Proposed All-New Apple Silicon Mac Line-Up

[profcutter]

It would be a real shame if the iMacs were the same as their portable cousins. The iMacs have way more cooling potential and no battery concerns. Just as now where a base 27” iMac is more powerful than a MacBook Pro, I would consider that a necessity post-arm changeover, otherwise there’s no point, just buy a portable and a big screen.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

But Apple has "Tile Memory" in their block diagrams for the new Apple Silicon GPUs, in their Metal talks, something about the GPU cores not needing to go out to the UMA pool as much when Tile Memory is sitting on the GPU cores...?

I feel like you have been getting Tile memory registers mixed up with traditional dedicated video RAM throughout the entire thread. Not the same thing at all. Forget Tile memory. It is just a super short term buffer or cache area used to store tiny pieces of data for the next instruction/operation. It is not really RAM at all in the sense I think you are interpreting it.

Stick to speculating on the amount of unified system RAM, which I also agree will start at 16GB across all Apple Silicon systems (except those higher end systems that may start at 24-32GB instead). I do feel the DTK specs are a good indication of what the lowest common denominator will be - so if you have developed targeting the DTK as your app’s performance baseline, you will be more than good to go when commercial Apple Silicon ships to end users.
[automerge]1594848122[/automerge]

It would be a real shame if the iMacs were the same as their portable cousins. The iMacs have way more cooling potential and no battery concerns. Just as now where a base 27” iMac is more powerful than a MacBook Pro, I would consider that a necessity post-arm changeover, otherwise there’s no point, just buy a portable and a big screen.

I agree with this, but we have to remember that iMacs are for the most part still consumer level products. Also, we don’t know what the redesign is going to look like. I have a feeling that they are going to be as thin as whatever display technology they decide on will allow rather than the Silicon and other hardware.

Expect an almost impossibly thin design, possibly even with rounded corners like the iPad Pro, and a stand taking big design cues from the Pro Display. We’re not going to get anything like the current design, just with Apple Silicon in it.

 

[Boil]

I feel like you have been getting Tile memory registers mixed up with traditional dedicated video RAM throughout the entire thread. Not the same thing at all. Forget Tile memory. It is just a super short term buffer or cache area used to store tiny pieces of data for the next instruction/operation. It is not really RAM at all in the sense I think you are interpreting it.

Stick to speculating on the amount of unified system RAM, which I also agree will start at 16GB across all Apple Silicon systems (except those higher end systems that may start at 24-32GB instead). I do feel the DTK specs are a good indication of what the lowest common denominator will be - so if you have developed targeting the DTK as your app’s performance baseline, you will be more than good to go when commercial Apple Silicon ships to end users.
[automerge]1594848122[/automerge]

I agree with this, but we have to remember that iMacs are for the most part still consumer level products. Also, we don’t know what the redesign is going to look like. I have a feeling that they are going to be as thin as whatever display technology they decide on will allow rather than the Silicon and other hardware.

Expect an almost impossibly thin design, possibly even with rounded corners like the iPad Pro, and a stand taking big design cues from the Pro Display. We’re not going to get anything like the current design, just with Apple Silicon in it.

I totally cut the Tile Memory stuff.

I have a line-up of eight products; four Consumer & four Pro.

Two laptops, three all-in-ones, two desktops, & one rackmount.

These share four APUs of ever increasing power.

Each product has three choices for RAM & three choices for storage.

The Mac Pro Cube allows for an add-in compute card.

The Mac Pro Rack has PCIe expansion & a good deal of GPGPU expansion.

I would rather Apple phase out the whole Cheesegrater 2.0 chassis & XDR Display; my Mac Pro rack would be a 3U shorty chassis, and I have three Apple Cinema Displays outlined above; 24" 4K, 27" 5K, & 30" 6K.

Design-wise, I could see the rounded corners & squared sides of the iPad Pro influencing the Apple Silicon Macs!

 

[Kostask]

I'll keep it simple: this is just low-level consumer speculation. If you're imagining a new future potential, the best you do is just keep stacking core count? Apple isn't primarily a chip maker, I doubt they will have ample time to redesign a bunch of petty count configurations that may or may not scale up to n cores with efficient use of space and energy. What's the difference between 32 and 48 cores if the system barely scales beyond four in 99% of workloads? It's wasted time and effort and money to make something big for no gain.

