John Turnes of Apple quite literally said that the M1 Ultra completes the M1 line up just days ago
It is more likely that the MacPro will be based on M2 silicon or even a completely different design
Maybe but they could also have designed the Ultra chip to be able to join to other Ultra chips in which case it doesn't need a new name. The diagram shows two M1 Ultras connected in the middle using a different connector:
The Mac Pro can be offered with M1 Ultra at the entry level and an M1 Ultra Duo. There is no higher name than Ultra. Pro = better, Max = maximum, Ultra = beyond maximum. They can only call it Ultra something like infinity + 1. I expect they will be able to offer 256GB RAM on the Ultra Duo. The amount of RAM they need to offer is just what people have been installing, they don't need to support 1TB+ just because other computers do.
The UltraFusion interconnect strip was first spotted months ago, and it's only on one edge of the Max die. There is nothing on the die that would connect to the vertical strip shown in your mockup. Any interconnect circuitry on the die would also have to be on both sides, as the die is rotated 180 degrees for the M1 Ultra connection. Memory bandwidth in the configuration you've shown would also be cut in half for each M1 Max chip, as each is now connected to only two memory modules instead of four.
I think it's safe to say this isn't happening.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think your logic that because we haven't got a glimpse about another interconnect means that it's impossible. As for "nothing on die" we have no way of knowing what's on that die that could tie 4 chips together. If Apple can make an interconnect to tie two M1 Maxes together why do you think it's impossible for them make another one that will tie 4 of them together? Is this based solely on the configuration shown above?
How about putting all the M1 Max interconnects facing towards each other with Apple obviously making another Interconnect that would tie all 4 together with another chip? I think it's doable, I just don't know if the number of Mac Pros being sold would warrant the cost of development and production.
I have no idea what Apple will do, but I'm not going to say it's impossible simply because it hasn't been done yet.
Think carefully about what you've shown. Neither of the configurations allow for doubling the RAM, and RAM bandwidth. That's instant no-go.
John Turnes of Apple quite literally said that the M1 Ultra completes the M1 line up just days ago
It is more likely that the MacPro will be based on M2 silicon or even a completely different design
Maybe but they could also have designed the Ultra chip to be able to join to other Ultra chips in which case it doesn't need a new name. The diagram shows two M1 Ultras connected in the middle using a different connector:
The Mac Pro can be offered with M1 Ultra at the entry level and an M1 Ultra Duo. There is no higher name than Ultra. Pro = better, Max = maximum, Ultra = beyond maximum. They can only call it Ultra something like infinity + 1. I expect they will be able to offer 256GB RAM on the Ultra Duo. The amount of RAM they need to offer is just what people have been installing, they don't need to support 1TB+ just because other computers do.
The UltraFusion interconnect strip was first spotted months ago, and it's only on one edge of the Max die. There is nothing on the die that would connect to the vertical strip shown in your mockup. Any interconnect circuitry on the die would also have to be on both sides, as the die is rotated 180 degrees for the M1 Ultra connection. Memory bandwidth in the configuration you've shown would also be cut in half for each M1 Max chip, as each is now connected to only two memory modules instead of four.
I think it's safe to say this isn't happening.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think your logic that because we haven't got a glimpse about another interconnect means that it's impossible. As for "nothing on die" we have no way of knowing what's on that die that could tie 4 chips together. If Apple can make an interconnect to tie two M1 Maxes together why do you think it's impossible for them make another one that will tie 4 of them together? Is this based solely on the configuration shown above?
How about putting all the M1 Max interconnects facing towards each other with Apple obviously making another Interconnect that would tie all 4 together with another chip? I think it's doable, I just don't know if the number of Mac Pros being sold would warrant the cost of development and production.
I have no idea what Apple will do, but I'm not going to say it's impossible simply because it hasn't been done yet.
A cross design like that still takes out much of the space around the chips that the memory sits so that it is close.
Could they "fuse "across memory bus?
Ie have one set of memory chips that sit between 2 SOC working to a unified address space.
Make 2 tiers of memory standard off one side of chip the other side becomes a very short hop high-speed storage pool using Hybrid RAM (ie. replace SSD). Have the carrier chips for the fan of Hybrid RAM chips handle the connection to 2 SOC creating unified memory that now includes the hotest tier of storage. Would be useful across all devices at the low end of the M series it means faster wake lower power drain at the upper end massive multi-Tb data sets siting live millimeters from 4 SOC without the heat of all power to maintain the data.
