I just heard the Apple SoC won’t have anywhere near the number of processors as even one of the lowest end supercomputers. What kind of snake oil are those guys selling???
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.
Apple's 'M2' Next-Gen Mac Chip Enters Mass Production, Expected to Debut in Redesigned MacBooks Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just after I took the wraps off my M1 Mac Mini 😅. Anyway, got 200€ for my 2012 model yesterday, plus Amazon has it for 698.99€, instead of 799.99 at Apple, and one day shipping. Setup was a breeze with Time Machine. I’m happy!
Last edited:
I would expect Apple to shift to a two-year cycle for M-chips. The iPad Pro is already on a two-year cycle, it makes sense for Macs also.
The iPhone A-series will be the leading edge chips, then a year later we'll see those new chip features scaled up to the M-series.
that will give Mac releases some regular release expectations rather than the "whenever Intel gets around to it" mishmash chip schedule we get now.
While I don’t know if you’re right or not (time will tell!), you DO have a clear understanding of how Apple Silicon has upended the industry. While some folks are still falling back to the old ways (multiple discrete tiers of varying performance primarily to… appease the folks that buy the high end models?), your post made me stop and think. There was similarly no need to have a “special chip” just for the iPad and we now live in the future folks wouldn’t have believed just two years ago.
I don't think an M2 has to be a "replacement" for anything. It can be nothing more but the high end chip while the M1 is the low end chip. Like an i5 vs. i7 intel processor etc. even if ultimately they are based on the same architecture just more cores.
An M1X is certainly possible from the perspective of each year updating the "low end" Macs with a M2, M3, M4 and then having the high end computers get the same processor with an "X" but I'm not sure how that works from a marketing perspective when you really want to setup apart the high end computers and jusitify their high end prices... somehow having a higher number, ala M2 vs M1 gives more a marketing perception of a bigger leap to justify the price increase.
You might be right, we shall see... Apple can do whatever they want I guess, the "M" Mac processors are now in iPads after all...
Yeah true, but I would argue the high resolution video editing is probably not something a ton of MacBook Air users are doing. For the vast majority, 8GB is more than plenty.
As far as iPad Pros, the A12X/A12Z was a much larger jump in performance vs the A10X than the M1 is over the A12X/A12Z. Much as everyone has been impressed with Apple dropping the M1 in to an iPad Pro, the CPU was never and still won't be the constraint in performance, but the RAM is/was for heavy use. So the fact that the new iPad Pro comes with 8GB of RAM base is huge for performance, let alone 16GB of RAM will simply be overkill for almost anyone, no matter the apps when we are still talking about a device that runs iPadOS.
Yeah, but that was because when Apple went to Intel and said,”We’d like to have the performance of an i9, BUT in something small/light/thin.” Intel replied,”Ok, you’ll want an i3 for this, an i5 for that, an i7 for this other thing and an i9 for this one here.
There’s really never been a “good” reason for the low end to have such a stark performance difference from the high end. Well, maybe good for Intel and AMD, not so much for the consumer who has historically, had to settle for an i3.
I would foresee Apple updating chips annually. By using A series phone chips in the lower-end iPads and Airs and the M-series chip in the iPad Pro and low-end Macs they’ve created an economy of scale that didn’t exist before when the A12X/Z was limited to just the iPad Pro. Previously the iPad Pro was a relatively niche product so the cost of developing and manufacturing the X-variant chip may not have outweighed actual unit sales, whereas using the same chip (and likely the same logic board) from the iPad Pro up to the smaller iMac will provide a greater return on Apple’s R&D and TSMC’s manufacturing tooling investment.
This is a great point. The M1 changes everything. In so many ways, I'm not sure anyone can predict the trajectory of how Apple releases Macs in particular. The M1 with 16GB RAM is already comparable to what, the higher end i7s from Intel? and it's running in a fan-less $999 MacBook Air. Crazy what Apple has done in a couple of years. They fixed the keyboard, gave us a monster of a processor in a Mac that is sub $1000.Yeah, but that was because when Apple went to Intel and said,”We’d like to have the performance of an i9, BUT in something small/light/thin.” Intel replied,”Ok, you’ll want an i3 for this, an i5 for that, an i7 for this other thing and an i9 for this one here.
There’s really never been a “good” reason for the low end to have such a stark performance difference from the high end. Well, maybe good for Intel and AMD, not so much for the consumer who has historically, had to settle for an i3.
Cool, more horsepower the better. But I'd wager that 99% of the people on this thread couldnt tell the difference in a M1 vs M2, hell vs a Intel Mac in everyday performance. I'm sure there will be people who want to jump to upgrade from an M1 which would be silly.
