Apple Likely to Debut Next-Gen 3nm Chip Technology in 2022 iPad Pro

[2540497]

Sorry no! 3nm will go to iPhone first. There’s no way they will put it in iPad Air before their iPhone, last year was an exception due to Covid. They won’t swap from M1 to A16 in the iPad Pro either, that’ll get M2. This article is off base, welcome to correct me if and when I’m wrong but I’m 99.9% sure of it. Doesn’t make sense.

 

[goobot]

Recall

I bet a lot of people don’t remember this is how it started, too.

A4 was the first Apple designed ARM chip, and it debuted in the original iPad.

A slower version of the A4 was released in the iPhone 4 (I’m assuming the iPad was clocked higher).

The iPhone 4 had twice the ram the iPad had which is why it lasted one os update opposed to the iPhone 4

 

[CWallace]

Let's pretend you're Apple and you have access to limited 3nm capacity. Would you allocate that to iPhone or Mac/iPad? Would consumers refuse to buy iPhone because A16 is on 4nm instead of 3nm? Is iPhone having a power consumption crisis that needs 3nm? Or would you maximize your margins by building 3nm-based M3 processors?

With M1, it was tied to A14 (as in it used A14 as the foundation). Will M2 be tied to A15? And if it is, does it come out around the same time or after A15? If M2 is tied to the A15 and it does come after, then "if I was Apple", I would continue that trend and release A16 first on 3nm for iPhone and iPad Air and follow it with M3 on 3nm for Mac and iPad Pro.

If M2 is not tied to A15, but is instead it's own unique ARM architecture independent of what the iPhone and non-Pro iPads are getting and it launches at 4nm, then yes, if I was Apple I would launch M3 on 3nm independent of whatever I am doing with the A-series.

Another caveat would be if I planned to base M3 on A16 and make both at 3nm, but TSMC has issues producing at scale on 3nm and can't hope to reach what they need for the 2022 iPhone launch and holiday quarter sales. In that case, "if I were Apple", I might very well be forced to keep A16 on 4nm because, as you note, while this forum would riot over Apple using "old processes", the general public wouldn't know or wouldn't care even if they did know.

In that situation, I might use the M3 like I believe Apple might have done with the A4 and launch it first in an iPad Pro and/or Mac because the volume is lower.

 

[Falhófnir]

With M1, it was tied to A14 (as in it used A14 as the foundation). Will M2 be tied to A15? And if it is, does it come out around the same time or after A15? If M2 is tied to the A15 and it does come after, then "if I was Apple", I would continue that trend and release A16 first on 3nm for iPhone and iPad Air and follow it with M3 on 3nm for Mac and iPad Pro.

If M2 is not tied to A15, but is instead it's own unique ARM architecture independent of what the iPhone and non-Pro iPads are getting and it launches at 4nm, then yes, if I was Apple I would launch M3 on 3nm independent of whatever I am doing with the A-series.

Another caveat would be if I planned to base M3 on A16 and make both at 3nm, but TSMC has issues producing at scale on 3nm and can't hope to reach what they need for the 2022 iPhone launch and holiday quarter sales. In that case, "if I were Apple", I might very well be forced to keep A16 on 4nm because, as you note, while this forum would riot over Apple using "old processes", the general public wouldn't know or wouldn't care even if they did know.

In that situation, I might use the M3 like I believe Apple might have done with the A4 and launch it first in an iPad Pro and/or Mac because the volume is lower.

I'd observe the basic M chip is likely to stay reasonably close to the A chips, as it takes the place of the AX chips for iPads. The chips which go into the higher end MacBook Pros, iMac, Mac Pro etc might end up diverging somewhat (e.g. if the 8+2 configuration is true that suggests the power efficient cores at least might be different to allow for just two).

 

[JPack]

With M1, it was tied to A14 (as in it used A14 as the foundation). Will M2 be tied to A15? And if it is, does it come out around the same time or after A15? If M2 is tied to the A15 and it does come after, then "if I was Apple", I would continue that trend and release A16 first on 3nm for iPhone and iPad Air and follow it with M3 on 3nm for Mac and iPad Pro.

If M2 is not tied to A15, but is instead it's own unique ARM architecture independent of what the iPhone and non-Pro iPads are getting and it launches at 4nm, then yes, if I was Apple I would launch M3 on 3nm independent of whatever I am doing with the A-series.

