Future Apple Silicon Macs Will Reportedly Use 3nm Chips With Up to 40 Cores

[chucker23n1]

I use my computer to do work and process photos and edit video, not run benchmarks.

I'm not the one who threw the weird "mow down anything else Apple has created since then" assertion.

A Mac Pro Classic 12 core (I have a 3.1 GHz so it's much quieter than a 3.33 or 3.46) outruns an M1 Mac Mini handily, despite being 3x slower in single processor benchmarks and slightly slower on multi-processor benchmarks.

On what? Producing heat? As you say, it's slower. Much slower. So, what's your point?

If you want to make the point that a Mac Pro makes internal expansion easier, sure.

The Radeon VII smokes any current Mac GPU.

Like I said, you can get a Mac Pro with a W6900, and it's about twice as fast.

Big thanks to @tsialex and collaborators here for enabling hardware acceleration in Radeon GPU. This is why Apple won't let us have towers:

They do offer a tower. You just don't like its price tag.

so they can force us to throw away computers to upgrade GPU (which is where the action is these days with photo-video software).

By the time, your M1 Pro and M1 Max OS and applications are running smoothly, the M2 Max will be out and your state of the art systems will be under-specced and obsolete.

And yet both the M1 Pro and M2 Max will be faster than your old Mac anyway, so, what's your point?

Jumping in early on a system architecture change is just silly for those with work to do and who would rather spend their money on either charity or creative projects.*

You're right. They should have stuck to 68k.

 

[chucker23n1]

Yes Apple screwed over PPC G5 users and no doubt they'll do the same to Intel users. They do lie and many just wipe it under the carpet. Sadly in many peoples eyes Apple can do no wrong even when they screw users over.

Apple can do wrong and has done wrong, including this very year. I just don't think Apple Silicon is a particularly great example of them doing wrong — they've done some fantastic, competitive SoCs.

 

[foliovision]

Clearly you weren't around either. The Mac Pro's at the start of the Intel era were not over priced. Infact they were far better spec than you could configure a PC/Hackingtosh for. The only thing stopping the 1,1 2,1 and 3,1 Mac Pro's was Apple crippling them by claiming that they could run more recent OS's. Something which has been proven to be a joke by the various patches/mods that are currently around.

We are largely in agreement about how Apple looks out for itself and not for its users (many of which suffer from some kind of religious mania). Where we don't agree is about those early Mac Pros vs Hackintosh. Later, Mac Pro towers (especially used) compared favourably but there was not much attractive about the price/performance ratio for the Mac Pro until the 2010 6-core model (which was very nice). Current pricing for the 2019 Mac Pro is just laughable. I mean it's a nice piece of art, but €14K for the minimal useful video configuration (16 cores, 96 GB memory, Radeon Pro W5700X, SSD 1 TB, Afterburner)?

In any case, my point is that the right time to sit on Intel technology for another year or two is right now. You won't have to run Monterey (which is a house on fire). Big Sur wasn't much better but at least it's stable now with some good workarounds and most software runs reliably under Big Sur. Catalina was awful which makes Mojave/Big Sur the two OS that anyone who wants to work should be eyeing.

The only people who should be looking at moving to Apple Silicon now are those who need laptops or those who don't have an Intel Mac or those with money to burn and time to waste. Thanks to the great work of Macrumors members like @tsialex and @h9826790 we can enjoy Big Sur on the excellent machines which Apple desperately wishes to consign to landfill. Personally my recommendation is to stick with Mojave for another year and a half (Mojave is great, second favourite OS after Snow Leopard), but in my case my photo editor of choice (DxO PhotoLab 5; new masking tool are very useful) doesn't support Mojave pushing me into a premature and unwelcome update and provoking my interest in M1 Macs.

PS. Those with religious fervour about Apple and keen to simply buy whatever Mac is newest and attack anyone who does not share their rapture about beta-testing shoddy recent OS (one year major release schedule is doomed by design) can burn in hell.

 

[foliovision]

I don't think Apple Silicon is a particularly great example of them doing wrong — they've done some fantastic, competitive SoCs.

Nothing wrong with the hardware at this point. It's the software which sucks. OS's are buggy as all get out (Big Sur and Monterey), not only but particularly on Apple Silicon. Most software vendors have not caught up with Apple Silicon (some have) and their applications are in band-aid mode. Rosetta II works but is creaky and wreaks havoc with M1 memory.

I sit here writing this on an M1 Mac Mini which is on trial and has wasted a ton of my time to make purr. The only reason I continue to have interest – and it's a good one – is that the M1 Mac Mini is dead silent. My home Mac Pro tower is very quiet with the fans are carefully tweaked but under load. I love my Mac Pro at work as a daytime environment has enough background noise in it that I don't hear it at all. My home office is absolute peace and it's a nuisance to have to listen to music not to hear the computer. Light computer noise is no issue for an hour or two or three but sometimes I'm here working for six or eight hours in a row. The M1 Mac Mini does help reduce white noise irritation.

