nwcs
macrumors 68030
It would be nice if Apple allowed or provided libraries to make it easy for developers to take advantage of metal. Something akin to say, DirectX. Not perfect but it creates a juggernaut.
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
Wouldn't non-pro casual users prefer more GPU cores - especially if Apple put them to use driving a Pro-motion display like in the iPad Pro?
It's an interesting point of view, and I think you may be right regarding the iMac Pro at least.
I think Apple has to create Apple Silicon Macs with an equivalent or better capability than existing Intel Macs, and I don't think the "Pro" or "Consumer" lines necessarily has to map to M<x> = consumer and M<x> Pro/Max = pro.
Bearing in mind the 27" iMac essentially replace the iMac Pro in capability, then Apple has to replace that with something better. The current CPU and GPU options on the iMac 27 (at least at the mid & top ends) are already better than the M1, and almost certainly the future M2 (which may be only marginally faster in CPU performance and up to 25-35% better in GPU).
I just don't see an M2 replacing a 10-core i9 with AMD 5700:
GB5 multicore
An M2 might be a bit better than the current iMac 24, but it would be so close that the iMac 27 would not be an upgrade
GB5 Metal - Current iMac 27 high-end GPU options
iMac 24 with M1 - Maybe add %35 to this for M2?
You can see that the an M2 iMac 27 would only be marginally faster than the iMac 24...which itself would presumably be upgraded to M2 within a year.
Why would anyone buy an iMac 27 with the same power as the entry level iMac 24 if the only differentiator is a bigger screen? It would be a failure.
I think there is an expectation of a new iMac 27 by the middle of this year, and at present the only option for replacing the Intel version (at the mid to high end) is an M1 Pro or Max.
Happy to listen to a counter argument, but I can't see one 🙂
We're all so engrossed with how Apple are going to explain an 'M2' CPU coming along before the intel transition is finished, especially with how it would cause the ARM CPU lines to go out of sync with not every expected iteration of the M1 Pro/Max CPU being put into relevant Macs.
The thought occurs that Apple's crack marketing team 😉 haven't named anything M2 yet, so why couldn't they name the CPU we are now expecting within a matter of weeks rather than months something other than M2?
They could straighten out the range by introducing the M1 Plus (which is based on last year's A15 CPU and gives slightly better CPU performance and significantly better GPU performance). The average consumer looks the tech specs and (correctly) thinks M1 Plus is a bit faster than M1 - backed by various tech spec bench results if they were interested in looking.
This CPU would be faster than the M1 but obviously no match for the M1 Pro which would have many more performance cores and GPU cores. The fact that it's a generation newer is of little relevance for consumers and this sounds like the kind of thing which gives the MacBook Pro 13" a distinct differentiator over the MacBook Air.
This October would be earliest that the M2 (based on the A16 CPU) could come out - and it would end up being 2 generations newer than the M1. M2 Plus could therefore follow relatively quickly next year.
Apple could quietly skip the M1 Plus Pro/Max variants - not least because the naming convention paints them into a corner. If they end up doing annual updates using it then M1+ sounds like a better name (all very Ed Sheeran there).
The thought occurs that Apple's crack marketing team 😉 haven't named anything M2 yet, so why couldn't they name the CPU we are now expecting within a matter of weeks rather than months something other than M2?
They could straighten out the range by introducing the M1 Plus (which is based on last year's A15 CPU and gives slightly better CPU performance and significantly better GPU performance). The average consumer looks the tech specs and (correctly) thinks M1 Plus is a bit faster than M1 - backed by various tech spec bench results if they were interested in looking.
This CPU would be faster than the M1 but obviously no match for the M1 Pro which would have many more performance cores and GPU cores. The fact that it's a generation newer is of little relevance for consumers and this sounds like the kind of thing which gives the MacBook Pro 13" a distinct differentiator over the MacBook Air.
This October would be earliest that the M2 (based on the A16 CPU) could come out - and it would end up being 2 generations newer than the M1. M2 Plus could therefore follow relatively quickly next year.
