precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
I believe it is plausible to say that we will see one last Intel Macbook PRO 16" spec update, Both on CPU and GPU, of the same TDP. (On other apple centric forums, people have been speculating about that)

It would be Intel Core i9 11900H and AMD Radeon Pro 6000M series.

This would give time for 2D and 3D software developers to properly support Apple Silicon on their software.

Reviewers praise Apple M1 CPU performance with justice, but tend to forget about it's poor GPU performance and lack of games and development software support.



Specs comparision:

Geekbench Single-Core Score
---------------------------------

2019 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 9980HK: 1089 +0%
2021 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 11900H: 1696 +55%
Apple M1: 1711 +57%



Geekbench Multi-Core Score
---------------------------------

2019 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 9980HK: 6834 +0%
Apple M1: 7415 +8%
2021 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 11900H: 10224 +50%



Geekbench GPU Metal Score
--------------------------------

Apple M1: 21168 +0%
2019 MBP 16" Radeon Pro 5300M: 24461 +15%
2019 MBP 16" Radeon Pro 5500M: 29886 +41%
2019 MBP 16" Radeon Pro 5600M: 42510 +100%
2019 MBP 16" Radeon Pro 5700 XT eGPU: 57634 +172%
2021 MBP 16" Radeon Pro 6600M: 63765* +200%

*Radeon RX 6600M is about 50% faster than Radeon 5600M



My thoughts about a Macbook Pro 16" with intel 11th gen and AMD RX 6000M series:

- Great for 3D software
- Great for Windows Bootcamp Gaming
- Would give time for Apple to develop better GPUs
- Apple can't match this GPU level of performance without ARMv9 architecture (end of 2022 launch?)
- Expensive as always
- Even if technically possible (what I strongly believe it isn't), a hipothetical Apple M1X with more cores would barelly match Intel core i9 11900H multi-core performance, and certainly wouldn't be able to match AMD GPU performance.
- It would be somewhat "dirt" from Apple to present a hypothetical M1X chip performance, comparing it to a 2019 Intel core i9 processor, and specially to a Radeon PRO 5300M GPU.
- People and fair and non paid reviewers would notice and point that out.


This one last Intel would be great for development and Bootcamp AAA Gaming.

Why build a PC for your Steam games if you can play it in your Macbook? Most people don't linke the idea of investing another 2000+ dollars on a gamming PC where you will not work.


What do you think?
 
Last edited:

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
I would prefer a last Intel/AMD Radeon based MacBook Pro, for Cinema 4D content creation, and also for bootcamp gaming on steam and Epic.

I think it would be somewhat dirt from Apple to avoid this last and natural Intel Mac spec bump, to make M1X look good in GPU performance, because it would be comparing it's supposed M1X GPU with a 2019 last gen AMD GPU.

I really like the job of reviewers from Macrumors Staff, Max Tech and others. Fore sure.

But what I did not like about M1 reviews is the focus on video rendering, and always with codecs that greatly favor Apple M1. Apple M1 hugelly benefits from it's native encoders on certain codecs. But in regular situations, like on Cinebench, it still show how fast it is (and it really is), but not as much as pointed by reviewers on video rendering benchmarks.

But on GPU rendering we still see how Apple M1 is a poor GPU.

And about gaming... well... aside from the iOS casual gaming library, Macs rarely see most wanted games. trile A games are even rarer...

Also, M1 has nothing more than a low range GPU, for low demand 1080p gaming.

Surely M1X will have more GPU power, probably beetween 5500M and 5600M. But far far away from 6600M.

If anyone can share an opinion about that, I would really appreciate!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: richinaus

pshufd

macrumors 601
Oct 24, 2013
4,904
11,530
New Hampshire
I would like to see this as well. The new Intel 11th gen mobile chips are quite good and their performance is at least as good as the M1 - sure, they use much more power but they are at least competitive. Apple's M1X delays would justify one more round on Intel. I think that Apple would really hate to do this as it is admitting a step back in their timeline but it's the logical thing to do for customers that can't move to Apple Silicon yet.
 

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
I agree with you Pshufd. It is also possible that high-end Apple Silicon for Macbook Pro's were initially scheduled for early 2022, even before recent microchips shortage. Apple possibly tried to anticipate M1X schedule, but is somewhat struggling with many third party components. Maybe it is also having low M1X Yelds.

Unless he was lying, or apple changed it's goals, we must not forget last year's WWDC when Tim Cook said Apple still had some great Intel Macs coming in this 2 years transition period.
 

pshufd

macrumors 601
Oct 24, 2013
4,904
11,530
New Hampshire
I agree with you Pshufd. It is also possible that high-end Apple Silicon for Macbook Pro's were initially scheduled for early 2022, even before recent microchips shortage. Apple possibly tried to anticipate M1X schedule, but is somewhat struggling with many third party components. Maybe it is also having low M1X Yelds.

