M1 MacBook Pro Replaces Low-End Model, Higher-End Intel Options Still Available

[Andropov]

Unified memory just means the memory is on chip and shared between the CPU and GPU. It's not going to have a big impact on performance, if any.

We have no idea about which kind of RAM and frequency Apple is using for its unified memory, so it's a bit early to tell.

The M1 likely has better single core performance, but the Ryzen 9 4900HS has 8 high performance cores, not 4, and all of them have SMT for a total of 16 threads. In heavy multicore workloads, the 4900HS will be faster.

Apple Silicon uses all available threads for multicore-intensive applications, not only the 4 high-performance ones. This cores may be more efficiency oriented, but their combined performance is not negligible. Combining the much greater single core performance of the performance cores (vs. any AMD or Intel core, really) with the added performance of the efficiency cores, the multicore results of the M1 may already surpass the 4900HS.

Also, for some applications, the hyperthreading/SMT doesn't add any extra performance at all. For example (since you mention it) in particle simulations.

I have no doubt that Macbook Pro and Air with the M1 chips will be super efficient, with great battery life and excellent performance for light productivity like web browsing, office, and photoshop. I'm buying one for those reasons because I have a high performance desktop for actual work. They are not comparable to a notebook like the G14 though, especially in heavy productivity like 3D modeling, tile based rendering, particle simulation, or video rendering that can take advantage of CUDA acceleration.

We'll see, but I think it's a bit early to dismiss the M1 as just a "light productivity" capable machine.

 

[gnasher729]

Expected $799 USD & $1,099 USD, respectively.

That would (very-likely) have triggered a nice surge in sales.

It would also have meant a not so nice drop in profits. You need to sell twice as many computers if the margin is halved.

 

[gnasher729]

Only 1 external monitor? 🤦🏼‍♂️

MacBook Air = 1 external monitor up to 6k, MacBook Pro = 2 external monitors, one up to 6k and one up to 4k. MacBook Pro Intel = same, plus three 4k monitors.

 

[aoverflow]

It will off-grid after an hour

Jokes aside, the G14 can provide a pretty decent battery life (like 10 hours of web browsing which is incredible for a gaming laptop). Still blown out of the water by the new macbooks in this perspective, must admit.

 

[gnasher729]

LMAO so they admit their processors ain't there yet

They "admit" that they are in month 1 of a two year transition period.

 

[CJRhoades]

We have no idea about which kind of RAM and frequency Apple is using for its unified memory, so it's a bit early to tell.

True, but it's likely LPDDR4X-4266 which isn't anything revolutionary.

Apple Silicon uses all available threads for multicore-intensive applications, not only the 4 high-performance ones. This cores may be more efficiency oriented, but their combined performance is not negligible. Combining the much greater single core performance of the performance cores (vs. any AMD or Intel core, really) with the added performance of the efficiency cores, the multicore results of the M1 may already surpass the 4900HS.

Also, for some applications, the hyperthreading/SMT doesn't add any extra performance at all. For example (since you mention it) in particle simulations.

Right, I wasn't trying to say only the high performance cores are used, but even if we give the Firestorm cores a 50% advantage in single core perf over Zen 2, I don't see them completely making up the difference even with the Icestorm cores. SMT is usually another 20-30% boost in workloads that take advantage of it, but not all do as you said.

We'll see, but I think it's a bit early to dismiss the M1 as just a "light productivity" capable machine.

You may be right, I'm just speculating here. They've done a fantastic job considering where they were just 5 years ago. Should be interesting to see how Zen 3 mobile compares.

 

[Andropov]

True, but it's likely LPDDR4X-4266 which isn't anything revolutionary.

I though so, but it's interesting that they are putting it in the same package as the SoC instead of in the logic board as usual. There must be a reason for it, but I don't know what is it.

Right, I wasn't trying to say only the high performance cores are used, but even if we give the Firestorm cores a 50% advantage in single core perf over Zen 2, I don't see them completely making up the difference even with the Icestorm cores. SMT is usually another 20-30% boost in workloads that take advantage up it, but not all do as you said.

You may be right, I'm just speculating here. They've done a fantastic job considering where they were just 5 years ago. Should be interesting to see how Zen 3 mobile compares.

Hopefully we'll have proper benchmarks in less than a week. Anyhow, it's exciting to finally see some competition in the CPU industry after all these years of Intel and 14nm++++++.

 

[CJRhoades]

I though so, but it's interesting that they are putting it in the same package as the SoC instead of in the logic board as usual. There must be a reason for it, but I don't know what is it.


Hopefully we'll have proper benchmarks in less than a week. Anyhow, it's exciting to finally see some competition in the CPU industry after all these years of Intel and 14nm++++++.

