Unreleased Mac Mini Spotted in Latest Studio Display Firmware

[EugW]

It would be easier to create more M1 Pros than M1 Max chips.

That said, M1 Max machines are much higher cost, so there is incentive to prioritize those machines if there is limited chip manufacturing capacity due to yields.

 

[Bug-Creator]

I'm wondering if Apple isn't getting the yields of the M1 Pro and can currently only handle the demand for the MBP "Pro"? Which is why there's no M1 Pro in any other system while the "Max" is in the MBP, and both Studio systems.

The M1Pro is kinda "prebinned" M1Max as those extra GPU aren't even there to start with. So they can put more of these on a wafer and 1 defect damages a smaller portion of the wafer. As such the yields for prefect M1Pros have to be higher then the M1Max.

They also sell the M1Pro with binned down CPU cores something that is not a thing for the Max meaning the overall yields are even better.

So it is quite clear that the M1Pro did not go in the Mini because someone at Apple decides to not offer that option. Apple also decided to do the same with the iMac and to have the Studio start with the M1Max.

So what would be needed for a MxPro level chip going into the Mini or iMac is something changing that fundamental decision Apple made for M1 generations of these products.

 

[EugW]

So what would be needed for a MxPro level chip going into the Mini or iMac is something changing that fundamental decision Apple made for M1 generations of these products.

That would be a marketing decision. We will have to see what the future holds regarding this, but it seems that Apple has had a love-hate relationship with the "high end" Mac mini. Some of that may be due to limitations in chip availability from Intel, but nonetheless it has been a thing in the past.

 

[macsteve27]

Well, since Mac Pro might use something quite different, not in the Mx series, it doesn't really have a direct impact to the finalization of the transition of the M1 based Macs.

True, we don't know what it will be. Rumors are that it is it's own beast, but either way it seems like it would be an odd choice to add M2 next to releasing a new chip for Mac Pro.

 

[Juuro]

Well, since Mac Pro might use something quite different, not in the Mx series, it doesn't really have a direct impact to the finalization of the transition of the M1 based Macs.

I don't think the Mac Pro chip will be extremely different to either the chips we already know or the chips that will come in the future. It does simple make no sense to create a completely new die for a product that sells in extremely low quantities and can't be reused in another product.

So far the M1 SoC system is a masterpiece. There are only two different dies. The M1 and the M1 Max. The M1 Pro is just a chopped off M1 Max and the Ultra are two Maxes. And all of them use the same CPU and GPU cores. That is extremely efficient. I can't believe Apple switches strategy all of a sudden for a low volume product. Especially that the M1 Ultra is already similar in performance of the best current Intel chip. So some kind of 2 x M1 Ultra with a different name to decouple it from the Mx update cycle would be perfectly fine and would match one definition of "not in the M1 family".

 

[opeter]

I think the Mac Pro will get a combination of Ultra chips...

 

[EugW]

I don't think the Mac Pro chip will be extremely different to either the chips we already know or the chips that will come in the future. It does simple make no sense to create a completely new die for a product that sells in extremely low quantities and can't be reused in another product.

Sure it does, if you can charge enough money for it. Make no mistake, the Mac Pro is not going to be cheap.

So far the M1 SoC system is a masterpiece. There are only two different dies. The M1 and the M1 Max. The M1 Pro is just a chopped off M1 Max and the Ultra are two Maxes. And all of them use the same CPU and GPU cores. That is extremely efficient. I can't believe Apple switches strategy all of a sudden for a low volume product. Especially that the M1 Ultra is already similar in performance of the best current Intel chip. So some kind of 2 x M1 Ultra with a different name to decouple it from the Mx update cycle would be perfectly fine and would match one definition of "not in the M1 family".

No, it appears there are actually three dies. The M1, M1 Pro, and M1 Max. The M1 Pro is basically a chopped up M1 Max design, but the M1 Pro is apparently manufactured separately. M1 Pro is not a binned M1 Max.

I think the Mac Pro will get a combination of Ultra chips...

Most of the engineers with the understanding of this stuff state this is likely not the case. The chip design and OS design is not built for more than 1 M1 Ultra. They say that while theoretically a machine could be built with 2 M1 Ultra chips, it would be a jerry-rigged design, and it would suffer significant performance problems. Thus, it doesn't make sense Apple would do that. Instead, the belief by most is that it's going to be a new, different chip.

 

[Bug-Creator]

Make no mistake, the Mac Pro is not going to be cheap.

