I will wait until the second generation chips come out to replace my 16-inch MBP. Adobe won't even have all of their apps updated until late next year at the earliest, so I'm thinking 2022.
All right. I will eat crow. I have long claimed that there was no way that Apple Silicon would match the Core i7 at launch and would probably be in line with the Core i3 or at best Core i5. I was wrong. I shall go sit in the corner with my dunce cap on now.
But while on my way to the corner I will protest:
Apple did not reach this performance with the 4 and 6 core iPhone and iPad chips as people were claiming previously. Apple only reached this performance with an octacore chip that was specifically designed for use in personal computers - not mobile devices - that requires more cores, more power and dissipate more heat. We have always known that this was possible, as modern (meaning a ARM Holdings design base and not the Sun Sparc and other early RISC servers that go back to the 1980s) Linux-based ARM workstations and servers have existed since at least 2011 (the year after the A4 was released). Ubuntu has had official ARM releases since 2012, and HP - the venerable Wintel manufacturer - has been selling them to data centers since 2014.
So I was absolutely right about Apple not being able to build a MacBook Pro or iMac with a 6 core chip that had 128kb/8MB caches (the M1 is octacore with 192kb/12MB caches). As lots of people on this site and elsewhere were indeed claiming that the 4 and 6 core low power/low heat iPhone chips could absolutely be put in a MacBook Pro and work as good or better ... yeah those people were as wrong as I was and even more so.
Now in the corner of shame I go, sucking my thumb in the process. But you folks who claimed that this would have been possible with the iPhone chips need to go to corners of their own.
I don’t know anyone who believed Apple was going to use iPhone/iPad chips in notebooks and desktops. No one said that. Everyone rightly assumed they’d build more powerful chips for the form factor & use case. Gruber talked about it on his show often. There was no reason to believe they’d use iPhone chips.
I wonder how much difference we’ll see for the Air vs. the Pro.
I assume it’s just the long-term performance.
I agree, but this is still very impressive. Something like Cinebench will be better for judging the difference in sustained CPU tasks.
This is an industry changing moment. Base MBA with no fan, just crushed the laptop world as we knew it.
Huh? Samsung released a $999 fanless Chromebook with an Intel i5 CPU (in Linux mode a great development and otherwise productivity device, and oh yeah is quite good for Linux apps and PWAs too), 2-in-1 design, AMOLED 13' 4K touchscreen with built-in stylus way back in April. The Google Pixelbook is a fanless device with configurations that include an Intel i7 CPU,13' 4K screen and a 16 GB of RAM that was released way back in 2018. (The Pixelbook 2 was delayed to 2021 so that it will have Whitechapel - the SOC jointly designed by Google and Samsung and manufactured by Samsung for smartphones and Chromebooks - instead of a 10th gen Intel CPU in it.) Who cares about ChromeOS? You should as it surpassed macOS in market share this year - and it surpassed MacBooks in market share years ago - and as these devices are going to start featuring much better AMD, Intel and ARM CPUs starting in 2021 due to Google and its various OEMs promoting them as development and productivity devices, it is going to increase. Google in particular is already positioning Chromebooks to replace MacBooks that will no longer be able to virtualize Windows among enterprise companies and has already attracted their first (small) batch of buyers.
But as for right now, there are already plenty of fanless Windows 10 - and I mean real Windows, not Windows on ARM that tries and fails to emulate x86! - laptops out there. Consider the Acer Switch 7: 16 GB of RAM and Intel i7 processor. There are also a couple of Dell XPS fanless laptops and a couple of Asus ones in addition to more Acer ones.
Get this: folks are kicking around the idea that the new Intel Tiger Lake CPUs with integrated Iris XE graphics will allow fanless gaming laptops to become a thing (because Tiger Lake is Intel's low heat/low power design and Iris XE GPU - which is integrated in all Tiger Lake Core i5 and higher chips - is supposed to provide gaming performance on the caliber of the Nvidia MX350).
So seriously, you guys need to pay attention to the wider tech world more. If you are thinking that Apple Silicon is going to result in these magical devices that the rest of the tech world can't comprehend let alone compete with that is going to result in Apple quadrupling or more its market share and influence, prepare to be sadly mistaken. The tech media might not know this - as Apple devices are all that they use and as a result truly cover - but actual consumers do.
WHOOSH. His point wasn’t that it’s the first fanless, it’s that this killer performance was on a notebook without a fan. That’s impressive.
I’m personally most concerned about soldered SSD’s. They only last 5 years or so and that renders the computer useless, whereas I would like to be able to replace it.
