Oh yeah, I understand all of that. In fact, you could say Apple only designed 2 Mac SoCs, the M1 and the M1X. Any M1X where there are too many defects on the lower half , those become the M1 Pro and all others that are not catastrophically full of defects, become the M1 Max. And as rumored, the Max will be doubled and quadrupled. This is extremely smart on Apple's part as it saves them from having to design a separate SoC just for the higher end desktops. I'd definitely bet on the iMac Pro having an M1 "Duo"/"Ultra" and the the Mac Pro also getting an M1 "Quadro"/"Extreme" option.
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.
Which New Mac Will Apple Release at Its March Event?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh yeah, I understand all of that. In fact, you could say Apple only designed 2 Mac SoCs, the M1 and the M1X. Any M1X where there are too many defects on the lower half , those become the M1 Pro and all others that are not catastrophically full of defects, become the M1 Max. And as rumored, the Max will be doubled and quadrupled. This is extremely smart on Apple's part as it saves them from having to design a separate SoC just for the higher end desktops. I'd definitely bet on the iMac Pro having an M1 "Duo"/"Ultra" and the the Mac Pro also getting an M1 "Quadro"/"Extreme" option.
Sure you could say that, you'd be wrong but that is just a minor obstacle
The Pro might look like a cut down Max but there are enough differences to rule that out. So every M1Pro delivered was ordered and produced as an M1Pro and every M1Max with too many defect to the qualify as the lowest binned M1Max is recycled.
Sure you could say that, you'd be wrong but that is just a minor obstacle
The Pro might look like a cut down Max but there are enough differences to rule that out. So every M1Pro delivered was ordered and produced as an M1Pro and every M1Max with too many defect to the qualify as the lowest binned M1Max is recycled.
Such as?
From what I've heard the top half of the Max is exactly the same as the Pro. The bottom half of the Max contains all the extra IP... 16 GPU cores, 2 RAM controllers, extra video encoders, and possibly even redundant neural engine cores.
Last edited:
Would definitely be interesting if the rumors were right about the 13" MBP with an M2. Maybe trying to increase sales of this model to use up their supply of Touch Bar components? This could be a stop gap move until the Fall where I think they will re-release the MacBook in two sizes; a small fanless model to replace the Air, and a larger actively cooled model to replace this 13" MBP. The M1 Air will stick around with a discounted price.
Who would want to own a system that has a SOC that failed enough tests because major parts of it are defective but 'Hey, the defects make it 'just like' the actual chip that is specifically made for that system. They will never know the difference.'. The Pro and Max aren't even that similar from the die shots I've seen. The idea that Apple/TSMC just makes 2 distinct dies, and the Max is essentially a crippled Pro is devoid of logic, sorry...
The are pretty similar, just not similar enough that cutting of the lower part of the Max would give you a functioning Pro.
Very likely to happen: 13.3" MacBook Pro with M2 SoC, Mac mini with M1 Pro or M1 Max SoC
Not so likely to happen: 24" iMac with M2 or M1 Pro SoC, 27" regular iMac with M2 or M1 Pro SoC
Unlikely to happen: new MacBook Air with M2 Soc, 27" iMac Pro with M1 Pro or M1 Max SoC with black bezels.
Not so likely to happen: 24" iMac with M2 or M1 Pro SoC, 27" regular iMac with M2 or M1 Pro SoC
Unlikely to happen: new MacBook Air with M2 Soc, 27" iMac Pro with M1 Pro or M1 Max SoC with black bezels.
Hmmm... those are exactly the same... the lighting and contrast is a bit different in each image which makes them appear to be a little different - more detail is shown on the Max. Furthermore the bottom half on the Max is just flipped upside down.
All you have to do is look at the cores that we know are the exact same and see the differences across all three of those images.
Last edited:
First of all those aren't die shots, those are drawings. Second , binning is a well known process that takes chips with defects and closes off paths to the area of the chip with defects and it is used as a lower tier part... This saves companies a ton of money in costs because they're still able to use the chip. Third, I'm not saying the Max is a crippled Pro, the Pro is the top half of a Max that has enough defects on the bottom half to make it unusable.
