M1X Mac mini's Leaked Schematics. Fake or?

[Tucker2021]

Interesting timing as Apple Market Research just this week sent me their detailed questionnaire - basically asking what I like so much about my (purchased in 2018) Intel Mini.

I take this to mean the Intel model continues to sell well enough that Apple is now considering keeping it around a while longer as a model option.

 

[theorist9]

Apple has been known to prioritize low fan noise in the past, but Intel over the last decade proved to not deliver the thermals apple expected. Intel instead ramped up TDP to achieve better performance, but Apple was already locked into a smaller form factor.

Sometimes Apple does prioritize quietness, sometimes they don't—even when they have a choice. With mobile devices, their choices are limited. But not so with desktop machines.

I don't own a 27" iMac, but I've heard many complaints that it can get noisy with load. And you can't simply foist that on Intel. It's entirely doable to reduce noise by providing adequate thermal capacity, as Apple themselves showed with the iMac Pro (even though the thermal output of the iMac Pro's CPU is 25% higher than that of the highest TDP iMac--see screenshots below).

Indeed, one of the most frequent compliments I've heard from iMac Pro users is that it's much quieter than the large iMac. See https://www.imore.com/imac-pro-vs-imac-5k

So there you have it. Apple could have readily engineered the large iMac to be much quieter, as they demonstrated themselves with the iMac Pro. Yet they did not. [And it's not as if one more fan, a larger heatsink, and some additional ducting add much to the BOM.] So of course you're free to withhold judgement and be optimisitic, just as we're free to explore possible scenarios based on Apple's past behavior.

 

[dmccloud]

Sometimes Apple does prioritize quietness, sometimes they don't—even when they have a choice. With mobile devices, their choices are limited. But not so with desktop machines.

I don't own a 27" iMac, but I've heard many complaints that it can get noisy with load. And you can't simply foist that on Intel. It's entirely doable to reduce noise by providing adequate thermal capacity, as Apple themselves showed with the iMac Pro (even though the thermal output of the iMac Pro's CPU is 25% higher than that of the highest TDP iMac--see screenshots below).

Indeed, one of the most frequent compliments I've heard from iMac Pro users is that it's much quieter than the large iMac. See https://www.imore.com/imac-pro-vs-imac-5k

So there you have it. Apple could have readily engineered the large iMac to be much quieter, as they demonstrated themselves with the iMac Pro. Yet they did not. [And it's not as if one more fan, a larger heatsink, and some additional ducting add much to the BOM.] So of course you're free to withhold judgement and be optimisitic, just as we're free to explore possible scenarios based on Apple's past behavior.


View attachment 1818045

View attachment 1818046

The iMac Pro is only drawing more power and generating more heat on the top end. For most operations, it would be running cooler than the 27" iMac as evidenced by drawing 10W less and generating 34 less BTU/h on the low end. The only time you would see the extra fan and ducting in the Pro actually having any impact on the system is when it is running all-out (which will only be the case on occasion for most users).

 

[Jorbanead]

Sometimes Apple does prioritize quietness, sometimes they don't—even when they have a choice. With mobile devices, their choices are limited. But not so with desktop machines.

I don't own a 27" iMac, but I've heard many complaints that it can get noisy with load. And you can't simply foist that on Intel. It's entirely doable to reduce noise by providing adequate thermal capacity, as Apple themselves showed with the iMac Pro (even though the thermal output of the iMac Pro's CPU is 25% higher than that of the highest TDP iMac--see screenshots below).

Indeed, one of the most frequent compliments I've heard from iMac Pro users is that it's much quieter than the large iMac. See https://www.imore.com/imac-pro-vs-imac-5k

So there you have it. Apple could have readily engineered the large iMac to be much quieter, as they demonstrated themselves with the iMac Pro. Yet they did not. [And it's not as if one more fan, a larger heatsink, and some additional ducting add much to the BOM.] So of course you're free to withhold judgement and be optimisitic, just as we're free to explore possible scenarios based on Apple's past behavior.


View attachment 1818045

View attachment 1818046

The iMac Pro was a complete redesign of the internals. Apple was waiting for Apple silicon to transition the iMac over. Didn’t make sense to spend RnD when Apple silicon was right around the corner.

 

[CWallace]

So there you have it. Apple could have readily engineered the large iMac to be much quieter, as they demonstrated themselves with the iMac Pro. Yet they did not.

