Will there ever be a new large iMac (Pro)?

[Freida]

Why would they start producing M1X now when they are about to start A15? And as M2 will be based on A15 the rumour makes sense for M2.
Are you implying that the most powerful variant of the chip will be delayed for products that need it the most? That kinda doesn't make sense.

Given this recent rumor, I think the M1 variant (M1X) is what is currently entering production, for summer (July-ish) product launch. But I think it is far more likely for the products we actually know are coming soon (the 14" an 16" MacBooks Pro).

 

[CWallace]

Listening to the 6 Colors Podcast and Jason Snell and Dan Moren brought up an interesting wrinkle...

If the MBP 14/16 and iMac Pro launch with the M1X and then the 2022 MacBook Air and Mac mini launch with M2, does that create confusion in the consumer's mind? Like when the 2021 iPad Air had an A14 and the 2020 iPad Pro had an A12Z. The iPad Pro was still overall more powerful thanks to the extra cores, but "A14 is newer than A12" so the general consumer was confused as to why the cheaper iPad had a "newer = better" chip.

If the MBP 14/16 and iMac Pro launch on M2, then when M3 is (about) ready for them, the MBA and Mm can then go to M2 and balance in The Force is maintained.

 

[Lemon Olive]

Why would they start producing M1X now when they are about to start A15? And as M2 will be based on A15 the rumour makes sense for M2.
Are you implying that the most powerful variant of the chip will be delayed for products that need it the most? That kinda doesn't make sense.

...no.

The M1X is entering manufacturing for a product now, which means those MBP's are coming sooner than expected, this summer. Around July.

The A15 will not go into manufacturing for iPhone for a few more months, and the M2 will not until the iPhone rush is over.

M1X products in mid summer, based on this rumor from the supply chain.
M2 products late fall based on normal production schedule, if Apple even intends to update the low end Macs so soon.

 

[Lemon Olive]

Listening to the 6 Colors Podcast and Jason Snell and Dan Moren brought up an interesting wrinkle...

If the MBP 14/16 and iMac Pro launch with the M1X and then the 2022 MacBook Air and Mac mini launch with M2, does that create confusion in the consumer's mind? Like when the 2021 iPad Air had an A14 and the 2020 iPad Pro had an A12Z. The iPad Pro was still overall more powerful thanks to the extra cores, but "A14 is newer than A12" so the general consumer was confused as to why the cheaper iPad had a "newer = better" chip.

If the MBP 14/16 and iMac Pro launch on M2, then when M3 is (about) ready for them, the MBA and Mm can then go to M2 and balance in The Force is maintained.

It doesn't create confusion for anyone. The MacBook Air has an M1. The next one has an M2.

 

[Lemon Olive]

More importantly for me, I'd really like to see a new consumer level monitor under $2k in the 30"-32" range. Not a fan whatsoever of the options currently.

The entire planet would like to see a standalone Retina display thats not the Pro XDR.

 

[Freida]

Yeah, its really tricky.

I really don't see Apple giving us M1X and M2. It would be weird to say the least.

A15 architecture is what M2 will be based (regardless if its A15X or not, thats irrelevant)

So, if iPhone is getting it and the chips are being manufactured then there is also design for M2 so why not do both? M1 was clearly a starting point but its not enough for iMac (the big one), MBP and Mac Pro so why not go to M2 fairly quickly? iPhone is on yearly cycle for the past 13 years or so so I expect that Macs will now have similar cycle now that we are not reliant on slow Intel.
I assume that will give Apple the freedom they want - ie. update every year, have nice product line and don't rely on others where it matters. If they keep the momentum they will outpace competition in no time. Right now, the only one that is still ahead of them is AMD an Nvidia. And those are not going to be easy so lets see.

Logically, WWDC could be software only but I still think we will see this Lifuka thing one way or another. M2 in Fall with updated MBP, iMac. That is in line with iPhones etc. and would be the usual products update window

Listening to the 6 Colors Podcast and Jason Snell and Dan Moren brought up an interesting wrinkle...

If the MBP 14/16 and iMac Pro launch with the M1X and then the 2022 MacBook Air and Mac mini launch with M2, does that create confusion in the consumer's mind? Like when the 2021 iPad Air had an A14 and the 2020 iPad Pro had an A12Z. The iPad Pro was still overall more powerful thanks to the extra cores, but "A14 is newer than A12" so the general consumer was confused as to why the cheaper iPad had a "newer = better" chip.

If the MBP 14/16 and iMac Pro launch on M2, then when M3 is (about) ready for them, the MBA and Mm can then go to M2 and balance in The Force is maintained.

 

[Lemon Olive]

I guess we will see when they actually announce everything, since Apple Silicon is designed to be flexible and scalable.

