Rumored pro chip

[nquinn]

For the M1 Apple has largely left the system prices the same while the Intel mark-up disappeared. They have also dropped the higher profit BTO choices. That wasn't to take in less money overall. They are just cranking the higher margin take to the whole product line instead of skewing it to the top end BTO systems.

The insane pricing for for RAM and SSD upgrades I would argue do skew a lot of margin to higher end systems still though.

+$360 to move from 16gb of ram to 32gb or +$720 to move to 64gb is nuts.

32gb of RAM should be around $200, and they are technically taking away 16gb as well worth $100. Essentially you are paying $460, or 2.3x retail pricing for RAM by going through Apple. > 100% margins is brutal.

 

[jdb8167]

32gb of RAM should be around $200, and they are technically taking away 16gb as well worth $100. Essentially you are paying $460, or 2.3x retail pricing for RAM by going through Apple. > 100% margins is brutal.

No one knows what the retail pricing is for the LPDDR4X/4267 RAM that Apple uses. The parts are at least somewhat custom. See this post. Trying to use spot pricing on generic LPDDR4 RAM is not useful.

 

[Ursadorable]

So same as Epic game store and MS store?

And literally every game console out there.

 

[AgentMcGeek]

Oh sweet irony.

 

[leman]

The insane pricing for for RAM and SSD upgrades I would argue do skew a lot of margin to higher end systems still though.

+$360 to move from 16gb of ram to 32gb or +$720 to move to 64gb is nuts.

32gb of RAM should be around $200, and they are technically taking away 16gb as well worth $100. Essentially you are paying $460, or 2.3x retail pricing for RAM by going through Apple. > 100% margins is brutal.

I kind of agree in regards to SSD, even though Apple SSDs seem to have much higher endurance than your average consumer SSD.

But talking about RAM you are quite off. How can you talk about retail pricing for completely custom tech? It’s not even your normal LPDDR5 packages, those modules are likely designed specifically for Apple.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This is basically what Apple is doing and it's an excellent idea.
Do you think this will ever dawn on Microsoft that this is what they are going to need to do?
…
Do you feel this is ever going to happen?

If Windows was all there was in the world on the non-Mac side, then maybe. BUT OEM’s have been tied to the Microsoft Only bandwagon before and would much rather make general purpose systems that they can still sell to anyone, and put Windows stickers just on the ones running Windows. The less differentiation they need to do, the better.

I don’t think it’s going to happen because it doesn’t appear to be what Windows customers want. For the most part, they want just a bit faster than what they already have.

 

[Joelist]

The RAM is custom designed and upclocked LPDDR4X with custom controllers. In the same vein the SSDs have custom upclocked controllers.

 

[Joelist]

As to what Apple is doing, they own every piece of their technology stack now. They use an SOC that they have designed and as such know exactly, precisely how to code to it. And MacOS and the drivers are very exactingly coded to the hardware. This option is not available to Windows as it is used on a lot of PCs from different OEMs using different technologies.

 

[nquinn]

No one knows what the retail pricing is for the LPDDR4X/4267 RAM that Apple uses. The parts are at least somewhat custom. See this post. Trying to use spot pricing on generic LPDDR4 RAM is not useful.

I realize this, but the point is reasonably accurate for older models of macbooks. Additionally, while we don't know the exact additional cost to produce better binned chips with more RAM, I think it's a very safe assumption to say that their margins are higher on those SOCs. Do you really think it costs TSMC $800 to get 64gb of RAM on a SOC?

 

[AVonGauss]

Deleted.

 

[JMacHack]

Sounds promising:

"Apple sees big things ahead for Apple Silicon, both in terms of achieving new designs and perhaps appealing to the most demanding audience of all — gamers. After all, many of the engineers building Apple’s chips are gamers themselves. Apple is now setting a third goal for its M-series processors: Bringing gaming to the Mac.

“Of course, you can imagine the pride of some of the GPU folks and imagining, ‘Hey, wouldn't it be great if it hits a broader set of those really intense gamers,’” said Milet. “It's a natural place for us to be looking, to be working closely with our Metal team and our Developer team. We love the challenge.”"

