I think the limitation is they can't make a nice seamless switch from iPadOS when no external keyboard attached to macOS when attached. And using macOS with touch is probably not very good.
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.
M4+ Chip Generation - Speculation Megathread [MERGED]
- Thread starter GoetzPhil
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Please update the list to include J581 and J582 models. Macrumor still don't get it: they thought it refers to two storage sizes....hoho. As I speculated it is referring to two display sizes: 11" and 13". Mark Gurman mention that low-cost iPad will get faster SoC, that would be A18. What SoC is rumored to powered 13-inch device again? Think guys...
And no mention of low-cost Macbook from Mark Gurman. Why?
If Apple is indeed launching only M5-iPad Pro by the end of the year; We might see M5-MBA earlier than MacBook Pro. Apple might delay M5 Pro and Max until WWDC 2026, again just my speculation with latest leaks.
Last edited:
Adding the iPads/iPhones to that list of Macs would be a lot of work. I'll let you know if I get around to it.Please update the list to include J581 and J582 models. Macrumor still don't get it: they thought it refers to two storage sizes....hoho. As I speculated it is referring to two display sizes: 11" and 13". Mark Gurman mention that low-cost iPad will get faster SoC, that would be A18. What SoC is rumored to powered 13-inch device again? Think guys...
And no mention of low-cost Macbook from Mark Gurman. Why?
If Apple is indeed launching only M5-iPad Pro by the end of the year; We might see M5-MBA earlier than MacBook Pro. Apple might delay M5 Pro and Max until WWDC 2026, again just my speculation with latest leaks.
A18 Pro is the rumored SoC in a new 13" device, not A18.
Okay, thanks to AppleDB.dev, a list of the iPads since A12 was easy to compile.
One thing I wasn't aware of beforehand is the current system of Mac identifiers (which began with Mac13,1 and Mac13,2) is based on the iPad system. So Mac17,1 having A18 Pro and Mac 17,2 having M5 is not against the rules. Look at the
iPad16 generation: it starts with A17 Pro, then gets M4.Thus,
iPad17 and Mac17 will be the same generation. Starting the Mac Studio out at Mac13 wasn't a happy accident. This was planned all along.Transitional
A12X/A12Z
J317 = iPad8,1 :: A12X iPad Pro 11" WiFi
J317x = iPad8,2 :: A12X iPad Pro 11" WiFi (1 TB)
J318 = iPad8,3 :: A12X iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular
J318x = iPad8,4 :: A12X iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular (1 TB)
J320 = iPad8,5 :: A12X iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi
J320x = iPad8,6 :: A12X iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi (1 TB)
J321 = iPad8,7 :: A12X iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular
J321x = iPad8,8 :: A12X iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular (1 TB)
J417 = iPad8,9 :: A12Z iPad Pro 11" WiFi
J418 = iPad8,10 :: A12Z iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular
J420 = iPad8,11 :: A12Z iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi
J421 = iPad8,12 :: A12Z iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular
A12
J210 = iPad11,1 :: A12 iPad mini WiFi
J211 = iPad11,2 :: A12 iPad mini WiFi + Cellular
J217 = iPad11,3 :: A12 iPad Air WiFi
J218 = iPad11,4 :: A12 iPad Air WiFi + Cellular
J171a = iPad11,6 :: A12 iPad WiFi
J172a = iPad11,7 :: A12 iPad WiFi + Cellular
A13
J181 = iPad12,1 :: A13 iPad WiFi
