Why does Apple not bring out desktop CPU?

[Boil]

WWDC 2025

• Mac Pro Cube
• M4 Extreme SoC (N3P)
• 64-core CPU (48P/16E)
• 256-core GPU
• 128-core NPU
• 1.92TB LPDDR5X RAM (inline ECC)
• 2.16TB/s UMA bandwidth
• Thunderbolt 5
• USB 4
• WiFi 7
• Bluetooth 5.4

 

[NT1440]

And it’s a good idea, right? I joined this forum to present this idea, hoping people would jump on board and push Apple to fix the problems with their product line and improve everyone’s productivity and convenience. But people want it to stay 2006. Mac Minis plug in and laptops are expensive and hot and that’s the way it shall always be.

Imagine being able to use your laptop on your lap, without loud fans and without it being delicately connected to usb and hdmi cables, because those are connected to the new battery powered full speed fanless Mini, wirelessly connected to your cool laptop. The mini and MacBook split combo could be the same price as a MacBook Pro now, and doubly useful and practical.

Please, back my idea for Apple to leave 2006 and step into future.

I’ve long considered an Apple “puck” that wirelessly connects to a monitor via Airplay. I really thought that would be a new version of the mini (perhaps called the Nano?) once the Apple silicon came out.

Given the performance of the Airs (no fans) I don’t see why they *couldnt* but it may not be a viable product for Apple.

 

[crazy dave]

And it’s a good idea, right? I joined this forum to present this idea, hoping people would jump on board and push Apple to fix the problems with their product line and improve everyone’s productivity and convenience. But people want it to stay 2006. Mac Minis plug in and laptops are expensive and hot and that’s the way it shall always be.

The Air is cool and quiet and inexpensive.

Imagine being able to use your laptop on your lap, without loud fans and without it being delicately connected to usb and hdmi cables,

That's an Air.

because those are connected to the new battery powered full speed fanless Mini, wirelessly connected to your cool laptop. The mini and MacBook split combo could be the same price as a MacBook Pro now, and doubly useful and practical.

Please, back my idea for Apple to leave 2006 and step into future.

So the "laptop" in this scenario is just a screen and keyboard with a wireless chip with display controller? A major issue with this idea is lag if the mini is the actual computer and the need to still be tied to the mini even wirelessly there is a limit to how far I can walk away (again without spiking lag). So I have to put the mini somewhere and then I can't leave too far from that location without picking it up again. All parts of the Air or iPad or laptop comes with me. The more things I have to independently keep track of makes any such solution inherently less mobile. For instance, even buying an external hard drive for laptop that serves not as a time machine backup but an extension of my file system would be a massive pain in the butt to constantly haul around with the laptop. Some people do that, most don't.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something everything you are describing sounds like a worse Air.

I’ve long considered an Apple “puck” that wirelessly connects to a monitor via Airplay. I really thought that would be a new version of the mini (perhaps called the Nano?) once the Apple silicon came out.

Given the performance of the Airs (no fans) I don’t see why they *couldnt* but it may not be a viable product for Apple.

Those new Frore Air jets could be nice for redesigned Apple TV, Minis, and iMacs* to slim them down even more while still providing active cooling that is very nearly silent but there's no real reason to get rid of an HDMI or even more a TB/USB-C port for those designs. The USB-C style plugs are not that big - especially for a device that is largely meant to stay put (plus unless wireless charging really improves for a device that size, you'd still have to have a small power plug - which could be USB-C!). And it can still connect via Airplay if that's more to the setup's benefit. And yeah I could see the attraction of a glass/metal box communicating completely wirelessly with its monitor, mouse and keyboard (and there has been work on fully wireless monitor setups). But I'm a little dubious about the proposal above where this is a mobile setup replacing an Air.

*The initial models seem to me to use too much power per watt for a battery powered device compared to a fan unless short battery life is less important than other factors like for a handheld console which isn't expected to get great battery life anyway

 

[Tanax]

I have a neurological condition that makes me quite sensitive to heat. I built a PC before I was diagnosed.

