Apple 'M1X' chip specification prediction appears on benchmark site

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 2021
A supposed listing for an Apple M1 successor has surfaced on a benchmark site, though it's likely that the chip's specifications are a prediction rather than the results of a test.

Credit: Apple
Credit: Apple


The "M1X" chip is said to be a 12-core Apple Silicon CPU. As an iteration on the M1, the chip features 12 cores instead of its predecessor's eight. Its internal GPU features 16 cores, instead of the 8-core GPU in the M1.

This is according to an alleged benchmark of a "pre-sample" of the "M1X" that appeared on CPU Monkey. It's impossible to independently verify whether the specifications are accurate, so it's likely wiser to take them as a forecast rather than a true leak of the next-generation Mac chipset.

The specifications do appear in-line with what Apple could release this year. The "M1X," according to the listing, is still a 3.2GHz chip based on a 5-nanometer production process.

If the prediction turns out to be accurate, it looks like the upgrade would be focused on graphics. The listing suggests that "M1X" could have a 16-core GPU with 16GB of maximum memory. It could feature 256 execution units, rather than the M1's 128, and may be able to drive three displays instead of two.

That makes sense because of the first devices that the "M1X" is supposed to appear in. According to CPU-Monkey, the "M1X" will debut in the second quarter of 2021 in a 14-inch MacBook Pro, 16-inch MacBook Pro, and 27-inch iMac refresh. Compared to the previous chip, the "M1X" is also rumored to have a higher power draw with a TDP of 35W instead of the 15W M1.

Again, these specifications are impossible to verify as authentic at this point. And CPU Monkey doesn't appear to have much credibility among benchmarking sites. But, at the very least, the supposed updates seem realistic.

Past reports have indicated that Apple is working on new proprietary chips with 16-core and 32-core graphics processing. Additional reporting also points to new iMac and MacBook Pro models in 2021.

Read on AppleInsider
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 47
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member
    I'm really excited to see what the desktop-class ASi chips will be.  I purchased a 2020-iMac with the intent that it will be my last Intel-based iMac, and by the time I'm ready to upgrade it ASi chips will have been out for years, and MacOS apps will be native ARM by then.  It's great to see the next evolution in CPU's coming.  The M1 is smoking the x86 competition and that's a gen-1 CPU!  
    twokatmewwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 47
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,520member
    I hope this isn’t true.

    I’m hoping for a true performance king that humiliates AMD & Intel and sets the bar in terms of performance. Primarily GPU based upgrades over the M1 wouldn’t be the big step up in the true “Pro” Macs over the current M1 that I was hoping for.
    lkruppwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 47
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    I'd have thought that doubling the GPU core count will still leave it pretty limited compared to a dedicated graphics card unless there's some other special sauce in there.
  • Reply 4 of 47
    I can do such predictions as well 😂. Anyone who reads news. 
    I can even predict Geekbench and cinebench score. 
    But I hope Applecwill release even variant with higher frequency. Say 3.8 GHz. It would demolish all. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 47
    crowley said:
    I'd have thought that doubling the GPU core count will still leave it pretty limited compared to a dedicated graphics card unless there's some other special sauce in there.
    The M1's GPU can perform 2.6 TFLOPS. The 16" MacBook Pro currently ships with one of three GPU options:

    Radeon Pro 5300M: 3.2 TFLOPS
    Radeon Pro 5500M: 4.0 TFLOPS
    Radeon Pro 5600M: 5.3 TFLOPS

    The iMacs ship with a handful of GPU options:

    Intel Iris Plus 645: 0.8 TFLOPS
    Radeon Pro 555X: 1.4 TFLOPS
    Radeon Pro 560X: 2.1 TFLOPS
    Radeon Pro Vega 20: 3.3 TFLOPS
    Radeon Pro 5300: 3.7-4.6 TFLOPS
    Radeon Pro 5500: 4.7-5.2 TFLOPS
    Radeon Pro 5700: 6.7-7.9 TFLOPS
    Radeon Pro 5700 XT: 8.2-9.8 TFLOPS

    GPU performance scales almost linearly with core count, so this "M1X" (I still think "M1 Pro" is more likely) should manage around 5.2 TFLOPS. That matches the top-end optional GPU on the 16" MacBook Pro and matches the Radeon Pro 5500 on the iMacs (better than the best available GPU for the 21.5" iMac, matches the midrange GPU for the 27" iMac).

