Will Apple make those high end Mac in US? Or made in usa simply just a PR a while back!!!
I think someone needs to create a "Seal of Approval" for products that are made in free countries. I would call it the "Freedom Seal." Maybe the logo would look like a seal swimming in the ocean. How many products does Apple make that might qualify for this seal?
I like the concept, but got Dog’s sake don’t call it Freedom Seal. Sounds too much like the jingoistic BS during the W years.
What? As opposed to the “America is not exceptional” and “You did not build that” tripe of the O years?
The real hero of the M1 machines is TSMC and their manufacturing performance. Without them iPhones would be on Samsung chips still and Intel wouldn’t look so bad (ignoring AMD). So Apple designed it but didn’t build it.
Whether this rumor/leak is accurate or not we should all know by now that M1 series was just the beginning. Apple would not have made the leap to M1 unless they were confident they could build on the architecture for future products and keep pace with, and ultimately exceed, the existing competition.
History shows us that relying technical factors like speed, efficiency, etc., for processors only provides a transient advantage until the competition catches up.
Yes, like with the iPhone, Apple will keep their PC lines at the top of the pack from a hardware technology standpoint. But that alone won't boost them to be a stand out.
But, I think, like with the iPhone, M series Macs will gain popularity and market share through integration into Apple's ecosystem. To date, the Mac line has stood mostly outside of Apple's primary ecosystem and tried to compete head to head with other x86 architectures.
With the M series processors Apple will be able to fully exploit its ecosystem and push Macs above and beyond where the competition is able to go (even if and when they convert to equivalent ARM based processors).
To put it bluntly: PCs succeed when they meet the hopes, dreams, needs and expectations of their users. Hardware is only the base: software and ecosystem do the heavy lifting and determine who wins and who loses.
Will Apple make those high end Mac in US? Or made in usa simply just a PR a while back!!!
I think someone needs to create a "Seal of Approval" for products that are made in free countries. I would call it the "Freedom Seal." Maybe the logo would look like a seal swimming in the ocean. How many products does Apple make that might qualify for this seal?
I like the concept, but got Dog’s sake don’t call it Freedom Seal. Sounds too much like the jingoistic BS during the W years.
What? As opposed to the “America is not exceptional” and “You did not build that” tripe of the O years?
The real hero of the M1 machines is TSMC and their manufacturing performance. Without them iPhones would be on Samsung chips still and Intel wouldn’t look so bad (ignoring AMD). So Apple designed it but didn’t build it.
And life moves on....
Intel is talking sub-nanometer chips.
The world of processors is just a horse race where one races ahead then falls behind as others surge forward.
It will be interesting to see who is on top in, say, 5 years.
The market may be turned on its head as speed, power and efficiency surge ahead of user needs and cheaper processors begin to dominate the market over high priced Lamborghinis that few actually need or can take advantage of.
On the flip side, things like universal wireless coverage could enable products that haven't been dreamed of yet. (Walmart has been running fully autonomous, driverless delivery vehicles since the summer and the biggest logjam and expense of long haul trucking (the driver) could soon be replaced with similar technology.
The real hero of the M1 machines is TSMC and their manufacturing performance. Without them iPhones would be on Samsung chips still and Intel wouldn’t look so bad (ignoring AMD). So Apple designed it but didn’t build it.
Apple certainly benefits from TSMC's leading manufacturing process. However, you comment attributes the majority of Apple's success to TSMC and not Apple's own chip design team. Apple Silicon would still be a better choice on Samsung's process than Intel. Apple has fundamentally changed expectations for PC chip design. Nobody else has tried scaling up what's been happening in the smartphone segment. Why? Nobody else even on TSMC's manufacturing has beaten Apple. Why?
Not going to join the off-topic comments, I'm getting back on topic.
I hope these rumors are true because they do signal a fantastic direction for the M-series SoCs. Multiple dies networked together with their high-speed bus (PCIe or home-designed) all with unified memory possibly sharing all memory and storage among all CPUs and GPUs. This is what I was hoping for. If Apple makes these multi-die SoCs with sockets for the Mac Pro that could be absolutely outrageous, giving Mac Pro users upgradeability.
I presume this means at least 20 CPUs and 64 GPUs in a M1 Max-Duo. If Apple can work out a socketed motherboard with empty SoC sockets, the Mac Pro could start with this Max-Duo and quickly become a Max-Quartet, Max-Sextet simply by plugging in a matching Max-Duo. There comes a point where fast is fast enough (not really) but as I've said before, there are scientist who like Macs and having a supercomputer on their desktop just for themselves would be great. I could also see this Mac Pro Max-Sextet being used by movie studios, producing animated features in 8K in real time.
