Nothing at all. Just a LOT of people who waits for new Macs. But we will hear this over and over again until all the Mac’s have transitioned into the new Apple chips.
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.
Gurman: Redesigned iMac Pro, New AirPods Pro, and More to Launch This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They want to keep the natives from getting restless or is it to make us restless?We've been getting the same report about the new Mac mini, over and over, since May. And it's all from the same guy: Gurman, then Gurman, then Gurman, then Gurman, then Gurman.
Apple Working on High-End Mac Mini With Additional Ports and More Powerful Chip From Next-Gen MacBook Pro
Apple is working on a high-end version of the Mac mini, featuring a more powerful Apple silicon chip and extra ports, according to Bloomberg's...www.macrumors.com
The Xeon iMac Pro was obsoleted because the regular iMac became a much better value/performance buy. It was a oddity in the end. Incorporation of the M1 pro processor doesn’t mean everything that uses it suddenly is a pro model. I’m reasonably sure Apple has no plans to incorporate newer processors and then have to market these with a pro after the model name confusing consumers. It also relates to better displays, eventually everything will be more powerful, and use better displays if not headless. The current 27” is actually fairly reasonable and the Apple store uses a larger/smaller dual computer icon for iMac marketing. Even the Mac Mini if it got a M1 Pro is not like a baby Mac Pro which is actually what some hope for IMHO.
Not only that, there’s the matter of the current iMac being reported to have a bit of a skew at it’s current size. Any larger on THAT base, and it’s likely to get worse.
Its quite possible that the next 27"+ iMac will be a lot lighter. So a slightly larger stand might not be a big concern.
The current 2020 27" iMac weights 19.7 pounds (8.92 kg). The thermal cooling implementation going with either M1 Pro or M1 Max means a lot less weight/heat.
Note the 2021 24" is 9.83 pounds (4.46 kg), previous 2017 21" iMac was 12.0 pounds (5.44 kg).
The M1 Max iMac Pro would be a several months old computer at its release date.
It would be quite disappointment if there are not any improvement in performance vs MBP (or even a 600USD mac mini in single core.) as a desktop would compete with very powerful processors, and I think not a lot of people have concerns about power saving when talking of desktop top class computer.
Apple said Intel as holding their release cycles, but as in politics, who cares what they dais in the past XD.
It would be quite disappointment if there are not any improvement in performance vs MBP (or even a 600USD mac mini in single core.) as a desktop would compete with very powerful processors, and I think not a lot of people have concerns about power saving when talking of desktop top class computer.
Apple said Intel as holding their release cycles, but as in politics, who cares what they dais in the past XD.
And, at the same time, the M1 Max iMac Pro would be the fastest iMac Pro money could buy. For those that like the power of the M1 Max and are looking to replace their old iMac Pro, putting the two together is obvious. There will be those that are disappointed, sure, but Apple’s been disappointing folks for years. I doubt they plan to stop now.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Is it an absolute certainty that Apple can't add more power to M1 MAX to make it run faster? Is it hard truth that power level is fixed with these chips?
If so, is the only way forward (to "more powerful" Macs) until M2 adding cores?
And if so, what is hypothetical max core count? At what point would adding more cores no longer work? Or is that what DUO and QUAD is about? And is it HEX and OCTO after that?
I've seen much in forums that seems to read both ways about the power question and that simply adding more and more cores with each generation will bump into a hard quantity limit sooner than later.
Anyone KNOW likely definitive answers to these questions?
If the answer is that cranking power (like overclocking Intel) is possible with M1 MAX, can't these desktop Macs with M1 MAX run faster on higher power because they don't need to work in battery mode?
If so, is the only way forward (to "more powerful" Macs) until M2 adding cores?
And if so, what is hypothetical max core count? At what point would adding more cores no longer work? Or is that what DUO and QUAD is about? And is it HEX and OCTO after that?
I've seen much in forums that seems to read both ways about the power question and that simply adding more and more cores with each generation will bump into a hard quantity limit sooner than later.
Anyone KNOW likely definitive answers to these questions?
If the answer is that cranking power (like overclocking Intel) is possible with M1 MAX, can't these desktop Macs with M1 MAX run faster on higher power because they don't need to work in battery mode?
Last edited:
Nah, no one has definitive answers. Actually, someone DOES know definitively, but they like the job they have where they have access to this information and know that to keep that job, they need to adhere to their signed NDA.