Apple could quietly skip the M1 Plus Pro/Max variants - not least because the naming convention paints them into a corner. If they end up doing annual updates using it then M1+ sounds like a better name (all very Ed Sheeran there).
This is something I have considered as well. The next iteration is an improvement on M1 based on A15 cores, and maybe the TSMC N4 process, but the actual "M2" arrives later in the year, based on A16/N4P cores.
People can then understand that this is a minor spec-bump which they are used to with Intel, and it doesn't run the risk of confusing people with an "M2" before the M1X transition is complete.
Most of the folks generating many GBs of ProRes encoding video on their iPhones are pro / none casual users ?
With making it a standard feature on iPhone Apple took ProRes to the non-pro casual user base in a very large way.
So why would the entry level Mac that that group would be much more likely to buy not be on the same track of "base features support for video codecs" as the iPhone?
The whole point is Apple is pushing the notion ProRes isn't just for 'Pros' anymore now. People tend to take pictures and video with the camera they have ; not necessarily the most "Pro" camera they might be able to get.
Secondly, GPU cores make relatively very little direct impact for ProMotion. ProMotion is mainly used on tasks like scrolling 2D text rather than on heavy duty 3D objects contexts. It isn't primarily a gaming feature by default settings.
I think you needed to look at the GPU options in the 21.5" iMac which is what the 24" iMac replaced.
Apple have always gone with 'adequate' GPU performance within a given power envelope. I don't think that changes much this time, the last 21.5" iMac came with Radeon Pro 560X as top BTO option. The fact that the standard M1 GPU narrowly outperforms this in Metal benchmarks (tells me that Apple probably consider that mission accomplished for the M1).
I very much doubt the 27" iMac will have any non Pro/Max CPU options. The M1 Max on the same link appears to have a GB5 Metal benchmark score of 64208 which again seems to make it competitive with where Apple would like the GPU to be - slightly better than any iMac and actually in the same ballpark as the Radeon Pro Vega 64 that the iMac Pro came with.
So it's competitive with Apple's own requirement on graphics I would say and CPU Geekbench results suggest that M1 Max is faster in single core than iMac Pro but begins to fall behind in multicore if the iMac Pro has 14 cores or more. It canes the 10 core models.
My argument is therefore that Apple could cheerfully take the 27" iMac to ARM and call it the iMac Pro - especially if they upgrade the screen to miniLED or pro-motion. I can understand why Apple would leave it at 5k 27".
Errr no. Remember this has to be painted on the SoC. The entry level SoC is only of limited size. One letter and one number can be painted on relatively easily and big. "M1 foo bar baz " would need to be a much larger SoC.
This system of one letter coupled to one number is not all complicated. There is no huge need for a "fix" here (none which make it simpler or more straightfoward).
On the smaller SoC do not need any words/adjective becuase they have a narrow and striaightfoward task. Just be the common SoC used in a wide number of products. That is it. "Wide number of higher volume" products is going to be the 'consumer' products.
The much bigger dies are going to much more expensive. Higher price , relatively fewer buyers ... can have longer names, but limited to 1-3 letters.
Super jumbo packages might get multiple adjectives, because lots more space to write a super long name on. 🙂 But likely also eye watering expensive to vast majority of general Mac market customers so really doesn't make a difference what its name is ; not buying it.
The SoC are NOT the primarily point of Macs. The tech nerd minutiae into CPU cores properties are pursued in forums like this , but going into delusional land to think that sells product to most Mac customers. It doesn't. This is why Apple's "Tech specs" page is more like a structuring formatting marketing page than anything substantively technical.
The "M" is so can pick out what to match up to compare. the number is a simple ordering that most should have learned by finishing grade school. 2 > 1. 4 > 1 , 10 < 11 .
If there is a suffix match the same suffix and prefix and the numbers do ordering.