I doubt “sockets” or “SOC upgradability” are words that will be associated with the new Mac Pro.
Not going to join the off-topic comments, I'm getting back on topic.
I hope these rumors are true because they do signal a fantastic direction for the M-series SoCs. Multiple dies networked together with their high-speed bus (PCIe or home-designed) all with unified memory possibly sharing all memory and storage among all CPUs and GPUs. This is what I was hoping for. If Apple makes these multi-die SoCs with sockets for the Mac Pro that could be absolutely outrageous, giving Mac Pro users upgradeability.
I presume this means at least 20 CPUs and 64 GPUs in a M1 Max-Duo. If Apple can work out a socketed motherboard with empty SoC sockets, the Mac Pro could start with this Max-Duo and quickly become a Max-Quartet, Max-Sextet simply by plugging in a matching Max-Duo. There comes a point where fast is fast enough (not really) but as I've said before, there are scientist who like Macs and having a supercomputer on their desktop just for themselves would be great. I could also see this Mac Pro Max-Sextet being used by movie studios, producing animated features in 8K in real time.
I doubt “sockets” or “SOC upgradability” are words that will be associated with the new Mac Pro.
Sockets would expose the design to huge latency costs, I don’t think they will go that route. I’m just not conversant enough with leading-edge ultra-high performance cpu design theory to guess what they might do instead. Once they place their markers down, that will establish their patterns going forward—it’s in the next few iterations of Apple Silicon that we will begin to see what they are really capable of!
And of course, their competitors will not be standing still. Intel is starting to put out innovative (though brutally hot) chips, and AMD is still on an up-cycle. NVidia have purchased an Apple splinter group and may soon join the fracas on the RISC side, even if they are eventually blocked from purchase of ARM Holdings.
It’s an exciting time in CPU design again! Almost like the way the market looked prior to the Itanium debacle.
Sockets don't need to be the traditional thousand pin sockets, they can be something new. I don't know what but Apple probably has something in the design stage that will allow multiple SoCs to be attached to the same unified memory architecture with low latency. Saw a video with two Apple designers talking about how many years ago Apple silicon started to be developed. The fact Apple is talking about multiple dies means they already have some well into development. The 400GB/s bus is something that renders external RAM and storage worthless so they have to have ideas on how to integrate multiple SoCs along with multiple dies. I would think there comes a point where multiple dies get too big but I have no doubt Apple will figure this out.
As for anything Intel or AMD, they're way far behind Apple unless you want to use their CPUs to heat rooms. Apple's upside down design philosophy is something a CPU manufacturer can not replicate. Apple designs the device package first, figures out what software should run then designs the computer to make it work. Chip manufacturers can only design a chip and hope someone can make it work with their software in their computer package (laptop, desktop, phone). Nobody else does what Apple does. Find that video and you'll see what I mean.
If Apple put the RAM on its substrate in sockets, it wouldn’t make a difference. It’s still on the substrate. There’s no real difference in distance, so no real change in latency. The reason why socketed RAM has higher latency is because it’s inches away from the CPU, moving over slower lines to get there. Intel and AMD both design their own CPU sockets, and they’re pretty complex. So Apple could easily design their own sockets, if they thought they needed to, as well as the pin out on the RAM modules. This isn’t saying that they will use some sort of socket, just that they could, if they thought it would be advantageous.
thinking about the possibilities of multi chip arrangements is very interesting. Apple could have designed, or could be finishing a design for a very fast bus to tie those chips together if it isn’t possible to put them all on the current substrate. I could see Apple, putting two substrate boards back to back with lines that are a small fraction of an inch long binding them together. There’s always a way. But if it’s true that Apple will be goi g for multiple chips, we can’t deny the need for some connection methods beyond what they’re using now, and if so, givin that chip roadmaps are years ahead of current production, Apple must have been planning this out from the very beginning.
i don't think anyone is saying that Apple is going to go back to anything like the traditional chip layout. That wouldn’t make sense.
Why not do a module like the MPX?
One mass-produced heat spreader that is designed to work with 2 or 4 of the chiplets and what memory they can handle. If it was skinny enough to fit in the back chamber of the MacPro then a redesigned iMac Pro (ie just big iMac aligned to other branding and maybe 2 screen sizes) and MacMini could take one of the same modules with a port breakout board. In the MacPro you get multiple modules and potentially higher draw modules. Build-in something like PCIe 5.0 with CXL create unified memory not just between Apple chips but with other 3rd party GPU to the modules with a short flat connector like the Trash can Mac Pro used.
