Rumored pro chip

[CWallace]

With those specs they might as well call it the iMac Gimped Edition.

My hope is it launches at $1999 with a 16 GPU-core "M1X", 8GB of RAM and 512GB of SSD because that would match the iMac 5K with the i5/8GB/512GB/5300. And unless that 6K panel is 2-3x the price of the 5K panel, I think they can do it.

 

[Stephen.R]

My hope is it launches at $1999 with a 16 GPU-core "M1X", 8GB of RAM and 512GB of SSD because that would match the iMac 5K with the i5/8GB/512GB/5300. And unless that 6K panel is 2-3x the price of the 5K panel, I think they can do it.

See this is the problem.

You’re talking about something called an iMac Pro, but then listing specs for the base model consumer 27”.

a name is just a name but that’s ridiculous.

 

[leman]

See this is the problem.

You’re talking about something called an iMac Pro, but then listing specs for the base model consumer 27”.

a name is just a name but that’s ridiculous.

Why would it be ridiculous if Apple renamed the bigger iMac to iMac Pro?

 

[Stephen.R]

Why would it be ridiculous if Apple renamed the bigger iMac to iMac Pro?

If it starts at 8gb of ram? Yes.

 

[leman]

If it starts at 8gb of ram? Yes.

I‘m fairly confident that the prosumer chip will start at 16GB

 

[jeanlain]

There are way more than 2 low-priority tasks running on any mac at any time. The more of them that have to run. On firestorms, the less time firestorms have to do high priority tasks. So the new efficiency cores must be better at running more low priority tasks at once.

Can't two efficient cores manage more than two low-priority tasks at the same time? I don't mean in the same clock cycle, but background taks typically take only a few percents of CPU time.

 

[cmaier]

Can't two efficient cores manage more than two low-priority tasks at the same time? I don't mean in the same clock cycle, but background taks typically take only a few percents of CPU time.

They can. But 4 such cores can manage more than 2 such cores. And there are hundreds of low priority tasks running at any given time. Again, it’s pretty clear to me that the new efficiency cores will have a different microarchitecture than the icestorms, and will be able to handle higher workload at equivalent power dissipation.

 

[ekwipt]

Why do so many people think this, when the Intel iMac Pro was discontinued, and the 'bigger' consumer-line iMac is still for sale.


You might as well suggest that the AirPod Mini is going to be discontinued and the replacement will be a new Airport Express with audio port.

Or Apple is not as worried about power consumption on Macs that either do not use batteries (the desktops) or that either have larger batteries or the customer base has traditionally accepted lower battery life for more performance (MacBook Pro).

Even with just two efficiency cores, I expect the 2021 16" MBP will have better - and probably much better - battery life than the 2020 model. So yes, it could be that much better if it had four Icestorm efficiency cores instead of two, but those customers likely have workloads that benefit much more from having eight Firestorm performance cores than four and worse case they can plug the thing in - which anyone with an Intel MBP is used to doing when working it hard.




Thunderbolt is a big one, but there are also evidently hardware to support virtual machines and other tasks that were not something done on an iPhone or iPad.

That being said, it seems pretty clear M1 was designed with both the Mac and the iPad Pro in mind. I do not believe it was a case of it being designed for one product family (be it iPad or Mac) and then used in the other "because we had it lying around already". I do believe Apple will eventually extend iPadOS to perform tasks that currently are the sole domain of macOS and having a more capable SoC at the heart of iPads will allow this to happen.




In my case, it's recent Apple marketing.

Most Apple product families have a "Pro" version:

AirPods / AirPods Pro
iPhone / iPhone Pro
iPad / iPad Pro
MacBook (Air) / MacBook Pro

Apple has an iMac, so it makes sense from a marketing standpoint to also have an iMac Pro above it. There are also rumors of a more powerful ASi Mac mini with more expansion ports coming so that might become the "Mac mini Pro" if the current ASi Mac mini sticks around.

Based on what we are hearing, Apple has a new iMac model on the way that will have a (much) larger display than the 24" iMac, a (much) more powerful M SoC, (much) more RAM and (much) more storage. All of these are things Apple uses with other product families to differentiate between a "consumer" and "professional" model, the latter of which they apply the "Pro" suffix to.

As for them still keeping the 27" iMac around, I see that as a reflection of both continued market demand for Intel-powered Mac hardware and that the Apple Silicon replacement is not yet ready for market.

And just because the Intel iMac Pro started at $4999 does not mean the Apple Silicon model must start at the same price. Even if it has an expensive 32" 6K display modeled along the lines of the Pro Display XDR, they can play with the initial RAM and storage allotments to lower the price. They could even start it with an M1 SoC if that is what it takes to hit a $1999 initial price point to stay inline with the current Intel iMac 5K starting point.

I agree with CWallace, I think the Pro moniker is too important to Apple. Consumers want to be seen as Pro, it’s pure marketing. Apple have already dropped the space grey keyboard and trackpad from stores.

Another possibly is to keep iMac in the 30” range and keep the iMac Pro to Mini LED screen, 10GBE, more Thunderbolt ports, card reader etc

 

[CWallace]

See this is the problem.

