Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I was hoping Apple that if Apple were to release an M2 Pro, they'd release it with a 24 GB option.
Base?

Yeah, the Intel mini is easily beaten in most things, but the advantage of the Intel model is legacy compatibility of course, and the potential for lots of RAM. So, basically it's for Intel compatibility. The other factor is ports. The Intel Mac mini has more ports than the M1 Mac mini, but less ports than the Mac Studio.

That said, now that M1 is the new baseline, people will ask for faster than M1 but without M1 Max prices. ;)
Yeah, I keep thinking to myself that even the worst performing M1 is still in the top 20 or so of EVERY CPU ever released for single threaded performance. Apple are sitting on top of this huge mountain with their entire current lineup and no other company in the computing world comes close to having their entire lineup ranking in the top for single threaded performance.

It’s an embarrassment of performance, I tells ya!
 
No, I was thinking 16 GB base for M2 Pro, but with options to upgrade to 24 GB or 32 GB RAM.

However, for the MacBook Pro and M1 Pro, there is no such option. It is 16 GB base, with the next step up being 32 GB. That wouldn't work well for a mythical M2 Pro Mac mini, because a 32 GB model would get really close in price to the M1 Max Mac Studio. 16 GB is is a lot cheaper, but isn't enough for many people. 24 GB would be a happy medium.

But I'm thinking Apple could just not bother with the M2 Pro at all, and give us 8/16/24 GB RAM with the M2 non-Pro and leave it at that, despite the price hole in the lineup after the Intel Mac mini is discontinued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unregistered 4U
Nice improvement, but what matters more is memory latency, not bandwidth.
I think you mean LESS memory latency ... the lower the latency the faster things get done. I tend to think super lamen's terms of latency as ...

A smart teenage girl with quick wit in her reply's as low/less latency versus the valey-girl that keep saying UM or 'like totally' in a reply before even thinking as high or more latency. (ladies no disrespect but insert your dumb-guy version if you'd like, even if it's me lol).

with more than 2 memory channels and thus more memory bandwidth (which are also way more expensive, e.g. the AMD ThreadRipper Pro 5965WX with 26 cores and 8 memory channels at 200GB/s memory bandwidth max for which you have to pay $2400 just for the chip itself and $1000 for a compatible motherboard).
Damn! ... that entire post is AWESOME!

Seems that Mr. Bertrand's legacy with macOS X lives on even today. Along with Ave T's etc from the NeXT era.


Prices not so high. Remembering the golden era. Apple Online Store, 2002.
Nice find of the Apple store but I'm not so certain the XServe era would be considered the 'golden era' of Apple. That was a great time and set the way we've all enjoyed for soo long.

I remember my QuickSilver 744Mhz G4 ... man the look of that and the humm it made reminded me of batman cartoon's villian H.A.R.D.A.C. ;) OS X Puma running for free. So efficient compared to the G5s.
 
Will an M2 Max 14" MBP with 64GB RAM and max. GPU be able to fully replace my 10 core i9 27" iMac with 64GB RAM and 16GB Radeon Pro 5700XT?

It's mainly the GPU that I have been unsure about. The 5700XT is pretty decent and I have been unsure whether the M1 Max would be enough. So hoping the M2 max will be the sweet spot and I can finally just have a single Mac for everything - docked to a Studio Display when at work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pappkristof
Will an M2 Max 14" MBP with 64GB RAM and max. GPU be able to fully replace my 10 core i9 27" iMac with 64GB RAM and 16GB Radeon Pro 5700XT?

It's mainly the GPU that I have been unsure about. The 5700XT is pretty decent and I have been unsure whether the M1 Max would be enough. So hoping the M2 max will be the sweet spot and I can finally just have a single Mac for everything - docked to a Studio Display when at work.
You should probably tell people what you do with your computer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chucker23n1
I can’t see myself buying a Mac that’s not supporting 5 or 6k 120Hz.
I’ll wait for the m3 with updated thunderbolt.
 
Sounds like mostly getting a spec upgrade this year. MacBook Pro 'S' year.

@Amethyst Any insight on if Apple will be releasing new colors of the line up for MacBook Pro 14" & 16". Please advise. Thank you in advance! 🙇‍♀️
I think they are optimising the memory speed, to reduce that bottleneck. You may not be so visual upgrade, but it's going to improve your workflow a lot. They have most likely done extensive testing for this and memory speed has not kept up with CPU speed increases.
 
