New Apple M1 – what people are missing...

[vorrik]

Like many people, I like to read the comments in articles related apple products and announcements. A lot of people are complaining that Apple’s ARM based M1 processor only comes with 8 cores and a maximum of 16 MB of ram and they question how Apple could build pro level machines based on this design. I think these people are missing the subtle hints on how future Apple computers based on the M1 chip could vastly outperform the highest end gaming rigs and creative workstations.

The M1 chip is made by TSMC, the same company that produces AMD’s new chip architecture. All you have to do is look at the AMD chip design to get a hint as to how Apple could leverage the M1 chip on higher end machines. The new AMD processors have 8 core chiplets that are added to a processor to have up to 64 physical cores on a single chip. While AMD's chips are built on the x86 architecture and Apples M1 chip is based on ARM, you can still see where I am going with this...

Apple could build a computer where there are multiple M1 chips running in parallel. Imagine the upcoming "Mac Pro Mini" Running four M1 chips in parallel which would create a system with 32 cores (16 high performance, 16 high efficiency) 64 "Neural Engine" cores, 64 gigs of ram and a 32 GPU core package. Keep in mind, the worlds most powerful supercomputers use many ARM based processors running in parallel.

Will Apple use their chips in parallel to build supercomputer pro machines? We don’t know yet. But it’s something to think about when considering the possibilities of future Apple computers based on Apple Silicon.

 

[Mr. Awesome]

I’m kind of expecting Apple to reveal an M1X processor that’ll be used in higher-performance devices like the 16” MacBook Pro and iMac. But the idea of having multiple running in parallel is also possible.

 

[cmaier]

Like many people, I like to read the comments in articles related apple products and announcements. A lot of people are complaining that Apple’s ARM based M1 processor only comes with 8 cores and a maximum of 16 MB of ram and they question how Apple could build pro level machines based on this design. I think these people are missing the subtle hints on how future Apple computers based on the M1 chip could vastly outperform the highest end gaming rigs and creative workstations.

The M1 chip is made by TSMC, the same company that produces AMD’s new chip architecture. All you have to do is look at the AMD chip design to get a hint as to how Apple could leverage the M1 chip on higher end machines. The new AMD processors have 8 core chiplets that are added to a processor to have up to 64 physical cores on a single chip. While AMD's chips are built on the x86 architecture and Apples M1 chip is based on ARM, you can still see where I am going with this...

Apple could build a computer where there are multiple M1 chips running in parallel. Imagine the upcoming "Mac Pro Mini" Running four M1 chips in parallel which would create a system with 32 cores (16 high performance, 16 high efficiency) 64 "Neural Engine" cores, 64 gigs of ram and a 32 GPU core package. Keep in mind, the worlds most powerful supercomputers use many ARM based processors running in parallel.

Will Apple use their chips in parallel to build supercomputer pro machines? We don’t know yet. But it’s something to think about when considering the possibilities of future Apple computers based on Apple Silicon.

Apple doesn’t need chiplets. AMD does, because their x86 cruft takes too much die area. If apple wants more cores, they can plunk them down in cadence, spin the chip through DRC/LVS, and tape it out.

 

[kb923689]

I’m kind of expecting Apple to reveal an M1X processor that’ll be used in higher-performance devices like the 16” MacBook Pro and iMac. But the idea of having multiple running in parallel is also possible.

I'm more interested to know if these new ARM computers are gonna make a dent in the market share. There's no way Microsoft could pull this off software wise.

 

[machinesworking]

I would expect if we're to see multi chip setups from Apple that they will include a dedicated 'performance ' only chip. I don't see how a 32 core 16 efficiency 16 performance makes any sense. 4 or 8 efficiency and the rest performance does.

What's even more likely is they actually just incorporate everything on one Chip.

 

[panzer06]

I'm more interested to know if these new ARM computers are gonna make a dent in the market share. There's no way Microsoft could pull this off software wise.

Isn't there already an ARM version of Windows? I understand Microsoft hasn't licensed Windows to Apple for Bootcamp on the M1 but it seems like there is potential.

Deploy, manage, and service Arm processor-based Surface devices - Surface

Learn how to deploy, manage, and service Arm-based Surface devices, including Surface Pro 11th Edition and Surface Laptop 7th Edition.

docs.microsoft.com

 

[kb923689]

Isn't there already an ARM version of Windows? I understand Microsoft hasn't licensed Windows to Apple for Bootcamp on the M1 but it seems like there is potential.

