Apple moves to 3nm process node then that advantage will go even further.

What limited the mac as a gaming platform was the incompatibility of Apple's industrial design with Intel/AMD/PPC hardware.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Apple execs on M2 chips, winning gamers and when to buy a Mac | TechCrunch

Apple's M series chips were incredibly well telegraphed when they arrived in late 2020. Apple had been designing its own silicon since the A4 appeared in

techcrunch.com

The most interesting thing I read in that article is that the Apple Silicon team is eager to "seed" Macs with more and more powerful GPUs as soon as possible to entice game developers to sell their games on the Mac. Now that Apple is in charge of what kind of iGPU finds its way into a Mac and not Intel, whether or not the Mac becomes a gaming platform will be their responsibility going forward.

Yep. It’s an huge opportunity for Apple not just gaming but any thing which uses GPU computing. The Unified RAM can be a game changer. Nvidia limits the GPU to 24 GB with 4090. An apple GPU can theoretical use 96GB and 128 GB on high end Macs.

 

[257Loner]

At the time of release of the M1 in Nov 2020 it had the most powerful iGPU of any laptop/desktop chip

When the M1 Ultra was released it had the iGPU equivalent of a RTX 3090 built-in at 200W less power requirement.

When Apple moves to 3nm process node then that advantage will go even further.

What limited the mac as a gaming platform was the incompatibility of Apple's industrial design with Intel/AMD/PPC hardware.

Unfortunately, it seems you're referencing Apple's charts, which have been debunked by several tech sites as misleading:

Apple’s charts set the M1 Ultra up for an RTX 3090 fight it could never win

Better performance per watt doesn’t equal better overall performance.

www.theverge.com

M1 Ultra vs Nvidia RTX 3090

In Apple’s March “Peek Performance” Event, Apple revealed to the world their latest and greatest Apple Silicon to date: the M1 Ultra in, for the first time in over a decade, a brand new Mac, the Mac Studio. During the presentations, Apple made many bold claims such as astounding 800 MB/s memory...

techjourneyman.com

Review: The Mac Studio shows us exactly why Apple left Intel behind

Part Mac mini, part trashcan Mac Pro, the Studio is one impressive mini desktop.

arstechnica.com

 

[quarkysg]

Apple is not chasing specs like max tech click bait reviewers. These reviewers removed heat sink to make MacBook Air look bad, imagine what they will do to an ultra on MacBook Pro. Heck Apple can barely get handle on a ultra in studio, let alone a laptop. If these Intel ovens performed anywhere close to the specs, they would be selling like hot cakes. You can fantasize all you want about specs, I don’t see Apple trying to cram an ultra to look good on spec sheet.

I would say Apple is chasing specs but based on their on product visions and needs. Apple likely planned for yearly refreshes of the Mac AS SoC, much like the iPhone SoCs, but the pandemic likely threw a big spanner into the works.

Many advocating that Apple release a SoC to rival what AMD/nVidia/Intel have is asking Apple to skate to where the puck is. The world is moving increasingly into the mobile space, and devices are getting smaller. That is where the puck is moving to. AMD/nVidia/Intel's strategy does not allow Apple to go where the world is moving to. I don't see the trio having solutions that can power a personal device like the rumoured Apple Glass without also carrying a heavy battery in your backpack.

I don't think Apple's management is going to go into a pissing contest.

 

[code-m]

When Apple has a surplus of Ultra chips then it will find a home beyond the Mac Studio.

Same occurred with the M1/M2 Mac chips when it went into a iPad Air & iPad Pro. Initially many here thought it is overkill to put a laptop chip into a tablet.

Same thing occurred again with the M2 Pro chip that found itself into a Mac mini.

Didn’t Apple put an A12Z chip in the developer MacMini?

With the thermal envelope I would say the M series chips are designed as mobile friendly and first vice desktop chips. If Apple can figure out the cooling and power management I am sure it could place an M2 Ultra in a MBP but that would be madness and probably double the thickness similar to a Razr gaming laptop. 😝

 

[sam_dean]

That’s not the reason, you are just making stuff up now. Apple went in to the details on why Mac Studio with M1 Max was much lighter than Studio Ultra. Ultra uses almost a 2 Lb copper heat sink compared to Aluminum in M1 Max Studio. I don’t see how Apple is gonna put a 2 Lb heat sink in laptop, and then modify to use bigger fans.
Chip yield is not gonna magically alter the thermodynamics, it will have to be more efficient or need a metal conductor which can regulate the heat better.

