The M1 is nowhere near a 5500xt. It’s at about a 1050ti, which is like half a 5500xt.
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.
[Rumour] M2 chip exclusive to Mac Pro and iMac coming in the 2nd half of 2021
- Thread starter the8thark
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They recently released an 11.1 beta so 12 seems more likely.
I just go by GB5 Opencl scores. M1 is about 19K. There are a lot of older high-end cards around 50-70K and the really high-end cards are into six figures. So the M1 is far from high-end. 2xM1 or even 3xM1 is still far from high-end.
I think all Macs released under the current generation chipsets will be M1 variants (.e. M1, M1X, M1T).
Anything released during a subsequent generation will be M2 and variants. And so on.
No, the current Big Sur beta is 11.1 so the next macOS is expected to be 12.0
As noted above- the M2 will be based on the A15. Not available until September.
The question is are you looking for a pro mini or a mini pro? I expect a pro mini but not a mini pro.
All of this is speculation of a dGPU sitting alongside an M1 variant, is that right? For example, an iMac featuring M1X and jade?
Reason I ask is I’m wondering if Apple will offer a black magic eGPU-like dongle that runs this dGPU and offers graphics performance to Apple Silicon-based machines that lack a dGPU.
For example, a revised 2021 MBA might feature an M1 variant but still underperform on graphics front.
This theoretical dGPU / egpu product would plug in and be powered via thunderbolt alone and allow video workstation-class performance.
Reason I ask is I’m wondering if Apple will offer a black magic eGPU-like dongle that runs this dGPU and offers graphics performance to Apple Silicon-based machines that lack a dGPU.
For example, a revised 2021 MBA might feature an M1 variant but still underperform on graphics front.
This theoretical dGPU / egpu product would plug in and be powered via thunderbolt alone and allow video workstation-class performance.
I believe this has been confirmed since 11.1 (an incremental point release) is now in beta -> hence they’ll have to go a full number up for next year’s major release
But afterburner is a coprocessor card. I do not understand what you mean.
If Apple were to follow the naming conventions of their iPhones and iPads the Mac chip for the iMac Pro and Mac Pro may be called "M1Z" as the "M1" is for devices that require less than 15W TDP.Here's the rumour link
Apple's 'M2' Chip Exclusive to Mac Pro and iMac, Lauching in H2 2021
Apple debuted its M1 chip with the Mac mini, 13-inch MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air. The M1 chip packs an 8-core CPU which while powerful still falls short of beating high-end Intel CPUs with 10-28-cores in multi-threaded scenarios. A new leak from a tipster on Weibo claims that Apple will be...www.iphonehacks.com
Not the most credible source out there but it does line up. M2 as a name is not finalised as allegedly the chip is internally being called Jade.
What do you think about the rumour? Do you believe it and if so will you be saving now for an iMac and/or Mac Pro in 2021?
Apple A series naming convention for the A12 is like this
- A12 Bionic for iPhone XS, XS Max and XR; 2019 iPad Air and iPad Mini
- A12X Bionic for 2018 iPad Pro
- A12Z Bionic was for 2020 iPad Pro and Developer Transition Kit
As for the timing it will be announced at the WWDC 2021 keynote in June on a Tuesday. Shipping may commence as late as December 2021.
The question I have is will the iMac Pro continue as a product? It was developed for Mac Pro users as a fast/cheap solution to updating a Pro desktop. As it is right now with the Intel Macs its redundant when the 10-core 2020 iMac 27" Core i9 came out and the 2019 Mac Pro that is actually prefered by those that the iMac Pro was supposed to attract.
Last edited:
I do think they wil continue to sell 2 variants of the iMac. One larger and one smaller. What they decide to call them is another story - they could consolidate the larger iMac and iMac Pro into just the “iMac Pro” and the iMac would just be the smaller rumored 24”. Apple likes using the term “pro” to differentiate the high-end products, just like the iPad Pro, and the iPhone Pro, so I still think they will keep the iMac Pro name.
I think the M# variant will always be the low-level processor. So even if the Mac Pro starts out with an M2 variant, it will undoubtably be something like: M2X or M2Z etc. instead of just the M2. If it’s just a number without a letter afterwards it’ll likely be the lowest-tier processor within that M# category.
This looks most probable from all foretellers here
Just think there will be no M1Z/Pro but will start with M2Z and Pro maybe as M3 variant.
This looks most probable from all foretellers here
Yeah you could be right. The higher-end chips are a big question mark for everyone. It’s really hard to say.
On one hand, we know they have been working on these Mac-specific chip designs for years behind the scenes, and the A-series has been able to flesh out many of the kinks in their designs already. So it’s possible they have had working pre-M1 large core count chips already in the pipeline that we just don’t know about. M1 is the first public Mac-specific Apple chip, but they could have had previous iterations based off of the A12 and A13 chips just for in-house testing before they even created the M1 variants based off of A14.
On the other hand, the whole tech world is waiting to see how they can compete with the Intel Xeon chips, and even if they have something at that level, it makes sense to wait until they are 100% confident in the design before professionals use it for work.
The thing about Apple is that they have the cash and incentives available to hire a whole team from Intel or AMD if they wanted to.