Another caveat would be if I planned to base M3 on A16 and make both at 3nm, but TSMC has issues producing at scale on 3nm and can't hope to reach what they need for the 2022 iPhone launch and holiday quarter sales. In that case, "if I were Apple", I might very well be forced to keep A16 on 4nm because, as you note, while this forum would riot over Apple using "old processes", the general public wouldn't know or wouldn't care even if they did know.

In that situation, I might use the M3 like I believe Apple might have done with the A4 and launch it first in an iPad Pro and/or Mac because the volume is lower.

I think the evidence suggests the M-series is quickly diverging from the A-series. Nikkei reported TSMC began manufacturing M2 in April while A15 didn't reach that stage until May. This is despite the fact M2 is more complex than A15. Gurman clearly describes a chiplet design for M2 with fewer little cores which I don't think will apply to A15. I would expect a future M-series product to feature SMT and advanced power management to allow high single core clock boosts.

So while the architecture will be the same, the implementation will be very different between A-series and M-series. This translates to different schedules and different priorities, e.g. 4nm vs. 3nm.

If there's one thing Apple learned from Intel, it's that you can't have one implementation for your entire product stack.

 

[Flabasha]

Given iPads outsell Macs this post is objectively wrong.

Only Mac fans say that an iPad needs macOS.

Microsoft already makes the products that Mac-on-iPad fans want. It is FAR more open, flexible, configurable... hell, you can even GAME on them.

Why not get that instead?

I actually just did that. I got sick of being enraged by iOS, so at the age of 48, I just bought my first Windows machine, a Galaxy Book Pro 360. It's a tablet and a full computer. Same price as the iPad Pro, but with AMOLED screen (15", no less), WiFi6, an included pen designed by Wacom so it's actually much better than the (very good) Apple Pencil, ability to run all my Adobe apps for no extra cost, with a full, robust operating system, full Thunderbolt ports, SD card slot, etc. etc. etc.

IPad Pro and Macbook Pro 16" are going on Craigslist as we speak. (To be fair, I'm still gonna buy an M1 Mac Mini just to have a Mac around).

Well done, Apple

 

[arvinsim]

What will the iPad Mini 6 or Pro get then in 2022?

Going tough choice if the Mini 6 has only a A14 4GB and 11" Pro has M2 10GB. I probably be forced to buy the 11" Pro i that case!

Really depends on the price. I also vastly prefer the smaller Mini screen for spontaneous browsing and reading

 

[Darth Tulhu]

"The RIGHT tool for the job is indispensable."

This is why my iPad sits next to my bed and I use my Mac and phone the rest of the time.

Yep. People really need to do two things:

1. Truly understand their needs (whether or not they NEED a Mac)
2. Truly understand what the iPad is and what it's designed for. Wishing the iPad was a Mac is a waste of time.

What makes me chuckle, and I don't hear this a lot anymore, but in the older days people would insist on using iPads as their main device and then complain about all the EXTRA steps they had to do to complete basic tasks.

And when you'd say to those people "just use a Mac, it will be faster and easier" they would become enraged and say "BUT THE IPAD IS WHAT I WANT TO USE STOP CRITICIZING ME."

There seems to be a bit of schizophrenia out there, for sure.

The iPad is my main device because I DON'T need a Mac.

If the iPad filled 99.99% of my needs, but that .01% was either too difficult or impossible to use an iPad for, then I'd have a Mac as well.

And I admit, the iPad was frustrating at first, until I stopped WANTING it to be a Mac and learned how things are done on an it. Suddenly it became WAY more capable than I thought it was, and I ended up liking its attributes so much that I realized that I simply didn't need a Mac at all.

The iPad is my home computer. I don't need external monitors nor external drives. When appropriate, the Magic Keyboard serves it's purpose, but for the most part, it's a charging stand.

I mainly use my iPad in hand for 99% of my tasks. I walk around with it. I do dock it to my audio interface when I want to put some music down, but when I'm done I pop it off and to the couch, or to the patio, or the pool (area), or my kids' bedrooms it comes with.

It's freaking wonderful to feel that free.

 

[CWallace]

I'd observe the basic M chip is likely to stay reasonably close to the A chips, as it takes the place of the AX chips for iPads. The chips which go into the higher end MacBook Pros, iMac, Mac Pro etc might end up diverging somewhat (e.g. if the 8+2 configuration is true that suggests the power efficient cores at least might be different to allow for just two).

