Sounds about right give or take a $100
Let's hope your optimism of putting a "future Mac" in your signature is rewarded....
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
Let's hope your optimism of putting a "future Mac" in your signature is rewarded....
The transition will be completed with the fall Mac pro that will be released to the customers...like Tim said, 2 years
A hypothetical Quad M1 Max configuration:
- 40-core CPU (32P/8E)
- 128-core GPU
- 256GB LPDDR5 RAM / 1.6TB/s UMA
- 1TB LPDDR5X RAM / 2TB/s UMA
Unsure where the 128-core GPU would sit in regards to two 6800 Duo MPX GPUs...
RAM matched with LPDDR5, and surpassed with the LPDDR5X...
Timmy Tim - No Mac Mini redesign. Best I can do is a Darker Black shell to charge you $100 more.
[Update: on re-reading, I think you meant to say that any new iMac 27 would use the M2 Max or M2 Pro - not "Mac" as you wrote, which confused me. I don't think we'll see an M2 Pro/Max this year, at least not near the June/July, when the larger iMac needs to be released by, ergo it will have some kind of M1 Pro/Max, but possibly also a new "M1 Max Ultra" with more cores than the current M1 Max.
But what I say below is still true. The "non-Pro" iMac 27 with 8-core i7 or 10-core i9 beat the iMac Pro at the low and mid configurations, and was *far* better value for money. Just forget what "Pro" means other than "more powerful". The Apple Silicon replacements need to exceed the current Intel equivalent *and* fit into the same hierarchy of performance ]
Your second paragraph sounds wrong to me.... an M2 powered iMac 27 would be too underpowered to replace the current Intel models. Bear in mind that the 8 & 10 core Intel iMacs were on a par with the previous 10-core Xeon iMac Pro and match the lower spec Mac Pros. The M2 is just an updated entry-level M1 - it's unlikely to be competitive with the 8 or 10 core i7/i9 with the AMD 5700 GPUs.
Similarly, Apple need to replace the 6-core Intel i7 Mac Mini, and the M2 will likely be limited to 16GB RAM as well, so won't replace the 64GB model that is also capable of connecting to eGPUs. The M1 Pro/Max is a good match for this replacement.
The Mac Pro would also be underpowered with even a single M1 Max, although this could be an (underwhelming) entry-level (a bit like the 4-core Xeon was in the 2013 MBP). The Mac Pro needs to have something considerably better than an M1 Max, which is where the ideas of Max Duo / Quadro come in.
Last edited:
If Apple squats on the W-3200 and keeps the ban on 3rd party GPU drivers in macOS on M-series past WWDC 2022 into 2023 ... I'm sure who is going to buy the Mac Pro 2019 in mid-late 2023. More likely just a 1 year countdown.
1. If the "Mini Pro" gets a M1 Max then going to loose out on the Colocation folks who bought Mac Pro 2013's right up until the bitter end. Rack density of the rack version of the Mac Pro 2019 isn't very dense.
2. Stuck on PCI-e v3 for 2023+ era GPUs isn't very attractive. Probably no drivers is even less attractive. (if get to WWDC 2023 and still no 3rd party GPU drivers, then that is bright flashing neon lights this is a dead end. )
3. A "half sized" Mac Pro eating into the user base. (devouring it bottom configuration on up to mid range. )
[ If has slots for 1-2 minimal PCI-e , full length cards in the class of storage , A/V , and Network I/O ]
4. Competitive higher end workstations with Zen 4 Epyc and Xeon Gen 4 ... with non soldered RAM and 3rd party GPU driver support. PCI-e v5 aux power adaptor support . etc. The super modular fans will start to drift away .
If Apple had done a limited update to the Intel Mac Pro to W-3300 and had some plan for long term 3rd party , high power consuming power card support ... maybe they could squat on that for 2 (or so) years. However, a 3+ year old product that is past 2 years of transition... the sales volume would likely drop low enough for Apple to say " 'Nobody' is buying them so we are stopping'. The added 'low volume' tax on the Mac Pro probably still has limits on just how low the volume can go and Apple stay interested.