John Turnes of Apple quite literally said that the M1 Ultra completes the M1 line up just days ago
It is more likely that the MacPro will be based on M2 silicon or even a completely different design
Stuart
Exactly! I’ve been fending off people who insist that this four chip giant will be done. The cost of such a thing would be tremendous, with the amount of silicon wafer being occupied by it. And it did sound, pretty definitely that Apple was done with it as far as making a new variant.
John Turnes of Apple quite literally said that the M1 Ultra completes the M1 line up just days ago
It is more likely that the MacPro will be based on M2 silicon or even a completely different design
Stuart
Exactly! I’ve been fending off people who insist that this four chip giant will be done. The cost of such a thing would be tremendous, with the amount of silicon wafer being occupied by it. And it did sound, pretty definitely that Apple was done with it as far as making a new variant.
John Turnes of Apple quite literally said that the M1 Ultra completes the M1 line up just days ago
It is more likely that the MacPro will be based on M2 silicon or even a completely different design
Maybe but they could also have designed the Ultra chip to be able to join to other Ultra chips in which case it doesn't need a new name. The diagram shows two M1 Ultras connected in the middle using a different connector:
The Mac Pro can be offered with M1 Ultra at the entry level and an M1 Ultra Duo. There is no higher name than Ultra. Pro = better, Max = maximum, Ultra = beyond maximum. They can only call it Ultra something like infinity + 1. I expect they will be able to offer 256GB RAM on the Ultra Duo. The amount of RAM they need to offer is just what people have been installing, they don't need to support 1TB+ just because other computers do.
The UltraFusion interconnect strip was first spotted months ago, and it's only on one edge of the Max die. There is nothing on the die that would connect to the vertical strip shown in your mockup. Any interconnect circuitry on the die would also have to be on both sides, as the die is rotated 180 degrees for the M1 Ultra connection. Memory bandwidth in the configuration you've shown would also be cut in half for each M1 Max chip, as each is now connected to only two memory modules instead of four.
I think it's safe to say this isn't happening.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think your logic that because we haven't got a glimpse about another interconnect means that it's impossible. As for "nothing on die" we have no way of knowing what's on that die that could tie 4 chips together. If Apple can make an interconnect to tie two M1 Maxes together why do you think it's impossible for them make another one that will tie 4 of them together? Is this based solely on the configuration shown above?
How about putting all the M1 Max interconnects facing towards each other with Apple obviously making another Interconnect that would tie all 4 together with another chip? I think it's doable, I just don't know if the number of Mac Pros being sold would warrant the cost of development and production.
I have no idea what Apple will do, but I'm not going to say it's impossible simply because it hasn't been done yet.
These various schemes would almost certainly lead to NUMA, for which apple has repeatedly and thoughtfully shown disdain.
It’s got to be full on fusion, not some patchwork solution.
I think M2-based or a custom solution for the Mac Pro is more likely than these patchwork ideas.
Before this kind of ‘future predictions’ I use to remember the Arthur Clarke's Third Law of Predicting the future: “If you advance too far, it is like magic!”
Correct quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I've often though that many common modern technologies would have got you burned at the stake for witchcraft a few centuries ago. Good thing we don't have time travel.
John Turnes of Apple quite literally said that the M1 Ultra completes the M1 line up just days ago
It is more likely that the MacPro will be based on M2 silicon or even a completely different design
Maybe but they could also have designed the Ultra chip to be able to join to other Ultra chips in which case it doesn't need a new name. The diagram shows two M1 Ultras connected in the middle using a different connector:
The Mac Pro can be offered with M1 Ultra at the entry level and an M1 Ultra Duo. There is no higher name than Ultra. Pro = better, Max = maximum, Ultra = beyond maximum. They can only call it Ultra something like infinity + 1. I expect they will be able to offer 256GB RAM on the Ultra Duo. The amount of RAM they need to offer is just what people have been installing, they don't need to support 1TB+ just because other computers do.
This isn't what I've seen from people on youtube. There isn't an UltraFusion connector to tie into the vertical area you're showing and simply rotating them doesn't work either. What I've seen is two stacked Ultras with a double height connector in the middle so connection lengths are minimal. The only way they get the bus speed is to keep the UltraFusion as short as possible. They've also talked about how the Ultra's UltraFusion connection is added once the Maxes have been created and tested. The Ultra is only created when two Maxes test 100% side by side, then the 10K connections are made.The good Maxes next to bad Maxes are cut out and used in MBPs while some of the bad Maxes can still be used as binned or have some parts cut off and used as a Pro. Apple is trying to maximize chip production. Putting two Ultras together like you're suggesting means very few Duo Ultras can be produced from a single platter. It would make more sense to create Ultras, test them, cut them out then stack them together.