I would assume it's down to space. They can fit a bigger battery in if they save space on the logic board by putting the DRAM on package.

If you haven't already read it, the Anandtech article on the A14/M1 is excellent:

Apple Announces The Apple Silicon M1: Ditching x86 - What to Expect, Based on A14

www.anandtech.com

 

[SuperCachetes]

I though so, but it's interesting that they are putting it in the same package as the SoC instead of in the logic board as usual. There must be a reason for it, but I don't know what is it.

There are performance benefits I’m sure - but part of it is also the same logic behind doing their own silicon in the first place: they no longer have to worry as much about the availability and price fluctuations of getting memory (or some of the other SoC components) from others. That said, there are now a LOT more of Apple’s eggs in TSMC’s basket...

 

[Andropov]

I would assume it's down to space. They can fit a bigger battery in if they save space on the logic board by putting the DRAM on package.

If you haven't already read it, the Anandtech article on the A14/M1 is excellent:

Apple Announces The Apple Silicon M1: Ditching x86 - What to Expect, Based on A14

www.anandtech.com

Ooh I didn't know Anandtech already had an article. Those are the best. Thank you!

There are performance benefits I’m sure - but part of it is also the same logic behind doing their own silicon in the first place: they no longer have to worry as much about the availability and price fluctuations of getting memory (or some of the other SoC components) from others. That said, there are now a LOT more of Apple’s eggs in TSMC’s basket...

But not a single egg in Intel's basket anymore. There are other fabs out there, not only TSMC's. They were much more tied to Intel then than to TSMC now.

 

[Chargr]

Again, this is a moot point.
- you don't know a users application specifications
- you don't know what that user is going to add in the 7-10 years
- you don't know what OS requirements will be in 7-10 years
- you don't know when a user is going to want to upgrade

Again, again, again, there is NOTHING to argue here.

If someone wants 32GBs of RAM in their computer let them have it. If the M1 doesn't have it, then it's not for them.

No one is arguing. Just stating the obvious logical response. Not everyone needs 32gb of ram, very little do. You going to make a damn video game for ps5 or make the next blockbuster movie? Sure go ahead then and get an i7-i9 Mac with 32gb ram, heck 64GB might do well if you are running virtual machines. But most users don’t need that much. Yet you see all the posts “only 16gb of ram! Wahhh” lol ridiculous

However if users want to throw away money or just show off then by all means go for it. It’s your money not mines.

 

[Stella]

Watched the presentation. I'm sure they are great machines, but disappointing by it's 2 port limitation, which is a serious PITA, especially for two external monitors that requires dongles on my existing work 13" Macbook Pro . Apple aren't too revealing about benchmarks, talking about vague references about "up to 2" times faster, or "faster than other machines in it's class"...

What class is it in? Additionally, in the past, Apple have had better benchmark comparisons against prior CPUs or GPUs. All this makes me wonder there's going to be disappointment by the real life performance.

Immediately after the presentation I was reading text updates from Engadget of the presentation, and ordered and upgraded RAM and SSD, but seriously considering cancelling, or at latest waiting to see benchmarks against the existing i5 13" Macbook Pros to see how they fare.

 

[StoneJack]

Watched the presentation. I'm sure they are great machines, but disappointing by it's 2 port limitation. Apple aren't too revealing about benchmarks, talking about vague references about "up to 2" times faster, or "faster than other machines in it's class"...

What class is it in? Additionally, in the past, Apple have had better benchmark comparisons against prior CPUs or GPUs. All this makes me wonder there's going to be disappointment by the real life performance.

Immediately after the presentation I was reading text updates from Engadget of the presentation, and ordered and upgraded RAM and SSD, but seriously considering cancelling, or at latest waiting to see benchmarks against the existing i5 13" Macbook Pros to see how they fare.

I have 2 ports in Macbook Pro 2019 now no problems

 

[Stella]

I have 2 ports in Macbook Pro 2019 now no problems

Great, for you. However It's a serious limitation for me, I need two external monitors, plus another USB port for another item, then there's the power supply. So, require 4 in total.

So I'll probably have to wait until Apple come out with the higher end CPUs, or the Mac Mini is another ( cheaper ) option.

 

[jonnysods]

All of this, and in the end who wouldn't want a faster machine that will last longer? Or a machine that will hold its resale value years later? What if you plan on giving the thing to someone and 32GBs does become the standard?

It's a win win win no matter how you look at it.

Anyone who says "it doesn't need .... blah blah blah is grossly oversimplifying the discussion.



That's what I'm hoping for. Even if subsequent upgrades cost more money (e.g. cMP) because Apple has to take a workstation GPU and retool/re-engineer it to work with Apple SoCs. Many 15"/16" users are accustomed to paying more for their machines .... and we don't mind so long as they remain fast.