    AMD doesn't currently make any higher-performing laptop parts, so this is plenty of performance for a 16" MacBook Pro. Matches the best you can get on the Intel version at much lower power consumption. I think either this chip or something very much like it will end up in a high-end Mac mini, the 16" MacBook Pro, and the 21.5" iMac.

    Forgot to mention: the M1 also has twice the GPU performance of the Xbox One or Xbox One S. They're still pretty decent compared to dedicated desktop video cards.
    edited February 2021 GG1jdb8167frantisekd_2watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 47
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,999member
    saarek said:
    I hope this isn’t true.

    I’m hoping for a true performance king that humiliates AMD & Intel and sets the bar in terms of performance. Primarily GPU based upgrades over the M1 wouldn’t be the big step up in the true “Pro” Macs over the current M1 that I was hoping for.
    An X version of the chip does not preclude an M2 at a later date for high end machines.   Think Pro or highest spec machines. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 47
    saarek said:
    I hope this isn’t true.

    I’m hoping for a true performance king that humiliates AMD & Intel and sets the bar in terms of performance. Primarily GPU based upgrades over the M1 wouldn’t be the big step up in the true “Pro” Macs over the current M1 that I was hoping for.
    With all due respect why do you believe that this is even possible? As I have stated numerous times, the idea that ARM is inherently superior to x86 was wishful thinking. If it were true, ARM would have more than 3% of the server market. As I have also stated, most of the benchmarking was skewed: it only compared the M1 to the Intel chips that it replaced in macOS devices. Those were mostly 2 and 4 core "mobile" chips. They were also outdated chips: 9th and 10th gen. There were already 11th gen Intel chips on the market when the M1 Macs were introduced.

     Yet all the M1 crushes Intel who is now doomed! "benchmarks" ignored them just as they ignored how comparing 2 and 4 core "mobile" chips to a chip with 4 performance + 4 efficiency cores never made any sense. They just took Apple's claim - unsubstantiated by any data - that the M1 was faster than "80% of Windows PCs" and ran with it. Also, 4Q this year we are going to see 10nm big.LITTLE chips from Intel followed by 5nm Zen 4 chips - Athlon architecture, not big.LITTLE - chips from AMD. Intel hasn't started hyping their 12th gen chips yet, but AMD is claiming that their Zen 4 chips will have up to 40% performance gains over their current chips. 

    Thinking that Apple was going to dominate Intel and AMD in PCs the way they dominate Qualcomm and Samsung in mobile never made any sense. Especially if it was based on the superiority of ARM because Qualcomm and Samsung make ARM chips too. Apple versus Qualcomm was "ARM CPU with laptop performance versus ARM CPU with embedded appliance performance." Fine. Apple versus Intel and AMD: ARM CPU with laptop performance versus x86 CPUs that power 97% of the world's servers. A totally different ballgame.
    edited February 2021
  • Reply 8 of 47
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,520member
    cloudguy said:
    saarek said:
    I hope this isn’t true.

    I’m hoping for a true performance king that humiliates AMD & Intel and sets the bar in terms of performance. Primarily GPU based upgrades over the M1 wouldn’t be the big step up in the true “Pro” Macs over the current M1 that I was hoping for.
    With all due respect why do you believe that this is even possible? As I have stated numerous times, the idea that ARM is inherently superior to x86 was wishful thinking. If it were true, ARM would have more than 3% of the server market. As I have also stated, most of the benchmarking was skewed: it only compared the M1 to the Intel chips that it replaced in macOS devices. Those were mostly 2 and 4 core "mobile" chips. They were also outdated chips: 9th and 10th gen. There were already 11th gen Intel chips on the market when the M1 Macs were introduced. 