M1 Quad is quite unlikely to have LPDDR5X so not going to anywhere near 1TB of RAM. And even 256GB of soldered on RAM at Apple prices is going scare off more than a few hard core Mac Pro fans. highly competitive modular alternatives will get the nod for more than a few "modularity" focused users.
I'm getting more skeptical the Quad is going to show up. Or be what folks think it will be in terms of linear scaling.
That's why I said on some workloads.
Probably substantively closer to being 4 logically distinct GPUs than many folks are painting it out to be. AMD's MI200 multiple chip packages don't present as one GPU. Somewhat doubtful that Apple has some secret sauce papers over the latency (NUMA) issues for some of the real time elements of trying to fuse together a complete GPU system.
[ can hook together, but one seamless display output engine may not work. ]
Apple is pretty likely going to use the same RAM dies across all the M1 and M2 packages going forward. Since they use semi-custom packages they'll need economies of scale to control costs. In an inflationary environment, that is even more so. Over time they iterate up out of their max RAM capacity problems, but it probably won't be soon (i.e., at M3 generation ).
P.S. The other catch-22 is that 40 CPU cores has to come with 128 GPU cores. Similarly, if one needs high RAM capacity then have to buy the other two. That is going to drive out some customers also.
I think Apple has to replace the Mac Pro with Apple Silicon in order to meet their promise of the transition. To be honest, if the new ASi Mac Pro is as powerful as people hope, who would want to buy an Intel machine at close to the same price? (Apple doesn't tend to drastically discount their machines). People would be buying into a dead-end, and would probably just move to Windows/Linux instead if they couldn't live with Apple Silicon.
Would feel odd Apple doesn’t follow a “sequential” transition, so:That’s the logical perspective. Apple badly needs more capable desktops to be released for creative types and businesses. Not low end consumer models that don’t fill in that obvious product gap. It’s all about larger iMac, Mac Pro, and some other more capable headless Mac. The laptop side of Mac is pretty well a rounded at the moment.
March: M1Pro/Max-27”imac + Mac Mini + Apple Display: same performance; different builts
WWDC: M1Max duo/ Quad Mac Pro. in person audience will need something real Big to cheer. End transition.
Fall: 24”iMac + 13” MacBook (air+13”MBP fusion). Update cycle begins
Like your thinking, but can’t help that looks more like wishful thinking.
I think M2 ready to roll, but mini LED production constraints have messed up the schedule.
M2 has to come now. [M3 is already being tested.] When the chips are ready, they'll go in whatever Macs are available.
Because the “Pro” and “Max” monikers are more important than the increment of number. And because they want to sell the low ends now. The pro had its time last year already.
I just want my ‘Redesigned high-end Mac mini with M1 Pro and M1 Maxk in (deep) Space Grey with Magic TrackPad 2 in space grey returning!
Not really but I think the regular iPad had a unique launch with accessories in NYC Bout 2yrs back
My prediction will be the iMac Dud.
It will have everything Apple thinks we need. Half of what we actually want. Cost twice as much as we are willing to pay.
This past week I had to replace a hackintosh that died on me. I was holding out for the potential Mac Mini update. But, necessity forced me to order a current model.
Current rumors really haven't excited me. I have another hackintosh I hope to replace with something I can be excited about and restore my faith in Apple.
It will have everything Apple thinks we need. Half of what we actually want. Cost twice as much as we are willing to pay.
This past week I had to replace a hackintosh that died on me. I was holding out for the potential Mac Mini update. But, necessity forced me to order a current model.
Current rumors really haven't excited me. I have another hackintosh I hope to replace with something I can be excited about and restore my faith in Apple.
Um, because Apple Silicon had to start somewhere, and during a transition it's sensible to start with the lower end machines with modest requirements. It would be daft to start updating models that already have M1s when half the range is still on Intel.
And isn't the M1 Air already fast / long-lived enough? Meanwhile, the wait for the AS 27" iMac (and Mac Pro) continues.
My opinion wasn’t wishful thinking, it was in fact a pessimistic point of view. I would much rather see Apple move forward more aggressively then I believe they are. And Releasing the M2 now, means that they do intend on matching the A-series gen. for gen. on a yearly basis. And that there’s a possibility that they’re using the fab lines to get as many A-series out the door before switching some of the lines to the M-series.