If this were so, there would be no need to have 18 core iMac Pros, or 28 core MacPros. There are work loads that not only use all the cores, but can use more (as in 8K video editing, Computational Fluid Dynamics calculations, things of that nature). Consumers don't run those, true, but professionals do. Even today, there are people maxing out thread counts on the 28 core MacPros. If and when Apple comes out with an Apple Silicon MacPro, it had better be able to equal or beat the contemporary Intel MacPro, or the professionals simply won't buy it. Even today, you can run Cinebench and max out any number of cores, including the newest Threadripper. I can do it very easily with an old Lenovo workstation that I have, and it has 2 X 8 Core/16 Thread Xeons. People can max out MacPros doing that bench mark, or editing multiple 4K streams, composing for a full symphony orchestra (and there is somebody doing that today) withe every individual instrument simulated, and things that I mentioned above. Not going to happen on MacBooks, or MacBook Pros (although I suppose the top end Apple Silicon MacBook Pros may be able to do some of that), but pros do it all the time, today. By the time the Apple Silicon MacPros show up, the above cases will be a lot more common than people imagine.

Having lots and lots of cores is like having lots and lots of money: its never enough.

The other point is that Apple Silicon CPUs may not end up being symmetrical multi-threaded (hyperthreaded in the Intel world). So you would be comparing the actual Apple Silicon CPUs to the Intel thread counts. MacOS is also far better at using multiple cores than Windows is, so if the cores are available, MacOS will use them.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

The Mac Pro Cube allows for an add-in compute card.

The Mac Pro Rack has PCIe expansion & a good deal of GPGPU expansion.

I would rather Apple phase out the whole Cheesegrater 2.0 chassis & XDR Display; my Mac Pro rack would be a 3U shorty chassis, and I have three Apple Cinema Displays outlined above; 24" 4K, 27" 5K, & 30" 6K.

Design-wise, I could see the rounded corners & squared sides of the iPad Pro influencing the Apple Silicon Macs!

Don’t see the Mac Pro going rack mount form factor - however, maybe a return of the Xserve?? That could be something if Apple are able to start scaling these and at first having them as in-house only systems to be able to unburden themselves from relying on 3rd party cloud service systems. Then there would be good reason for them to also offer them to enterprise as well.

 

[Boil]

Don’t see the Mac Pro going rack mount form factor - however, maybe a return of the Xserve?? That could be something if Apple are able to start scaling these and at first having them as in-house only systems to be able to unburden themselves from relying on 3rd party cloud service systems. Then there would be good reason for them to also offer them to enterprise as well.

The Mac Pro has already gone rackmount. I am just making the Mac Pro with PCIe slots be the rackmount one, because most of the folks using said slots are Audio or Video folk, with a bunch of other rackmount equipment, so Mac Pro Rack for them.

For those Pro users who can get by with Thunderbolt expansion boxes, I suggest the Mac Pro Cube or the iMac Pro...

 

[Kostask]

The current MacPro is already a rack mount form factor. That is why the casters/feet cost $400, and are not included in the base price of the Mac Pro.

Most corporate rack servers using Apple equipment are using Mac Minis. With reduced heat generation, I can see that continuing with the Apple Silicon Mac Minis, whenever it comes out.

 

[Boil]

The current MacPro is already a rack mount form factor. That is why the casters/feet cost $400, and are not included in the base price of the Mac Pro.

Most corporate rack servers using Apple equipment are using Mac Minis. With reduced heat generation, I can see that continuing with the Apple Silicon Mac Minis, whenever it comes out.

The current Mac Pro is available in one of two chassis. Tower or Rackmount. The feet are included in the cost of the tower, the wheels are an extra 400 bucks. The rackmount chassis uses neither feet nor wheels, but the rackmount chassis itself is a 500 dollar premium over the tower chassis. The internals are the same, but the tower & rackmount are different chassis, even if they both share the Cheesegrater 2.0 front venting design language (also on the back of the XDR Display).

I do not aim this rackmount (3U, redesigned, not Cheesegrater 2.0; why redesign? Because it is all-new Apple Silicon) at corporate users, but at the Pro users; audio folk, video folk, 3d / rendering folk. These are the Pro users who need the PCIe slots.