But anyone thinking about going down this path – get ready to waste dozens of hours trying to regain control of your Mac and picking out apps which already have competent Apple Silicon version (Cyberduck is now M1 native but since Cyberduck requires about 600 MB of memory to run it's not a duck but a turkey, this is just an example). I'm stupid for having started down this path and anyone (who doesn't require portability) who follows me is even more foolish.

 

[SteveW928]

And yet both the M1 Pro and M2 Max will be faster than your old Mac anyway, so, what's your point?

The question is, at what? For example, I still have to run Revit (by Autodesk), so an M1 Mac is considerably slower than my 2018 mini.

The other problem on the GPU front, is that most 3D apps aren't Metal, even if they run on Apple Silicon.

I think it is going to be a while for some of us. I'll probably jump in at some point and just run two systems, or go with a PC & Mac.

In any case, my point is that the right time to sit on Intel technology for another year or two is right now. You won't have to run Monterey (which is a house on fire). Big Sur wasn't much better but at least it's stable now with some good workarounds and most software runs reliably under Big Sur. Catalina was awful which makes Mojave/Big Sur the two OS that anyone who wants to work should be eyeing.

Yeah, software is now clearly Apple's weak spot. I'm still on Mojave as well and probably will be for some time the way things are going. This is partly due to software compatibility, the aside from a few features, the grass doesn't look greener.

I'm hoping much of this stems from the focus on iPhones combined with trying to integrate so many Mac/iOS things together, and it will now start improving. That said, on the surface, it seems Apple doesn't really understand user-interface design on the software side anymore so even if all the rest comes together, one of the big things that always made the Mac the Mac for me has been severely damaged. It's just that Windows is still much worse.

... The only reason I continue to have interest – and it's a good one – is that the M1 Mac Mini is dead silent.

Yeah, I'm really interested in that aspect. It gives hope that Apple could make silent machines in the prosumer space. Whether they will, or just make them even smaller, we'll have to wait and see I guess. My 2018 mini is pretty much silent until I push it as well. If you push the M1 mini, do you hear it (I'd assume yes)?

If the rendering are accurate, I'm a bit afraid of where the mini 'Pro' is going. If they put the Pro/Max in there, I'd hope the unit would be big enough to silently cool itself, not be tiny. Are there just too few of us who care if machines are silent? I would think there would be more demand for that.

... (Cyberduck is now M1 native but since Cyberduck requires about 600 MB of memory to run it's not a duck but a turkey, this is just an example).

You might want to check out, ForkLift. I used to be a YummyFTP fan, but the dev sadly passed away and the app stopped getting updated. After a lot of searching, I found ForkLift and have been quite happy with it. https://binarynights.com

 

[Boil]

If the rendering are accurate, I'm a bit afraid of where the mini 'Pro' is going. If they put the Pro/Max in there, I'd hope the unit would be big enough to silently cool itself, not be tiny. Are there just too few of us who care if machines are silent? I would think there would be more demand for that.

That Prosser render is *****...!

It has a single vent on the bottom; is it intake or exhaust...?

I, for one, would like a taller Mac mini for M1 Pro/Max SoC models; better / bigger heat sink & fan(s) for improved cooling performance...!

 

[foliovision]

Yeah, software is now clearly Apple's weak spot. I'm still on Mojave as well and probably will be for some time the way things are going. This is partly due to software compatibility, the aside from a few features, the grass doesn't look greener.

No, it's not Mojave has very clear contrast without looking primitive. To get reasonable contrast on Big Sur, it's necessary to choose both Reduce Transparency and Increase Contrast in Accessibility --> Display. Which basically turns the Big Sur interface black and white.

The interface just looks different but in no way better – trying to find a way to look new, rather than form following function. The zero contrast look indicates Apple is following its main iPhone market, teenagers and early twenties, as there is not enough visual differentiation for users above forty.

Final version Mojave has this nice reliable feel to it where the OS gets out of the way and doesn't call attention to itself and just lets one get about one's work. What you will hate in Big Sur (I have no personal Catalina experience but apparently the security theatre started there) is the endless special authorisations for any activity. I literally spend about half my work time interrupted to grant apps and utilities like Witch, DeepL, Displays, Keyboard Maestro, Keyboard Maestro Engine, LaunchBar, Photo Mechanic Plus, Rectangle, Script Editor, Typinator the minimal access they need in order to function.

Apple is literally trying to drive independent developers out of the OS. Which is a pity as the independent macOS developers and useful and attractive tools they build are mostly what keep me from moving to Linux.

