Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Shaky Rumor Claims Redesigned MacBook Pros Will Feature 'M1X' Chip and Remove the Front Logo
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No high end computer displays use HDMI. They all use DisplayPort, either directly or via USB-c/Tb3.
those that also support hdmi, are limited to 4K (and some even drop to 30Hz) when using HDMI
HDMI and SD slots only help if you use HDMI/SD already.
If you use say, one or two of any of the displays Apple has sold in the last ten years, you need DisplayPort over a thunderbolt connection of some variety.
Or even if you use two HDMI displays: you can use a tb3 to dual HDMI adapter to run both from one port. Can’t do that with a physical HDMI port.
How do Intel justify their plethora of binning options in reducing various specs of CPU down their range depending on defects? How much of their binning is actually down to defects vs the need to product to fit a marketing segregation requirement?
It might simply be that Apple are happy to segregate their CPUs that way and any genuinely faulty CPUs will be included into the lower range products with the requisite number of cores disabled and, as you say, as defects reduce over time Apple will simply have better yield.
Maybe some of these core aren't dead but appear to be not operating within a tolerable limit - like not being able to hold a steady turbo? There's plenty of scope to be ruthless with CPUs that don't meet a quality requirement if you can disable 16 out of 32 cores.
My 2013 doesn't have the wording on it, My 2018 does. I would say that Apple will be looking to reduce the bezel size by increasing the screen size while keeping the overall silhouette the same - see the iMac 24. Whether or not it goes missing because it's too small to fit or it's a conscious design choice is something to speculate about when we see a 2021 16" MBP.
What if you are out in the field and don't have or want a bag full of dongles? That was a complaint made back in 2016-2019.
Perhaps Apple have usage data that suggests MacBook Pro users aren't commonly filling all of their ports all of the time? What if they are finding that Thunderbolt docks for home are popular and they are going to listen to users who simply want to put their SD card straight into their Mac?
Per your specific example - if you had HSMI and a TB3 port you could use a single USB-C to HDMI adapter cheaper and simpler than a dual port one I wager.
Mini DisplayPort is an outdated standard now, it's absent from most new model monitors which have gone for USB-C and support Power Delivery - Apple are looking forwards rather than back but they have recognised that HDMI is ubiquitous.
This article state as unlikely what Apple has already done with all previous An, AnX and An+1 : AnX generally has same architecture than An but with more core (early gen, mainly more GPU core, but more recently also 2+4 -> 4+4 of the same CPu core) while An+1 generally has the same core number but improve architecture (except during the 3 years transition toward big LITTLE)
Earlier this week, Gurman explained that the upcoming 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro models will feature a new Apple silicon chip including a 10-core CPU with eight high-performance cores and two energy-efficient cores, 16-core or 32-core GPU options, support for up to 64GB of memory, and support for additional Thunderbolt ports.
Gurman did not comment about how the MacBook Pro's new chip would be branded, but given what he went on to explain in the report, it seems highly unlikely that it would be an "M1X."
The crucial detail Gurman explained was that the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro and a high-end version of the MacBook Air are also due to get a new Apple silicon chip. This chip "will include the same number of computing cores as the M1 but run faster. It will also see the number of graphics cores increase from seven or eight to nine or 10."
This means that there are two next-generation Apple silicon chips in the works for MacBooks, with one for the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro and high-end MacBook Air, and one for the redesigned 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro models.
According to Gurman, the high-end chip for the 14- and 16-inch MacBook Pro models differs considerably from the M1, hence why it does not seem right that it would be an "M1X." Gurman himself said that the "new chips differ from the M1's design." Even so, it would be a fair guess to assume that Apple's next-generation chip for the MacBook Pro would be called the "M1X" if it was not for the other rumored chip that actually is supposed to be based on the M1.
The report is brought even further into question by speculation about the "M2" chip:It seems unlikely that Apple would brand its high-end chip that differs from the M1's design the "M1X," while branding another chip that is less powerful, a direct successor to the M1, and based on its design, the "M2."
it's a slightly different issue when you are selling CPUs. Intel has to do price supports. It can't sell chip X for $150 if there isn't a weaker offering for $100, etc. That's why we used to do this too.
