You are being too literal and missing the context. Time to give it up.
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.
'M1 Pro' and 'M1 Max' Chip Names Appear in App Log Ahead of Monday's Apple Event
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mentioned this in an earlier post.
Does the article imply that M1 Max > M1 Pro and yet the rumoured iPhone 14 Max < iPhone 14 Pro.
Confusing if true.
I think a notch on the display would be unlikely. I'm sure those components would fit on the top bezel. Not as though it would matter to me if there was an iPhone-sized notch. I'd see it the first couple of days, but then I wouldn't even notice it. Fortunately, my eyes get accustomed to disregarding things like that. With Apple, you just never know what they're going to do. I would prefer a keycap unlock as it would be less obtrusive. I can't wait for tomorrow. I think Apple SoCs are awesome. I also want to see the CEO of Intel Corp. cry.
Yep, does not matter how powerful the hardware is, if it does not run Pro software then it's still just a toy.
32%
But you could make this argument for any product. Why have an iPhone each year? Why an Apple Watch? Apple could save themselves a lot of "well, that was really just a minor upgrade" whining that way.
Why is the Mac special in that Apple is unwilling to upgrade it on an annual basis? (Some iPads, too.)
Sales and upgrade cycle, most likely.
The iPhone has over a billion active users, so you are came to still capture a significant number of upgraders every year.
The Apple Watch is estimated to be worn by roughly 1/10 of existing iPhone users, meaning there is still a huge untapped market for Apple to target.
All these justify the resources sunk into maintaining an annual upgrade cycle.
In contrast, the Macs and iPads have longer upgrade cycles and so Apple likely doesn’t see the need to refresh it annually. Putting the iPad on a 1.5 year cycle and the Macs on a 2-3 year cycle sounds about right. Especially when you realise that a 2-year old M1 chip is probably faster than whatever Intel can come up with at any rate.
Yes. You're missing the fact that this would likely no longer have a dedicated GPU in there.
M1 Pro and M1 Max. Basically new marketing for M1X.
And as so many people rightly predicted based on solid logic and evidence, the MBP chip is OF COURSE based on the M1. And not anything newer. Remember people, these products existed a year ago from all reports. They are just exceptionally delayed.
And as so many people rightly predicted based on solid logic and evidence, the MBP chip is OF COURSE based on the M1. And not anything newer. Remember people, these products existed a year ago from all reports. They are just exceptionally delayed.
Someone needs to tell Apple that “Max” is an incredibly stupid appellation.
Kinda silly naming for the SoC. I mean why? And it will only confuse customers having to think whether Pro is better than Max or not.
On iPhone, it's easy. There are Pro and Pro Max. The Pro Max is just the larger version of the Pro.
Unless, the M1 Max and M1 Pro won't be used in the same lineup.
Eg. 27" M1 iMac will get M1 Max (instead of naming the computer as iMac Max). Makes sense as consumers see M1 on 24" iMacs. So 24" M1 iMac, and 27" M1 Max iMac.
Meanwhile, the Macbook Pros will get M1 Pro, to differentiate with the regular M1 on Macbook Air. So Macbook Air with M1, Macbook Pro (14" and 16") with M1 Pro (presuming the 13" Macbook Pro is discontinued, replaced by the 14"). This extends to the desktop as well with Mac mini having a regular Mx and future Mac Pro will get an Mx Pro SoCs.
On iPhone, it's easy. There are Pro and Pro Max. The Pro Max is just the larger version of the Pro.
Unless, the M1 Max and M1 Pro won't be used in the same lineup.
Eg. 27" M1 iMac will get M1 Max (instead of naming the computer as iMac Max). Makes sense as consumers see M1 on 24" iMacs. So 24" M1 iMac, and 27" M1 Max iMac.
Meanwhile, the Macbook Pros will get M1 Pro, to differentiate with the regular M1 on Macbook Air. So Macbook Air with M1, Macbook Pro (14" and 16") with M1 Pro (presuming the 13" Macbook Pro is discontinued, replaced by the 14"). This extends to the desktop as well with Mac mini having a regular Mx and future Mac Pro will get an Mx Pro SoCs.
Well, since the original MBP 13 sold 2-port low-end version and 4-port high-end version simultaneously, I think that M1 MBP13 and M1 [Pro/Max] MBP14 will sell at the same time too.
However, it will be interesting to see how it goes in the long term since having three sizes on MBP will be complicated, and the current M1 MBP13 and MBA really do not differentiate a lot. Probably wait and see if a new M2 MBP13 will release alongside the new M2 MBA?
I'm holding on until the M1 Iici. Or maybe the Iicx or IIfx...... But not the M1 Performa
Is that case repurposed/recycled from an unsold Mac Pro? Cool!Can't wait for my Mac Mini Pro Max
We won’t see any Max regarding any Macs - sounds stupid.
iPhone occupies the max names.
Don’t think they will name the chips with anything else then symbols, numbers and/or additional letters.
My guess.
A MacBook Pro with a M1Pro chip, just ridiculous.
Last edited:
The max power consumption of the 16" i9 MBP was 102W with a Radeon 5500M https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple...5500M-powered-multimedia-laptop.445902.0.html
For an M1 MBP, the same source measures 47.5W max:
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2020 Laptop Review: The entry-level Pro also gets the M1 performance boost
Notebookcheck reviews the entry-level MacBook Pro 13 2020 with Apple's new M1 processor. Does the active cooling solution make a noticeable difference?
A rough prediction says the max power output of an M1X (10 cores) with a 16-core GPU would be about double that, i.e., ~100W. And since the 16" i9 throttles with this power output, an M1X/16-core GPU inside a case with the currrent 16" Intel's TDP capacity would also throttle.
Thus, particularly if the AS 16" comes with a 32-core GPU, Apple may have designed it to have a higher TDP than the 16" Intel MBP. Correspondingly, if there is a differentiator between the the 14" and 16" AS MBP's, it may be that the 32-core GPU is only available in the latter.
Last edited:
Could be, although they did do the 18-month cycle with the A*Xs in the iPads Pro.
I suppose they could do what Intel did (except on a more regular basis) and add a "Refresh" cycle every other year, where they simply bump the clock and/or the count of enabled cores, after TSMC's processes have been refined sufficiently.
Right, I get that. I just think it'd be a bummer if Macs only get revised every 24 months.
Sure.
(So far, it's looking like even Alder Lake will still put Intel about 1.5 years behind, while also drawing more power.)