Leaked battery suggests first AS Mac is Air or MB12

[awesomedeluxe]

Courtesy AppleInsider, new filings by Apple in S. Korea show a battery that is similar to the Macbook Air - but smaller.

Compare to this image of the Retina Macbook Air's battery from iFixit:

The battery is 4,380 mAh, which puts it between the iPhone and the Macbook Air. Due to a presumably higher voltage, however, the watt-hours are identical to the current Air (49.9Wh) (and over triple the iPhone 11 Max).

The A14 is a likely candidate to drive the machine. The Air has a little more thermal capacity than the iPhone, some of which will be taken by its larger pool of LPDDR5 memory. Apple may use the rest to clock the (presumably) dual performance core A14 more aggressively, allowing both cores to run at or nearer to peak speed.

A four perf core part, similar to what is seen in iPad Pros, is also a good fit. The iPad 11 Pro drives its four perf core A12X with a 30 watt hour battery. The iDevices have smaller screens, some OLED, which they turn off aggressively. Macbooks don't share these luxuries, but the 49.9Wh battery should cover the difference.

 

[burgerrecords]

I would be disappointed if the air only had two performance cores. Should I be?

 

[Waragainstsleep]

I don't expect Apple to ship any Macs with less than 4 performance cores.

 

[UltimateSyn]

I hope they give the next Air a P3 Wide Color gamut screen.

 

[Zackmd1]

Not quite sure why people think the A14 will make an appearance in a Mac. The only processor I would think would have a chance of making an appearance would be a X series processor. If the Mb12 makes a return I would expect an A14X or similar Mac variant due to thermals (7 watt TDP). A 13 MBA could support up to a 15 watt chip which means potentially that rumored 12 core (if TDP is around 15 watts).

 

[Janichsan]

Not quite sure why people think the A14 will make an appearance in a Mac.

Good question. Apple has been pretty clear their upcoming chips will be specifically designed for the Macs. i.e. not simply the same they put into iPhones/iPads.

 

[ChromeCloud]

I would be disappointed if the air only had two performance cores. Should I be?

Not really... based on leaked benchmarks the A14 SOC in the iPhone 12 will be around 50% faster than the processor in the fastest MacBook Air (Core i7-1060NG7) currently sold by Apple.

That's already quite a nice improvement.

Metal (GPU) score is gonna be 3% slower than the current MacBook Air (8259 vs 8501), but it's likely that the Mac variant of the A14 processor will have a beefier GPU.

We know from the rumors that Apple is planning to release three new Apple Silicon processors for the Mac this year and that they will be based on the A14 SOC architecture.

We also know that the top end will be a 12-core processor with 8 high performance cores and 4 high efficiency cores.

What remains to be guessed are the specs of the low end and midrange Apple Silicon SOC for the Mac.

If you are a pessimist...

Low-end (MacBook Air): A14-derived SOC with 6 cores (2 high performance, 4 high efficiency).
Mid-range (Base MacBook Pro + Base iMac): A14X-derived SOC with 8 cores (4 high performance, 4 high efficiency).
High-end (Top MacBook Pro + Top iMac): A14X Max SOC with 12 cores (8 high performance, 4 high efficiency).

If you are an optimist...

Low-end (Base MacBook Air): A14X-derived SOC with 8 cores (4 high performance, 4 high efficiency).
Mid-range (Top MacBook Air / Base MacBook Pro / Base iMac): A14X Plus with 10 cores (6 high performance, 4 high efficiency).
High-end (Top MacBook Pro / iMac): A14X Max SOC with 12 cores (8 high performance, 4 high efficiency).

 

[thenewperson]

I would be disappointed if the air only had two performance cores. Should I be?

Yep. If the iPad can handle 4 performance cores without a fan, there's no reason for an MBA not to. Except if they're really going for the reduced price thing (even then I don't think they need to given the iPad Pro's prices).

 

[Zackmd1]

We also know that the top end will be a 12-core processor with 8 high performance cores and 4 high efficiency cores.