It might also be that a machine designed for "performance apps" and either plugged in all day (iMac / Mac mini) or has a large battery (MacBook Pro) just doesn't need as many efficiency cores. I'm skeptical that Apple will have A15 efficiency cores paired with A14 performance cores in "Jade C" and "Jade C-Chop". I fully expect them to be the same Icestorm efficiency cores as in the M1.

I think the evidence suggests the M-series is quickly diverging from the A-series. Nikkei reported TSMC began manufacturing M2 in April while A15 didn't reach that stage until May. This is despite the fact M2 is more complex than A15.

I'm inclined to believe those reports were describing "M1X" and they just assume it is "M2" because it's different than M1.

Gurman clearly describes a chiplet design for M2 with fewer little cores which I don't think will apply to A15.

As above, I believe Apple is just reducing the number of M1 Icestorm efficiency cores for "Jade C" and "Jade C-Chop" because those applications are optimized for "performance" and not "efficiency".

Gurman clearly describes a chiplet design for M2 with fewer little cores which I don't think will apply to A15.

I agree the A-series will continue to favor efficiency cores over performance cores because of their application - iPhone and non-pro iPads - are optimized for "efficiency" over "performance". And even with "just" two or three "performance" cores, the iPhone and non-pro iPads are certainly not hurting for performance generation to generation.

 

[HarryWild]

Looks like the iPad Mini 6 will keep being the orphan of the iPad family. Look for bottom end specs like A14 and maybe 6 GB of GDDR4(lowest speed RAM), ISP panel like previous 5 generations in resolution, no 120 hz refresh, no thunderbolt connections, etc…. No “M” SoC either and still the minimum amount of RAM too. Apple will say that do this to keep cost down, but those people and companies that buy them are very wealthy. They buy it if double the current price with no problem or hesitation. Apple just stuck in their own bad thinking.

 

[CWallace]

If Enterprise customers were ready and willing to spend double on an iPad mini, you know damn well Apple would give them a reason to do so.

IMO, it is because they don't need fancy features and cutting-edge performance is why Apple generally leaves the iPad mini alone to keep the price down and make it easy for those customers (who I believe buy the significant plurality of minis) to add them into their existing infrastructure of docks and covers. Which is why I am somewhat doubtful of Prosser's claims the next iPad mini will go USB-C and possibly drop the home button.

That being said, perhaps Apple is looking at offering an "iPad mini Pro" with all these new features and tech (and that much higher price) while still keeping the 2019 iPad mini around for the Enterprise crowd.

 

[One2Grift]

Looks like the iPad Mini 6 will keep being the orphan of the iPad family. Look for bottom end specs like A14 and maybe 6 GB of GDDR4(lowest speed RAM), ISP panel like previous 5 generations in resolution, no 120 hz refresh, no thunderbolt connections, etc…. No “M” SoC either and still the minimum amount of RAM too. Apple will say that do this to keep cost down, but those people and companies that buy them are very wealthy. They buy it if double the current price with no problem or hesitation. Apple just stuck in their own bad thinking.

Mini is a specific market and that isn't one with grand specs and big price points.
Is there some who would want grand specs in a Mini? Sure but an offering has to have a significant base number of buyers to make it economically viable. You think that's Mini?
Mini has been my 'gets by' specs for common usage tasks (email, web, reading, standard doc editing, bank and buying apps, watching videos). I bought my Mini 4 (wifi only/ 128gb) lmost exactly 3 years ago, paid under 300$ new. It's taken a beating going everywhere with me and been that heavily (again common tasks) used in leisure and lay about positions in a lot of places. And it has been perfect for that usage. But having a lot of safari tabs, editing a hi res big video, keeping large data table files open etc etc, mine isn't going to like that (well I could if I wanted it to move slowwww)

Then again I bought one for GF Grift and we aren't together anymore. Maybe she would still be here it Mini offered grander specs

 

[arvinsim]

I don't need an iPad Mini Pro.

I just want something the same as the base iPad but in a smaller form factor.

 

[mi7chy]

It needs it since battery life is mediocre on the 2021 model.

 

[OliOliOliOli]

Do someone know à video to how they make the welding?

