Unreal Engine can already port to iOS / Apple TV. It should be very easy to make new games compatible natively with Metal / Apple Silicon.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Rumored pro chip
- Thread starter cmaier
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Either buying a dev or buying the game from the dev, in the end money is going to have to find itself from Apple to the Dev/Game in question. Ideally in a way that makes the game exclusive to Apple.
TSMC really doesn’t have anything to do with the LPDDR4X on an M1 SoC. The RAM chips are on the same chip carrier but are not part of the silicon manufactured by TSMC.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?
If the LPDDR4X RAM Apple uses is truly custom then I don’t think we can make many assumptions about what it costs. Apple certainly has a markup but it might be a lot less than everyone is assuming.
How does that impact heat output? Of course, more energy consumption equals more heat. I'm just curious how using custom RAM influences the need for cooling. Obviously, the M1 doesn't produce a great deal of heat, but how much does the custom RAM impact an iMac or Mac mini enclosure and the need for additional cooling? Excluding GDDR on graphics cards, there doesn't seem to be a need for significant cooling with standard DDR modules, but Apple doesn't use standard memory packages. I'm interesting in addressing Mac desktops, in this situation and in the future, which don't have battery life constraints.
LPDDR modules are -as their name suggest- already designed for low power operations. Their heat generation would be negligible compared to the SoC. I wouldn’t worry about that much. GDDR is on another world and may require some passive cooling.
Even standard desktop RAM doesn’t need much cooling. The heat sinks are mostly for the looks.
Even standard desktop RAM doesn’t need much cooling. The heat sinks are mostly for the looks.
The RAM Apple uses in M1 is more expensive than the standard DIMM chips you can order off Amazon to stuff into your iMac 5K or Mac Pro, but it's not that much more expensive.
Apple RAM prices are similar to other Tier One OEMs like HPE, Dell and Lenovo. The difference is that you can use third-party RAM with the PC makers if it is a personal-use system* because they use standard DIMMs where Apple solders the RAM to the systemboard (on Intel) or the SoC package (on M).
* - In Enterprise-level applications you are going to stick with the OEM parts because of warranty and interoperability concerns - we just dropped a couple million on Dell RAM to upgrade a couple racks of servers from 192GB to 572GB.
Apple RAM prices are similar to other Tier One OEMs like HPE, Dell and Lenovo. The difference is that you can use third-party RAM with the PC makers if it is a personal-use system* because they use standard DIMMs where Apple solders the RAM to the systemboard (on Intel) or the SoC package (on M).
* - In Enterprise-level applications you are going to stick with the OEM parts because of warranty and interoperability concerns - we just dropped a couple million on Dell RAM to upgrade a couple racks of servers from 192GB to 572GB.
Mac
The most powerful Mac laptops and desktops ever. Supercharged by Apple silicon. MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac mini, Mac Studio, and Mac Pro.www.apple.com
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.
None of the current M1 systems can go from 8 -> 64GB . So pointing at custom Apple RAM is misdirection. Those prices are for Intel Macs. ( Although it seems to be a bit of a discount off the standard pricing in USA store. Perhaps edu or some corportate discount applied.)
M1 MBP 13"
Buy MacBook Pro
Discover the MacBook Pro laptop with the M4 family of chips, built for Apple Intelligence. Get credit when you trade in an eligible Mac. Buy now.
www.apple.com
8GB - > 16GB $200 ( so $400 per 16GB rate )
Intel MBP 13" four port
Buy MacBook Pro
Discover the MacBook Pro laptop with the M4 family of chips, built for Apple Intelligence. Get credit when you trade in an eligible Mac. Buy now.
www.apple.com
8GB -> 16GB $200 ( so $400 per 16GB rate )
Intel MBP 16"
Buy MacBook Pro
Discover the MacBook Pro laptop with the M4 family of chips, built for Apple Intelligence. Get credit when you trade in an eligible Mac. Buy now.
www.apple.com
16GB -> 32GB $400 ( so $400 per 16GB rate )
16GB -> 64GB $800 ( so $400 per 16GB rate )
Apple still sells the ancient , non-Retina 21.5" iMac ( with an MBA processor )
.https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-imac/21.5-inch-2.3ghz-dual-core-processor-with-turbo-boost-up-to-3.6ghz-256gb
A " 2.3GHz dual-core 7th-generation Intel Core i5 processor, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz "
DDR4 2133MHz RAM from somewhat way back in the day (intel about to release their 12th gen processor) ... surprise! , surprise! , surprise! ...