You’re talking about something called an iMac Pro, but then listing specs for the base model consumer 27”.

a name is just a name but that’s ridiculous.

My original prediction was $2499 with the "M1X", 16GB of RAM and a 1TB SSD because that sounded more "Pro" to me, but people were having heart attacks at the idea of having to pay $1000 more than the 24" for a 32" model and refused to believe Apple would set the entry bar that high.

 

[ekwipt]

Apple is definitely not scared of setting a price too high!

 

[CWallace]

Apple is definitely not scared of setting a price too high!

No they are not and I am sure one will be able to spend many thousands on BTO options (32 CPU core option, 64GB of RAM, 8TB of storage, Nanotexture Glass).

Frankly I think $2499 is fine for the entry level model because it would offer enough screen size, cores, RAM and storage over the 24" model to justify that $1000. Especially with the 24" iMac being so much better than the 21.5" in every way I think it can stand on its own vis-a-vis the larger model than the old 21.5" could against the 27".

 

[Rickroller]

If Apple keep similar tiers for the new hardware, they would still have some gaps in pricing to suit most buyers.

Currently two options for configuring 16 inch MPB, and if you take away difference in CPUs, it’s just the graphics and storage.

So if we get lucky same $2399 for 10core 16GPU 16GB Unified and 512GB storage. Not sure what Apple was paying Intel, but I think tray prices for the 6 core part was $395. The 8 core in the higher spec model was $556!!!

I’m sure the new Apple Chip isn’t cheap either, but some of the savings could come our way. I’m personally hoping they put it into the RAM and have the base start at 32GB instead of 16. Wishful thinking I know.

So the next tier gets us another 16GPU cores and same as current 1T storage for $2799.

 

[Joelist]

I am assuming that the recent iMac release rounded out the first tier of Apple Silicon on the Mac. As such, likely WWDC will have the unveiling of the first of the next higher tier of Apple Silicon with a pair of Macbook Pros.....and maybe just maybe a higher level Mac mini or iMac.

 

[ekwipt]

I am assuming that the recent iMac release rounded out the first tier of Apple Silicon on the Mac. As such, likely WWDC will have the unveiling of the first of the next higher tier of Apple Silicon with a pair of Macbook Pros.....and maybe just maybe a higher level Mac mini or iMac.

then on to the Mac Pro in 2022!

 

[Stuart in Oz]

8 performance cores sounds about right for mid-tier stuff, it might even be awesome given the single core performance of the M1. I don't think I'd want less in a "Pro" product these days. It should be as fast as the mid to upper end i9's. (if it has enough cooling and I'm counting only multi-core)

Maybe they figured out that the 4 efficiency cores in the current M1 was overkill for the job they'd do in a beefier product.

It'll be fun to hear the final specs.

I think this is the point. I’ve noticed on my M1 Mini that the four efficiency cores never get above about 15% each during normal working, and often much less than that. Even simultaneous heavy web browsing, video playback and having multiple productivity apps open doesn’t noticeably push them.

I reckon two efficiency cores would do the job fine, and I’d certainly trade two of my four efficiency cores for extra performance cores for when a big tasks needs doing.

 

[dgdosen]

I think this is the point. I’ve noticed on my M1 Mini that the four efficiency cores never get above about 15% each during normal working, and often much less than that. Even simultaneous heavy web browsing, video playback and having multiple productivity apps open doesn’t noticeably push them.

I reckon two efficiency cores would do the job fine, and I’d certainly trade two of my four efficiency cores for extra performance cores for when a big tasks needs doing.

For the first time, I just noticed that the 'CPU History' view in Activity Monitor shows labels for Performance/Efficiency cores. How did I miss that? Now I'm fascinated to see app impacts.

Dropbox is indeed bogarting my Efficiency cores.

 

[Rickroller]

Hmmm...

is this a clue that there might be 24 inch iMac Pro on the way...?

Base M1 iMac With 8-Core CPU, 7-Core GPU Features Just One Fan for Cooling - Upper-Tier Versions Have a Better Thermal System

If you purchase the base version of the M1 iMac, do note that it will feature only a single fan for cooling the system

wccftech.com

Should be enough to cool the 16GPU core part Maybe.

 

[theorist9]

Or Apple is not as worried about power consumption on Macs that either do not use batteries (the desktops) or that either have larger batteries or the customer base has traditionally accepted lower battery life for more performance (MacBook Pro).

Even with just two efficiency cores, I expect the 2021 16" MBP will have better - and probably much better - battery life than the 2020 model. So yes, it could be that much better if it had four Icestorm efficiency cores instead of two, but those customers likely have workloads that benefit much more from having eight Firestorm performance cores than four and worse case they can plug the thing in - which anyone with an Intel MBP is used to doing when working it hard.

All good points, but it's complicated: If you want to argue for why the scaling of the new "Super Icestorms" might not be (close to) linear, you'd need to explain the benefit of switching to something with less efficiency. Because while efficiency is not as essential for the MBP or iMac as it is for the Air, it still has value. So, if the scaling is not linear, what is Apple gaining by going to 2 Super-Icestorms, if it has to give up efficiency to do so?

