Rumor: New 14-Inch and 16-Inch MacBook Pros Delayed Until Next Year

[theorist9]

There are two ways to deal with heat: slower speeds and lower voltage. (Well, larger heat sinks, but) So who among the readers here would want to get a slower MBP because it's using some new fangled 'smaller scale'? Not me. How many people would want a lower voltage notebook that might be more susceptible to extraneous EMF. Not me. Or haul around something with huge heat sinks and fans? Not me.

No that's incorrect. The smaller-scale process generates less heat without losing performance (or you can keep heat generation the same and increase performance, or do some combination of the two). But this is obvious, and should be particularly well-known to someone who claims specific understanding of this topic because they used to be in IEEE. Given this, why are you being difficult and spreading misinformation about it? Are you just playing games?

For instance, here's a chart from Anandtech. Look at N3 (3 nm) vs. N5 (5 nm). With N3, you can either get a 10-15% performance increase at the same power, or a 25-30% decrease in power consumption (and thus heat generation) at the same performance.

AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals

Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

www.anandtech.com

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

No that's incorrect. The smaller-scale process generates less heat without losing performance (or you can keep heat generation the same and increase performance, or do some combination of the two). But this is obvious, and should be particularly well-known to someone who claims specific understanding of this topic because they used to be in IEEE. Given this, why are you being difficult and spreading misinformation about it? Are you just playing games?

For instance, here's a chart from Anandtech. Look at N3 (3 nm) vs. N5 (5 nm). With N3, you can either get a 10-15% performance increase at the same power, or a 25-30% decrease in power consumption (and thus heat generation) at the same performance.

AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals

Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

www.anandtech.com

View attachment 2107712

Back in the day, it was much more pronounced. The chips used more power, and heat was a major problem. Major strides have been made in the composition of chips but in the end its the physics that drive what can and can't be done and is still an ongoing battle. And I wasn't 'in' the IEEE, I was a member, and voraciously read the various journals that I subscribed to. It was interesting reading all of the research that was going on. They were hitting their heads on the laws of physics. Heat, proximity, the thickness of the dies, the physical wires that connect to the dies, all of it was being tweaked to make chips cooler, faster, more accurate, more durable. It's almost hard to believe, thinking of those journals and what was going on at the time, and looking at where we are now. Massive gains have been made in chip manufacturing, but it is still those laws of physics that designers are fighting. As the physical construction of the chips get smaller, the voltages have to go down and some of the issues designers face shift. I was commenting on 'smaller is better', and people saying that designers have to go smaller scale, that designers must go 3nm, or 2, or why not 1. Implying that a chip made on 3nm scale is much better than one made on a 5nm scale. Ah whatever...

 

[RiverOak]

All these people saying Apple should shift to longer cycles. Y'all realize that the vast majority of MacBook Pro buyers aren't upgrading every year. There's a ton of us that are still using Intel versions. When it comes time to upgrade I'd prefer to have the newest version available, not held back for arbitrary reasons.

There is very little benefit for consumers with shorter release cycles. Short cycles is a product of market competition and it forces companies to focus on unnecessary incremental changes to products and a lot of gimmicky features.
Longer cycles usually result in better and more solid products.
And our perception of what's new and old will shift depending on the release cycle. So a two year old computer will not be perceived as old within a four year cycle, but it will within a yearly cycle.
What really has become old is this constant need of change for no specific reason. We have become addicted to it.

 

[theorist9]

There is very little benefit for consumers with shorter release cycles. Short cycles is a product of market competition and it forces companies to focus on unnecessary incremental changes to products and a lot of gimmicky features.
Longer cycles usually result in better and more solid products.
And our perception of what's new and old will shift depending on the release cycle. So a two year old computer will not be perceived as old within a four year cycle, but it will within a yearly cycle.
What really has become old is this constant need of change for no specific reason. We have become addicted to it.