Better heat flow of Mac Pro > iMac > MacMini determines the maximum amount of compute in each box.
The thickness of the large iMac, which everyone seems to be converging on calling "iMac Pro", is going to be interesting to say the least. Btw, is the iMac Pro not on Apple's website anymore? Unofficially retired? Formally retired and I missed the news? Just hiding in the website?
The large iMac has to be 14 mm thick or more, a bit thicker than the 11 mm iMac 24, in order to fit in the cooling and stuff, I think. It's performance target has to be about 50% to 100% more than the current 2020 iMac, in both GPU and CPU. So, an M1 Max Duo configuration - 16 p-cores, 64 g-cores (GPU cores), and 128 GB RAM - for about 200 Watts would be the top end. It needs to have some amount of thickness for blower/impeller fans, and it doesn't look like 11 mm is going to be enough. They I suppose laptops like the Razer Blade models is evidence against it. They can have a dual blower fan setup like in the iMac Pro today, just a lot thinner fans. Something like a couple of 8 mm thick, 100 mm diameter fans.
And, the square box that is the Mac mini is perhaps the most inconvenient form factor for cooling in the lineup. If it was more PCIe card like, something like 6" by 12" by 1" (150 x 300 x 25 mm3), they could put in a lot more cooling into it because you can actually put in a 140 mm blower fan in it while also having a lot heat sink radiator surface area. There would have to be some crazy routing of air flow with the square box. It would be enough for an M1 Max Duo, which would have some interesting racked Mac mini implementations.
Not going to join the off-topic comments, I'm getting back on topic.
I hope these rumors are true because they do signal a fantastic direction for the M-series SoCs. Multiple dies networked together with their high-speed bus (PCIe or home-designed) all with unified memory possibly sharing all memory and storage among all CPUs and GPUs. This is what I was hoping for. If Apple makes these multi-die SoCs with sockets for the Mac Pro that could be absolutely outrageous, giving Mac Pro users upgradeability.
I presume this means at least 20 CPUs and 64 GPUs in a M1 Max-Duo. If Apple can work out a socketed motherboard with empty SoC sockets, the Mac Pro could start with this Max-Duo and quickly become a Max-Quartet, Max-Sextet simply by plugging in a matching Max-Duo. There comes a point where fast is fast enough (not really) but as I've said before, there are scientist who like Macs and having a supercomputer on their desktop just for themselves would be great. I could also see this Mac Pro Max-Sextet being used by movie studios, producing animated features in 8K in real time.
I doubt “sockets” or “SOC upgradability” are words that will be associated with the new Mac Pro.
Not going to join the off-topic comments, I'm getting back on topic.
I hope these rumors are true because they do signal a fantastic direction for the M-series SoCs. Multiple dies networked together with their high-speed bus (PCIe or home-designed) all with unified memory possibly sharing all memory and storage among all CPUs and GPUs. This is what I was hoping for. If Apple makes these multi-die SoCs with sockets for the Mac Pro that could be absolutely outrageous, giving Mac Pro users upgradeability.
I presume this means at least 20 CPUs and 64 GPUs in a M1 Max-Duo. If Apple can work out a socketed motherboard with empty SoC sockets, the Mac Pro could start with this Max-Duo and quickly become a Max-Quartet, Max-Sextet simply by plugging in a matching Max-Duo. There comes a point where fast is fast enough (not really) but as I've said before, there are scientist who like Macs and having a supercomputer on their desktop just for themselves would be great. I could also see this Mac Pro Max-Sextet being used by movie studios, producing animated features in 8K in real time.
I doubt “sockets” or “SOC upgradability” are words that will be associated with the new Mac Pro.
Sockets would expose the design to huge latency costs, I don’t think they will go that route. I’m just not conversant enough with leading-edge ultra-high performance cpu design theory to guess what they might do instead. Once they place their markers down, that will establish their patterns going forward—it’s in the next few iterations of Apple Silicon that we will begin to see what they are really capable of!
And of course, their competitors will not be standing still. Intel is starting to put out innovative (though brutally hot) chips, and AMD is still on an up-cycle. NVidia have purchased an Apple splinter group and may soon join the fracas on the RISC side, even if they are eventually blocked from purchase of ARM Holdings.
It’s an exciting time in CPU design again! Almost like the way the market looked prior to the Itanium debacle.
Sockets don't need to be the traditional thousand pin sockets, they can be something new. I don't know what but Apple probably has something in the design stage that will allow multiple SoCs to be attached to the same unified memory architecture with low latency. Saw a video with two Apple designers talking about how many years ago Apple silicon started to be developed. The fact Apple is talking about multiple dies means they already have some well into development. The 400GB/s bus is something that renders external RAM and storage worthless so they have to have ideas on how to integrate multiple SoCs along with multiple dies. I would think there comes a point where multiple dies get too big but I have no doubt Apple will figure this out.
