Next Mac mini will have M2 and M2 Pro Apple Silicon chip options

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    paxman said:
    I was very disappointed the Mini didn't get a release yesterday. I would have loved to see a snazzy design Mini as in the mockup, followed by 'one more thing', kinda thing - 'the Studio' should have been based on the new Mini but perhaps even snazzier - whatever that means (The recent flat iMacs were 'snazzy' as hell). The Studio as presented is a tired design based on a pretty old aesthetic. Its not ugly, but it ain't pretty. Just strikes me as lazy and signals no intent on Apple's part for a design update for the next mini. Ultimately I don't care all that much but looks and presentation are important marketing elements. 
    The rumor mill got a little ahead of itself on the Mac mini refresh side. I doubt we will see second generation mini's or MBA's until the entire line up has transitioned. My guess is we will see the Pro updated at WWDC in June and then the mini, MBA  and iPad Pro refresh will happen in the fall. 
    TRAG
  • Reply 22 of 39
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,990member
    mpantone said:
    First of all, the Mac mini with M2 chip (or whatever it ends up being called) has likely been in operational in a prototype before the M1 Mac mini debuted.

    And it's probably not just one M2 Mac mini, there are probably different chips of different capabilities at different TDPs. Same with the Apple Silicon 27" iMac Pro which Apple management killed off.

    As for this microphone thing, I'm sure Apple has included microphones in their prototypes. Apple should have a GOOD idea of where most of their Mac mini units end up and I'm guessing data centers is a substantial destination.

    I've owned a Mac mini since 2010 and I don't recall ever missing a built-in microphone. After all, I can just plug in a USB webcam or pair Bluetooth earphones (like the AirPods Pro). Hell, I think I can just plug in those wired iPhone earpods.

    Marginal product desires isn't going to sway Apple's product design decisions. They have demonstrated that for decades.
    If the Studio Display can power a MBP, maybe it could power a new Mac mini. I guess that might mean a return to external power bricks for the mini, which has downsides, but it sure would make for a neat desktop arrangement.

    (I still don't get why anyone would expect a desktop cpu -- other than an AIO-- to include a microphone).
    @roundaboutnow is correct on the microphone. There's no reason for a "computer" box to include a microphone. The Mac Pro doesn't have one. Apple puts their microphones and cameras into the display, which is where they belong IF they even get one. Look at it another way. When minis are rack mounted in a data center, would you really want all of them to have microphones? I wouldn't.

    Consumers need to turn back the clock to pre-iMac days (my first personally owned computer was a Performa 400). Except for the 24" iMac, which I feel will continue to be produced for consumers and school use, Apple sees a justification for splitting out the majority of computing power into a very small box, allowing the computer to evolve while allowing the consumer to keep their display. Many of us have upgraded our computers over the years without touching the display. 4K-6K displays are about as far as we need to go, the only enhancements deal with display accessories, like camera, microphone and (maybe) speakers. Apple's done a great job on providing really nice speakers but in reality, anyone who really wants great sound will have external speakers. As for the display, the only enhancement I can see Apple providing (and hope they don't) is a touchscreen for macOS. Any "professional" never touches their screen because they want it clean so they can see what's going on. 

    As for the next M-series chip, I don't really see an immediate need for it. I would, however, like to see a lower level M1 Pro replace the original M1. I have an M1 MBA and it's great for consumer laptops and maybe for the 24" iMac but it is nothing compared to the enhancements Apple did starting with the M1 Pro. I'd rather see the M1 Pro become the entry level SoC because of it's faster bandwidth and additional USB4/TB channels. My MBA can't have two non-powered TB external drives attached because the MBA's TB power capability is limited. Yes, we could always use a faster single core design but the M1 is fast enough for single core apps for just about everyone. The multicore speed is what we're looking at, both CPU and GPU. This only gets faster with more cores or by overclocking the cores, creating a lot of unnecessary heat. 