This isn't consistent with the facts. Let's look at time when Apple was doing twice-yearly upgrades, namely during the Retina MBP era. The MBP's did not suffer for it, and consumers did benefit. SSD speeds were increasing rapidly during this time, resulting in a significant improvement in computer responsiveness, and Apple's twice-yearly upgrades enabled them to keep up with this, thus affording a significant benefit to the consumer. Here are some specific examples (there were many upgrades with each successive spec bump, these are just some selected examples):

Between early 2013 and late 2013: Apple upgraded from mSATA to PCIEe 2.0 SSD interfaces, added the ability to drive 4k displays, and upgraded from WiFi-4 to WiFi-5.

I moved to a 4k display when I got my mid-2014 MBP, and it offered a huge improvement in user experience over the HD display I'd been using earlier.

Between early 2015 and mid 2015: Apple further upgraded SSDs from PCIe 2.0 to PCIe 3.0.

For the right customer, each of these improvements could make a noticeable difference in user experience. Yes, the Retina MBP's did have some QC issues, but no more so than that seen with models that updated less rapidly. Marco Arment, the original lead developer of Tumblr, said the Retina MBP was the best laptop ever made. I have one, and thought it was outstanding.


Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro_(Intel-based)

 

[chucker23n1]

SSD speeds were increasing rapidly during this time,

Yeah, but they aren’t right now. PCIe 4.0 to 5.0 took six years. 6.0 took another five. USB4 to 2.0 took three years. Wi-Fi 5 to 6 took five years.

The early Retina era was also an outlier in that Intel’s tick-tock cycle still worked. That stopped a few years later.

I’m puzzled by what people think is so terrible about the M1 Pro MBP that it is in need of an upgrade soon. The M2 Pro will likely not bring massive performance improvements. I guess they could add SD Express. Other than that, probably a boring update.

 

[Nords777]

All these people saying Apple should shift to longer cycles. Y'all realize that the vast majority of MacBook Pro buyers aren't upgrading every year. There's a ton of us that are still using Intel versions. When it comes time to upgrade I'd prefer to have the newest version available, not held back for arbitrary reasons.

That being said it makes sense why these are being delayed. I think this practically guarantees the new MacBook Pros will be on the 3nm fabrication node. This jives with previous rumors about 3nm production ramping up in Q4 2022 and TSMC receiving revenue for those chips in Q1 2023. Apple historically loves to introduce stuff in March.

I'm a little sad since I need a new one soon and was really hoping for WiFi 6E. The discounts on the current M1 MacBook Pros will definitely soften the blow though lol

Totally agree, "two-year cycles" hold back progress and development, technologies have begun to develop faster, resource-intensive tasks require more and more speed and performance. it is no longer possible to follow the old understanding of cycles, but Apple marketers cannot understand this, I really hope that Apple's top management understands this.

 

[Nords777]

Maybe it makes sense to give Apple to Elon Musk? Such large technological companies should be run by people aimed at the rapid development of technology.

 

[james2538]

The M2 Pro will likely not bring massive performance improvements.

The chips might not but WiFi 6E is a game changer for crowded WiFi environments. The HDMI port is also still crippled and unable to output 120Hz (though I suspect we won't see this change till Thunderbolt 5)

Even still a 10-15% performance improvement is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[theorist9]

Yeah, but they aren’t right now. PCIe 4.0 to 5.0 took six years. 6.0 took another five. USB4 to 2.0 took three years. Wi-Fi 5 to 6 took five years.

That was just an example showing how fast upgrade cycles can benefit the consumer. The specifics of what characteristics are changing most rapidly vary from generation to generation.

The early Retina era was also an outlier in that Intel’s tick-tock cycle still worked. That stopped a few years later.

That's an explanation for why it can be hard to do CPU spec bumps with that frequency. It's not an explanation for why, if upgrades are available, they shouldn't be offered to consumers with that frequency.

I’m puzzled by what people think is so terrible about the M1 Pro MBP that it is in need of an upgrade soon. The M2 Pro will likely not bring massive performance improvements. I guess they could add SD Express. Other than that, probably a boring update.

