M6 How Big of a Jump Are We Looking At?

[BenRacicot]

So the M6 rumors have me pretty hyped. From what I'm reading, we're getting three major changes all at once:

1. TSMC's 2nm node (vs current 3nm)
2. WMCM packaging (replaces InFo - allows side-by-side or stacked chip components)
3. New architecture (rumors of modular design)

TSMC claims 2nm gives around 15% performance boost, but when you stack all three of these changes together... could we be looking at >50% performance improvement over M5? That seems almost too good to be true but the packaging + architecture changes could add a lot on top of the node shrink.

The big question though:

Could WMCM packaging enable Ultra-style configurations in the MacBook Pro?

Right now Ultra is two Max dies connected together, which generates a ton of heat - fine for a desktop but impossible in a laptop. But if WMCM lets Apple arrange components more efficiently with better thermals, could we actually see something like an M6 "Ultra" variant in a 16" MBP? Or at least some kind of beefed-up configuration that wasn't thermally feasible before?

I'm probably being too optimistic here, but the new packaging seems like it opens doors that didn't exist with the current approach.

And, what kind of performance boost can we realistically be targeting with 3 major updates to the M series?

A dedicated GPU chiplet could mean 60-80 GPU cores in an M6 Max!

What do you think - realistic or just wishful thinking?

 

[BenRacicot]

If you work the math backwards from what we “have” in the M4 GPU…

M4 Max Current Specs:
• 40 GPU cores
• Total package power: ~90-95W under full load (CPU + GPU)
• GPU portion: roughly 50-60W at full tilt (educated guess based on teardowns/reviews)
The 2nm Efficiency Gain
TSMC claims 2nm delivers same performance at 25-30% less power (or 15% more performance at same power).
So if M4 Max GPU uses ~55W for 40 cores:
• M6 GPU at 2nm: 40 cores would use ~38-40W for same performance
• That frees up 15-17W of thermal/power headroom
How Many More Cores Can We Fit?
If we assume linear scaling (which isn’t perfect but close enough):
• 40 cores = 38W (2nm efficient)
• Each core ≈ 0.95W
• With 15-17W freed up: +16-18 more cores
• Total: 56-58 GPU cores at the same power envelope
But Wait - Chiplet Advantages
With a dedicated GPU chiplet and better WMCM thermal management:
• Better heat dissipation (not sharing die space)
• Could potentially push 5-10W higher on GPU without thermal issues
• That’s another 5-10 cores
Realistic ceiling: 60-65 GPU cores in M6 Max MBP

 

[maflynn]

So the M6 rumors have me pretty hyped.

Really? While there's been some discussions, I don't think its reached "hyped" status

I'm probably being too optimistic here,

Sounds like it

just wishful thinking?

Yes.

At this stage, the M5 hasn't been released yet, any talk of the M6 is rumor, conjecture and wishful thinking.

 

[pshufd]

The vast majority of users are fine, or better than fine with M4. And even the chips that Intel and AMD are putting out. Power users may want more but a lot of customers want other comfort features from laptops and desktops which is why Apple is rumored to be adding those kinds of features. Apple won the CPU war and they are working on other aspects of their products going forward. They're still going to improve their processors but they're going to have to do the other stuff too - and I find the other stuff more interesting than the CPU these days.

 

[maflynn]

fine with M4

You can make a case that the majority of consumers will be fine with an M2. I see on reddit, people buying M2 studios, are incredibly happy with saving a lot of money and getting a fast high performing machine

 

[pshufd]

You can make a case that the majority of consumers will be fine with an M2. I see on reddit, people buying M2 studios, are incredibly happy with saving a lot of money and getting a fast high performing machine

We're running M1 so that's true but the M4 comes standard with 16 GB of RAM which is overall more comfortable for everyone. Apple has won the CPU race and it's resulted in competition to get AMD, Intel and Qualcomm to up their game.

 

[maflynn]

but the M4 comes standard

The M4 is a game changer, no question. I'm not saying anything negative towards that. The M4 mini is so powerful, at a low price - that's a game changer. My M4 Max Studio is the best desktop I've owned in years.

 

[theolderoldcoot]

I wouldn't believe all the hype that your seeing. It usually isn't as great as people like to write about when the product hits the ground.

 

[thenewperson]

I wouldn't believe all the hype that your seeing. It usually isn't as great as people like to write about when the product hits the ground.

Based on what?

 

[Fallforward]

So the M6 rumors have me pretty hyped. From what I'm reading, we're getting three major changes all at once:

1. TSMC's 2nm node (vs current 3nm)
2. WMCM packaging (replaces InFo - allows side-by-side or stacked chip components)
3. New architecture (rumors of modular design)

TSMC claims 2nm gives around 15% performance boost, but when you stack all three of these changes together... could we be looking at >50% performance improvement over M5? That seems almost too good to be true but the packaging + architecture changes could add a lot on top of the node shrink.

The big question though:

Could WMCM packaging enable Ultra-style configurations in the MacBook Pro?

Right now Ultra is two Max dies connected together, which generates a ton of heat - fine for a desktop but impossible in a laptop. But if WMCM lets Apple arrange components more efficiently with better thermals, could we actually see something like an M6 "Ultra" variant in a 16" MBP? Or at least some kind of beefed-up configuration that wasn't thermally feasible before?

I'm probably being too optimistic here, but the new packaging seems like it opens doors that didn't exist with the current approach.

And, what kind of performance boost can we realistically be targeting with 3 major updates to the M series?

A dedicated GPU chiplet could mean 60-80 GPU cores in an M6 Max!

What do you think - realistic or just wishful thinking?

Please define "node shrink" because it's not 3nm -> 2nm. For example, the 2nm contacted gate pitch is 45nm and metal pitch is 20nm.

 

[dmccloud]

The stacked components theory is an interesting one, because TSMC already uses similar technology with AMDs X3D chips. They even flipped the order of the CPU and cache on the 9000 series, which has made noticeable improvements in both performance and core temperatures. AMD also uses what is effectively a modular design with their use of CCDs in the Ryzen series. So we know TSMC has both the capability and the experience to build products in that fashion.

Please define "node shrink" because it's not 3nm -> 2nm. For example, the 2nm contacted gate pitch is 45nm and metal pitch is 20nm.

This is fairly simple. gate pitch is the minimum distance between parallel gates on the die. The node refers to the (relative) size of the transistors themselves rather than the actual measureable size. There is also no industry-wide standard for what constitutes an "(x)nm" process, which is why Intel basically made up their own naming scheme to appear like they were pulling ahead of Samsung and TSMC when the reality was they couldn't even get existing processes working right.