While I agree that the main focus of discussion on Apple products should be on their capabilities and aesthetics, it absolutely matters where they are made. A ton of money gets poured into manufacturing. If that money is feeding an evil regime, that’s a problem. Like it or not, there are those in this world who can’t wait to strip your rights from you and force their will on you. In America, we’ve been largely protected by that because we identify such things and fight them. Now, Americas leadership and resolve is weakening snd it’s not going unnoticed. It’s simply a responsible thing to do to be concerned about where our money goes. Like it or not, if products we buy are made in a country that is anti freedom or that oppresses/threatens other countries, then your money is feeding the economic power of that country. China recently tested a hypersonic middle that can travel the entire globe and is very close to being deadly accurate. It takes a lot of R&D to build that and in such secrecy. And that money isn’t coming from nowhere.
It’s not clear as to what these will be based on. There is plenty of time for them to be based on the A15 cores. Otherwise, they would be based on cores that would be almost two years old, if these come out in mid 2022, to fully two years old if they come out in late 2022.
merely adding cores isn’t helpful for many tasks, where increased core performance is better.
Man, if only Apple was aware of this and had people on staff that could handle this dilemma…
Very funny. I’m referring to what’s being written about, not what Apple might be doing.
It’s not clear as to what these will be based on. There is plenty of time for them to be based on the A15 cores.
It's not strictly correct to say they're based on A15 cores: the A15 and the M1-series are both derived from the same IP. (as in, no, humans aren't descended from chimps, but rather both humans and chips share a common ancestor). It may sound like a purely academic distinction, but as the Apple Silicon family gets broader and deeper, it's going to get more and more important to keep it clear.
I don’t understand your point. Of course they’re based on the same IP. But every year Apple comes out with new cores with more advanced design, giving them new names to point out that they’re different. The A15 cores are different from the A14 cores. That’s very clear.
the M1 series right now are based on the A14 cores. In fact, according to testing, they are the A14 cores. So later chips will be based on the A15 cores. Surely the M2 will be.
So .. these are European islands. I guess they do not only use Californian names internally.
Lobos is an islet off Fuerteventura in the Canary Islands, hence it is African. Palma is the capital city of Majorca, hence not an island. But otherwise correct.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With respect to packaging and using multiple dies apple is not ahead. AMD has the most real products with multiple dies. They started with Epyc multi-chip modules.
AMD and apple both use TSMC and TSMC has a wide range of packaging options available. Apple has used some interesting options with Apple Watch (system in package).
I think it’s super unlikely that we will see anything that could be called a socket or user upgradable. It will be highly integrated to provide ultra high bandwidth and low latency.
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.
With respect to packaging and using multiple dies apple is not ahead. AMD has the most real products with multiple dies. They started with Epyc multi-chip modules.
AMD and apple both use TSMC and TSMC has a wide range of packaging options available. Apple has used some interesting options with Apple Watch (system in package).
I think it’s super unlikely that we will see anything that could be called a socket or user upgradable. It will be highly integrated to provide ultra high bandwidth and low latency.
Like I said, AMD only makes CPU/GPU, they don't make the whole package allowing them to design like Apple is designing. You really need to find and watch that video to see what I am referring to. A huge motor doesn't mean anything in a car if the car isn't designed to use it from the ground up. Look for the RR videos. Don't want AI to ban me for referring to other sites.
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.
With respect to packaging and using multiple dies apple is not ahead. AMD has the most real products with multiple dies. They started with Epyc multi-chip modules.
AMD and apple both use TSMC and TSMC has a wide range of packaging options available. Apple has used some interesting options with Apple Watch (system in package).
I think it’s super unlikely that we will see anything that could be called a socket or user upgradable. It will be highly integrated to provide ultra high bandwidth and low latency.
Like I said, AMD only makes CPU/GPU, they don't make the whole package allowing them to design like Apple is designing. You really need to find and watch that video to see what I am referring to. A huge motor doesn't mean anything in a car if the car isn't designed to use it from the ground up. Look for the RR videos. Don't want AI to ban me for referring to other sites.
I don’t think AI bans you for pointing to other sources of information, unless your account only exists to do that. I assume you’re referring to the interview that the VPs Tom Boger and Tim Millet gave. So you could just link to AI’s own story about it, here:
The Six Colors “Upgrade” (via Relay FM) podcast interview is titled “They Feed on Memory Bandwidth” — about an hour and quite thorough. They are well-rehearsed, and the interviewers aren’t getting anything out of them that Apple hasn't prepared them to say, but it’s still an illuminating picture that is very useful.
Will Apple make those high end Mac in US? Or made in usa simply just a PR a while back!!!
I think if Apple did make a machine in a free and democratic country I would be more inclined to buy it because I support human rights and companies that make products in free countries. Indeed, when I buy things like cutlery in stores I look at where it's made and pay more for products not made in dictatorships.
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?
Walmart doesn’t play that made in America crap anymore why do you supposed that is Sherlock?