    So just because an M1 with 8 cores - granted only 4 of them performance - crushed a 10th gen 2 core mobile CPU doesn't mean that an M1X is going to crush an 11th gen Intel Core i7 or Intel Core i9. Step away from the guys on the "mainstream" tech sites who write all their articles and blog posts on MacBooks and iPad Pros and update Twitter/Facebook/Instagram from their iPhones. Instead go to Anandtech and Ars Technica. Those guys love their MacBooks, iPads and iPhones too but their articles are technical, not "I am going to cheerlead for this product because I use it." Or you can investigate Gordon Mah Ung, the main Windows guy for PC World. On those you will see that the latest Intel chips rival the M1 in single core score, and that the Core i7 and Core i9 beat it handily on multicore score. You will also see that the latest desktop AMD chips beat the M1 in both single core score (slightly) and multicore score (handily). When I tried to point this out to the MacBook Air fans at some of the other tech sites - including one who literally told me that their tech site wasn't going to pay attention Linux because "Linux is hard" !?!? - they would move the goalposts from "power" to "power per watt." One reviewer on that same site stated that the benchmarks that Intel used to defend itself from reviewers like him were flawed because they didn't factor in the better user experience on the M1 Macs. And realize that this particular reviewer is the one assigned by the site to be their main Windows guy! (Meaning machines that he obviously doesn't have any use for outside of being stuck with dealing with them for his job.) But even the main Windows guy at this alleged tech site didn't point out that the M1 Macs were being compared to 9th gen and 10th gen Intel chips with only 2 and 4 cores.

    If you are disappointed now, wait until the 12th gen Intel chips come out in September. We have only heard details about 2 so far:

    10nm Intel process which is roughly equivalent to an 8nm TSMC process because just as TSMC's foundries achieve better transistor density than Samsung's, Intel's does over TSMC's
    14 core chip with 6 performance multithreaded cores and 8 efficiency single threaded cores in a big.LITTLE architecture (for the first time ever with x86, Intel or AMD)
    16 core chip with 8 performance multithreaded/8 efficiency single threaded in big.LITTLE

    And a couple months later: AMD's Zen 4 chips will come out. They won't have big.LITTLE architecture, but they will be on the same 5nm process as the M1 and M1X from the same foundry. And AMD Zen X performance chips start at 8 performance cores - where Intel's start at 6 - and go up to 16. So yes, in a few months the whole idea of "ARM is better than outdated x86" narrative that were based on terrible comparisons to begin with that never would have been done had they been skewed unfavorably towards Apple will be forgotten and quietly discarded. And we will be back to how Macs have better design, UX/UI, user experience, longevity, support etc. than Wintel. Just like before.
    Well, for a start the M1 matches or exceeds the 10th Gen Intel i7’s in most areas, as you noted. It’s also Apple’s entry level offering and one would assume that Apple would not put their best chips in their cheapest machine.

    But, & this is a big but, if the next computers from Apple are simply slightly faster with better graphics that’d be a HUGE let down.

    Apple will be well aware of Intel’s roadmap, I doubt they’d have been so shortsighted as to release a set of chips that won’t match or exceed what Intel offers.

    We will have to see, but just over a year ago people were saying that Apple would never move the Mac to Apple Silicon because it’d never match Intel X86 & they’ve had a rude awakening.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 47
    saareksaarek Posts: 1,520member
    chadbag said:
    saarek said:
    I hope this isn’t true.

    I’m hoping for a true performance king that humiliates AMD & Intel and sets the bar in terms of performance. Primarily GPU based upgrades over the M1 wouldn’t be the big step up in the true “Pro” Macs over the current M1 that I was hoping for.
    An X version of the chip does not preclude an M2 at a later date for high end machines.   Think Pro or highest spec machines. 
    An M1X upgrade for the current MacBook Air & cheap Pro would be fine.