My AMD 3950x and 3080Ti are FAST... but holy smokes, the heat, noise, and power use are something else. Was it worth it? I hate using it. My body hates rendering anything on it.

I can be happy with a Mac Studio, but I'm waiting a bit to get better GPU performance. I hope Mac Studio skips the m3 and goes to M4 Max. I hope to leave windows behind completely (just in time to avoid the AI Copilot + recall mess Microsoft thought people wanted). The new nVidia GPU's coming down the pipe are exciting, but honestly, the idea of upgrading my power supply and case to work with a giant GPU that has enormous power requirements doesn't excite me. Will I plug it in wrong and cause a fire? Will an angled adapter I use to plug into the inconveniently placed power port get recalled?

With new iPhone integration in Sequoia, it's very very tempting to move over again and have all my tech talk back and forth again. Android has been great in my car, but not so great when I'm on my macbook or PC tower.

Gotta see what Apple Carplay performance is like on my car's head unit. Right now Android is all google maps by default and the experience is excellent. If the new supercharged Siri can do everything I do with google assistant, bye bye Android/Windows.

I'm willing to settle for less performance now to avoid all the other B.S. associated with the most powerful PCs.

Honestly, I'm in a similar boat. The problem for me is that despite Apple's "powerful" GPUs with 40 (!!!!) cores, they still suck for gaming. And I'm pretty sure it's like 70% because of software support as they don't support any of the big frameworks like DX12 or Vulkan. But their GPU performance still needs to be better as well.

If I'm getting a desktop Mac, I don't want to have to get a desktop PC as well for gaming - I can't be bothered to use that much space and have to fiddle with 2 computers. In that case I'd rather just stay with my PC.

 

[deconstruct60]

I’ve long considered an Apple “puck” that wirelessly connects to a monitor via Airplay. I really thought that would be a new version of the mini (perhaps called the Nano?) once the Apple silicon came out.

Given the performance of the Airs (no fans) I don’t see why they *couldnt* but it may not be a viable product for Apple.

A substantive number of Mini's are deployed in datacenters like MacStadium, Amazon , etc. as affordable, hosted servers. The fan design of the Mini is not really particularly optimal for 'front to back' standard rack cooling. However, no fan at all would be on of the few alternatives that would manage to be much worse.

The Sonnet xMac chassis... also would be worse there. Contexts where Mini are used an embedded computer .. again quite likely worse.

If try to split the Mini even smaller subsegments, the scale breaks down. The Mini's unit sales aren't small ( like the spin CIRP survey try to indicate), but if chop it into even smaller subsegments, probably putting it in danger of a product with volume so small, Apple tosses it into the 'hobby product' ( or worse) status.


The Mini and Mini Pro sharing the same chassis helps both products scale better. There are dozens of computer products form factors that Apple doesn't do. They are not out to make everything for everybody.

 

[deconstruct60]

But that’s overkill. I want the same M3 cpu and battery they use in the fastest MacBook, but in a new mini Mini, not jammed into a thin laptop that throttles and is delicate and awkward and expensive.

The M3 likely isn't going into the iPad line up. ( iPad Pro skipped to M4. iPad Air most likely will get an M4 'hand me down' from the Pro model when M5(or 6) comes along for the next Pro model). The Mini , like the MBA 13/15, is on M3 most likely to soak up volume on M3 unit production. By Fall (or latest early next year) the Mini will probably jump straight from M2 to M4.

Part of the hiccup also is that the Mini is now coupled to both the plain Mn and Mn Pro SoC. Unless Apple lets go of there OCD update policty, they probably wouldn't split the release of the M4 Mini from the M4 Pro variant. So likely waiting on M4 Pro SoC unit ramp that is 'overflow' from the MBP M4 Pro units .

The Mini has gone 2012 -> 2014 -> 2018 -> 2020 -> 2023 . It isn't anywhere close to a single year cadence.
A regular 2 (or 1.5) year cadence would be an improvement. Apple churning the MBP SoCs quickly only probably makes the desktop alternative placements for the Mn Pro/Max go slower.

