Will Apple offer fewer processor performance tiers in its Apple Silicon Macs?

[leman]

Does not explain previous cases where they e.g. declined to update the Mac Pro and skipped entire generations of Xeons. Those chips ship in vast quantities to server customers so the scarcity explanation does not apply. Likewise the Mac mini uses the same 14nm desktop chips as the iMac.

Yeah, Mac Pro suffered a bit in the last couple of years. I don't think they skipped that many Xeons to be honest (maybe Haswell), but the sad fate of the Mc Pro Cylinder disrupted the regular flow. In 2017 Intel has released a new type of Xeons (Xeon-W), optimized for desktop workstations. This is the type Apple has been using since then — makes much more sense than a server-grade Xeon with its focus on scalable multi-core and multi-processor performance.

And I was generally talking about laptops. Intel has no problems with shipping desktop CPUs. I mean, it's now the sixth year that they are using the same manufacturing process, it should be working well by now

And even recently, there have been chips that show up in new Apple laptops prior to even showing up at ark.intel.com.

That's just custom configurations Intel ships only to Apple.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple needs many more of these chips than Dell or anyone else. The XPS is the premium laptop of the Dell brand, the bulk of their laptops are cheaper Inspirons and Latitudes. Given Intel's obvious problems with 10nm production volume, they can serve a customer like Dell, but they won't be able to deliver enough chips to sever Apple.
....

Intel's inability to ship large quantities of CPUs ...

that is a bit backwards. Apple tends not to buy the highest volume CPUs that Intel makes. Apple has a tendancy to ask for something "extra" that only a smaller subset of vendors want. what is missing is that Intel has "extra" capacity after filling the large volume to fill what Apple wants. Not the other way around.

Those Inspirons and Latitudes and HP mainstream and Lenovo mainstream laptops sell is much higher collective numbers than Apple laptops do. Apple is a somewhat nicer customer for Intel in that Apple pays more on average than those folks do. ( higher priced SKUs and not taking Intel sticker spiff money ) , but Apple is not anywhere near selling more CPUs than the collective other group is. ( the misdirection here is only naming Dell ones. There are boatload of other vendors using the same processors as Dell. )


The reason why Apple can shuffle off completely to TSMC in a couple of years is because Apple is relatively lower volume customer of Intel. TSMC can't do the volume that Intel is collectively doing on x86. (without pushing out major other customers... )

 

[leman]

In 2012 Apple skipped the Xeon E5 v1. That wasn't Intel's fault at all. Every other major workstation vendor shipped a Xeon E5 system while Apple was doing retreads for another 18 months. Skipped more than a few after the Xeon E5 v2 also for little good reason.

Yes, as I just wrote about my comment on production issues was more about laptops. Mac Pro is a different story, I think the internal strife at Apple and lack of vision for the pro hardware is the main cause. It seems though they are back on track with the latest Mac Pro.

that is a bit backwards. Apple tends not to buy the highest volume CPUs that Intel makes. Apple has a tendancy to ask for something "extra" that only a smaller subset of vendors want.

Which is exactly my point. Apple generally buys the highest performance CPUs Intel has to offer (talking about the laptop market here). The 10nm series are clearly superior for thin-and light laptops, better performance, energy efficiency, GPU... but Intel doesn't make too many of these.

It's a dumb situation for Apple actually — other companies can ship these premium laptops and if the supply runs out, they always have other models to rely on. Apple instead is dead in the water.

[...] but Apple is not anywhere near selling more CPUs than the collective other group is. ( the misdirection here is only naming Dell ones. There are boatload of other vendors using the same processors as Dell. ) [...]

The reason why Apple can shuffle off completely to TSMC in a couple of years is because Apple is relatively lower volume customer of Intel. TSMC can't do the volume that Intel is collectively doing on x86. (without pushing out major other customers... )

Exactly. The main bulk of Intel sales are low-end and mid-range CPUs. Apple grabs a substantial portion of high-end CPUs. There are other vendors that exclusively rely on high-end Intel CPUs (like Microsoft), but their market share is substantially lower than Apple's. It would be curious to see statistics on this. I have a suspicion that Apple laptops use between 30% - 50% of higher-tier Intel CPUs currently on the market.

Final side note: I only mentioned Dell as an example. There are of course many more companies with similar business strategy. And you are right, TSMC can't outship Intel, not that they have to. If reports are to be believed, Apple has booked most of TSMC's advanced production lines years in advance.