    I’ve got the M1 Air & it’s great, but I and my wallet  are eagerly awaiting the true Pro computers. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 47
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,299member
    So is it a dedicated 12 core chip or 2 - 6 functional Core M1 chips packaged together with say a PCIe Hub for improved bandwidth.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 47
    zimmie said:
    AMD doesn't currently make any higher-performing laptop parts, so this is plenty of performance for a 16" MacBook Pro. 
    1. AMD doesn't make any higher-performing laptop parts? Please investigate the Ryzen 9 5980HX and even the Ryzen 7 5800H and reconsider. The Ryzen 7 5800H had a 1,475 single core score and a 7,630 multicore score. The M1 Mac had a Geekbench 5 of 1687 single core and 7433 multicore. The Ryzen 9 5980HX? 1614 single core and 9265 multicore. Look, lots of gaming laptops run AMD CPUs. So please don't just be another "I only know about Apple and can't be bothered with information about anyone else" type.

    2. 
    Matches the best you can get on the Intel version at much lower power consumption.

    You are ... 
    half right. In that it matches the 9th generation Intel Core i9 that is in the current MacBook Pro. Have you seen the benchmarks for the Core i9-11900K? Single core score of 1905 (Geekbench 5). Granted that is a desktop chip, but that is 35% better than the 10th gen Intel Core i9. The most recent 16' MacBook Pro? Had a 9th gen Intel Core i9.

    The M1 is a great accomplishment - especially when compared to Qualcomm and Samsung SOCs - but cool your jets here. Otherwise you won't be very happy when the Intel and AMD chips that are on a smaller process, support DDR5 (and in the case of Intel are on a big.LITTLE architecture) come out at the end of the year. 
  • Reply 12 of 47
    Limited to 16 gig memory?  Nah, that makes no sense.  As the computing power increases, Apple will need to bump the memory and bandwidth of the on-chip fabric in order to prevent bottlenecking.  I also expect Apple to have an on-package graphics chip for cost and production flexibility reasons.
    jdb8167watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 47
    cloudguy said:
    saarek said:
    I hope this isn’t true.

    I’m hoping for a true performance king that humiliates AMD & Intel and sets the bar in terms of performance. Primarily GPU based upgrades over the M1 wouldn’t be the big step up in the true “Pro” Macs over the current M1 that I was hoping for.
    With all due respect why do you believe that this is even possible? As I have stated numerous times, the idea that ARM is inherently superior to x86 was wishful thinking. If it were true, ARM would have more than 3% of the server market. As I have also stated, most of the benchmarking was skewed: it only compared the M1 to the Intel chips that it replaced in macOS devices. Those were mostly 2 and 4 core "mobile" chips. They were also outdated chips: 9th and 10th gen. There were already 11th gen Intel chips on the market when the M1 Macs were introduced.

     Yet all the M1 crushes Intel who is now doomed! "benchmarks" ignored them just as they ignored how comparing 2 and 4 core "mobile" chips to a chip with 4 performance + 4 efficiency cores never made any sense. They just took Apple's claim - unsubstantiated by any data - that the M1 was faster than "80% of Windows PCs" and ran with it. Also, 4Q this year we are going to see 10nm big.LITTLE chips from Intel followed by 5nm Zen 4 chips - Athlon architecture, not big.LITTLE - chips from AMD. Intel hasn't started hyping their 12th gen chips yet, but AMD is claiming that their Zen 4 chips will have up to 40% performance gains over their current chips. 

    Thinking that Apple was going to dominate Intel and AMD in PCs the way they dominate Qualcomm and Samsung in mobile never made any sense. Especially if it was based on the superiority of ARM because Qualcomm and Samsung make ARM chips too. Apple versus Qualcomm was "ARM CPU with laptop performance versus ARM CPU with embedded appliance performance." Fine. Apple versus Intel and AMD: ARM CPU with laptop performance versus x86 CPUs that power 97% of the world's servers. A totally different ballgame.
    Having a 40-ish watt "mobile" chips losing to a merely 24-watt "never made any sense" but it happens.