I, for one, would like a taller Mac mini for M1 Pro/Max SoC models; better / bigger heat sink & fan(s) for improved cooling performance...!

Yes, these MacBooks and MacBook Pros and iMacs with inadequate cooling systems to shave off a few mm have grown very tedious. All of them are noisy and/or burn out graphic cards destroying the motherboard starting from the 2011 MBP and its Radeon 6750 graphics gate. The best of the lot is the 2014-2015 13" MBP limited to Intel on-board graphics. Not really suited for heavy duty graphics works but quiet most of the time (my significant other has had a couple of these).

I don't want to be too negative: this M1 architecture holds a lot of promise if Apple doesn't somehow cripple them in software (the security theatre lockdown is a worry – Apple seems to have decided that users shouldn't be able to install applications or run their computers themselves, everyone has to conform 1984 style to how Craig Federighi thinks people should use their computers and he's a pretty primitive thinker.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Who gives a s**t. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I didn't say two, I said the entire industry.

 

[foliovision]

Like I said, you can get a Mac Pro with a W6900, and it's about twice as fast.

Wow, just rereading your reply – you certainly love to spend other people's money and send early Christmas presents to Tim Cook. In practical terms for most content creation, a well configured CMP performs equally well as the 2019 Mac Pro, offering similar expansion but without requiring proprietary graphic cards and proprietary drives.

I ran across an interesting discussion on the Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve forum where a group of editors and colourists put the M1, M1 Pro and M1 Max through its paces on a practical benchmark. Here's the results summarised.

The M1 machines are very impressive for laptops, but we've seen in this thread that in GPU bound tests, they're still some way from beating a higher end desktop GPU.

My Hackintosh was about the same price as a 64GB M1 Max and it's twice as fast in Uli's test as the M1 Max 64GB, and four times faster than the M1 Pro 32GB. In the earlier Fusion composition test, which is primarily CPU-bound, it was just under twice as fast as the 32GB M1 Pro. (We don't have an M1 Max test for that, but as it's CPU bound I would expect similar results to the Pro).

Mark's 10+ year old Mac Pro with 2+ years old Radeon VII is a couple of minutes faster than the M1 Max 64 in this GPU-bound test, and 2.5x the speed of the M1 Pro 32GB.

The new M1 machines are great laptops, but from all I've seen I think it's hyperbole to say they're workstation beaters.

You can read the whole thread to see exactly how each computer does. I wouldn't be inclined to run a Hackintosh after 2017 as a kitted out Mac Pro 5,1 tower is plenty powerful, looks better and costs less.

Not very nice of Apple to cripple modern Metal graphic cards though in High Sierra and Mojave, deliberately making available only about a third of their performance. For acts like this and the sabotage of repairability and the lockdown of the OS (which fails only due to our collective efforts at MacRumors and a couple of other sites), I will send as little money as possible to Apple as infrequently as possible. Apple is basically the enemy, extracting as much revenue from its loyal users as possible while offering them the least amount of flexibility and power. We're lucky that Apple is on a revenge-fest against Intel and have come up with a chip which has long term potential to improve computing and particularly portable computing.

Just don't think Apple did it for us. If they did, RAM would not be €460 for 16 GB nor would SSD cost €230 for 256 GB. Sure there could be a premium but this is gouging. Price gouging has gotten Apple in a lot of trouble historically – in 1985 by pricing the Macintosh at $2500+ (equivalent to over $6000 today) and the Macintosh II at $5500 in 1987, Apple single-handedly assured the success of Microsoft Windows 3.0.

I have no issue with the power of the M1 family but it will be a rough ride in terms of stability and consistent performance for the first couple of years of the new architecture. My M1 Mac Mini crashed again while idle yesterday (left for twelve hours), not even sleeping. Apple's has so bollocked the log files now, I'm not sure why (despite a trip to Console). If anyone has a link to some quick sensible tips on how to get useful information out of a post-Sierra Mac log, let me know.

 

[chucker23n1]

Wow, just rereading your reply – you certainly love to spend other people's money

Not really.

This thread is literally about future Apple products. If you don't want to spend a future Apple product, that's fine by me, but I'm not sure why this thread interests you.

In practical terms for most content creation, a well configured CMP performs equally well as the 2019 Mac Pro,

OK, so now we've gone from "it'll mow down anything else Apple has created since then" (no) to "smoke any current Mac GPU" (no) to "outruns an M1 Mac Mini handily" (no) to "performs equally well" (no).

You like your current Mac? Great.

offering similar expansion but without requiring proprietary graphic cards and proprietary drives.

I ran across an interesting discussion on the Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve forum where a group of editors and colourists put the M1, M1 Pro and M1 Max through its paces on a practical benchmark. Here's the results summarised.