To be fair, they did that by removing user-accessible memory and deleting the HDD option. So base storage on the entry-level and "store" models would have dropped from 1TB Fusion to 256GB SSD* and memory upgrades would have been hundreds to thousands of dollars.


* - I know for many, if not most, of us 256GB SSD is better than 1TB Fusion, but I expect the predominate majority of folks buying the $1799 or $1999 model at the time, a 1TB Fusion drive was acceptable and paying $200-400 more for 512GB or 1TB of SSD storage would have been an issue to some level.

 

[theorist9]

The iMac Pro is only drawing more power and generating more heat on the top end. For most operations, it would be running cooler than the 27" iMac as evidenced by drawing 10W less and generating 34 less BTU/h on the low end. The only time you would see the extra fan and ducting in the Pro actually having any impact on the system is when it is running all-out (which will only be the case on occasion for most users).

The issue isn't how loud the iMac is at idle, it's how loud it is under load. And the fact that the iMac's fan noise is a common source of complaint means people are running it under high load often enough (I don't think it would be so poorly designed as to be noisy under low load).

I.e, idle values aren't relevant to fan noise. Fan noise happens at high load so, logically, to answer the question at hand—which is whether, if you gave an iMac the iMac Pro's cooling system, the iMac would be quiet under high load—you want to look at the relative output of Xeon vs. i9 at high load.

Further, my comparison actually underestimates the iMac Pro's thermal capacity relative to what would be needed to handle the components in an iMac, since the TDP of the iMac Pro's GPU is about twice that of the iMac's.

So my point stands: The fact that the iMac Pro is quiet under load, with even more TDP than the iMac, means Apple could have readily designed the iMac to be quiet as well.

 

[theorist9]

The iMac Pro was a complete redesign of the internals. Apple was waiting for Apple silicon to transition the iMac over. Didn’t make sense to spend RnD when Apple silicon was right around the corner.

Yes, if fan noise suddenly appeared with the i9, then it would make sense that Apple wouldn't redesign it at that late stage, knowing that AS was coming soon.

But, from what I've read, the iMac has never been a quiet machine under load. I.e., it appears that, when they introduced the last redesign, they could have easily given it a more robust cooling system then (making it quiet even under load), but did not.

Of course, Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world, so clearly they knew what they were doing economically when they made that design decision. They probably decided that, when it came to sales, having a machine that looked super-sleek on the showroom floor outweighed it being super-quiet once customers got it home. Form over function.

 

[rasputin666]

for my use case, I'm more concerned about the RAM limitation. I have the M1 Mini with 16GB and I have maxed it out, forcing a frozen mac then auto reboot. and that's w/o any video editing. I knew my M1 purchase was a stepping stone, but my 6,1 was finally having issues from 2013 and I ended a new mac. I have a 49" dell monitor, so iMacs just don't do anything for me. it's either a pro or a mini.

I had the 3,1 from 2007 and the 6,1 from 2013 but I wasn't spending the $$$ for the 7,1, so they made my choice easy. The M1 Mini was good timing but I knew it was a year or so before I went with the next version as I don't see myself ever buying a pro again unless there's a mac pro 'lite' that may tempt me

 

[theorist9]

To be fair, they did that by removing user-accessible memory and deleting the HDD option. So base storage on the entry-level and "store" models would have dropped from 1TB Fusion to 256GB SSD* and memory upgrades would have been hundreds to thousands of dollars.


* - I know for many, if not most, of us 256GB SSD is better than 1TB Fusion, but I expect the predominate majority of folks buying the $1799 or $1999 model at the time, a 1TB Fusion drive was acceptable and paying $200-400 more for 512GB or 1TB of SSD storage would have been an issue to some level.

Yes, I noticed that. It's possible they wanted to eliminate those anyways, for other reasons—the user-replaceable RAM for economic reasons (perhaps figuring pros would be willing to pay Apple RAM prices) and the Fusion Drive because it could be glitchy. But they could have easily kept those, along with the better cooling, by allowing the case to be a bit deeper, which really shouldn't be an issue with a desktop made for the pro market. I.e., there was no significant engineering or design barrier to having both.

As I mentioned in my response to Jorbanhead, above, I can understand, from a sales point of view, wanting to keep the iMac looking super-sleek. But for a desktop pro machine, there's no good reason to feel like slim case depth is so important that you have to give up function.

 

[iOzzie]

Hoping M1X will have 3+ monitor support also...