Apple Says Its Looking at Future Macs Competing in Gaming | Digital Trends

Intel, Nvidia, and AMD should be watching their backs -- Apple is gunning for the PC gaming market with a future M-series processor for the Mac.

www.digitaltrends.com

I can hear the stifled laughing from the text alone.

If the Mac becomes a viable platform then I will boil and eat my shoes.

Apple does iOS, mobile gaming is what they understand. PC gaming is a different animal.

 

[cmaier]

From a consumer's perspective it is though. When you can go to just about any site and purchase 32 GB of memory for $200 USD or less that factors in to the value calculation of a potential Apple hardware purchase. Apple is lowering their cost by integrating the memory and disk on to the motherboard and charging a fairly hefty amount for any kind of upgrade, how that plays out in the long run we'll see.

So go de-lid the M1, unsolder the RAM, fab an interposer to get the pin-outs matched up, and resolder it back together with that 32GB of memory you purchased for $200.

Nobody is stopping you, right?

I can hear the stifled laughing from the text alone.

If the Mac becomes a viable platform then I will boil and eat my shoes.

Apple does iOS, mobile gaming is what they understand. PC gaming is a different animal.

“We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent PC gaming system. iPhone guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.”

 

[Kpjoslee]

“We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent PC gaming system. iPhone guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.”

Well, what he posted is true in some degree. Seeing what Apple has done with Arcade+, Apple isn't going to challenge the Market Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo competes in anytime soon.

 

[cmaier]

Well, what he posted is true in some degree. Seeing what Apple has done with Arcade+, Apple isn't going to challenge the Market Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo competes in anytime soon.

Do I need to repeat what I just posted?

 

[Kpjoslee]

Do I need to repeat what I just posted?

No, you don't. I have zero confidence on Apple tackling on the traditional gaming market. They have done nothing more than just throwing the hardware out there and API and kinda hoping some developers would be interested.
It took Microsoft 20 years to get to where they are and still struggling to compete despite their financial resources and market strength. Is Apple ready to do same level of commitment MS made on traditional gaming market, sure as hell doesn't look like it lol.

 

[cmaier]

No, you don't. I have zero confidence on Apple tackling on the traditional gaming market.

And, again, that’s what the fine folks at RIM said back when.

And, as it turns out, there’s a lot more going on with Apple and its allocation of resources to AAA games than you know about.

 

[leman]

No, you don't. I have zero confidence on Apple tackling on the traditional gaming market. They have done nothing more than just throwing the hardware out there and API and kinda hoping some developers would be interested.
It took Microsoft 20 years to get to where they are and still struggling to compete despite their financial resources and market strength. Is Apple ready to do same level of commitment MS made on traditional gaming market, sure as hell doesn't look like it lol.

Sorry, which commitment? The only reason for Windows being the standard gaming platform is it’s compatibility with wide range of hardware. “Commitment” is all from the GPU makers which enabled gaming as it currently exists. And if you are talking about the Xbox, what does it have to do with Windows? It’s a gaming console, not a PC.

 

[Kpjoslee]

And, again, that’s what the fine folks at RIM said back when.

And, as it turns out, there’s a lot more going on with Apple and its allocation of resources to AAA games than you know about.

I love your optimism. It isn't going to be nothing more than some AAA developers porting few games for Mac, just like how some games were available on Mac.

Sorry, which commitment? The only reason for Windows being the standard gaming platform is it’s compatibility with wide range of hardware. “Commitment” is all from the GPU makers which enabled gaming as it currently exists. And if you are talking about the Xbox, what does it have to do with Windows? It’s a gaming console, not a PC.

Of course I am talking about console gaming. In order for Apple to actually draw interest on traditional gaming market, they actually have to make a same level of commitment as you would for a gaming console.

 

[quarkysg]

Of course I am talking about console gaming. In order for Apple to actually draw interest on traditional gaming market, they actually have to make a same level of commitment as you would for a gaming console.

IMHO, Microsoft had to be committed as they had 0 installed based when they started the X-Box division. They had to buy Bungie to start churning out games for their platform, which made a lot of Mac gamers upset IIRC. I used to play Bungie's games with my PPC Mac back in the day.

