wizard69
About
- Banned
- Username
- wizard69
- Joined
- Visits
- 154
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 2,255
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 13,377
Reactions
-
Apple 'M1X' chip specification prediction appears on benchmark site
techconc said:
Apple certainly dropped some major hints at the last WWDC which seemed to at least imply that the Apple Silicon path includes their own custom GPUs and not third party GPUs from AMD or Nvidia. They didn't outright say that, but their slides were structured in a way that certainly implied it. On top of that, there have been specific rumors of discrete Apple GPU, codenamed "Lifuka".commentzilla said:If the Mac Pro is the only model that supports 3rd party GPUs in any form that's going to be a really tiny market for graphics card makers. Is it even worth supporting? So it begs the question, could Apple simply scale up their GPU, Neural Engine, etc, units to replace them? Granted it probably wouldn't be on the CPU die but rather on a 5nm GPU co-processor tapped into the shared memory pool. Who says the unified memory concept cannot be extended to the very top of the line?
What's clear at this point is that Apple is cutting INTEL and AMD out fo their MacBook and iMac development, so why not the MacPro? Why would AMD bother to develop for a single Mac?
I'm just speculating of course, but I don't think there will be just one pro configuration. Rumors seem to suggest there will be a 16 and 32 CPU configurations. I would imagine there would be multiple GPU options as well. This is especially true if Apple creates a discrete GPU as rumored.proline said:
Don't be silly. There is clearly a need for three chips:
M1 (MBA, small MBPs, iPads)M1X (16" MBP, iMac)
X1 ((iMac Pro, Mac Pro)What you are waiting for is the X1, not the M1X.
As for the iMac it is conceivable that there will be just one configuration for iMac, though I'd like to see more... again, at least with regard to GPU configurations. We'll see.It is funny but I've read those WWDC slides and watched the videos and haven't come to the same conclusion. There could be an Apple GPU, an AMD GPU or a GPU developed in partnership with AMD, for the performance GPU slot. I don't see a good reason for Apple to ignore the reality of the performance that can be had from AMD at the top end. Not to mention that pros may need an AMD solution due to huge lags in software development. The type of external GPU really comes down to Apples willingness to embrace PCI-Express on Apple Silicon. Interestingly that leaves AMD still in the race due to their fabric interface which could provide a better solution for an off chip GPU. Not to mention the potential of a CDNA chip migrating out of their (AMD's) super computing initiatives. I just don't see the possibility of an external GPU that is not an Apple chip as dead.As for CPU cores in a pro chip they will have no choice but to offer a many core machine simply to compete with Thread Ripper and where that will be by the time the Apple Silicon Mac Pro ships. The question is how many. Frankly 32 will be a minimal count and they would need to move to 64 cores fairly quickly. In a nut shell they would be competing with Thread Rippers built on Zen 4 cores with very wide DDR5 memories. Right now that means 128 threads though I could see AMD going further than 128 threads.I actually believe Apple will take a page from AMD's play book and implement something similar to AMD's chiplets. The question then becomes how do they split everything up. Should the GPU be on the CPU chiplet, its own chiplet or the I/O chiplet. Or maybe the GPU stays with the performance cores on the CPU chiplets and the low power cores move to an I/O chiplet. There are so many possibilities here but I highly doubt we will see a single piece of silicon with everything on it. Then you have to ask where do they start to use the chiplet design, on the desktops, high end laptop or just the Mac Pro. I see "just" the Mac Pro as a non starter. So I wouldn't be surprised ot see the higher end iMacs, MBP's and other machines debut with a radically different processor solution than is seen with the M1 series. The M1 is rationally a chip migrated from the iPad/iPhone tradition, that isn't a long term solution for performance machines. The current obsession with M1X could be misguided when you consider what Apple needs to do for the pro machines.
