User predictions for Apple Prosumer Silicon (M1X, M2 etc.)

[leman]

Since most leakers seem to agree that new Pro Macs will make an appearance at the WWDC, and given that there were a lot of recent speculations on what kind of chips these Macs will use, I though it would be a fun thing to collect all the different predictions folks here might come up with. After (and if) the products are announced, we can evaluate all these predictions and see which guesses came closest.

You can post your predictions in this thread, and I will do my best to keep this post up to date with all the different ideas you ladies and gentlemen care to share.

Ground rules

• Be realistic and reasonable
• Be as specific with your prediction as possible
• Include your reasoning
• One prediction per user (if you see multiple likely scenarios you have to pick one)
• Only sufficiently distinct predictions count as new (I will merge multiple predictions if they are very similar and if their authors agree that they can be merged)
• Once your prediction is registered, you cannot take it back or significantly change it! If new leaks come out that rule your guess out, you are out of luck. Minor adjustments are accepted
• Keep the bickering and ranting to the minimum (but do bicker a little bit so that this thread does not die)

Predictions

1. A completely new chip with a new name (tentatively P1) based on a new prosumer-oriented microarchitecture with significantly higher per-core performance compared to M1 and possibly some new features such as ARM vector extensions (SVE/SVE2), hardware ray tracing and possibly others (@leman )
2. The chips in the upcoming 2021 prosumer machines will be based on the next-generation Apple microarchitecture and will probably adopt a name variant based on M2, e.g. M2 pro, M2X etc. (@Fomalhaut , @senttoschool ,@cmaier , @quarkysg, @Andropov )
3. No special chips, just scaled up M-series with more cores (@ader42)
4. The performance cores are 4.35Ghz (420 KB per core (performance cores, 252 instructions + 256 data) 256 KB per core (efficient cores, 256 instructions + 128 data) with L2 (18 MB (performance cores) 8 MB (efficientcores) (copied from @Serban55's post)
5. M1 variant with the name of M1X (@Lemon Olive, @Jorbanead, @thingstoponder, @pshufd , @anshuvorty - detailed post)
6. New microarchitecture at TSMC 5nm+ or 4nm. 8 performance + 2 efficiency cores. Faster clocks (3.5 GHz?). 16 GPU cores (maybe up to 16 GPU cores so maybe some binning). Same number of Neural Engine cores as the M1. Name not guessed but not M1X. I'm guessing not M2 either. New memory controller for up to 64 GB. If LPDDR5 is available I'm guessing Apple goes with that. It looks like Micron has 128 Gb (16GB) LPDDR5. Both Intel Tiger Lake and Qualcomm Snapdragon support LPDDR5. Either 2 or 3 TB/USB4 controllers. PCIE4x4 SSD controller. Two or three 6K displays. That's a lot of cores and I/O so I'm guessing it is a pretty large SoC probably close to double the M1's 119 mm² (@jdb8167)
7. Apple will announce a line of P1 SOCs: one balanced compute/graphics, one mostly compute, and one mostly graphics. Macbook Pro will be balanced, Mac Mini Pro will be offered in all three variants. On the macOS side, we'll see some form of NUMA support. Provides eGPU and modular Mac Pro in one neat system. (@altaic)
8. M1P on same fab process as M1. Same basic P , E ( NPU and GPU ) cores as the M1. (@deconstruct60 #159)

Some background information/leaks

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ook-pro-macbook-air-revamps-with-faster-chips

Apple's follow-up to M1 chip goes into mass production for Mac

TSMC-made chipsets to replace Intel offerings in laptops set to launch in 2H

asia.nikkei.com

https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20201026000140-260202?chdtv

 

[leman]

So, here goes my prediction. I was thinking a while about it and decided to go with what I’d call an “optimistic prediction”, not because I think it’s necessarily the most likely thing for Apple to do, but because I think it would make the best product.

M1 is a great entry-level chip, but the more time passes, the less I am convinced that it will make a good prosumer platform. Apple likely seeks to dominate the prosumer performance segment, and I am not sure that Firestorm (M1 performance core) can reach the speeds to claim an undisputed lead over the x86 world, with Zen3 and Tiger Lake showing strong performance and Alder Lake looming over the horizon. And with A15 reported to enter production, it is clear that Apple has newer tech ready and it would make a lot of sense for them to include some of that tech in the prosumer Macs.