 

[raknor]

In 2012 Apple skipped the Xeon E5 v1. That wasn't Intel's fault at all. Every other major workstation vendor shipped a Xeon E5 system while Apple was doing retreads for another 18 months. Skipped more than a few after the Xeon E5 v2 also for little good reason.

Similar with the Mini and the 2012 -> 2014 gap. That isn't Intel. Really isn't Intel on the 2014 -> 2018 gap either but close enough to where they were eyeball in problems to that I'll wave that one off.

Yup. Apple don't seem to care about low volume products like the Mac Pro and Mac Mini enough to upgrade them often. Let's hope that changes with Apple Silicon.


The conversation is about the portables in this thread since the discussion is about Tiger Lake. Speaking of gaps where are the 10 nm Desktop chips from Intel? Looks like Intel also cares about the volume products a lot more than the desktop market.

 

[Jorbanead]

In 2012 Apple skipped the Xeon E5 v1. That wasn't Intel's fault at all. Every other major workstation vendor shipped a Xeon E5 system while Apple was doing retreads for another 18 months. Skipped more than a few after the Xeon E5 v2 also for little good reason.

Similar with the Mini and the 2012 -> 2014 gap. That isn't Intel. Really isn't Intel on the 2014 -> 2018 gap either but close enough to where they were eyeball in problems to that I'll wave that one off.

Apple spends are fair amount of time designing themselves into a corner . That also plays a major role in the 1-2 major system upgrades per year of Mac renewals. There is extremely little evidence that Apple is running concurrent , parallel , deep pipelines development across the whole Mac line up. If they focus on one product then some another lags has been the presented evidence.

I agree.

All of this being said, I think it’s clear Apple and Intel have not been on the same path for quite some time. It was extremely evident when Apple shrunk down the MBP models expecting intel to offer a more efficient processor, and they failed to deliver. Apple has been paying the price ever since they made that decision.

What’s clear to me is now apples hardware and silicon teams will be able to coordinate extremely well to create a machine that’s optimized for thermals. They also know exactly when a new chip design is coming down the pipeline. I don’t think we should really even compare what Apple has done in the past with intel processors as much as we should compare to ipads and iPhones - strictly just looking at processor upgrade cycles. (Of course there’s still reason to look at intel macs for various reasons).

I could see consumer-level macs along with the MacBook Pro models getting a new processor upgrade every year. Professional products on the other hand could go to upgrade cycles every 2 years, since they are a smaller % of sales, require more R&D, and generally professionals at those levels don’t upgrade as often.

 

[JMacHack]

On the topic of processor performance tiers, I think the most reasonable course is to follow the 2x3 product matrix they have or something similar.

1. Macbook (Air)/Mac Mini
2. Macbook/iMac
3. Macbook Pro/Mac Pro

Alternatively it could be:

1. Macbook Air/iPad Pro (entry-level/battery life maximized)
2. Mac Mini/Macbook (entry desktop, balanced toward battery)
3. iMac/Macbook Pro (high end laptop, mid desktop, balanced toward performance)
4. Mac Pro (balls-to-the-wall performance, price be damned)

The different processor tiers will likely have some differentiating factors like core count, clock speed, etc. I don't think it will be all the same silicon. They're likely not going to have as many SKUs as Intel, due to supply constraint reasons (only so much capacity at TSMC compared to Intel's juggernaut size) and cost.

I don't think they'll shave off any more tiers than they have to, but some will probably be consolidated and each line will likely have the same "base" chip, binned depending on other factors.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

On the topic of processor performance tiers, I think the most reasonable course is to follow the 2x3 product matrix they have or something similar.

1. Macbook (Air)/Mac Mini
2. Macbook/iMac
3. Macbook Pro/Mac Pro

One of the reasons why Intel has so many tiers is because they’re being VERY careful not to cannibalize their higher end processors. Apple has no such fear and actually has a good reason to maintain the same features across the board for a wide swath of solutions. We’ve all become accustomed to mobile being less powerful than desktops due to Intel and AMD’s NEED for this to be the case. Apple could shoot for a respectable performance goal per generation and keep everything on the non-Pro side at that same general level, collapsing 1 and 2. There’s still differentiation, though as the physical features of the product line defines which ones you’d buy (larger screen, more ports).

Pro could be certainly be another tier up, BUT nothing that requires a huge power supply as they know they ONLY have to perform better than the last fastest Mac... it’s not like you’re going to be able to find a faster Mac anywhere else.

