But you can divide the Pro models into two: low-end and high-end.
Only the very low-end of the Pro group got the M1. The rest are still on Intel.
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.
AnandTech Calls Apple's Fastest CPU Core Claim for M1 'Extremely Plausible'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But you can divide the Pro models into two: low-end and high-end.
Only the very low-end of the Pro group got the M1. The rest are still on Intel.
this is all cool etc., but what is the "best selling windows laptop" or "latest pc laptop chip" where they were referring/comparing to?
the best selling windows machine is probably some sub-500 bucks asus or hp netbook kinda device that are even often sold by grocery stores like aldi or lidl (here in ireland at least)
the best selling windows machine is probably some sub-500 bucks asus or hp netbook kinda device that are even often sold by grocery stores like aldi or lidl (here in ireland at least)
You do realise that this AS 13” MBP is replacing the base model 13” MBP? That model only EVER had 16Gb max memory and 2 USB-C ports. It’s main competition, the HP Envy has exactly the same and the XPS 13” has only just gained a 32Gb RAM option this year. I’d hazard a guess that the people buying the MB Air and low end MBP don’t NEED 32Gb RAM....those people that need 32Gb likely need a faster processor as well, so will purchase the higher models. There is no way I’d spec out a base level laptop with 32Gb when it has a lower spec cpu - it just isn’t cost effective.
Going forward, the higher end 13” MBP will likely get a different family of AS SOC, with more performance - likely a 8+4 core config, with a 32Gb option and 4 USB-C ports.....the same as the model it will replace.
Show me a 13” Laptop of the same dimensions as a 13” MBP running a 24/ 32 core ThreadRipper chip and then we’ll talk.
And yes, this is a longtime problem with Apple. Falsely claiming to be environmentally friendly when me upgrading my 2010 Mac Pro is more environmentally friendly as I will not buy disposable computers for $2000-$3000 and then toss them into a garbage dump. That is definitely hypocrisy on Apple's part, the defiance on self upgrades or even upgrades via Apple resellers.
Yeah.… who needs expensive RAM when you can just use the SSD, right? A few seconds here and there instead of nanoseconds, sounds like the real deal!
Are you a member of the Apple CPU design team? I guess not....
The efficiency cores are much smaller, and die real-estate is a huge issue. The performance cores can down-clock to save power as well, but will never consume less power than a smaller core designed for low-power usage. The big-little architecture has been proven to be efficient.
Think of a car analogy - there is little point in having an 8-liter V12 supercar for driving on urban streets where the roads have a 50km/h speed limit - it's expensive to run and consumes a lot of fuel. A car with a smaller engine is much more efficient, is cheaper to run and easier to park, but not great on the Autobahn, where you can really let rip with the supercar.
Have you used Rosetta 2 in order to make this judgement? If not, on what is your assertion based?
Apple never live demos against specific machines....at least not recently (I recall an iPod vs Zune demo that was fun)
It will be interesting to see real-world comparison from reviewers.
Yes, but they are also the ONLY models...so there is no choice for people with want to move to AS, but need more RAM.
It's a great start, no doubt, but not the answer for everyone. Of course, we were told that the transition would take "about two years", so this should be no surprise.
I've got used to having 32GB (and fully using it), so I'll be waiting for the next generation for a work computer, but I might be tempted to get a Mini for experimentation and as second home/office computer.
The 6 had tab refresh issues, the 6s did not, on the same version of iOS. I am far from being the only person that experienced this. The only people that questioned it were people that enjoy defending everything Apple does.
I owned the 6 and 6s, had them side by side, on the same version of iOS. The 6s did not experience tab refresh issues with only 2 tabs open, unlike the 6. Nice try though. Keep on fighting the good fight!
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is claiming that the M1 or A14 will beat any 24-32 core desktop / server CPU in multi-threaded tasks. However, it might give 6-8 hyperthreaded-core machines a run for their money. It seems to be very good in single-core performance though.
I doubt many people will be able to tell the difference between an M1 and an Intel Mac when both are running MacOS. Hardly a "glorified iPad" - just a new Mac.
It's because it would serve no purpose as a reference to performance, and would only invite comments like "but Intel goes to 4.8GHz!". Clock speed is a hopeless metric for comparing the actual performance of different architectures.
How are you running Catalina on a 2009 Mac Mini?
According to https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT210222, the oldest Mac Mini supported on Catalina is 2012.
I could only run up to High Sierra on my 2011 Mac Mini.
I think you've confused iGPUs (integrated) and dGPUs (discrete). iGPUs share system memory, dGPUs have their own video-RAM. The M1 has an iGPU, similar to Intel & AMD, that shares system memory with the CPU. The M1 RAM is "on the chip" is the sense that it's on the SoC Package, but is not built into the actual processor die. You can see this is the photos and schematics. This is common with a number of CPU designs.
There is no RAM upgrade path with on-package RAM, and the only way to upgrade VRAM on a dGPU is to replace the entire GPU.
Apple has been working on its own chip designs for over a decade, starting with the release of the A4. Initially, they used reference core designs from ARM and GPU tech from a 3rd party.
Bear in mind that Apple was originally a hardware company, so it's not unusual for them to be investing heavily in a path to controlling all parts of the manufacturing chain. As you say, they were let down by NVidia and Intel, and wanted to control their destiny - by removing dependence on 3rd parties and giving them full control over the integration of hardware and software features.
MacOS and iOS have a common core, so they were designed to be "portable", perhaps waiting for this moment.
Then don't toss them in a garbage dump, and sell or gift them to one of the many billions of people on this planet who can't afford a new computer, who would be delighted to have your 5-10-year-old technology.And yes, this is a longtime problem with Apple. Falsely claiming to be environmentally friendly when me upgrading my 2010 Mac Pro is more environmentally friendly as I will not buy disposable computers for $2000-$3000 and then toss them into a garbage dump. That is definitely hypocrisy on Apple's part, the defiance on self upgrades or even upgrades via Apple resellers.
I have never had to throw a computer away unless it actually had a fault that was beyond economic repair. I've always found homes for them.
If you want an upgrade path, then you need is a desktop computer.
It's 3.2GHz base frequency for what it's worth, which is nothing really as it handily beats out all current intel macs.
That would make sense based on some figures I saw about the A14 perf-cores having a 3.1GHz base frequency.
Where did you find the 3.2GHz for the M1?