Also, you don't have time to test a lot. Either it works at speed or it doesn't. You figure out what speed, and move on.
Yes you could, and use two ports - that’s my point. When you had four tb3 ports you could also just use two USB-c HDMI alt-mode cables if you wish, but those who need the extra ports have the option to use just one port.
with a dedicated port, no choice.
Why do you need a bag full of dongles if a single HDMI port solves your “problem”?
(A) Mini DisplayPort is just a connector type. Like USB-C or HDMI Type-D.
(B) DisplayPort (the actual standard) is not “outdated”. It’s routinely way ahead of HDMI in terms of resolution and bandwidth support.
(C) I never once suggested a new MacBook Pro should include MiniDP. But a TB3/USB-C port can drive one or more mini-dp or tb1/2, or HDMI display(s). HDMI can do nothing but drive one HDMI display.
Ubiquity has nothing to do with it.
Whining has a lot more to do with it.
Have one HDMI, but only 3 Thunderbolts?
HDMI does not charge and transfer usb data. Cannot believe Apple puts a limited port on their flagship device.
HDMI does not charge and transfer usb data. Cannot believe Apple puts a limited port on their flagship device.
The claim I am most skeptical of here the 1080p camera – that just seems like wishful thinking. They are practically unheard of in laptops. Some say you start hitting optical limits at modern laptop screen thickness, while others say R&D just hasn't made camera thinness a priority. I am not wanting to start that debate as to why we don't see them more often here.
iPhone, iPad and iMac (yes, even the all-so-think 2021 M1 iMac) all have significantly more device "thickness" to play around with compared to a MacBook screen. iMac M1 11.5mm vs MacBook screen 3.5mm. At that thickness, the aluminum and glass alone are probably a significant % not leaving a lot of room for the optics, wires and microcontroller – at least without some sort of bulge being added.
iPhone, iPad and iMac (yes, even the all-so-think 2021 M1 iMac) all have significantly more device "thickness" to play around with compared to a MacBook screen. iMac M1 11.5mm vs MacBook screen 3.5mm. At that thickness, the aluminum and glass alone are probably a significant % not leaving a lot of room for the optics, wires and microcontroller – at least without some sort of bulge being added.
I put this at the top to ask you who you are aiming that shot at. If it's me (for some reason), I suggest everyone else get the popcorn.
I'm not one to complain about the 4 Thunderbolt ports that Apple have been using in their 15" laptops for 4 generations between 2016-2019. I'll just summarise my point by saying I was playing Devil's Advocate and adding that Apple probably have had many more complaints from their market research from photographers who wanted SD or people who wanted Magsafe back because they didn't want their Mac to go flying than in your remark below.
I'm agnostic over Apple's use of Thunderbolt ports. I have heavily used the SD ports on my older Macs so would have missed one on my 2018 MBP, but I have bought dongles without complaint.
These dongles have a variety of card readers, USB-A ports, lighting, and Ethernet (going back to to Thunderbolt 2 days), and importantly external high speed storage made possible by going to USB-C connectors with Thunderbolt for some very fast SSD storage. After going to USB-C a pile of relatively inexpensive but decent quality peripherals have become available and it's useful if a new memory card standard comes along such as C Fast or CFexpress or if I want to use the older Compact Flash standard,
Again, I have no argument against SD because it's massively prevalent.
Who is going to buy a USB-C to 2x HDMI port dongle to connect 2 monitors (as 2 separate displays, not mirrored mode)? It assumes the dongle can carry 2 DisplayPort streams and a simple search of Amazon shows me cheap dongles that do that but warnings about mirroring only on some of them.
You're presenting an extreme edge case where a portable Mac user comes home, connects as many as 4 peripherals to each of his 4 ports - including for some reason a dual monitor setup - and then carries on working.
As it happens I use 2 monitors on my Thunderbolt Dock - read my posting history if you want - and all that comes from the Caldigit Thunderbolt Dock I connect my 15" 2018 MBP to. I'd like to ask who is using 2 monitors at home and doesn't use a proper dock, instead being mean and connecting some cheap USB-C dongle?