 

[Zandros]

Current Macs that have a multitude of different ports have them laid out in a sensible manner. You get ports that are rarely disconnected on one end, and ports that are more often disconnected at the other end.

Following that reasoning, power and Ethernet should be next to each other, and then the display outputs. The port ordering on this Mac mini is nonsensical and I therefore deem it fake.

 

[theorist9]

Hoping M1X will have 3+ monitor support also...

I can't imagine that not being the case, since surely it has to equal or exceed what's available now from the Intel versions it will be replacing:

Intel Mac mini: 3 x 4k external
Intel 13" MBP: internal, plus 2 x 4k or 1 x 6k
Intel 16" MBP: internal, plus 4 x 4k or 2 x 6k

 

[Jorbanead]

Current Macs that have a multitude of different ports have them laid out in a sensible manner. You get ports that are rarely disconnected on one end, and ports that are more often disconnected at the other end.

Following that reasoning, power and Ethernet should be next to each other, and then the display outputs. The port ordering on this Mac mini is nonsensical and I therefore deem it fake.

I agree the ports are odd, but this Mac mini also doesn’t fully follow your logic either (it’s at least much closer).

 

[Zandros]

View attachment 1818850
I agree the ports are odd, but this Mac mini also doesn’t fully follow your logic either (it’s at least much closer).

Ideally the HDMI port would be on the other side of the USB-C ports, but it appears that Apple view the USB-C/Thunderbolt ports primarily as display outputs, as that's what they replaced. FireWire ports have also been a bit of an oddity historically, but I don't think FireWire or Thunderbolt devices are unplugged that often.

Regardless, almost all modern Macs (apart from the various Mac Pro models) have placed power and networking next to each other. ilIt would be seriously inconvenient to have them block the ports from both sides. The iMac G4 had power and networking nicely in the middle.

 

[Krevnik]

Interesting timing as Apple Market Research just this week sent me their detailed questionnaire - basically asking what I like so much about my (purchased in 2018) Intel Mini.

I take this to mean the Intel model continues to sell well enough that Apple is now considering keeping it around a while longer as a model option.

That or they are trying to better understand what not to change/jettison with future AS Minis.

 

[Jorbanead]

Interesting timing as Apple Market Research just this week sent me their detailed questionnaire - basically asking what I like so much about my (purchased in 2018) Intel Mini.

I take this to mean the Intel model continues to sell well enough that Apple is now considering keeping it around a while longer as a model option.

I got this too. It’s likely just a standard survey to see what features Apple should have/keep/improve in future products. Of course take it with a grain of salt.

 

[deconstruct60]

I can't imagine that not being the case, since surely it has to equal or exceed what's available now from the Intel versions it will be replacing:
Int
Intel Mac mini: 3 x 4k external
Intel 13" MBP: internal, plus 2 x 4k or 1 x 6k
Intel 16" MBP: internal, plus 4 x 4k or 2 x 6k

That would be very "2019" of Apple. It is creeping up on 2022. The iGPU game has changed on the Intell versions. Current standard there is four. (especially since TBv4 requires one video stream per TB port. Four ports, then four streams. Or no TBv4 certification. ) . The reality is that Apple's Intel stuff has gone stale competitive wise.

AMD side is logging behind for displays on iGPU. But for systems with a dGPU (which many desktops in mainstream market has) four is a pretty much nominal.

 

[uller6]

Looks familiar, but I just can't place my finger on where I might have seen this design before...oh yeah.

 

[EugW]

Yes, if fan noise suddenly appeared with the i9, then it would make sense that Apple wouldn't redesign it at that late stage, knowing that AS was coming soon.

But, from what I've read, the iMac has never been a quiet machine under load. I.e., it appears that, when they introduced the last redesign, they could have easily given it a more robust cooling system then (making it quiet even under load), but did not.

Of course, Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world, so clearly they knew what they were doing economically when they made that design decision. They probably decided that, when it came to sales, having a machine that looked super-sleek on the showroom floor outweighed it being super-quiet once customers got it home. Form over function.

I returned my 2017 Core i7-7700K iMac due to fan noise. I replaced it with a 2017 Core i5-7600 iMac instead. It is silent, with the same cooling design.

We ran some tests. The i7 would ramp up the fan within 30 seconds under load. The i5 took 9.5 minutes, which means for my usage the i5 is never audible.