I don't want to violate copyrighted images so check out max tech, Apple's M2 Ultra DUO Mac Pro, 7:34 mark.
If they can do stacking with the UltraFusion, that would be good.
Stacking would likely result in serious, perhaps fatal, cooling problems.
One (of many) things that Apple has done well with the M1 line is to maintain processor clock speed at about 3.2 GHz as they build out larger numbers of cores. Contrast that with the Intel Xeon W used in the current Mac Pro, where the base clock speed drops from 3.3 GHz in the 8-core version to 2.5 GHz in the 28-core. This is almost certainly for thermal reasons, and is seen in other Intel processor lines too.
Whatever Apple does with the Mac Pro, it has to consider a price target and the needs of the pros who would be seeking out such a model. The Mac Studio appears to be powerful enough to meet the needs of a particular set of users. So in developing the Mac Pro, it needs to be designed for a somewhat different group of users. This will dictate exactly what choices Apple makes. Either the Pro will offer expandability that isn’t available in the Studio or it will deliver so much computing power out of the box that there would be no need for the vast majority of users to consider adding power beyond what is already there. Probably it will be a little bit of both. More expandability and a lot more power under the hood. I’m not one of those potential Mac Pro buyers. Really, I’m not even in need of something like the Studio. Definitely not in a position to properly set out what the Pro needs to be. But certainly Apple will focus on what those potential buyers want, select a price target, and deliver what can be delivered with the technology available. The Studio has picked off some of the Mac Pro buyers so it will be interesting to see what exactly Apple aims for with the Pro itself,
By the way, the cynic in me suspects that the Studio is, among other things, a high-powered device intended to entice those with the means to buy more computer than they really need because the prospect of having all that horsepower under the hood is too good for some of us to pass up. The Pro is another matter. It needs to be focused on the needs of pros that go beyond what a Studio can provide. I know from personal experience that I overspent on computers at one time not to meet a need but to own something more impressive. Most distressing is that had I put a lot of that money into Apple stock back in the early 2000s instead of Apple computers, I would be in a whole other place financially.
John Turnes of Apple quite literally said that the M1 Ultra completes the M1 line up just days ago
It is more likely that the MacPro will be based on M2 silicon or even a completely different design
Maybe but they could also have designed the Ultra chip to be able to join to other Ultra chips in which case it doesn't need a new name. The diagram shows two M1 Ultras connected in the middle using a different connector:
The Mac Pro can be offered with M1 Ultra at the entry level and an M1 Ultra Duo. There is no higher name than Ultra. Pro = better, Max = maximum, Ultra = beyond maximum. They can only call it Ultra something like infinity + 1. I expect they will be able to offer 256GB RAM on the Ultra Duo. The amount of RAM they need to offer is just what people have been installing, they don't need to support 1TB+ just because other computers do.
This isn't what I've seen from people on youtube. There isn't an UltraFusion connector to tie into the vertical area you're showing and simply rotating them doesn't work either. What I've seen is two stacked Ultras with a double height connector in the middle so connection lengths are minimal. The only way they get the bus speed is to keep the UltraFusion as short as possible. They've also talked about how the Ultra's UltraFusion connection is added once the Maxes have been created and tested. The Ultra is only created when two Maxes test 100% side by side, then the 10K connections are made.The good Maxes next to bad Maxes are cut out and used in MBPs while some of the bad Maxes can still be used as binned or have some parts cut off and used as a Pro. Apple is trying to maximize chip production. Putting two Ultras together like you're suggesting means very few Duo Ultras can be produced from a single platter. It would make more sense to create Ultras, test them, cut them out then stack them together.
I don't want to violate copyrighted images so check out max tech, Apple's M2 Ultra DUO Mac Pro, 7:34 mark.
Have to say that video is really good. I had heard about Apple’s patent and had seen the image of basically two Ultras sitting back-to-back, connected via UltraFusion. But I hadn’t seen the full argument about everything, so it’s good to see that guy pull it all together.
I do think his mockup of a cube Mac Pro is way off, but the rest well thought out.