The desktops 'forking' off by themselves is a even bigger problem in terms of amortizing the R&D overhead for these SoCs. That is an even smaller unit base that would tolerate shorter upgrade cost recovery cycles even less.

And new cheaper studiodisplays,

Similarly, once decoupled from users herded into the iMac 27", the 'apple only' panel costs are not going to get cheaper.

and a new MacBook that’s light and cheap and fanless

Apple mainly does 'cheaper' by selling older. Perhaps when the M4 MBA 13" comes they can sell the M2 version ( akin to how they sold the M1 version for an extended period of time.). Just go M(n-2) and sell that. A 'paid for' chassis, paid for chips , paid for R&D ... are all cheaper. Defacto the used market does this already. It is just a matter of how much Apple wants to lean into that market.

that can be the wireless display and keyboard for the headless Mac that is connected to the displays and audio interfaces while the laptop can be free to be used as a laptop.

Since Thunderbolt can easily carry both power and DisplayPort , the wireless to the headless Mac does what? The USB-C socket power delivery has been raised higher on the lastest generation (although at substantially higher voltage. ). If really wanted to a plain Mn or even Mn Pro could be power by a standard brick ( or Thunderbolt Display Docking station. ). [ better plug seating security with standard plug though. ]

The wire for power that going to need anyway. A desktop that is completely wireless is kind of loopy. Also substantively RF noisy. In population denser areas, that isn't going to scale as well.

 

[Chuckeee]

The Mini , like the MBA 13/15, is on M3 most likely to soak up volume on M3 unit production.

I’m a bit confused, there is no M3 mini. Was that a typo?

 

[Homy]

Honestly, I'm in a similar boat. The problem for me is that despite Apple's "powerful" GPUs with 40 (!!!!) cores, they still suck for gaming. And I'm pretty sure it's like 70% because of software support as they don't support any of the big frameworks like DX12 or Vulkan. But their GPU performance still needs to be better as well.

If I'm getting a desktop Mac, I don't want to have to get a desktop PC as well for gaming - I can't be bothered to use that much space and have to fiddle with 2 computers. In that case I'd rather just stay with my PC.

Apple Game Porting Toolkit supports DX12, AVX2 and ray tracing in Windows Games. It’s a part of Crossover which supports Vulkan and Wine too. Crossover Life license is cheaper than a Steam Deck with better performance on Mac. I know it can’t replace a gaming PC but with 40-core M3 you can get good performance in many games. The only major problem is anti-cheat software in games which is unsupported in Wine.

 

[AdamBuker]

The laptop power pc chips weren’t ideal for laptops

The g3 and g4 performed decently well in the PowerBooks even against Intel's contemporary 32-bit offerings. The problem is that intel had a better roadmap that included dual-core designs that were going to offer more performance per watt and 64-bit capability with the Core2 duo lines. There was also the added impossibility of shoehorning the G5 into a laptop.

I still use my Early 2005 PowerBook for distraction-free writing and various other things. Even when I have taxed that thing to its limits, it has never been as hot or as noisy or throttled down as much as the later Intel MacBooks did.

 

[theorist9]

I think power consumption is the key consideration here. Apple cores have been steadily increasing their power consumption but are still way below the typical enthusiast desktop levels. The way I understand @theorist9 question is why not use the higher thermal ceiling available on a large desktop and get some more performance along the way? I have been asking the same question myself. It's just that, looking at the power curves, I am not sure it is that much of an option with the current designs. This is what leads me to wonder whether the scaling is limited by the chip design itself to reach the high performance we have now and a more scalable core would not be able to have that same performance at the current power consumption targets. At the end of the day, it's like Germans like to say: everyone is cooking with water. The technology available to everyone is fundamentally the same, and while Apple has the edge of being on N3, it doesn't give them any magical scalability.