Far as I have seen, we don't know that? We think we know from rumors that 3 variants are coming and that a 12 core is among them. We don't know it is the top end chip. It could very well be the mid range or even low end. (most likely mid range)

Moral of the story, Apple is going to want to blow away Intel with these first SOCs to prove the AS Macs are worth switching to. A 2 core A14 variant processor is not going to do that and quite frankly is unnecessarily small for Macs with higher thermal capacity. Again, the only chip I see making an appearance would be an A14X variant (4 performance cores with a much better GPU) in something with the thermal constraints of the 12" MacBook.

You are also assuming there are going to be tiers of the same product line with different processors for each tier. My guess is that each line (MB, MBA, MBP, etc...) Will have ONE chip choice (for the start at least) with differences being memory and storage.

 

[ChromeCloud]

Far as I have seen, we don't know that? We think we know from rumors that 3 variants are coming and that a 12 core is among them. We don't know it is the top end chip. It could very well be the mid range or even low end. (most likely mid range)

Moral of the story, Apple is going to want to blow away Intel with these first SOCs to prove the AS Macs are worth switching to. A 2 core A14 variant processor is not going to do that and quite frankly is unnecessarily small for Macs with higher thermal capacity. Again, the only chip I see making an appearance would be an A14X variant (4 performance cores with a much better GPU) in something with the thermal constraints of the 12" MacBook.

You are also assuming there are going to be tiers of the same product line with different processors for each tier. My guess is that each line (MB, MBA, MBP, etc...) Will have ONE chip choice (for the start at least) with differences being memory and storage.

Another fine analysis. My gut feeling is that the 12-core chip might be the top end because I find that putting that kind of beast inside a MacBook Pro 13" would probably already score close to 14000 in geekbench (8x1600 + 4x400) while consuming around 30 Watts under full load. And that would be already faster than the fastest iMac Pro you can buy (with a sticker price for the 18-core configuration starting from 6599$).

iMac Pro 18-core Xeon W-2191B

Leaked iPhone 12 A14 SOC (2 high performance cores + 4 high efficiency cores) as reference:

Edit: I'm also adding the current fastest MacBook Pro 13" to the list of benchmarks... In that case the new MacBook Pro 13" powered by a 12-core Apple Silicon chip would be more than 3X faster.

 

[Zackmd1]

Another fine analysis. My gut feeling is that the 12-core chip might be the top end because I find that putting that kind of beast inside a MacBook Pro 13" would probably already score close to 14000 in geekbench (8x1600 + 4x400) while consuming around 30 Watts under full load. And that would be already faster than the fastest iMac Pro you can buy (with a sticker price for the 18-core configuration starting from 6599$).

iMac Pro 18-core Xeon W-2191B

View attachment 941588

Leaked iPhone 12 A14 SOC (2 high performance cores + 4 high efficiency cores) as reference:

View attachment 941589

Edit: I'm also adding the current fastest MacBook Pro 13" to the list of benchmarks... In that case the new MacBook Pro 13" powered by a 12-core Apple Silicon chip would be more than 3X faster.

View attachment 941591

Sounds like we are saying about the same thing with the difference being that you are assuming the 3 processors we know of are all headed for portable products. My assumption is that 2 of the processors we know of are going into the Air and Pro while the 3rd processor is going into the iMac (and maybe the 16" MBP next year)

The way I see the lineup...

1. 8 Core processor A14X derivative (4P + 4E cores, upgraded GPU over iPhone)
2. 12 Core processor (8P + 4E cores, upgraded GPU over 8 core)
3. 16 Core processor (12P + 4E cores, upgraded GPU over 12 core)

The 8 core could be for a fanless 7-10 watt TDP 12-13 inch MacBook (MBA if they want to still keep the Air branding). 12 Core would be for the 13 inch MBP active cooling 20-30 watt TDP with the final 16 Core being for the 24" iMac with active cooling 35-45 watt TDP. With a 45 watt TDP SOC in the iMac, they could truly make it an "iPad Pro on a stand", bezel-less with no chin, 15-25mm thick, flat back and sides, with the power to destroy any current 21.5 iMac and even most of the new 27" iMacs.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

We know the A12X/Z has 8 cores, presumably Apple could make an A14X/Z with a similar config and updated cores?
No-one has mentioned the idea of a 10 core chip for the Macs.
Less power than a 12 core, more than enough to skin an Intel consumer CPU. Probably.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

My assumption is that 2 of the processors we know of are going into the Air and Pro while the 3rd processor is going into the iMac (and maybe the 16" MBP next year)

We know of the A14. I don't think we know of any of these three you list.