Apple’s goals is very likely not “benchmarking well against Intel” though they do anyway. Their main goal is more aligned with producing a system that’s has a greater level of performance than their prior system. Towards this end, there are many ways to improve performance that don’t rely on cranking the voltage. Take the hardware acceleration of ProRes video, for example. This is something that was previously only available on the Mac Pro at a premium price. This is now available in a laptop at a performance that is twice as fast as the fastest Mac Pro that you can buy right now. This is the kind of real world, everyday performance improvements that Apple can design in at the hardware/software/application level that Intel will never be able to touch. CAN they add more voltage. Likely, but they don’t have to. What they’ve created in the M1 is faster than the prior systems and the M2 will be faster than the systems before it.
And, there will always be some benchmark where an Intel chip will beat an Apple Silicon chip.
Not entirely true. I was thinking the same thing about buying a 2019/2020 iMac i9 but realized the iMac Pro is still the best Intel iMac. I'm eyeing the iMac Pro market as I badly want to replace my i7 Mini.
Comparing the base Pro to the fully rigged out i9 2020:
Pro: Better cooling, 4x TB3 ports which is split along 2 buses, arguably designed better to be abused
i9 5700XT: Slightly better CPU, better GPU
The i9 actually costs more new than the market price for a used Pro.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes I understand. However, the world at large is programmed to think power. We all want a very powerful computer. We can try to shift our thinking to power PER WATT when Apple doesn't look like they are winning some kind of head-to-head contest... but then we have to think about how happy are we at having less horsepower head-to-head for less power usage. A moped will squeeze a lot more out of a gallon of gas than any V8, but the latter definitely has the more powerful vehicle. That moped is not going to drag that trailer full of stuff up the hill, etc... but wow it's "miles per gallon" just crushes that V8 in every possible way.
I don't really care about bending my own measuring system to make a favored company win contests. The question is really relevant to this thread. Desktops don't need battery considerations. Can M1 MAX run faster at higher power? If so, maybe these next ones can have the same chips but more wattage yielding more raw processing power per core.
I find myself thinking that more and more and more cores will not be an answer to power comparisons forever. As has been shared many times before, a lot of programming needs raw processor speed because it can't spread the processing task out over multiple cores. In such code, 1 powerful core could beat a 100-core chip at getting the processing done faster.
If new Intel is actually more powerful than M1 MAX- which is objectively to be determined- can M1 MAX cut some sipping by drinking a bit more wattage to retake the apparent lead claimed just months ago. For example, if M1 MAX doubled it's power usage (double the watts), we could still argue power per watt when we feel the need to ridicule an apparent Intel win on some point AND perhaps win on raw processing power contests too. Or is that impossible with the M architecture as I've read in some comments where people seem to think that clock is FIXED with these chips.
I do not have that kind of (hardware) knowledge to know the answer myself. So that's why I ask. Besides Apple is quick to spin power vs. Intel when it serves them... as they did at the launch of these chips and have a history of doing. Recall this classic Apple commercial for example...
If it applies when Apple wins the contest, it should apply if they lose too. I don't see that as a negative. I see it as something to push them to deliver more power in new Macs. If they do that at less wattage, great. But if it takes as much wattage to deliver more power, I'd favor more processing power in desktops over moving long-term goalposts about computer horsepower.
I don't really care about bending my own measuring system to make a favored company win contests. The question is really relevant to this thread. Desktops don't need battery considerations. Can M1 MAX run faster at higher power? If so, maybe these next ones can have the same chips but more wattage yielding more raw processing power per core.
I find myself thinking that more and more and more cores will not be an answer to power comparisons forever. As has been shared many times before, a lot of programming needs raw processor speed because it can't spread the processing task out over multiple cores. In such code, 1 powerful core could beat a 100-core chip at getting the processing done faster.
If new Intel is actually more powerful than M1 MAX- which is objectively to be determined- can M1 MAX cut some sipping by drinking a bit more wattage to retake the apparent lead claimed just months ago. For example, if M1 MAX doubled it's power usage (double the watts), we could still argue power per watt when we feel the need to ridicule an apparent Intel win on some point AND perhaps win on raw processing power contests too. Or is that impossible with the M architecture as I've read in some comments where people seem to think that clock is FIXED with these chips.