No I understand, silicon is silicon is silicon* and I agree with you Apple seems to push the limits of what's possible with its scaling already with its base chips and would have to redesign them to scale "desktop" chips more - it's just that if as fast as SC desktop chips as possible damn the watts became the design priority, that would inexorably lead them down the same path Intel took. However, I'll admit that I've talked about boosting GPU clocks for the Ultra and hypothetical Extreme. Taken to the extreme, I guess it's not that much different philosophically, but I'll add that in the context of Apple's actual chips I'd bet raising GPU performance through clocks is more doable for more reasonable power increases than SC CPU performance is.

*Unless you're in Finland Check my post on the other site

My view is that just because Intel has taken this to an extreme (pun intended), that doesn't mean there's not some room for increasing power consumption in a modest way on the Studio and MP. And given that most programs are single-threaded, I would think that they could keep the power increase modest and still achieve practically useful results (at least for the CPU) by offering a high "turbo boost" clock on just one or two CPU cores in the Studio and MP.

Thus I'm wondering whether the issue isn't that they can't afford the extra power and thermals required to run one or two cores at higher clocks (even if power vs. performance doesn't scale well), but rather that the cores simply can't run reliably at higher clock speeds (e.g., maybe they can't handle the added voltage). [That may be what leman meant by limited scaling--I'm not sure.]

 

[Minghold]

What in gods name are you on about?

r/Privacy awaits the intrepid. (Many surmise that this is merely limited-hangout, since there's no need for spooks to wait for the ability to do what they can already accomplish with current technology.)

You think Ad placement in the App Store is somehow the future of a company...

You are posing this question with, as its erroneous premise, that I conveyed an impression that I believed such in my last post (where I said nothing at all about ads, app-stores, the future of a company, or its revenues).

 

[leman]

My view is that just because Intel has taken this to an extreme (pun intended), that doesn't mean there's not some room for increasing power consumption in a modest way on the Studio and MP. And given that most programs are single-threaded, I would think that they could keep the power increase modest and still achieve practically useful results (at least for the CPU) by offering a high "turbo boost" clock on just one or two CPU cores in the Studio and MP.

Yes, that is very reasonable

Thus I'm wondering whether the issue isn't that they can't afford the extra power and thermals required to run one or two cores at higher clocks (even if power vs. performance doesn't scale well), but rather that the cores simply can't run reliably at higher clock speeds (e.g., maybe they can't handle the added voltage). [That may be what leman meant by limited scaling--I'm not sure.]

Precisely my thinking. Again, refer to M4 data I posted earlier: it costs 1 watt of power to go 50MHz from 4.15 to 4.2 GHz! That doesn’t look like there is much room for further scaling.

 

[Zest28]

Why does Apple not bring out desktop CPU?

You can tell my looking at this https://technical.city/en/cpu/Apple-M1

Some thing needs to change at Apple. Like how can Apple compete in the desktop class when they bringing out mobile CPU as you can tell looking at the benchmark that desktop Core i3-12100F is way faster and the Core i9-14900KS is light years ahead of the Core i3-12100F

Apple really needs to bring out desktop CPU.

Apple makes their money from iOS devices, not Mac computers. And within the Mac category, the laptops are the ones that are selling the most.

You really think Apple is going to waste time and resources on a "desktop chip" which is in the end only a rounding error on Apple their balance sheet?

 

[Tanax]

Apple Game Porting Toolkit supports DX12, AVX2 and ray tracing in Windows Games. It’s a part of Crossover which supports Vulkan and Wine too. Crossover Life license is cheaper than a Steam Deck with better performance on Mac. I know it can’t replace a gaming PC but with 40-core M3 you can get good performance in many games. The only major problem is anti-cheat software in games which is unsupported in Wine.

Yes I know, but my point was that it doesn't support it natively. Either it requires the user (us) to use tools like Crossover or similar with a not-ideal outcome, as you already mentioned. Or it requires developers to port their games. While Game Porting Toolkit certainly makes porting easier, it is still extra work for the developers and right now there's not a lot that motivates them to do that work.

Apple has a real uphill battle here and they will have to convince developers that Mac is now a viable gaming platform. That will take a lot of time, I think.

For instance, I play Star Citizen. Do you think that would run on a Mac? Because they have no plans on porting it natively..

