Rumored pro chip

[Unregistered 4U]

MacPro 6,1 was a dead-end in terms of it's overall design. While they mention the "thermal corner" issue, if that was all that mattered, Mac Pro 7,1 would have been a "sealed box" with no internal expansion and with better thermal management.

I think they had a conversation with current customers and they found a group of users that were willing to pay a premium price for what Apple offered. If, at this

Instead, MacPro 7,1 was like MacPro 5,1 - excellent thermal management and excellent internal expansion. It seems very unlikely to me Apple will decide MacPro 9,1 should return to a "sealed box" with no internal expansion.

• Will it have 8 PCIe slots? Probably not, since the rumors say it could be a small form-factor tower. But it will have them (probably 4).
• Will it support 1.5TB of RAM? I am guessing no (especially if it uses on-package). But I expect it to support at least 256GB and maybe 512GB.
• Will it have SATA ports and room for internal SATA disks? Could be, though if it does, I think they could be limited to 2.5" form factors instead of the current 3.5" and two instead of four.

I agree that it’s going to be less modular and that PCIe and SATA would likely be the only “modular” points of a potential ASPro. I went to this site to see what’s currently available as PCIe on Macs to kinda evaluate the 4 slot thing.

PCIe cards you can install in your Mac Pro (2019) - Apple Support

Learn about the Apple MPX Modules and some of the third-party PCIe cards you can install in your Mac Pro.

support.apple.com

I don’t have a Mac Pro, so I’m not speculating from ANY point of knowledge, but PCIe cards for Intel Macs seem to be limited to the AMD and I/O card modules, there’s RAID storage, fibre channel cards, fibre networking cards, and pro video and audio interface cards. For Apple Silicon, I think the first two can reasonably be excluded. We’re left with fibre channel and pro interface cards. I’d be curious as to what the broadest deployment of those PCIe cards were. Were they there to support external graphics primarily? And, if so, with no GPU’s, are the other use cases enough to drive the creation of a system with 4 slots just because?

I guess we should know before July of next year which direction they’re going in. Whatever it is, it’ll delight those for whom it’s been designed and will be wildly reviled by those it’s not designed for

 

[ADGrant]

3. Modular default boot SSD ? Largely no. The SSD is soldered on to the MP 2019 motherboard and isn't open market modular in any way. ( so Security/Privacy supersedes modularity. ) . Yes, the "brainless" SSD NAND modules are on daughter cards , but those are only a subset of a complete SSD. So split decision there. The SSD controller of the SSD soldered to the board is a Security/Privacy thing. The data always being encrypted 100% of the time is a Security/Privacy thing.

Do 3rd party operating systems get to see the T2 SSD. Not really.

Well the SSD daughter cards can be swapped out and new potentially higher capacity cards paired with the T2 Chip which is not possible in any other T2 Mac I am aware of.

 

[CWallace]

I think they had a conversation with current customers and they found a group of users that were willing to pay a premium price for what Apple offered.

I do agree that they had a conversation with customers and those customers made it very clear that they needed internal expansion.

I remain convinced the 2017 iMac Pro was meant to be the replacement for the 2013 Mac Pro and it was a "sealed box" with better thermals (and a darn nice display).* But while many found it a great machine for their workflows, those people were mostly already on an iMac 5K and had workflows that benefitted from more CPU cores (which the Xeons offered). For the rest (i.e. - those who had used "cheesegrater" Mac Pros), the 2017 iMac Pro was no better than the 2013 Mac Pro and was not going to bring them back to Apple (or prevent them from moving off of Apple once their pre-2013 Mac Pros failed).

So Apple started work on the 2019 Mac Pro which had excellent internal expansion. And I think they only did that because they intended to offer a high-end, expensive Mac with internal expansion for the long term.

It does not make sense to me for them to go four years with a Mac Pro that could not be expanded, then replace it with an iMac Pro that also could not be expanded, to finally - six years later - say "okay, here is a Mac Pro that can be expanded" and then yank it away from them three years later and replace it with a new Mac Pro that once again cannot be expanded (and to add insult to injury, maybe also release a new iMac Pro).




* - And yes, I know all the arguments that Apple said they were building a new expandable Mac Pro around the same time they announced the iMac Pro, but it's not like Apple engineered the iMac Pro over a long weekend. They'd been working on it a year or more before that "Mea Culpa Event" when they realized they'd designed themselves into a "thermal corner" on the 2013 Mac Pro and decided to just make a "super-iMac" to anchor the top of the line.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

when they realized they'd designed themselves into a "thermal corner" on the 2013 Mac Pro and decided to just make a "super-iMac" to anchor the top of the line.

Consider what the 2019 Mac Pro would have been if they hadn’t hit a thermal corner, though. If they, say, had cool running, well performing CPU’s and GPU’s like they have now? Was the trashcan fiber, RAID, or video/audio PCIe expandible?

 

[CWallace]

Consider what the 2019 Mac Pro would have been if they hadn’t hit a thermal corner, though. If they, say, had cool running, well performing CPU’s and GPU’s like they have now?