@mjtomlin71
M1 series SoCs have three current dies:
M1 series SoCs have three current dies:
- M1
- M1 Pro
- M1 Max
SOMEONE said that TSMC only made TWO dies, and gave the 'FAILED' dies to the ones dumb enough to want the middle model processor and that's just insane. As if a saw can cut that precisely to save the die.
I've read papers and articles in journals about chip fabrication, and the dies are practically worthless when compared to the process after they are separated. There is a lot of processing that goes into that 'last bit'. You think they would spend that much on a chip that has a fatal flaw in it?
But anyway...
The past, they were dealing with wafers the size of a desert plate, and at that, the pigs often had flaws in them that rendered dies unusable. Now? Dies are the size of dinner plates, and they print the chips across the whole surface. Looking at old wafers, and how designers tried to squeeze as many dies out of each one, and looking at todays wafers with fractions of chips fully printed at the edges should tell people something. They EXPECT to lose dies. They test every possible functional die on a wafer, and scan a code on that wafer, and everything that fails is logged, and when cut apart, the cutting machine calculated the *best* way to cut the wafer, and will discard dies, and whole slices that are not viable. They have quantity and quality. Why would they risk a failed die as a product when they can pump out as many dies of each model as they can.
Some of the wafers were so small. Yeah, back then the cost of a die was significant because of the small number they could get out of each one, AND the simplicity of the designs. Today's processors are such a scale more complicated than they were back then...
But anyway, enjoy your evening...
You. Are. Wrong.
Look at the chips. There are major differences between them. You can't just cut the 'dead part' of one die and have a working die left. Physics doesn't work that way. PLUS designing a 'flip-flop' die that could go both ways would complicate the design process. Plus at lower voltage, every trace is potentially costly, and dead ends are not a great idea. If you want to know more about chip fabrication and talk to people in the business, I would recommend joining the IEEE, and subscribing to some of their journals, reading some of their past symposiums and articles on the research of chip fabrication. Cheers...
I just don't get what the M2 is meant to do over the M1 for a 800 quid laptop? If they make it faster than the Pro then why buy the pro? It's not like the M1 wasn't efficient enough, no one will buy it for more battery when it's already a class leader.... by a major margin! The M1 was too good, it's still faster than the competition, and making it slightly faster wont sell.
IMO the only move is to redesign the Air into something else, like the Macbook SE where they use the M1 and just have a 500 quid budget laptop for the masses.
I just cannot see where you go right now with the Air.
The M2 won’t be “faster than the M1 Pro” for multi-threaded workloads, so they are not competing against each other in the same product category. The M2 is expected ti have slightly faster single core speeds, but is expected to keep 4 Performance and 4 Efficiency cores, versus the M1 Pro‘s 6P+2E or 8P+2E configuration.
The order of overall combined compute and graphics capability will be:
M1 < M2 < M1 Pro < M2 Pro < M1 Max < M2 Max … followed by whatever scaled up M1 Max Ultra/Duo etc. is in the pipeline.
M2 is simply a next generation entry level SoC. It is not a replacement for M1 Pro/Max.
This seems to confuse quite a few people, but is no different from what we had with Intel CPUs. e.g. 2 core i7 is a less powerful than a 4 core i5….
I will say this.. Regardless of what they release, starting today, 2/22/22, would be the best time to get a MBP.
I say that because of the 14-day return policy. Should they drop a new MBP with something that outperforms M1 Pro/M1 Max, 2 weeks from today would be the event, and the last day to return a purchase for something new. So now we're in a short little sweet spot window. So if anyone is looking to buy, between today and the event is a good time.
BL.
I say that because of the 14-day return policy. Should they drop a new MBP with something that outperforms M1 Pro/M1 Max, 2 weeks from today would be the event, and the last day to return a purchase for something new. So now we're in a short little sweet spot window. So if anyone is looking to buy, between today and the event is a good time.
BL.
The Air? I remember when Apple had it hobbled. It was slow, really slow, but thin. An odd choice... Thin and slow, or thick and fast. Oh, thin got you more runtime on battery so that was also a big plus. Now that it's faster, apparently, why is there an Air? The Air didn't have built-in CD drive. Okay, that's not a distinction now either. Hmm... Is it their new low-end? But will they hobble it again then? Hmm...