    Not that anyone cares, but my late 2015 27: iMac's display has significant burnin and is slower than my M1 MBA so I'm thinking my next purchase will be a better display (not the Studio display if it's simply a 7 year old LG monitor). I'll use my MBA along with my Thunderbolt docks and hubs and external drives. Once Apple releases a reasonably priced Mac mini with a M1 Pro-level chip (call it M2 if you want but not simply an M1 with faster CPUs/GPUs but a chip design like the M1 Pro) I'll use my MBA for travel with a reduced amount of data on it so I don't have to have an attached 1TB drive along with the 512GB internal. I'll push the Mac mini to the side along with external disks and be just fine.
    roundaboutnownetroxwilliamlondon
  • Reply 23 of 39
    blastdoor said:
    viclauyyc said:
    My guess is the new Mac Pro will skip M1 Ultra or M1 Ultra Deluxe altogether and use M2 Max or Ultra in the 22Q3. If Mac Mini use M2 before Apple release Mac Pro with M1 Ultra Deluxe, it will be hard to market and justify the extra cost, even M2 basic is only 30% faster than M1 basic. 

    Mini being the cheapest Mac, I don’t think Apple will be rush to update it. The reason why Apple released M1 Mini before other Mac is they want people adopt M1 with the cheapest Mac and do the M transition asap. Now, apple will treat Mini like it treats  IPhone SE, there is not point to put the new shiny M2 in mini in a hurry. 
    Apple clearly stated the Ultra is the last of the M1 chips to be introduced. 

    So, one of these must be true (listed from least likely to most likely):

    1. Apple uses the Ultra in the Mac Pro, either as-is or clocked a little higher, and the only advantage of the Mac Pro is some degree of user-upgradability. I'd say this is highly unlikely.
    2. Apple uses two (or more) Ultras in the Mac Pro. I think this is also highly unlikely, given Apple's repeated and enthusiastic statements about unified memory, consistent programming model, etc. I just can't see Apple going NUMA after all of that. 
    3. Apple creates a different line of chips for the Mac Pro that aren't part of the M family. Unlikely, but not totally crazy. The small volume of the Mac Pro might make it *seem* totally crazy, but keep in mind that there are other very small volume chips out there -- the key is, you have to be able to charge enough for them to make the economics work. Maybe Apple could do that. Or maybe the volume isn't as small as it seems -- maybe Apple has plans for a Mac Pro that would also show up in an HPC cloud context.
    4. The Mac Pro will be based on a chip from the M2 family, probably connecting 4 M2 Max chips. Seems most likely *by far*. 
    2.5 The M1 Max gets a second, higher-count edition (like the M1 Pro has), resulting a second, higher-count M1 Ultra as well.

    I don’t share your skepticism with regard to dual CPUs in a Mac Pro. I don’t know, but I do know Apple isn’t making this up as they go along (I’m not implying you think that) — this will have been engineered into the Pro/Max/Ultra from the start. There are a lot of CPU-intensive workloads, like in the audio/music industry, that would benefit from this. The whole point of Apple Silicon is to be able to solve problems like this. 
  • Reply 24 of 39
    techconctechconc Posts: 236member
    "The M2 chip will be based on the A15 chip"

    That would be disappointing.  We likely won't see the M2 until this fall. The A15 was a very minor upgrade over the A14/M1 based CPU cores. I'd expect the A16 to move to ARMv9 based instruction and for the M2 to use an A16 based core.  If the M series chip is being updated every 2 years, then I'd expect the M2 to be based on the A16.  We'll see.
  • Reply 25 of 39
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,688member
    viclauyyc said:
    My guess is the new Mac Pro will skip M1 Ultra or M1 Ultra Deluxe ...
    Obviously, it will be called the M1 Ne Plus Ultra, and it will be in the Mac Pro
  • Reply 26 of 39
    rob53 said:
    mpantone said:
    First of all, the Mac mini with M2 chip (or whatever it ends up being called) has likely been in operational in a prototype before the M1 Mac mini debuted.

    And it's probably not just one M2 Mac mini, there are probably different chips of different capabilities at different TDPs. Same with the Apple Silicon 27" iMac Pro which Apple management killed off.

    As for this microphone thing, I'm sure Apple has included microphones in their prototypes. Apple should have a GOOD idea of where most of their Mac mini units end up and I'm guessing data centers is a substantial destination.

    I've owned a Mac mini since 2010 and I don't recall ever missing a built-in microphone. After all, I can just plug in a USB webcam or pair Bluetooth earphones (like the AirPods Pro). Hell, I think I can just plug in those wired iPhone earpods.

    Marginal product desires isn't going to sway Apple's product design decisions. They have demonstrated that for decades.
    If the Studio Display can power a MBP, maybe it could power a new Mac mini. I guess that might mean a return to external power bricks for the mini, which has downsides, but it sure would make for a neat desktop arrangement.