 

[Zackmd1]

We know of the A14. I don't think we know of any of these three you list.

My point of that statement is that the rumors and leaked processor codes point to 3 mac variant SOCs. What those SOCs are we do not know.

 

[Zackmd1]

We know the A12X/Z has 8 cores, presumably Apple could make an A14X/Z with a similar config and updated cores?
No-one has mentioned the idea of a 10 core chip for the Macs.
Less power than a 12 core, more than enough to skin an Intel consumer CPU. Probably.

They absolutely could. I didn't mention a 10 core because it would likely require some form of active cooling. The theory goes, Apple would already have a chip (A14x derivative) that can destroy any of the current ultra-portable Intel CPUs. Because of it being a A14x derivative it should have a TDP around 7-10 and would have the ability of running with passive cooling. Passive cooling gives Apple more options in terms of design vs having a 10 core so why not then just jump to a 12 core for the MBP?

 

[ChromeCloud]

1. 8 Core processor A14X derivative (4P + 4E cores, upgraded GPU over iPhone)
2. 12 Core processor (8P + 4E cores, upgraded GPU over 8 core)
3. 16 Core processor (12P + 4E cores, upgraded GPU over 12 core)

That would be an amazing lineup. It’s a bit optimistic, but totally possible. I still think though that 12 cores will be the maximum. Given how powerful it will be already, any additional TDP budget left would probably be better spent on the GPU.
So maybe something like:
1. 8-core + standard GPU for the MB Air.
2. 12-core + faster GPU for the MB Pro.
3. 12-core + fastest GPU for the iMac.

 

[awesomedeluxe]

Wow, a lot of incredible discussion! It's a joy to read so many thoughtful ideas.

I would be disappointed if the air only had two performance cores. Should I be?

I don't expect Apple to ship any Macs with less than 4 performance cores.

Not quite sure why people think the A14 will make an appearance in a Mac. The only processor I would think would have a chance of making an appearance would be a X series processor. If the Mb12 makes a return I would expect an A14X or similar Mac variant due to thermals (7 watt TDP). A 13 MBA could support up to a 15 watt chip which means potentially that rumored 12 core (if TDP is around 15 watts).

So a lot of you are worried about the A14 in a Mac. I was a skeptic of this idea once too. But I don't think there's any reason to be disappointed about the MBA starting with an A14 - and it makes a lot of sense.

First, thermals. The MBA currently is configurable with up to a 9W APU. This is its CPU and GPU only. It also needs some additional power for its memory.

The A13 in the iPhone 11 uses up to 6.2W for all internals (CPU, GPU, neural engine, memory, etc). It can use up to 5W on a perf core for single-threaded tasks, but it can't clock both perf cores this high or fully leverage its GPU in this state. It could easily use 10+ W and deliver better performance in a bigger chassis, and the same will be true of the A14. In other words: the A14 is already capable of scaling up to the Air's thermal capacity.

Second, specs. The Air currently starts in a dual core config with up to 16GB of RAM. The A14 is probably dual (perf) core, and has extra efficiency cores for multithreaded tasks. And Samsung is able to layer on up to 16GB of LPDDR5, meaning we don't even need to put an optional pinout on the A14 for it to meet the Air's memory needs.

Now, this doesn't mean the Air won't be upgradeable to a four-perf-core part, presumably an "A14X" bound for the next iPad Pros. But this is not because there is some extra thermal capacity the A14 never taps. It's because you could have the perf cores slow down a bit as more turn on. Remember, though, that the A14 does have efficiency cores to help with multithreaded tasks, so this is not a strictly necessary upgrade for most users.

The result is this: the MBA starts at $800, and is still a great machine at that price. But reviewers will get the four-core configuration, and rave about its benchmark results.

 

[jdb8167]

That would be an amazing lineup. It’s a bit optimistic, but totally possible. I still think though that 12 cores will be the maximum. Given how powerful it will be already, any additional TDP budget left would probably be better spent on the GPU.
So maybe something like:
1. 8-core + standard GPU for the MB Air.
2. 12-core + faster GPU for the MB Pro.
3. 12-core + fastest GPU for the iMac.