But A15 has to also be in early production by now to prepare for September and the iPhone 13 so if they have A15 ready, why not use it as the foundation for M2 and get the performance of a higher-core count M1 without the power and heat penalties?

It's a big question mark. The timing makes it difficult to predict anything. Why indeed release MBP's now based on last gen architecture when a new one is right around the corner.

It's certainly possible. But I very highly doubt the A15 is going to result in an M2 before iPhone has had its time. The iPhone is after all infinitely more important to them.

 

[CWallace]

It doesn't create confusion for anyone. The MacBook Air has an M1. The next one has an M2.

It creates confusion if the MacBook Pro has an M1X and the MacBook Air has an M2 as in many people's eyes, M2 is newer than M1X and newer=better. I mean we literally saw this confusion with the A14 iPad Air and A12Z iPad Pro.

 

[Lemon Olive]

iPhone is on yearly cycle for the past 13 years or so so I expect that Macs will now have similar cycle now that we are not reliant on slow Intel.

iPhone is. Not iPad, or iPad mini, or iPad Pro, or Apple TV, or HomePod or any other product using A-series chips.

It seems that people magically forget this when fantasizing about Macs getting annual updates. That isn't happening just because Apple controls the chip process, as evidenced by every single one of their lower volume products.

 

[Lemon Olive]

It creates confusion if the MacBook Pro has an M1X and the MacBook Air has an M2 as in many people's eyes, M2 is newer than M1X and newer=better. I mean we literally saw this confusion with the A14 iPad Air and A12Z iPad Pro.

It literally, definitely, does not. No one cares, except the people studying these names as if they mean anything to the market.

 

[CWallace]

It's a big question mark. The timing makes it difficult to predict anything. Why indeed release MBP's now based on last gen architecture when a new one is right around the corner.

I guess it depends on if you believe the Macs will be announced for sale immediately after WWDC's video keynote or if they will be announced for sale in the Fall. If they launch next month, then maybe they have A15/M2 or maybe they have A14/M1X. If it is Fall, then likely they will have A15/M2.

It's certainly possible. But I very highly doubt the A15 is going to result in an M2 before iPhone has had its time. The iPhone is after all infinitely more important to them.

The A14 was first announced in the iPad Air (2020), so there is precedent. Also, by calling it M2 us techies will know it's based on the A15, but the general public might not make the connection so when they announce the A15 in September with the iPhone...

Or at WWDC they announce A15 and M2 together (with or without an accompanying Mac announcement).

 

[CWallace]

iPhone is. Not iPad, or iPad mini, or iPad Pro, or Apple TV, or HomePod or any other product using A-series chips.

And that is a fair point - one I was considering bringing up, myself.

I could very much see Apple going for a roughly "every other year" SoC upgrade cycle for the Mac like they did with iPad Pro (prior to 2020), but there is also no compelling reason for them not to update annually if each new generation continues to significantly improve on the previous (which was not really the case with Intel - hence why Apple often skipped a generation even though the forum tore it's hair out every time they did).

 

[Luba]

So more likely Mx based MBPs this summer because it's a higher volume product and traditionally Apple releases new MBP before school starts? Then iPhones in late September. Large-size iMac before Christmas.

I'm planning on buying an iMac, but don't want to wait until December. I'll be disappointed if I buy the 24" iMac and then Apple releases a ~30" iMac at WWDC in June.

 

[CWallace]

It literally, definitely, does not. No one cares, except the people studying these names as if they mean anything to the market.

I think you give the general consumer too much credit, but not worth continuing to argue over.

 

[Freida]

Fair point but Apple stated that Intel crippled the innovation (which I know I know TDP).

However, in the past, we usually had MBPs (for example) and iMacs on fairly regular updates. Often every year so now that Apple controls it why not have those products on yearly updates as well? After all, they don't need to update other stuff. Just pop in latest M chip and people will be happy. Once every 2-3 (or so) years update other things and you have a solid and stable line up that will make everyone happy.

Comparing it to Apple TV or iPad mini is not really fair. Sure, iPad Pro was a fair comparison but the market is changing now with AS in the picture.
Could they skip a generation and do it every other year? Sure, but will they? I doubt that

iPhone is. Not iPad, or iPad mini, or iPad Pro, or Apple TV, or HomePod or any other product using A-series chips.

It seems that people magically forget this when fantasizing about Macs getting annual updates. That isn't happening just because Apple controls the chip process, as evidenced by every single one of their lower volume products.

 

[iPadified]

It is rather meaningless to discuss name. It is better to talk about architecture generation, cores, wattage and node. As rumours goes now, a stronger chip with M1 node/architecture is not in the cards. I think the M1 was version 1.0 to test the waters and a one-off. Apple will likely differentiate M chip based on wattage used and at some time there must be two or three parallel M lines of chips.