J182 = iPad12,2 :: A13 iPad WiFi + Cellular
J327 = AppleDisplay2,1 :: Studio Display 27" (A13, 60Hz)
First generation
A14/M1
J307 = iPad13,1 :: A14 iPad Air WiFi
J308 = iPad13,2 :: A14 iPad Air WiFi + Cellular
J517 = iPad13,4 :: M1 iPad Pro 11" WiFi
J517x = iPad13,5 :: M1 iPad Pro 11" WiFi (1 or 2 TB)
J518 = iPad13,6 :: M1 iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular
J518x = iPad13,7 :: M1 iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular (1 or 2 TB)
J522 = iPad13,8 :: M1 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi
J522x = iPad13,9 :: M1 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi (1 or 2 TB)
J523 = iPad13,10 :: M1 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular
J523x = iPad13,11 :: M1 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular (1 or 2 TB)
J407 = iPad13,16 :: M1 iPad Air WiFi
J408 = iPad13,17 :: M1 iPad Air WiFi + Cellular
J271 = iPad13,18 :: A14 iPad WiFi
J272 = iPad13,19 :: A14 iPad WiFi + Cellular
Second generation
A15/M2
J310 = iPad14,1 :: A15 iPad mini WiFi
J311 = iPad14,2 :: A15 iPad mini WiFi + Cellular
J617 = iPad14,3 :: M2 iPad Pro 11" WiFi
J618 = iPad14,4 :: M2 iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular
J620 = iPad14,5 :: M2 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi
J621 = iPad14,6 :: M2 iPad Pro 12.9" WiFi + Cellular
J507 = iPad14,8 :: M2 iPad Air 11" WiFi
J508 = iPad14,9 :: M2 iPad Air 11" WiFi + Cellular
J537 = iPad14,10 :: M2 iPad Air 13" WiFi
J538 = iPad14,11 :: M2 iPad Air 13" WiFi + Cellular
Third generation
M3/A16
J607 = iPad15,3 :: M3 iPad Air 11" WiFi
J608 = iPad15,4 :: M3 iPad Air 11" WiFi + Cellular
J637 = iPad15,5 :: M3 iPad Air 13" WiFi
J638 = iPad15,6 :: M3 iPad Air 13" WiFi + Cellular
J481 = iPad15,7 :: A16 iPad WiFi
J482 = iPad15,8 :: A16 iPad WiFi + Cellular
Fourth generation
A17 Pro/M4
J410 = iPad16,1 :: A17 Pro iPad mini WiFi
J411 = iPad16,2 :: A17 Pro iPad mini WiFi + Cellular
J717 = iPad16,3 :: M4 iPad Pro 11" WiFi
J718 = iPad16,4 :: M4 iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular
J720 = iPad16,5 :: M4 iPad Pro 13" WiFi
J721 = iPad16,6 :: M4 iPad Pro 13" WiFi + Cellular
Fifth generation (projected)
A18/M5 (projected)
~J581 = iPad17,1 :: A18 iPad WiFi
~J582 = iPad17,2 :: A18 iPad WiFi + Cellular
~J817 = iPad17,3 :: M5 iPad Pro 11" WiFi
~J818 = iPad17,4 :: M5 iPad Pro 11" WiFi + Cellular
~J820 = iPad17,5 :: M5 iPad Pro 13" WiFi
~J821 = iPad17,6 :: M5 iPad Pro 13" WiFi + Cellular
Sixth generation (projected)
A19 Pro/M6 (projected)
~J510 = iPad18,1 :: A19 Pro iPad mini WiFi
~J511 = iPad18,2 :: A19 Pro iPad mini WiFi + Cellular
~J427 = AppleDisplay3,1 :: Studio Display HDR 27" (A19 Pro, 120Hz)
Last edited:
This. I would love it if my powerful M1 iPad could become a macOS laptop when I attach the keyboard. That’s very versatile, but probably very difficult to implement seamlessly.
Hidra is almost confirmed to be M5.
Apple A19, C2, M5 chip identifiers all leaked in early iOS 18 code
Several unreleased Apple Silicon chips recently surfaced in an internal build of iOS 18, including A19, M5, and C2, according to exclusive information provided to AppleInsider.
According to the article:
Seems pretty definitive — looks like you were right! — if so, Gurman really botched Hidra. I think he mashes information from different sources together, so while it looked like Mac Pro = Hidra came from the same source that got the M4 Max/M3 Ultra Mac Studio correct, it probably wasn’t.Hidra is almost confirmed to be M5.