A majority of my other peripherals are actually Bluetooth and my MBP15 typically has one port occupied by the TB dock which also coincidentally charges it too. I also have wired keyboard and mouse if I wish to use them. As an aside, the MBA/MBP M1 Macs having ports only on the left is a bit of a bind for me because I'd prefer one port on the right for desk placement.
I've extremely rarely used my MBP13 (which has HDMI) for connecting to an external monitor. I'm agnostic over it because I carry spare dongles anyway - just in case.
Apple went with Mini DisplayPort because of the small size of the connector and they also used it as the basis for the Thunderbolt 1/2 connector such as in the MacBook Pro 13 from 2013 - I also have a Caldigit Dock for that too. Such a pity it didn't also deliver power as the original Magsafe PSUs were pricey from Apple and one good thing about going to USB-C for power delivery is it enables me to have a section of inexpensive 3rd part PD power adapters to throw in my bag for power to the 2018 MBP.
I'm not sure I'd be that bothered for Magsafe if only Apple were allowed to make officially compatible Magsafe chargers.
I'm not for one minute defending the idea that Apple would go with 3 Thunderbolt ports plus a HDMI and SD card slot rather than 4 ports as before but I am not sure I've lost a lot from a future MacBook Pro if they only had 3 Thunderbolt ports plus HDMI and SD.
If I were to get a fictional 2021 16" MBP it would be a wash for me as I would use the SD slot, probably not the HDMI port but I'm more sure I'd be using more than 2 of 4 ports at once.
Back to 'Displayport' then, and DP is as bad as HDMI with the 'versions' in play which have different bandwidths and effective resolutions where HDMI has other features like the ability to carry an audio return channel and weirdly ethernet (who uses that?). The fact is that HDMI is simply more common in TVs and monitors - regardless of your arguments about which is better the fact is that at the moment HDMI caters for more people.
Finally, I wonder if Apple have other reasons for only delivering 3 Thunderbolt ports. Assuming each port has its own controller (which would be an improvement on the Intel one) what if Apple have a limited amount of (for the want of a better description) PCIe lanes? Then there would be a technical reason for only adding 3 Thunderbolt ports and going with HDMI and SD as compromises rather than doing what they did with certain iterations of the 13" MBP and making 2 ports half speed.
Considering since 2016 this forum was full of people who couldn't believe they didn't put two limited ports (MagSafe and HDMI) on their flagship device complaining about it, I guess it is only fair the forum now goes with the opposite view.
For the record, I was fine with the four ports on my 2016 15.4" MBP because dongles don't annoy me and they made magnetic couplers that could pass USB and/or TB signals so if you really wanted a breakaway attachment for the cable supplying the power, you could get one. So I would have preferred Apple stay with four "universal" ports.
Well they crammed it into the 27" iMac and iMac Pro as well as the 24" iMac, so here is hoping that moving to a thicker top cover allows it to be crammed into the MacBook Pro.
Not as dumb as building an M1X/M2 chip that had the same 2-display limit & single eDP output as the M1. That's the only reason that adding HDMI would require stealing a Thunderbolt. (The Mini can probably have HDMI because it doesn't use the single eDP for the internal display).
I think we're possibly reading too much into sketchy renderings of MBPs with 3 type-C ports vs. other sketchy rumours that say the M1X/M2 is going to support more Thunderbolt ports and more displays - the latter is a must (1 ext display is OK for the Air and entry iMac, but it would be a big step back for the higher-end machines) the former... well, the M1 already has the same TB3 bandwidth as the 4-port MBP did because each port now has its own controller.
The whiners.
the people who are faced with slight inconvenience, but also a cheap, ubiquitous solution, and instead dig in their feet and whine about how it’s just not perfect for them.
Yes if you buy cheap **** adapters they probably only support mirroring because they’re USB-c. Tb3 to dual hdmi or dual dp adapters exist and work well. I know this because I have one (dp model)
I have an M1 machine, and when I'm not compiling or gaming, it runs with the 4 efficiency cores at 25% and the 4 performance cores off. So, if just staring at a web page or typing only uses 1 efficiency core, dropping from 4 to 2 will not significantly affect baseline power usage, while making more room for performance and GPU cores.