Unless he was lying, or apple changed it's goals, we must not forget last year's WWDC when Tim Cook said Apple still had some great Intel Macs coming in this 2 years transition period.

I think that they really planned to announce at WWDC in June and then figured out that they couldn't. Sure, panels are a problem but they could just ship the panels that they are shipping now and the M1X would be great. Unless they have M1X issues (yield, slurries, production issues, RAM, SSD, etc).

My son's manager is going to order him a 2019 16 this week so he's going to get something that he can do his job with but it's going to run warm I think. He has asked for 32 GB of RAM as he runs Virtual Machines. He's currently using my 2014 MacBook Pro as his work model needs to be repaired. I'm going to back it up to an external drive and then try upgrading to Big Sur (he's running High Sierra) to see what breaks and he can look into resolving those problems.

I would guess an 11th gen would sell well for those macOS customers that CAN'T migrate to Apple Silicon in the near future.
 

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
In the end, since Apple still are going to buy chips from Intel and AMD for quite some time, would it hurt too much to do this spec bump on current MacBook Pro 16" form?

Even the best speculated M1X specs would still not match last gen AMD GPU performance, and would be just a bit better than Intel CPU 11900H.

And certainly Apple woudn't be able to offer the M1X successor before the end of 2022.

So, why not do it one last time.
 

Puonti

macrumors 65816
Mar 14, 2011
1,197
754
Your guess is as good as anyone else's. I don't believe Apple will release new Mac updates with Intel CPUs.
 

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
If apple decided to use Intel 12th gen, Core i9 12900H, it would be even better:

Geekbench Multi-Core Score
---------------------------------

2019 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 9980HK: 6834 +0%
Apple M1: 7415 +8%
2021 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 11900H: 10224 +50%
2021 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 12900HK: 11650 +70%


Comparing Apple M1 and Intel 12th gen:
---------------------------------------------

Apple M1: 7415 +0%
Apple M1x: 10000 +34%
2021 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 12900HK: 11650 +57%

There are some rumors where M1x could reach as much as 15000+ score in Geekbench in a 16 core CPU version. But some CPU experts says that it is not that simple to just double CPU cores in a chip. The most likely M1X form would still be an 8 Core CPU, but with 6 performance cores and just 2 high-efficiency core.
That would bring it's performance to a ~10000 score in Geekbench.
M2X, which will probably be a ARMv9 chip could be designed to have those 16 CPU cores and more. That would break the 15000 barrier.

About M1x GPU, apple M1 design could allow more cores, pushing it to those expected 10 and 16 core version. A decent mid-range GPU, while still behind current AMD Radeon PRO 5600M.
 

pshufd

macrumors 601
Oct 24, 2013
4,904
11,530
New Hampshire
If apple decided to use Intel 12th gen, Core i9 12900H, it would be even better:

Geekbench Multi-Core Score
---------------------------------

2019 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 9980HK: 6834 +0%
Apple M1: 7415 +8%
2021 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 11900H: 10224 +50%
2021 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 12900HK: 11650 +70%


Comparing Apple M1 and Intel 12th gen:
---------------------------------------------

Apple M1: 7415 +0%
Apple M1x: 10000 +34%
2021 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 12900HK: 11650 +57%

There are some rumors where M1x could reach as much as 15000+ score in Geekbench in a 16 core CPU version. But some CPU experts says that it is not that simple to just double CPU cores in a chip. The most likely M1X form would still be an 8 Core CPU, but with 6 performance cores and just 2 high-efficiency core.
That would bring it's performance to a ~10000 score in Geekbench.
M2X, which will probably be a ARMv9 chip could be designed to have those 16 CPU cores and more. That would break the 15000 barrier.

About M1x GPU, apple M1 design could allow more cores, pushing it to those expected 10 and 16 core version. A decent mid-range GPU, while still behind current AMD Radeon PRO 5600M.

The estimates that I've seen on the M1X are usually around 14K for 16 cores. If they do the rumored 32 core models, it would beat every other mobile CPU out there. It would beat every desktop CPU out there as well. I suppose that it would lose to EPYC server chips but those use 285 Watts I think.
 

Thessman

macrumors regular
Dec 8, 2005
155
31
GR
There is a mistake with the scaling in your post, specifically with GPU metal scores where you're jumping to +200% on the score on the third line and all others afterwards, it should read +100% instead.
Second problem is that you're assuming that apple will just double the cores, it's a different cpu/gpu they can improve the ipc among other things, and they also clock the M1 at 3.2 GHz whilst the ixxxx's are at 5+.
Just a couple of things to consider.
I believe it is plausible to say that we will see one last Intel Macbook PRO 16" spec update, Both on CPU and GPU, of the same TDP. (On other apple centric forums, people have been speculating about that)

It would be Intel Core i9 11900H and AMD Radeon Pro 6000M series.