Apple A19, C2, M5 chip identifiers all leaked in early iOS 18 code
Several unreleased Apple Silicon chips recently surfaced in an internal build of iOS 18, including A19, M5, and C2, according to exclusive information provided to AppleInsider.appleinsider.com
According to the article:
Updated codenames
Those with "?" are my personal speculation
sources:
Those with "?" are my personal speculation
| Marketing | Internal | Codename | CPID | P-Core | E-Core |
| A16 | H15P | Crete | T8120 | Everest | Sawtooth |
| M3 | H15G | Ibiza | T8122 | Everest | Sawtooth |
| M3 Pro | H15J | Lobos | T6030 | Everest | Sawtooth |
| M3 Max | H15J/H15S | Palma | T6031 / T6034 | Everest | Sawtooth |
| M3 Ultra | Palma 2C? | T6032 | Everest | Sawtooth | |
| A17 Pro | H16P | Coll | T8130 | ||
| M4 | H16G | Donan | T8132 | ||
| M4 Pro | H16S | Brava Chop | T6040 | ||
| M4 Max | H16C | Brava | T6041 | ||
| A18 | H17A | Tupai | T8140a | ||
| A18 Pro | H17P | Tahiti | T8140 | ||
| M5 | H17G? | Hidra | T8142 | ||
| M5 Pro | H17S? | Sotra_S | T6050 | ||
| M5 Max? | H17C? | Sotra_C | T6051? | ||
| M5 Ultra? | H17C? | Sotra_D | T6052? | ||
| A19? | H18A? | Tilos | T8150a? | ||
| A19 Pro? | H18P? | Thera | T8150 | ||
| M6? | H18G? | Komodo | T8152? |
sources:
- https://asahilinux.org/docs/hw/soc/soc-codenames/#socs
- https://appleinsider.com/articles/2...p-identifiers-all-leaked-in-early-ios-18-code
- https://techboards.net/threads/m4-mac-announcements.4876/page-31
Code:
A16 - M3 - M3 Pro - M3 Max: T8120 - T8122 - T6030 - T6031
A17 Pro - M4 - M4 Pro - M4 Max: T8130 - T8132 - T6040 - T6041
A18 Pro - M5 - M5 Pro : T8140 - T8142 - T6050Maybe there wont be Max and Ultra chips anymore, especially with their new tile system? Maybe main, Pro with top CPU and slightly more GPU cores and then a third, which is top CPU and ALL GPU cores.
So, a Max with more GPU cores than current gens and no Ultra with double CPU. Making the Max more affordable, with barely (or no) loss in GPU vs current Ultra and not sicko-much CPU in the Ultra.
Like Main, CPU-focused, CPU and GPU focused.
So, a Max with more GPU cores than current gens and no Ultra with double CPU. Making the Max more affordable, with barely (or no) loss in GPU vs current Ultra and not sicko-much CPU in the Ultra.
Like Main, CPU-focused, CPU and GPU focused.
I can see the unveiling before me.
”
UltraFusion used to be for Ultra. Now it’s everywhere. It connects every package to each other. RAM, CPU and GPU. *smug happy Tim Apple face*
The M5 Max and Pro models are essentially SoCs with individual components. A motherboard that fits in the palm of your hand *holds up M5 Max chip*. And performance is phenomenal. *super smug happy face*
”
”
UltraFusion used to be for Ultra. Now it’s everywhere. It connects every package to each other. RAM, CPU and GPU. *smug happy Tim Apple face*
The M5 Max and Pro models are essentially SoCs with individual components. A motherboard that fits in the palm of your hand *holds up M5 Max chip*. And performance is phenomenal. *super smug happy face*
”
M5+ Chip Generation - Speculation Megathread?
It's surprising so little is known about the M5 considering we're only probably about three months before we see it debut in an iPad.
is there any indication that apple will solve the situation with underpowered GPUs? Having their highest end offering br at the level of a single 5060 (but with more mem) is limiting. Not to mention the lack of support for bf16/fp16 (well, you can use it, just that it runs slower then fp32)
For laptops i guess they have an acceptable balance, probably the best, but for desktop, they have scrappy stuff. If m5 is just m4 with some tweaks it will not change anything.
Is there nothing rumored on server grade chips? Something challenging nvidia?