While I agree that the main focus of discussion on Apple products should be on their capabilities and aesthetics, it absolutely matters where they are made. A ton of money gets poured into manufacturing. If that money is feeding an evil regime, that’s a problem. Like it or not, there are those in this world who can’t wait to strip your rights from you and force their will on you. In America, we’ve been largely protected by that because we identify such things and fight them. Now, Americas leadership and resolve is weakening snd it’s not going unnoticed. It’s simply a responsible thing to do to be concerned about where our money goes. Like it or not, if products we buy are made in a country that is anti freedom or that oppresses/threatens other countries, then your money is feeding the economic power of that country. China recently tested a hypersonic middle that can travel the entire globe and is very close to being deadly accurate. It takes a lot of R&D to build that and in such secrecy. And that money isn’t coming from nowhere.
You are 40 years and two wars too late for your concern, America will be number 2 by 2025 and almost certainly by 2030, and it is us, America who has done it to ourselves.
That Thorium reactor that the Chinese are currently testing is but another nail.
‘’Apple is right on time with those CPU’s” 13 years on time.
WOW! I am absolutely SHOOK by this news! What a scoop! What a leak! Let me see if I've got this straight because honestly, I just can't believe it: according to this TOP SECRET information which Apple would never want to reveal in advance. future versions of the MB Air and MB Pro are going to be using FASTER versions of the M-series chip! HOLY CRAP! 'Cause THAT has never happened before, right? A future version of a Mac or MacBook using a faster version of a chip. For years now, Apple has been using the same chip in every new release, so this would be a RADICAL departure! Thank you, Apple Insider and your trusty source, Captain Obvious, for sharing this stunning news with us!
While I agree that the main focus of discussion on Apple products should be on their capabilities and aesthetics, it absolutely matters where they are made. A ton of money gets poured into manufacturing. If that money is feeding an evil regime, that’s a problem. Like it or not, there are those in this world who can’t wait to strip your rights from you and force their will on you. In America, we’ve been largely protected by that because we identify such things and fight them. Now, Americas leadership and resolve is weakening snd it’s not going unnoticed. It’s simply a responsible thing to do to be concerned about where our money goes. Like it or not, if products we buy are made in a country that is anti freedom or that oppresses/threatens other countries, then your money is feeding the economic power of that country. China recently tested a hypersonic middle that can travel the entire globe and is very close to being deadly accurate. It takes a lot of R&D to build that and in such secrecy. And that money isn’t coming from nowhere.
You are 40 years and two wars too late for your concern, America will be number 2 by 2025 and almost certainly by 2030, and it is us, America who has done it to ourselves.
That Thorium reactor that the Chinese are currently testing is but another nail.
‘’Apple is right on time with those CPU’s” 13 years on time.
Unfortunately, I cannot disagree. America was in a position to change that trajectory. Sadly it no longer is. But here’s to hoping the people wake up…
WOW! I am absolutely SHOOK by this news! What a scoop! What a leak! Let me see if I've got this straight because honestly, I just can't believe it: according to this TOP SECRET information which Apple would never want to reveal in advance. future versions of the MB Air and MB Pro are going to be using FASTER versions of the M-series chip! HOLY CRAP! 'Cause THAT has never happened before, right? A future version of a Mac or MacBook using a faster version of a chip. For years now, Apple has been using the same chip in every new release, so this would be a RADICAL departure! Thank you, Apple Insider and your trusty source, Captain Obvious, for sharing this stunning news with us!
There is some confirmation here of things thought to be likely but heretofore unconfirmed. Mainly that dual-die and quad-die configurations are coming in not just the Pro desktops, but also a dual-die in the next generation of MacBook Pro. The latter is especially big news, if accurate.
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.
So M1 is Armv8 architecture M2 is Armv9 architecture?
In the Ars Technica thread on this (their summary of the leak is a bit more complete than this AI article, but it's still confusing), someone said, "ARMv9 adds CCA and SVE2, but I don't see why Apple needs either given they already have a Secure Enclave, Neural Engine, and GPU."
Apple will eventually support ARMv9, but there isn't any compelling reason for them to do so immediately, if comments from random Internet posters are to be believed... It makes sense, though. Apple is basically leading the way in the development of ARM architectures, so the standard architecture will lag behind them.
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.
Comments
the M1 series right now are based on the A14 cores. In fact, according to testing, they are the A14 cores. So later chips will be based on the A15 cores. Surely the M2 will be.
To maintain very high bandwidth and low latency connections among all logic and memory, there needs to be very tight integration. For example, look at the picture here: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16921/intel-sapphire-rapids-nextgen-xeon-scalable-gets-a-tiling-upgrade. I’ll bet apple’s four die system looks more like that than, say, this: http://neconocone.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/files/genesis_brochure.pdf
It’s an exciting time in CPU design again! Almost like the way the market looked prior to the Itanium debacle.
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.
‘’Apple is right on time with those CPU’s” 13 years on time.
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.
Apple will eventually support ARMv9, but there isn't any compelling reason for them to do so immediately, if comments from random Internet posters are to be believed... It makes sense, though. Apple is basically leading the way in the development of ARM architectures, so the standard architecture will lag behind them.
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.