I would also like the 27” iMac to be released with a more powerful SoC than what comes in the MacBook Pros. But given the fact that the 24” iMac came with an M1, I‘m sure all we’re going to see is the M1 Pro and Max. While they are really powerful SoCs, they are so for laptops, not desktops. And I think this is where Apple may stumble a bit. But this is just the first generation and we are still in a transition, so this might just be a case of, “just get it out the door“.
On that subject… I do hope in the future Apple creates more variants of these SoCs and separates mobile from desktop. While these SoCs are great as they are, there’s no reason to put “mobile” constraints on chips going into a desktop computer. I honestly don’t see this happening until Macs start selling in larger volumes though. The reason to use the same SoC in mobile and desktop is because of costs; the more you produce the less they cost.
Who knows, maybe future iterations of these SoCs will allow for increased clock speeds in desktops to differentiate them from their mobile siblings? If mobile M-series run at 3GHz and under, maybe desktops could run at 4GHz and up?
You’re arguing what makes sense from a marketing viewpoint. Product release schedules are a compromise between marketing, engineering, and manufacturing considerations — and no one outside of Apple (and, to some extent, its suppliers) understands the latter two. It may not be possible to roll out the new machines in the preferred order.
Apple's silicon line is about scaling and reusing components of designs rather than making all new designs, though. The reasons we won't get a more powerful SOC than the M1 Max (until the M2 generation, at least) are: 1) The higher end desktops don't sell in enough quantities to merit the costs in terms of money and time; and 2) a far simpler solution is to just use two or four of those same chips. And while I would disagree with your premise that the M1 Max is not a really powerful SoC for a desktop, it seems clear that two (or four) of them combined, presuming they scale well, would be much more powerful than anything Intel or AMD had to offer.
I do hope the iMac Pro will have the option for dual M1 Max processors, if not initially than at least as an option down the road. It wouldn't affect me personally, since they would be far outside my budget, but it would make for interesting conversation.
Well i have a fully spec'd out MBP back-ordered with apple. I'm kinda starting to wonder if I should just hold-off at this point. Considering the M1 MBPs just released a few months ago, I doubt they would release the same laptops with "M2" chips just yet though.
I'm thinking that it's probably going to be the Macbook Air and iMac that receive upgrades.
I'm thinking that it's probably going to be the Macbook Air and iMac that receive upgrades.
I meant to say Max but the iPhone changed to Mac.
What I meant is that the Max and Pro variants of the M1 or M2 chips are going to remain exclusively for the pro devices like the MacBook Pro and the Mac Pro. That’s why Apple didn’t announce an iMac with the Max and Pro last year nor a Mac Mini. They are waiting for the M2 to release it with that instead.
If they start selling their Max and pro chips with consumer products it would create a mess on the product lines. I don’t believe they are going to release an iMac Pro or a Mac mini pro.
M2 will have a faster IPC per performance core maybe 15%-20%, but only the in the 4+4 configuration vs the 8+2 in the Pro/Max.. so the Pro/Max are safely the fastest Macs for a good while because they have many more fast cores and higher thermal tolerances to really juice them up.
Restricting all desktops to the base chips would be a plain stupid idea on the one side while even a Max is way to weak to make a proper MacPro. So no thats not gonna happen.
They did have higher end Intel chips in Mini, in the big iMac paired with proper GFX, heck even the small iMacs could be specced out quite a bit.
They might decide to limit the BTOs for the Mini and the smaller iMac to the Pro leaving the Max to the bigger MacBooks and the big iMac, but that is the least they will do.
Mac M1 Max Cube. With plexiglass sides to see inside and RGB lighting!! Like a mini Apple Cube store in NYC.The 45th Anniversary iMac. Duh!
There's a whole cottage industry of using Mac Mini as a server farm box. Then developers can rent time for compiling and testing their Apple MacOS/iOS/iPadOS/WatchOS apps even if they don't want a big investment in buying a bunch of Macs.
The M1 Pro/Max Mini would fit right in that ecosystem. The M1 Mini case is literally 1/2 empty as it is. It's not remotely a technical issue, probably an issue of making enough chips just to keep up with MacBook Pros and probably 27" iMacs.