Just going back to the original post, I am thinking about why Apple could be reserving the M2 name for next year's technology.
On the basis of this story, M2 should be based on the A16 CPU which if you go back to the A12, starts to make more sense if you recall a time when Intel were going their tick tock strategy (before it became tick tock tock tock tock etc). It would appear that A series CPUs do a die shrink every other year at the moment. The die shrink should allow cheaper CPU with lower power consumption and coincidentally faster RAM.
A12 - 7nm - LPDDR4X
A13 - 7nm N7P (process optimisation)
A14 - 5nm (process shrink of A13) LP4DDRX 4266 (fastest variant) M1
A15 - 5nm? - process optimisation? LP4DDRX? M1X?
A16 - 4nm (process shrink of A15?) - LPDDR5 6400 - Thunderbolt 4? M2?
So the A16 CPU should include smaller process, using faster more efficient RAM, with a leap in power efficiency. Sounds to me that next year's A16 CPU might be a good candidate for major Macs.
I'll note that the iPad Pro 2018 and 2020 stuck with A12 variants during this time before going straight to M1 (which is based on cores from the A14 generation) and lesser iPads and jumped from A10(X) to A12 (iPad, iPad mini) and gone straight to A14 (iPad Air). So it would stand to reason that Apple are keeping iPads on even numbered Axx CPUs based on their track record since 2017.
It would therefore put Macs and iPads (especially the Pros) on a 2 year major upgrade cycle while iPhones remain on the annual cycle.
So what do Apple do with the in-between years? Well, it would appear that the A13 has 20% faster graphics cores with 40% less power consumption than the A12 while the neural engine is 20% faster and consumes 15% less power than the A12. Still impressive.
We can take it as a given that performance will increase every year but forthcoming technology advancements such as LPDDR5 (faster RAM = faster unified graphics for example), Thunderbolt 4, and reduced power consumption.
So where does this leave the M1X?
Well, they could just add more cores to the existing M1 technology or the A15 technology would arrive with more cores as standard to present an 'upgrade' on the existing M1 technology. Either way this might explain the slight increase in number of cores published in various rumours since they continue not to publish clock speeds.
What goes into the non Pro iPads? It seems clear that the next iPad Air might expect to have the A16 next year, and the next iPad mini might have an A14 and arrive later this year with the standard iPad to follow at some point much later.
Don't forget that the A14 was announced in the iPad Air before the iPhone 12 came out so might not be too surprising if the M2 slipped out before the A16 - sometime in Q3 2022?
The exact quote from Apple in June 2020: "Apple plans to ship the first Mac with Apple silicon by the end of the year and complete the transition in about two years" - so would an announcement in September 2022 and shipping in October 2022 be 'about 2 years' so it could take in the A16 based M2? It would be good timing for PCIe 4.0 motherboards and super fast SSD storage for example.
On the basis of this story, M2 should be based on the A16 CPU which if you go back to the A12, starts to make more sense if you recall a time when Intel were going their tick tock strategy (before it became tick tock tock tock tock etc). It would appear that A series CPUs do a die shrink every other year at the moment. The die shrink should allow cheaper CPU with lower power consumption and coincidentally faster RAM.
A12 - 7nm - LPDDR4X
A13 - 7nm N7P (process optimisation)
A14 - 5nm (process shrink of A13) LP4DDRX 4266 (fastest variant) M1
A15 - 5nm? - process optimisation? LP4DDRX? M1X?
A16 - 4nm (process shrink of A15?) - LPDDR5 6400 - Thunderbolt 4? M2?
So the A16 CPU should include smaller process, using faster more efficient RAM, with a leap in power efficiency. Sounds to me that next year's A16 CPU might be a good candidate for major Macs.
I'll note that the iPad Pro 2018 and 2020 stuck with A12 variants during this time before going straight to M1 (which is based on cores from the A14 generation) and lesser iPads and jumped from A10(X) to A12 (iPad, iPad mini) and gone straight to A14 (iPad Air). So it would stand to reason that Apple are keeping iPads on even numbered Axx CPUs based on their track record since 2017.