    (I still don't get why anyone would expect a desktop cpu -- other than an AIO-- to include a microphone).
    @roundaboutnow is correct on the microphone. There's no reason for a "computer" box to include a microphone. The Mac Pro doesn't have one. Apple puts their microphones and cameras into the display, which is where they belong IF they even get one. Look at it another way. When minis are rack mounted in a data center, would you really want all of them to have microphones? I wouldn't.

    Consumers need to turn back the clock to pre-iMac days (my first personally owned computer was a Performa 400). Except for the 24" iMac, which I feel will continue to be produced for consumers and school use, Apple sees a justification for splitting out the majority of computing power into a very small box, allowing the computer to evolve while allowing the consumer to keep their display. Many of us have upgraded our computers over the years without touching the display. 4K-6K displays are about as far as we need to go, the only enhancements deal with display accessories, like camera, microphone and (maybe) speakers. Apple's done a great job on providing really nice speakers but in reality, anyone who really wants great sound will have external speakers. As for the display, the only enhancement I can see Apple providing (and hope they don't) is a touchscreen for macOS. Any "professional" never touches their screen because they want it clean so they can see what's going on. 

    As for the next M-series chip, I don't really see an immediate need for it. I would, however, like to see a lower level M1 Pro replace the original M1. I have an M1 MBA and it's great for consumer laptops and maybe for the 24" iMac but it is nothing compared to the enhancements Apple did starting with the M1 Pro. I'd rather see the M1 Pro become the entry level SoC because of it's faster bandwidth and additional USB4/TB channels. My MBA can't have two non-powered TB external drives attached because the MBA's TB power capability is limited. Yes, we could always use a faster single core design but the M1 is fast enough for single core apps for just about everyone. The multicore speed is what we're looking at, both CPU and GPU. This only gets faster with more cores or by overclocking the cores, creating a lot of unnecessary heat. 

    Not that anyone cares, but my late 2015 27: iMac's display has significant burnin and is slower than my M1 MBA so I'm thinking my next purchase will be a better display (not the Studio display if it's simply a 7 year old LG monitor). I'll use my MBA along with my Thunderbolt docks and hubs and external drives. Once Apple releases a reasonably priced Mac mini with a M1 Pro-level chip (call it M2 if you want but not simply an M1 with faster CPUs/GPUs but a chip design like the M1 Pro) I'll use my MBA for travel with a reduced amount of data on it so I don't have to have an attached 1TB drive along with the 512GB internal. I'll push the Mac mini to the side along with external disks and be just fine.
    Two thoughts on this. [1] “Touch” doesn’t have to mean touchscreen. Maybe the Touch Bar just wasn’t ambitious enough?! Maybe the lesson of the touch-bar MBP is that it needs to be a separate product…

    [2] I think someone above pointed out that there seem to be two separate branches (sets of bins) in M1 production: the M1 and the M1 Pro/Max/Ultra. So it makes sense that the first release of the M2 would have two tiers, the M2 and the M2 Pro. Only later would the Max be released, once that bin reaches sufficient numbers. Likewise for the Ultra. Assuming, of course, that Apple maintains the full Pro/Max/Ultra structure for each generation. We don’t know that for sure at this point.
    edited March 10
  • Reply 27 of 39
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,990member
    rob53 said:
    mpantone said:
    First of all, the Mac mini with M2 chip (or whatever it ends up being called) has likely been in operational in a prototype before the M1 Mac mini debuted.

    ...
    ...
    (I still don't get why anyone would expect a desktop cpu -- other than an AIO-- to include a microphone).
    @roundaboutnow is correct on the microphone. There's no reason for a "computer" box to include a microphone. The Mac Pro doesn't have one. Apple puts their microphones and cameras into the display, which is where they belong IF they even get one. Look at it another way. When minis are rack mounted in a data center, would you really want all of them to have microphones? I wouldn't.