Instead, the belief by most is that it's going to be a new, different chip.

A Studio with the full Ultra, 128GB and a bit of extra storage is >6000$.

I expect the MacPro to start with 5 digits. Maybe they do a braindead&pointless base version as they did with current one for just 9999$ but make no mistake if you want a MacPro that actually makes sense to be that be prepared to spend upwards of 15k.

At this point doing something that connects 40 A14/15/16 style cores to DDR5 DIMMs is doable. Just don't expect them to be any faster then a M1(xxx) on tasks that can't make full use of that many cores (if you do you should have bought a Studio).

 

[EugW]

A Studio with the full Ultra, 128GB and a bit of extra storage is >6000$.

I expect the MacPro to start with 5 digits. Maybe they do a braindead&pointless base version as they did with current one for just 9999$ but make no mistake if you want a MacPro that actually makes sense to be that be prepared to spend upwards of 15k.

At this point doing something that connects 40 A14/15/16 style cores to DDR5 DIMMs is doable. Just don't expect them to be any faster then a M1(xxx) on tasks that can't make full use of that many cores (if you do you should have bought a Studio).

Agreed, although there is no guarantee it will utilize the M1 core. It could be an M1.5 or M2 type core.

And most people buying a Mac Pro aren't going to be too concerned about single-core speed that is "merely" excellent.

 

[Bug-Creator]

And most people buying a Mac Pro aren't going to be too concerned about single-core speed that is "merely" excellent.

Don't worry there will be plenty videos on Utube harping on how the new Pro is "trashed" by a MacMini in certain tasks because that runs the same cores with slightly better RAM timing or a better connection between CPU and GPU cores.

 

[opeter]

Most of the engineers with the understanding of this stuff state this is likely not the case. The chip design and OS design is not built for more than 1 M1 Ultra. They say that while theoretically a machine could be built with 2 M1 Ultra chips, it would be a jerry-rigged design, and it would suffer significant performance problems. Thus, it doesn't make sense Apple would do that. Instead, the belief by most is that it's going to be a new, different chip.

But could Apple not put more of these M1 Ultra SoCs on one logic/motherboard?

Maybe you remember the PowerMac G5 logic board with two G5 CPU card, or if I go even further back in time, there were the Mac clones, like DayStar Genesis MP 600 with 4 PowerPC processor cards:

1996: Quad Processor Clones, PowerBook 1400, and the Acquisition of NeXT

After 12 years making Macs using the Motorola 680×0 family of processors (and one year with Lisa before that), Apple discontinued that last 680×0-based Mac in 1996, marking the end of the…

lowendmac.com

Daystar Digital Genesis MP 600 Specs: EveryMac.com

A complete guide of Every Mac and MacOS-Compatible in the world, with detailed technical, configuration, and pricing information.

everymac.com

20 Macs For 2020: #15 – DayStar Genesis MP

DayStar Genesis MP (from Macworld magazine). Today, the chips that drive all of Apple’s products have multiple processing cores, able to do work in parallel. The iPhone 11 has six. My iMac Pr…

sixcolors.com

Watch this video about 11:50:

Or the "classic" multiple CPU socket motherboards:

SuperMicro 4 CPU socket motherboard:

Pictures from https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-multiple-processor-motherboard

A multiple CPU scoketed motherboard from beginning of the new 21st century:

Source: https://www.overclock.net/threads/multiple-cpu-motherboard.1644640/

 

[Bug-Creator]

Maybe you remember the PowerMac G5 logic board with two G5 CPU card, or if I go even further back in time, there were the Mac clones, like DayStar Genesis MP 600 with 4 PowerPC processor cards:

Sure. These CPUs have an external RAM interface and special logic to work in a multi CPU environment.
M1Ultra has non of this, M1Max has it limited to another M1Max (aka making an Ultra).

So putting 2 Ultra on 1 mobo would be little different to putting 2 Studios beside each other and using some of the high speed IO to connect them.

 

[EugW]

But could Apple not put more of these M1 Ultra SoCs on one logic/motherboard?

I am well aware of multi-CPU Macs, as I own a 2007 dual quad-core Xeon Mac Pro and a 2006 dual dual-core that I upgraded to dual "low power" quad-core E5345 chips (that were never actually used in Macs).

As @Bug-Creator suggests, having two separate M1 Ultras on the same mobo would be almost like having two separate mobos. The hardware design does not support this configuration properly, according to the engineers who have commented on this. BTW, while I don't claim to know much about this stuff, one of those engineers is the project lead for porting Linux to Apple Silicon, so I'm guessing he has a fair bit of knowledge of the subject.