This would give time for 2D and 3D software developers to properly support Apple Silicon on their software.

Reviewers praise Apple M1 CPU performance with justice, but tend to forget about it's poor GPU performance and lack of games and development software support.



Specs comparision:

Geekbench Single-Core Score
---------------------------------

2019 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 9980HK: 1089 +0%
2021 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 11900H: 1696 +55%
Apple M1: 1711 +57%



Geekbench Multi-Core Score
---------------------------------

2019 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 9980HK: 6834 +0%
Apple M1: 7415 +8%
2021 MBP 16" CPU: Intel core i9 11900H: 10224 +50%



Geekbench GPU Metal Score
--------------------------------

Apple M1: 21168 +0%
2019 MBP 16" Radeon Pro 5300M: 24461 +15%
2019 MBP 16" Radeon Pro 5500M: 29886 +41%
2019 MBP 16" Radeon Pro 5600M: 42510 +200%
2019 MBP 16" Radeon Pro 5700 XT eGPU: 57634 +272%
2021 MBP 16" Radeon Pro 6600M: 63765* +300%

*Radeon RX 6600M is about 50% faster than Radeon 5600M



My thoughts about a Macbook Pro 16" with intel 11th gen and AMD RX 6000M series:

- Great for 3D software
- Great for Windows Bootcamp Gaming
- Would give time for Apple to develop better GPUs
- Apple can't match this GPU level of performance without ARMv9 architecture (end of 2022 launch?)
- Expensive as always
- Even if technically possible (what I strongly believe it isn't), a hipothetical Apple M1X with more cores would barelly match Intel core i9 11900H multi-core performance, and certainly wouldn't be able to match AMD GPU performance.
- It would be somewhat "dirt" from Apple to present a hypothetical M1X chip performance, comparing it to a 2019 Intel core i9 processor, and specially to a Radeon PRO 5300M GPU.
- People and fair and non paid reviewers would notice and point that out.


This one last Intel would be great for development and Bootcamp AAA Gaming.

Why build a PC for your Steam games if you can play it in your Macbook? Most people don't linke the idea of investing another 2000+ dollars on a gamming PC where you will not work.


What do you think?
 

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
There is a mistake with the scaling in your post, specifically with GPU metal scores where you're jumping to +200% on the score on the third line and all others afterwards, it should read +100% instead.
Second problem is that you're assuming that apple will just double the cores, it's a different cpu/gpu they can improve the ipc among other things, and they also clock the M1 at 3.2 GHz whilst the ixxxx's are at 5+.
Just a couple of things to consider.
You are right. thanks. I've corrected it.
About M1x clock, cores and speeds, I'm guessing based on the premise M1x is the same chip as M1. Of course that if it is a completely new chip, or if M1 was designed in a way which supports higher TPDs and clocks, it would perform significantly better. Well, it is all speculation. But I think we will only see this kind of thing in Apple M2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pshufd

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
The estimates that I've seen on the M1X are usually around 14K for 16 cores. If they do the rumored 32 core models, it would beat every other mobile CPU out there. It would beat every desktop CPU out there as well. I suppose that it would lose to EPYC server chips but those use 285 Watts I think.

What remais to be seen is if Apple M1 design supports more than 8 CPU cores, more than 8 GPU cores, more thunderbolt 4 ports, more external monitors, and so forth...

Or apple could indroduce a new design, not an evolution of M1, but it's sucessor. That's what we have no idea yet.
 

pshufd

macrumors 601
Oct 24, 2013
4,904
11,530
New Hampshire
What remais to be seen is if Apple M1 design supports more than 8 CPU cores, more than 8 GPU cores, more thunderbolt 4 ports, more external monitors, and so forth...

Or apple could indroduce a new design, not an evolution of M1, but it's sucessor. That's what we have no idea yet.

The way things are going, I'm wondering if we get an M2X for the MacBook Pros in early 2022. Though I read that M1X production starts Q3, where we are right now.
 

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
Another important thing: eGPU support on M1 Macs.

Why kill a feature that works so great when properly supported, both for games, 3D content creation, video rendering and so on.

This is another thing that is still unknown. Will Apple support eGPUs on Apple Silicon Macs? Be it AMD, NVIDIA (very unlikely), or one of its own?

I've used only 1 eGPU, but is not uncomon for CGI creator to use at least 3 GPUs. Some will use up to the 4 GPUs supported by Macs.

This is great, specially when dealing with GPU rendering workflows using Redshift and now Octane X for Cinema 4D and Blender.
 

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
This video editor proves what I just said about M1 reviews, where "the focus is always on video rendering, and always with codecs that greatly favor Apple M1."

This video editor have done a great video, covering different video rendering scenarios, and showed that M1 strugles in many scenarios.