    ...
    Two thoughts on this. [1] “Touch” doesn’t have to mean touchscreen. Maybe the Touch Bar just wasn’t ambitious enough?! Maybe the lesson of the touch-bar MBP is that it needs to be a separate product…

    [2] I think someone above pointed out that there seem to be two separate branches (sets of bins) in M1 production: the M1 and the M1 Pro/Max/Ultra. So it makes sense that the first release of the M2 would have two tiers, the M2 and the M2 Pro. Only later would the Max be released, once that bin reaches sufficient numbers. Likewise for the Ultra. Assuming, of course, that Apple maintains the full Pro/Max/Ultra structure for each generation. We don’t know that for sure at this point.
    I am hoping Apple will not use the original M1 SoC. The Pro/Max/Ultra architecture was totally redesigned (read that when Pro/Max was released) so there's no reason to go backwards. The original M1 can be used for iPads and maybe the Apple TV but I hope not for any laptop, iMac or mini-type computer. The M2 should have newer CPUs and possibly GPUs but I'm hoping it will use the architecture of the Pro/Max series and simply have fewer CPU/GPUs for the consumer products. The bus and storage speeds of the Pro/Max are so much faster that there's no reason to create an inferior product for entry level devices if you already have everything designed for a better device. I'd even accept heavily binned versions of the Pro/Max for entry level devices since they would still be an improvement on the original M1 SoC.
  • Reply 28 of 39
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,706member
    mpantone said:
    paxman said:
    I was very disappointed the Mini didn't get a release yesterday. I would have loved to see a snazzy design Mini as in the mockup, followed by 'one more thing', kinda thing - 'the Studio' should have been based on the new Mini but perhaps even snazzier - whatever that means (The recent flat iMacs were 'snazzy' as hell). The Studio as presented is a tired design based on a pretty old aesthetic. Its not ugly, but it ain't pretty. Just strikes me as lazy and signals no intent on Apple's part for a design update for the next mini. Ultimately I don't care all that much but looks and presentation are important marketing elements. 
    I expect Apple to understand where desktop Mac revenue is trending. The smart assumption is that Apple is following where the marketplace is headed. Let's remember that >80% of Macs sold are notebooks. The desktop market is small especially compared to the Windows PC consumer market.

    Let's not forget that Apple is a publicly traded corporation and they will do what they can to increase shareholder value. They really don't care what any given individual thinks about the product design if it results in better gross margins.
    I have no doubt Apple knows what they are doing. Having said that Apple didn't get where it is today by simply analyzing the PC market and making safe choices. The 4400 comes to mind. If there is a market potential within the desktop category as you suggest my bet is that a visual splash would be a better move.

    I am sure Apple has its shareholders in mind but the day that takes precedent and pleasing shareholders over innovation and design - the hallmarks of Apple products and Apple as a company - is the day Apple officially dies. 
  • Reply 29 of 39
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,698member
    techconc said:
    "The M2 chip will be based on the A15 chip"

    That would be disappointing.  We likely won't see the M2 until this fall. The A15 was a very minor upgrade over the A14/M1 based CPU cores. I'd expect the A16 to move to ARMv9 based instruction and for the M2 to use an A16 based core.  If the M series chip is being updated every 2 years, then I'd expect the M2 to be based on the A16.  We'll see.
    It's not clear to me that Apple needs v9, but I'm sure if they'll make the best decision about whether to adopt it. 

    I'm guessing Apple may very well use the A16 core in the M2. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 30 of 39
    Surely Apple should keep the M1 Mini as an entry-level machine? At £599/$599 it would be an excellent gateway product and an even cheaper version would be perfect for education. At £499 this would be a no-brainer for schools. 

    After all, the M1 is would still be extremely competitive against similarly priced PCs. A modern-day LC/Performa type machine.

    A range of slightly more expensive M2 Minis would scale seamlessly up to the Studio, which would scale up to the Pro, giving Apple something on the desktop for just about every sized pocket. When is the last time we could have said that? 

    What a turnaround for the Mac. Tremendous stuff from Apple.
    muthuk_vanalingamwilliamlondonroundaboutnowmobird
  • Reply 31 of 39
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,845member
    blastdoor said:
    techconc said:
    "The M2 chip will be based on the A15 chip"

    That would be disappointing.  We likely won't see the M2 until this fall. The A15 was a very minor upgrade over the A14/M1 based CPU cores. I'd expect the A16 to move to ARMv9 based instruction and for the M2 to use an A16 based core.  If the M series chip is being updated every 2 years, then I'd expect the M2 to be based on the A16.  We'll see.
    It's not clear to me that Apple needs v9, but I'm sure if they'll make the best decision about whether to adopt it. 