Specifically, my prediction is that the new prosumer Macs will be based on an updated microarchitecture (that might either share roots with A14 or A15), tweaked to better fit mid- and high-powered desktop computers. These new chips will have significantly higher single-core performance than M1 (at least 20-25%) and possibly support new hardware features such as ARM vector extensions (SVE/SVE2) and hardware ray tracing. They will obviously also have water memory interface (my guess is 256-bit LPDDR5 with ~200GB/s bandwidth) and more thunderbolt and display channels.

I also don’t think that Apple will retain the “M” moniker for this family of chips, instead going with something else to highlight their “pro”-nature. My bet is something like “Apple P1” (for pro/performance) or something completely different like “Apple X1”, although I could also see them settling on “M1 Pro” (as first-get Mac Pro Silicon).

If the Bloomberg report is accurate, this “P1” (codename Jade Die) will power the upcoming larger MacBook Pros and possibly the larger iMac, and will come with 8 high performance cores, 2 efficiency cores and options of 16-core of 32-core GPUs. Performance-wise, these should be considerably faster in single core than anything Intel or AMD can build at least until late 2022, and their multi-core performance should be at least 80% of that of the Zen3 16-core 5900X. The 16-core GPU will be roughly on par with the RTX 2060 (mobile) or the Pro 5600M.

Edit: to make this more clear — my speculated "P-series" is different from "M-series" significant ways. The crux of my guess is that the prosumer chips will use a different microarchitecture compared to the M-series, which will continue to power entry-level chips. In other words, my "P1" is not an "M2X" — it's a completely different core and design. In line with this speculation I'd expect the M-series to continue to share the microarchitecture with the iPhone chip, while the P-series to be something else.

 

[Fomalhaut]

I would more or less agree with your assertions. Principally:

1) New MBPs (14" & 16") will be announced at WWDC, and we will see some design changes, but not mini-LED screens

2) I'm 50/50 on whether we will really see SD card and HDMI ports. I would welcome them, because they are both things that I use, but it would be a curious back-track for Apple.

3) I think the SoC that goes into the new MBPs will be a second generation ("M2 Pro") micro-architecture with improvements common to the A15. Some people say that the iPhone chips with 2 or 4 performance CPU cores will need to be released first, so it would be too soon to include an 8/2 core SoC in a Mac, but I don't see that this necessarily follows if the core design is already complete. In fact, it might be more sensible to iron out any production issues with a product with a far smaller sales volume (high-end MBPs) compared to iPhones or iPads.

4) I would hope that single-core improvements would be 10-15%, and I would be very happy with a 20% improvement.

5) I would expect support for 32-64GB RAM, and greater bandwidth to support more GPU cores.

6) I expect a 16-core GPU MBP to have performance close to or even slightly exceeding the current AMD Radeon Pro 5600M (Metal score c. 40,000)

7) Naming? I don't really care, but I am guessing at "M2 Pro"

(As an aside, if this is incorrect, and the the new Apple Silicon is in fact an "M1X" with the same M1 core technology and speed, but scaled out to 8 performance cores, then I would defer purchase until a true second generation. Likewise if the GPU performance is only marginally better than the AMD 5500M. I currently have a 2019 MBP16 with the AMD 5500M and would be looking for its replacement to be significantly better in its graphics capability, with at least 50% better multi-core performance).

 

[senttoschool]

So, here goes my prediction. I was thinking a while about it and decided to go with what I’d call an “optimistic prediction”, not because I think it’s necessarily the most likely thing for Apple to do, but because I think it would make the best product.

M1 is a great entry-level chip, but the more time passes, the less I am convinced that it will make a good prosumer platform. Apple likely seeks to dominate the prosumer performance segment, and I am not sure that Firestorm (M1 performance core) can reach the speeds to claim an undisputed lead over the x86 world, with Zen3 and Tiger Lake showing strong performance and Alder Lake looming over the horizon. And with A15 reported to enter production, it is clear that Apple has newer tech ready and it would make a lot of sense for them to include some of that tech in the prosumer Macs.