Go back & look over my Original Post, it really is a balanced product line-up, with a good number of shared components to keep overall costs down (and margins up). We are doing a ground up redesign of the entirety of Apple Mac hardware, so keep it simple to start (in regards to shared APUs & shared logic boards & such).

 

[Kostask]

..........

I do not aim this rackmount (3U, redesigned, not Cheesegrater 2.0; why redesign? Because it is all-new Apple Silicon) at corporate users, but at the Pro users; audio folk, video folk, 3d / rendering folk. These are the Pro users who need the PCIe slots.

...........

Most Pro users do not use rack mounted systems, unless they are in a corporate environments (video editing company, animation house, audio houses, etc.) and they would use towers. There may be people who need PCIe slots, but that is not something that can't be done with an external PCIe chassis and a USB4/TB4 connection in a corporate environment of that nature. Just use a large amount of Mac Minis, and add the number of external PCIe chassis as needed. This is especially true of those that need more PCIe slots than are available in a MacPro.

i made no argument regarding your core count or configuration, in fact I was actually pointing out to those who disagreed with you, that there are specific requirements that require large core counts, whether they be Intel or Apple Silicon based systems.

What I do suspect is that Apple may in fact be making only 3 Socs for the entire product line. A consumer lineup of 10-16 (yet to be determined which), running at various clock speeds for the MacBook, MacBook Air, and MacMini, a Midrange SoC of 16-24 cores for the MacBook Pro lines and the iMac, again, running at different clock speeds, and the desktop Pro SoC, which will dispense with the GPUs in favour of dedicated GPUs, and replace the GPU cores with the logic to allow multiple SoCs and dedicated GPUs to be used, so you could get a pair of 16 core SoCs for the Mac Mini Pro/Mac Pro Mini (1 or 2 dedicated GPUs), or 4-6 16 core SoCs for the full on MacPro (up to 4-6 Dedicated GPUs). But all that is just me speculating.

 

[Boil]

Pro Tools users with three HDX cards would like the rackmount, especially since their I/O breakout boxes are usually rackmount chassis. Add a rackmount RAID & UPS, stuff it all in a little roll-about deskside rack...

I like the idea of USB4 (TB3) / TB4 for expansion, and there are plenty of external breakout boxes that handle audio & video; but if one needs more Audio / Video horsepower, or ultra low latency with an enormous number of instruments / channels / effects / etc., then PCIe cards are needed.

And the Thunderbolt expansion is the issue folks had with the Trashcan Mac Pro. Okay, yeah, there was the lack of TB2 products. And the whole lack of thermal headroom thing...

But I am a fan of the Cube, and for a 'entry-level' workstation, for an Indie Studio workstation, for a dude tracking the local hot band, for the folks making a low budget indie flick, etc.; the Mac Pro Cube with an audio I/O & DSPs TB3/4 box & a video I/O & DSPs TB3/4 box would be more than enough. And the expansion slot in the Mac Pro Cube allows one to increase GPGPU resources.

And all that makes the new Mac Pro Cube just like the old Trashcan Mac Pro; except there are a plethora of established TB3 products out there, and (even with higher core counts) the use of Apple Silicon should avoid the "painted into a thermal corner" issue...

I want an Apple Silicon Mac Pro Cube..! ;^p

 

[endlessike]

The idea that each core with hyperthreading is the equivalent of two cores is Intel marketing gibberish.

 

[dfelix]

I'm really, really afraid of an ASi SOC for the Pro which would integrate system memory and video card, indicating user upgrades would not be possible at all.

 

[duanepatrick]

Just trying to have a good time here folks, get some discussion stirring on what a complete Apple Silicon Mac line-up might look like...!

Dang. This got my hopes up. Thanks for these discussions tho.
[automerge]1594877850[/automerge]

(...as seen within my fever dreams...)

I got so excited that I was not able to read this. lol

 

[johngwheeler]

The other point is that Apple Silicon CPUs may not end up being symmetrical multi-threaded (hyperthreaded in the Intel world). So you would be comparing the actual Apple Silicon CPUs to the Intel thread counts. MacOS is also far better at using multiple cores than Windows is, so if the cores are available, MacOS will use them.