8GB -> 16GB $200 ( so $400 per 16GB rate )
Over more than several years, Apple has built up a huge price umbrella here to use a relatively small incrementally more expensive memory and take relatively very little hit on margin. Yes, the M1's RAM is in semi-custom packaging ( higher pin count and non mainstream stacked dies) and probably has tighter qualification to run more concurrently active RAM dies inside of a single package, but it isn't super radically custom. The individual , basic bulding block RAM dies inside the package are likely the same as what more mainstream packages are using. The gap is mainly packaging, qualification , and testing.
Apple will use the same RAM in as many systems across the Mac line up as possible so they'll get economies of scale. If the M1-larger-die uses 4 ( or more packages ) and the volume Macs (and iPad Pro) stick with then the two then the average per system could be around 3. For around 25Million systems per year would make that 75M per year order flow. The higher that aggregrate system average ( eg. 4 ) the higher the order flow. Semi custom will push the price higher and Apple will haggle to push that price back toward the mainstream with the volume.
UMA is magically greate tech that is driving up cost of RAM .... a spoon full of marketing sugar helps the Apple Tax go down.
The price here is more about offsetting just-in-time manufacturing risk from Apple to their customers and warranty costs and contributions tot he Scrooge McDuck money pit as it is about any tech manufacturings difference.
We are talking about differences of a few watts here. It makes a big impact on the battery life (5 watts average power consumption with an 50Wh battery is 10 hours, 4 watts with the same battery is 12.5 hours), but it's negligible in terms of heat. Compared to the heat output of the CPU/GPU, RAM doesn't even enter the equation. Still, the heat spreader of M1 chip covers the RAM as well, so everything is cooled very efficiently.
I think you might have missed parts of the discussion. Available evidence points to Apple using custom built-to-order RAM modules that are quite unlike what other manufacturers have. Since these are customary designed and customary built Apple-only chips, we simply don't know what their pricing is. Personally, I'd be surprised if they are as cheap as the regular off-shelf items. Custom stuff usually commands a premium.
Also, most modern business laptops utilize LPDDR for better energy efficiency, and LPDDR by definition does not come in DIMMs. Laptops with user-replaceable RAM is actually rapidly dwindling — improved battery life and performance that comes with LPDDR4 instead of DDR4 make it very attractive for premium laptops.
Thanks for the answer, @leman. That's what I had assumed, but I wanted to be certain. A further question, if I may? Aside from power consumption, are there any significant downsides to moving main memory off the SoC, and do you foresee Apple doing so for the higher performance Macs?
None of the current M1 systems can go from 8 -> 64GB . So pointing at custom Apple RAM is misdirection. Those prices are for Intel Macs. ( Although it seems to be a bit of a discount off the standard pricing in USA store. Perhaps edu or some corportate discount applied.)
M1 MBP 13"
Buy MacBook Pro
Discover the MacBook Pro laptop with the M4 family of chips, built for Apple Intelligence. Get credit when you trade in an eligible Mac. Buy now.www.apple.com
8GB - > 16GB $200 ( so $400 per 16GB rate )
Intel MBP 13" four port
Buy MacBook Pro
Discover the MacBook Pro laptop with the M4 family of chips, built for Apple Intelligence. Get credit when you trade in an eligible Mac. Buy now.www.apple.com
8GB -> 16GB $200 ( so $400 per 16GB rate )
Intel MBP 16"
Buy MacBook Pro
Discover the MacBook Pro laptop with the M4 family of chips, built for Apple Intelligence. Get credit when you trade in an eligible Mac. Buy now.www.apple.com
16GB -> 32GB $400 ( so $400 per 16GB rate )
16GB -> 64GB $800 ( so $400 per 16GB rate )
Apple still sells the ancient , non-Retina 21.5" iMac ( with an MBA processor )
.https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-imac/21.5-inch-2.3ghz-dual-core-processor-with-turbo-boost-up-to-3.6ghz-256gb
A " 2.3GHz dual-core 7th-generation Intel Core i5 processor, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz "
DDR4 2133MHz RAM from somewhat way back in the day (intel about to release their 12th gen processor) ... surprise! , surprise! , surprise! ...