Deploy, manage, and service Arm processor-based Surface devices - Surface

Learn how to deploy, manage, and service Arm-based Surface devices, including Surface Pro 11th Edition and Surface Laptop 7th Edition.

docs.microsoft.com

The ARM version of Windows has no future. They need a successful app store and they missed the PC to smartphones transition back in 2010. The only thing they could do at this point is keep refining Win32 and they're even failing at that. Windows 10 is too clunky to run decently on ARM.

Apple can have a better PC market share with these new models if they lower the prices. At least the Mini and Air.

 

[panzer06]

The ARM version of Windows has no future. They need a successful app store and they missed the PC to smartphones transition back in 2010. The only thing they could do at this point is keep refining Win32 and they're even failing at that. Windows 10 is too clunky to run decently on ARM.

Apple can have a better PC market share with these new models if they lower the prices. At least the Mini and Air.

Well that's not good. I was hoping apps like MS Project would work on this if Microsoft and Apple come to terms. I guess I'm fine with this 16" MBP for the foreseeable future. I used that 2011 for 9 years so I guess I'll stretch out the use on this one and hope there's a better solution in 5-10 years.

 

[AltecX]

The ARM version of Windows has no future. They need a successful app store and they missed the PC to smartphones transition back in 2010. The only thing they could do at this point is keep refining Win32 and they're even failing at that. Windows 10 is too clunky to run decently on ARM.

Apple can have a better PC market share with these new models if they lower the prices. At least the Mini and Air.

The MS app store is fine, and they have a whole Windows JUST for ARM that runs perfectly well. Their problem has been that ARM chips in general outside of Apple has been hampered by there being almost 0 competition so there was no need for them to really grow faster other than to just "be a bit faster for next year". Who does Qualcomm have to fear? Not Mediatek or Samsung's chips. That was why MS has had to work with them to make a more viable chip. MS has been trying to push desktop ARM development for years, Developers just don't bother hopping on because there is no money in it, and the ARM CPU's available to them SUCK. Apple GAVE developers a reason by their iPhone and iPad being cash-cows, and now having an ARM laptop/desktop there is a large monetary reason for developers to dev to ARM.

Similar for watch ARM chips. Look at Android watches. Until the latest Qualcomm revision they have SUCKED because first they were a fad, but after the Apple watch caught on it was a "viable market" and they had to develop a much better chip as result if they wanted to have a strong showing.

In neither case(windows or Android) is the OS or software the problem. It was TOTALLY **** AVAILABLE CHIP OPTIONS.

MS's problem is they give developers to much control in what they want to dev on and for while Apple says "dev for this this and just this, because you know that the other will vanish in 2-4yrs along with your profits if you don't." Per the Windows phone problem it was also a similar problem. MS was making it really easy to dev 1 app, that will scale for any UI side/form factor but Devs didn't take advantage of it. It was a large part of the Windows 8/8.1 push which in turn hurt their phone a LOT. Developers just didn't want to take advantage of it as there were so few Windows Phones to make it worth it financially.

Now if Apple said they were going to license their design or agreed to sell chips to say MS for the Surface tablet/laptop and phone line, Qualcomm would stand up and listen because it would mean they had REAL competition.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Like many people, I like to read the comments in articles related apple products and announcements. A lot of people are complaining that Apple’s ARM based M1 processor only comes with 8 cores and a maximum of 16 MB of ram and they question how Apple could build pro level machines based on this design. I think these people are missing the subtle hints on how future Apple computers based on the M1 chip could vastly outperform the highest end gaming rigs and creative workstations.

The M1 chip is made by TSMC, the same company that produces AMD’s new chip architecture. All you have to do is look at the AMD chip design to get a hint as to how Apple could leverage the M1 chip on higher end machines. The new AMD processors have 8 core chiplets that are added to a processor to have up to 64 physical cores on a single chip. While AMD's chips are built on the x86 architecture and Apples M1 chip is based on ARM, you can still see where I am going with this...

Apple could build a computer where there are multiple M1 chips running in parallel. Imagine the upcoming "Mac Pro Mini" Running four M1 chips in parallel which would create a system with 32 cores (16 high performance, 16 high efficiency) 64 "Neural Engine" cores, 64 gigs of ram and a 32 GPU core package. Keep in mind, the worlds most powerful supercomputers use many ARM based processors running in parallel.