 

[JMacHack]

One of the reasons why Intel has so many tiers is because they’re being VERY careful not to cannibalize their higher end processors. Apple has no such fear and actually has a good reason to maintain the same features across the board for a wide swath of solutions. We’ve all become accustomed to mobile being less powerful than desktops due to Intel and AMD’s NEED for this to be the case. Apple could shoot for a respectable performance goal per generation and keep everything on the non-Pro side at that same general level, collapsing 1 and 2. There’s still differentiation, though as the physical features of the product line defines which ones you’d buy (larger screen, more ports).

That's a good point actually, maybe they'd bin their processors and use lower-performing chips for their lower end machines like AMD/Intel do? Not sure.

Pro could be certainly be another tier up, BUT nothing that requires a huge power supply as they know they ONLY have to perform better than the last fastest Mac... it’s not like you’re going to be able to find a faster Mac anywhere else.

While this is true, Apple does compete with other OEMs, and I think they'd want their machine to at least compare favorably with them.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

That's a good point actually, maybe they'd bin their processors and use lower-performing chips for their lower end machines like AMD/Intel do? Not sure.

I could see that working, but primarily on the Pro side. For non-Pro, I could see the difference just being the ports or form factor. For Pro, if Apple wants to capitalize on making the most money, they certainly could. BUT the best part about this would be that, unlike Intel, even the low end would be feature matched with the high end, with the only difference being the raw performance. It sounds like a small idea, but when you consider that Apple will be able to, essentially, have the performance of i9’s across the entire line with the only difference being speed, that’s a HUGE thing that no other PC company will be able to do (and maintain their same cost levels).

While this is true, Apple does compete with other OEMs, and I think they'd want their machine to at least compare favorably with them.

I think they’ll compare well in their low to mid range, (vendors using i3’s or i5’s won’t be able to touch their performance) and somewhat favorable in the high end, but I don’t think they’re going to have something that‘s designed to beat top end laptops using cross platform applications. I believe their main focus will be to have the most performant macOS experience. How fast handbrake runs is likely not a part of their requirements

 

[ian87w]

Or Apple can differentiate the tiers in each lineup with the amount of RAM and/or storage, just like the current iPhone/iPad.
So for example, a Macbook Air will have one AS chip, and three tiers of RAM/storage combinations. That will simplify customer choice as well, as there's no need to sacrifice CPU power just because you don't need the max RAM/storage.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

there's no need to sacrifice CPU power just because you don't need the max RAM/storage.

I agree. One of the reasons why Apple has “enough” chips for the iPhones and iPads is they decide on a performance level and go with it. They still have a “high end” phone to sell, but it’s not because of the CPU, it’s other things. And, since they set a manageable goal, they don’t have to worry about keeping stock of a wide variety of speeds and, on top of that, worrying about “running out” of a specific speed level.

The simpler the range of processors there are, the easier it is to manage (even if, in some cases, it could mean leaving money on the table, it might not be enough money

 

[ian87w]

The simpler the range of processors there are, the easier it is to manage (even if, in some cases, it could mean leaving money on the table, it might not be enough money

Oh don’t worry, the current Apple is smart enough to gain money elsewhere. Watch Apple not including any chargers for the AS MacBooks in the next few years.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Oh don’t worry, the current Apple is smart enough to gain money elsewhere. Watch Apple not including any chargers for the AS MacBooks in the next few years.

I wouldn’t be surprised All USB-C chargers I buy now have 2 or more USB-C ports for less than Apple charges for just a single port. And the others are smaller in some cases, too.

 

[aeronatis]

Or Apple can differentiate the tiers in each lineup with the amount of RAM and/or storage, just like the current iPhone/iPad.
So for example, a Macbook Air will have one AS chip, and three tiers of RAM/storage combinations. That will simplify customer choice as well, as there's no need to sacrifice CPU power just because you don't need the max RAM/storage.

I totally agree. SOC should be the same for the same product with only RAM and storage being configurable. Maybe extra GPU core options for the higher devices like 16" MacBook Pro or 27" iMac could be possible but that should be the extend of it.

Wishful thinking: 14" and 16" MacBook Pro having the exact same CPU/GPU/Neural Engine Cores... This way people can decide between the screen size options without being limited by performance gap.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Lot of good predictions in this thread

 

[theorist9]

I totally agree. SOC should be the same for the same product with only RAM and storage being configurable. Maybe extra GPU core options for the higher devices like 16" MacBook Pro or 27" iMac could be possible but that should be the extend of it.