I do not have that kind of (hardware) knowledge to know the answer myself. So that's why I ask. Besides Apple is quick to spin power vs. Intel when it serves them... as they did at the launch of these chips and have a history of doing. Recall this classic Apple commercial for example...
If it applies when Apple wins the contest, it should apply if they lose too. I don't see that as a negative. I see it as something to push them to deliver more power in new Macs. If they do that at less wattage, great. But if it takes as much wattage to deliver more power, I'd favor more processing power in desktops over moving long-term goalposts about computer horsepower.
Last edited:
Define “Less” horsepower, though. For example, the fastest Mac is currently the M1 Max. If they release an M1 Max based desktop, that’s not “less” horsepower, that’s “the same” horsepower (plus maybe a few more ports). If you mean “less horsepower than an Intel system at a particular benchmark” then the M1 Max is “less” now and will likely be “less” by close to the same amount when the desktop version is released. But, still, it will be the fastest desktop Mac you can buy.but then we have to think about how happy are we at having less horsepower head-to-head for less power usage. I mean, a moped will squeeze a lot more out of a gallon of gas than any V8, but the latter definitely has the more powerful vehicle. That moped is not going to drag that trailer full of stuff up the hill, etc... but wow it's "miles per gallon" just crushes that V8 in every possible way.
The reason why I say Apple’s focused on systems “faster than the prior Mac” is because, for a long time before this transition, if you looked for speed comparisons on Apple’s site, it was always compared to some prior Mac as a baseline. They’d stopped comparing against anything non-Mac for years. Even now, the comparisons on Apple’s site are primarily against prior Macs, it just so happens that, in some cases, those prior Macs have Intel CPU’s in them. So, any comparison against Intel that Apple’s doing focuses mainly on those Intel chips that were in prior Mac products.
In the broader market, those that REALLY want the bleeding edge performance more than they want macOS will switch to some Intel based system, especially since there are options that allow you to overclock an Intel and provide your own custom designed cooling to handle it. There’s nothing Apple will ever offer that will have the power flexibility of an Intel or AMD system. Ever. However, those that want to use high performance Macs are only interested in how much faster this future Mac is than the one they own. If the delta isn’t great enough, they’ll keep their current system that’s working fine. If it IS great enough, they might be ready for a purchase.
The reason why people generally think that increasing cores and increasing voltage are what’s needed to increase performance is because that’s what Intel and AMD have been doing. Apple has shown with this first year of Apple Silicon systems that there are other ways to improve performance. And, while they’ll be doing some of what others will be doing, I suspect they’ll also be doing some stuff the others can’t do (because the company that designs the chip ONLY has to run code produced by the company that designed the compiler, and they’re both the same company).
Sorry friend but you are the obvious target for those “the fastest imac/macbook ever” childish adds from Apple.
Never in history, an updated computer has been slower than its predecessor. So this is nothing to be proud of.
I mean, if your new released computer is not competitive in the bussines but only compared with the 6 years old hardware, and you are happy with that.. well…
And even more, in desktop computing you cant sell the “power per wattio” as nobody cares about saving 20USD per year vs processor performance.
Who cares when the computer is plugged?? Fan noise??
Time is money, and faster renders or performance is far supperior to saving a few bucks a year in electricity
Well, they do sell roughly 20 million a year, so, there’s ENOUGH people happy with it to make it a profitable thing for Apple to keep doing. The majority of folks buying computing devices DON’T want Macs, and that’s fine.
They CAN sell “fastest Macs we’ve ever made”, though. We know this because… that’s actually how they sell them.
No one cares when the computer is plugged?? Fan noise?? And, whatever Apple releases will be the fastest possible way to run macOS and macOS apps, whether someone likes it or not.Faster renders, yes, the M1 systems will be faster, just like I said.
The ones two years later will be faster and the ones two years after that will be faster still. I can almost guarantee you ALL of them will be slower than Intel in specific benchmarks. And, it doesn’t matter. If a user needs FCP and macOS, they REALLY don’t have a choice. They’ll get a M1 Mac Pro that performs two times better or more that also runs quieter and cooler, and they’ll just have to deal with it.