Allow me to add that I don’t quite get the argument that it has to be M2 — I gather there is a technical reason for it, but I think that’s hard to say without knowing a lot more than we do. I find the idea that Apple would design this entire M1 line but not account for the Mac Pro to be absurd.
In terms of naming, I don’t think they will call it the Ultra Pro or Ultra+, they will all be Ultra, just with different core counts. Basically an Ultra is 2 or 4 Max fused together.
John Turnes of Apple quite literally said that the M1 Ultra completes the M1 line up just days ago
It is more likely that the MacPro will be based on M2 silicon or even a completely different design
Maybe but they could also have designed the Ultra chip to be able to join to other Ultra chips in which case it doesn't need a new name. The diagram shows two M1 Ultras connected in the middle using a different connector:
The Mac Pro can be offered with M1 Ultra at the entry level and an M1 Ultra Duo. There is no higher name than Ultra. Pro = better, Max = maximum, Ultra = beyond maximum. They can only call it Ultra something like infinity + 1. I expect they will be able to offer 256GB RAM on the Ultra Duo. The amount of RAM they need to offer is just what people have been installing, they don't need to support 1TB+ just because other computers do.
The UltraFusion interconnect strip was first spotted months ago, and it's only on one edge of the Max die. There is nothing on the die that would connect to the vertical strip shown in your mockup. Any interconnect circuitry on the die would also have to be on both sides, as the die is rotated 180 degrees for the M1 Ultra connection. Memory bandwidth in the configuration you've shown would also be cut in half for each M1 Max chip, as each is now connected to only two memory modules instead of four.
I think it's safe to say this isn't happening.
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think your logic that because we haven't got a glimpse about another interconnect means that it's impossible. As for "nothing on die" we have no way of knowing what's on that die that could tie 4 chips together. If Apple can make an interconnect to tie two M1 Maxes together why do you think it's impossible for them make another one that will tie 4 of them together? Is this based solely on the configuration shown above?
How about putting all the M1 Max interconnects facing towards each other with Apple obviously making another Interconnect that would tie all 4 together with another chip? I think it's doable, I just don't know if the number of Mac Pros being sold would warrant the cost of development and production.
I have no idea what Apple will do, but I'm not going to say it's impossible simply because it hasn't been done yet.
A cross design like that still takes out much of the space around the chips that the memory sits so that it is close.
Could they "fuse "across memory bus?
Ie have one set of memory chips that sit between 2 SOC working to a unified address space.
Make 2 tiers of memory standard off one side of chip the other side becomes a very short hop high-speed storage pool using Hybrid RAM (ie. replace SSD). Have the carrier chips for the fan of Hybrid RAM chips handle the connection to 2 SOC creating unified memory that now includes the hotest tier of storage. Would be useful across all devices at the low end of the M series it means faster wake lower power drain at the upper end massive multi-Tb data sets siting live millimeters from 4 SOC without the heat of all power to maintain the data.
If it means one chip, they're not going to do it. If it’s multiple chips, that’s different. When John said that the Ultra was the last chip in the M1 series, he meant it. It was very clear.
For the M2 series, we really don’t know what they’ll do. They could go in a totally different direction. It’s possible that the M1 series is what it is because it’s a first generation design.
John Turnes of Apple quite literally said that the M1 Ultra completes the M1 line up just days ago
It is more likely that the MacPro will be based on M2 silicon or even a completely different design
Maybe but they could also have designed the Ultra chip to be able to join to other Ultra chips in which case it doesn't need a new name. The diagram shows two M1 Ultras connected in the middle using a different connector:
The Mac Pro can be offered with M1 Ultra at the entry level and an M1 Ultra Duo. There is no higher name than Ultra. Pro = better, Max = maximum, Ultra = beyond maximum. They can only call it Ultra something like infinity + 1. I expect they will be able to offer 256GB RAM on the Ultra Duo. The amount of RAM they need to offer is just what people have been installing, they don't need to support 1TB+ just because other computers do.
This isn't what I've seen from people on youtube. There isn't an UltraFusion connector to tie into the vertical area you're showing and simply rotating them doesn't work either. What I've seen is two stacked Ultras with a double height connector in the middle so connection lengths are minimal. The only way they get the bus speed is to keep the UltraFusion as short as possible. They've also talked about how the Ultra's UltraFusion connection is added once the Maxes have been created and tested. The Ultra is only created when two Maxes test 100% side by side, then the 10K connections are made.The good Maxes next to bad Maxes are cut out and used in MBPs while some of the bad Maxes can still be used as binned or have some parts cut off and used as a Pro. Apple is trying to maximize chip production. Putting two Ultras together like you're suggesting means very few Duo Ultras can be produced from a single platter. It would make more sense to create Ultras, test them, cut them out then stack them together.