Most ARM CPUs don't use SMT, so comparisons are closer than they sound, A 64 core ARM CPU compares well to a 28 core 56 thread Intel Xeon .e.g.

Amazon Launches a Killer ARM Server Chip With the Graviton2 - ExtremeTech

For years, we've been hearing about the potential of ARM products in the conventional server market. Amazon finally built a chip that might live up to expectations.

www.extremetech.com

Stacking Up Arm Server Chips Against X86

It is pretty clear at this point that there is going to be a global recession thanks to the coronavirus outbreak. Maybe it will be a V-shaped recession

www.nextplatform.com

Ampere Altra: 80 Cores, 3.3GHz Clocks, With 128 Cores Coming Soon - ExtremeTech

The upcoming Ampere Altra has picked up some additional frequency headroom -- and a new, boosted core count, arriving later this year.

www.extremetech.com

 

[MyopicPaideia]

The Mac Pro has already gone rackmount. I am just making the Mac Pro with PCIe slots be the rackmount one, because most of the folks using said slots are Audio or Video folk, with a bunch of other rackmount equipment, so Mac Pro Rack for them.

For those Pro users who can get by with Thunderbolt expansion boxes, I suggest the Mac Pro Cube or the iMac Pro...

The current MacPro is already a rack mount form factor. That is why the casters/feet cost $400, and are not included in the base price of the Mac Pro.

Most corporate rack servers using Apple equipment are using Mac Minis. With reduced heat generation, I can see that continuing with the Apple Silicon Mac Minis, whenever it comes out.

Yup, stand corrected. Sorry, I completely blanked out - never went shopping for a Mac Pro and rack mounted form factor was never talked about by Apple - my bad!

 

[iPadified]

I just changed the SRAM amounts across the board:

24 GPU cores / 256MB SRAM Tile Memory

32 GPU cores / 512MB SRAM Tile Memory

48 GPU cores / 768MB SRAM Tile Memory

56 GPU cores / 1GB SRAM Tile Memory


But you are saying a few meg per GPU core; so, 2MB per core:

24 CPU cores / 48MB SRAM Tile Memory

32 GPU cores / 64MB SRAM Tile Memory

48 GPU cores / 96MB SRAM Tile Memory

56 GPU cores / 112MB SRAM Tile Memory


???


I guess I am having trouble wrapping my head around numbers that do not match up with the numbers I am familiar with in the Ryzen / Radeon (Vega / Vega II / Navi) hardware world...!

Interesting ideas. However, make a sanity check and estimate how large these chips would be. Also, the coprocessors are not mentioned and particularly the neural engine and ML coprocessors might be very important. The key to AS performance will be these coprocessors as they will offload tasks for GPU/CPU.

 

[JMacHack]

I'm really, really afraid of an ASi SOC for the Pro which would integrate system memory and video card, indicating user upgrades would not be possible at all.

We're all afraid of that, however I'm confident it won't come to pass. Apple's reversed decision on the Mac Mini and put user-replaceable RAM in it, and the Mac Pro 7,1 is more upgradeable than the 6,1 ever was. Likewise, I don't see Dedicated GPUs going anywhere in the Pro line for technical reasons. They've even done the very un-apple move of making the MacBook Pro 16 thicker.

Interesting ideas. However, make a sanity check and estimate how large these chips would be. Also, the coprocessors are not mentioned and particularly the neural engine and ML coprocessors might be very important. The key to AS performance will be these coprocessors as they will offload tasks for GPU/CPU.

I imagine on the Pro-level machines Apple Silicon CPUs will get rid of the GPU cores and use that space for more neural engine circuitry. Oh and more cache, that seems to be Apple's M.O. for all their processors.

 

[pappkristof]

The MacBook, Mac mini, & 24" iMac all share a "low-end" APU:

12 P cores / 4 E cores / 24 GPU cores / 1GB SRAM Tile Memory


The 27" iMac & the MacBook Pro share a mid-range APU:

16 P cores / 4 E cores / 32 GPU cores / 2GB SRAM Tile Memory


The iMac Pro & the Mac Pro Cube share a high-end APU:

24 P cores / 4 E cores / 48 GPU cores / 2GB SRAM Tile Memory


The Mac Pro Rack has an "extreme" APU all to itself:

32 P cores / 4 E cores / 56 GPU cores / 4GB SRAM Tile Memory

Much more realistic than the original post.