Ok, quick poll, comment below if you've have replaced a failed SSD in your MacBook (and not covered by Apple Care).
Personally, I've never experienced a failed SSD, let alone felt the need to replace it.
I had one fail after 1.5 years. Another one is running fine after approx 6 years
All right. I will eat crow. I have long claimed that there was no way that Apple Silicon would match the Core i7 at launch and would probably be in line with the Core i3 or at best Core i5. I was wrong. I shall go sit in the corner with my dunce cap on now.
But while on my way to the corner I will protest:
Apple did not reach this performance with the 4 and 6 core iPhone and iPad chips as people were claiming previously. Apple only reached this performance with an octacore chip that was specifically designed for use in personal computers - not mobile devices - that requires more cores, more power and dissipate more heat. We have always known that this was possible, as modern (meaning a ARM Holdings design base and not the Sun Sparc and other early RISC servers that go back to the 1980s) Linux-based ARM workstations and servers have existed since at least 2011 (the year after the A4 was released). Ubuntu has had official ARM releases since 2012, and HP - the venerable Wintel manufacturer - has been selling them to data centers since 2014.
So I was absolutely right about Apple not being able to build a MacBook Pro or iMac with a 6 core chip that had 128kb/8MB caches (the M1 is octacore with 192kb/12MB caches). As lots of people on this site and elsewhere were indeed claiming that the 4 and 6 core low power/low heat iPhone chips could absolutely be put in a MacBook Pro and work as good or better ... yeah those people were as wrong as I was and even more so.
Now in the corner of shame I go, sucking my thumb in the process. But you folks who claimed that this would have been possible with the iPhone chips need to go to corners of their own.
I don’t know anyone who believed Apple was going to use iPhone/iPad chips in notebooks and desktops. No one said that. Everyone rightly assumed they’d build more powerful chips for the form factor & use case. Gruber talked about it on his show often. There was no reason to believe they’d use iPhone chips.
Lots of people were saying that. Even just a few days ago people were still saying that.
If the M2 in the yet to be announced high end MBP and low end iMacs have 4 efficiency and 8 power cores that would be double the power cores of the M1, so a significant jump up. (Yes the GPU will need a boost too).
I am now even more tempted by the M1 Macs, but the low 16GB RAM and smaller screen size make me pause... Incredible new Macs for lower end users though.
My guess is that the MacBook Pro 16” and the iMac that are likely up next for a transition to ARM, are probably not going to be much faster CPU wise, but probably mostly differentiate in GPU specs. Perhaps we’ll see a 2X difference there in GPU speed, with perhaps only a CPU of 12 cores vs 8 or so.
More PCIe lanes/IO. More CPU cores perhaps clocked a little higher. More GPU cores. Seems pretty obvious that some of these are going to happen. More PCIe lanes is almost a given. I can’t imagine Apple shipping a 16” with less than 4 TB3/USB4 ports.
I would guess, just as with the A-series, the number is generational. So, the M2 would be the next generation of the M-series. Variant in each generation will continue to use a single letter suffix. I believe they'll release the M1A next and it will increase core counts, 6/4 CPU, 12 GPU, and double DRAM. This will be offered as an upgrade option for 13" PowerBook and Mac mini and will also be used in the low-end 16" MacBook Pro and 21.5" iMac.
The M2 will feature new cores and increase the number of PCI lanes (to support 4 Thunderbolt ports, eGPUs, 10Gb Ethernet). This generation will have multiple variants; M2, M2A, M2B. The M2 and M2A will be similar as previous generation, the M2B will have even more cores (8/4 CPU, 16 GPU)and more DRAM and will be used in high-end 16" MacBook Pro and 27" iMac. We may even see another "highest-end" variant for the iMac; M2C with 12/4 CPU, 20 GPU.
My take on it was the M1 is the first generation of their mobile chip and they'll have a D1, or something similar as the desktop version. (of course they are using the M1 in the Mac Mini, so maybe not.) Of course, I haven't seen anything confirming that they plan on having different mobile vs desktop versions. It would make sense but who knows? We'll find out in the next year or so.
I don’t know anyone who believed Apple was going to use iPhone/iPad chips in notebooks and desktops. No one said that. Everyone rightly assumed they’d build more powerful chips for the form factor & use case. Gruber talked about it on his show often. There was no reason to believe they’d use iPhone chips.
Lots of people were saying that. Even just a few days ago people were still saying that.