With this reasoning, the current M1 chip offerings will have the same wattage bracket in the future (well the 13 inch MBP will not continue) while the MBPs will use 30-35 W M chips. I still not get it why an iMac 30+ needs to operate with 30-35W but perhaps they overclock it somewhat to differentiate it against MBP.

 

[Jorbanead]

Well, seeing that M1X was "invented" by rumours then perhaps there won't be M1X at all. Maybe Apple will just go for M1, M2, M3 etc.

Here’s the reasoning behind M1X:

For years, Apple has created A-series chips like the A12, and then also created an A12X. They both used the same core design. The main difference between an A12 and A12X was additional CPU and GPU cores.

If Apple wants to replace the current i9 chips being used in the MacBook Pro and iMac, they would need to improve multi-thread performance and GPU performance. The main way you do that is by adding more cores to the chip design.

So if we follow Apple’s naming scheme from the past decade, whenever Apple adds core counts to an established core architecture, they simply add an ‘X’ to the name. That’s because it’s still the same generation of chip design. All they did was add cores.

Now if Apple decides they want to use a completely new node process like 5nm+ for example, that would require a totally new core design. That is when they will change the number from M1 to M2 as it’s the second generation.

Apple has also stated directly that they are creating a family of Mac chips. Note that they didn’t say series but family. That implies multiple chip designs within a generation.

What people speculate based off of this, is a roadmap like this:

M1, M2, M3 - 8 core CPU // 8 core GPU
M1X, M2X, M3X - 12 core CPU // 16 core GPU

 

[Lemon Olive]

I guess it depends on if you believe the Macs will be announced for sale immediately after WWDC's video keynote or if they will be announced for sale in the Fall. If they launch next month, then maybe they have A15/M2 or maybe they have A14/M1X. If it is Fall, then likely they will have A15/M2.

I think that is fair, assuming the M2 is coming at all this year.

The A14 was first announced in the iPad Air (2020), so there is precedent. Also, by calling it M2 us techies will know it's based on the A15, but the general public might not make the connection so when they announce the A15 in September with the iPhone...
Or at WWDC they announce A15 and M2 together (with or without an accompanying Mac announcement).

That's not a relevant precedent. They shipped on the same day, and did so several weeks before any M1 product. iPad Air is also very low volume compared to the 3 M1 Macs. In short, Apple is not going to manufacture and ship a new generation architecture months in advance of an iPhone release. Very unlikely.

And that is a fair point - one I was considering bringing up, myself.

I could very much see Apple going for a roughly "every other year" SoC upgrade cycle for the Mac like they did with iPad Pro (prior to 2020), but there is also no compelling reason for them not to update annually if each new generation continues to significantly improve on the previous (which was not really the case with Intel - hence why Apple often skipped a generation even though the forum tore it's hair out every time they did).

We agree there is very little compelling reason for Apple to update Macs so often when 1) they haven't for a long time, 2) the performance gains from the first round are still so impressive they could easily get more time out of it. What they should be doing is focusing on getting multiple Pro level iterations of that chip ready. I don't think people realize or appreciate that the M2 will be a massive undertaking in itself, regardless of its variants. They aren't just going to rush an unnecessary M2 into existence so they can immediately skip it and get to the M2X in time for some Pro machines this year.

I think you give the general consumer too much credit, but not worth continuing to argue over.

I think you're giving the general consumer too much credit: they don't even know what an A14 or M1 is.

Fair point but..

...but you're gonna rehash your point again anyway. You are exhausting.

Here’s the reasoning behind M1X:

For years, Apple has created A-series chips like the A12, and then also created an A12X. They both used the same core design. The main difference between an A12 and A12X was additional CPU and GPU cores.

If Apple wants to replace the current i9 chips being used in the MacBook Pro and iMac, they would need to improve multi-thread performance and GPU performance. The main way you do that is by adding more cores to the chip design.

So if we follow Apple’s naming scheme from the past decade, whenever Apple adds core counts to an established core architecture, they simply add an ‘X’ to the name. That’s because it’s still the same generation of chip design. All they did was add cores.

Now if Apple decides they want to use a completely new node process like 5nm+ for example, that would require a totally new core design. That is when they will change the number from M1 to M2 as it’s the second generation.

Apple has also stated directly that they are creating a family of Mac chips. Note that they didn’t say series but family. That implies multiple chip designs within a generation.

What people speculate based off of this, is a roadmap like this:

M1, M2, M3 - 8 core CPU // 8 core GPU
M1X, M2X, M3X - 12 core CPU // 16 core GPU

...all of this, plus, we already heard 8 months ago that Apple had 3 chips in the works, an 8 core (which turned out to be the M1) a 12 and a 16 core. Obviously all of them are based on the M1 since they existed 8 months ago, and are likely destined for the Pro products yet to be revealed this year.