Anyhow, I will use this post as an excuse to post my Mac Pro CPU swap pix.

 

[Bug-Creator]

The hardware design does not support this configuration properly, as far as the engineers who have commented on this are concerned. One of those engineers is the project lead for porting Linux to Apple Silicon so I'm guessing he has a fair bit of knowledge of the subject.

Lets just someone at Apple decides that is the way it has to work no matter what: (be generous when adding salt to the following)

- Take 1 M1Max chip (no Ultra won't do) and no not the full Max-SoC, just the die
- Create an SoC just like the M1Max but with interconnect boosted and routed to the solder side
- Take 4 (or more) of these and place them around some sort of Northbridge on a motherboard
- Add RAM-slots
- Modify the low level code/logic in a way that the RAM on the SoC is used as an extra level of cache
- Accept that anything going to the main RAM on the motherboard will have latency from hell

This would mean:
- creating a special SoC just for the MacPro (even if based on the M1Max die)
- creating a complex IO chip (the Northbridge) from scratch

Or you could:
- create a special die with a cluster of cores and traditional multi CPU support
- put that die on a SoC with a small amount of local cache
- put plenty of these SoCs on a otherwise rather simple motherboard

 

[obviouslogic]

The M1Pro is kinda "prebinned" M1Max as those extra GPU aren't even there to start with. So they can put more of these on a wafer and 1 defect damages a smaller portion of the wafer. As such the yields for prefect M1Pros have to be higher then the M1Max.

They also sell the M1Pro with binned down CPU cores something that is not a thing for the Max meaning the overall yields are even better.

So it is quite clear that the M1Pro did not go in the Mini because someone at Apple decides to not offer that option. Apple also decided to do the same with the iMac and to have the Studio start with the M1Max.

So what would be needed for a MxPro level chip going into the Mini or iMac is something changing that fundamental decision Apple made for M1 generations of these products.

That's an assumption that actually is not "quite clear". This is Apple's first generation of their own SoCs in the Mac. There is a very limited range of options they can choose from. With Intel, they literally had dozens of variants with each generation and could nicely fill a range of models for each system. How about we wait and see what they do once they actually have more SoCs to choose from - they haven't even finished their transition yet and everyone is acting like they've given up. Where's my 27" iMac!?!?! Where's my mini Pro!?!? It's more clear to me that these do not exist because Apple doesn't think they can make them the way they want right now.

So, I'm thinking they don't have enough M1 Pros to go around. Do you think they're just letting a huge stockpile of Pros sit in a warehouse somewhere going to waste? That's the exact opposite of what Apple actually does; stick these things in as many systems as possible to bring the cost down. (Look how many different systems/devices have the M1 now!) Demand for the MBP M1 Pro systems is such that they're barely able to keep up.

I'm also thinking that the M2 is going to be close enough in performance to the M1 Pro that it isn't worth their time to release a mini with a Pro in it at this point. Don't you think Apple is privy to information that no one else is? If the M2 is based off the A15 cores we can see the A15 has about a 20% performance leap over the A14, which means we will see roughly the same with in the M2, which puts it between a binned M1 Pro and a normal M1 Pro... How does that play out in the mini line up when you have a base M2 that Perform roughly the same as a "Pro" mini.

So here's what I think will happen... in the Fall we'll have a low end M1 mini, and a high end M2 mini. Then sometime next year, we'll get an even higher end M2 Pro mini.

 

[Boil]

So, I'm thinking they don't have enough M1 Pros to go around. Do you think they're just letting a huge stockpile of Pros sit in a warehouse somewhere going to waste? That's the exact opposite of what Apple actually does; stick these things in as many systems as possible to bring the cost down. (Look how many different systems/devices have the M1 now!) Demand for the MBP M1 Pro systems is such that they're barely able to keep up.

Demand for the M1 Pro MBP laptops must be crazy high, because that is the only system Apple has shipped M1 Pro SoCs in so far...

	Tablet	Laptop	All-In-One Desktop	Headless Desktop
M1	2021 11" iPad Pro 2021 12.9" iPad Pro 2022 10.9" iPad Air	2020 13" Mac Book Air 2020 13" MacBook Pro	2021 24" iMac	2020 Mac mini
M1 Pro		2021 14" MacBook Pro 2021 16" MacBook Pro
M1 Max		2021 14" MacBook Pro 2021 16" MacBook Pro		2022 Mac Studio
M1 Ultra				2022 Mac Studio

 

[eelpout]

Yes, it does follow. Allowing things that use 32 GB RAM adds heat to the box that must be removed. Defining the Mini as 16 GB max RAM allows the box to be engineered to a (cheaper) lower level of heat removal and sold at a lower price point.

