Apple Silicon Roadmap Based on 18-Month Upgrade Cycle, Claims Report

[Canubis]

I guess that means Mac Pro in 2023.

With this report and hopes for an AS Mac Pro shifting to 2023, I really hope we will see one last powerful Intel upgrade for the current Mac Pro in the meantime. Ideally soon, like in Spring.
I am actually looking into buying one (I'd really like to have one last powerful Apple desktop that can run both Windows and macOS for the next years – hard to say if this will ever be possible with AS). But at this point the tech screams for at least refreshed CPUs for that price tag.

 

[TheralSadurns]

M3 Max MBP is what I am waiting for. Hopefully with HDMI 2.1a for 8k@60Hz. And hopefully an EXTERNAL 40-43" 8K display.
Not that I recommend people should wait. But having an i9 16" MBP with 64GB it makes little sense (for me) to upgrade sooner.

(Updated as clarification.)

 

[neuropsychguy]

M3 Max MBP is what I am waiting for. Hopefully with HDMI 2.1a for 8k@60Hz. And hopefully a 40-43" 8K display.
Not that I recommend people should wait. But having an i9 16" MBP with 64GB it makes little sense (for me) to upgrade sooner.

You want a MacBook Pro with a 43” screen?

 

[randomgeeza]

I'm waiting for the M2 Pro Max.
Monterey is so buggy and memory leaks and missing features.
Is this gonna be the new Normal????

And in Mac mini form.
No cheesy breakable keyboard on the MacBook Pro for me or Battery or screen issues.

Buying A Mac mini you escape all these hassles

and if they force you to only install APPS from the APPLE APP store like the iPads and iPhones thats when I jump ship and move back to Windows 10 or 11.

You wait then... why bother at all, given your gripes and whining...

 

[Seanm87]

18 month for a new generation of chip huh. Not quite yearly as crazy as A-series chip but still seems to be quite aggressive. Upgrading Mac every 18 month seems a bit much, especially for those going for $6000 maxed out options.

With that being said though, how much of that performance gain could be for each generation?

People maxing our their MacBooks aren’t going to be annual upgraders.

 

[constructor]

That's very odd and seems like an after thought. I am starting to get Intel like vibes now, and I hope to be wrong on this.

I would like Apple to follow the Tick Tock update cycle where they alternate between improving the manufacturing process and increasing the clock speed each year. Just like they follow on iOS devices.

They don't do that, actually. It is more complex than that. They've never just sat on TSMC's laurels but they have always improved the architecture with every release, just not always in exactly the same way, and going to Intel's method would actually be a step backwards which I hope they won't take!

This 18 months business means we will again be left in the dark about new Mac product launches and upgrades.

Apple has almost never published anything like an actual roadmap and it's unlikely they will now. Surprise is their lifeblood, even if they have been pretty consistent overall, so we could generally know what to expect, not least with the help of sites like this one.

Now there's also the already dicey iPad Pro lineup in the mix so I hope Apple assigns more resources to improve this bit. Or even 18 months is not bad if they stick to it with May/Nov releases.

"Dicey"? What?

 

[TheralSadurns]

You want a MacBook Pro with a 43” screen?

Obviously NOT built-in
That should be 16-17" depending on bezels.
But yes... I currently use a 43" 4K display. Which is basically (if you think about it) a 2x2 grid of 21.5" 1080p monitors.
Just minus the bezels. Way cheaper. And great for the occasional application to be used in fullscreen. But mostly I treat it like a 2x2 grid of displays. Or a 1x1 arrangement of portrait displays.

What is missing is the "retina" 2x mode... hence → 8k @43" needed.

 

[Dolmio]

Well makes sense if they base like they did the iPad Pro’s on alternative year chipsets . So m1 a14 , m2 a16 and the interluding years the pro/ max versions

 

[Boil]

...for those going for $6000 maxed out options.

Most folks that are buying loaded up systems would probably run said system for at least three years, so they would be alright with skipping a generation...?

I guess that means Mac Pro in 2023.

An Apple silicon Mac Pro will ship no later than the end of 2022, to complete the two year transition Apple has planned...

Do you think that means we will see an new M2 MBP around Oct/Nov again next year based on this?

That wouldn't be 18 months though, would it...?

Now there's also the already dicey iPad Pro lineup in the mix so I hope Apple assigns more resources to improve this bit. Or even 18 months is not bad if they stick to it with May/Nov releases.

iPad Pro was already on a 18 month upgrade cycle; now that they use Mn-series SoCs, I don't see where they "dicey" part is...?

With this report and hopes for an AS Mac Pro shifting to 2023, I really hope we will see one last powerful Intel upgrade for the current Mac Pro in the meantime. Ideally soon, like in Spring.
I am actually looking into buying one (I'd really like to have one last powerful Apple desktop that can run both Windows and macOS for the next years – hard to say if this will ever be possible with AS). But at this point the tech screams for at least refreshed CPUs for that price tag.

