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.
The case of an Ultra chip using two M2 Pro chips
- Thread starter Rickroller
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a Question about Apple's system on a chip Technology and the concern people have about the lack of GPU performance of the rumored Mac Pro. I’m not very technical. But I would like to ask you if Apple could separate the CPU and other media engines on one chip and the GPU on another chip and use the ultrafusion technology to fuse the two independent chips together making it easier to increase the core counts of the GPU, and CPU.
Given that the ultrafusion technology of the Apple system on a chip that it would give it the appearance of being one chip of having a very powerful, GPU. This may mean a redesign of the CPU architecture, and a separate GPU architecture, but couldn't it allow Apple to use the die size of the M series chips to accomplish greater core counts for both CPU and GPU?
Given that the ultrafusion technology of the Apple system on a chip that it would give it the appearance of being one chip of having a very powerful, GPU. This may mean a redesign of the CPU architecture, and a separate GPU architecture, but couldn't it allow Apple to use the die size of the M series chips to accomplish greater core counts for both CPU and GPU?
Short No, what Apple could do is repurpose m2 max or pro with defective CPU cores or other defects that don't prevent at least a usable 1:16 CPU: GPU ratio and PCIe bus access, load on these chips an firmware to convert it into GPU peripheral without CPU capabilities but capable to tether on main CPU as an GPU/tpu accelerator.
Hmmm…I would have thought they would have limited the Ultra-s to 6 memory blocks instead of 8…so 600 GBs bandwidth to give the full fat ultra some breathing room 🤔
I really appreciate the possibility of ultra fusion at both ends, as it’s a lot more logical than adding it to one of the sides since that wouldn’t work over symmetry. So another question 🙋♂️ would it be possible to close the open ultra fusion ends at the top of the M2 Ultra-p with M2 Pro chips…? Seems like it would work but it would just be for showing off.
Ultra-Fusion is basically an internal BUS, different from PCIe on its speed, signaling and signal-noise ratio, Apple may connect to it devices like PHY which is an bridge among UF+ and PCIe5, it requires an InFo-lsi silicon interconnect (like an interposer but only at edges, attaching an M2 Max to said Silicon bridge isnt somthing an human can do, its done by robotic pick-place arms inside enviromentally controlled chambers likely filled with some Gas to avoid substrate contamination, so once the M2-Ultra/Extremme etc are fused it is for ever.
The ASi Mac Pro likely will attach to said UF empty edges the PHY for PCIe and other peripherals, dont expect an lego-like system where you can upgrade CPU, unless Apple places it at an daughter board as the original Mac Pro, but that has proven to bring more headaches than an full logic-board upgrade.
Last edited:
Hold on…are you saying the Extreme is two ultras conn edge to edge, or some thing different…?
Extreme is 4x m2 Max one on top each other (horizontally stacked, or edge to edge, as dominoes), at top is the PHY for PCIe from it each M2 Max connects successively Edge to Edge, UltraFusion+ likely should have 2.25X UF bandwidth (2.5GT >> 6-8GT) otherwise will bottleneck.
You mentioned UCIe as something that Apple is actively pursuing at the moment, after a bit of reading…why would they not use that instead of going for InFo-L and it’s updated version on the M2 version. I guess there must be a techniCal reason, but it seems UCIe is the very much the tech that this would be right for…?
So I guess it’s a guessing game as to what they plan on attaching it with. Could just be for memory and custom accelerators.
This is a brutal waiting game…
UCIe it's an industry standard on electric connection among sub-devices (AE ram, PCIe bus, CPU cores, cache) it allows Apple to add an Google TPU into its M2 complex (hypothetically) neither apple has to deal with Google TPU signals and level's, neither Google needs to develop an Apple customized specific TPU, to drop in the M2 SOC complex, Google just handle their IP (a genetic term about the materials and intellectual property -IP- as masks etc required to reproduce an circuit at some waffers process), Apple only work is support UCIe, then all available UCIe complaint IP can interconnect with M2 (as is now), it includes PCIe5 ddr5 (DIMM rimm etc), cache L3 etc.
Apple is UCIe customer.
I don't believe the Mac Studio to be an stopgap product as was the iMac Pro, but to be honest unless Apple is reading an dual M2 pro 'ultra', there is little to no case to launch an M2 Mac Studio (max an single m2 max), while I believe there will be very soon iMac M2 and M2 pro (ignore Gurman), the Mac studio position is more difficult to predict, as is now as needed as the Mac Pro to complete apple ecosystem neither as necessary to fill the gap among the m2 pro Mac mini and the basic M2 Ultra Mac Pro.
Last edited:
I would be surprised if this were the case. Apples strength is in quick iteration,
and rapid integration. I’d expect them to go even proprietary with time, not less.
UCIe it's an manufacturing std, end user will never benefit or be taxed by endorsing UCIe products, it's an manufacturing integration convenience it eases apple buying and integrationg technology, it'll never allow you for an diy upgrade or protect apple own IP. It's like the 12v STD in use by ICE car manufacturers it has nothing to do with the user but saving costs and r&d works, apple goes proprietary where they profit, otherwise why they licensed ARM instead develop it's own RISC CPU?
🤫
And yet Apple chose not to join the UCIe consortium, indicating they decided to go their own way when it comes to connecting SoC components. [NVIDIA didn't join either, perhaps because they prefer large monolithic chips.]
Apple could wait until the M3 family of SoCs to refresh the Mac Studio line-up, "forcing" users who want a M2 Ultra to the as-yet-announced ASi Mac Pro...?