Some buyers may want to over-RAM a Mini, but it would be wrong-headed product engineering for Apple.

have you met the 2018 Intel i7 Mac Mini, replete with 64GB of RAM and optional oven mitts for handling?

Unless they are looking to downgrade what the Mini is, in favor of people spending more money on a Studio, heat and RAM capacity isn't an issue.

 

[EugW]

Demand for the M1 Pro MBP laptops must be crazy high, because that is the only system Apple has shipped M1 Pro SoCs in so far...

Yeah, it's likely the M1 Pro MacBook Pro far outsells the M1 Max MacBook Pro.

Plus, they can vary production based on expected demand, since M1 Pro is manufactured separately from M1 Max/Ultra.

So here's what I think will happen... in the Fall we'll have a low end M1 mini, and a high end M2 mini. Then sometime next year, we'll get an even higher end M2 Pro mini.

Whatever it ends up being, I think a lot of people will be happy if they keep the 'high end' Mac mini around, at a price point similar to the current Intel Mac minis, and preferably with all the ports the Intel Mac minis currently have.

M1 model:

Intel model:

However, I don't think there is enough room for both a high end M2 Mac mini and a higher end M2 Pro Mac mini at the same time. It would be one or the other. Under your scenario, if the M2 Pro were to appear in a high end Mac mini later, then perhaps the M2 would trickle down to the low end model. It could get a little bit confusing though to have both low end and high end M2 Mac minis out there, for customers and even for some resellers.

 

[CWallace]

IMO, a "pro" model Mac mini is going to have a difficult time living between the base model and the Mac Studio with Apple's BTO pricing.

The M1 mini with 16GB/512GB is $1099. Since the Pro model SoC only comes with 16GB, we have to figure that is going to be at least another $200, so that is $1299 at minimum. And that could be for the 8/14 core model. You want 10/16, that would be another $200 on top of that so now you are at $1499. If you want 32GB, that is another $400 so we're now looking at least $1899.

Why in gods name would anyone pay that for a Mini when for $100 more you get a Mac Studio Max with 8 more GPU cores, 2 more USB4 ports, double the memory bandwidth and double the media encoders/decoders. Even if you do absolutely zero video work and only have 4 devices or less to plug in, just doubling the memory bandwidth would be worth the $100 and now you have future-proofed your Mac even more with the extra ports and decoders and GPU cores.

 

[EugW]

IMO, a "pro" model Mac mini is going to have a difficult time living between the base model and the Mac Studio with Apple's BTO pricing.

The M1 mini with 16GB/512GB is $1099. Since the Pro model SoC only comes with 16GB, we have to figure that is going to be at least another $200, so that is $1299 at minimum. And that could be for the 8/14 core model. You want 10/16, that would be another $200 on top of that so now you are at $1499. If you want 32GB, that is another $400 so we're now looking at least $1899.

Why in gods name would anyone pay that for a Mini when for $100 more you get a Mac Studio Max with 8 more GPU cores, 2 more USB4 ports, double the memory bandwidth and double the media encoders/decoders. Even if you do absolutely zero video work and only have 4 devices or less to plug in, just doubling the memory bandwidth would be worth the $100 and now you have future-proofed your Mac even more with the extra ports and decoders and GPU cores.

I was thinking price points of $1299 (32/512 GB) and $1699 (32/512 GB), with limited SoC options.

An M2 might make more sense here since presumably there would be no binned M2 version for the Mac mini, but who knows.

 

[Bug-Creator]

There is a very limited range of options they can choose from. With Intel, they literally had dozens of variants with each generation and could nicely fill a range of models for each system.

Intel sells much higher volumes, many of these variants are just binning down a few different dies. They also don't create different SKUs by adding RAM to the SoC which keeps the logistics easier.

So, I'm thinking they don't have enough M1 Pros to go around. Do you think they're just letting a huge stockpile of Pros sit in a warehouse somewhere going to waste?

Apple can easily change the Pro_2_Max ratio they order and with a little bit of lead time they would have had enough to put them everywhere, but they decided to not do that.
They could also order fewer M1s and have those wafers turned into Pros only slightly reducing the overall number of Mini they can sell (as a M1Pro takes up more wafer space than a M1).