For laptops i guess they have an acceptable balance, probably the best, but for desktop, they have scrappy stuff. If m5 is just m4 with some tweaks it will not change anything.
Is there nothing rumored on server grade chips? Something challenging nvidia?
There are definitely indications of a stronger GPU effort, though nothing concrete on whether a “server-grade” chip (I assume you mean something akin to the fabled Extreme chip) will happen. Take a read through this thread if you haven’t
Apple M5 rumors
I can’t see a reason they would delay the mere spec-bump to next year. That won’t help them. It won't, but unfortunately, that's classic Apple. This is some very long-running brain damage. It goes back at least to nMP, where they just... sat on their asses and did nothing for years, even though...
techboards.net
I don't know about the thread you linked too, looks like the typical fan stuff - high on wishlist/speculation and little actual information With that said, the biggest knock on Macs is their GPU performance.
Doing a bit of googling I see how the M4 stock models aligns with nvidia GPUs:
- M4 is equivalent to the GTX 1650 - a 6 year old GPU
- M4 Pro is equivalent is RTX 3050 - 3 year old card
- M4 Max is equivalent is the RTX 4070 - 2 year old card.
Clearly Apple needs to address this situation, I'm not sure how/or what will happen, some of the speculation is possibly taking the GPU out of the Soc, not sure of that's actually going to happen
It should boil down to whether they are going to start taking gaming seriously (I think they should, money to be made) or not. For editing purposes and grading the Max is fine I believe?
This.
An Apple disaggregated GPU design could unlock the 2 x Laptop ‘Max’ GPU performance to 3 or more GPU tiles; all without the high unit cost of a desktop-only SoC design.
(Speculation) A 10% bump in clock speed from moving to an improved 3 nm process couple with 15% architectural bump (perhaps adopting more ARM ISA) could see an impressive jump in base M5 single threaded performance.
It will be interesting to see if TSMC tile interconnect allows Apple to scale their offerings effectively, and with enough headroom in their thermal budget of their (guessing) M5 2026 desktops.
If a top end M5 Mac Studio ends up 2.5 times faster than a M4 Max - would there be any market left for a Mac Pro? I think not.
There's meaningful discussion in that thread regarding patents Apple has filed on GPU (or GPU-related at least) functionality. I feel it qualifies for @innerproduct's request for any indication that Apple is working on stronger GPUs.
I think it hinges on whether or not Apple is looking at TSMC A16 (with Super Power Rail) for server-grade silicon. There is even a code name for it, Baltra. Production on that node is set to begin 2H 2026, so the timing seems right for an M7 variant.
I don't know what to think of the Mac Pro, now that Hidra is likely to be M5. I'll guess the 2019 chassis will get M5 Ultra, and then be redesigned for the M7 variant.
I believe Apple is already using the Ultra chips for Apple Intelligence servers.
I don't think there's enough money to be made in gaming alone for Apple to justify a huge GPU improvement effort. IMHO the only way we'll see 5090-class performance before 2028 is if it's super-easy for them or if something else like Apple Intelligence is a big enough hit to require it.
<< bunch of math snipped out, see https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/gaming-pc-market-report and https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/aapl/metrics/revenue-by-segment/ for details)>>
If Apple matched the 5090, maybe 10% of gaming PC buyers would get Macs instead of Windows PCs. That's $6 billion per year, which is 20% of Mac revenue but only 1.5% of total Apple revenue. To me or you $6 billion is "money to be made" but to Apple it's the loose change under the sofa cushion.
Technically speaking. isn't the M3 Ultra close to the RTX 4090? That 60-Core CPU/80-core GPU combo has to be worth something.
Not in anything I’ve seen other than local AI workloads that specifically need more memory than a single top-end 4090 can have.
It’s in the range of a 4080 Super in terms of real world compute performance (e.g. Blender)
A theoretical M4 Ultra would be in the 4090 range
If they still use monolithic dies and reuse the one generation older Max design (as they did with M3 Ultra) they could redesign it for the A16 node while M7, M7 Pro, and M7 Max would get N2P.
TSMC is remarkably reluctant when it comes to A16 and mass production...