Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacBook Air and MacBook Pro M1 Chips Have Same 8-Core CPUs, No Upgrades Available

gtg465x said:
I’m disappointed that the RAM maxes at 16 GB. My wife’s MacBook Pro 13” from 2013 has 16 GB and it was one of the lower tier models at the time. 16 GB of RAM is fine for today, but the reason I got 16 GB for her then was so that it would run well for 7-10 years, and I don’t think a computer with 16 GB of RAM will run well 5+ years from now unless it’s only being used very lightly.
Click to expand...

The stuff announced today didn’t strike me as something you’d want for 5-7 years. I see it as more as here’s something to play around with as Apple goes through their transition.

This is why we didn’t see redesigns and what not. These are pretty much for devs. Good enough to get people started.

It’ll be a very long road software wise. It’s not something I’d recommend to a reg consumer unless all they do is browse and play with Facebook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Veinticinco
gtg465x said:
I’m disappointed that the RAM maxes at 16 GB. My wife’s MacBook Pro 13” from 2013 has 16 GB and it was one of the lower tier models at the time. 16 GB of RAM is fine for today, but the reason I got 16 GB for her then was so that it would run well for 7-10 years, and I don’t think a computer with 16 GB of RAM will run well 5+ years from now unless it’s only being used very lightly.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that these are entry-level consumer models, and the first generation of Apple Silicon, and >16GB has only been available on Intel MacBooks fairly recently. Although it seems a bit underwhelming, 16GB will probably be sufficient for the majority of users. Apple may have improved memory usage efficiency on Big Sur, so we'll have to wait and see how well it works in the real world.
 
Wonder how which variant of the iPad chips is comparable to the M1. When the benchmarks come out will it be better than the supposedly a14 or a14 x?
 
mariusignorello said:
M1 is going to change how computers are sold. No more cramming in ram when you can make the ram you have work more efficiently.
Click to expand...
I need lots of ram working with large sample libraries in music production. 16gb is not enough by a long way. MacBook Pro should have 32 at least to be called pro. Hope to see better options next year.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: jackoverfull, mariusignorello and DeepIn2U
It will be interesting to see benchmarks for the new machines. I guess we will see them soon.
Also the teardown will be interesting to know how big the chip actually is.
 
These are entry level CPUs. Nothing that made me wish I hadn’t bought a 2020 27” iMac, but pretty impressive in many ways. I had a pang of regret for my daughters early 2020 intel MBA though, and can’t wait to see what they do next year with higher end Macs.
 
mariusignorello said:
M1 is going to change how computers are sold. No more cramming in ram when you can make the ram you have work more efficiently.
Click to expand...
I might have missed the point where Apple explains why and how the memory is used more efficiently.

I heard the part about the memory being part of the SOC, which is nice because it means more speed, but is the ultimate version of soldering in the memory. Say goodbye to any chance of after market memory upgrade or repair.

Also it seems that the memory is shared between GPU and CPU, so if you are a pro user running a 6K display, there is even less main memory for your apps. Let's hope for a M1X sort of chip soon for the MBP 16".
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackoverfull, mariusignorello and ssgbryan
One thing I don't understand, why 7 cores?

I get that they're probably using binned chips to make the most of yields, but if that's what they're doing, why not use 4/6 GPU cores in the lower end one which, lets face it, is basically going to be a web browsing machine for most people who buy it.

If you want 16GB of RAM, you're basically choosing whether you want 1/8 extra GPU performance (max) for an extra $49.
 
Also, since they're pushing ML with this, it will be interesting to see what kind of performance they can shove into the big boy desktops next year. My current rig is an i7/64GB RAM and a Vega Frontier eGPU for ML workloads (because it's FP16 performance was unbeatable for the price). I wonder if I'll eventually be able to get the same kind of performance out of one of one of the more powerful varients soon.
 
Brian Y said:
One thing I don't understand, why 7 cores?

I get that they're probably using binned chips to make the most of yields, but if that's what they're doing, why not use 4/6 GPU cores in the lower end one which, lets face it, is basically going to be a web browsing machine for most people who buy it.

If you want 16GB of RAM, you're basically choosing whether you want 1/8 extra GPU performance (max) for an extra $49.
Click to expand...

I guess, why not?

The 7 and 8-core chips are basically one and the same. Why would you want Apple to disable 2 cores when they only need to do away with one for consistency?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackoverfull
jayducharme said:
I really don't understand what Apple is doing with their pricing schemes online. They make it look like they have two different models to offer, but they don't. Because if you click on the 256 gb model on the left, you can upgrade it to 512 and have the same specs and price as the model on the right. It makes no sense. They should have just one model and then let you choose any upgrades you want.
Click to expand...
No. If you upgrade to 512GB from the left hand (256GB) column you have 7 GPU cores. If you start with the right hand column (512GB) you have 8 GPU cores for £/$50 more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jayducharme and DeepIn2U
Brian Y said:
My current rig is an i7/64GB RAM
Click to expand...
I really hope that the current limit to 16GB RAM is a decision made for the entry machines, not something related to the architecture. I had 16GB of RAM eight years ago in my laptop, so the next machine I buy will certainly need to be a step up. 64GB sounds nice.
 