I'm also thinking that the M2 is going to be close enough in performance to the M1 Pro that it isn't worth their time to release a mini with a Pro in it at this point.

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along.

So here's what I think will happen... in the Fall we'll have a low end M1 mini, and a high end M2 mini.

Nope, a M2 Mini would still be "low end" by definition. They might keep the 2 year old M1 model around as a budget option.

 

[GalileoSeven]

I have a 2015 5K 27" iMac (Purchased for around $2000 in 2015) and when you factor in that it has a screen, you start to realize what a deal those machines were.

Since I can't hook up a mini to my 27" iMac screen, I will need to start looking for a 27" external monitor, and the Studio Display adds $1599 to the cost of mini. So, Apple's entry level equivalent to the 27" iMac is a specced up mac mini ($1099-$1299) plus the Studio display ($1599). Ends up being a $2700-$2900 purchase in total, compared to the 2020 iMac line which went for around $1800-$2300.

Feels like a bad deal. I know I'm going on a bit of a tangent here related to my own needs, but I think it's worth mentioning in relation to the mini ?. Hoping they will carve out a solid middle of the road option like you mention.

True and on that note, the 24" iMac looks like a deal. On the other hand, I'd rather take my time to find just the right monitor, so that way, when it comes time to upgrade however long down the line, all I have to do is swap out the machine itself - so that issue does bear mention (even with the combined price most likely being higher)

 

[EugW]

I'm also thinking that the M2 is going to be close enough in performance to the M1 Pro that it isn't worth their time to release a mini with a Pro in it at this point. Don't you think Apple is privy to information that no one else is? If the M2 is based off the A15 cores we can see the A15 has about a 20% performance leap over the A14, which means we will see roughly the same with in the M2, which puts it between a binned M1 Pro and a normal M1 Pro... How does that play out in the mini line up when you have a base M2 that Perform roughly the same as a "Pro" mini.

There is also the possibility that M2 will be based on A16.

Since it's easy to get scores with Geekbench 5, I'll just use their multi-core CPU scores as a rough gauge.

A14: ~4300
A15: ~4900 (+14%)

M1: ~7700
M1 Pro (8) - ~10000 (+30%)
M1 Pro (10)/Max - ~12800 (+66%)
M1 Ultra - ~24300 (+216%)

So it seems depending upon whether it's based on A15 or A16, the performance increase from M1 to M2 could be in the range anywhere from about 10-15% at the low end to 30% at the high end. Note that M1 Pro (8-core) is ~30% faster than M1.

I'd say that for most people, anything less than about a 15% speed difference is unnoticeable in most real world usage.

 

[macsteve27]

I'm also thinking that the M2 is going to be close enough in performance to the M1 Pro that it isn't worth their time to release a mini with a Pro in it at this point. Don't you think Apple is privy to information that no one else is? If the M2 is based off the A15 cores we can see the A15 has about a 20% performance leap over the A14, which means we will see roughly the same with in the M2, which puts it between a binned M1 Pro and a normal M1 Pro... How does that play out in the mini line up when you have a base M2 that Perform roughly the same as a "Pro" mini.

CPU isn't the only metric to gauge here though, and I think the binned M1 Pro will outperform entry level M2 in almost all respects. Since it's an entire system on a chip everything from the RAM capacity, memory bandwidth, and GPU are limited at the chip level. The M1 caps out at 16GB RAM and 8-GPU Cores. The binned M1 Pro can receive 32GB RAM and 14-GPU Cores. As for memory bandwidth the M1 Pro has 3 times the bandwidth of the M1 (204GB/s bandwidth compared to 68GB/s). I'd much rather purchase an M1 Pro now than wait for M2.

 

[EugW]

CPU isn't the only metric to gauge here though, and I think the binned M1 Pro will outperform entry level M2 in almost all respects. Since it's an entire system on a chip everything from the RAM capacity, memory bandwidth, and GPU are limited at the chip level. The M1 caps out at 16GB RAM and 8-GPU Cores. The binned M1 Pro can receive 32GB RAM and 14-GPU Cores. As for memory bandwidth the M1 Pro has 3 times the bandwidth of the M1 (204GB/s bandwidth compared to 68GB/s). I'd much rather purchase an M1 Pro now than wait for M2.

Honestly, I don’t think most people* buying the Mac mini would care much about the other factors as long as an M2 Mac mini got the 32 GB memory option and a couple extra USB-C ports.

*Some people like you would care, but that group would represent the minority.