I think a lot of people were expecting the iPad Pro SoC to be used in a Mac. The M1 is basically an iPad Pro style "X" SoC. I think a lot people were not expecting the iPhone SoC to be used. I would actually like to see it being used. An A14 with 8 GB of RAM in the Mac Mini or MBA for $100 less would be a great option imo, but Apple doesn't do low cost machines.
But cloudguy isn't really tracking what's going on. Everyone was expecting the A14 CPU and GPU cores to be used in the Mac SoCs. That was going to be a lock. The only differences were going to number of cores and clocks. Maybe he was conflating cores with SoCs.
I’m personally most concerned about soldered SSD’s. They only last 5 years or so and that renders the computer useless, whereas I would like to be able to replace it.
Ok, quick poll, comment below if you've have replaced a failed SSD in your MacBook (and not covered by Apple Care).
Personally, I've never experienced a failed SSD, let alone felt the need to replace it.
I had one fail after 1.5 years. Another one is running fine after approx 6 years
I've never had an SSD fail. For it to completely fail the controller would need to go out. memory does go bad with time but that generally doesn't cause a failure of the entire SSD. My understanding is that the security of the T2 chip is part of the reason it can't be replaced I could be wrong, though. For the record, I think things like Memory and SSDs should be replaceable whenever possible since they are items that people routinely want to upgrade.
I will wait until the second generation chips come out to replace my 16-inch MBP. Adobe won't even have all of their apps updated until late next year at the earliest, so I'm thinking 2022.
It’s pretty terrible Adobe takes so much time. It makes you wonder what their code base looks like. Since they need to cater for both Windows and Mac, they have to deal with two platforms that are becoming more and more different and are probably not leveraging Apple silicon from the ground up the same way Pixelmator Pro 2 could do that.
If the M2 in the yet to be announced high end MBP and low end iMacs have 4 efficiency and 8 power cores that would be double the power cores of the M1, so a significant jump up. (Yes the GPU will need a boost too).
I am now even more tempted by the M1 Macs, but the low 16GB RAM and smaller screen size make me pause... Incredible new Macs for lower end users though.
My guess is that the MacBook Pro 16” and the iMac that are likely up next for a transition to ARM, are probably not going to be much faster CPU wise, but probably mostly differentiate in GPU specs. Perhaps we’ll see a 2X difference there in GPU speed, with perhaps only a CPU of 12 cores vs 8 or so.
More PCIe lanes/IO. More CPU cores perhaps clocked a little higher. More GPU cores. Seems pretty obvious that some of these are going to happen. More PCIe lanes is almost a given. I can’t imagine Apple shipping a 16” with less than 4 TB3/USB4 ports.
I would guess, just as with the A-series, the number is generational. So, the M2 would be the next generation of the M-series. Variant in each generation will continue to use a single letter suffix. I believe they'll release the M1A next and it will increase core counts, 6/4 CPU, 12 GPU, and double DRAM. This will be offered as an upgrade option for 13" PowerBook and Mac mini and will also be used in the low-end 16" MacBook Pro and 21.5" iMac.
The M2 will feature new cores and increase the number of PCI lanes (to support 4 Thunderbolt ports, eGPUs, 10Gb Ethernet). This generation will have multiple variants; M2, M2A, M2B. The M2 and M2A will be similar as previous generation, the M2B will have even more cores (8/4 CPU, 16 GPU)and more DRAM and will be used in high-end 16" MacBook Pro and 27" iMac. We may even see another "highest-end" variant for the iMac; M2C with 12/4 CPU, 20 GPU.
My take on it was the M1 is the first generation of their mobile chip and they'll have a D1, or something similar as the desktop version. (of course they are using the M1 in the Mac Mini, so maybe not.) Of course, I haven't seen anything confirming that they plan on having different mobile vs desktop versions. It would make sense but who knows? We'll find out in the next year or so.
I actually thought the same thing; that there would be a difference in laptop and desktop variants where there's less efficiency cores (2) and more performance cores in the desktop versions. My speculation above is based off what they did with this first SoC. And who knows, maybe they will build out this new series over time to support each. But there's also the possibility that they won't need to make that distinction just because of how efficient their high performance SoC's might be?
And I would also be very surprised if they didn't have entirely different SoC for the iMac Pro and Mac Pro that supported discreet GPUs and off board memory.
I don’t know anyone who believed Apple was going to use iPhone/iPad chips in notebooks and desktops. No one said that. Everyone rightly assumed they’d build more powerful chips for the form factor & use case. Gruber talked about it on his show often. There was no reason to believe they’d use iPhone chips.