Makes sense. I'd like to see a single chip optimized for each form factor (when they get to the point that they have designed that many--as opposed to now, when they had to make do with one design for three products).

However, as has been mentioned elsewhere, Apple may need to offer different chip performance levels because of yield. I.e., if it finds, say, 20% of a certain chip has a one or more faulty CPU or GPU cores, it made need to offer chips with lower core counts so that it doesn't have to discard those. Some have speculated that's the reason for the 7-GPU-core MBA.

Wishful thinking: 14" and 16" MacBook Pro having the exact same CPU/GPU/Neural Engine Cores... This way people can decide between the screen size options without being limited by performance gap.

Except that the 16", because of its larger size, will have better thermals and a larger battery, and thus can accommodate a higher-performing chip than the 14". Thus, if you want the 16" to be as performant as possible, why limit it to highest-performance chip you can put in the 14"? I.e., why not optimize for each device?

 

[theorist9]

On the topic of processor performance tiers, I think the most reasonable course is to follow the 2x3 product matrix they have or something similar.

1. Macbook (Air)/Mac Mini
2. Macbook/iMac
3. Macbook Pro/Mac Pro

Alternatively it could be:

1. Macbook Air/iPad Pro (entry-level/battery life maximized)
2. Mac Mini/Macbook (entry desktop, balanced toward battery)
3. iMac/Macbook Pro (high end laptop, mid desktop, balanced toward performance)
4. Mac Pro (balls-to-the-wall performance, price be damned)

The different processor tiers will likely have some differentiating factors like core count, clock speed, etc. I don't think it will be all the same silicon.

The AS Mac Pro needs to be qualitatively different from all the other Apple products, in that it needs to be modular/upgradeable, like the current Mac Pro. Apple learned its lesson from the "constant negativity" they recieved from pro users about the the non-modular trashcan Mac Pro:

'Constant Negativity' From Pro Users Led Apple to Develop Modular Mac Pro, Which May Not Ship Until 2019

Apple executives this week made an unusual and surprising announcement, detailing the company's work on an entirely revamped high-end modular Mac...

www.macrumors.com

 

[Falhófnir]

Except that the 16", because of its larger size, will have better thermals and a larger battery. Thus, if you want the 16" to be as performant as possible, why limit it to highest-performance chip you can put in the 14"? I.e., why not optimize for each device?

I think the expense of designing a chip for each computer would be prohibitive, but the 16" might use a modestly higher clocked or TDP-up version of the chip. Another difference may be the option of the Apple dGPU in the 16" but not the 14", that would take up a chunk of extra thermal headroom from the existing set up, even if the main SoC is only a 20-30W part.

 

[bobmans]

I doubt it. As they create more advanced and bigger chips they’ll have to start binning chips more.

 

[theorist9]

I think the expense of designing a chip for each computer would be prohibitive, but the 16" might use a modestly higher clocked or TDP-up version of the chip. Another difference may be the option of the Apple dGPU in the 16" but not the 14", that would take up a chunk of extra thermal headroom from the existing set up, even if the main SoC is only a 20-30W part.

Yes, Apple could (and probably should) offer more GPU power (likely via more GPU cores) in the 16". But, as I see it, a more powerful GPU design would constitute a different chip since, for AS, the GPU is part of the chip—it won't be discrete*:

"Intel-based Macs contain a multi-core CPU and many have a discrete GPU ... Machines with a discrete GPU have separate memory for the CPU and GPU. Now, the new Apple Silicon Macs combine all these components into a single system on a chip, or SoC. Building everything into one chip gives the system a unified memory architecture. This means that the CPU and GPU are working over the same memory."

Explore the new system architecture of Apple silicon Macs - WWDC20 - Videos - Apple Developer

Discover how Macs with Apple silicon will deliver modern advantages using Apple's System-on-Chip (SoC) architecture. Leveraging a unified...

developer.apple.com

*An exception to this may be the Mac Pro -- I don't know.

 

[Falhófnir]

Yes, Apple could (and probably should) offer more GPU power (likely via more GPU cores) in the 16". But, as I see it, a more powerful GPU design would constitute a different chip since, for AS, the GPU is part of the chip—it won't be discrete*:

"Intel-based Macs contain a multi-core CPU and many have a discrete GPU ... Machines with a discrete GPU have separate memory for the CPU and GPU. Now, the new Apple Silicon Macs combine all these components into a single system on a chip, or SoC. Building everything into one chip gives the system a unified memory architecture. This means that the CPU and GPU are working over the same memory."