That's a straw man. No one is saying the M1 Pro is "so terrible". They're just saying if you can wait for the upgrade, you might as well, since then you'd be buying tech that's not a year old. First, if you get the latest tech, you're more likely to have more years of OS support. Second, the M2 Pro may be able to support 120 Hz @ 5k, which the current ones can't. Third, they will be faster--though we don't yet know by how much*. It will likely be on 3 nm instead of 5 nm, so that will help.

[*Based on M2 vs. M1 (+10% CPU, +30% GPU), and N3 vs N5P (+10%), I think we'll see +20% for CPU and +40% for GPU. GPU enhancement may be more if they decide to increase the clock speed. And there will be enhancements to the function-built hardware (video decoder, neural engine, etc.).]

+40% GPU seems pretty decent. It's not "massive", but that's another straw man. No one is claiming the M2's improvements will be "massive". "Massive" is setting up unreasonable goals that almost no generational improvement would meet. I'd say it's "significant", and significant is meaningful for most people.

And are you really so different? You're arguing that the difference is negligible, yet give a hypothetical choice between an M1 Pro and M2 Pro, would you be willing to spend, say, $100 extra to get the M2? If your answer is yes, that's inconsistent with saying the difference is inconsequential.

 

[chucker23n1]

.

And are you really so different? You're arguing that the difference is negligible, yet give a hypothetical choice between an M1 Pro and M2 Pro, would you be willing to spend, say, $100 extra to get the M2?

Maybe, but the price difference, if they were to offer both (I don’t see that happening), would likely be more like $250.

And yes, if given the choice, I’d want the latest. Not at the highest end (I didn’t get the Max), but somewhere in the mid-range. But today, the latest is the M1 Pro, which as it happens is quite good.

Like, yeah, spec bumps are good. Spec bumps twice a year are IMO verging on silly. Some people in here are literally calling it “outdated“ already, and that just makes me roll my eyes.

 

[Nords777]

According to some comments and articles on the internet, Apple probably would like to stick to a two-year cycle, maybe 18 months, if Apple moves the M2 to the spring for these reasons, then we will see the macbook pro on M3 only at the end of 2024, but this is impossible and categorically unacceptable. It is too long. We already need to introduce virtual reality technologies, improve performance for modelling and 3d tasks. If the Air M3 is released in the autumn 2023, then by the end of 2023 or spring 2024 it is necessary to launch the Macbook Pro M3, I absolutely cannot understand what is the point of postponing the launch to 2023 macbook m2. If Apple wants to increase the cycle, then this is a very bad decision, If it is not related to the delay in the supply of processors, this is a strategic mistake that will affect on all next entire chain, including release Macbook Pro M3.

 

[theorist9]

Like, yeah, spec bumps are good. Spec bumps twice a year are IMO verging on silly.

Well, reports are they planned to release the M2 Pro/Max MBP's in the fall on 5 nm, but weren't able to b/c of supply chain issues, so it got pushed back to the spring. Nikkei Asia is saying that, with the spring release, they'll be on 3 nm.

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that they were able to release 5 nm M2 Pro/Max MBP's in fall, and then did a spec bump to 3 nm in the spring, 6 months later. What's silly about that?

Some people in here are literally calling it “outdated“ already, and that just makes me roll my eyes.

I agree, I woudn't call it outdated--that is a bit silly. But that shouldn't be connected to whether or not a 6 month spec bump is silly. I.e., I think you can both recognize that the M1 is not outdated, and at the same time value a process improvement from 5 nm to 3 nm.

 

[chucker23n1]

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that they were able to release 5 nm M2 Pro/Max MBP's in fall, and then did a spec bump to 3 nm in the spring, 6 months later. What's silly about that?

It can backfire in the media. Reviews will focus on how it’s a “tepid” upgrade. Kind of a boy who cried wolf thing.

 

[Nords777]

Well, reports are they planned to release the M2 Pro/Max MBP's in the fall on 5 nm, but weren't able to b/c of supply chain issues, so it got pushed back to the spring. Nikkei Asia is saying that, with the spring release, they'll be on 3 nm.

I'm not sure now about chain delay, because M2 chip go to Ipad Pro, Macbook Air and Macbook Pro 13.