Right now the GPU is where Apple is lacking.

On the other hand, if they truly can make a better GPU, that's faster, consumes less power, etc. etc. then .... just wow. Imagine three years from now buying a Mac Pro with custom, cheaper, MPX modules.

okay okay okay okay okay okay maybe I'm dreaming a bit there 😆

I’m hoping the same. Although it would never get cheaper for us, it just means that gross profits are tastier for Apple.

 

[jonnysods]

Graphics switching originally switched between graphics chips. However, I think after Nvidia and Apple worked together on a motherboard that had nothing “Intel” in it but the CPU, Intel started requiring ALL solutions to have AND enable Intel GPU’s. So now, not only did it muscle AMD and Nvidia out of the low power game (if you’re making a small light laptop, you have to either make room for two GPU’s, Intel and the other, OR just use Intel), “switching” now just turns off the discrete GPU. You can’t disable the integrated one anymore.

Apple could have parallel GPU subsystems I guess (all Apple, though), and REALLY switch from one to the other, but they’re more likely to have something like low and high power GPU cores just like their CPU cores. Of course, this doesn’t matter on a desktop, so it’d only be for something like a 16-incher.

This must be the reason they are staggering this out - the other macs all have dedicated GPU’s (apart from the 21” iMac). So curious about their timeline and methodology for GPUs. I wonder if they go 3rd party or have a crack at it themselves and make their own.

 

[jdoyle]

You’d think the M1 prices would be dramatically less since we no longer have to pay the exorbitant Intel cpu core prices

All just means more profit from Apple. These should be a lot cheaper to make by Apple. They just never innovate on price which I was hoping for.

is love to see benchmarks for native applications completed to the High end intels. If these are already faster than 98% of PCs at same price point then it would be crazy to buy an intel Mac now.

 

[JosephAW]

Found all the 2x 3x 8x 10x hyperbole completely useless information.

 

[Bustycat]

@lucasrant @miniroll32

USB4® Specification v2.0 | USB-IF

www.usb.org

USB4 is a trademark.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This must be the reason they are staggering this out - the other macs all have dedicated GPU’s (apart from the 21” iMac). So curious about their timeline and methodology for GPUs. I wonder if they go 3rd party or have a crack at it themselves and make their own.

From all they’ve been communicating, all macOS systems will have the GPU as SoC. Since the CPU and GPU share memory through a proprietary interface, there’s no option available to have a slotted PCI anything (because it’d be way to slow). So, they’re not going to use a third party. I’d imagine that they’re currently producing large quantities of CPU’s for their sales leading laptop systems. Once they’ve got good inventory, then they can begin burning the higher performance (and possibly lower yield with those larger more complex GPU’s) lower sales CPU’s.

Unlike the iOS devices, there’s a ceiling for how many of these they can possibly sell in a year.

 

[citysnaps]

anyone noticed that M1 macs have 2 fewer thunderbolt ports than intel macs? why?

The Intel-based 13" entry level MBP had the same number of ports as the new M1-based entry level 13" MBP. And that number is also two.

 

[jonnysods]

From all they’ve been communicating, all macOS systems will have the GPU as SoC. Since the CPU and GPU share memory through a proprietary interface, there’s no option available to have a slotted PCI anything (because it’d be way to slow). So, they’re not going to use a third party. I’d imagine that they’re currently producing large quantities of CPU’s for their sales leading laptop systems. Once they’ve got good inventory, then they can begin burning the higher performance (and possibly lower yield with those larger more complex GPU’s) lower sales CPU’s.

Unlike the iOS devices, there’s a ceiling for how many of these they can possibly sell in a year.

Do you think the processor chip itself will be bigger on iMacs, 16 MBPs and the Mac Pro then? Seems like the M1 design may be a little too cramped to get something more powerful into the SoC?

 

[wumpalumpa]

why they keep using "Pro" on new ARM macbook name?

no epgu support
no virtualization extension support
less ports

overall less capabilities than previous generation

thats an overpriced piece of metal, a toy PC for kids that are learning farm animals and their sounds

 

[m00f]

How they gonna call the chip designated for higher end MacBook Pro or iMac? They still need to keep the numbering for the coming generations. M1 Pro? Or simply M2? Then later the low end can also get the M2?

M1x

 

[incoherent_1]

Honestly, I'm very happy with this product roadmap. Rather than diving into models that have new EVERYTHING including form factor, they're swapping out the internals.

After the debacle of the 2016 13" MBP, that is most welcome. Sometimes incremental change is a VERY good thing, especially when it comes to reliability.