‽
|
Quote:
So far, we have:
I bring this up (and in this particular order!) because there was a rumor around April that a chip design called "Jade C-Die" was going to arrive in late 2021, and that, derived from that, we'd see a "Jade C-Chop", and a "Jade 2C-Die" and "Jade 4C-Die". Based on that, John Siracusa made this mockup. What actually ended up happening is surprisingly close to that rumor. If we consider the M1 Max the "Jade C-Die", then the M1 Pro is the "Chop" version, with portions chopped off. In Siracusa's mockup, basically the right third. And in the actual M1 Pro and Max? The bottom third. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/17019/M1PRO.jpg vs. https://images.anandtech.com/doci/17019/M1MAX.jpg The M1 Pro is basically an M1 Max with half the LPDDR5 chips, half the SLC blocks, and half the GPU cores chopped off. So that part of the rumor seems to have been right on the money. Extrapolating from that, suppose the "Jade 2C/4C-Die" part is, too. If you look at Siracusa's diagram again, that basically means you take the M1 Max, and add another whole M1 Max underneath it (2C), and then you add a whole block of those two on the side (4C, a 2x2 grid). And that, the supposition goes, is what they'll do for the high-end desktop Macs (space grey Mac mini? 30-inch iMac Pro? Mac Pro? All three of those?). The downside would be: even on this very high end, you'd be constrained in your RAM choices by the very specific amount you got when you ordered it. Plus, it won't be a lot. The current Mac Pro goes up to 1.5 TB RAM (yes, that's 1536 Gigabytes). This setup would "only" go to 256 GB. On the other hand, it would lead to astounding performance levels, assuming your code (just as before with the iMac Pro and Mac Pro) can take advantage of heavy parallelization. The M1 Extreme would have a memory bandwidth of 800 GB/s, and the Ultimate of 1,600 GB/s, simply because what they'd do is double the memory chips again. And for the same reason, such a Mac with an M1 Extreme would have up to 20 CPU cores and up to 64 GPU cores, and a Mac with an M1 Ultimate with the cited up to 40 CPU cores and up to 128 GPU cores. It's simply four M1s Max in a 2x2 grid. Quote:
There was the A14 and soon after the M1, then a year later, there were the M1 Pro and M1 Max, and now, some time next year, we might see the M1 Extreme and M1 Ultimate. (I don't think Apple would actually use "Ultimate", but I also can't think of a less stupid adjective. "M1 Blowaway"? "M1 Offthecharts"?) Quote:
It seems what Apple is doing here is a bit similar to Intel. They introduce a bunch of CPU cores like the A14's Firestorm (on the "performance cores") and Icestorm (on the "efficiency cores"). Then they move that up to the M1. Then further up to the M1 Pro/Max a year later. And then all the way up to the Extreme/Ultimate another year down the road. But, in the meantime, they've also introduced another generation (here, it fits) of CPU cores, namely the A15's Avalanche and Blizzard. So far, we have not seen a Mac with those cores. My guess is we'll see an M2 MacBook Air (and perhaps Mac mini, and perhaps even 24-inch iMac) in spring/summer of 2022, and that the M2 will use Avalanche/Blizzard. That is, each of the cores inside will be a little faster and better™ than the M1's. In either late 2022 or some time 2023, then, we will see the M2 Pro/Max, replacing the M1 Pro/Max that just came out. Apple's calculation being that pros need a lot of cores (and special features like ProRes acceleration) more than they need the most current cores. This is similar to how Intel rolls out a microarchitecture like Skylake — on the desktop in 2015, on the laptop in 2016, and on workstations/servers in 2017. But meanwhile, by 2017, desktops and laptops already get newer microarchitectures. |
|||
quote |
Mr. Vieira
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tennessee
|
Ah, okay...I understand things a little more now. I rarely wade into these waters because I've just never followed/understand that side of it all. Thanks.
I've told my Mom that there looks to be coming a nice new, redesigned Air(?) in the first half of 2022, and she's looking forward to upgrading from her 2013 Air (8GB RAM/128GB SSD). Should be quite a step up in every way (double the RAM*/SSD, the display, processor, etc.). *She'll BTO to 16GB |
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
Quote:
Quote:
I had been predicting M1x and M1xX as naming conventions, with M1X Pro in pro machines. I guess I kinda got some of that correct. I should probably sue? - AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
||
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
At single-threaded tasks, Intel's Alder Lake (and even some Rocket Lake chips before it) can beat the M1. Since the M1 Pro and Max use the same cores and at the same clock, they're about as fast as the M1 (while they increase cache and memory bandwidth, the change for single-threaded tasks seems to be very minor). As a result, I expect the M1E and U to do the same. Last edited by chucker : 2021-11-05 at 14:29. |
|
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
Yeah, I agree. At single-threading the M1 family is not the fastest rocket on the pad, but in multi-core the thing is kicking butt, and I suspect Apple's approach to M1E and M1U will be multi-threading to the … umm … extreme?
- AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
I’m guessing you haven’t looked at what Intel and AMD have beyond the consumer grade chips. AMD and Intel already have chips with more cores and threads than any of the M1 units, and have for years. In high level multi CPU board units, Apple isn’t even close.
|
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
We're talking consumer machines, here, not industrial server applications and the like.
The M1 (and all Apple Silicon) are not intended to go toe-to-toe with commercial applications. Just consumer ones. - AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
The Mac Pro isn’t a consumer machine, it’s a high end desktop platform. AMD has that covered for example with 64 core 128 thread chips, some of those HED platforms, such as Intels do have dual sockets. It’s not even server grade stuff.
|
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
Apple is, in fact, close. |
|
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
Quote:
So, yes, Apple is "close". I just want to know why AMD and Intel get the performance benefit of the doubt regarding their pipelines, but Apple does not? Because what the rumored performance pipeline hints at is that AMD and Intel aren't even close. - AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
|
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
Of course, but by the time Apple does that the next gen HED chips will be out, and the 3990X won’t be the benchmark anymore. The current gen ROME chips, from which they will come out score it heavily already. I think Apple is doing great, I’m just saying M1 stuff isn’t the best thing since sliced bread. I also don’t think the AMD and Intel platforms are better or worse, just different. If you need a Mac to get your work done, it does the job more than well enough. It’s the blind fanboy talk that just turns me off.
|
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
It isn't, but your original assertion was "In high level multi CPU board units, Apple isn’t even close.", and if Apple were to simply scale their M1 up further, which it looks like they will next year, they will, in fact, be quite close. |
|
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
Quote:
Which is why I said, if you need Max OS it will be more than good enough. Not everyone needs Max OS though, so saying it’s just better than everything else isn’t a good argument. |
|
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
The M1 Max is shining. Intel's latest offering is "faster" (by about 4% ) but consumes 2.5 - 3.5 times the power . In other words, Apple's 1st-gen chip is a shot across the bow.
- AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
‽
|
Yeah, that's roughly what I expected — Intel's own early numbers were not only quite optimistic but also left out the pretty major "numbers can only be reached if you set the TDP to 115W instead of 45W" caveat.
|
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
I'm trying to imagine a MBP with that Intel chip in it. There would be 2 options: 1) Cut the battery to 6 hours (from 21), and increase the thickness by a full 1/4" (may as well stuff an optical drive back in there ); 2) Leave the thickness alone and either cut the run-time to ~4 hours, or throttle the machine to the point where it's just barely clipping an M1.
That Intel is pretending Apple made a terrible error is just laughable. - AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
‽
|
Most vendors will either put an Alder Lake-U CPU in instead (a bit like the M1), or they'll use the H but configure it to run at 45W.
A select few like Razor will do a fat, noisy gaming laptop that's somewhat useful because it's a gaming PC but on the go(-ish), but you wouldn't really use it for anything else, because, y'know. Fat, noisy. That's basically how it has worked for years — Intel gets to claim their CPUs can run very fast (while omitting the caveat), and vendors then make the choice "yeah, but we're not gonna configure it like that". |
quote |
Which way is up?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
|
So, basically, Apple made a processor that, at full speed, kicks the crap out of Intel's stuff unless the vendor makes an old-fashioned "fat and noisy" clunker?
Makes sense. A laptop and a "portable desktop" are different things. - AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :) - Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9) |
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
Well, a lot of people really just want a desktop that they can occasionally take to the meeting room or to a friend's place. But yes, I imagine laptops that actually run at 115W (keep in mind this is only the CPU, and such a thing will often have a beefy GPU on top of that…) won't be the norm, exactly. |
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Evolution of Apple Silicon | kscherer | Apple Products | 240 | 2023-12-01 15:44 |
Macs With Apple Silicon | kscherer | Speculation and Rumors | 269 | 2023-01-20 15:12 |
Apple Silicon Mac Pro | kscherer | Apple Products | 4 | 2021-05-18 14:46 |
Silicon Park - WWDC Cartoon | Dazabrit | General Discussion | 11 | 2007-06-21 05:40 |
"Pirates of Silicon Valley" sequel? | psmith2.0 | General Discussion | 10 | 2004-12-17 06:37 |