    I'm guessing Apple may very well use the A16 core in the M2. 
    This is a more likely scenario. Apple has been developing A-series and M-series SoCs side by side for years behind closed doors. If the A16 core is ready to ship for iDevices, Apple still strive to have a similar core ready for Mac.

    It's not like Apple senior management looked at the A14 after a round of drinks and said, "Say, maybe we can use this for Macs. Let's give it a try and see how it works out!"

    I generally believe that Apple actually A.) plans ahead, B.) knows what they're doing and C.) that they have a real roadmap even if it remains company confidential.
    edited March 10 williamlondon
  • Reply 32 of 39
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,572member
    blastdoor said:
    viclauyyc said:
    My guess is the new Mac Pro will skip M1 Ultra or M1 Ultra Deluxe altogether and use M2 Max or Ultra in the 22Q3. If Mac Mini use M2 before Apple release Mac Pro with M1 Ultra Deluxe, it will be hard to market and justify the extra cost, even M2 basic is only 30% faster than M1 basic. 

    Mini being the cheapest Mac, I don’t think Apple will be rush to update it. The reason why Apple released M1 Mini before other Mac is they want people adopt M1 with the cheapest Mac and do the M transition asap. Now, apple will treat Mini like it treats  IPhone SE, there is not point to put the new shiny M2 in mini in a hurry. 
    Apple clearly stated the Ultra is the last of the M1 chips to be introduced. 

    So, one of these must be true (listed from least likely to most likely):

    1. Apple uses the Ultra in the Mac Pro, either as-is or clocked a little higher, and the only advantage of the Mac Pro is some degree of user-upgradability. I'd say this is highly unlikely.
    2. Apple uses two (or more) Ultras in the Mac Pro. I think this is also highly unlikely, given Apple's repeated and enthusiastic statements about unified memory, consistent programming model, etc. I just can't see Apple going NUMA after all of that. 
    3. Apple creates a different line of chips for the Mac Pro that aren't part of the M family. Unlikely, but not totally crazy. The small volume of the Mac Pro might make it *seem* totally crazy, but keep in mind that there are other very small volume chips out there -- the key is, you have to be able to charge enough for them to make the economics work. Maybe Apple could do that. Or maybe the volume isn't as small as it seems -- maybe Apple has plans for a Mac Pro that would also show up in an HPC cloud context.
    4. The Mac Pro will be based on a chip from the M2 family, probably connecting 4 M2 Max chips. Seems most likely *by far*. 

    I'd be willing to bet Apple created a discrete CPU for the Mac Pro  (the mark up is there to justify the cost of development and production). I'm calling it the X1. It'll come in two versions 32 or 64 cores. (The 64 core version will actually consist of 2 32-core CPUs, combined together with UltraFusion.) It will still support 1.5 TB RAM, all the PCIe slots, 3rd party GPUs. The Afterburner card will be replaced with a "GPU" MPX module, that includes GPU cores, ISP cores, media codecs and neural engine.
  • Reply 33 of 39
    anoyllaanoylla Posts: 31member
    mpantone said:
    anoylla said:
    Mac mini needs to get rid of the power brick
    There's a power brick? Which model?

    My Mac mini 2018 has a built-in PSU. Same with my 2010 Mac mini.
    Yes, the Mac mini M1 2021 has a huge one :(

    A bad setback in this matter!
    edited March 11
  • Reply 34 of 39
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,698member
    mjtomlin said:
    blastdoor said:
    viclauyyc said:
    My guess is the new Mac Pro will skip M1 Ultra or M1 Ultra Deluxe altogether and use M2 Max or Ultra in the 22Q3. If Mac Mini use M2 before Apple release Mac Pro with M1 Ultra Deluxe, it will be hard to market and justify the extra cost, even M2 basic is only 30% faster than M1 basic. 

    Mini being the cheapest Mac, I don’t think Apple will be rush to update it. The reason why Apple released M1 Mini before other Mac is they want people adopt M1 with the cheapest Mac and do the M transition asap. Now, apple will treat Mini like it treats  IPhone SE, there is not point to put the new shiny M2 in mini in a hurry. 
    Apple clearly stated the Ultra is the last of the M1 chips to be introduced. 