 

[theorist9]

Yes, that is very reasonable



Precisely my thinking. Again, refer to M4 data I posted earlier: it costs 1 watt of power to go 50MHz from 4.15 to 4.2 GHz! That doesn’t look like there is much room for further scaling.

Sorry, I'm confused! It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the issue isn't the power scaling, it's the chip's ability to be stable at higher clocks, but then how does the power scaling you're referencing inform us of this? Also, can you please supply a link--I couldn't find the data you posted.

 

[sirio76]

But even the M1 Pro

Apple M1 Pro

A thorough insight into technical specs and benchmarks of M1 Pro.

technical.city

And M1 Max

Apple M1 Max

A thorough insight into technical specs and benchmarks of M1 Max.

technical.city

Yes both them not that much faster than M1

Those benchmarks are extremely misleading, and because of that the whole argument is flawed.
As already suggested you should run lots of different tests running native code and that will give you a very different picture about M series performance.
It is true that the fastest M CPU can’t come even close to a top of the line 64/96core Threadripper in multithreaded tasks, but beside this specific case they are powerful enough to compete with most desktop and laptop CPU at a competitive price.
Also, performance is not the only metric, I do have a faster Threadripper machine in my study but for most tasks I always prefer to run my Mac Studio Ultra because in the end it offers a far more pleasing experience, less noise and heat, better multitasking ecc.

 

[NEPOBABY]

Apple makes their money from iOS devices, not Mac computers. And within the Mac category, the laptops are the ones that are selling the most.

Many iPhone owners are Mac owners. They just upgrade the Macs at a slower frequency because for most people a computer is a big one off payment while a phone can come for "free" with a new two year cell phone contract.

You really think Apple is going to waste time and resources on a "desktop chip"

The chips are called the Max and Ultra.

 

[NEPOBABY]

Honestly, I'm in a similar boat. The problem for me is that despite Apple's "powerful" GPUs with 40 (!!!!) cores, they still suck for gaming.

That's really about your expectations being super extreme, even much higher than what a PS5 can do. The Pro and Max chips can handily do whatever a modern games console can do. They can't do what an RTX 4090 can do but that's really at the edges. Most gamers don't have anything like that GPU.

 

[leman]

Sorry, I'm confused! It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the issue isn't the power scaling, it's the chip's ability to be stable at higher clocks, but then how does the power scaling you're referencing inform us of this?

Aren't these things connected? In the case of M4, increasing the peak performance by a very small amount appears to invoke tremendous costs in power consumption. To me, this indicates that even if the chip were stable at a much higher wattage, the performance win would be, at best, negligible. Wouldn't this mean that the peak is effectively capped?

Also, can you please supply a link--I couldn't find the data you posted.

These are just a few of the reference points I mentioned in #121. When I have access to my iPad again, I can compile a more detailed sample.

 

[Tanax]

That's really about your expectations being super extreme, even much higher than what a PS5 can do. The Pro and Max chips can handily do whatever a modern games console can do. They can't do what an RTX 4090 can do but that's really at the edges. Most gamers don't have anything like that GPU.

For the record, I have an Intel Arc 770, hardly a high end GPU.
Yet I'm able to play more games than on a Mac.

Again, software support is the main issue, with the lack of GPU power only being the second issue.

But by far, the software support is what's lacking on Mac. Apple will need to convince developers that it's actually serious about gaming with better framework support and less lock-ins. Forcing developers to make a Metal3 version is already painful enough. While UE does support compiling into Metal these days, further optimization is usually always needed, and having to do that for multiple platforms is what costs money.

Another issue is that you can't mix and match with Apple's processors as a customer. If you want to game, you want the GPU to be beefy (usually) and the CPU can be a standard CPU. But with Apple's segmentation, you need to splurge for the top end CPU (even though you won't need it) in order to get the top end GPU.

Most people might say "no one buys a Mac for gaming" and that might be true today. But if Apple wants to be serious about gaming, they need to ENABLE people to buy a Mac for gaming, otherwise no one will and gaming will always be an afterthought and never really take off that much.