Specifically, my prediction is that the new prosumer Macs will be based on an updated microarchitecture (that might either share roots with A14 or A15), tweaked to better fit mid- and high-powered desktop computers. These new chips will have significantly higher single-core performance than M1 (at least 20-25%) and possibly support new hardware features such as ARM vector extensions (SVE/SVE2) and hardware ray tracing. They will obviously also have water memory interface (my guess is 256-bit LPDDR5 with ~200GB/s bandwidth) and more thunderbolt and display channels.

I also don’t think that Apple will retain the “M” moniker for this family of chips, instead going with something else to highlight their “pro”-nature. My bet is something like “Apple P1” (for pro/performance) or something completely different like “Apple X1”, although I could also see them settling on “M1 Pro” (as first-get Mac Pro Silicon).

If the Bloomberg report is accurate, this “P1” (codename Jade Die) will power the upcoming larger MacBook Pros and possibly the larger iMac, and will come with 8 high performance cores, 2 efficiency cores and options of 16-core of 32-core GPUs. Performance-wise, these should be considerably faster in single core than anything Intel or AMD can build at least until late 2022, and their multi-core performance should be at least 80% of that of the Zen3 16-core 5900X. The 16-core GPU will be roughly on par with the RTX 2060 (mobile) or the Pro 5600M.

I was convinced when you said that the gap between the M1 and "M1X" is so long that it's very unlikely for the Pro lineup to use the A14 base. I completely agree.

It makes very little sense for the "M1X" to come out 8-9 months after the M1 and only 2 months before the iPhone debuts with the A15. The Air should not get the highest single-thread performance for 8 months every year.

I think the M1 was honestly just an A14X that had extra IO bolted on. Apple was going to make the A14X anyways for the iPad Pro.

I think you're completely right that the "M2X" will be the true Mac SoC going forward. Apple will manufacture the M2X and then just use the defective SoCs for the Air/iMac going forward. Intel/AMD/Nvidia always manufacture the biggest chips first, then just use the defects for lower-end products once enough of them accumulate.

 

[thenewperson]

The 16-core GPU will be roughly on par with the RTX 2060 (mobile) or the Pro 5600M

Hmm, I thought that would be the case for a 16-core with the M1's graphics cores (assuming an increase in bandwidth)?

 

[Fomalhaut]

I was convinced when you said that the gap between the M1 and "M1X" is so long that it's very unlikely for the Pro lineup to use the A14 base. I completely agree.

It makes very little sense for the "M1X" to come out 8-9 months after the M1 and only 2 months before the iPhone debuts with the A15. The Air should not get the highest single-thread performance for 8 months every year.

I think the M1 was honestly just an A14X that had extra IO bolted on. Apple was going to make the A14X anyways for the iPad Pro.

I think you're completely right that the "M2X" will be the true Mac SoC going forward. Apple will manufacture the M2X and then just use the defective SoCs for the Air/iMac going forward. Intel/AMD/Nvidia always manufacture the biggest chips first, then just use the defects for lower-end products once enough of them accumulate.

I think the M1 was planned and designed over years rather than being an afterthought of the A14 design, but perhaps this isn't want you meant

I'm also not convinced that there would be only one variant of the second-generation SoCs with defective units binned for MBA and iMac usage. Assuming Apple is going to keep some performance tiers in place to differentiate the high-end MBPs and the MBA & entry-level iMac, then we would be talking about taking an "M2" with 8 performance cores and disabling 4 cores to fit the MBA/iMac. You might get natural binning with 1 or 2 defective cores, but I doubt that this would be sufficient to meet to volume demands of the MBA & low-end iMac. Apple need a noticeable difference between the MBA and top-tier MBPs so I don't think the former would have 6 or 7 performance cores. I think there will be at least 2 (maybe 3) variants in each generation.

 

[senttoschool]

I think the M1 was planned and designed over years rather than being an afterthought of the A14 design, but perhaps this isn't want you meant

I'm also not convinced that there would be only one variant of the second-generation SoCs with defective units binned for MBA and iMac usage. Assuming Apple is going to keep some performance tiers in place to differentiate the high-end MBPs and the MBA & entry-level iMac, then we would be talking about taking an "M2" with 8 performance cores and disabling 4 cores to fit the MBA/iMac. You might get natural binning with 1 or 2 defective cores, but I doubt that this would be sufficient to meet to volume demands of the MBA & low-end iMac. Apple need a noticeable difference between the MBA and top-tier MBPs so I don't think the former would have 6 or 7 performance cores. I think there will be at least 2 (maybe 3) variants in each generation.