 

[Nords777]

It can backfire in the media. Reviews will focus on how it’s a “tepid” upgrade. Kind of a boy who cried wolf thing.

But Apple says it is expected improving graphics performance with M2. According to Apple It will allow to work with complex 3d models and improve video encoding and decoding even more.
Combined with possible high-speed memory, it would be a completely other macbook.

If M2 won't provide a boost, then it turns out that Apple need skip the Macbook Pro on the M2 and go for the M3 right away in 2023. I would agree with this idea. We cannot wait M3 for 2 years yet.

 

[chucker23n1]

But Apple says it is expected improving graphics performance with M2.

I was addressing the scenario of a M2 → M2.5 spec bump, not M1 → M2.

 

[theorist9]

It can backfire in the media. Reviews will focus on how it’s a “tepid” upgrade. Kind of a boy who cried wolf thing.

I think that's tempered if it's a 6-month upgrade rather than a 1-year upgrade. Expectations are lower if the last upgrade happened recently. I thus think the media issue with more frequent upgrades might be less a negative reaction from the fact that each upgrade is necessarily more modest, and instead a lack of the kind of excitement Apple can generate in the press for each upgrade when those happen less frequently (and are consequently more significant).

But in any case, that still doesn't address my question of why you think a spec bump from 5 nm to 3 nm after 6 months would be silly.

 

[Nords777]

I was addressing the scenario of a M2 → M2.5 spec bump, not M1 → M2.

M3 will give even more growth, using the 3 nm chip with four dies creates space for up to 40 computing cores.

 

[macjoshua]

A rather strange decision by Apple, because during this period no one will buy a macbook pro on m1, I will definitely wait until March to buy an updated one, respectively, apple will lose profits and slow down sales. Why wait? Everyone loses time and money because of this.

Depends on what the person's needs are. I was waiting, but ended up ordering a MBP because my 2017 model is completely warped from a swelling battery. It's a work computer, they paid for it, and at the end of the day it's a tool. The new MBP is going to be way more powerful than my old laptop. Even though it won't be the latest and greatest in 4-6 months, it's not like I've been using the latest and greatest for a long time anyway.

 

[Nords777]

Depends on what the person's needs are. I was waiting, but ended up ordering a MBP because my 2017 model is completely warped from a swelling battery. It's a work computer, they paid for it, and at the end of the day it's a tool. The new MBP is going to be way more powerful than my old laptop. Even though it won't be the latest and greatest in 4-6 months, it's not like I've been using the latest and greatest for a long time anyway.

Of cource, I understand you, had no other choice
Unfortunately, I can't buy the current M1. Now in comparison with PC and laptops in 3d tasks, the advantage of on M1 solution is not so obvious. I need more performance. M2 probably could be impove situation but it seems Apple do not want this and more concerned with their marketing decisions than the rapid adoption of new technologies.
I don't think it's reasonable to buy twice $5,000 laptop in a year and pay Apple's marketing department.
And the same thing I would advise others - to wait a bit.
Thus, Apple done bad to all. But this is not the first time this has happened.
Even now, when Apple has developed truly amazing solutions, Apple slows down their implementation.
It is necessary to say many thanks to the technological department of Apple. But after Steve Jobs I have always had the impression that this company is run by two different groups, one of which is aimed at development, and the other, on the contrary, at its inhibition.

 

[aibloop]

No raytracing hardware


My suspicion is that apple isn`t building M2 Pro/Max/Ultra/etc...

Why? Because A15 lacks Real time RayTracing cores OR lacks the ability to program the gfx cores for RayTracing... M1 and M2 are A15.

To shock and awe the industry and the consumers, they need the RT raytracing cores. Without a doubt... Which is why they signed the IP for raytracing in 2019.




AMD has lackluster RayTracing...