So, putting all those synthetic benchmarks aside, the truth is that in Apple M1 is not as good as it sounds.

Some 3d artists also did good reviews of M1 performance on Cinema 4D, showing that it is not so special in many situations.

Another reality is that most native apple silicon 2D and 3D software, are still a bit far from us now. And about plugins, current situation is the same.

So, both because of it's poor GPU performance, and lack of professional software support, it can be a huge mistake from Apple to push the it's silicon to pro users this year as the only option forever.

Maybe they are putting a big pressure on developers, like they were lazy, and the results are not what apple expects.
 

richinaus

macrumors 68000
Oct 26, 2014
1,751
1,449
This video editor proves what I just said about M1 reviews, where "the focus is always on video rendering, and always with codecs that greatly favor Apple M1."

This video editor have done a great video, covering different video rendering scenarios, and showed that M1 strugles in many scenarios.


So, putting all those synthetic benchmarks aside, the truth is that in Apple M1 is not as good as it sounds.

Some 3d artists also did good reviews of M1 performance on Cinema 4D, showing that it is not so special in many situations.

Another reality is that most native apple silicon 2D and 3D software, are still a bit far from us now. And about plugins, current situation is the same.

So, both because of it's poor GPU performance, and lack of professional software support, it can be a huge mistake from Apple to push the it's silicon to pro users this year as the only option forever.

Maybe they are putting a big pressure on developers, like they were lazy, and the results are not what apple expects.

yep. Tested the M1 mac mini, sent it back the next day [tested GPU rendering and then made my application to return]. It doesn't come close to being a usable machine for me.

I am unsure how Apple want to push AR / XR without decent machines to actually create 3D on. There is nothing in their lineup that is remotely worth considering right now for 3D work.

I also wont buy another intel mac, due to their focus having obviously shifted to M's.
 

pshufd

macrumors 601
Oct 24, 2013
4,904
11,530
New Hampshire
I think that the M1 hardware is great but that programs have to be modified to fit Apple’s hardware paradigm to make best use of the hardware. And that will take time and May just not happen in some cases. There may be a lot of optimizations to be had in lots of programs from engineers just reading AS docs and doing some API work.
 

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
Where are you getting these 50% numbers from? The difference in performance is nowhere near that in IPC.
Hi, vitaminic. Are you asking about 50% gain of Radeon Pro 6600M, when compared to 5600M?

You can see that here:


AMD Radeon Pro 6600M is about the same performance of Geforce RTX 2080 mobile. A real monster.

I doubt M1X or even M2X will be able to match that level of performance.
 

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
yep. Tested the M1 mac mini, sent it back the next day [tested GPU rendering and then made my application to return]. It doesn't come close to being a usable machine for me.

I am unsure how Apple want to push AR / XR without decent machines to actually create 3D on. There is nothing in their lineup that is remotely worth considering right now for 3D work.

I also wont buy another intel mac, due to their focus having obviously shifted to M's.

GPU rendering is becoming very popular these days. Finally. I remember those early 2000 days where every artist had to become a PRO in "guessing what the final render will look like". Long render times and no previews. But apple silicon is too slow. And without the option of using multiple eGPUs to compensate that, I don't know when CGI pros are going to be able to migrate do apple silicon.
 
Last edited:

precision01

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 16, 2014
66
31
I think that the M1 hardware is great but that programs have to be modified to fit Apple’s hardware paradigm to make best use of the hardware. And that will take time and May just not happen in some cases. There may be a lot of optimizations to be had in lots of programs from engineers just reading AS docs and doing some API work.
That's one of the reasons apple shouldn't be pushing that 2 year transition schedule. Office and light work users should transition first. Leave the pros for late 2022. One last Intel+AMD Macbook PRO 16" would lighten things up. Don't make us rely on 2019 hardware until pro software and pro apple hardware catch what x86 has.
I think even apple aren't sure when they will be able to match high end AMD and Nvidia discreet graphics performance.
 

pshufd

macrumors 601
Oct 24, 2013
4,904
11,530
New Hampshire
That's one of the reasons apple shouldn't be pushing that 2 year transition schedule. Office and light work users should transition first. Leave the pros for late 2022. One last Intel+AMD Macbook PRO 16" would lighten things up. Don't make us rely on 2019 hardware until pro software and pro apple hardware catch what x86 has.
I think even apple aren't sure when they will be able to match high end AMD and Nvidia discreet graphics performance.

If you don’t force developers to transition, then they never will.
 

pshufd

macrumors 601
Oct 24, 2013
4,904
11,530
New Hampshire
Son’s 2019 MBP 16 should be ordered by today. Most of the initial work will be upgrading to Big Sur from High Sierra. I will clone his setup on my 2014 MBP onto my 2015 and upgrade and then let him decide on upgrading or doing a clean install.

Mira nice when you have plenty of hardware so that you can transition without interrupting current work.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.