So now you do care about benchmarks? Interesting.

Yeah, I'm sure you can put together a desktop with components that will run faster than a laptop. I'm not quite sure how that is a huge insight. The M1 Max is impressive because it puts all that performance in a laptop, just like early Intel Macs were equally impressive compared to PowerPC Macs by what Steve Jobs then touted as performance per watt.

You can read the whole thread to see exactly how each computer does.

I could, but I'm not 13, and get paid by the hour, so building a machine myself doesn't particularly interest me. It also isn't a huge insight that Apple isn't interested in that market. They haven't been since the mid-1990s.

I have no issue with the power of the M1 family

And yet you've called them "prototypes" in this very thread. Meanwhile, ten of million people happily use them.

 

[foliovision]

So now you do care about benchmarks? Interesting.

These aren't benchmarks, this is real world performance in a content creation application, not a synthetic. And the test project was put together by a real editor based on real work, not a computer geek (i.e. Rob Morgan).

I'm not 13, and get paid by the hour, so building a machine myself doesn't particularly interest me.

Wow, people who build their own computers are 13 year olds. Only a blind Apple zeolot would say something so stupid and condescending. I have some bad news for you chucker. No matter what you do or say, neither Apple nor Tim Cook will ever return your love.

For the rest of us, the software to properly support these M1 Macs will be ready either at the end of Monterey (12.6) or in the version following Monterey. M1 Macs are not all that stable (crashes) or reliable (huge application memory leaks) at this point. My own testing is with a M1 Mac Mini and Big Sur 11.6.1.

Future versions of M1 chips will run reliably almost right away as the issues are not particularly between M1 and M1 Pro/M1 Max but with M1 architecture generally. There's a bright future in front of us with M1 Macs but the future is not now.

 

[chucker23n1]

Wow, people who build their own computers are 13 year olds. Only a blind Apple zeolot would say something so stupid and condescending. I have some bad news for you chucker. No matter what you do or say, neither Apple nor Tim Cook will ever return your love.

Talk about condescending.

And that's not what I said.

Anyway, enjoy "mowing down" Macs that are a decade newer.

 

[SteveW928]

That Prosser render is *****...!

It has a single vent on the bottom; is it intake or exhaust...?

I, for one, would like a taller Mac mini for M1 Pro/Max SoC models; better / bigger heat sink & fan(s) for improved cooling performance...!

Amen to that. Make it 2x taller, 4x, I don't care. But, it has too have adequate air flow and cooling (meaning, unlike nearly every Mac besides the Mac Pro for many, many years now).

It's kind of a mixed bag, seeing the results of the 14" MB Pro. I guess one can argue to get the 16", but would it even be worth getting a 14" Max? It seems like you'd be loosing most of the gains. But, so far, the 16" looks pretty good, so someone at Apple must be listening on the cooling/airflow front.

No, it's not Mojave has very clear contrast without looking primitive. To get reasonable contrast on Big Sur, it's necessary to choose both Reduce Transparency and Increase Contrast in Accessibility --> Display. Which basically turns the Big Sur interface black and white.

The interface just looks different but in no way better – trying to find a way to look new, rather than form following function. The zero contrast look indicates Apple is following its main iPhone market, teenagers and early twenties, as there is not enough visual differentiation for users above forty.
...

Oh yeah, sorry, I was talking about Windows in terms of 'grass not being greener'. Apple's user-interface design team don't seem to know what they are doing any more. It just isn't as bad (yet) as Windows. But, it's sadly quite bad compared to the past of the Mac.

...
You can read the whole thread to see exactly how each computer does.

...

Just don't think Apple did it for us. If they did, RAM would not be €460 for 16 GB nor would SSD cost €230 for 256 GB. Sure there could be a premium but this is gouging. ...

That's interesting, thanks! I'm not a heavy video editor, but that's a good real-world comparison that shows the weaknesses. And, isn't Resolve optimized for Metal? But, hopefully as we add even more cores, the GPUs will start to compete. The problem is that a Mac Pro can have 4x the kind of GPU the top Max is getting close to. So, yeah, the Apple Silicon thing still has a LONG way to go on the GPU front.

I had hoped Apple would add in AMD and eGPU support. With the Intel platform, I could buy (like I did) a mini and add the GPU power I need. Or, a laptop user could do the same. It kind of looks like their current strategy is going to be to push anyone needing GPU power to the iMac Pro or Mac Pro. That kind of sucks. Hopefully, that stuff (AMD and eGPU, or at least Apple Silicon eGPU support) is still coming.