Apple identified the user requirements of a Mac Studio customer. One of which is that it is a silent PC.

There is a MR forum thread about users asking how "silent" their Mac Studio is at sleep, idle & at full load.

To maintain the same enclosure of a MBP 16" would override that requirement. Those buying a desktop workstation replacement will accept it.

If you are coming from Windows with that requirement it is part and parcel of it.

Apple's unique offering would be 11 hours battery. That is much plenty in that segment.

People here are limited by their personal use case. Unless gaming PCs and workstations are loss leader products then it is profitable enough to cater even when the product is gimped.

 

[TechnoMonk]

I would say Apple is chasing specs but based on their on product visions and needs. Apple likely planned for yearly refreshes of the Mac AS SoC, much like the iPhone SoCs, but the pandemic likely threw a big spanner into the works.

Many advocating that Apple release a SoC to rival what AMD/nVidia/Intel have is asking Apple to skate to where the puck is. The world is moving increasingly into the mobile space, and devices are getting smaller. That is where the puck is moving to. AMD/nVidia/Intel's strategy does not allow Apple to go where the world is moving to. I don't see the trio having solutions that can power a personal device like the rumoured Apple Glass without also carrying a heavy battery in your backpack.

I don't think Apple's management is going to go into a pissing contest.

That’s hardly spec chasing, Apple has always followed its own strategy, thrived to improve, even if incrementally for a decade now. Sure, it may seem 20% here and there but, these things add up fast.
Apple has efficiency, performance per watt, and above all a unified CPU/GPU/RAM as biggest advantages. Nvidia saw an opportunity to match Apple with the failed ARM acquisition. Theoretically, AMD can challenge Apple with a unified CPU/GPU, if they can improve the efficiency at lower Power. Interesting times ahead for sure. NVIDIA with ARM would have been devastating for Intel, and may be Qualcomm.

 

[TechnoMonk]

Apple identified the user requirements of a Mac Studio customer. One of which is that it is a silent PC.

There is a MR forum thread about users asking how "silent" their Mac Studio is at sleep, idle & at full load.

To maintain the same enclosure of a MBP 16" would override that requirement. Those buying a desktop workstation replacement will accept it.

If you are coming from Windows with that requirement it is part and parcel of it.

Apple's unique offering would be 11 hours battery. That is much plenty in that segment.

People here are limited by their personal use case. Unless gaming PCs and workstations are loss leader products then it is profitable enough to cater even when the product is gimped.

Lol. Macrumors thread isn’t going to solve thermodynamics problem. ultra uses a 2 Lb heavier heat sink compared to Max. If you put a heavier copper sink in MacBook Pro, what kind of fan do you need to dissipate that heat around. It’s gonna burn some ones lap or you need a bulkier, louder fan. It just goes against the Apple messaging of power efficient, cooler, compact, and quieter laptops.
Apple can keep getting better every iteration, and with 3nm it will probably get a bigger boost in M3 max.

 

[sam_dean]

Didn’t Apple put an A12Z chip in the developer MacMini?

With the thermal envelope I would say the M series chips are designed as mobile friendly and first vice desktop chips. If Apple can figure out the cooling and power management I am sure it could place an M2 Ultra in a MBP but that would be madness and probably double the thickness similar to a Razr gaming laptop. 😝

Many, including myself, did not know what we were looking at.

We were surprised that Apple maintained the Intel Mac mini 150W PSU until now even when the power consumption of the 2020 Mac mini M1 was <28W. When the M1 logic board was displayed we wonder why Apple kept the 1.39L enclosure volume.

I then concluded that it would cost more to redesign and switch to appropriate dimensions, Intel Mac mini uses cases are dependent on current form factor or a M Pro chip will eventually come to the Mac mini as it is was missing on the Mac Studio.

Until now I see the same set of persons thinking an Ultra in a MBP 16" will not work even when presented with what Intel is doing. What Intel did sold even when the madness and double thickness.

2006-2020 we put up with Intel. When surplus of Ultra chips are available why not cater to a segment that are willing to put up with madness without the double thickness.

5nm and future 3nm process node will reduce thermal output. A future Ultra chip will become cool enough not to need such a beefy HSF for silent PC requirements.