I see your point, your saying mac users will be amazed because there is no other mac as fast as future iMac M1Max, but macbook pro M1 MAx are 6 months old already, and if iMac 27 Pro SOCs dont have any improvement, then they will be 6-7 months old at the release day.Well, they do sell roughly 20 million a year, so, there’s ENOUGH people happy with it to make it a profitable thing for Apple to keep doing. The majority of folks buying computing devices DON’T want Macs, and that’s fine.
They CAN sell “fastest Macs we’ve ever made”, though. We know this because… that’s actually how they sell them.
Faster renders, yes, the M1 systems will be faster, just like I said.
This is what I'm saying, and high end iMacs(regular and pro) were sold for many creatives who of course wnat MacOS but also demands competitive hardware vs PC, that's the whole point Apple change to Apple silicon, save power comsumtion, save money and better performance.
Until now, Apple has demonstrated success with M1 in 3 of the 5 main personal computer areas of his business, but big bosses are left yet:
>low end portable : A+
>high end portable :A+
>low end desktop: A+
>high end desktop: yet to see
>workstation: yet to see
is yet to see, though iMac M1Max would be "the fastest iMac ever"… if those specs are competitive vs similar choice in PC world (OS aside…)
Moreover, iMac 27 would need a better GPU performance than M1Max as it is great for a laptop but not enough for a desktop
this news are more sense:
Apple iMac Pro to come with a 20-core M1 Max Duo SoC that combines two M1 Max dies
According to a report, Apple is set to launch the next-generation 27-inch iMac Pro with the M1 Max Duo, an SoC that features 20 CPU and 64 GPU cores with up to 128 GB of RAM. Apparently, Apple will achieve this by combining two M1 Max dies onto a single chip.
ayway, even if Apple combines four M1MAx for the high end iMac, the thing is M2 will be much better in single core, so much better in multiple core, and I'm pretty sure the big jump from Intel's performance is yet to come in 2023 or 2024, where Intel will face its fate.
Last edited:
Maybe not amazed.
I mean I’m sure some will be, but I don’t doubt there will be a lot of, “Well, darn. I do need the speed, though, and it’s not like I can buy a Mac from anywhere else…”Competitive at a dollar level, perhaps. But, I think Mac users gave up benchmark competitiveness awhile back. I don’t think there’s ever been a time where any high spec Intel Mac was, across the board, faster in benchmarks than the fastest non-Mac Intel systems. And, if so, it was for a few months at best. Mac users assume that some benchmark may be faster elsewhere (sometimes for more money, sometimes for less), but they trade that for the familiarity with the OS and the applications that are only available for macOS.
As I was reminded recently, these remaining Intel configurations offer options not available in Apple Silicon, like having up to 128 GB RAM. And, having up to 128 GB seems like a must have for a future iMac Pro (And, I wouldn’t doubt a starting config of 64). Whether they do it as a Duo or something more esoteric and custom, it’ll be interesting to see how they solve it.Moreover, iMac 27 would need a better GPU performance than M1Max as it is great for a laptop but not enough for a desktop
this news are more sense:
Apple iMac Pro to come with a 20-core M1 Max Duo SoC that combines two M1 Max dies
According to a report, Apple is set to launch the next-generation 27-inch iMac Pro with the M1 Max Duo, an SoC that features 20 CPU and 64 GPU cores with up to 128 GB of RAM. Apparently, Apple will achieve this by combining two M1 Max dies onto a single chip.www.notebookcheck.net
I DO find it interesting that, in order to make their case, that page indicates
“Additionally, the M1 Max cannot compete with the CPU performance offered by the Core i7-10700K or the Core i9-10910.”
When it most certainly CAN compete against the i7-10700K
Intel Core i7 10700K vs Apple M1 Max: performance comparison
We compared Intel Core i7 10700K (3.8 GHz) against Apple M1 Max (3.2 GHz) in games and benchmarks. Find out which CPU has better performance.
nanoreview.net
Apple M1 Max vs Intel Core i9-10910 - GadgetVersus
Comparison between Apple M1 Max and Intel Core i9-10910 with the specifications of the processors, the number of cores, threads, cache memory, also the performance in benchmark platforms such as Geekbench, Passmark, Cinebench or AnTuTu.
so, the M1 Max would absolutely not be a step back.
If anything, also get a tremendous boost in ProRes workflows that would place it solidly over the highest configuration of the current Mac Pro. I would also be surprised if the Vega 64X outdoes the M1 Max processor, but I haven’t found comparisons yet.