Will Apple use their chips in parallel to build supercomputer pro machines? We don’t know yet. But it’s something to think about when considering the possibilities of future Apple computers based on Apple Silicon.

The 16GB maximum RAM and 2 Thunderbolt ports is only a problem with the Mac mini as it makes the Apple Silicon version appear to entail compromises compared to the Intel version. The new Air and 2-port 13" Pro make zero concessions compared to their Intel predecessors and are unarguably upgrades on top of being of the newer Mac processor architecture. Apple should've left the Apple Silicon Mac mini in the oven more or they should've stated that models with 32GB or larger RAM would be available in a few months. Because right now, what I'm getting from this is that they can't support more than 16GB on a chip they just unveiled yesterday and that there's a technical issue with their implementation of Thunderbolt 3 controllers in their SoC that prohibits more than two thunderbolt ports compared to the 2018 mini's four. Were it not for the M1 Mac mini launch, there would be no reason to assume that this is the case as we could chalk it all up to Apple trying to maintain parity between Apple Silicon models (and ports) and their immediate Intel predecessors.

 

[Kung gu]

The 16GB maximum RAM and 2 Thunderbolt ports is only a problem with the Mac mini as it makes the Apple Silicon version appear to entail compromises compared to the Intel version. The new Air and 2-port 13" Pro make zero concessions compared to their Intel predecessors and are unarguably upgrades on top of being of the newer Mac processor architecture. Apple should've left the Apple Silicon Mac mini in the oven more or they should've stated that models with 32GB or larger RAM would be available in a few months. Because right now, what I'm getting from this is that they can't support more than 16GB on a chip they just unveiled yesterday and that there's a technical issue with their implementation of Thunderbolt 3 controllers in their SoC that prohibits more than two thunderbolt ports compared to the 2018 mini's four. Were it not for the M1 Mac mini launch, there would be no reason to assume that this is the case as we could chalk it all up to Apple trying to maintain parity between Apple Silicon models (and ports) and their immediate Intel predecessors.

I think the mac mini they released yesterday was the "base" mac mini, cause they also changed the colour to sliver like they used to be. Maybe Apple will release Mac Mini Pro later, they still sell the i5 mac mini for people who need more I/O.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I think the mac mini they released yesterday was the "base" mac mini, cause they also changed the colour to sliver like they used to be. Maybe Apple will release Mac Mini Pro later, they still sell the i5 mac mini for people who need more I/O.

I understand that. My point is that it doesn't send the right message when you can't fully replace a Mac model and can only partially replace it. Even the low-end 2018 mini had four Thunderbolt 3 ports and the ability to max out RAM at 64GB. Apple is basically saying that they can only partially replace the Intel Mac mini at this time. Whereas with the 13" MacBook Pro, they're technically replacing a whole Mac model as the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro is a mac model distinct from its 4-port cousin (down to model number, firmware versions and differences in components and design). Similarly, Apple no longer sells any Intel based MacBook Air outside of the Apple Certified Refurbished Mac section of the Apple Online Store.

 

[ww1971]

The ARM version of Windows has no future. They need a successful app store and they missed the PC to smartphones transition back in 2010. The only thing they could do at this point is keep refining Win32 and they're even failing at that. Windows 10 is too clunky to run decently on ARM.

Apple can have a better PC market share with these new models if they lower the prices. At least the Mini and Air.

i believe that Windows for Arm is designed for one version of arm chip. It will never run on the M1, not even through virtualisaton

 

[Kcetech1]

I understand that. My point is that it doesn't send the right message when you can't fully replace a Mac model and can only partially replace it. Even the low-end 2018 mini had four Thunderbolt 3 ports and the ability to max out RAM at 64GB. Apple is basically saying that they can only partially replace the Intel Mac mini at this time. Whereas with the 13" MacBook Pro, they're technically replacing a whole Mac model as the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro is a mac model distinct from its 4-port cousin (down to model number, firmware versions and differences in components and design). Similarly, Apple no longer sells any Intel based MacBook Air outside of the Apple Certified Refurbished Mac section of the Apple Online Store.