I think there will be more difference between the “low” and “mid” range CPUs. (Sadly it means less cores for MacBooks, which focus on portability.)

I also doubt that there will be a separate cpu for the rack mountable version. The server segment is not Tim’s favorite.

How would you add BTO options? Maybe different clock speed? (It might be possible they share the same cpu underclocked and overclocked.)
[automerge]1594921316[/automerge]
Higher core counts seem to be sure, but the interesting thing is how the AS chips will perform in single core speed compared to the current intel ones.

To use this amount of cores you either need massive parallel programs or run 10+ apps at once.

 

[Kostask]

The idea that each core with hyperthreading is the equivalent of two cores is Intel marketing gibberish.

Always has been. At best, a hyperthreaded core scales by 20% (i.e. if a given core is 1.0X CPU power, the best case for the hyperthreaded core is 1.2X). Real cores scale better, and can approach 100%, depending on workload, and OS Scheduler efficiency. In return for that 20% efficiency improvement, we get security issues like Spectre and Meltdown (which still have not been completely mitigated). The Apple Silicon cores, if they arrive in the quantities that we believe they will, won't need hyperthreading shortcuts to achieve the desired performance levels. Win all around.

 

[Boil]

Much more realistic than the original post.

I think there will be more difference between the “low” and “mid” range CPUs. (Sadly it means less cores for MacBooks, which focus on portability.)

I also doubt that there will be a separate cpu for the rack mountable version. The server segment is not Tim’s favorite.

How would you add BTO options? Maybe different clock speed? (It might be possible they share the same cpu underclocked and overclocked.)
[automerge]1594921316[/automerge]
Higher core counts seem to be sure, but the interesting thing is how the AS chips will perform in single core speed compared to the current intel ones.

To use this amount of cores you either need massive parallel programs or run 10+ apps at once.

Original post is updated as I change my mind...

Mac Pro Rack is not a server, it is a Mac Pro with PCIe slots for the Pros that need them.

BTO options are RAM & storage, and GPGPU add-in cards for the Mac Pro Cube & Mac Pro Rack.

No clockspeed options, this first gen of Apple Silicon Macs keeps the SKUs to a minimum.

 

[awesomedeluxe]

MacBook Pro

32 P cores / 4 E cores / 48 GPU cores
ECC DDR5 RAM / Unified Memory Architecture - 32GB / 64GB / 128GB
NVMe RAID 0 (dual NAND blades) - 1TB / 2TB / 4TB
Four USB4 (TB3) ports
16" display / 3072x1920 / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers

Definitely not. Stop adding so many cores! I mean what do you even do with those in a MBP16??

You're under arrest for violating the laws of thermodynamics. You have a right to an attorney. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.

The TDP for a MBP16 APU is 45W. Clocked low, your APU uses 65.6W.

And it's not even good! Your CPU is clocked too low! This 32 core abomination will die pushing 3GHz and probably lands at 2.9! And you added 48 GPU cores but then paired them with DDR5??

If you have to use a single die unified memory design instead of a chiplet design or a dGPU, this is the best you can do. It's only theoretically possible, not actually possible, and we'll have to wait until 2H 2021 for it so we can use N5P:

16W: 8 P Cores @ 3.2 GHz
2W: 4E Cores @ 2GHz
28W: 28 GPU Cores
--
46W

Add a pinout to two stacks of HBM2E and you're good to go.

 

[Boil]

Definitely not. Stop adding so many cores! I mean what do you even do with those in a MBP16??

You're under arrest for violating the laws of thermodynamics. You have a right to an attorney. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.

The TDP for a MBP16 APU is 45W. Clocked low, your APU uses 65.6W.

And it's not even good! Your CPU is clocked too low! This 32 core abomination will die pushing 3GHz and probably lands at 2.9! And you added 48 GPU cores but then paired them with DDR5??

If you have to use a single die unified memory design instead of a chiplet design or a dGPU, this is the best you can do. It's only theoretically possible, not actually possible, and we'll have to wait until 2H 2021 for it so we can use N5P:

16W: 8 P Cores @ 3.2 GHz
2W: 4E Cores @ 2GHz
28W: 28 GPU Cores
--
46W

Add a pinout to two stacks of HBM2E and you're good to go.

mOaR cOrEz...!!!