Some of this might depend on yield and binning. Don't forget the TSMC 5nm is new and might have early yield problems. The precedent for this is the A12X/A12Z in the latest iPad Pro generations.

 

[Kostask]

Wow, a lot of incredible discussion! It's a joy to read so many thoughtful ideas.



So a lot of you are worried about the A14 in a Mac. I was a skeptic of this idea once too. But I don't think there's any reason to be disappointed about the MBA starting with an A14 - and it makes a lot of sense.

First, thermals. The MBA currently is configurable with up to a 9W APU. This is its CPU and GPU only. It also needs some additional power for its memory.

The A13 in the iPhone 11 uses up to 6.2W for all internals (CPU, GPU, neural engine, memory, etc). It can use up to 5W on a perf core for single-threaded tasks, but it can't clock both perf cores this high or fully leverage its GPU in this state. It could easily use 10+ W and deliver better performance in a bigger chassis, and the same will be true of the A14. In other words: the A14 is already capable of scaling up to the Air's thermal capacity.

Second, specs. The Air currently starts in a dual core config with up to 16GB of RAM. The A14 is probably dual (perf) core, and has extra efficiency cores for multithreaded tasks. And Samsung is able to layer on up to 16GB of LPDDR5, meaning we don't even need to put an optional pinout on the A14 for it to meet the Air's memory needs.

Now, this doesn't mean the Air won't be upgradeable to a four-perf-core part, presumably an "A14X" bound for the next iPad Pros. But this is not because there is some extra thermal capacity the A14 never taps. It's because you could have the perf cores slow down a bit as more turn on. Remember, though, that the A14 does have efficiency cores to help with multithreaded tasks, so this is not a strictly necessary upgrade for most users.

The result is this: the MBA starts at $800, and is still a great machine at that price. But reviewers will get the four-core configuration, and rave about its benchmark results.

You are makong some assumptions here that may not be realistic:

1. You are assuming only "10+W" of power for the MacBook/MacBook Air. That may not get Apple to where it wants to go. Apple will (probably already has) Mac SoCs finished and running. They will be 4 cores. and they are most likely passively cooled, which allows for either smaller batteries or longer battery life, maybe a mix of both (smaller battery with a 15-16 hour life would be fine with most, no need to try and get 20 hour battery life). I guarantee you there will NOT be a dual HP core SoC. This is based on what is in the DTK. Apple will not put its transition in jeopardy by shipping a DTK with 4 cores, and then shipping dual core Macs. Same goes for minimum RAM size; it will be 16GB. SSD could be any size, and is not limited to what is in the DTK. It could be bigger or smaller.

2. You also assume that 16GB will be the maximum RAM size on the MacBook/MacBook Air. That is not an assumption that I would make. There very well could be 16GB on SoC, however, the SoC will need to accomodate larger RAM sizes, so the SoC will have to provide for the external lines to off SoC RAM. If they are not used in the MacBook/MacBook AIr is not the point; since I am sure that the same SoC will be used on the 13/14 MBP, it must accomodate >16GB RAM, and in today's world, that mean off SoC RAM.

 

[burgerrecords]

Same goes for minimum RAM size; it will be 16GB

i wonder and hope you're correct about this and that explains the almost sinister inclusion of 8 gb of Ram on even the base 8 core 10700k imac. it's literally $35 at retail of memory cost difference (if that.)

Anyone dumb enough to not upgrade will be like - wow this new mac is so fast compared to my $2300 imac when i have three things open (and ironically there's a u shape where some of the least computer savvy people need extra RAM due to keeping everything open.

 

[Kostask]

I think 8GB is adequate for MacOS today. Apple is not looking for adequate with the AS Macs; they are looking for serious and deep impact to the entire personal computer industry. They won't just be a little better than the existing PC and previous generation Macs, they are looking to absolutely destroy anything even close to their price point, in all categories: CPU performance, GPU performance, battery life, weight, heat, and RAM capacity. Pretty much anything will be significantly faster, and more than likely, at the same or slightly lower price. In many ways, they don't have a choice, as the moment they decided to make that transition away from Intel, they painted a huge target on their back. The only way that goes away is to deliver something that makes every existing laptop or desktop, be it Windows or Chromebook, look like it is 5 years old. If they don't do that, they will have a very hard time from investors at the quarter end results meeting after the first AS Macs are released.