I have to agree fully with you, to me the mini was a half baked replacement. But in my case I had a couple more issues with it and number one was the whole ... only 2 display supported???. No 10GBE networking anymore?? ... and well **** how can I hook up some of these new ultra fast ssd's ( no today 3700Mb/s is NOT fast so dont tell me TB3 either) for a custom render server.

well I passed on my minis since I needed equipment before christmas and built more " non Apple " stuff

the Mini used to be a great mini storage server or even a render cluster if you screwed with it a little. this new one, I cant find a use for it in my work or home anywhere. { shrugs }

 

[bobmans]

They're not going to slap multiple M1's together. That would be the worst thing to do. Imagine a 32 Core machine with 16 cores being efficiency cores? Makes 0 sense, nobody needs and wants that on a computer that's plugged into your wall. Nobody needs 64 NE cores. That's just a waste of sillicon.

M1 is just their entry level chipset and they'll have whole different solutions like the M10 or M1X, M100 or M1Y, M1000 or M1Z or whatever the hell they'll call it.

 

[pshufd]

I would expect if we're to see multi chip setups from Apple that they will include a dedicated 'performance ' only chip. I don't see how a 32 core 16 efficiency 16 performance makes any sense. 4 or 8 efficiency and the rest performance does.

What's even more likely is they actually just incorporate everything on one Chip.

I'd like to see a computer with 32 efficiency cores to maximize battery life or minimize power consumption.

 

[theluggage]

i believe that Windows for Arm is designed for one version of arm chip. It will never run on the M1, not even through virtualisaton

MS won't have put all the effort into making Windows 10 for ARM and tied it forever to run on one particular ARM implementation. What they don't do is sell a "universal" consumer version of Win 10 for ARM with a smart point-and-drool installer: OEMs contract with Microsoft to bundle it pre-installed. You can already get it unofficially to run on a Raspberry Pi (maybe breaching someone's license agreement) with a certain amount of hackery... It's unlikely to boot directly (a la BootCamp) on ASi, if only because it would need Apple to release information on how to write drivers etc. for disc controllers, graphics etc. - which are pretty much all provided by proprietary hardware in the M1 package rather than generic PC hardware as before. Apple have explicitly said that they are not supporting direct booting. However, virtualisation software can emulate standard hardware via MacOS drivers and make the guest OS think its running on a Surface X or Pi.

It is possible that there could be some vital feature missing from the M1 (even more likely, from the A12 in the DTK) that will block it (or make it's x86 emulator unusable) but, frankly, unless there are any MS Windows OS developers in possession of unpublished M1 data from Apple - who fancy making a "career-limiting move" by commenting here - that's just guesswork.

The Surface X (MS's ARM-based convertible) has apparently got a lot better this year so MS is still making a good college try at pushing Windows on ARM - but the odds are that the new Macs are already on course to outsell the Surface X so it is in MS's interest to play ball on making Windows 10 available on ASi.

I have to agree fully with you, to me the mini was a half baked replacement. But in my case I had a couple more issues with it and number one was the whole ... only 2 display supported???. No 10GBE networking anymore??

If you're looking at the new Mini as a replacement for an i7, 6-core Mini with 10GB ethernet then you're holding it wrong. It's a throwback to the earlier Mini concept - a MacBook Air in a small desktop case - rather than the 2018 model's "pro machine with desktop-class processors" aspirations.

That's why you'll still see the higher-end Intel versions of the Mini and the 13" MBP on Apple's product page. Sure, the M1 may beat a 6 core i7 on a 100m sprint but there are going to be cases where the extra RAM, 2 more "full power" cores and increased I/O bandwidth win out. If you need that, either go Intel or wait for the M1X/M2/M1 Pro/whatever to materialise - they will have to feature more RAM and more I/O.

Meanwhile, 16GB is more than adequate for running MacOS and most software for a huge range of applications - some people need more, but only because they have specific uses that need huge data files to be held in RAM, run lots of VMs etc. It's perfectly sensible for the Air and "2 port" MBP (which had the same limit under Intel) and the lower-end i3 Minis.

The ports situation on the laptops is no worse than before - and the Mini is an improvement over that with 2 extra USB-A and a HDMI (plus, no need to "waste" a TB3 port for charging).

As for "why?" - the new Mini is the #1 obvious solution for Mac developers who need something "cheap" to replace their now effectively useless DTK machines - or anybody else who wants to experiment with Apple Silicon while still relying on their main Intel Mac as their daily driver.

(Please don't think I'm entirely OK with paying £200 for an 8GB RAM upgrade or the 4x markup on SSD - but that's standard operating practice for Apple and at least now there's some justification if Unified Memory and on-die SSD controllers turn out to match the hype).