Explore the new system architecture of Apple silicon Macs - WWDC20 - Videos - Apple Developer

Discover how Macs with Apple silicon will deliver modern advantages using Apple's System-on-Chip (SoC) architecture. Leveraging a unified...

developer.apple.com

*An exception to this may be the Mac Pro -- I don't know.

It looks like Apple might be making a dedicated graphics chip(s) (codenamed Lifuka and/or Tonga) Whether this differs significantly from a traditional GPU design (sort of like a cross between a dGPU and iGPU) we don't yet know, but presumably if it is significantly more powerful it will use more power and generate more heat either way.

 

[aeronatis]

I.e., if it finds, say, 20% of a certain chip has a one or more faulty CPU or GPU cores, it made need to offer chips with lower core counts so that it doesn't have to discard those. Some have speculated that's the reason for the 7-GPU-core MBA.

Except that the 16", because of its larger size, will have better thermals and a larger battery, and thus can accommodate a higher-performing chip than the 14". Thus, if you want the 16" to be as performant as possible, why limit it to highest-performance chip you can put in the 14"? I.e., why not optimize for each device?

I believe, just as you stated, that is exactly the reason of GPU core number difference on MBA models ??

In fact, the entire Intel line-up is the result of something similar.

As for the 14" vs 16", I would say 16" would have better sustained performance, better battery life etc just as it is the case with MBA vs MBP 13". Maybe even an higher GPU option... Therefore, CPU performance would be comparable with optional graphics being the difference. Photo editing, music production etc could benefit prom 14" and base 16" without extra GPU power. Just dreaming, of course, not that I predict anything ?

I believe 16" will be shrunk down to the dimension of 15" as that was the target design before Intel failed to release 10 nm CPUs. Reduce the bezels and make it a little thinner as the M1X should definetely warm up less compared to Intel H CPU + Radeon Pro graphics card.

 

[JMacHack]

The AS Mac Pro needs to be qualitatively different from all the other Apple products, in that it needs to be modular/upgradeable, like the current Mac Pro. Apple learned its lesson from the "constant negativity" they recieved from pro users about the the non-modular trashcan Mac Pro:

'Constant Negativity' From Pro Users Led Apple to Develop Modular Mac Pro, Which May Not Ship Until 2019

Apple executives this week made an unusual and surprising announcement, detailing the company's work on an entirely revamped high-end modular Mac...

www.macrumors.com

I agree wholeheartedly. Likewise I'm not sure a theoretical AS Mac Pro could achieve the levels of performance or modularity needed as a wholly SoC system. Maybe instead of all the RAM being on the SoC, it'll be extensible? Like 64GB of RAM on the SoC with any extra addressable RAM being on separate DIMMs? Same with a dGPU. It's kinda the antithesis of Apple's unified architecture though.

Also my predictions were 100% wrong, so take anything I say with a lot of salt

 

[theorist9]

I agree wholeheartedly. Likewise I'm not sure a theoretical AS Mac Pro could achieve the levels of performance or modularity needed as a wholly SoC system. Maybe instead of all the RAM being on the SoC, it'll be extensible? Like 64GB of RAM on the SoC with any extra addressable RAM being on separate DIMMs? Same with a dGPU. It's kinda the antithesis of Apple's unified architecture though.

Also my predictions were 100% wrong, so take anything I say with a lot of salt

Yes, how much per-core performance (and efficiency) they might have to give up to achieve modularity is an interesting question. Then again, current multi-core workstation-class chips (e.g., Xeons) tend to have lower per-core performance than the fastest consumer desktop chips, so perhaps some per-core performance loss is acceptable.

I'll add that the RAM in the M1 is already off-chip: While the RAM is part of the overall package, it is on a separate die from that of the SoC chip (https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...o.2267256/page-31?post=29220991#post-29220991). This allows them to offer variable amounts of RAM without having to produce a new chip. It also has yield benefits, since failed RAM doesn't mean a failed SoC.

So perhaps they could make that off-chip RAM user upgradable in the Pro. Alternately, perhaps they offer two tiers or RAM--the very fast built-in RAM, and the somewhat slower user-upgradeable RAM. Not sure how this would work, though (or even if it would).

 

[theorist9]

.