I.e., why give up something that's cheap, efficient, already-designed, and that you know works well, for something that is less efficient?

The only possibilities I can think of are these two (both pure speculation):

1) The Icestorms do have a higher area/performance ratio than the Firestorms (by eye, they look to take up ~40% of the space, but only offer ~25% the performance). Any maybe fitting the eight performance cores on the M1X/M2 (whatever we call it) die didn't leave room for four Icestorms. So they needed to switch to 2 Super-Icestorms.

2) Suppose that, for typical MBP/iMac use cases, you more commonly see single-threaded (non-distributable) background/utility processes that need more performance than is obtainable with an Icestorm (i.e., that currently max out the Icestorms). In that case, it would be worth giving up the efficiency to get more performant efficiency cores. Do such background/utility processes exist? No idea.

Regardless of whether these apply, my point is there has to be *some* reason to give up the 4 Firestorms if you don't have linear scaling, i.e., if you have to sacrifice efficiency. If it's not these, it has to be something else. So what is it?

Based on what we are hearing, Apple has a new iMac model on the way that will have a (much) larger display than the 24" iMac, a (much) more powerful M SoC, (much) more RAM and (much) more storage. All of these are things Apple uses with other product families to differentiate between a "consumer" and "professional" model, the latter of which they apply the "Pro" suffix to.

It is within the realm of possibility. Though if they did this (just make it a powerful iMac) it would be a very different beast from the recently-departed iMac Pro, which was a true Pro machine, offering both ECC memory and GPUs specialized for pro workflows (the latter will be mooted if the Apple GPUs are already fast for rendering and other pro-type workflows).

 

[Jorbanead]

See this is the problem.

You’re talking about something called an iMac Pro, but then listing specs for the base model consumer 27”.

a name is just a name but that’s ridiculous.

The baseline iMac Pro came with 8-cores, and 32GB of ram. So a 10-core M1X iMac Pro with 16GB baseline (upgradeable) wouldn't be a crazy departure. Who knows, maybe the baseline would start with 32GB of ram. Sure it's not ECC, but really all we're fussing over is ram at that point, and It would likely start at a much cheaper price too. I agree a name is just a name and who cares what it is called.

 

[quarkysg]

The baseline iMac Pro came with 8-cores, and 32GB of ram. So a 10-core M1X iMac Pro with 16GB baseline (upgradeable) wouldn't be a crazy departure. Who knows, maybe the baseline would start with 32GB of ram. Sure it's not ECC, but really all we're fussing over is ram at that point, and It would likely start at a much cheaper price too. I agree a name is just a name and who cares what it is called.

If the iMac is RAM upgradeable, I'm pretty sure it'll be at least quad channel (i.e. 256-bit) DDR5 memory. If I'm not wrong, DDR5 mandates ECC.

 

[cmaier]

If the iMac is RAM upgradeable, I'm pretty sure it'll be at least quad channel (i.e. 256-bit) DDR5 memory. If I'm not wrong, DDR5 mandates ECC.

DDR5 will always have in-chip ECC, so the ram chips can correct errors in stored data. But ECC for transmission is still optional (in other words, only some DDR5 memory will be able to send ECC data to the CPU so that the CPU can correct transmission errors).

 

[quarkysg]

DDR5 will always have in-chip ECC, so the ram chips can correct errors in stored data. But ECC for transmission is still optional (in other words, only some DDR5 memory will be able to send ECC data to the CPU so that the CPU can correct transmission errors).

Let's hope Apple uses ECC capable RAM modules if using DDR5 so that the SoC can take corrective action when memory corruptions are detected.

 

[cmaier]

Let's hope Apple uses ECC capable RAM modules if using DDR5 so that the SoC can take corrective action when memory corruptions are detected.

Given that the RAM is likely to be in the same package as the CPU, likelihood of transmission errors is comparatively low, at least.

 

[theorist9]

If the iMac is RAM upgradeable, I'm pretty sure it'll be at least quad channel (i.e. 256-bit) DDR5 memory. If I'm not wrong, DDR5 mandates ECC.

The ECC in DDR5 is on-die ECC, which is an entirely new type of ECC not previously available. It was introduced with DDR5 because, as memory process sizes shrink, memory errors can increase. DDR4 does not have this feature.

Thus, up until this time, when people were referring to ECC, they weren't referring to the on-die ECC mandated with DDR5, but rather to data transmission error correction, which corrects bit errors in the transmission of data between the RAM and the CPU.

For more details, see:

What Designers Need to Know About Error Correction Code (ECC) In DDR Memories

How side-band, inline, on-die, and link error correcting schemes work and the applications to which they are best suited.

semiengineering.com

"Hence, on-die ECC provides further protection against single-bit errors inside the DDR5 memory arrays. As this scheme does not offer any protection against errors occurring on the DDR channel, on-die ECC is used in conjunction with side-band ECC [traditional ECC] for enhanced end-to-end RAS on memory subsystems."

 

[Joelist]

Let's be real here, no future Macs outside of maybe the Pro will be RAM upgradeable. Apple is pretty firmly committed to having their RAM on package because of the performance benefits.