If the pro level chips allow for video editing and rendering of projects that are as of now in the realm of movie studios, I highly doubt Apple would release this in a laptop under $3,000.
That is to say that the chip that goes into the MacBook Pro will be faster than the intel MacBook Pro but not faster in every way to the mac pro or iMac Pro. The chips in those macs will be an even faster chip that won’t be going down to lower tiers for 5 or so years. A MacBook Pro with a chip that fast would be priced similarly to how the iMac Pro is priced compared to the top end iMac. The 16in mbp may be a whole new class of portable computing. A portable movie studio, at a price those who buy apples monitor stand can afford.
apple is looking to sell pro level workstations at pro level prices. The chips in every other mac that isn’t an iMac Pro or Mac Pro will be getting mid tier chips only.
That is to say that the chip that goes into the MacBook Pro will be faster than the intel MacBook Pro but not faster in every way to the mac pro or iMac Pro. The chips in those macs will be an even faster chip that won’t be going down to lower tiers for 5 or so years. A MacBook Pro with a chip that fast would be priced similarly to how the iMac Pro is priced compared to the top end iMac. The 16in mbp may be a whole new class of portable computing. A portable movie studio, at a price those who buy apples monitor stand can afford.
apple is looking to sell pro level workstations at pro level prices. The chips in every other mac that isn’t an iMac Pro or Mac Pro will be getting mid tier chips only.
Well, I was thinking about some logical approaches a while back for Apple's Mac Chips, then Apple blew that out of the water by using the Mac Chip in an iPad and making a new Desktop iMac as obnoxiously thin as an iPad? So?
I'm not sure if we'll see any logical (to us) approach out of the mothership re: any of these chips?
I had been thinking that we'd see the odd number chips focus on the lower-end Macs (Mini, Air, 13"/14" MacBook) and even number chips focus on the higher end (iMac, MacBook Pro 16", Mac Pro with multiple even number chips on the logic board)...
So, my original thought was that we'd see the M1 at the entry level, M2 added for the iMac, MBP 16, and Mac Pro later. Then the M3 in updated versions of the Air, Mini, etc in late 2022/23, then the M4 in updated iMacs and MBP 16s in 23/24?
Now? God only knows.
*Edit - the more I think about this and the more I read people *insiting* that there's going to be a M1x, M2x, etc, I have a theory?
M1 at entry level - iPad Pro, entry Mac mini, MacBook Air and MacBook Pro 13 and Entry iMac...
M2 at "Prosumer" level - MacBook Pro 16, iMac 27+
M1x/M2x will refer to BTO options for multiple M-Chips in certain configs of the iMac Pro and Mac Pro... So the Standard iMac Pro may come with the M2 w/16GB Ram...
But.. You can configure it with either the M1x2 or the M2x2 ... Two M1s or two M2s on the logic board (perhaps w/ discrete graphics) (more ram more storage etc)
Same with the standard Mac Pro... M2 w/ 32GB ram and discrete graphics standard..
Bto options for M1x4, M2x4 (more ram better discrete graphics more storage etc...)
Then M3 at entry level, M4 at Prosumer level M3x/M4x variants in high end gear as BTO options..
Just kicking that around in my head and maybe?
Last edited:
Sigh. We're not just making things up here. Apple's development on their annual A-series chip rules all. Whatever happens with Apple Silicon for Mac (and literally every other Apple Silicon product) is a pivot off of that.
So no, the M2 cannot be "nothing more than a high end chip" because that's not how it works.
Most keen observers have noted that the M1 is basically the same thing as what the A14X would have been; the relationship between the M1 and the A14 architecturally is about the same as the A12Z and the A12, so even if Apple had decided to brand this version the A14X it would have been essentially the same chip.
I do hope that Apple increases the RAM across the board for the iPad line. Adobe’s lead Lightroom developer, for example, has said that certain missing features like HDR photomerge will not come to Lightroom for iPad unless it can run across all devices that Lightroom supports (and run well). Long as the base iPad and Air still comes with a paltry 3GB and 4GB of RAM, respectively, then developers have less incentive to restrict their apps to just the Pro models.
I think that's an important point. However spaced apart the revisions are, they'll be very regular, because the rest of Apple needs to plan around it.