8GB -> 16GB $200 ( so $400 per 16GB rate )
Over more than several years, Apple has built up a huge price umbrella here to use a relatively small incrementally more expensive memory and take relatively very little hit on margin. Yes, the M1's RAM is in semi-custom packaging ( higher pin count and non mainstream stacked dies) and probably has tighter qualification to run more concurrently active RAM dies inside of a single package, but it isn't super radically custom. The individual , basic bulding block RAM dies inside the package are likely the same as what more mainstream packages are using. The gap is mainly packaging, qualification , and testing.
Apple will use the same RAM in as many systems across the Mac line up as possible so they'll get economies of scale. If the M1-larger-die uses 4 ( or more packages ) and the volume Macs (and iPad Pro) stick with then the two then the average per system could be around 3. For around 25Million systems per year would make that 75M per year order flow. The higher that aggregrate system average ( eg. 4 ) the higher the order flow. Semi custom will push the price higher and Apple will haggle to push that price back toward the mainstream with the volume.
My bad, I should have been more transparent in explaining what my argument actually is. Yes, Apple RAM upgrade prices were always higher than industry average. They have a meticulously designed pricing model that works very well for them, and while users like to complain about Apple's outrageous prices, they still pay them. One can discuss the morality aspects of such business practice, but that's a different topic.
For this specific discussion what I am trying to say is that $200 for extra 8GB of standard off-shelf DDR4 (that costs around $50-60 in retail) is indeed pushing it. But $200 for extra 8GB of custom ultra-power-efficient RAM is another matter. I think that in the context of M1 Macs these higher upgrade prices are more easily justifiable, simply because you cannot get a computer like that anywhere else, at any price point. Comparisons between "Dell only charges $100 and Apple charges $200" are losing their meanings when Apple's machine is faster and has significantly better battery life at a similar price point.
The M1 is using "smartphone" memory - commonly-available modules designed for use in smartphones and tablets - so it would be the same type of module you would find in an iPhone or an iPad. This would explain why it is limited to 8GB and 16GB for M1 Macs because until recently, 4GB and 8GB were the largest modules of this type of memory in general production (so two modules would provide the 8GB/16GB shipping options).
iFixIt's teardown of the M1 Mac mini shows two 4GB industry-standard LPDDR4 memory modules from SK Hynix ( H9HCNNNCRMMVGR-NEH )
Last edited:
Custom I/O drivers and power planes doesn't magically allow for more capacity. The RAM cells, bit line drivers, and word line drivers are the same. Higher capacity on the same process node would result in slower access times.
Fair enough, but I presume that is the case with the DRAM used in the Intel Macs and people seem to be willing to "take the hit" considering how so many 32GB Intel Mac owners are clamoring for that much RAM or more before they will consider moving to M1.
And it's not like Apple to leave money on the table - if they can get some folks to spend hundreds more on 32GB vs. 16GB, they will almost assuredly offer the opportunity.
I am not an engineer so I don't think I am qualified to answer this in an objective manner. If I am allowed to speculate (using my amateur reasoning), I'd say "it's complicated". I don't think that moving the memory off the SoC would negatively impact performance in any meaningful way (after all, Tiger Lake does not have on-SoC memory and it achieves the same bandwidth and the same latency with the same type of RAM). From what I have gathered reading analysis of more knowledgeable people, it seems that Apple's main motives for moving memory on package are energy efficiency and manufacturing economy. Having memory modules closer means that you can operate them with less power, and keeping the complex signaling busses on package only means that the complexity, cost and size of the logic board is going down significantly. These factors will become even more important in the prosumer Mac laptops that will require more memory as well as faster memory. Mainboards with quad-channel RAM start getting rather expensive as that's quite a lot of traces to lay out.
So no, I don't think that Apple will move the memory off the package for upcoming prosumer Macs. LPDDR5 should allow for up to 64GB configurations with a 256-bit interface, which should be enough for the iMac and the MacBook Pro. Apple also has patents describing two-sided RAM module mounting (on the top and the bottom of the package), which would allow them to further increase the amount of the RAM without needing more space. What they are going to do with a Mac Pro, that traditionally allowed very high RAM configurations, I honestly don't know. They might introduce socketed DDR5 for example as a third-level (slower but larger) system RAM, with 32GB or 64GB of fast on-package "cache" RAM (that's what Intel plants to to do with next generation Xeons by the way). Or maybe they will drop user-expandable RAM altogether. Difficult to say. Apple has patents describing all the interesting possibilities, only they know what they ultimately end up doing.