    So, one of these must be true (listed from least likely to most likely):

    1. Apple uses the Ultra in the Mac Pro, either as-is or clocked a little higher, and the only advantage of the Mac Pro is some degree of user-upgradability. I'd say this is highly unlikely.
    2. Apple uses two (or more) Ultras in the Mac Pro. I think this is also highly unlikely, given Apple's repeated and enthusiastic statements about unified memory, consistent programming model, etc. I just can't see Apple going NUMA after all of that. 
    3. Apple creates a different line of chips for the Mac Pro that aren't part of the M family. Unlikely, but not totally crazy. The small volume of the Mac Pro might make it *seem* totally crazy, but keep in mind that there are other very small volume chips out there -- the key is, you have to be able to charge enough for them to make the economics work. Maybe Apple could do that. Or maybe the volume isn't as small as it seems -- maybe Apple has plans for a Mac Pro that would also show up in an HPC cloud context.
    4. The Mac Pro will be based on a chip from the M2 family, probably connecting 4 M2 Max chips. Seems most likely *by far*. 

    I'd be willing to bet Apple created a discrete CPU for the Mac Pro  (the mark up is there to justify the cost of development and production). I'm calling it the X1. It'll come in two versions 32 or 64 cores. (The 64 core version will actually consist of 2 32-core CPUs, combined together with UltraFusion.) It will still support 1.5 TB RAM, all the PCIe slots, 3rd party GPUs. The Afterburner card will be replaced with a "GPU" MPX module, that includes GPU cores, ISP cores, media codecs and neural engine.
    They seem very committed to CPU+GPU in the same memory space, though. 

    Another option for a custom Mac Pro SOC would be to use a different process: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17123/tsmc-unveils-n4x-node-high-voltages-for-high-clocks

    so, maybe your X1 could be 4 m2 ultras fabbed on n4x
  • Reply 35 of 39
    anoylla said:
    mpantone said:
    anoylla said:
    Mac mini needs to get rid of the power brick
    There's a power brick? Which model?

    My Mac mini 2018 has a built-in PSU. Same with my 2010 Mac mini.
    Yes, the Mac mini M1 2021 has a huge one :(

    A bad setback in this matter!
    LOL, no. You must be thinking of the iMac. 

    The current Mini does not have a power brick. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 36 of 39
    anoyllaanoylla Posts: 31member
    anoylla said:
    mpantone said:
    anoylla said:
    Mac mini needs to get rid of the power brick
    There's a power brick? Which model?

    My Mac mini 2018 has a built-in PSU. Same with my 2010 Mac mini.
    Yes, the Mac mini M1 2021 has a huge one :(

    A bad setback in this matter!
    LOL, no. You must be thinking of the iMac. 

    The current Mini does not have a power brick. 
    My mistake! I show one with my friend's Mac mini M1, but I just ask her and she said it is the power supply of the LG.
    LOL
    edited March 11 tenthousandthingsroundaboutnow
  • Reply 37 of 39
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,000member
    viclauyyc said:
    My guess is the new Mac Pro will skip M1 Ultra or M1 Ultra Deluxe altogether and use M2 Max or Ultra in the 22Q3. If Mac Mini use M2 before Apple release Mac Pro with M1 Ultra Deluxe, it will be hard to market and justify the extra cost, even M2 basic is only 30% faster than M1 basic. 

    Mini being the cheapest Mac, I don’t think Apple will be rush to update it. The reason why Apple released M1 Mini before other Mac is they want people adopt M1 with the cheapest Mac and do the M transition asap. Now, apple will treat Mini like it treats  IPhone SE, there is not point to put the new shiny M2 in mini in a hurry. 

    The new Pro will be probably be offered with M1 Max and Ultra. That will be the last of the M1 products.
    The Mini and appropriate MacBooks and iMacs will start the M2 cycle and the Studio the Studio and Pro will be updated to M2 when their refresh is required.

    Unlike A chips for the iPhones, the M chips will probably be on a 2-year cycle.
  • Reply 38 of 39
    anoylla said:
    anoylla said:
    mpantone said:
    anoylla said:
    Mac mini needs to get rid of the power brick
    There's a power brick? Which model?

    My Mac mini 2018 has a built-in PSU. Same with my 2010 Mac mini.
    Yes, the Mac mini M1 2021 has a huge one :(

    A bad setback in this matter!
    LOL, no. You must be thinking of the iMac. 

