New MacBook Pros Reportedly Launching Alongside macOS 26.3

[Mac Fly (film)]

And how's that company doing?

Not everything Fadell touched turned to gold. The iPod was a massive success, and Fadell did play a role in that, but it's not at all a given that he'd be the right personality to run a company as complex as Apple. It's not even clear he was the right person to be CEO (rather than, say, CTO) at Nest Labs.

Fadell sold the company to Google twelve years ago and moved away from Google eight years ago. How that "brand" is doing now as Google tried to brand everything as Nest and then decide to switch branding gears tells us nothing about what he did outside of Apple to create Nest from whole cloth and change the thermostat business in the first place. Culturally, Fadell is more like Apple (design-first personality) than Google. Apple has an enough operations and manger types within the company, they do best when they have a design-driven personalty at the helm, and they wouldn't be stuck with anyone, as the board could asses staff moral and the company direction overall as they go, as they would anyone. Apple customers and staff alike need someone to come in and shake things up. At the top the company is missing vision. If someone can make a better suggestion than Fadell I would be open to hearing it. Internally I'd like to see Cue be CEO as court fillings help to show he is more bold than other Apple execs, he has more personality and independent ideas, but he wouldn't have the design sense of Fadell, which is more of what Apple needs for its CEO.

 

[chucker23n1]

Fadell sold the company to Google twelve years ago and moved away from Google eight years ago.

Exactly. He isn't running it. So where are you getting the idea he'd be a good CEO at Apple?

Apple has an enough operations and manger types within the company, they do best when they have a design-driven personalty at the helm,

This seems based entirely on Steve being somewhat design-driven. Most other Apple CEOs weren't.

Apple customers and staff alike need someone to come in and shake things up.

…because Apple has famously been doing poorly?

 

[chucker23n1]

And yet, Apple is going to ditch SoC for McM. How ironic.

Apple M series have been multi-chip since the M1. That's not in opposition to being SoCs.

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

Exactly. He isn't running it. So where are you getting the idea he'd be a good CEO at Apple?



This seems based entirely on Steve being somewhat design-driven. Most other Apple CEOs weren't.



…because Apple has famously been doing poorly?

I'm out.

 

[tenthousandthings]

~

M5 series is a trap. I would wait for M6 series with a whole new chip design instead of faulty SoC design.

Maybe you should wait until M5 Pro/Max/Ultra launch before you make assumptions about its architecture.

 

[1d1otic]

~

Maybe you should wait until M5 Pro/Max/Ultra launch before you make assumptions about its architecture.

I highly doubt it especially since they can't even make Mac Pro chips.

 

[tenthousandthings]

I highly doubt it especially since they can't even make Mac Pro chips.

We should know soon, within a few weeks. Then we will have something to talk about, but right now you’re just making stuff up. There have been no leaks.

 

[miguel cortez]

Sorry if this has already been discussed but might this be of concern, or do I just not understand how Apple internal model codes work?

I'm a bit concerned that there are only two model numbers mentioned. Shouldn't there be at least 4 and probably 5 - one for the 14" M5 Pro model, one for the 16" M5 Pro model, one for the 14" M5 Max model, one for the 16" M5 Max model and then perhaps also a fifth model number for the 16" version of the baseline M5 MacBook Pro that we've already seen released?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how Apple internal model numbers work but if not then isn't this indicating that this rumoured release, if true, still won't fully flesh out the M5-based MacBook Pro range vs what we had before with the M4-based MacBook Pro lineup?

No need for concern. The way I understand it, they refer to the model and generation. These are J714 = 14" M5 Pro and Max, and the J716 = 16" M5 Pro and Max. The currently shipped 14" M5 (plain M5) MacBook Pro is a different model so would have a different model code.

For example, for last year's M4 MBPs, there were:
J604 - 14" M4
J614 - 14" M4 Pro/Max
J616 - 16" M4 Pro/Max

 

[1d1otic]

We should know soon, within a few weeks. Then we will have something to talk about, but right now you’re just making stuff up. There have been no leaks.

There are multiple leaks about M6 series with SoIC-mH for a long time which will replace SoC as it has many issues.

 

[chucker23n1]

There are multiple leaks about M6 series with SoIC-mH for a long time which will replace SoC as it has many issues.