They do, but having large teams is unlike Apple. They typically use small teams on projects because Jobs felt they could focus more on making each of their products better that way. It’s why their core industrial design team is only about 20 people and they all meet with each other everyday, even though they have the capital to run a 2,000 person design team no problem if they wanted to.
A lot of companies work like this; we had a team of about 12 engineers and a startup hired six of them to build a new product and then a big company bought the startup out. Big or small, the company with resources has a bunch of advantages to 1) hire the team, 2) buy the product, 3) build their own.
The ARM64 Mac Pro will most likely have stackable processor cards.
I.e. the upgrade path is adding another 16 core “card” with XGb of memory or whatever.
The cross connect/cache coherency between “cards” will be very interesting.
I.e. the upgrade path is adding another 16 core “card” with XGb of memory or whatever.
The cross connect/cache coherency between “cards” will be very interesting.
There isn't much of an "almost certain" there.
1. Apple hasn't had the bigger iPad Pro SoC ( A10X , A12X , . probable A14X ) on a 12 month cadence for a long while. Apple has typically waited for process shrinks to bump their larger dies.
[ The phones don't particularly need SVE2 and "other pro features" ( large RAM capacities , mid double digit PCI-e lane provisioning, etc. ) that would bloat out the die size for the phone. Apple has their own AMX matrix like extensions and can probably tune up SVE on 5nm or 5nm+ for the phones on the A15 iteration. ]
2. A15 isn't going to be a major fab shrink. In particular if look at the rumors that starts this thread it says that this "M2" (not official name) is the same 5nm as the current M1.
wit
Even if Apple goes to 5nm+ that would likely more so used as a clock bump ( and power savings when 'boost' is off) that are an iteration to add large blocks of new transistors to the die.
Apple isn't getting to 3nm for at least another two years.
3. Hardware ray tracing for GPU. Maybe. If there is a decent amount of space increase buffer in the A14 package for a bigger die maybe if there is some deep tie in with Apple's AR agenda.
In short, most of what the A15 is going to be aimed at is likley to higher value adds for the phones, not the desktops.
The desktops are more likely to get some A14 derivation on a larger die. The Macs with perhaps some possible synergy with the A15 is more likely MBA and MBP 13" if Apple is going to pick up the cacdence for iPad Pro SoC iterations. That is where the volume is ( hence where they are more likely to stick a major investment in higher cadence). The desktops are likely on a slower than iPad Pro/MBA/MPB 13" cadence. Not faster.
That is probably yet another reason why Apple is using "M-series" to denote the Mac processors. So they don't have to iterate as fast as the phone A versions.
IMHO, M2 is not likely until an A16 is ready to show up. What the desktops will get is some M1 with a letter added to the end with more of the current "stuff" on the tie.
For the upper end of desktop range ( iMac 27 upped end BTO , iMac Pro class , Mac Pro class) what they need is more PCI-e lanes to discrete GPUs and adding 3rd party GPUs back into the support mix ( likely will have to wait until macOS 12 ... which gets to the Fall 2021. ). The iGPU in the Mac Pro doesn't have to be everything to everybody. It just has to be in the rang of "good enough" like the W5500 and W580X are.
The current Mini M1 being stuck with just one display output through the TB/USB4 ports is indicative that Apple isn't doing a "spare no expense , fork the M series as far as possible from the A series" approach to doing Mac processors. They aren't. The expectations that they are going to throw even more money at Mac processors than the do to iPhone processors is probably misaligned with what Apple is going to do. M-series is probably going to get some added features, but not run widely away from the phone SoCs.
Entry-level iMac buyers are going to suddenly become richer over the next 1-2 years? ( in a substantiv global recession).
There is an entry level iMac because some folks budgets just don't stretch that far. Apple cranked down the price of this first M-series Mini solution by throwing an even more limited SoC ( in terms of I/O) at it. They shrank the number of ports and value on the ports and cut the cost. Apple could easily through an M1 at classic iMac form factor to shave costs. Perhaps do a trade off to more the non-Retina screen up to what maybe come the legacy Retina feature set and couple to a M1. Basically, what they have now which is a low end MBA solution inside an iMac form factor.
Apple could do iMac Pro by shifting the screen size. ( If merely willing to invest in a substantively different case for the iMac Pro ). For example a 32 screen ( not necessarily same ultra backlight as on XDR) coupled to what could also go in a "half sized" Mac Pro and/or top end iMac. Same SoC with different "chassis" wrapped around it. ( like iPhone , iPad Pro , MBA/MBP-two port/Mini M1 ). Just wouldn't be differentiated primarily on CPU cores. If the SoC has a PCI-e lane provision allocation and macOS 12 has 3rd party GPU support then that could be a bigger significance in differentiation along with the screen.
Other than trying to save some bucks for higher margin ... really wasn't a good reason the current iMac Pro had to maximially share a case chassis with the 27" iMac anyway. That was one of the primary reasons why the RAM door disappered on the iMac Pro ( Apple needed to allocate more of the "hidden from view" by the pedestal arm area to vent output and lost area for hiding the RAM door. ). A larger chassis would mean that area would also be larger and could perhaps share.