Fair enough, but I presume that is the case with the DRAM used in the Intel Macs and people seem to be willing to "take the hit" considering how so many 32GB Intel Mac owners are clamoring for that much RAM or more before they will consider moving to M1.
And it's not like Apple to leave money on the table - if they can get some folks to spend hundreds more on 32GB vs. 16GB, they will almost assuredly offer the opportunity.
Apples and oranges. Access time increases are more of a problem in the M1 system architecture because you are operating from a baseline where the access time is very low. On every PC, the access time is much higher, because the distance between the RAM and the CPU is much higher (thus you need bigger drivers which take longer to switch, you have a much higher signal time-of-flight, you have much higher parasitic inductances and capacitances, etc.) Adding 100 cycles to the time it takes to read RAM when it otherwise would take 100 cycles is very different than adding 100 cycles to the time it takes to read RAM when it would otherwise take 1000 cycles.
Well, try to find those RAM modules in any catalogue. It was already demonstrated that the RAM modules used by Apple have higher pinout and different dimensions that anything listed by any known manufacturer out there. I refer you to post by @altaic on the previous page
Those machines have not been replaced yet. Apple only replaced the 2-port 13” pro (which was also limited to 16gb) and added a new low-end mini tier. The higher end models for each are still available on apples website.
People who are “taking the hit” are likely downgrading in product categories. Meaning, maybe you had a 4-port MacBook Pro before, but decided to “downgrade” to the 2-port because you wanted M1 and didn’t want to wait for whatever would replace the higher-end tiers.
It’s more than likely the higher-end models will get 32gb of ram. People are just impatient or don’t understand Apple is updating their products incrementally?
Fair enough, but I still believe that it is based on existing LPDDR4 modules SK Hynix manufactures for Apple iPhones and iPads (the part number for the 4GB iPhone part is almost identical to the 4GB module in the iMac 24" - only the last few letters are different).
In the end, I'm saying that Apple is not paying so much for them that they need to charge $200 to make a decent margin. And I am also saying that charging $200 for it is not out of line with what other major OEMs charge for OEM RAM upgrades for their computers (even though they would be paying even less than Apple) so I, for one, do not get bent out of shape over that pricing.
I personally don't have an issue paying $200 to go from 8GB to 16GB with Apple OEM RAM even if I could pay less by using third-party RAM so I will pay that premium for my M-series Mac.
Luke Miani just posted a rumor that the macbook pro will NOT have a 64gig option.
16/32 only.
He said he does not know what the options would be for the mac mini. m1x.
16/32 only.
He said he does not know what the options would be for the mac mini. m1x.
*nods*
Previous rumors have stated that the 14" and 16" MacBook will offer 32GB or 64GB of RAM and I fully expect the larger iMac and "Mac mini pro" will also offer those capacities.
As for the latest rumor from Luke Miami, maybe the 14" will be limited to 32GB with 64GB being offered for the 16" model. The 14" might also be limited to 16 GPUs with the 16" offering 32 GPUs as an option.
64 and 128 sound like they could be limited to the Mac Pro 9,1 since those appear to use two or four 32GPU Jade C-Dies tied together ("Jade 2C-Die" and "Jade 4C-Die").
It's definitely very similar to the iPad, iPhones use top-mounted RAM and I could not find any information about it. Still, custom is custom. A simple fact is that we simply don't know what these modules cost. I would be very surprised if they are cheaper than the "normal" LPDDR4 chips traded over the open market.
They almost certainly do not. I would be very surprised if the 8GB module costs Apple more than $40-50 through the entire process (from design to package assembly). But upgrade pricing is part of their business model and it seems to be effective. I definitely agree with you that the prices are steep, no argument from me here. I just think that it's a bit easier to stomach given the overall superiority of M1 machines.
Given that M1 GPU is 10 watts, this makes perfect sense. The 32 GPU clusters would add up to 40 watts under load (not counting the RAM), which is definitely too hot for the 13-14" chassis (that has been traditionally restricted to 30W system TDP). Instead, 16 GPU clusters would require much more reasonable 20 watts. The current 16" Intel offers around 80W of sustained system TDP which is perfectly in lien with a 8-core CPU (40W) + a 32-core GPU (40W) rumours. In fact, Apple could even reduce the total system TDP to 60-65watts without any noticeable effect on performance as workloads that fully utilize CPU and GPU are basically non-existent.