Rumors have a final refresh for the Intel Mac Pro:

• New motherboard
• Ice Lake Xeon CPUs
• ECC DDR4 3200 RAM
• PCIe Gen4 expansion slots
• W7000-series MPX GPUs

 

[Gudi]

Buying A Mac mini you escape all these hassles

No, you don’t. You just externalize them to periphery hassles.

 

[bsbeamer]

Wait for the outrage when the AS Mac Pro ships with an M1 branded chip and M2 is released 3 months later or at the same time.

 

[Le0M]

I honestly think and hope that it's actually going to be a two year cycle.
M1 in 3rd quarter 2020, M2 at the same time of the year 2022.
In between major release, an updated pro/max version.

 

[azentropy]

Yep, makes sense for the M-series to have a longer life cycle than the A-series. They are a much lower volume chip so probably takes longer to recoup the costs.

 

[sfwalter]

My wallet thanks Apple for the 18 month cycle.

 

[TwoBytes]

so the iMac refresh in 2022 will get the M2's if the M2 Max will be released in 2023 which the iMac won't have :/

I hope this doesn't mean Apple doesn't delay the release of the iMac until 2023!

 

[JPack]

I honestly think and hope that it's actually going to be a two year cycle.
M1 in 3rd quarter 2020, M2 at the same time of the year 2022.
In between major release, an updated pro/max version.

An 18-month cycle for chips probably doesn’t mean an 18-month cycle for actual products. It takes time to release the complete lineup for products based on one chip. For example, M1 MacBook and M1 iMac were separated by 6 months. We are also expecting iMac Pro to use M1 Pro/Max.

 

[JPack]

Wait for the outrage when the AS Mac Pro ships with an M1 branded chip and M2 is released 3 months later or at the same time.

No one expects the M2 to be faster than an M1 Pro/Max, much less an MCM M1 Max. The customers buying Mac Pro don’t rely on marketing names to determine actual performance.

 

[BrownyQ]

I understand the longer cycle. I'm just sad there's a possibility that those rumored new MacBook models for this coming Spring/Summer might actually happen a little later in 2022. Granted, if they still drop earlier in 2022 but without the M2, I'll likely still pick one up to finally retire my MBP, since even the current M1 Air is plenty good for my personal needs. I just wanted to see the new (rumored) color options.

 

[0194839]

Good, Joz. Start with HomeKit… make it real! For once.

 

[Houpla]

In the second half of 2022, Apple will first launch the M2 processor code-named Staten

That sounds more like 24 month cycle not 18.

 

[Abazigal]

Yep, makes sense for the M-series to have a longer life cycle than the A-series. They are a much lower volume chip so probably takes longer to recoup the costs.

I feel it’s more that the longer upgrade cycle of Macs means that Apple doesn’t need to refresh them nearly as often as the iPhone.

I do also agree that it’s probably wasteful to keep coming out with a new MX chip every year, given the volume that Macs sell. 1.5-2 years (in line with the ipad) feels about right. In fact, it can be argued that it was effectively a 2.5 year wait between the 2018 and the 2021 models of the iPad Pro (I still consider the 2020 model a placeholder).

 

[Biro]

That sounds more like 24 month cycle not 18.

I, for one, would prefer a 24-month cycle for both Apple's chips and software. That could mean fewer OS bugs for consumers and more time to absorb the expense of upgrading to new devices. It would also give Apple more time to work out the various OS kinks and squeeze more money out of each generation of technology. It would be an all-around win for everybody.

 

[kdekorte]

18 months, is probably fine for the Mx series of CPUs but what I would hate to see would be products coming out very late in that product cycle. Kinda the situation we have now with the larger iMac (we don't know what CPU it is using yet). The M1 came out awhile ago and the M1 MAX/PRO came out 2 months ago. But if the larger iMac doesn't come out for another 4-5 months, then the CPU in that product is near 1/3rd of the way into the "lifecycle" of the PRO/MAX CPU and near the end of the M1. I will give Apple some slack here in that they need to finish aligning their Mac product lineup. But once that is done I do kind of hope they get on a "consumer" / "pro" upgrade cycle Mx and then 6-9 months later Mx PRO/MAX. So we could see the MacBook, Mini and smaller iMac all come out at once and then the same thing for the MBPs, larger iMac, Mini Pro (I keep hoping for this), and Mac Pro.

TL;DR: Basically what I am saying is that everything that uses the same CPU should come out at once.

 

[aberdeenmeadows]

Seems reasonable and keeps the products fresh. The slowest of the bunch, the M1, already is super fast and is not a slouch so Apple now has time to produce chips in larger batches in order to reduce costs and recoup a good portion of their investment sooner. Imagine being able to place an order for 18 months worth of chips at a time without having to make changes or updates.

 

[daabido]

I've said from the start it would be two years. Some people thought that as soon as the M1 Air was out there would be another one in 6 months. It will still be better than in the PowerPC days or during Intel, when they would hang onto the same processor in some machines for more than three years.

Also, software requires 18 months at least to be stable enough for a new upgrade. If you want stability, that's always been the case. Think Adobe when it moved to an annual cycle. Users felt like beta testers for the first six months; sounds familiar.