It would therefore put Macs and iPads (especially the Pros) on a 2 year major upgrade cycle while iPhones remain on the annual cycle.
So what do Apple do with the in-between years? Well, it would appear that the A13 has 20% faster graphics cores with 40% less power consumption than the A12 while the neural engine is 20% faster and consumes 15% less power than the A12. Still impressive.
We can take it as a given that performance will increase every year but forthcoming technology advancements such as LPDDR5 (faster RAM = faster unified graphics for example), Thunderbolt 4, and reduced power consumption.
So where does this leave the M1X?
Well, they could just add more cores to the existing M1 technology or the A15 technology would arrive with more cores as standard to present an 'upgrade' on the existing M1 technology. Either way this might explain the slight increase in number of cores published in various rumours since they continue not to publish clock speeds.
What goes into the non Pro iPads? It seems clear that the next iPad Air might expect to have the A16 next year, and the next iPad mini might have an A14 and arrive later this year with the standard iPad to follow at some point much later.
Don't forget that the A14 was announced in the iPad Air before the iPhone 12 came out so might not be too surprising if the M2 slipped out before the A16 - sometime in Q3 2022?
The exact quote from Apple in June 2020: "Apple plans to ship the first Mac with Apple silicon by the end of the year and complete the transition in about two years" - so would an announcement in September 2022 and shipping in October 2022 be 'about 2 years' so it could take in the A16 based M2? It would be good timing for PCIe 4.0 motherboards and super fast SSD storage for example.
"Given these two suspect claims, the rest of the report's validity is brought into question."
The "suspect claims" are that MR doesn't think this is how Apple will do things. It's a rumor site. This doesn't make it "suspect"—it just means you don't agree.
The "suspect claims" are that MR doesn't think this is how Apple will do things. It's a rumor site. This doesn't make it "suspect"—it just means you don't agree.
I am not a premium customer but, all those changes like removing the glowing logo, and now MacBook Air in front is just deprecing for me these are icons think I like about Macs anyway probably for the best.
If we're taking bets, I'm going to say both of these are true. Of course, I would have guessed the same with no inside knowledge before reading this, so the person who is making the claim could just as easily be making an educated guess that will probably be correct, and will come across as having inside knowledge when they're proven right.
Based on the A-series chips, it would make absolute sense that the M-series will increment numbers with "model year" increments, and add letters for higher-end versions with the same core architecture. So low-end will be M1, high-end will be M1X (based on past naming, could be another letter in theory), and if they decide to do an ultra-high-end (for Mac Pros, for example), it would presumably be M1Z.
There might be slight binning within a model (like they're doing now with 7 vs 8 GPU cores), but I'd be genuinely surprised if there's more than 3 CPU types per generation, with very little variation in specs, although they might keep earlier generations around for lower-end machines like they've done with A-series chips.
Whenever they core-bump the series to a new core design, it'll become M2, M2X, M2Z, and so on. Exactly like A-series chips. Also like A-series chips, it seems extremely likely they'll start with the low-end, low-core-count part then add higher core count versions later, like they did with the M1.
As for the label, they removed the logo from the chin of the iMac, it just stands to reason that the days of words on the front-chin of laptops are limited.
Based on the A-series chips, it would make absolute sense that the M-series will increment numbers with "model year" increments, and add letters for higher-end versions with the same core architecture. So low-end will be M1, high-end will be M1X (based on past naming, could be another letter in theory), and if they decide to do an ultra-high-end (for Mac Pros, for example), it would presumably be M1Z.
There might be slight binning within a model (like they're doing now with 7 vs 8 GPU cores), but I'd be genuinely surprised if there's more than 3 CPU types per generation, with very little variation in specs, although they might keep earlier generations around for lower-end machines like they've done with A-series chips.
Whenever they core-bump the series to a new core design, it'll become M2, M2X, M2Z, and so on. Exactly like A-series chips. Also like A-series chips, it seems extremely likely they'll start with the low-end, low-core-count part then add higher core count versions later, like they did with the M1.
As for the label, they removed the logo from the chin of the iMac, it just stands to reason that the days of words on the front-chin of laptops are limited.