24" iMac with M2 & M2 Pro SoCs make sense, but anything higher (Mn Max/Ultra/Extreme will be the domain of the Mac Studio & Mac Pro & a monitor of your choice; but Apple would like if you buy their expensive monitors, thanks...!
I think the Mac Studio will return with the M3 Max & Ultra SoCs, and maybe a return of the Cube with the M3 Extreme SoC (for those wanting "ultimate power" but no need for PCIe slots)..! ;^p
And judging by their parents they intend to be very aggressive about adopting new advanced packaging technologies. UCIe spec is fairly basic compared to Apples ambition.
I see them listed as a promoter member, so maybe they changed their mind.
Wrong, Apple is official customer from UCIe consortium (check it at its official supplier list).
Apple is UCIe customer from ASE Group and TSMC.
nVidia joined later as board member.
UCIe™ (Universal Chiplet Interconnect Express™) Consortium Announces Incorporation and New Board Members; Open for Membership
Today, Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc. (ASE), AMD, Arm, Google Cloud, Intel Corporation, Meta, Microsoft Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated,
www.businesswire.com
Given Apple relationship with UCIe consortium it's only as his supplier means Apple role will be restricted as IP consumer not IP provider (Apple own silicon related designs not meant to be sold to UCIe partners)
Last edited:
Wrong, Apple is official customer from UCIe consortium (check it at its official supplier list).
Apple is UCIe customer from ASE Group and TSMC.
nVidia joined later as board member.
UCIe™ (Universal Chiplet Interconnect Express™) Consortium Announces Incorporation and New Board Members; Open for Membership
Today, Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc. (ASE), AMD, Arm, Google Cloud, Intel Corporation, Meta, Microsoft Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated,www.businesswire.com
Given Apple relationship with UCIe consortium it's only as his supplier means Apple role will be restricted as IP consumer not IP provider (Apple own silicon related designs not meant to be sold to UCIe partners)
Isn't this a bit far fetched? Just because Apple makes its chips at TSMC doesn't mean it will utilise a chip interconnect standard TSMC is involved in. Apple does not have any relationship to UCIe consortium, at least not publicly.
It depends largely on how future Mac Pro scalate with multiple M?-modular chiplets, in case apple migrates to an more flexible approach as AMD Zen 4 (easy to scale from 8 to 96 and later 128 cores) or still constrained by the MacBook Pro 16 SOC (Main most important ASi product is M?-Max), upgrading m1 Max to support 4 Way Ultra Fusion increased it's size enough to render difficult fit two inside the Mac Studio , even later an 8 way solution will be required by 2025 Mac Pro to keep it competitive, given current m2 extreme barely is competitive against AMD Ryzen 7950-X3D to perform very close even better than M2 Extreme.
About the M2 Pro, it includes an meaningful or extra transistors that are unknown the reason as scaling from m1 to m2 or m1-max to m2-max didn't added as much extra transistors % as scaling from m1-pro to m2-pro which also seems includes bias for an LiFO bridge as Chip analysists suspect it may have its own Ultra Fusion, if so means Apple increasing his bets in prosumer market, time to say.
Agree, i don't expect an iMac Pro 32 with m2-ultra, but an iMac 24 with m2 pro has a lot of market sense.
TSMC its required partner but who drives UCIe integration at Apple is ASE.
Consuming UCIe IP doesn't require you to be an UCIe board member unless you want to sell your IP to another UCIe customer.
Last edited:
Nope, I said Apple is not a member of the UCIe consortium, and that was correct. It's not listed anywhere among the companies in the link you yourself supplied. When someone says something that is clearly correct, and you say "wrong", that's just poor behavior.Wrong, Apple is official customer from UCIe consortium (check it at its official supplier list).
Apple is UCIe customer from ASE Group and TSMC.
nVidia joined later as board member.
UCIe™ (Universal Chiplet Interconnect Express™) Consortium Announces Incorporation and New Board Members; Open for Membership
Today, Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc. (ASE), AMD, Arm, Google Cloud, Intel Corporation, Meta, Microsoft Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated,www.businesswire.com
Given Apple relationship with UCIe consortium it's only as his supplier means Apple role will be restricted as IP consumer not IP provider (Apple own silicon related designs not meant to be sold to UCIe partners)
Take a look at UCIe's own website. UCIe has three classes of members, and Apple is not in any of them:
Promoter Members:
Membership | My Site
Contributor Members:
Contributor Members | My Site
Adopter Members:
Adopter Members | My Site
Last edited:
The only one who drives UCIe integration at Apple is Apple themselves. And so far they have shown no interest in standards like CLX or UCIe. Not to mention that their own MCM patents show a fairly different approach.
Not needed to be listed to be a consumer, even you as member may request not to be listed.
LMFAO.
In public statements press releases and idiotic Gurman letters sure not, but both CXL (not CLX) & UCIe are part of the M2 pro/max family as it's DDR5 RAM, apple never ever showcase which technologies they are working on unless three things happens: are ready for sell and are developers or co-developed by Apple (as arm adoption) or as matter of standards need to be assumed and exposed (as was thunderbolt 1-3, now apple omiss having thunderbolt but uses USB4 instead).
Time will say a lot and shut up few big mouth.
This makes no sense whatsoever. You're implying that Apple isn't necessarily designing all aspects of Apple Silicon, but taking cues from ASE and TSMC (who just builds chips using the designs provided to them rather than actually making designs themselves). Correlation does not equal causation in this case.