We are looking at this as if apple isn’t going to create a level above pro that we currently have. Their fastest chips will be in a while other class. Not consumer chips. Computers for people who can hook up several 8k monitors to it without breaking the bank.
they did this before when they took away towers from average computer buyers and priced them starting at over $3,000 and currently $6,000. They will do the same with the MacBook Pro and iMac.
they did this before when they took away towers from average computer buyers and priced them starting at over $3,000 and currently $6,000. They will do the same with the MacBook Pro and iMac.
I'm not saying you'll be wrong but I am saying that assuming that Apple's past behavior with mobile ARM processors will remain the same with the Mac (and iPad Pro) processors is just that, an assumption, and not at all a fact until it happens. I am well aware of how the A# processors work, I've owned every single A series processor since the A4, and quite a few (but not all) of the A#X processors also.
Well, yes, we’re agreed there. My point was that the M1 is currently a “pro class” SOC now (as opposed to Intel’s Atom, i3 and i5 processors) Any future variants will also be “pro class”. There’s only a tiny chunk of professionals that require more performance than you’d find in the current M1 solutions.
By high rez I mean 4K (and up). And our phones shoot in 4K now. And I betcha next year it will be 8K. And if not next year then 2023.
Don't forget that iPadOS has very harsh memory conservation practices. It simply kills apps in memory when memory is needed. If they loosened that up... and they have been loosening things up over the years... then memory requirements could be coming closer to macOS, which we already know needs much more memory than iPadOS.
For a "pro class" Mac (as @Unregistered 4U calls it), 8 GB is not enough, and 16 GB is just getting started.
People make this argument every year, but the fact of the matter is that technology progresses, and performance needs/wants increase.
Yes it's true that different pros have different needs, overall the requirements in general increase, and Apple likes to stay in front of the curve when possible. Not bleeding edge necessarily, but high performing nonetheless.
BTW, one of the editors of Star Trek: Discovery edits on a trash can Mac Pro... on Dell monitors.
Star Trek Discovery is edited on a trash can Mac Pro
The TV show Star Trek Discovery is edited on a trash can Mac Pro. Well, at least some episodes, for now during the pandemic. This is Scott Gamzon's home setup: That big black box on the floor is a bunch of hard drives. Crappiest table ever though. I'd be afraid to have all that gear on one...
forums.macrumors.com
I suspect he'd probably get better performance (with some software), with a 32 GB MacBook Pro 16" with M1X in 2021, and I also suspect it will start below US$3000. One of the big benefits of this new architecture is that they no longer need to pay AMD and Intel for their chips.
It has beast potential. But a stock M1 gives it a run for its money, and does it without constantly overheating. I just have to look at the 2019 MBP sideways and the fans spin up. If the room I'm in gets to 75F or more, forget it. And if the room is slightly warm and I'm doing anything like running a zoom conference call while also having my coding IDE up, etc, the fans kick in hard and the CPU starts throttling so hard even trying to move a window across the screen is the worst kind of slideshow. Drop down menus take seconds to render, etc. The machine is unusable in that state. I've created a couple of little stilts that the 16" sits on top of, and when it starts showing signs of throttling, I have a little fan I turn on that blows the warm air out from under the laptop which is enough to bring the temps back down to something reasonable for that oven of a CPU. It also chews through battery like crazy.
I'm doing those exact same workloads right now on a work-supplied M1 13" MBP and it screams. It is exceptionally responsive, never throttles regardless of what temperature it is in my office, and is a joy to work with. And barely touches the battery ... it's almost like it runs on air, haha. This is in stark contrast to my 2019 16". For now, the 16" is sitting folded up in the corner, unused since I started doing all my dev work on this M1.
The current crop of M1s are not a good replacement for my personal 16", though. I need the ability to run multiple VMs, so 16GB isn't enough. I also really want the ability to run multiple 4-5K monitors but the M1 can only run a single such monitor at full resolution. Finally, the number of I/O ports is a bit thin for a professional on the current M1 offerings.
So, I'm anxiously awaiting the next tier up of Apple Silicon chips that will (hopefully) allow me to get the RAM I need, the external monitor support, and the I/O ports.
More like 99.999999999999%
Computing performance outstripped the average user’s ability to tell the difference a long time ago. If you tap something and the response happens in 12ns or 30ns…. they’re functionally the same for humans. I’d bet that the HEAVIEST load the vast majority of computers out there have ever been put under… was when the user decided to run a benchmark! LOL
Yes people buy $1000 iPhone every year but this is a very small majority of iPhone users. Would I be happy spending $3000 every two years hell no, and the majority of the public would say the same. When I was a mobile manager, the average customer kept phones for 4 years. And these are not iPhones or iPads so Mac users expect longer live out a product unless you like throwing away your money every couple of years.