While I'm fairly impressed at the power of this first take at Apple Silicon Macs, I've been bit shocked as well at the pricing. The Pro/Max Macs are quite expensive. It is like Apple is pricing them based on performance comparison rather than finally having their own chips and not having to depend on Intel pricing. In other words, using all that gain to further push the profit margin instead of keeping similar pricing to previous models.

I'm hoping to get the next Mac mini "pro" or whatever, but if it is priced like the MBPs, I might change my mind. Maybe a lot of that money is in the screen (which is nice, but overkill for my needs)? I'd think I should be able to get something competitive with an Intel i9 and mid-to-upper Nvidia GPU w/o it costing $4k-5k. (I suppose until crypto-driven GPU prices come back into reality, maybe not? But, I think one can buy a gaming PC in that range for $2-3k.)

...
Yeah, I'm sure you can put together a desktop with components that will run faster than a laptop. I'm not quite sure how that is a huge insight. The M1 Max is impressive because it puts all that performance in a laptop, just like early Intel Macs were equally impressive compared to PowerPC Macs by what Steve Jobs then touted as performance per watt.

... It also isn't a huge insight that Apple isn't interested in that market. They haven't been since the mid-1990s.
...

Hmm, except those are the chips they put in the desktop, too (ie. iMac). It doesn't look like there will be a desktop chip until we see the iMac Pro/Mac Pro. I guess we'll have to wait and see with the mini 'Pro' looks like, but we're back to the problem Apple has always had for we prosumer and non-big-corporate pros... empty middle.

Forever, we've been screaming for the 'mini tower' Mac that doesn't cost 2 arms and 3 legs, yet doesn't burn up if you try to do anything serious. Apple needs to compete with those 'put together components' because that's what the PC people are using. It's just a matter of whether they 'put it together' to save a buck, or buy it already put together. Either way, the target isn't kinda, sorta getting close to an Nvidia 3080, so long as you're running the right optimized Metal app. I guess my hopes had been that Apple would match or beat that box and do so at a semi-competitive price.

And, if video editing isn't Apple's market, what is? It isn't home gamers either, apparently. And, these machines are too powerful for the home consumer who decided the iPhone/iPad wasn't quite enough 'computer.' 3D, CAD, engineering... are those not Apple's market either? Running Windows software... not anymore? What's left?

Are we already making excuses for Apple letting us down? I hope not.

 

[foliovision]

The problem is that a Mac Pro can have 4x the kind of GPU the top Max is getting close to. So, yeah, the Apple Silicon thing still has a LONG way to go on the GPU front.

Steve, the M1 Max graphics are pretty impressive. The issue that pros are facing with the M1 Macs (at least until the M1 Pro and M1 Max) is that RAM is shared between GPU and CPU. With the fast SSD's (3000-6000 MB/sec depending on model), some swapping when multi-tasking is almost invisible. That stops as soon as you have one big task, like a render or photo exports.

The M1 Mac Mini I had in for testing basically froze when exporting D850 images from DxO PhotoLab 5. That's 15 minutes I can't even use a web browser or type a plain text document (not without very jerky page movement or huge delays between letters showing up).

So all those YouTubers out there touting the 16 GB M1 Pro as a great solution are not using them in battle under stress but in short-term testing. If you are going to to M1 for anything more than a casual machine, it should have at least 32 GB of memory. That leaves 8-12 GB for the GPU functionality when working in a graphics heavy application while still having 20 GB of memory for the CPU/applications. Check out ultrageek (and quite competent photographer curiouisly) Art is Right's testing on the effect of memory on these machines. It turns out it's almost always better to upgrade the memory to 32 GB than the processors on the base 14 (not to mention fans run quieter).

I should be able to get something competitive with an Intel i9 and mid-to-upper Nvidia GPU w/o it costing $4k-5k. (I suppose until crypto-driven GPU prices come back into reality, maybe not? But, I think one can buy a gaming PC in that range for $2-3k.)

I've got some 2020 5K iMacs coming in on Black Friday pricing. 8 cores of i7 with Radeon W5500XT with 8GB of VRAM with 64 GB of RAM self-installed at under €2000. That's a lot of machine, not counting the 5K HDR display with which it comes (I'm most worried about glare as I prefer matte screens). The graphic card alone retails now at €800 if you can find one.

The same machine in an 16" M1 Max would cost over €4300 without a proper external screen and at least €5500 with it and external keyboard and trackpad. The M1 Max MBP 16" is portable but in these days of lockdown, portability is less of a selling point than usual. There is a sweet spot for the M1 Macs – it's the base 14" M1 Pro with 32 GB of memory and 1 TB internal drive. That's enough computer to competently do everything except cut 8K and it comes in at €2900. Still need screens, monitors, keyboards, trackpads though.

