Rumored pro chip

[leman]

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

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

Xeons are designed for a different use case, many specialized workstation (and especially server) users care more about running many independent tasks simultaneously than few tasks as quickly as possible. A general-purpose workstation should be able to do both however. That’s why Apple has been using Xeon-W series that have both high single-core turbo and a decent amount of steady-running cores.

That said, the energy efficiency of Apple Silicon should allow large CPU clusters without reducing per-core performance. Current Intel CPUs need 20-25W at peak performance, so they have to be clocked down to 2.5Ghz or less to fit dozens of cores in a useable package. But Apple can deliver the same performance at only 5 Watts. In other words, 10 Apple cores running at 3Ghz should only require 40-50 watts of power and they will be faster than a 16-core Intel CPU.

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.

All those entries are free invention. CPUMonkey are a clickbait website that lives from generating traffic. Specs they put out there are lowest-effort, unverified garbage, and all the unreleased CPUs are guesswork at best.

 

[leman]

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?

Twice as many heat-generating components, twice as much heat. Probably more since there is more heat generated by the fabric, memory, power system etc.

 

[AgentMcGeek]

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.

If M1X is on N5P indeed, it should get a 5% better single score from lithography alone. If clock speeds are also higher, we could get in the range of 7 to 10% better.

 

[macsplusmacs]

A few years ago if someone had posted that apple was sitting pretty in the CPU seat, they would have been downrated.

Here's to a bright (and scalable) Apple CPU future!

 

[leman]

If M1X is on N5P indeed, it should get a 5% better single score from lithography alone. If clock speeds are also higher, we could get in the range of 7 to 10% better.

They will have to do better than that though, if the new prosumer Macs end up being slower than the upcoming x86 CPUs, user reaction probably won’t be the best.

 

[AgentMcGeek]

No they won’t. I don’t expect Intel to be competitive on single core. Maybe AMD with Zen 3 chips. But even then, in multithreaded workload the M1X will destroy any x86 chip of a similar class, esp. if it has 8 performance cores as rumoured. In any case, it will win in terms of perf per watt, which is what matters most on a thin laptop.

And we haven’t talked about GPU perf yet, which should reach 5500M and RTX 3070 mobile levels on 16 and 32 core versions respectively.

 

[macsplusmacs]

RTX 3070

 

[JMacHack]

They will have to do better than that though, if the new prosumer Macs end up being slower than the upcoming x86 CPUs, user reaction probably won’t be the best.

I mean, I see the claim that the M1 is “slow” because it doesn’t beat high-end desktop cpus quite often.

I like the think that the M1x is more to address the RAM and GPU limitation s of the M1. I expect to see a slight uptick in cpu performance but gains elsewhere.

 

[AgentMcGeek]

Here is where it comes from:

 

[CWallace]

I mean, I see the claim that the M1 is “slow” because it doesn’t beat high-end desktop cpus quite often.

I like the think that the M1x is more to address the RAM and GPU limitation s of the M1. I expect to see a slight uptick in cpu performance but gains elsewhere.

With at least twice as many performance CPU cores, the "M1X" should handily out-gun an M1 and an "M2" in multi-core workflows.

 

[macsplusmacs]

Great video. thanks for posting.

I was going to get the new imac m1X but my needs may be changing so I may get a 16" macbook pro m1x instead. 32 cores in a macbook pro.

Wow.

I'll be getting speeding tickets in that thing for sure.

 

[leman]

I mean, I see the claim that the M1 is “slow” because it doesn’t beat high-end desktop cpus quite often.

Well, we don’t even have to acknowledge these platitudes.

I like the think that the M1x is more to address the RAM and GPU limitation s of the M1. I expect to see a slight uptick in cpu performance but gains elsewhere.

One worry I have is that Alder Lake is supposed to be a good tick faster than Tiger Lake, so if the prosumer Silicon is not faster than M1 in single core, 2022 Intel multimedia laptops might take the lead. For multi-core performance and the like, it should be obvious that Apple will have a large advantage regardless.

 

[Appletoni]

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.

Sounds better to me. I need more performance cores.

 

[CWallace]

One worry I have is that Alder Lake is supposed to be a good tick faster than Tiger Lake, so if the prosumer Silicon is not faster than M1 in single core, 2022 Intel multimedia laptops might take the lead. For multi-core performance and the like, it should be obvious that Apple will have a large advantage regardless.

Even if Alder Lake benchmarks faster, considering how optimized M is for macOS and macOS applications that have been re-compiled for it, M Macs should still be more than fast enough to do the job comfortably.

 

[Appletoni]

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?

It’s all about what you are doing.
From 4 to 8 performance cores = CPU heat performance cores = x2
From 4 to 2 efficiency cores = CPU heat efficiency cores = half of the heat.
From 8 to 32 GPU cores = GPU heat = x4

I would like to buy the 32 performance cores with 4x more heat.
I’m not using the GPU for main work.

 

[Appletoni]

How long do we need to wait to buy the M2X MacBook Pro 16-inch or bigger???
End of 2022? or middle of 2023?

Will it come with 20 or more CPU cores and 64 GPU cores?

 

[Falhófnir]

Well, we don’t even have to acknowledge these platitudes.



One worry I have is that Alder Lake is supposed to be a good tick faster than Tiger Lake, so if the prosumer Silicon is not faster than M1 in single core, 2022 Intel multimedia laptops might take the lead. For multi-core performance and the like, it should be obvious that Apple will have a large advantage regardless.