My guess is the main benefit will be manufacturing some of the chips (e.g., the SSD controller) on a cheaper process. I don't see them ditching sharing on-package memory. Whether you still call the result an "SoC" is a bit subjective.

 

[Techwatcher]

Will wait for OLED Cellular M6 Max.

 

[Nekronos]

After over 30 years as a Windows user my first Mac might be close now.

Configuration decided (14” 24GB/1TB M5 Pro MacBook Pro) - Check
Credit card ready - Check
Apple Store app installed on iPad & logged in - Check

Over to you now Apple.

After watching a gazillion YouTube videos about other people’s experiences of moving from Windows to MacOS and also a whole load of more general purpose instructional videos about how to do various things in MacOS I really can’t wait to get started with my transition.

As someone who is a long-time windows users and more recently getting back into mac, keep your expectations in check. Hardware is nice, price points are not, OS support has a shorter life than windows, and the operating system is less intuitive than windows - many commands, hotkeys and various settings and functions either take more steps or are unnecessarily more complex. I actually had to watch a number of videos due to how unintuitive some things are.

There are some things i like but overall I've been underwhelmed. For a company that handles both hardware and software, I'd expect it to run much smoother than it does.

 

[tenthousandthings]

There are multiple leaks about M6 series with SoIC-mH for a long time which will replace SoC as it has many issues.

That “SoIC-mH” supply-chain rumor (not an Apple leak) was about M5 Pro/Max/Ultra, not M6:

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...tion-using-tsmc-performance-enhanced-3nm-node

“In addition, the high-end M5 Pro, Max, and Ultra versions will use hybrid bonding and a 2.5D packaging technology — TSMC's SoIC-mH (molding horizontal) — […] according to Ming-Chi Kuo, a reputable analyst from TF International Securities.”

 

[1d1otic]

That “SoIC-mH” supply-chain rumor (not an Apple leak) was about M5 Pro/Max/Ultra, not M6:

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...tion-using-tsmc-performance-enhanced-3nm-node

“In addition, the high-end M5 Pro, Max, and Ultra versions will use hybrid bonding and a 2.5D packaging technology — TSMC's SoIC-mH (molding horizontal) — […] according to Ming-Chi Kuo, a reputable analyst from TF International Securities.”

M5 Max and Ultra are M5 based which is still SoC and not possible to use SoIC-mH. And that article was one year ago, not a recent one.

 

[BigBlur]

Sorry if this has already been discussed but might this be of concern, or do I just not understand how Apple internal model codes work?

I'm a bit concerned that there are only two model numbers mentioned. Shouldn't there be at least 4 and probably 5 - one for the 14" M5 Pro model, one for the 16" M5 Pro model, one for the 14" M5 Max model, one for the 16" M5 Max model and then perhaps also a fifth model number for the 16" version of the baseline M5 MacBook Pro that we've already seen released?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how Apple internal model numbers work but if not then isn't this indicating that this rumoured release, if true, still won't fully flesh out the M5-based MacBook Pro range vs what we had before with the M4-based MacBook Pro lineup?

I'm not sure about internal model numbers, but actual model numbers can be for multiple CPUs...so imagine the internal ones could as well. For instance, both the 14" M3 Pro and 14" M3 Max are model A2992. Similar thing for the 16" M3 Pro/Max with model A2991.

 

[chucker23n1]

M5 Max and Ultra are M5 based

We don't even know if M5 Max and Ultra exist, much less what they are "based" on.

M1 Pro and Max were quite different from M1.

which is still SoC and not possible to use SoIC-mH.

It'll be SoC regardless.

 

[tenthousandthings]

M5 Max and Ultra are M5 based which is still SoC and not possible to use SoIC-mH. And that article was one year ago, not a recent one.

Of course it is possible! It may or may not happen, but whether or not it is possible isn’t an open question. It is absolutely possible. M5 will share a TSMC processing node (N3P) with M5 Pro/Max/Ultra, and all of the M5 family will share core designs and other features, but SoIC can be used for M5 Pro/Max/Ultra at the same time SoC is used for A19, A19 Pro, and M5.