If the "Trashcan" had the thermal headroom to handle the CPUs and GPUs that Intel and AMD subsequently released, I believe Apple would have stayed with the design and upgraded the internals over the years instead of letting it stand stale with what it launched with.

But even if that had happened, I believe we still would have had a Mac Pro that had internal expansion. At the "Mea Culpa Meeting", Apple were pretty clear about how their discussions with existing and former Mac Pro users let them know that a "sealed box" was not cutting it with that clientele.

Was the trashcan fiber, RAID, or video/audio PCIe expandible?

There were PCIe expansion boxes that had a PCIe slot and could be connected to the 2013 Mac Pro via Thunderbolt 2. And there were RAID enclosures that used Thunderbolt 2.

 

[AVonGauss]

Deleted.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

There were PCIe expansion boxes that had a PCIe slot and could be connected to the 2013 Mac Pro via Thunderbolt 2. And there were RAID enclosures that used Thunderbolt 2.

Ok, so half of the reason of having PCIe slots are gone, and the others have previously been sufficiently fulfilled by Thunderbolt solutions.

 

[CWallace]

You can infer Apple's commitment to expandability with the number of post release options that they offer.

Well they do offer some. And Third Party PCIe cards are supported, so it is not like Apple-branded solutions are the only ones supported.

Ok, so half of the reason of having PCIe slots are gone, and the others have previously been sufficiently fulfilled by Thunderbolt solutions.

That is what Apple expected ("Thunderbolt is good enough") but there were some applications (like multi-SSD RAIDs) that could saturate the TB2 bus (so they were bandwidth limited which impacted sustained data transfer) and many users did not like have what they termed a "spider's web of cables" radiating out from their Mac Pro when internal options would have meant a cleaner area.

 

[JMacHack]

Ok, so half of the reason of having PCIe slots are gone, and the others have previously been sufficiently fulfilled by Thunderbolt solutions.

You can infer Apple's commitment to expandability with the number of post release options that they offer.

This discussion misses the point that customers demand internal expansion, and Apple uncharacteristically delivered.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This discussion misses the point that customers demand internal expansion, and Apple uncharacteristically delivered.

Uncharacteristically, yes, well put. I’m just saying that folks should be prepared for the next Mac Pro to be more “in character”. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that it will AT LEAST be less choices (no multiple CPU tiers), less expandable (RAM, CPU, slots) or if they decide to maintain expandability at all.

 

[theorist9]

This discussion misses the point that customers demand internal expansion, and Apple uncharacteristically delivered.

I think Apple learned that the approach reflected in this famous Jobs quote doesn't work for the pro market:

"Some people say give the customers what they want, but that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do. I think Henry Ford once said, 'If I'd ask customers what they wanted, they would've told me a faster horse.' People don't know what they want until you show it to them. That's why I never rely on market research. Our task is to read things that are not yet on the page."

There's nothing wrong with giving pros new functionality they hadn't anticipated themselves. The problem is when you take away existing functionality upon which they rely, without providing an equal or superior replacement.

 

[kode54]

Somehow I'm doubting that Apple intends to double their performance somehow every single year. I'm mostly not even expecting any new processors out of them this year at all. Of course, if it's really going to happen at all, it's likely it will be some September announcement event, followed by another November launch, like the M1 was. Again, I still strongly doubt they're moving at that pace already. Could be wrong, but why should anyone let that influence whether they buy a new computer when they're in need of one and have the budget, versus forever waiting for the next big thing, then immediately getting buyer's remorse when something incrementally newer is announced?

 

[Kung gu]

Somehow I'm doubting that Apple intends to double their performance somehow every single year. I'm mostly not even expecting any new processors out of them this year at all. Of course, if it's really going to happen at all, it's likely it will be some September announcement event, followed by another November launch, like the M1 was. Again, I still strongly doubt they're moving at that pace already. Could be wrong, but why should anyone let that influence whether they buy a new computer when they're in need of one and have the budget, versus forever waiting for the next big thing, then immediately getting buyer's remorse when something incrementally newer is announced?

I mean Apple has to update 13" 4 port and 16" with something better than M1. The M1 has weak graphics and does not support multiple external monitors like the current 16". My belief is that something better is coming this year.

 

[altaic]

Somehow I'm doubting that Apple intends to double their performance somehow every single year. I'm mostly not even expecting any new processors out of them this year at all. Of course, if it's really going to happen at all, it's likely it will be some September announcement event, followed by another November launch, like the M1 was. Again, I still strongly doubt they're moving at that pace already. Could be wrong, but why should anyone let that influence whether they buy a new computer when they're in need of one and have the budget, versus forever waiting for the next big thing, then immediately getting buyer's remorse when something incrementally newer is announced?

I disagree as far as Apple not doubling performance in the near future— they made it clear that the M1 was an initial offering. Higher performance desktops are definitely a possibility. Suggesting otherwise implies that they are pivoting to exclusively mobile devices.

Possible at some point in the future, but the timing isn’t right now. That said, I’m pretty sure M2’s introduction will be the next WWDC, or perhaps around CES in January. Earlier would be a pleasant surprise, but I temper my expectations.