Right now, the only thing that the Mac has as an advantage over the WIndows machines is MacOS. All who use Macs know this is a real advantage; but those who do not, do not see what the advantage is. Apple is going to make the AS Macs so that the HARDWARE stands out, and not just the thinnest cases, or all metal cases, but ALL the hardware will need to stand out, displays, CPUs/GPUs, RAM, SSDs, everything imaginable will stand out, and be heads and shoulders above the equivalent Windows machines. Apple is about to change the "same old, same old" playbook in a big way.

 

[burgerrecords]

Apple is not looking for adequate with the AS Macs; they are looking for serious and deep impact to the entire personal computer industry. They won't just be a little better than the existing PC and previous generation Macs, they are looking to absolutely destroy anything even close to their price point, in all categories

This seems almost entirely without base. The only thing proven is that Apple has created the most powerful cpu and gpus for highly constrained space and battery powered devices likely for many or most tasks to equal typical desktop performance (and considering I have virtually no cpu bottlenecking on my 3900x, whereas I do on my laptops, it will be great to have a laptop that performs like a desktop). Fortunately that’s the type of computer people almost exclusively are interested in (especially in the consumer space) (which may have been a knock on benefit of leading in a competitive mobile space and not even some grand plan that started in 2014.)

Extrapolate to guess on what apples pricing will be and it appears more unlikely that Apple will be offering more power for less money than PCs do, even if Apple were to be able to provide a technically superior option for all PC use cases up and down (evident leaving not just intel, but AMD and nVidia all in the dust AND at a lower cost.)

I think it’s extremely unlikely that Apple doesn’t sell an 8gb Apple silicon Mac, based on the high $$ upscale model they have employed for a long time.

I hope I’m wrong and you’re right as other companies will likely catch up to Apple and the higher Apple sets the cost per performance bar the better for the consumer.

 

[burgerrecords]

I think 8GB is adequate for MacOS today.

Also it’s so weird to me to sell a computer with a $450 processor but exclude the $35 of ram than can avoid swapping when someone has three programs running.

 

[Kostask]

No its not. Th lowest end Mac will match the current DTK in every significant way. The DTK, or Developer Transition Kit, is designed to allow developers to see how well their software runs on a real piece of AS hardware. Please tell me how this does not define the lowest common denominator of AS Mac? Do you think that Apple would bother to create a DTK that has more cores or RAM than an actual released Mac would? Do you think that they would build a DTK with 16GB of RAM, have developers run their software on it, with the developers perhaps redeveloping and or recompliing to get their software to run as fast as possible on AS, then ship a Mac that doesn't at least match what they have in the DTK? If so, then why not release an 8GB DTK, or a 4GB DTK? It would have been a more realistic platform to check performance against.

The plan to go to AS processors started with the A6, if not earlier. MacOS has been running on the various AX series of processors in the Apple Labs for years, or do you think the AS native version of MacOS was written last week? The transition was timed for the point at which Apple felt that they could outperform Intel, which has happened with the A12X/Z. The fact that Intel has failed time and time again to improve its process technologies, and also failed to deliver adequate volumes of the sort of customized Apple CPUs that are desired by Apple were the last two nails in the coffin.

Apple doesn't have a choice in the matter. If the AS Macs fail to be head and shoulders above anything that is currently, or will soon be, available, the questions will start: Why are you not using Intel/AMD CPUs? WHy didn't you continue to use AMD GPUs? Why are you taking on the R&D costs of developing your own silicon when you can just buy off the shelf parts? Those questions, if Apple doesn't deliver significant improvements across the board will be coming, not only from the tech press, but from investors and financial types as well. The last thing Apple needs is for this transition to be seen as a flop, either in terms of technical performance, or in terms of sales. That is why the AS Macs HAVE to be better; there is no going back, there is no Plan B.

 

[JPack]

To answer the OP's question:

The new battery has the exact same voltage (11.4V), 49.9Whr rating, and size as the current MacBook Air.