There is, from what I gather, confusion in the iPad model line too. Who knows. If the Air is still the thinnest MacBook, then that's its market. It's thin. For people that travel a lot, thin is a major winner. Try lugging around a notebook, chargers for phone and notebook, and drives and, and, and... It adds up pretty quickly. *shrug* Maybe they change the Air into something else. Stay tuned?
and yet Apple sold more "Pro" 12 models in 2021 than they did no-adjective, regular ones from the same generation ( i.e., the ones using the same A-series SoC )
iPhone 12 Pro Max Seeing Strong Demand in U.S. as Consumer Spending Rises
The latest research from Consumer Intelligence Research Partners (CIRP) shows that all four iPhone 12 models accounted for 63% of total iPhone sales...
www.macrumors.com
Both Pro models in 2020 were pretty close to the 'plain' leading edge iPhone in sales. Portraying the combination of the two Pro models as a very narrow , relatively small subset of the iphone market doesn't match the data.
It goes right back to the "camera you have". For the Pro models there is a lot of "have" there.
But lots of folks went out their way to buy the better camera iPhone; paying money means they clearly saw the 'value'. That is how Apple sells more "Pro" models than 'plain' models. One of the tools they use to pull that off is the feature segmentation using the same die. The 'plain' model has some features turned off. The 'pro' models turns them on. At the die level it is the same thing.
Backups are bigger , storage in phone has a bigger average size. Apple is doing this market segmentation to make more money.
If they are keeping the "MacBook Pro" name on the M2 powered system they could do similar segmentation to a non-Pro Macbook.
First , there is no variant for the iPhone Pro. It is the same die with stuff turned off/on ( like A12X and A12Z ). The issue at hand is what do you put on the die. What is segmented off/on to make Apple even more money is really another issue.
Second, that ProRes en/deode didn't come for free with the GPU cores. It isn't present in the GPU core subcomponent. Apple grew the A15 die about 10%. However, that is 10% of a substantively smaller die in a package with possibly more relatively "space bloat" around the dies it contains.
the M1 had LPDDR4 and was on the original N5. If Apple goes to a new process with uplift N5P , N4 , N4P then it isn't like the aggregate 8 GPU core performance would be sitting still. Just not adding cores. ( if it is a N4P then easier because get a density boost (~8% ) so can add still have chance of being still close to the same size. )
In contrast the A15 appears to use the same memory as the A14 ; LPDDR4X . ( likely same reasons why M1 went that way. Apple can get the relatively large volume they need in mid 2021 to make them. ). If stuck on memory bandwidth adding GPU cores is a way to "goose" the performance numbers higher without the battery hit if keep the clocks down.
The other line up issue is the the M1 is also used in the iPad Pro. So iPhone Pro has ProRes then it would be reasonable to expect that an updated iPad Pro would have it also ( since the camera complex is very similar. ). The M1 is size bounded by same constraints the A10X and A12X has had . Indicative there is a size target here and can't have "everything". With a shrink that would open the door for more. But if something like N5P where just clocking fastest then I suspect they will be looking for a smallish addition.
Like the M1 scrolls badly now? Actually the scrolling is the other thing that needs improving; the display output processors/controllers. M1 is a backslide to fewer external monitors than the Intel version ( and certainly repectively to the contemporary SoCs for laptops from AMD and Intel). if Apple was going to allocate "more budget " it would be there; not the GPU cores.
I’m not sure what your point is here. Why would Apple not make incremental improvements to their SoCs every 12-18 months, the same way they’ve been doing every year for the iPhone and iPad for the last 10 years at least?
Apple don’t primarily make yearly updates to tempt users to upgrade every single year. They do it to attract new buyers, or those who haven’t upgraded for several years.
The M2 is not aimed at M1 owners, and I agree Apple will sell to very few M1 owners if it only offers a 5-10% speed bump and an hour more battery life.