Lots of people were saying that. Even just a few days ago people were still saying that.
I think a lot of people were expecting the iPad Pro SoC to be used in a Mac. The M1 is basically an iPad Pro style "X" SoC. I think a lot people were not expecting the iPhone SoC to be used. I would actually like to see it being used. An A14 with 8 GB of RAM in the Mac Mini or MBA for $100 less would be a great option imo, but Apple doesn't do low cost machines.
But cloudguy isn't really tracking what's going on. Everyone was expecting the A14 CPU and GPU cores to be used in the Mac SoCs. That was going to be a lock. The only differences were going to number of cores and clocks. Maybe he was conflating cores with SoCs.
What’s been happening is that people don’t understand what an SoC actually is. They seem to think that having similar cores makes it the same chip. It’s not. And yes, oeople have been stating that the A14x would be used. There’s really no way to excuse that nonsense. The fact is that some oeople can’t seem to listen to what’s being said in these events. When, in June, it was clearly stated that Apple would NOT use the same SoCs as the iPhone and iPad, and that there would be a new line of chips just for Macs, that should have been the end of that.
it really doesn’t matter what the reasoning might be, saying that some A14 would be used is inexcusable.
I will wait until the second generation chips come out to replace my 16-inch MBP. Adobe won't even have all of their apps updated until late next year at the earliest, so I'm thinking 2022.
It’s pretty terrible Adobe takes so much time. It makes you wonder what their code base looks like. Since they need to cater for both Windows and Mac, they have to deal with two platforms that are becoming more and more different and are probably not leveraging Apple silicon from the ground up the same way Pixelmator Pro 2 could do that.
Adobe has a problem that some others don’t have. A long time ago, Adobe stated that there would be feature parity across the platforms. I get it, even though I’m not happy about it. Ever since Apple’s problems began, the Christmas season 1995, a problem created by themselves due to the decisions made by Michael Spindler, Apple’s CEO at the time, Adobe was forced to consider its own future. It was tied to Apple, as it had no Windows apps. When they decided they had to move there too, they decided to keep both platforms the same, and after some time, actually began to develop on Windows, and port back to the Mac. That was because Windows began to have more users. That’s a story in itself for another time.
sometimes Apple users seem to think that other companies should put Apple ahead of their own success. If you’re cross platform, you can’t do that. Adobe does what’s best for Adobe, as Apple does what’s best for Apple. If their interests coincide, then everything seems great. If not, we’ll that’s something else. But sometimes Adobe doesn’t support an Apple technology because it’s not supported elsewhere, and that goes against the platform equality philosophy they have.
small companies who are platform enthusiasts don’t have that problem. Also, those apps are much smaller, and simpler that Adobe;s, which have been around for 25 to 30 years, with many major upgrades and feature additions. They also have to be concerned about the vast third party plug-in developer community, whereas the others do not. So it’s a major job.
I don’t know anyone who believed Apple was going to use iPhone/iPad chips in notebooks and desktops. No one said that. Everyone rightly assumed they’d build more powerful chips for the form factor & use case. Gruber talked about it on his show often. There was no reason to believe they’d use iPhone chips.
Lots of people were saying that. Even just a few days ago people were still saying that.
I think a lot of people were expecting the iPad Pro SoC to be used in a Mac. The M1 is basically an iPad Pro style "X" SoC. I think a lot people were not expecting the iPhone SoC to be used. I would actually like to see it being used. An A14 with 8 GB of RAM in the Mac Mini or MBA for $100 less would be a great option imo, but Apple doesn't do low cost machines.
But cloudguy isn't really tracking what's going on. Everyone was expecting the A14 CPU and GPU cores to be used in the Mac SoCs. That was going to be a lock. The only differences were going to number of cores and clocks. Maybe he was conflating cores with SoCs.
Most people don’t understand how this works, and that seems to include “technical” writers whose only qualification it that an editor said that they would be the technical writer because they like using phones and computers. I find that most of these people have little understanding of what they write about. There is that large echo chamber out there. One writer says something, and the others read, and repeat it, even though it’s wrong. After some time, everyone is repeating it.
I had no doubt that the basic CPU and GPU cores would be used, at least in this first iteration. I also felt that a lot of other features would be there. But listening to Seruji in June, it was clear that apple was working on something we wouldn’t see in iOS devices. What the differences were going to be gave us some hint. Thunderbolt support alone would make a different chip.
but despite what Apple said, quite clearly, there were people saying that it would be an A14x. People just don’t listen.