 

[Luba]

Here’s the reasoning behind M1X:

For years, Apple has created A-series chips like the A12, and then also created an A12X. They both used the same core design. The main difference between an A12 and A12X was additional CPU and GPU cores.

If Apple wants to replace the current i9 chips being used in the MacBook Pro and iMac, they would need to improve multi-thread performance and GPU performance. The main way you do that is by adding more cores to the chip design.

So if we follow Apple’s naming scheme from the past decade, whenever Apple adds core counts to an established core architecture, they simply add an ‘X’ to the name. That’s because it’s still the same generation of chip design. All they did was add cores.

Now if Apple decides they want to use a completely new node process like 5nm+ for example, that would require a totally new core design. That is when they will change the number from M1 to M2 as it’s the second generation.

Apple has also stated directly that they are creating a family of Mac chips. Note that they didn’t say series but family. That implies multiple chip designs within a generation.

What people speculate based off of this, is a roadmap like this:

M1, M2, M3 - 8 core CPU // 8 core GPU
M1X, M2X, M3X - 12 core CPU // 16 core GPU

What does A stand for? ARM?
And M stands for Mobile?

How are A chips different from chips? They are both ARM SoC, but with a slightly different architecture? And by architecture means designs based on 5nm, 4nm, etc.?

 

[Freida]

Yeah, that makes sense.

Isn't M1 technically A14X? So if we get M1X it would be A14XX :-D

Here’s the reasoning behind M1X:

For years, Apple has created A-series chips like the A12, and then also created an A12X. They both used the same core design. The main difference between an A12 and A12X was additional CPU and GPU cores.

If Apple wants to replace the current i9 chips being used in the MacBook Pro and iMac, they would need to improve multi-thread performance and GPU performance. The main way you do that is by adding more cores to the chip design.

So if we follow Apple’s naming scheme from the past decade, whenever Apple adds core counts to an established core architecture, they simply add an ‘X’ to the name. That’s because it’s still the same generation of chip design. All they did was add cores.

Now if Apple decides they want to use a completely new node process like 5nm+ for example, that would require a totally new core design. That is when they will change the number from M1 to M2 as it’s the second generation.

Apple has also stated directly that they are creating a family of Mac chips. Note that they didn’t say series but family. That implies multiple chip designs within a generation.

What people speculate based off of this, is a roadmap like this:

M1, M2, M3 - 8 core CPU // 8 core GPU
M1X, M2X, M3X - 12 core CPU // 16 core GPU

 

[Freida]

right

I have beliefs you have too. Nothing wrong with that. Its discussion after-all

...but you're gonna rehash your point again anyway. You are exhausting.

 

[Lemon Olive]

right

I have beliefs you have too. Nothing wrong with that. Its discussion after-all

Ah yes, the Internet-created viewpoint of: I'm never wrong, and my baseless opinion matters.

 

[Freida]

huh?

Ah yes, the Internet-created viewpoint of: I'm never wrong, and my baseless opinion matters.

 

[CWallace]

...all of this, plus, we already heard 8 months ago that Apple had 3 chips in the works, an 8 core (which turned out to be the M1) a 12 and a 16 core. Obviously all of them are based on the M1 since they existed 8 months ago, and are likely destined for the Pro products yet to be revealed this year.

If you are referring to LeaksApplePro, they tweeted in January they forecasted a 12 high-performance core M1X would ship last month followed by a 16 high-performance core M2 in late 2022 which would not use the M1 architecture (so likely an A15-class SoC) and would offer up to 400% of the performance of the M1.

We also have The China Times last August saying Apple would release three A14 series SoCs:

A14 for iPhone
A14X for MacBook Air and iPad Pro (this became the M1)
A14T for iMac, paired with a custom GPU ("Lifuka")

 

[Lemon Olive]

If you are referring to LeaksApplePro, they tweeted in January they forecasted a 12 high-performance core M1X would ship last month followed by a 16 high-performance core M2 in late 2022 which would not use the M1 architecture (so likely an A15-class SoC) and would offer up to 400% of the performance of the M1.

We also have The China Times last August saying Apple would release three A14 series SoCs:

A14 for iPhone
A14X for MacBook Air and iPad Pro (this became the M1)
A14T for iMac, paired with a custom GPU ("Lifuka")

Heck even further back than that Bloomberg stated there were 3 Mac chips in development based on the A14, with a 12 core version to ship before the end of 2021.

Well, that's exactly where we are. A 12 core Mac chip based on the A14 is in production for Macs right now.