 

[MacBH928]

For people struggling to understand why this makes complete sense, the answer is - you always want the highest density technology for the products with the highest margin.

iPhone doesn't allow the consumer to fork over $100 for an extra CPU or GPU core.

iPad and MacBook based on M2 or M3 will. When Apple can charge a few hundred dollars extra for more cores, they'll want to apply the latest technology in order to maximize profit. Intel and AMD follow this strategy.

At this point, I am convinced that if Apple release the next iphone and list kidneys as the price people will still buy it...

I am a product designer for a big tech company that’s the worldwide leader in its market, my job involves research, analysis, documentation, design, prototyping, pitching and presentations to stakeholders, facilitation of creative workshops and design thinking activities. Since 2018 I don’t own a personal computer, only the computer my company gives us and an iPad Pro, and in 2021 I am able to do 80% of what I described with the iPad itself; the bigger limitation is not software, as a lot of people that don’t know what they are talking about and/or don’t even use an iPad for work or at all keep saying, but partially my choice of going for the smaller format for portability, and mostly the fact that my company gives me a MB Pro, peripherals and a 30” inches screen so I may very well use them. Now that iPads support external displays and touchpad, and Safari server desktop pages, I could very well do everything with my iPad if I wanted do, thanks to web based design/prototyping tools as Figma. And as I described above my job involves a lot of very different tasks.

What’s your job? What did you try to do and you weren’t able to that made you consider iPads ”toys”?

and here I am sending over a TikTok link over to my MBP because the link does not open correct on my iOS browsers.

 

[ksec]

So basically Apple are switching to latest node with their Mac and iPad first as well as other low volume products.

We should expect 3nm M2 in late 2022. I would not be surprised if we get Mac Pro chips from 3nm next year.

 

[name99]

At this point, I am convinced that if Apple release the next iphone and list kidneys as the price people will still buy it...

You can be "convinced" all you like but this is a known datapoint:
I can't find the most recent one but here are iPhone prices till mid 2020

https://twitter.com/x/status/1175732030228901889

Note specifically how the ASP (Average Selling Price) is squarely in the middle, towards the lower end. In other words, while Apple sells iPhones that cost almost $1500, they are balanced by people buying the $450 iPhone, and most people buy the iPhones that costs around $650.

 

[MysticCow]

RIP M1 chip! iPad will be getting a massive upgrade.

Total Game Changer.

I hope not. This switch was mainly BECAUSE of iPad Pros working faster than Intel MacBook Airs and maybe Pros.

 

[name99]

Looks like the iPad Mini 6 will keep being the orphan of the iPad family. Look for bottom end specs like A14 and maybe 6 GB of GDDR4(lowest speed RAM), ISP panel like previous 5 generations in resolution, no 120 hz refresh, no thunderbolt connections, etc…. No “M” SoC either and still the minimum amount of RAM too. Apple will say that do this to keep cost down, but those people and companies that buy them are very wealthy. They buy it if double the current price with no problem or hesitation. Apple just stuck in their own bad thinking.

That's not low-end specs!

iPad line has three tiers
- iPad cheap: ~$350, uses chip from 2 years ago -- called iPad
- iPad middle: ~$650, uses recent iPhone chip -- called iPad Air and iPad mini
- iPad expensive: ~$1000, uses souped up version of recent iPhone chip (was X series, now M1) -- called iPad Pro

iPad mini is squarely in line with iPad Air.

You may want an iPad Pro mini, but I suspect Apple is correct that very few people who want the specs and are willing to pay for an iPad Pro want that hardware in a small screen; I certainly don't! My complain is that I can't buy an iPad Pro Max at maybe 14" rather than the current 12" model!

 

[IllinoisCorn]

You can be "convinced" all you like but this is a known datapoint:
I can't find the most recent one but here are iPhone prices till mid 2020

https://twitter.com/x/status/1175732030228901889

Note specifically how the ASP (Average Selling Price) is squarely in the middle, towards the lower end. In other words, while Apple sells iPhones that cost almost $1500, they are balanced by people buying the $450 iPhone, and most people buy the iPhones that costs around $650.

I mean, the guy was clearly making a joke while referencing the general high prices of iPhones.

And you brought out a slide? You took the time to do that?

 

[BulkSlash]

Intel are still on 7nm? I’d love to know one day all the behind the scenes problems leading to them going from industry leaders to being completely left in the dust by TSMC.