As for anything Intel or AMD, they're way far behind Apple unless you want to use their CPUs to heat rooms. Apple's upside down design philosophy is something a CPU manufacturer can not replicate. Apple designs the device package first, figures out what software should run then designs the computer to make it work. Chip manufacturers can only design a chip and hope someone can make it work with their software in their computer package (laptop, desktop, phone). Nobody else does what Apple does. Find that video and you'll see what I mean.
If Apple put the RAM on its substrate in sockets, it wouldn’t make a difference. It’s still on the substrate. There’s no real difference in distance, so no real change in latency. The reason why socketed RAM has higher latency is because it’s inches away from the CPU, moving over slower lines to get there. Intel and AMD both design their own CPU sockets, and they’re pretty complex. So Apple could easily design their own sockets, if they thought they needed to, as well as the pin out on the RAM modules. This isn’t saying that they will use some sort of socket, just that they could, if they thought it would be advantageous.
thinking about the possibilities of multi chip arrangements is very interesting. Apple could have designed, or could be finishing a design for a very fast bus to tie those chips together if it isn’t possible to put them all on the current substrate. I could see Apple, putting two substrate boards back to back with lines that are a small fraction of an inch long binding them together. There’s always a way. But if it’s true that Apple will be goi g for multiple chips, we can’t deny the need for some connection methods beyond what they’re using now, and if so, givin that chip roadmaps are years ahead of current production, Apple must have been planning this out from the very beginning.
i don't think anyone is saying that Apple is going to go back to anything like the traditional chip layout. That wouldn’t make sense.
Why not do a module like the MPX?
One mass-produced heat spreader that is designed to work with 2 or 4 of the chiplets and what memory they can handle. If it was skinny enough to fit in the back chamber of the MacPro then a redesigned iMac Pro (ie just big iMac aligned to other branding and maybe 2 screen sizes) and MacMini could take one of the same modules with a port breakout board. In the MacPro you get multiple modules and potentially higher draw modules. Build-in something like PCIe 5.0 with CXL create unified memory not just between Apple chips but with other 3rd party GPU to the modules with a short flat connector like the Trash can Mac Pro used.
Better heat flow of Mac Pro > iMac > MacMini determines the maximum amount of compute in each box.
I don’t see them doing that. They also aren’t chipsets.
Will Apple make those high end Mac in US? Or made in usa simply just a PR a while back!!!
I think someone needs to create a "Seal of Approval" for products that are made in free countries. I would call it the "Freedom Seal." Maybe the logo would look like a seal swimming in the ocean. How many products does Apple make that might qualify for this seal?
I like the concept, but got Dog’s sake don’t call it Freedom Seal. Sounds too much like the jingoistic BS during the W years.
What? As opposed to the “America is not exceptional” and “You did not build that” tripe of the O years?
The real hero of the M1 machines is TSMC and their manufacturing performance. Without them iPhones would be on Samsung chips still and Intel wouldn’t look so bad (ignoring AMD). So Apple designed it but didn’t build it.
It’s known that Apple substantially contributes to TSMC’s R&D, and production. Other than providing funding and machinery, I don’t know how far that extends. But it’s by no means a one way street. Apple is their largest customer as well, estimated to be between 25 and 30% of their output.
Comments
The large iMac has to be 14 mm thick or more, a bit thicker than the 11 mm iMac 24, in order to fit in the cooling and stuff, I think. It's performance target has to be about 50% to 100% more than the current 2020 iMac, in both GPU and CPU. So, an M1 Max Duo configuration - 16 p-cores, 64 g-cores (GPU cores), and 128 GB RAM - for about 200 Watts would be the top end. It needs to have some amount of thickness for blower/impeller fans, and it doesn't look like 11 mm is going to be enough. They I suppose laptops like the Razer Blade models is evidence against it. They can have a dual blower fan setup like in the iMac Pro today, just a lot thinner fans. Something like a couple of 8 mm thick, 100 mm diameter fans.
And, the square box that is the Mac mini is perhaps the most inconvenient form factor for cooling in the lineup. If it was more PCIe card like, something like 6" by 12" by 1" (150 x 300 x 25 mm3), they could put in a lot more cooling into it because you can actually put in a 140 mm blower fan in it while also having a lot heat sink radiator surface area. There would have to be some crazy routing of air flow with the square box. It would be enough for an M1 Max Duo, which would have some interesting racked Mac mini implementations.