 

[Boil]

Big changes to the line-up, see the original post; Steve came to me in a dream & said to keep it simple, then he said I was stupid, which was kinda rude, but whatever...

 

[iPadified]

Definitely not. Stop adding so many cores! I mean what do you even do with those in a MBP16??

You're under arrest for violating the laws of thermodynamics. You have a right to an attorney. Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.

The TDP for a MBP16 APU is 45W. Clocked low, your APU uses 65.6W.

And it's not even good! Your CPU is clocked too low! This 32 core abomination will die pushing 3GHz and probably lands at 2.9! And you added 48 GPU cores but then paired them with DDR5??

If you have to use a single die unified memory design instead of a chiplet design or a dGPU, this is the best you can do. It's only theoretically possible, not actually possible, and we'll have to wait until 2H 2021 for it so we can use N5P:

16W: 8 P Cores @ 3.2 GHz
2W: 4E Cores @ 2GHz
28W: 28 GPU Cores
--
46W

Add a pinout to two stacks of HBM2E and you're good to go.

Actually, the MBP has additional 45W for the GPU so the total SoC draw should be 80-90W.
[automerge]1594960381[/automerge]

I imagine on the Pro-level machines Apple Silicon CPUs will get rid of the GPU cores and use that space for more neural engine circuitry. Oh and more cache, that seems to be Apple's M.O. for all their processors.

This is the missing link here. Where does the GPU go? dGPU from AMD? In that case why use it as ML and neural engine is onboard the SoC. At some point the die will be too large and functions need to breakout from the SoC and then it is not a SoC anymore.

 

[Boil]

Back to the 2 X 2 product matrix!


MacBook - US$999.00 / US$1,499.00

12 P cores / 4 E cores / 24 GPU cores
LPDDR5 RAM Unified Memory Architecture - 16GB / 32GB
NVMe SSD (single NAND blade) - 512GB / 1TB
Two USB4 (TB3) ports
14" display / 2560x1600 / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers


Mac mini - US$749.00 / US$1,249.00

12 P cores / 4 E cores / 24 GPU cores
LPDDR5 RAM Unified Memory Architecture - 16GB / 32GB
NVMe SSD (single NAND blade) - 512GB / 1TB
Four USB4 (TB3) ports
One Gigabit Ethernet port
One HDMI 2.1 port


MacBook Pro - US$1,999.00 / US$2,749.00

24 P cores / 4 E cores / 48 GPU cores
HBM2e Unified Memory Architecture - 32GB / 64GB
NVMe RAID 0 (dual NAND blades) - 1TB / 2TB
Four USB4 (TB3) ports
16" display / 3072x1920 / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers


Mac Pro - US$3,999.00 / US$5,499.00

48 P cores / 4 E cores / 96 GPU cores
HBM2e Unified Memory Architecture - 128GB / 256GB
NVMe RAID 0 (dual NAND blades) 4TB / 8TB
Six USB4 (TB3) ports
Two 10Gb Ethernet ports
One HDMI 2.1 port
Four PCIe Gen4 x16 slots (two with MPX extension for Single 96 GPGPU core card or Dual 96 GPGPU core card, total of 480 GPU / GPGPU cores possible in system)


Apple MPX Modules - US$499.00 / US$999.00


Apple Cinema Displays - US$349.00 / US$499.00 / US$749.00

24" Apple Cinema Display / 4096x2304 / 4K / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers

27" Apple Cinema Display / 5120x2880 / 5K / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers

30" Apple Cinema Display / 6016x3384 / 6K / 120Hz ProMotion / Mini-LED / 4K webcam / FaceID / stereo speakers


New Apple Accessories:

Apple Low-Profile Mechanical Keyboard US$149.00

Apple Magic Mouse 3D - US$99.00

Apple Sidecar Dock - US$149.00


Sidecar Dock provides stable / adjustable / rotatable easel stand for iPad Pro, charges iPad Pro & connects to two USB4 (TB3) ports & a Gigabit Ethernet port via Smart Connector

Mac mini can be docked into an Apple Cinema Display, thereby creating a modular iMac...!

Entire line-up is all-new unified design, sorry Cheesegrater 2.0 & XDR Display...! ;^p