Got my first M1 pro MBP last week. The M2 looks like a reasonable update, but at the moment, there is no need to upgrade. In the autumn sale I paid exact the same price (€2399) compared to my first 2006 Intel MBP.

Looks like the dark years of Apple are over (no Esc key, no function keys, no ports, no Magsafe, TouchBar, butterfly s***t, thermal problems). At least when it comes to Apples MBP.
Replaced my 2018 Core i9, 32GB, 1TB SSD MBP with a M1 Pro, 16GB, 1TB SSD MBP. So the first time since 4 years and after the 2012 predecessor, this is a decent machine again.


M2 MBP with dynamic island?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: a83859372
Some notes on memory bandwidth of the Apple Silicon machines (which is already extremely high) vs the new Ryzen / Intel CPUs that were released a few days / weeks ago:

Ran a simple benchmark on a new Ryzen 7950x desktop build (64GB RAM) here in the lab (the build will be returned to the supplier) vs my M1 Max laptop (64GB RAM).

Task: Take about 10000 parquet files (10.6GB total) and append them into 1 dataframe (> 400 million observations) in memory.

Hypothesis: The Ryzen 7950x should be way faster - at first thought - because it has 16 cores (versus 8 M1 Max performance cores) that are also clocked way higher.

Result: They are equally as fast because the Ryzen CPU is bottlenecked by memory bandwidth (very fast cores but just 2 memory channels on the CPU).

The files:

Screen Shot 2022-10-20 at 09.06.20.png



The task is most efficiently done in parallel using all cores available, used both polars (Rust ) and pandas-modin (C++) to do this as fast as possible.

When using all 8 performance cores on my M1 Max, memory bandwidth to CPU is at about 120 GB/s (theoretical max is 200Gb/s).

Screen Shot 2022-10-20 at 09.08.48.png



Yet the Ryzen 7950x can do 81 GB/s memory bandwidth at most as the memory runs at 5200MT/s (* 8 bytes * 2 memory channels)/1024 = 81.25 GB/s (you can stretch this to about 100 GB/s if you heavily overclock). Thus despite the 7950x's 16 faster cores it's as fast as my M1 Max with 10 cores in this task because about 6 Ryzen cores are enough to reach that 81GB/s of bandwidth. The other 10 cores are starved from input and just idling.

This is not new; others have ran similar tasks with similar results. E.g. https://tlkh.dev/benchmarking-the-apple-m1-max who finds that

"... adding more cores on the 5600X does not help (2 cores are enough to maximize memory bandwidth), while 10 cores on the M1 Max is the optimal configuration".

The M1 Ultra has 20 cores and 400GB/s of memory bandwidth and thus runs way faster than the Ryzen 7950X as none of its 20 cores are starved. This is even more so when the Ryzen 7950X is decked out with 128GB of DDR5 RAM instead (4 DIMM slots) and therefore runs at a slower 3600 MT/s instead which is a meager 56.25 GB/s memory bandwidth. 5 Ryzen cores can fully consume that; the other 11 cores will just idle.

This is also iterated at http://hrtapps.com/blogs/20220427/ which similarly highlights the importance of memory bandwidth (in computational fluid dynamics in this case) and finds that:

"M1 Ultra has an extremely high 800 GB/sec memory bandwidth.... which leads to a level of CPU performance scaling that I don’t even see on supercomputers, and is the result of a SoC (system on a chip) design"

The new Intel Raptor Lake CPUs also only have 2 memory channels and top out at about 120GB/s max memory bandwidth (heavily overclockded) as well so there won't be a difference here.

So just a heads up: the new Ryzen/Intel CPUs are good for gaming and workflows which are not so much memory dependent, but if you're doing data analysis or other scientific HPC work of some sort that is CPU-and-memory bound (thus not GPU machine learning) you'll very quickly run into memory bandwidth limits. Then you better stick to Apple's M1 / M2 chips or the AMD / Intel CPUs with more than 2 memory channels and thus more memory bandwidth (which are also way more expensive, e.g. the AMD ThreadRipper Pro 5965WX with 26 cores and 8 memory channels at 200GB/s memory bandwidth max for which you have to pay $2400 just for the chip itself and $1000 for a compatible motherboard).
Test against a Threadripper Pro or EPYC and then see why such analysis is done on servers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucidmyth


Apple's next-generation 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with M2 Pro and M2 Max chips will be equipped with "very high-bandwidth, high-speed RAM," according to information shared by MacRumors Forums member Amethyst, who accurately revealed details about the Mac Studio and Studio Display before those products were announced.