What is the difference between a "Pro" and "Max" ... look at the price tag on the system. It will be as obvious as turd in punchbowl. The pricetag is higher/lower.
PinkyMacGodess
Suspended
I think the 'chip shortage' depends on what you are looking for, and who you are. Apple drives their own source for chips, and unless there is a massive shortage of the 'pigs' they need, they will be cranking out chips as fast as they can. Heck, Apple would be advised to get into a cooperative manufacturing agreement to manufacture the support ships they might need that are in 'short supply'. I'm not saying the 'Great Chip Shortage' is a hoax, but there are chips out there, and the aren't coming out of a cow's bottom. *Someone* is making chips *somewhere* for *someone*...
Pro Res requires iPhone Pro - 4k Pro Res requires 256Gb minimum storage on that iPhone Pro. It's damnably easy to eat many Gbs of storage generating Pro-res. And anyone using it semi seriously isn't just sticking to 256Gb. Hardly the stuff of casual users if you need 1Tb to be comfortable.
As with your argument about people taking pictures with what they have - casual users are happy with .mov or mp4 and it's not like they'll be without some sort of media encoding engine even though Apple quietly did make that better in the A15. I just wouldn't have thought it would be high on the list of things a lay user would like to be made much faster or attach much value to.
Adequate FPS in a variety of scenarios would be nice though.
If we're taking M1 variants into a more general purpose platform I'd still say more GPU grunt is the way to go after CPU and it appears Apple have agreed by making a 5 Core GPU variant for the iPhone Pro variants. And it comes with the enhanced media engines too.
And yes, more GPUs = better games but Apple have never been about raw gaming performance (or any gaming performance to be fair), they'd rather make your scrolling experience Buttery smooth and if that helps developers make a nicer gaming experience, great.
Hector Martin has already kinda confirmed that M1 Max can work in a 2-Die configuration, but not 4-Die. Maybe they planned that at some point, maybe they plan to do it with a later revision of Apple Silicon, but 2-Die is it this time around.
Of course the great chip shortage is not a hoax. Foundries are firing on all cylinders and making more chips than ever, but several circumstances have lead to demand outstripping availability, and to that you have to add that US naval shipping is in utter turmoil, making bulk orders of semi conductor parts from east asia foundries take months instead of weeks to reach the US and Europe. Apple paying the highest prices for silicon in the entire industry naturally are last to succumb to this, and they can afford to do much more air shipping, but they are not immune to this.
Apple has also quietly made the statement that CPU power isn't the key metric by which they measure how "pro" a system is. M1 Max has double the GPU, double the fixed function accelerators - but still 8 CPU cores, while if could have easily had 12 or 16 considering how little of the M1 chips actually is CPU cores. Apple clearly believes that anything that requires significantly more than those 8 cores is better suited to run on different, more specialized hardware altogether. And considering the rather small niche Macs are dominating in - which is mostly creative work on audio, imagery and video - they are quite right.
Totally agree. I think the iMac 27 (whether or not it's called "Pro") will have at least an M1 Pro and almost certainly an option for the M1 Max, which as you say will comfortably beat the current high-end iMac 27, and compete well with the previous mid-tier iMac Pros
The suggestion from iPhoneFan5349 that the iMac 27 would only have an base M2 because it is "not a pro machine" doesn't hold water for me. I think the iMac 24 get the M2 eventually, which seems to set an appropriate hierarchy for the iMac line.
Last edited:
Presumably this is a joke? You know that the SoCs don't actually have the model number painted on them in big numbers that you see in marketing renders? Here is a photo of the actual M1 inside a machine:
No big numbers as you can see.....
I agree but I’m sure they won’t release a regular iMac or Mac Mini with a Pro chip. That’s why I believe they waited for the M2, to have normal chips faster than what they were offering with intel. Or maybe they will just name the machines iMac Pro and Mac mini pro.
I keep seeing stuff that the M2 is just going to be a updated M1 a consumer targeted chip. M2 bigger RAM option and juggle the GPU and CPU counts.