Apple is starting from a different situation now. They are moving base Apple Silicon Macs that are quite capable of running AAA games (e.g. Baldur Gate 3.) With Intel CPUs, the majority of Macs sold could not run games well enough. This to me is an important point to consider. Once the market is sizeable (which I think will be in around 2-3 years), game developers will naturally develop for macOS. Developers could also target iOS and macOS simultaneously, so that's another carrot to entice them. iPads and iPhones will only get more powerful going forward, and also don't forget Apple TV 4K as well.

My take is that Apple is doing the right thing at the moment in making sure that Metal 2 and it's controller support for macOS and iOS is capable enough to handle gaming needs. Make the APIs easy to use and things will fall into place. With more powerful Apple Silicon coming, the situation will only get better for Macs. Well, I for one am optimistic.

 

[Kpjoslee]

Apple is starting from a different situation now. They are moving base Apple Silicon Macs that are quite capable of running AAA games (e.g. Baldur Gate 3.) With Intel CPUs, the majority of Macs sold could not run games well enough. This to me is an important point to consider. Once the market is sizeable (which I think will be in around 2-3 years), game developers will naturally develop for macOS. Developers could also target iOS and macOS simultaneously, so that's another carrot to entice them. iPads and iPhones will only get more powerful going forward, and also don't forget Apple TV 4K as well.

Baldur's Gate 3 isn't really considered as AAA game. Intel CPU wasn't reason the majority of Macs couldn't run game well enough, but rather the choice of GPUs it had. Actually, Mac was better positioned to bring some of the PC games over when it had Intel CPUs, but Apple wasn't particularly interested in attracting developers anyways.

Apple probably wants the extension of iOS market on MacOS given they now share the same architecture, but I don't expect it will start attracting major traditional gaming developers hop on board. Unless Apple starts pouring Billions and their engineering resources creating gaming platform attracting console and PC gamers alike, I am not holding my breath. Don't expect developers will just naturally develop for the platform until Apple makes MS level of commitment.

 

[JouniS]

But talking about RAM you are quite off. How can you talk about retail pricing for completely custom tech? It’s not even your normal LPDDR5 packages, those modules are likely designed specifically for Apple.

From a user's perspective, RAM is RAM, and it's normally cheap. If Apple needs weird expensive RAM to achieve competitive performance, it's a major weakness in their architecture.

In particular, it would be bad news for high-memory Mac Pro / iMac configurations. If memory upgrades are much more expensive than the market rate for standard memory modules, those high-end Macs could be substantially slower than similarly priced Intel / AMD systems.

 

[leman]

I think you are mutating "fastest" into a monomaniacal focus on solely single threaded. If in its laptops class M1X is 80% faster iGPU . 30% faster , and 5% slower on single threaded then that isn't a diaster from a balanced, overall system metrics perspective. That is winning two out of three by a large margin and incrementally under on just one of the three.

What constitutes a balanced metric is solely a question of your intended system use. I don't think that good sustained multi-core performance can be used as a justification for weak single-core performance (aka. AMD before Zen 3), because there are plenty of users that simply do not require sustained multi-core in any meaningful way.

I want these new Macs to work well for what I do. And most of the software and tooling I use is focused on single-thread performance. This is an unfortunate fact that I can't do anything about. If the prosumer Macs are not going to be any faster in this area than M1 machines, I would be disappointed. At the same time, I think that chances for that are slim to none — as I wrote before, Apple always took single-core performance very seriously and I am not aware of a single case where they would neglect it in a product.

Apple's single thread progress has mostly fallen out of their perf/watt push as a side effect.

I don't think I can agree with this statement. In contrary, their perf/watt is a side effect of a CPU design that maximizes single-core performance in a mobile-oriented platform. ARM Cortex CPUs have excellent perf/watt, but their single-core performance is nowhere near Apples. If Apple indeed only cared about energy consumption (as often suggested), they could have saved themselves tons of work.

I think you have the 'cart in front of the horse'. Apple is highly unlikely to toss aside and de-priority perf/watt just to only get to better single thread scores.

Of course not. But I also don't think that they will be satisfied with releasing a new shiny MacBook Pro that is slower in a key performance metric than closest Intel analogues.