FYI, SoCs are usually planned years in advance. Companies like Apple, AMD, Intel usually have "leap frogging" design teams where one team designs the chips for release in two years. The A14X was needed for the iPad Pro regardless of what Apple does for Macs. Hence, I think the M1 was a rebrand of the long-planned A14X.

I agree that Apple will manufacture different versions of the SoC because it doesn't make sense to cut down a 32-core die for a 4-core Macbook Air.

However, it would make sense for Apple to cut down a defective 8-core SoC meant for the Macbook Pro and sell it as a 6-core for a higher-spec Air for example.

Hence, it makes sense that the upcoming Macbook Pros will not use SoCs based on A14. It's a different architecture. It makes much more sense for Macbook Pros to receive the newest SoCs first, rather than the Air/iMac/low-end MBP 14". The next Macbook Air will get whatever was cutdown from the summer Macbook Pros.

 

[Kung gu]

I'm 50/50 on whether we will really see SD card and HDMI ports. I would welcome them, because they are both things that I use, but it would be a curious back-track for Apple.

Apple back tracked from the trash can design to the more tower like design on the Mac Pro.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Hmm, I thought that would be the case for a 16-core with the M1's graphics cores (assuming an increase in bandwidth)?

It would be an impressive feat if Apple reach this level of GPU performance with an integrated GPU (even if on a separate GPU die on the same SoC package). It remains to be seen if this could be extended to the Mac Pro to match current dGPUs on separate PCIe boards, but it might mark the beginning of the end for separate GPUs in mainstream computing.

Remember when sound cards, floating-point co-processors and disk drive controllers were on separate cards? Except for really specialist uses, all of these have been integrated into the CPU or SoC.

 

[LFC2020]

I'm a simple man.

Promotion, can easily be done and should've been in Macs a long time ago

Mini Led display, time for the Mac to get a new display technology, loving mini led on my iPad Pro

Face ID, M1 chip can support it, make it happen, works 100% of the time for me, unlike Touch ID

Not much to ask for ?

Day one purchase for me.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Apple back tracked from the trash can design to the more tower like design on the Mac Pro.

That's true! And credit to them for "re-inventing" the Mac Pro....even if the price is prohibitive and not really great value.

Despite the arguable loss of one (or two?) multi-purpose TB3/USB4 ports, there is utility for many people (although not all) in being able to plug in common peripherals such as HDMI displays and SD cards without a dock or dongles. I'm not a zealot about this subject, but I have forgotten my dongles a few times and been inconvenienced by it.

 

[1am0]

well, here's my prediction:
- different type of SoC(physical dimensions), more cores and thus more power consumption.
- 32gb ram max(according to bom-list in the schematics file)
- sensor which counts lid openings
- mag-safe(not the usual one which was before)
- hdmi, SD-card reader
- new type of lcd(similar to the new ipad)
- no USB-a

 

[Serban55]

Here what i know/see, i will ask staff from here if i can show the so called leak
- based on the info i think this is particularly for the 16" because of the gpu
-the performance cores are 4.35Ghz (420 KB per core (performance cores, 252 instructions + 256 data) 256 KB per core (efficient cores, 256 instructions + 128 data) with L2 (18 MB (performance cores) 8 MB (efficientcores).

-gpu cores are limited to 32 (i wonder if that saying means you can choose between 16 and 32, or its just 32 for the 16" mbp?)
So for me thats my prediction...the rest i think a lot of us already know somehow
-3tb/usb4 ports,
-magsafe
-Hdmi 2.1
-sd card probably
-up to 4tb ssd/ 8Tb ssd
-up to 64 gb ram

 

[Hexley]

I really like how everything is shaping up.

 

[thenewperson]

It would be an impressive feat if Apple reach this level of GPU performance with an integrated GPU (even if on a separate GPU die on the same SoC package). It remains to be seen if this could be extended to the Mac Pro to match current dGPUs on separate PCIe boards, but it might mark the beginning of the end for separate GPUs in mainstream computing.