I can see why they didn`t initially consider RT cores to be as crucial, but they have caught significant flack from reviewers on their graphics/rendering capabilities when it comes to Ray Tracing. So much so, that M1 ULTRA/MAX are considered a non-buy for rendering 3D professionally. Nvidia is that strong in the 3D rendering market. You can see why they didn`t consider RayTracing hardware that crucial... Afterall, AMD is just about the same as Apple Silicon, their RT cores are not that well implemented and it is understandable that Apple wouldn`t think to go there from the get-go. Afterall they sold AMD gfx on their stationaries and laptops for over a decade...


...The expectations are different when you are doing the GFX yourself AND there is no option to slot Nvidia cards in.


I think M3 will implement a hardware RayTracing acceleration solution on the chip. And that is why we will not see M2 ultra/extreme(Maybe we will see M2 Pro/Max) And instead will jump straight to M3 for Macbook pro and Mac Pro and Mac Studio likely lagging a bit after to let the Mac Pro shine.

Pushing a lackluster M2 Mac Pro wout RT raytracing would be a mixed review product. And the timeframe for implementing it to M3 looks doable since they bought the IP in 2019 aka 4 years.



My 2cents...

 

[compwiz1202]

M3 PlaceholderNameForChipVariantTheMacProWillInevitablyGet seems a bit long.

Should be M3LudicrousPlaid

 

[compwiz1202]

I would have to agree. It doesn't make any sense at all for folks to buy a new MacBook every year. We're not talking about the market for smartphones, where carriers offer incentives and yearly upgrade promotions.

A computer literally does not change that much year after year. In theory, Apple could introduce the next set of Macs with the M3 processor family, FaceID, OLED screens, and Apple Pencil support - but apparently the folks at Apple aren't competent enough to add these features to a device and actually make it an exciting upgrade instead of something incremental.

Exactly what I was thinking. Macs are more expensive without the crazy trade in deals. But shorter cycles are still ok because there's still generation back people who need/want an upgrade and either want the newest or the second newest with a price drop

 

[theorist9]

M3 PlaceholderNameForChipVariantTheMacProWillInevitablyGet seems a bit long.

Should be M3LudicrousPlaid

M3 Garuda.

 

[theorist9]

No raytracing hardware


My suspicion is that apple isn`t building M2 Pro/Max/Ultra/etc...

Why? Because A15 lacks Real time RayTracing cores OR lacks the ability to program the gfx cores for RayTracing... M1 and M2 are A15.

To shock and awe the industry and the consumers, they need the RT raytracing cores. Without a doubt... Which is why they signed the IP for raytracing in 2019.




AMD has lackluster RayTracing...


I can see why they didn`t initially consider RT cores to be as crucial, but they have caught significant flack from reviewers on their graphics/rendering capabilities when it comes to Ray Tracing. So much so, that M1 ULTRA/MAX are considered a non-buy for rendering 3D professionally. Nvidia is that strong in the 3D rendering market. You can see why they didn`t consider RayTracing hardware that crucial... Afterall, AMD is just about the same as Apple Silicon, their RT cores are not that well implemented and it is understandable that Apple wouldn`t think to go there from the get-go. Afterall they sold AMD gfx on their stationaries and laptops for over a decade...


...The expectations are different when you are doing the GFX yourself AND there is no option to slot Nvidia cards in.


I think M3 will implement a hardware RayTracing acceleration solution on the chip. And that is why we will not see M2 ultra/extreme(Maybe we will see M2 Pro/Max) And instead will jump straight to M3 for Macbook pro and Mac Pro and Mac Studio likely lagging a bit after to let the Mac Pro shine.

Pushing a lackluster M2 Mac Pro wout RT raytracing would be a mixed review product. And the timeframe for implementing it to M3 looks doable since they bought the IP in 2019 aka 4 years.



My 2cents...

Yes, many have said the first Mac Pro should feature hardware RT--and Nikkei Asia reports that the spring 2023 Macs will be on 3 nm, which would give them the extra room needed to fit hardware RT onto the chip.

But: I assume hardware RT means a different GPU microarchitecture from what we have with M2, and Nikkei Asia reports M3 won't be seen until 2H 2023. Assuming they're not going to wait that long to release the Mac Pro, that suggests it either won't have hardware RT, or they've figured out a way to cobble hardware RT onto M2.