That's between the i7 and i9 in the 16" MBP, which are 35-45W chips. It looks like Apple's chips are around 3x performance-per-watt vs Intel. Apple is using Intel's 14nm chips in the MBPs.
There's a graphics test that puts the M1 GPU around a desktop 1050ti or RX 560, they are around 2.6TFLOPs too:
That's great performance for a 13" MBP and the Air should be similar. Hopefully the 16" model and iMacs will double the CPU cores and have 2-4x the GPU cores.
Doubling the CPU power brings it to the Mac Pro level. 4x the GPU brings it to iMac GPU level. If they 4x the GPU cores again for the Apple Silicon iMac, that would be close to the highest-end Mac Pro spec but costing $3k instead of $23k and operating at under 200W.
I’m personally most concerned about soldered SSD’s. They only last 5 years or so and that renders the computer useless, whereas I would like to be able to replace it.
Ok, quick poll, comment below if you've have replaced a failed SSD in your MacBook (and not covered by Apple Care).
Personally, I've never experienced a failed SSD, let alone felt the need to replace it.
I had one fail after 1.5 years. Another one is running fine after approx 6 years
Comments
“What would I do? I’d shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders"
WHOOSH. His point wasn’t that it’s the first fanless, it’s that this killer performance was on a notebook without a fan. That’s impressive.
Man you try so hard not to get it.
But cloudguy isn't really tracking what's going on. Everyone was expecting the A14 CPU and GPU cores to be used in the Mac SoCs. That was going to be a lock. The only differences were going to number of cores and clocks. Maybe he was conflating cores with SoCs.
I actually thought the same thing; that there would be a difference in laptop and desktop variants where there's less efficiency cores (2) and more performance cores in the desktop versions. My speculation above is based off what they did with this first SoC. And who knows, maybe they will build out this new series over time to support each. But there's also the possibility that they won't need to make that distinction just because of how efficient their high performance SoC's might be?
And I would also be very surprised if they didn't have entirely different SoC for the iMac Pro and Mac Pro that supported discreet GPUs and off board memory.
it really doesn’t matter what the reasoning might be, saying that some A14 would be used is inexcusable.
Adobe has a problem that some others don’t have. A long time ago, Adobe stated that there would be feature parity across the platforms. I get it, even though I’m not happy about it. Ever since Apple’s problems began, the Christmas season 1995, a problem created by themselves due to the decisions made by Michael Spindler, Apple’s CEO at the time, Adobe was forced to consider its own future. It was tied to Apple, as it had no Windows apps. When they decided they had to move there too, they decided to keep both platforms the same, and after some time, actually began to develop on Windows, and port back to the Mac. That was because Windows began to have more users. That’s a story in itself for another time.
sometimes Apple users seem to think that other companies should put Apple ahead of their own success. If you’re cross platform, you can’t do that. Adobe does what’s best for Adobe, as Apple does what’s best for Apple. If their interests coincide, then everything seems great. If not, we’ll that’s something else. But sometimes Adobe doesn’t support an Apple technology because it’s not supported elsewhere, and that goes against the platform equality philosophy they have.
small companies who are platform enthusiasts don’t have that problem. Also, those apps are much smaller, and simpler that Adobe;s, which have been around for 25 to 30 years, with many major upgrades and feature additions. They also have to be concerned about the vast third party plug-in developer community, whereas the others do not. So it’s a major job.
I had no doubt that the basic CPU and GPU cores would be used, at least in this first iteration. I also felt that a lot of other features would be there. But listening to Seruji in June, it was clear that apple was working on something we wouldn’t see in iOS devices. What the differences were going to be gave us some hint. Thunderbolt support alone would make a different chip.
but despite what Apple said, quite clearly, there were people saying that it would be an A14x. People just don’t listen.
That's between the i7 and i9 in the 16" MBP, which are 35-45W chips. It looks like Apple's chips are around 3x performance-per-watt vs Intel. Apple is using Intel's 14nm chips in the MBPs.
There's a graphics test that puts the M1 GPU around a desktop 1050ti or RX 560, they are around 2.6TFLOPs too:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-silicon-m1-graphics-performance
That's great performance for a 13" MBP and the Air should be similar. Hopefully the 16" model and iMacs will double the CPU cores and have 2-4x the GPU cores.
Doubling the CPU power brings it to the Mac Pro level. 4x the GPU brings it to iMac GPU level. If they 4x the GPU cores again for the Apple Silicon iMac, that would be close to the highest-end Mac Pro spec but costing $3k instead of $23k and operating at under 200W.