 

[chucker23n1]

It’s also not unprecedented for Apple to use different techniques in the same generation. A9 was done in both 16nm and 14nm. A8 was 22nm whereas A8X was 20nm. A10 was 14nm, A10X 10nm, and T2, which is the same microarchitecture as those, was 16nm.

So there’s really no reason to think it’s impossible. And M5 Pro not being out yet does make it more likely.

 

[Blaine]

I am pretty sure this will happen and the M5 Pro & Max will come out with iOS 26.3, but look how delayed the pro and max chips were. It’ll be the same for the M6. Probably no new redesign mbps until 2027 sometime. When is Apple ever on time anymore?

 

[HVDynamo]

And yet, Apple is going to ditch SoC for McM. How ironic.

That still doesn't mean it's faulty... It's a design decision to help improve yields because with McM you can have smaller die chunks tied together. If the same silicon process is used, there is no difference in errors per wafer in either case, It's just that with smaller chips that you piece together with McM you can get better yield from the wafer overall as one error takes out a smaller chunk. The end product you are using is not faulty just because other chips on the wafer are bad, or because one CPU is disabled on your chip because of an error on the wafer. This process has been used FOREVER in silicon design and is called binning. That's how you get so many different tiers of chips from one piece of silicon. That doesn't magically stop being the case once McM is used...

AMD has been doing MCM for a while now, and when you buy a 6 core vs an 8 core, the silicon on the chip is identical, but the 6 core has two cores disabled, likely due to errors in the silicon die. But the 6 cores you were sold are not faulty, just the two that were disabled. But you were sold 6 cores and got what you paid for so the chip isn't faulty.

 

[1d1otic]

That still doesn't mean it's faulty... It's a design decision to help improve yields because with McM you can have smaller die chunks tied together. If the same silicon process is used, there is no difference in errors per wafer in either case, It's just that with smaller chips that you piece together with McM you can get better yield from the wafer overall as one error takes out a smaller chunk. The end product you are using is not faulty just because other chips on the wafer are bad, or because one CPU is disabled on your chip because of an error on the wafer. This process has been used FOREVER in silicon design and is called binning. That's how you get so many different tiers of chips from one piece of silicon. That doesn't magically stop being the case once McM is used...

AMD has been doing MCM for a while now, and when you buy a 6 core vs an 8 core, the silicon on the chip is identical, but the 6 core has two cores disabled, likely due to errors in the silicon die. But the 6 cores you were sold are not faulty, just the two that were disabled. But you were sold 6 cores and got what you paid for so the chip isn't faulty.

It is faulty for Mac. And now, even Apple realized it after all.

 

[HVDynamo]

It is faulty for Mac. And now, even Apple realized it after all.

It is not by any definition faulty… That’s NOT what that word means ffs. I haven’t heard of ANY M series chips having actual failures in any notable quantity. If that isn’t happening, then it isn’t faulty.

 

[1d1otic]

It is not by any definition faulty… That’s NOT what that word means ffs. I haven’t heard of ANY M series chips having actual failures in any notable quantity. If that isn’t happening, then it isn’t faulty.

The chip design is faulty. Again, even Apple realized the problem after all.

 

[HVDynamo]

The chip design is faulty.

NO… it isn’t faulty. Why do you want to die on this hill so badly? When engineering something you make tradeoffs. Just because these tradeoffs aren’t what YOU think they should be doesn’t make the product faulty. If it’s not failing in the field, it ISN’T faulty. Period. Are there improvements they can make? Of course. But just because they haven’t made them yet doesn’t make the existing products faulty.

 

[1d1otic]

NO… it isn’t faulty. Why do you want to die on this hill so badly? When engineering something you make tradeoffs. Just because these tradeoffs aren’t what YOU think they should be doesn’t make the product faulty. If it’s not failing in the field, it ISN’T faulty. Period. Are there improvements they can make? Of course. But just because they haven’t made them yet doesn’t make the existing products faulty.

Then how come Mac is still not making desktop and workstation grade GPU? That's because of SoC's faulty design which even Ultra Fusion can solve the problem. How about lack of ECC memory? Low yield and high price? Limited upgradability for specific chips? Limited power consumption? Lack of expandability? You name it.

SoC itself meant for mobiles, not laptops/desktops and yet telling me it's not faulty doesn't make sense at all.