People buying a new entry level Mac in 2022 will be expecting an up to date processor, not one announced in June 2020, even if the improvement is only modest. These people are the target market for the M2
The M2’s advantage over the M1 will not be in raw performance, but in performance per watt. Since it would the same cores as the A15, it would be reasonable to assume a similar jump in battery life as between the iPhone 12 and iPhone 13, which was about 30%. Since that would give, all other things being equal, the MBA a truly ridiculously long battery life of about 26 hours, my sense is that they’ll use the efficiency increase to dramatically lower the weight of the laptop by reducing battery size without a significant decrease in runtime. (Definitely could be wrong about that, though.) Something like the 12” MacBook, except that it would have the performance of the existing MBA.
Yeah. I’m sure they will name those machines Pro to make a point they are better. It wouldn’t seem right to just let them as Mac mini and iMac with pro chips
Given that they used "Pro" for their chips it would only be "right" if they drop it from the systems.
So you'd have:
- MacBookAir (since it is lighter than the MacBook) which can be configured up to a MacBookAir with M2Pro
- MacBook which can be had with anything from M2 to M2Max
- iMacAir (aka 24") going from M2 to M2Pro
- iMac (aka 27+") going from M2 to M2DoubleMax
- MacMini going from M2 to M2Max
- MaxiMac with either M2DoubleMax or M2QuadrupleMax
Would make perfect sense ->
-> won't happen
iPad doesn’t seem to allow quoting so I’ll just say that giving iPhone pro better cameras and access to pro res is definitely segmentation, lots of people buy the pro model if they can afford it to get the better camera. I’m not sure pro res is that big of a draw in itself.
this is especially the case with iPhones where a lot of non pros buy the iPhone pro. You wouldn’t see vast numbers of people buying a 16” MacBook Pro just for email and light internet duty.
i am also not convinced that Apple bring back a ‘MacBook‘ without a material change in form factor. They may go back to 12” or use the renders that have been previously linked to a new MacBook Air (thinner but wedge shaped like the MacBook Pro 14” but with white keyboard).
I expect M1 to have access to pro res but A16 in an iPhone with access only to usb2 speed lightning if air drop isn’t used? That’s not very pro If you pardon the pun. And I speak from the point of view of someone who has shot a lot of video on iPhones for editing. while creating files on an iPhone is fair enough, editing pro res on an iPhone using Luma Fusion is not going to work very well.
Back to M1 though. Apple have decent enough segmentation for M1 or M2 if you consider 16gb ram, 2tb ssd (at half speed of the pro), and just two thunderbolt 3 or more accurately USB4 ports And 2 external monitors.
there will be an engine capable of transcoding h265, h264 if needed. I believe the max variants have 2. The pro or max models have more GPU cores.
nothing wrong with any of that in my opinion.
this is especially the case with iPhones where a lot of non pros buy the iPhone pro. You wouldn’t see vast numbers of people buying a 16” MacBook Pro just for email and light internet duty.
i am also not convinced that Apple bring back a ‘MacBook‘ without a material change in form factor. They may go back to 12” or use the renders that have been previously linked to a new MacBook Air (thinner but wedge shaped like the MacBook Pro 14” but with white keyboard).
I expect M1 to have access to pro res but A16 in an iPhone with access only to usb2 speed lightning if air drop isn’t used? That’s not very pro If you pardon the pun. And I speak from the point of view of someone who has shot a lot of video on iPhones for editing. while creating files on an iPhone is fair enough, editing pro res on an iPhone using Luma Fusion is not going to work very well.
Back to M1 though. Apple have decent enough segmentation for M1 or M2 if you consider 16gb ram, 2tb ssd (at half speed of the pro), and just two thunderbolt 3 or more accurately USB4 ports And 2 external monitors.
there will be an engine capable of transcoding h265, h264 if needed. I believe the max variants have 2. The pro or max models have more GPU cores.
nothing wrong with any of that in my opinion.
'Pro' gives users the feeling of being 'all that'. Putting it on *everything* would devalue it, but Apple hasn't, exactly... I did hear of a rumored 'Apple Watch Pro', which was likely a joke, and would be rather meaningless...
Stay tuned...