 

[JouniS]

That's really about your expectations being super extreme, even much higher than what a PS5 can do. The Pro and Max chips can handily do whatever a modern games console can do. They can't do what an RTX 4090 can do but that's really at the edges. Most gamers don't have anything like that GPU.

I think the Pro is still behind the PS5 on raw GPU performance. Console games also tend to be better optimized than Mac versions of the same games. Optimization is expensive, and it makes more sense to spend that money for common platforms than for rare ones.

The Max should be good enough for gaming for a long time, as it meets the GPU performance of current-generation consoles.

 

[theorist9]

Aren't these things connected? In the case of M4, increasing the peak performance by a very small amount appears to invoke tremendous costs in power consumption. To me, this indicates that even if the chip were stable at a much higher wattage, the performance win would be, at best, negligible. Wouldn't this mean that the peak is effectively capped?

In my penulutimate post I was distinguishing between whether the barrier was practical (the power vs. clock curve is too steep), or absolute (chips won't run stably at higher voltage). And I was suggesting it was the latter, since even with a steep curve, I thought a Studio or MP should be able to accommodate the power and thermals for a turbo boost on just one or two cores.

To put some acutual numbers to this, I'd like to know what the %power increase would be to boost a M4 core from 4.4 GHz (the current max clock) to, say, 5.0 GHz on a hypothetical M4 Ultra.

For the purposes of this back-of-the envelope calcuation, let's say the M4 Ultra will have 30 performance cores, i.e., 10x the 3 performance cores on the 9-core M4 iPad*. [M2 Max = 8 perf cores; M3 Max = 12 perf cores; so extrapolate that M4 Max would have 15 perf cores ⇒ M4 Ultra would have 30 perf cores.]

Thus we want:

(extra TDP to increase a single M4 core from 4.4 GHz to 5.0 GHz)/(10 x current all-core Max TDP on 9-core M4 iPad)

≈ est. % increase in TDP to add that turbo boost to an M4 Ultra.

Would you be able to supply those two numbers?

For instance, even if it's an extra 5W to do that SC boost, if the est max CPU TDP on an M4 Ultra w/o the boost is, say, 100 W, that's only a 5% increase in power.

*It's better to use the 9-core model, since it's more likely to tell us what the thermally unconstrained (or minimally constrained) per-core TDP (which is what we'd expect to see on the Ultra) would be than the 10-core model.

 

[HowardEv]

I’ve long considered an Apple “puck” that wirelessly connects to a monitor via Airplay. I really thought that would be a new version of the mini (perhaps called the Nano?)

Yes! About the size of a hockey puck, with lots of ports. Most of the time it’d stay connected to the monitor with a single USB power cable, and for me, also connected to an audio interface, external SSD, and musical keyboard.

If it gets hot, it’s OK because it’s not on your lap, and sitting on desk could be an external heatsink for far better cooling than a laptop clamshell mode.

And, it could also be controlled from a low powered Air wirelessly over WiFi, that can still be a fine laptop to take to coffee shop. I don’t want to bring a $2,500 M3 Pro laptop to coffee shop, it’s overkill when Pro power is only needed in the studio. A $1000 Nano M3Pro can keep running the studio (on a nice big $1000 display) and I can take the $500 Air to the coffee shop. Same price, much more productivity and power).

And easy to bring the Nano with the Air to the coffee shop if needed (just pull out all the cables and put it in a pocket, no need to shut it down). The idea that it would be too hard to keep track of is pathetic sorry.

 

[Boil]

Nobody wants a battery-powered portable Mac mini, that is what laptops & tablets are for...

 

[splifingate]

WWDC 2025

• Mac Pro Cube
• M4 Extreme SoC (N3P)
• 64-core CPU (48P/16E)
• 256-core GPU
• 128-core NPU
• 1.92TB LPDDR5X RAM (inline ECC)
• 2.16TB/s UMA bandwidth
• Thunderbolt 5
• USB 4
• WiFi 7
• Bluetooth 5.4

I like your style!