Those 2020 5K iMacs with price reduction though look like a great stopgap for pro work for two or three years by which time on the software sideApple Silicon memory management issues and a random crashes should be solved and on the hardware side there will be some very impressive high end M1 Triple Max Mac Minis released which will be silent with more computing power than a high end 2019 Mac Pro.

 

[Boil]

...two or three years by which time on the software sideApple Silicon memory management issues and a random crashes should be solved and on the hardware side there will be some very impressive high end M1 Triple Max Mac Minis released which will be silent with more computing power than a high end 2019 Mac Pro.

I would hope Apple has moved past the M1-series of processors after two or three years...! ;^p

Now, a M3 Max Duo in a taller Mac mini chassis would be pretty sweet...?

 

[chucker23n1]

Hmm, except those are the chips they put in the desktop, too (ie. iMac).

Sure.

At the end of the day, it's always a function of performance per watt.

Most people don't buy desktops, they buy laptops. For laptops, Apple currently has a very impressive chip offering. It remains to be seen how well Alder Lake competes in practice — yes, there are chips that hypothetically benchmark better, but it doesn't look like those will be feasible (while retaining their benchmark numbers) in machines one might reasonably call a laptop.

For most desktops, Apple seems to think the M1 is good enough. For my personal needs, it isn't, chiefly because it only goes up to 16 Gigs of RAM.

It doesn't look like there will be a desktop chip until we see the iMac Pro/Mac Pro. I guess we'll have to wait and see with the mini 'Pro' looks like, but we're back to the problem Apple has always had for we prosumer and non-big-corporate pros... empty middle.

Forever, we've been screaming for the 'mini tower' Mac that doesn't cost 2 arms and 3 legs, yet doesn't burn up if you try to do anything serious.

It's not a market segment Apple is interested in.

And, if video editing isn't Apple's market,

Video editing absolutely is one of Apple's markets.

what is?

Software developers, too.

Are we already making excuses for Apple letting us down? I hope not.

No, but I'm not sure how many more years Apple needs to rather clearly communicate that a mid-range tower isn't happening. It wasn't ten years ago, and it isn't today.

 

[EntropyQ3]

Most people don't buy desktops, they buy laptops.

Who are "most people" though? I’m well aware of the overall statistics, and how Apples have deviated from that for quite some time. But a, or possibly the, reason Apple sells so much fewer desktop systems is that their desktop systems simply are less compelling products.

It’s symptomatic that Apples AS laptops are currently more powerful than their desktops (!), as is the observation that the desktop systems do not offer any benefit from being mains tethered stationary systems. They have neither the space or power constraints of laptops, but Apple doesn’t utilize that freedom to provide any customer benefit at all. Their desktops lack integrity. That doesn’t make them bad for everyone, but it makes them far less attractive products than the laptop offerings, and Apples sales statistics show that.

If Apples desktop offerings were better, than so would their sales statistics be. They are connected.

(Arguably, Apple actively cripples their desktops. Why can’t we plug in other devices into the 24" iMac screen? Why exactly can’t it even use 10Gbe when the Mini does so? Nevermind that these devices with unconstrained space don’t even provide an m.2 slot, much less…the list goes on. Colours are nice, but as an addition to capabilities, not as a substitute.)

 

[Michael Scrip]

Who are "most people" though? I’m well aware of the overall statistics, and how Apples have deviated from that for quite some time. But a, or possibly the, reason Apple sells so much fewer desktop systems is that their desktop systems simply are less compelling products.

It’s symptomatic that Apples AS laptops are currently more powerful than their desktops (!), as is the observation that the desktop systems do not offer any benefit from being mains tethered stationary systems. They have neither the space or power constraints of laptops, but Apple doesn’t utilize that freedom to provide any customer benefit at all. Their desktops lack integrity. That doesn’t make them bad for everyone, but it makes them far less attractive products than the laptop offerings, and Apples sales statistics show that.

If Apples desktop offerings were better, than so would their sales statistics be. They are connected.

Laptops have been vastly outselling desktops in the Windows world as well.

My local Best Buy has PC laptops taking up the entire back center section of the store... while there are only a handful of desktop towers hidden on some aisle.

We're living in a laptop world... and have been for quite a while.

 

[SteveW928]

Steve, the M1 Max graphics are pretty impressive. The issue that pros are facing with the M1 Macs (at least until the M1 Pro and M1 Max) is that RAM is shared between GPU and CPU. With the fast SSD's (3000-6000 MB/sec depending on model), some swapping when multi-tasking is almost invisible. That stops as soon as you have one big task, like a render or photo exports.

The M1 Mac Mini I had in for testing basically froze when exporting D850 images from DxO PhotoLab 5. That's 15 minutes I can't even use a web browser or type a plain text document (not without very jerky page movement or huge delays between letters showing up).