That said, I’m still hopeful a thinner M1X form factor Mac mini would have adequate thermal design. It’s time for the Mac mini to get a new case design, just because. Mind you, I could also wait for the M2 Mac mini using the same case design. I don’t need the power of M1X. I just want more ports than the M1 Mac mini, and it would be nice to get that brand new case design as well. Unfortunately, I’m sure such an M2 Mac mini would be lacking in ports too.

 

[theorist9]

Do you have any examples in mind? I think Apple thermal designs are generally top-notch, but they are focused on overall utility and not delivering lowest possible temperature at the expense of other properties.

Well, it's not about the Mac, but there's this from Anandtech on the new iPhone:

"What’s been extremely perplexing with Apple’s motherboard designs has been the fact that since they employed dual-layer “sandwich” PCBs, is that they’re packaging the SoC on the inside of the two soldered boards. This comes in contrast to other vendors such as Samsung, who also have adopted the “sandwich” PCB, but the SoC is located on the outer side of the assembly, making direct contact with the heat spreader and display mid-frame.

There are reports of the new iPhones throttling more under gaming and cellular connectivity – well, I’m sure that having the modem directly opposite the SoC inside the sandwich is a contributor to this situation. The iPhone 13 Pro showcasing lower sustained power levels may be tied to the new PCB design, and Apple’s overall iPhone thermal design is definitely amongst the worst out there [emphasis mine], as it doesn’t do a good job of spreading the heat throughout the body of the phone, achieving a SoC thermal envelope that’s far smaller than the actual device thermal envelope."

AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals

Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

www.anandtech.com

 

[Serban55]

Can this be accurate ?!

 

[leman]

Well, it's not about the Mac, but there's this from Anandtech on the new iPhone:

"What’s been extremely perplexing with Apple’s motherboard designs has been the fact that since they employed dual-layer “sandwich” PCBs, is that they’re packaging the SoC on the inside of the two soldered boards. This comes in contrast to other vendors such as Samsung, who also have adopted the “sandwich” PCB, but the SoC is located on the outer side of the assembly, making direct contact with the heat spreader and display mid-frame.

There are reports of the new iPhones throttling more under gaming and cellular connectivity – well, I’m sure that having the modem directly opposite the SoC inside the sandwich is a contributor to this situation. The iPhone 13 Pro showcasing lower sustained power levels may be tied to the new PCB design, and Apple’s overall iPhone thermal design is definitely amongst the worst out there [emphasis mine], as it doesn’t do a good job of spreading the heat throughout the body of the phone, achieving a SoC thermal envelope that’s far smaller than the actual device thermal envelope."

AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals

Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

www.anandtech.com

I have to say that I don’t quite understand why this has generated so much discussion and controversy. Yes, the design is not optimal from the perspective of enabling high sustained thermal dissipation (and thus performance). But why would one want sustained performance in a phone? A phone is almost exclusively operated on battery, and I don’t know how many people would want their already frame-limited games to run 30% faster at the expense of running out of battery in under an hour.

According to Andrei‘s benchmarks, the iPhones are still significantly faster than any competition after throttling, while their sustained power usage is slightly lower than the competitions. What we have here is a deliberate design that obviously prioritizes usable battery life over sustained performance. And in the typical Apple fashion, they wield thermal throttling as an precision tool for managing power and performance, using a hardware layout that is most certainly optimized for board space while reaching the precise performance and power consumption targets they want.

Or, to make it short: if Apple used a less thermally constrained design their phones would run faster but also hotter and their battery life under load will be non existent. In fact, the main reason why this is being discussed is because Apple does not soft-limit their GPUs, so there is a big disparity between the burst and the sustained performance. About that, duh, that’s a desktop class GPU we are talking about, of course it will scale.

 

[leman]

Can this be accurate ?!

Accurate? Who knows. I doubt it’s real. But the numbers are be probably close enough to what we will see on real hardware. Eight P-cores, running slightly higher sustained clock. Anyone can fart these numbers out, it’s trivial arithmetic.

Where did you get it from?

 

[Serban55]

Accurate? Who knows. I doubt it’s real. But the numbers are be probably close enough to what we will see on real hardware. Eight P-cores, running slightly higher sustained clock. Anyone can fart these numbers out, it’s trivial arithmetic.

Where did you get it from?

From

(kidding) its not a real hardware , is just a presumption that can fall short over the Intel 11800HOC and that could be incredible since that cpu is drawing over 110W

So this can get real..ok

 

[altaic]

Where did you get it from?

Inquiring minds…