Apple currently has a massive perf/watt advantage. M1 achieves a performance with 5 watts that others need 15-20 watts for. Which means that Apple has a lot of space to play with. I fully expect the prosumer designs to have higher thermal ceiling and top frequencies for individual cores — Apple can absolutely afford to go to 10 watts or even slightly higher here — that should give them the absolute performance crown without deemphasizing energy efficiency.

 

[leman]

From a user's perspective, RAM is RAM, and it's normally cheap. If Apple needs weird expensive RAM to achieve competitive performance, it's a major weakness in their architecture.

You win some, you lose some. They use custom RAM not because of the performance (it's identical to any other LPDDR4 with the same frequency), but to achieve their ridiculously low energy consumption.

From user's perspective a product is a product. Apple is the only company that can deliver a 15-20 battery lifetime in a notebook with that kind of performance and memory configurations. And custom RAM is a key part in this, as background RAM power usage is what dominates system baseline power. Yes, compared to most other vendors you are paying Apple around $100 more per 8GB of RAM. But you are not just paying for the RAM, you are also paying for having superior battery life with that RAM as well. If you don't want to pay that premium, you can choose another brand. But than again, the M1 Pro/16GB/512GB SSD costs $100 more than the Dell XPS 13" with similar specs and the later has half the battery life, half the GPU performance, and 30-40% slower CPU so... sounds like a good deal for $100 to me.

In particular, it would be bad news for high-memory Mac Pro / iMac configurations. If memory upgrades are much more expensive than the market rate for standard memory modules, those high-end Macs could be substantially slower than similarly priced Intel / AMD systems.

I am not sure how this follows... Higher-end Macs will use wide memory interfaces, they are likely to have have around 2-4x more memory bandwidth and larger caches than x86 machines of the same class. So they certainly won't be slower. What is much less clear is the memory capacity. If Apple continues on their path of using tightly integrated memory modules, I doubt that high RAM configurations are practically achievable.

 

[AgentMcGeek]

From a user's perspective, RAM is RAM, and it's normally cheap. If Apple needs weird expensive RAM to achieve competitive performance, it's a major weakness in their architecture.

You’ll notice that Apple is advertising it as Unified Memory Architecture (or UMA) and has highlighted its unique characteristics several times.

UMA is not standard RAM. It’s one of the reasons the SOC is so efficient. Data doesn’t need to be copied around, it can be accessed by any subsystem all from the same place. For this to work though, you need high bandwidth, and that’s why the memory is custom designed with much more connection points than usual.

UMA and it’s RAM chips is critical to M1’s performance and efficiency. It’s not a weakness, it’s a strength that others will try to replicate.

 

[leman]

You’ll notice that Apple is advertising it as Unified Memory Architecture (or UMA) and has highlighted its unique characteristics several times.

UMA is not standard RAM. It’s one of the reasons the SOC is so efficient. Data doesn’t need to be copied around, it can be accessed by any subsystem all from the same place. For this to work though, you need high bandwidth, and that’s why the memory is custom designed with much more connection points than usual.

UMA and it’s RAM chips is critical to M1’s performance and efficiency. It’s not a weakness, it’s a strength that others will try to replicate.

I just want to point out that most of this (especially in regards to M1) has been massively overblown by bloggers and youtubers. Yes, UMA is an amazing concept and I am happy that Apple is bringing it to high-performance personal computing. But from this standpoint, M1 is nothing special. It uses the same 128-bit LPDDR4 configuration, exactly the same bandwidth and identical latency as any modern Intel or AMD CPU. Also, Intel and AMD have been using "real" UMA with their SoC's for almost ten years now. So again, from the performance and capability standpoint M1's RAM system is identical to any other premium mobile CPU currently on the market.

Apple's approach differs in a number of key areas though. Their hardware is faster (especially the GPU), their caches are larger, their memory-level parallelism is better, per-core bandwidth is higher and RAM power usage lower. Basically, Intel and AMD use UMA primarily as an architecture deliver a cost-effective platform — the assumption is that performance-oriented users will get a dGPU anyway. Apple instead is fully embracing UMA and trying to squeeze out all it can offer.