So all those YouTubers out there touting the 16 GB M1 Pro as a great solution ...

Wow, that's crazy that it freezes up like that. That sounds like some kind of storage I/O issue, is that is about the only time I see computers get choked-up these days. Basically it is swapping so heavily, it is saturating the SSD?

I haven't watched too many YouTubers yet, but MaxTech had a video where they tried to throw about everything at it, and it didn't seem to phase either the lower RAM or ones with more RAM. Maybe they weren't doing a crazy enough thing, but it seemed like it from my limited knowledge.

That said, yeah, I can see there are some things were having the RAM available will certainly make a difference. 3D rendering is another such example. The more RAM, the faster it goes.

It turns out it's almost always better to upgrade the memory to 32 GB than the processors on the base 14 (not to mention fans run quieter).

Great point, thanks. Yeah, I think I'd want the 32 GB minimum. Hopefully the mini 'Pros' are priced a bit better, because that requirement currently sets the cheapest Mac I could buy at > $3500 CAD. Meanwhile on the Intel side, you can have a nice system for far less (as you point out).

Those 2020 5K iMacs with price reduction though look like a great stopgap for pro work for two or three years by which time on the software sideApple Silicon memory management issues and a random crashes should be solved and on the hardware side there will be some very impressive high end M1 Triple Max Mac Minis released which will be silent with more computing power than a high end 2019 Mac Pro.

Yeah, I'm probably stuck on my Intel mini setup for a while yet. I had kind of hoped to add an Apple Silicon machine, but I think that 32 GB issue is the deal killer right now. M1 Triple Max Mini? Is that something I've missed? I was hearing about dual and quad configs.

For most desktops, Apple seems to think the M1 is good enough. For my personal needs, it isn't, chiefly because it only goes up to 16 Gigs of RAM.

Yeah, it is Pro or Max minimally, which means several $ thousand. Whereas my current Intel mini with eGPU was just over $2k. The M1 is going to beat it on CPU I guess (in some regards, at least), but overall, my current setup is more powerful. It all looked so great until the prices.

It's not a market segment Apple is interested in.

That's a shame, because it is money on the table for them. It's also something they could do stupid-easy. Maybe the mass-public laptop buyer doesn't care, but every Apple forum for decades has been screaming for this.

It's almost like Apple is *trying* to limit their products to mass-market or very-high-end. Targeting a market segment seems different from actively trying to exclude one.

Video editing absolutely is one of Apple's markets.
Software developers, too.

That's why I made that comment, because you had said Davinci Resolve users weren't Apple's target market. I was like, huh?

Oh, absolutely, software developers (and every coffee shop jockey), plus any kind of entrepreneur and small business person from YouTuber to podcaster, etc. And, the M1 is just fine (no great!) for those people. If they need a bit more umpfh, there is the Pro/Max. I get that, and those people are happy as clams right now.

No, but I'm not sure how many more years Apple needs to rather clearly communicate that a mid-range tower isn't happening. It wasn't ten years ago, and it isn't today.

The devil is in the details here. Apple has been communicating they aren't going to make a mid-tower with slots and upgradable everything. While I once wanted that, I've given up on it (and don't really need it anymore, the way computers are now made).

What I haven't given up on, though, is something more powerful than a laptop, but that doesn't cost > $10k. If Apple has given up on that market, then I guess they REALLY need to clearly communicate that, so we can all move on (as painful as that would be).

I was under the impression that Apple Silicon was going to allow Apple to make something between entry-level and a costly Xeon-based Pro. And, there's no reason that shouldn't be the case.

Who are "most people" though? I’m well aware of the overall statistics, and how Apples have deviated from that for quite some time. But a, or possibly the, reason Apple sells so much fewer desktop systems is that their desktop systems simply are less compelling products.
...
If Apples desktop offerings were better, than so would their sales statistics be. They are connected.
...

Exactly! It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you don't make a competitive product in a market segment, don't be amazed if you don't score high in that segment for your sales.

Absolutely, a mid-tier system isn't going to sell like the entry level. That's true for pretty much every company/product-line on earth. Yet, most companies still serve a range of customer needs (or separate companies do, targeting each segment.

Laptops have been vastly outselling desktops in the Windows world as well. ...

Yeah, that's just the nature of things right now, especially with the focus on work-from-home. But, not making desktops is about as silly as car makers moving to only SUVs. There are still people who want sedans, and even sports cars or trucks.

That logic is just creating an excuse for Apple, unless Apple makes it clear they are now only interested in base consumer products. I was under the impression, Apple was kind of trapped there for sometime by Intel's failures, not that they've decided they only want to serve that market.

 

[chucker23n1]

Why exactly can’t it even use 10Gbe when the Mini does so?