    8+4 @ 3.2GHz is still pretty low for what it is, don't tell me that this is where they'll stop.  You'd be as ignorant as Intel to believe that.
    tmayGG1techconcwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 47
    There is very little chance that the next update to Apple Silicon will be limited to 16 GB of RAM. The current 16" MacBook Pro and the top of line x86 Mac mini can go up to 64 GB. Apple is unlikely to release new ASi models that have less RAM. If this release is also meant for a 27" iMac replacement, then they will have to go up to 128 GB.

    I do think the next SoC will be 8 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores. I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple boosts the clock a little. Maybe a 3.4-3.5 GHz clock. The 8 core GPU on the M1 right now is about the same performance as the current 11th Generation Xe from Intel. So doubling up the GPU cores would likely double the best that Intel currently has for integrated graphics. Doubling again would put the ASi SoC at around the top of the line best mobile GPU from AMD.

    These still won't be processors for the Mac Pro or iMac Pro. Those are probably coming next year.
    edited February 2021 michelb76watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 47
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,278member
    jdb8167 said:
    There is very little chance that the next update to Apple Silicon will be limited to 16 GB of RAM. The current 16" MacBook Pro and the top of line x86 Mac mini can go up to 64 GB. Apple is unlikely to release new ASi models that have less RAM. If this release is also meant for a 27" iMac replacement, then they will have to go up to 128 GB.

    I do think the next SoC will be 8 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores. I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple boosts the clock a little. Maybe a 3.4-3.5 GHz clock. The 8 core GPU on the M1 right now is about the same performance as the current 11th Generation Xe from Intel. So doubling up the GPU cores would double the best that Intel currently has for integrated graphics. Doubling again would put the ASi SoC at around the top of the line best mobile GPU from AMD.

    These still won't be processors for the Mac Pro or iMac Pro. Those are probably coming next year.
    I wonder where did they got their results from?  They couldn't gain access for the sample.  Maybe somewhere there's a leak of the ES?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 47
    DuhSesame said:
    jdb8167 said:
    There is very little chance that the next update to Apple Silicon will be limited to 16 GB of RAM. The current 16" MacBook Pro and the top of line x86 Mac mini can go up to 64 GB. Apple is unlikely to release new ASi models that have less RAM. If this release is also meant for a 27" iMac replacement, then they will have to go up to 128 GB.

    I do think the next SoC will be 8 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores. I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple boosts the clock a little. Maybe a 3.4-3.5 GHz clock. The 8 core GPU on the M1 right now is about the same performance as the current 11th Generation Xe from Intel. So doubling up the GPU cores would double the best that Intel currently has for integrated graphics. Doubling again would put the ASi SoC at around the top of the line best mobile GPU from AMD.

    These still won't be processors for the Mac Pro or iMac Pro. Those are probably coming next year.
    I wonder where did they got their results from?  They couldn't gain access for the sample.  Maybe somewhere there's a leak of the ES?
    They are just guessing probably. Just like what I posted is a guess.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 47
    Anything M1 related is low end for Apple.  Any iteration of the M1 would be for improved models of the existing low end 13-inch MacBook Pro, Air, or mini.  The M1 might have 3x the performance of the low end models they replaced, but it is embarrassing that the Intel models offered more memory, more storage, and more features (like multiple external 4K monitors and eGPU support).  I would bet a small percentage of people bought into the M1 Macs just to try them out, but the majority are waiting for much better offerings, hopefully with 4 ports, more memory, more storage, and more features.  Not some stripped down models with less features.

    Imagine the horrible reviews they would get with an M1 iMac that only offered 16GB of RAM, 2TB storage, no dedicated graphics, and only two USB-C ports.  Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall...and the next iMac to replace the 27" model will not have user upgradable memory or user upgradable storage.  We will be forced to pay Apple's outrageous prices for memory and storage.  The downside of everything residing on the silicon, including storage, means that if the chip fails, everything is gone and unrecoverable.  