    The current Mini does not have a power brick. 
    My mistake! I show one with my friend's Mac mini M1, but I just ask her and she said it is the power supply of the LG.
    LOL
    Well, you did get me to look under my desk, in case I had somehow forgotten a power brick existed!

    Seriously, though, there's an argument to be made for the new, smaller Mini having a power brick that is sold separately. You wouldn't need it if you have a Thunderbolt 3+ 96w power source. So basically a Mini that you can plug into your Studio Display via Thunderbolt 4. See the comments earlier in this thread... 
    roundaboutnowwilliamlondon
  • Reply 39 of 39
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,572member
    blastdoor said:
    mjtomlin said:
    blastdoor said:
    viclauyyc said:
    My guess is the new Mac Pro will skip M1 Ultra or M1 Ultra Deluxe altogether and use M2 Max or Ultra in the 22Q3. If Mac Mini use M2 before Apple release Mac Pro with M1 Ultra Deluxe, it will be hard to market and justify the extra cost, even M2 basic is only 30% faster than M1 basic. 

    Mini being the cheapest Mac, I don’t think Apple will be rush to update it. The reason why Apple released M1 Mini before other Mac is they want people adopt M1 with the cheapest Mac and do the M transition asap. Now, apple will treat Mini like it treats  IPhone SE, there is not point to put the new shiny M2 in mini in a hurry. 
    Apple clearly stated the Ultra is the last of the M1 chips to be introduced. 

    So, one of these must be true (listed from least likely to most likely):

    1. Apple uses the Ultra in the Mac Pro, either as-is or clocked a little higher, and the only advantage of the Mac Pro is some degree of user-upgradability. I'd say this is highly unlikely.
    2. Apple uses two (or more) Ultras in the Mac Pro. I think this is also highly unlikely, given Apple's repeated and enthusiastic statements about unified memory, consistent programming model, etc. I just can't see Apple going NUMA after all of that. 
    3. Apple creates a different line of chips for the Mac Pro that aren't part of the M family. Unlikely, but not totally crazy. The small volume of the Mac Pro might make it *seem* totally crazy, but keep in mind that there are other very small volume chips out there -- the key is, you have to be able to charge enough for them to make the economics work. Maybe Apple could do that. Or maybe the volume isn't as small as it seems -- maybe Apple has plans for a Mac Pro that would also show up in an HPC cloud context.
    4. The Mac Pro will be based on a chip from the M2 family, probably connecting 4 M2 Max chips. Seems most likely *by far*. 

    I'd be willing to bet Apple created a discrete CPU for the Mac Pro  (the mark up is there to justify the cost of development and production). I'm calling it the X1. It'll come in two versions 32 or 64 cores. (The 64 core version will actually consist of 2 32-core CPUs, combined together with UltraFusion.) It will still support 1.5 TB RAM, all the PCIe slots, 3rd party GPUs. The Afterburner card will be replaced with a "GPU" MPX module, that includes GPU cores, ISP cores, media codecs and neural engine.
    They seem very committed to CPU+GPU in the same memory space, though. 

    Another option for a custom Mac Pro SOC would be to use a different process: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17123/tsmc-unveils-n4x-node-high-voltages-for-high-clocks

    so, maybe your X1 could be 4 m2 ultras fabbed on n4x

    I wouldn't say they are committed to it, as in, it's the only path they'll ever consider. I think, and for very valid reasons, they prefer the performance/efficiency gains you get from it. It's a huge gain compared to traditional systems. However, workstations are usually designed with that high bandwidth/throughput in mind. So it isn't as necessary to unable that kind of performance.

    Also, it's easier to implement unified memory when the only things using it are what you put in the system. With PCI slots and the ability to expand the system from those, that wouldn't be the case with the Mac Pro. Especially if they still allow AMD GPUs, which I believe they will. (They just added Metal support to Blender that works with Apple's GPUs and AMD's GPUs.)

    So yeah, I think the Mac Pro will be all about performance and expandability (and compatibility). Creating an extremely high end, discrete CPU would put it way ahead of anything Intel and AMD could offer. A 32 and 64 core CPU would almost double and quadruple the CPU performance of the Ultra and still consume a lot less power. So you would basically have the same Mac Pro but now have a choice between Apple X1 or Intel XEON.
    tenthousandthings
Sign In or Register to comment.