BaltimoreMediaBlog said:
And that's a very good question. Why WON'T Apple release the true clock speeds on these chips? it's not on the website tech specs.

Steve Jobs would fake smoke and mirrors and still make it look good. Tim Cook has to hide the specs and no one is going to believe him even when he finally releases them if ever. :(
Click to expand...

Because was relevance does ghz have when you can't compare it with anything else? It's a meaningless stat. It makes sense in the Intel world where you can compare it to other Intel processors, but even then it tells you nothing as they've been stuck around 3ghz for about 15 years or more now.

If someone tells you the processor is running at 1.2ghz but the Intel one that it's replacing is running at 1.4ghz - what are you going to do with that information? The average member of the general public will thing "oh it's slower than Intel then" but in benchmarks its 3x faster. See how that's stats are suddenly meaningless.

In this case cores are sort of meaningless too - but for a PR and marketing aspects you can at least say "it's got more cores than an Intel processor at this level" - again it's irrelevant to customers but it's on the spec sheet.

The only thing that tells us anything about these machines is actual bench marks - numbers on a page mean nothing - no one cares what ghz their iOS devices run at either. We get told how much higher the iPads are clocked than the iPhone and then totally forget and don't care 5 minutes later.

I'm sure in real world usage and benchmarks it'll roast the Intel chips in some things and not be as fast at others - such is the real world scenario of an actual processor. Until then knowing its 1ghz or 5ghz with no direct comparison to match it to, means nothing.
 
Apple claims the M1 chip is faster than PC chips! Which ones, the i3, i5, i7, or i9. Maybe the Xeons??? This is another Apple marketing scam to influence Apple zealots. I am not impressed with the technology because all these machines are glorified iPads/iPhones! I will not purchase an Apple Silicon Mac until real benchmarks are provided not Apple marketing propaganda! This is a typical Tim Cook tactic!
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan, StumpJumper and dannys1
jayducharme said:
I really don't understand what Apple is doing with their pricing schemes online. They make it look like they have two different models to offer, but they don't. Because if you click on the 256 gb model on the left, you can upgrade it to 512 and have the same specs and price as the model on the right. It makes no sense. They should have just one model and then let you choose any upgrades you want.
Click to expand...

As someone pointed out - you don't as the one on the left has less GPU cores - but also the Apple website has been set up this way since forever. They have 2 or 3 base models which stores usual try to hold in stock all the time, these are the "off the shelf" models - any chances to this spec when you click in to configure are CTO machines and are built in the factory to order taking 10 days to 4 weeks depending where you buy it from.
 
coredev said:
I really hope that the current limit to 16GB RAM is a decision made for the entry machines, not something related to the architecture. I had 16GB of RAM eight years ago in my laptop, so the next machine I buy will certainly need to be a step up. 64GB sounds nice.
Click to expand...

I had a 6.2L V8 in my vehicle 10 years ago, so my next one needs to be at least 24L!

Infallible logic right there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U
Chompineer said:
I had a 6.2L V8 in my vehicle 10 years ago, so my next one needs to be at least 24L!
Click to expand...
Comparing apple and oranges. Development cycles for combustion engines are not at all comparable to memory needs of modern operating systems and apps.

When I configured that machine back then I did not need that much memory at all. Today with all the services that run in the background in macOS and memory hungry apps, increasing media size and all, you can easily make use of 16GB. For some pro uses, that's not even enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
kovalchuk71 said:
Please re-read what you posted on my previous comment. “never been” implies that the MBP was always a marketing ploy. You can’t just ignore the early years because they don’t fit your argument. For a while, MBPs were definitely “Professional” machines, with great performance and the ability to self-upgrade hardware.

Over the past few generations? Yes, I 100% agree that the name has been turned into a marketing ploy (like BMW and their “///M-Sport” lines).
Click to expand...

Fair point, I should have phrased that better, and thanks for pointing me to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kovalchuk71
creediddy said:
Go to A12X vs A12Z videos. Won’t make a difference. Your sold by Apple on extra core. The A12X has a disabled core just like the M1 in the Air vs Pro. The GPU Freq along with the voltage has to be increased/overclocked to see the a difference and not just by placing another core within the instruction set.
Click to expand...

No thanks. What a rude comment. And "your" speaking without any direct knowledge about how Apple is using its M1 processor and how it's architected to perform with respect to the OS it's running under.

Try not to let others' ideas, plans, goals, etc cause you to jump to conclusions without the benefit of personal experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back