I imagine that's coming in the higher-end iMac.

(I don't know the internals of the iMac's power connector. The iFixit teardown seems to suggest it's literally a power cord with extra wires to pass Ethernet through. In which case, 10GigE should easily work. But maybe the protocol is something more like USB-C, or otherwise limited to just over 1 Gb/s.)

That's why I made that comment, because you had said Davinci Resolve users weren't Apple's target market. I was like, huh?

I can't imagine having said that. Perhaps something that could be interpreted as that.

Video editing is absolutely one of the target markets of higher-end Macs.

Oh, absolutely, software developers (and every coffee shop jockey), plus any kind of entrepreneur and small business person from YouTuber to podcaster, etc. And, the M1 is just fine (no great!) for those people. If they need a bit more umpfh, there is the Pro/Max. I get that, and those people are happy as clams right now.

Personally, I'd be even happier with the best of both worlds, as I (for now) use Windows heavily. ARM will be a regression in that regard, at least for quite a while (there may yet come a time, five years or so down the road, where Windows on ARM grows in popularity).

 

[SteveW928]

...
I can't imagine having said that. Perhaps something that could be interpreted as that.

Video editing is absolutely one of the target markets of higher-end Macs.

Ahh, I see. You were responding to a thread about Davinci Resolve testing, Intel vs Apple Silicon, but that comment probably pertained to the 'machine building' aspect, not the Intel vs AS aspects.

Personally, I'd be even happier with the best of both worlds, as I (for now) use Windows heavily. ARM will be a regression in that regard, at least for quite a while (there may yet come a time, five years or so down the road, where Windows on ARM grows in popularity).

I'm missing a bit what the 'best of both worlds' is, though. My complaint, is that Apple Silicon seems not to be addressing the 'missing middle' of Apple's product line, when it should be able to.

Yes, Windows is also a concern for me, which I haven't quite figured out what I'll do. My plan had been to add a Mac mini 'Pro' when it comes out and just keep both minis (they'll probably stack nicely, unless Apple wildly deviates from the design). But, given that I want minimally 32 GB of RAM, I'm concerned the mini 'Pro' might be out of financial reach (at least in the shorter term).

 

[chucker23n1]

Ahh, I see. You were responding to a thread about Davinci Resolve testing, Intel vs Apple Silicon, but that comment probably pertained to the 'machine building' aspect, not the Intel vs AS aspects.

Yeah, that sounds right.

But, given that I want minimally 32 GB of RAM, I'm concerned the mini 'Pro' might be out of financial reach (at least in the shorter term).

I suspect either the M2 or M3 will raise the max RAM to 32. That would make the cheapest mini with it $1299. Unless they also use that opportunity to raise the base from 8 to 16, in which case it might end up being $1099.

(I wish there were a 32 GiB M1. I would have happily bought an iMac with that config earlier this year.)

 

[ingambe]

That's why I don't future proof!

Same here
Also, the extra money spent on ram/SSD upgrade doesn't usually translate into the resell value
Money and pleasure wise, it's way more efficient to resell it after 2-3 years and buy a new model

 

[chucker23n1]

Same here
Also, the extra money spent on ram/SSD upgrade doesn't usually translate into the resell value
Money and pleasure wise, it's way more efficient to resell it after 2-3 years and buy a new model

Plus, with the SSD, just get an external SSD. Typically not as fast, but much, much cheaper. Get ~512 GiB for your internal SSD — maybe 256, maybe 1 TiB — and then just add external storage. With Apple, the 1 TiB option is $400 on top of whatever the 256 GiB already costs. With Samsung, you can get a 1 TiB for $150 total.

With RAM, that's not an option, alas. Get as much RAM as you need. Not much more (because it's pricey), but not less. With the SSD, get as much storage as you always need with you.

 

[EntropyQ3]

Laptops have been vastly outselling desktops in the Windows world as well.

My local Best Buy has PC laptops taking up the entire back center section of the store... while there are only a handful of desktop towers hidden on some aisle.

We're living in a laptop world... and have been for quite a while.

We actually have numbers.
Under Windows, laptops outsell stationary systems not quite 2:1.
Under MacOS we don't have as good numbers, but it has been estimated to be 5-6:1.

Stated a bit provocatively: Apples desktops would sell more if they sucked less.

I don't really know who came up with the holy product matrix Apple still seemingly adheres to, but there is little question that the desktop systems really got the dirty end of the stick. It is a bit unfortunate because statistics suggest that with minor modifications Apple could easily increase their sales by taking back desktop sales from Windows. But that would require for instance good I/O connectivity and monitor support. Being able to add something as simple as an m.2 SSD would help too as would being able to plug other devices into the typically nice iMac screens. (The last two being features that have been actively removed.)