Remember when sound cards, floating-point co-processors and disk drive controllers were on separate cards? Except for really specialist uses, all of these have been integrated into the CPU or SoC.

I'm curious, is there anything inherent in dGPUs that makes them faster than iGPUs? Because yeah, if they can get some great GPU performance in these iGPUs won't have the horrible reputation they have, I feel.

 

[thenewperson]

-gpu cores are limited to 32 (i wonder if that saying means you can choose between 16 and 32, or its just 32 for the 16" mbp?)

Crossing fingers for the former. I'd love if the 2 had a relationship like the iPad Pros.

 

[ader42]

You can have an M1 with either 7 or 8 gpu cores and either 8 or 16 GB RAM.
So I don't see why we can't have an M1 with 8 (4+4), 12 (2+10) or 16(2+14) cpu cores and either 7, 8, 16 or 32 gpu cores - with a limited set of options of course.

Or...

This coming new architecture could be called M2 after all to simplify marketing and differentiate from the M1 - i.e. the article in April that called it M2 and said it had entered production was actually correct (almost everyone seemed to think it was wrong with respect to the naming but they may have been correct).

My prediction is that Apple will not complicate the chip naming (M1X, M2Z etc.) but will keep it simplified as M1, M2 etc.

 

[leman]

I would more or less agree with your assertions

Should I just write it down that you predict the prosumer chips to be based on A15/M2 platform?

I think you're completely right that the "M2X" will be the true Mac SoC going forward. Apple will manufacture the M2X and then just use the defective SoCs for the Air/iMac going forward. Intel/AMD/Nvidia always manufacture the biggest chips first, then just use the defects for lower-end products once enough of them accumulate.

That's not really what I am saying. My prediction is that Apple prosumer silicon will be a different microarchitecture and not just a scaled up M2. My guess at this point is that Apple will have at least two microarchitectures: entry-level one (used in A-series and M-series that power the "cheap" Macs + iPad Pros) and a prosumer-level one (used in larger MacBook Pros etc.).

What you are saying though sounds very similar to what @Fomalhaut wrote before: that we will see a variation of next-gen (A15/M2) platform in these new laptops.

Here what i know/see, i will ask staff from here if i can show the so called leak
- based on the info i think this is particularly for the 16" because of the gpu
-the performance cores are 4.35Ghz (420 KB per core (performance cores, 252 instructions + 256 data) 256 KB per core (efficient cores, 256 instructions + 128 data) with L2 (18 MB (performance cores) 8 MB (efficientcores).

-gpu cores are limited to 32 (i wonder if that saying means you can choose between 16 and 32, or its just 32 for the 16" mbp?)
So for me thats my prediction...the rest i think a lot of us already know somehow
-3tb/usb4 ports,
-magsafe
-Hdmi 2.1
-sd card probably
-up to 4tb ssd/ 8Tb ssd
-up to 64 gb ram

Oh wow, that's very specific, I suppose I'll just copy the gist of it

You can have an M1 with either 7 or 8 gpu cores and either 8 or 16 GB RAM.
So I don't see why we can't have an M1 with 8 (4+4), 12 (2+10) or 16(2+14) cpu cores and either 7, 8, 16 or 32 gpu cores - with a limited set of options of course.

Or...

This coming new architecture could be called M2 after all to simplify marketing and differentiate from the M1 - i.e. the article in April that called it M2 and said it had entered production was actually correct (almost everyone seemed to think it was wrong with respect to the naming but they may have been correct).

My prediction is that Apple will not complicate the chip naming (M1X, M2Z etc.) but will keep it simplified as M1, M2 etc.

Ok, I'll write it down as "Either M1 or M2 with more cores, no name change otherwise", would that work?

 

[leman]

I'm curious, is there anything inherent in dGPUs that makes them faster than iGPUs? Because yeah, if they can get some great GPU performance in these iGPUs won't have the horrible reputation they have, I feel.

No, there is not. There are actually major advantages in keeping CPU and GPU closely integrated (which is why consoles are designed that way).

The reason why high performance has come to be associated with dGPU has ultimately to do with the history of personal computers and the market forces. Originally, CPUs and GPUs were designed by different companies, and the PC market valued modularity over everything else. A high-performance integrated system that combines a CPU and a GPU is expensive and inflexible, and users like to upgrade their components independent from each other. So integrated GPUs ended up being low-end solutions, optimized for power efficiency and home/office operation. The assumption is that users would want to power their graphics using a modular add-on GPU from a popular brand anyway if they need more performance.