 

[Jorbanead]

Somehow I'm doubting that Apple intends to double their performance somehow every single year. I'm mostly not even expecting any new processors out of them this year at all. Of course, if it's really going to happen at all, it's likely it will be some September announcement event, followed by another November launch, like the M1 was. Again, I still strongly doubt they're moving at that pace already. Could be wrong, but why should anyone let that influence whether they buy a new computer when they're in need of one and have the budget, versus forever waiting for the next big thing, then immediately getting buyer's remorse when something incrementally newer is announced?

All Apple needs to do is add core counts to the existing M1 architecture and you’d have a better processor (they’ll likely do more than that obviously). It’s really not unrealistic to think something better is coming. The M1 doesn’t beat out their higher-end Intel models in many ways.

Theres many reasons to wait. If you currently own a 16” MacBook Pro or a 27” iMac for example, the M1 in many ways would be a downgrade. Graphics performance, ram, and IO are limiting factors for many. For myself, I use a 2018 6-core Mac mini. The M1 beats it in cpu strength, but with my eGPU, ram, and ports, it’s not an upgrade for me. I don’t need to upgrade right now but my workflows are certainly going beyond the limitations of my mini. Whenever they announce a higher-end mini to replace the current 6-core I’m all in.

 

[macsplusmacs]

Yup. It's just a waiting game for me... i have a 2017 imac i7 which has held its weight due mostly to intel ineptitude.

 

[AgentMcGeek]

[Also posted in Waiting for 2021 MBP thread]

New rumours from DigiTimes via @RetiredEngineer:

M1X will use same architecture as M1 but improved lithography (N5P), M2 delayed late into 2022.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Something that hasn’t been announced has been delayed. Problem is, since a date hasn’t been previously announced, I don’t have a date to delay it from!

 

[dgdosen]

[Also posted in Waiting for 2021 MBP thread]

New rumours from DigiTimes via @RetiredEngineer:

M1X will use same architecture as M1 but improved lithography (N5P), M2 delayed late into 2022.

This sounds plausible, but it brings up a couple of questions:

Will Apple will be able to claim the single core perf benchmarks with an M1x?

If true, this would give insight into Apple's chip pipeline in that they'd be shipping both newer (A15-based) and older (M1x/A14 -based) chips on the same TSMC node (N5P). They haven't done that with any A-x chips, have they?

TSMC's 4nm was scheduled for early 2022 for a while - is this really a change? Or just more information coming to light?

 

[leman]

[Also posted in Waiting for 2021 MBP thread]

New rumours from DigiTimes via @RetiredEngineer:

M1X will use same architecture as M1 but improved lithography (N5P), M2 delayed late into 2022.

Ugh, I hope that these reports are wrong. It would mean no new hardware features which would be really disappointing. I was hoping that Apple has a more ambitious plan.

 

[CWallace]

Will Apple will be able to claim the single core perf benchmarks with an M1x?

I would expect "M2" would have better single-core benchmarks than "M1X" since "M2" is expected to use the A15's performance cores ("Avalanche") which will be more powerful than the "Firestorm" performance core in the A14/M1 and presumed to be in "M1X".

That being said, I would expect "pro workflows" to work all the cores, not just one.

If true, this would give insight into Apple's chip pipeline in that they'd be shipping both newer (A15-based) and older (M1x/A14 -based) chips on the same TSMC node (N5P). They haven't done that with any A-x chips, have they?

TSMC's 4nm was scheduled for early 2022 for a while - is this really a change? Or just more information coming to light?

TSMC started trial production of their 4nm process within the past few weeks, which is sooner than expected. As such, A15 (and "M2") should always have been planned for 5nm (though an improved 5nm process) since 4nm would not have been ready to handle A15 production at the scale Apple needs to support an iPhone launch.

 

[macsplusmacs]

Aren't the heavy-duty xeons "low single core scores" CPUs but make up for it in core count?

I could be totally mistaken though.

 

[bobcomer]

Aren't the heavy-duty xeons "low single core scores" CPUs but make up for it in core count?

I could be totally mistaken though.

I know I'll take a high core count (if used properly) over a high single core score every time. I have an desktop i9 10 core machine at home and while my M1 MBA blows it away single core, for normal everyday use, the i9 blows away my MBA.

I think the M1X might even beat it a bit, as long as it has decent cooling. My i9 is only a middle of the road desktop i9 CPU. I'm not excited about the M2 as described at all, but the M2X...

 

[CWallace]

Aren't the heavy-duty xeons "low single core scores" CPUs but make up for it in core count?

I could be totally mistaken though.

Yes. The higher the core count, the slower the clockspeed of each core to keep the thermals manageable.


I saw a new article in Macworld that mentioned the "M1X" would have 12 cores - 10 performance and 2 efficiency - based on a CPUMonkey entry. That entry also claims the "M1X" has a higher clock speed then the M1 so the single-core is about 3% faster than the M1.

 

[macsplusmacs]

How much heat do you think is generated with "chiplet" style multi-core set technology?

If they put 2 "core sets" of 8/2 cores, does that double the heat? or does it only increase it by 25%? or....?

Does anyone know?