I don't want to violate copyrighted images so check out max tech, Apple's M2 Ultra DUO Mac Pro, 7:34 mark.
If they can do stacking with the UltraFusion, that would be good.
Stacking would likely result in serious, perhaps fatal, cooling problems.
One (of many) things that Apple has done well with the M1 line is to maintain processor clock speed at about 3.2 GHz as they build out larger numbers of cores. Contrast that with the Intel Xeon W used in the current Mac Pro, where the base clock speed drops from 3.3 GHz in the 8-core version to 2.5 GHz in the 28-core. This is almost certainly for thermal reasons, and is seen in other Intel processor lines too.
Maybe not. It depends on how they do it. It doesn’t have to stacking on the die. It could be stacking substrates., that would allow some room between for cooling, plus cooling on each outside die. The lines could still be fairly short, possibly 0.50”.
Allow me to add that I don’t quite get the argument that it has to be M2 — I gather there is a technical reason for it, but I think that’s hard to say without knowing a lot more than we do. I find the idea that Apple would design this entire M1 line but not account for the Mac Pro to be absurd.
In terms of naming, I don’t think they will call it the Ultra Pro or Ultra+, they will all be Ultra, just with different core counts. Basically an Ultra is 2 or 4 Max fused together.
It’s pretty clear that they are finished with the M1. Will people please stop making new M1 chips up?
They may use two or even four M1 Ultra chips. They may change their concept of introducing more powerful chips over the year, and have an M2 Ultra for the Mac Pro. We don’t know. But they won’t have a four chip Ultra. John made that pretty clear.
Allow me to add that I don’t quite get the argument that it has to be M2 — I gather there is a technical reason for it, but I think that’s hard to say without knowing a lot more than we do. I find the idea that Apple would design this entire M1 line but not account for the Mac Pro to be absurd.
In terms of naming, I don’t think they will call it the Ultra Pro or Ultra+, they will all be Ultra, just with different core counts. Basically an Ultra is 2 or 4 Max fused together.
To my mind saying it was a 2 year transition means it would take 2 chip generations to get full coverage. From recall Intel transition was 2 generations of chip as well but then they were scaling in the other down the models not up. Plus comments made about the Ultra suggest not only was it the last but did push how far up they could scale the A14 that was the basis. A15 had new core designs yet to be integrated plus whatever work they are doing on A16 would be chosen to work in with transition goals.
Comments
Could they "fuse "across memory bus?
Ie have one set of memory chips that sit between 2 SOC working to a unified address space.
Make 2 tiers of memory standard off one side of chip the other side becomes a very short hop high-speed storage pool using Hybrid RAM (ie. replace SSD). Have the carrier chips for the fan of Hybrid RAM chips handle the connection to 2 SOC creating unified memory that now includes the hotest tier of storage. Would be useful across all devices at the low end of the M series it means faster wake lower power drain at the upper end massive multi-Tb data sets siting live millimeters from 4 SOC without the heat of all power to maintain the data.
Not sure why that would be? Those systems are targeted at completely different sets of users.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I've often though that many common modern technologies would have got you burned at the stake for witchcraft a few centuries ago. Good thing we don't have time travel.
One (of many) things that Apple has done well with the M1 line is to maintain processor clock speed at about 3.2 GHz as they build out larger numbers of cores. Contrast that with the Intel Xeon W used in the current Mac Pro, where the base clock speed drops from 3.3 GHz in the 8-core version to 2.5 GHz in the 28-core. This is almost certainly for thermal reasons, and is seen in other Intel processor lines too.
By the way, the cynic in me suspects that the Studio is, among other things, a high-powered device intended to entice those with the means to buy more computer than they really need because the prospect of having all that horsepower under the hood is too good for some of us to pass up. The Pro is another matter. It needs to be focused on the needs of pros that go beyond what a Studio can provide. I know from personal experience that I overspent on computers at one time not to meet a need but to own something more impressive. Most distressing is that had I put a lot of that money into Apple stock back in the early 2000s instead of Apple computers, I would be in a whole other place financially.
PS: here’s the patent:
https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2022/0013504.html