Aren’t Intel just competitive on SC to the M1 with the i9 desktop chip, and the H series still quite a way behind though? Regardless I’m interested to see if the Firestorm cores can be pushed further than they are in the actively cooled Macs already available. The chassis of the mini is designed for a 60W TDP so unless the M1 sticks to its nominal TDP very strictly it should be able to pretty much max them?

 

[AgentMcGeek]

[...] if the prosumer Silicon is not faster than M1 in single core, 2022 Intel multimedia laptops might take the lead.

By the end of 2022 we'll have M2X. Apple will be for sure refreshing its chips every year. I wouldn't be so sure about Intel.

 

[CWallace]

How long do we need to wait to buy the M2X MacBook Pro 16-inch or bigger???
End of 2022? or middle of 2023?

Depends on the launch cadence - "M1X" is following M1 by 8-12 months. We have seen MacBook Airs launched in January, February and March so if the "M2X" MacBook Air launched in Q1 2022, we could see the "M2X" Macs launch in Q4 2022 - one year after the "M1X" models are expected to launch.

Will it come with 20 or more CPU cores and 64 GPU cores?

Nobody knows. Some believe that the 20/40 CPU and 64/128 GPU models planned for the Mac Pro (Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die) will be based on "M2", though that they have the same "Jade C" codenames as the 10 CPU and 16/32GPU model planned for the MacBook Pros implies that they could also be "M1X" chips or that Jade C is actually based on "M2".

It's all rumor and speculation until actual Macs ship with actual SoCs.

 

[leman]

Even if Alder Lake benchmarks faster, considering how optimized M is for macOS and macOS applications that have been re-compiled for it, M Macs should still be more than fast enough to do the job comfortably.

Anything is fast enough to run basic Mac applications. But when I am running my data analysis scripts or building software I need top single core performance. And if Intel beats Apple in this department it would be really embarrassing, especially after the extremely strong start that M1 had.

Aren’t Intel just competitive on SC to the M1 with the i9 desktop chip, and the H series still quite a way behind though?

Current mobile Tiger Lake H is pretty much toe to toe with M1, with later being a tad faster in SPEC. This is quite embarrassing for Intel really, with M1 being a low-power SoC and all. But if the prosumer silicon retains the same single-core performance, and Alder Lake is 10% faster than TL, then Intel gets slightly ahead.

Will it come with 20 or more CPU cores and 64 GPU cores?

Of course not. Don’t be silly.

 

[CWallace]

Anything is fast enough to run basic Mac applications. But when I am running my data analysis scripts or building software I need top single core performance. And if Intel beats Apple in this department it would be really embarrassing, especially after the extremely strong start that M1 had.

Well if M2 can't beat it, M3 likely will.

Or just move to Intel and Windows/Linux for that workflow and use macOS and M for everything else?

 

[JMacHack]

Well, we don’t even have to acknowledge these platitudes.



One worry I have is that Alder Lake is supposed to be a good tick faster than Tiger Lake, so if the prosumer Silicon is not faster than M1 in single core, 2022 Intel multimedia laptops might take the lead. For multi-core performance and the like, it should be obvious that Apple will have a large advantage regardless.

Well, with Intels track record, I will take any rumors of substantial improvements with a grain of salt. Intels modus operandi has been to clock the nuts off their cpus to gain single thread dominance, increasing tdp in the process.

I don’t know how Apple Silicon scales with clock speed, but I would imagine it has substantial headroom to grow.

With at least twice as many performance CPU cores, the "M1X" should handily out-gun an M1 and an "M2" in multi-core workflows.

maybe I should rephrase myself. I meant not much ipc improvement.

Also, if Intel takes the single thread crown, so what? Mac users have always got flak for not having “the best” performance. If the M1x loses to Alder Lakes best in dorkbench it’s not a big deal. So long as I don’t have to burn my nethers using a laptop with “second best” performance, I’d still call that a success.

 

[leman]

Or just move to Intel and Windows/Linux for that workflow and use macOS and M for everything else?

I have used a Mac for the last 15 years because it was the best computer for me. I certainly won’t start comprising now ?

Also, if Intel takes the single thread crown, so what? Mac users have always got flak for not having “the best” performance.

But MacBook Pros always had the best performance because they always used fastest available CPU. Apple won’t be satisfied with being second best. And besides, how would that look like? We are all cheering about how fast M1 is but if Apple Silicon is suddenly dethroned, we are supposed to say “nah, benchmarks are not that important anyway“. That would be extremely hypocritical.

 

[richinaus]

I don’t believe Apple is actually directly competing with intel.

They will just release computers that are a great experience to use for the majority of people.

As such those who need fastest GPU’s and CPU’s may well be better on the intel / AMD route, whereas those who want a laptop that will not burn their thighs [with reasonable performance] and a desktop that is sleek and quiet will stick with Apple.

I am unfortunately in both camps which can get expensive.

 

[leman]

I don’t believe Apple is actually directly competing with intel.

They are not, but they are competing with other laptop manufacturers in the premium market segment. As Apple say themselves, they don’t sell parts, they sell product experience. And performance is an important part of that experience.

As such those who need fastest GPU’s and CPU’s may well be better on the intel / AMD route, whereas those who want a laptop that will not burn their thighs [with reasonable performance] and a desktop that is sleek and quiet will stick with Apple.

I disagree. Apple has long made best effort to deliver fastest possible CPU in a ultraimpact form factor. Their new entry level CPU core competes toe to toe with much more expensive fastest available desktop designs. As I’ve said before, I see no world where Apple will be satisfied in holding the second place.

Regarding GPUs, yes, Apple will be ok with delivering mid-range to lower-high-end performance, but they will do so in a form factor and with power consumption others can only dream about.