I'm hoping for a Mac Mini with the M1 Pro/Max and more ports. Then I have a feeling the Mac Pro will be discontinued for awhile and make a come back when Apple is further along with the SoC growing them up for workstation class computing.
I'm hoping for a Mac Mini with the M1 Pro/Max and more ports. Then I have a feeling the Mac Pro will be discontinued for awhile and make a come back when Apple is further along with the SoC growing them up for workstation class computing.
Just forget the name of the chip and think of its capability...
Apple had no problem putting Intel's best 10-core i9 in the "non-Pro" Mac with reasonably good GPUs -> analogous to an M1 Max....or a 6-core i7 with lots RAM capacity into a Mac mini -> analogous to a binned M1 Pro.
In the iMac or Mini there aren't the thermal restrictions that apply to the laptops, so Apple is free to position the performance of the machine to match their intended market segment and price point.
They are just marketing names, that give a vague notion of capability in comparison to cheaper models.
Apple is more concerned about providing a compelling replacement to their existing Intel models. No one is going to accept buying a less performant computer at the same price as the old model. People don't care about the name - they care about the price and capability.
Just think it through.
Last edited:
Except the entry level AS chips are either not faster that what they currently offer with Intel (see my previous post with GB5 benchmark comparisons for the iMac), or are lacking in other ways (i.e. the Intel Mini supports up to 64GB - useful for servers & workstations - and the M2 will most likely only support 16GB - *because it is an entry-level SoC*.
I will concede that Apple could rename these "iMac Pro" and "Mac mini Pro" to keep the OCD folks out there happy 🙂
But Apple does care. They just can’t put an M1 Pro on a non pro machine. It’s against their beliefs lol. Now that they control the chips they know exactly how they want to market it.
Based on what evidence exactly?
We have only a single established data point - the M1 Pro is only found on the new MacBook Pros. That doesn't prove that their policy going forward will be "only put M*Pro chips in 'Pro' machines".
If this was Apple's marketing strategy then they got off to a bad start by putting the non-pro M1 into the MacBook "Pro" 13....
In any case, I hope we can agree that it would be unlikely for Apple to replace the remaining Intel Macs with Apple Silicon versions that are less capable than the current models. That would be very "courageous" marketing....resulting in near zero sales until they came out with better models.
I'm coming round to your idea of adding a "Pro' suffix to the next iMac 27 and Mini containing M1 Pro/Max....but would be astonished if they stick an entry level M2 in these machines as their initial Apple Silicon version. It would be completely underwhelming.
Bug-Creator
macrumors 68000
Yeah, the MacBookProPro and the MacBookProMax…
If there is anything clear it is that Apple need to either change the naming of their SoCs or System.
Also given how Pro the base 13“ has been for years there is no reason why the wouldn‘t just release a MacMiniPro or a 24“ iMacPro to please the snobs.
AbsurdlyJames
macrumors member
I agree with your premise. If they stick an M2 in a Mac mini without offering an M1 Pro or Max option, it’s a strong sign that they don’t see the mini as an appropriate tool for the professional market. Hopefully that would be because they release or plan to release a different product that would serve that need, because the mini is absolutely being used as a professional machine by many.
When they announced M1 Pro I said to my wife "Now this is stupid." for exactly that reason. And just laughed when they then showed the M1 Max. I actually expected them to call the 16 inch MacBookMax, so that would have produced some amazing confusion. MacBookProMax, MacBookMaxPro.... 😅
I think M1X and M1X+ would have been fine. But they kinda had to make a big show of it since they are really, really proud of their achievements with basically scaling up a smartphone processor all the way to desktop grade silicon. Yeah, I get that. People got so hyped about M1 they had to ride that wave.
But now their nomenclature is officially borked. I mean at least they didn't call the M1 iSoc.....
chucker23n1
macrumors G3
I don't see the problem — they're M1 Macs with the M1 Max. 😛
(Say that three times fast.)