High-performance integrated solutions so far only exist (or planned to exist) in the supercomputing space (Nvidia Grace, AMD CDNA). Apple is the first to bring this kind of architecture to a consumer device. And they can only do it because they control the entire stack, from software to hardware.

 

[ader42]

Ok, I'll write it down as "Either M1 or M2 with more cores, no name change otherwise", would that work?

Yep.

 

[Lemon Olive]

your attention seeking knows no bounds.

You were proven wrong in the other thread, so you needed to make your own in an effort to get more back patting.

The MBP's are shipping with M1X. /thread

 

[leman]

your attention seeking knows no bounds.

I like to speculate about hardware. It's one of my hobbies. Not sure why you find it personally insulting but I guess everyone has their own fetishes. Suit yourself.

But this thread was definitely inspired by our earlier discussion. I though it would be interesting to have a thread dedicated to this kind of speculation.

You were proven wrong in the other thread, so you needed to make your own in an effort to get more back patting.

I think you and me have very different ideas of what "proof" means.

The MBP's are shipping with M1X. /thread

Prediction added. We'll hopefully see after the WWDC keynote. To be honest, I would be kind of bummed out if this turns out to be the correct one, as it's the most boring/conservative option which also means a less powerful MacBook Pro. But who knows with Apple...

 

[Serban55]

your attention seeking knows no bounds.

You were proven wrong in the other thread, so you needed to make your own in an effort to get more back patting.

The MBP's are shipping with M1X. /thread

learn what "proven" means first...
Or maybe you are right and you can show us your proof and for that i need to order the mbp m1x, please provide us with the link from where i can buy officially the M1X MBp. Thank you so much

 

[Jorbanead]

You can add me to the M1X group. Not sure about the name though. I feel #3 and #5 are kind of similar? Essentially I believe the chips in MBP will use 8 firestorm cores and 2 icestorm cores. They may be clocked higher than M1.

My reasoning for this is mainly looking at the X-variant of the A-series chips, looking at issues with industry supply shortages, and based on their comments at the WWDC keynote "And this foreshadows how well our architecture will scale into the mac" right after Johnny S talked about A-series and their X-varients. Of course that could mean a lot of things so I do take that with a grain of salt.

Some are saying it's taken them too long to go from M1 to M1X, so therefore it must be a new chip not based off of M1, but Apple hasn't always released an X-variant of their chips within months of its sibling. For example:

A5 - March 11, 2011
A5X - March 16, 2012 (1 year later)
A10 - Sept 16, 2016
A10X - June 13, 2017 (7 months later)

Of course, there's also the whole pandemic and supply constraints to factor in too. Apple very well could have planned to ship these new M1X variants earlier in the year. The M1X could very well have been ready months ago, but other issues in the supply chain forced them to delay. Also, Apple doesn't just release chips when they are ready, they release chips when they have products that are ready to use them. That's why I personally don't think the timing of all of this is a reason to think these are going to be totally different chips.

Admittedly, I don't know enough about this to know if this assertion is true, but I would also think that it would be easier for Apple to scale up Firestorm and Icestorm cores compared to just designing brand new cores from scratch. It makes sense to me at least to have all A-series and M-series use the same core design from generation to generation. The only difference being power consumption, clock speeds, and core counts. I personally don't see why this would be an issue, and I don't think they'd go to a brand new 5nm+ generation chip in June starting with a MBP. Is there something inherently different that the firestorm cores would need aside from more core counts, higher clock speeds, and more power to be able to be used in a 16" MacBook Pro?

I think this is a fun idea though! I fully admit that I could be 100% wrong and Apple could surprise me.

 

[Lemon Olive]

Prediction added. We'll hopefully see after the WWDC keynote. To be honest, I would be kind of bummed out if this turns out to be the correct one, as it's the most boring/conservative option which also means a less powerful MacBook Pro. But who knows with Apple...

Right, and the fact that this isn't what you personally want to happen is affecting your entire perspective, or lack thereof. You need to learn how to read the information available and leave your personal bias aside.