14-vs-16-inch-mbp-m2-pro-and-max-feature-1.jpg

The current 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models are equipped with LPDDR5 RAM from Samsung, with the M1 Pro chip providing up to 200 GB/s of memory bandwidth and the M1 Max chip topping out at 400 GB/s. On a speculative basis, it is possible that the next MacBook Pro models could be equipped with Samsung's latest LPDDR5X RAM for up to 33% increased memory bandwidth with up to 20% less power consumption. This would result in up to 300 GB/s memory bandwidth for the M2 Pro and up to 600 GB/s for the M2 Max.

Bloomberg's Mark Gurman expects the next MacBook Pros to have few other changes beyond the M2 Pro and M2 Max chips. At this point, it seems likely that the laptops will be announced in November at the earliest with press releases on the Apple Newsroom site. Apple has launched new Macs in November multiple times in recent years, including the original 16-inch MacBook Pro in 2019 and the first three Macs with the M1 chip in 2020.

The current 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with the M1 Pro and M1 Max chips were released in October 2021 and featured a complete redesign with a notch in the display and additional ports like HDMI, MagSafe, and an SD card reader.

Article Link: Next-Generation MacBook Pros Rumored to Feature 'Very High-Bandwidth' RAM
Just want to mention.. and increase from 200 to 300 is an 50% percent increase.. (it would be a 33% decrease though..) Same for 400 to 600..
If the increase is "only" 33% then it would be more like 266 and 532
 
Test against a Threadripper Pro or EPYC and then see why such analysis is done on servers
You don't need $10000+ servers in freezing datacenters for these analyses anymore with the Apple Silicon machines - as long as your data fits into memory, which fits most uses cases given that memory is plenty on the M1 Max MBP (64GB max) and Mac Studio (128GB max).

Craig Hunter summarizes it very accurately:

"The M1 Ultra has an extremely high 800 GB/sec memory bandwidth and an even faster 2.5 TB/sec interface between the two M1 Max chips that make up the M1 Ultra, and it shows in the CFD benchmark. This leads to a level of CPU performance scaling that I don’t even see on supercomputers, and is the result of a SoC (system on a chip) design that is really intended to accommodate the more demanding needs of the M1 Ultra's GPUs. The result is loads of breathing room for unfettered CPU performance."

at http://hrtapps.com/blogs/20220427/

And then the new Mac Pro will supposedly have 256GB RAM and probably over a TB of memory bandwidth... in a consumer machine.... unprecedented.
 
Last edited:
The pro mini already exists. The Mac Studio.
Exactly, except Apple have decided not to offer a M1 Pro version of the Studio. Which - if you subtract the BTO prices for upgrading the MacBook Pro from M1 Pro to M1 Max - would be in the same pricing ballpark of the current Intel Mac Minis.

Why isn't there a M1 Pro Studio?

Obvious answer seems to be that Apple have done the math and think they'll make more money upselling people to a M1 Max Studio than they lose by people walking away. They don't sell as many desktops as they do laptops so they can't afford the sort of product overlap you get with the Air, 13" and 14" MacBooks.

Bear in mind that, 2 years ago, the best you could get was a fully tricked-out Intel Mini for $2000 and the next step (for a headless desktop) was the Mac Pro at $6000 (for a config that didn't make sense until you added another $5k of expansion). The jump to a fully tricked out (hypothetical) 24GB M2 (regular) Mac Mini and a Mac Studio Max is likely to be a lot less than that. The headless desktop Mac scene is far better today.

Also, a M2 Pro Mac Mini/Studio launched now would make the M1 Max Studio look a bit weak - the M2 Pro would have the same number (if not more) of faster CPU cores and fewer, but significantly faster, GPU cores c.f. the M1 Max so it would probably be overall faster on most tasks. I don't think we'll see a M2 Pro desktop until the Studio line gets updated to M2.
 
I paid about $15.000 in 1995 for a Powermac 7100 system (with a $1500 Audiomedia card).
...but expectations of technology change as well as prices. Yes, if you wanted to do exactly the same job you were doing in 1995 a 2020 $700 Mac Mini would probably ace it, in absolute terms, but relative to the current "state of the art" the equivalent machine today is probably a $10k+ Mac Pro system.

The "competition" in 1995 was probably a $30k Silicon Graphics workstation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boil
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.