    We will see what Apple comes out with next, but it better be a big improvement over the M1 chip and the 'baby' Macs that Apple released.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 18 of 47

    jdb8167 said:
    These still won't be processors for the Mac Pro or iMac Pro. Those are probably coming next year.
    The Mac Pro will be using Intel chips for a few more years because Apple's M processor can't beat what is in the Mac Pro as far as memory, storage, features, and performance, especially the ability to run multiple VM environments.

    Second, the iMac Pro is dead.  Apple hasn't done anything with it for four years.  It will likely be discontinued when Apple releases an iMac with hopefully a much better processor than the low end M1 chip.
  • Reply 19 of 47
    Anything M1 related is low end for Apple.  Any iteration of the M1 would be for improved models of the existing low end 13-inch MacBook Pro, Air, or mini.  The M1 might have 3x the performance of the low end models they replaced, but it is embarrassing that the Intel models offered more memory, more storage, and more features (like multiple external 4K monitors and eGPU support).  I would bet a small percentage of people bought into the M1 Macs just to try them out, but the majority are waiting for much better offerings, hopefully with 4 ports, more memory, more storage, and more features.  Not some stripped down models with less features.
    The models that the first M1 Macs replaced did not support more RAM or more SSD. The higher end Mac mini is still available so the M1 Mac mini didn't replace anything yet. The MacBook Air has the same RAM and SSD limits. The MacBook Pro also is replacing the 2 port MBP not the 4 port version. So again, RAM and SSD are the same limits on the M1 as the old 2 port Intel MacBook Pro. Apple did remove the ability to use a second external with the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro and that is a regression but they added the dubious support for the Apple 6K XDR monitor. I think that eGPU support will return someday as Apple will almost certainly need to support external GPUs with the Mac Pro replacement.

    Edit: Apparently even the earlier Intel MacBook Air supported the 6K XDR monitor.

    Imagine the horrible reviews they would get with an M1 iMac that only offered 16GB of RAM, 2TB storage, no dedicated graphics, and only two USB-C ports.  Unfortunately, the writing is on the wall...and the next iMac to replace the 27" model will not have user upgradable memory or user upgradable storage.  We will be forced to pay Apple's outrageous prices for memory and storage.  The downside of everything residing on the silicon, including storage, means that if the chip fails, everything is gone and unrecoverable.  

    We will see what Apple comes out with next, but it better be a big improvement over the M1 chip and the 'baby' Macs that Apple released.
    Memory is probably going to be relatively expensive but I don't imagine having enough storage with a desktop is that big of a deal. Just get a fast external Thunderbolt or USB4 drive. There are external drives available that are as fast as the current M1 SSDs which are pretty good at over 3 GB/s read and write.
    edited February 2021 watto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 20 of 47

    jdb8167 said:
    These still won't be processors for the Mac Pro or iMac Pro. Those are probably coming next year.
    The Mac Pro will be using Intel chips for a few more years because Apple's M processor can't beat what is in the Mac Pro as far as memory, storage, features, and performance, especially the ability to run multiple VM environments.

    Second, the iMac Pro is dead.  Apple hasn't done anything with it for four years.  It will likely be discontinued when Apple releases an iMac with hopefully a much better processor than the low end M1 chip.
    Apple has repeatedly stated that the Apple Silicon transition will be over in two years. Since the latest start of the transition would be on the release of the M1 Macs, then logically Mac Pros are going to be announced by November 2022. I expect that we will see a Mac Pro replacement in early 2022 and it will beat the current Mac Pro in performance and match it for RAM, storage and other features. I also expect it will support discrete GPUs.

    The iMac Pro may be dead. Its niche might get folded into the top of the line iMac. I don't actually have much of a guess right now. But if it is part of the 27" iMac Apple Silicon replacement then that SoC needs to support up to 256 GB of RAM to match existing technology. I think there is a chance that Apple will use the same SoC/CPU for both the Mac Pro and iMac Pro when they get released. But I wouldn't bet much on it.
    edited February 2021 muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobraDetnator
Sign In or Register to comment.