-
Apple 'M1X' chip specification prediction appears on benchmark site
The more I read of this thread the more I think people are getting excited over nothing. For one even if the cores run at the same clock rate that does not mean they can't be faster. If Apple can increase the IPC we get an advantage. Further if Apple goes to DDR5 or another RAM technology we could see even better performance.A better RMA subsystem is almost a certainty because at some point adding more cores to the GPU will be hampered by slow memory. One just needs to look at the effort AMD and NVidia put into their memory subsystems to understand the importance of bandwidth. So I can't see Apple adding all of these cores without addressing memory performance in some manner. DDR5, HBM and other technologies could all be part of the new SoC. You might say HBM is expensive and yeah it isn't cheap but on the other hand Apple would be putting these chips into high end machines that are seeing a cost savings from dumping IntelPeople forget that there is much more in Apple silicon all of which might see improvements. The Video CODEC blocks for example could benefit. Neural Engine and other AI related features certainly need improvement. Then there is the issue of I/O which of course needs improvement.So all this crying about the new machines not being enough seem me to be a bit silly as this is only a rumor. Combine that with a bunch of technology about to hit the market and you will have a hard time guessing what Apple will actually ship. One of those technologies is DDR 5 which is pretty much ready to go, just waiting on processors to implement the interface.My only concern is the lack of a lot of CPU cores. There are a lot of work loads that really do benefit from all of the cores you can throw at the job. In a Mac Book Pro I'd rather see a processor with 16 high performance cores. This mainly to do with the great success AMD is seeing with its high core count multi threaded chips. Sometimes performance is the only thing that matters. -
Apple 'M1X' chip specification prediction appears on benchmark site
saarek said:
Well, for a start the M1 matches or exceeds the 10th Gen Intel i7’s in most areas, as you noted. It’s also Apple’s entry level offering and one would assume that Apple would not put their best chips in their cheapest machine.cloudguy said:
With all due respect why do you believe that this is even possible? As I have stated numerous times, the idea that ARM is inherently superior to x86 was wishful thinking. If it were true, ARM would have more than 3% of the server market. As I have also stated, most of the benchmarking was skewed: it only compared the M1 to the Intel chips that it replaced in macOS devices. Those were mostly 2 and 4 core "mobile" chips. They were also outdated chips: 9th and 10th gen. There were already 11th gen Intel chips on the market when the M1 Macs were introduced.saarek said:I hope this isn’t true.I’m hoping for a true performance king that humiliates AMD & Intel and sets the bar in terms of performance. Primarily GPU based upgrades over the M1 wouldn’t be the big step up in the true “Pro” Macs over the current M1 that I was hoping for.
So just because an M1 with 8 cores - granted only 4 of them performance - crushed a 10th gen 2 core mobile CPU doesn't mean that an M1X is going to crush an 11th gen Intel Core i7 or Intel Core i9. Step away from the guys on the "mainstream" tech sites who write all their articles and blog posts on MacBooks and iPad Pros and update Twitter/Facebook/Instagram from their iPhones. Instead go to Anandtech and Ars Technica. Those guys love their MacBooks, iPads and iPhones too but their articles are technical, not "I am going to cheerlead for this product because I use it." Or you can investigate Gordon Mah Ung, the main Windows guy for PC World. On those you will see that the latest Intel chips rival the M1 in single core score, and that the Core i7 and Core i9 beat it handily on multicore score. You will also see that the latest desktop AMD chips beat the M1 in both single core score (slightly) and multicore score (handily). When I tried to point this out to the MacBook Air fans at some of the other tech sites - including one who literally told me that their tech site wasn't going to pay attention Linux because "Linux is hard" !?!? - they would move the goalposts from "power" to "power per watt." One reviewer on that same site stated that the benchmarks that Intel used to defend itself from reviewers like him were flawed because they didn't factor in the better user experience on the M1 Macs. And realize that this particular reviewer is the one assigned by the site to be their main Windows guy! (Meaning machines that he obviously doesn't have any use for outside of being stuck with dealing with them for his job.) But even the main Windows guy at this alleged tech site didn't point out that the M1 Macs were being compared to 9th gen and 10th gen Intel chips with only 2 and 4 cores.
If you are disappointed now, wait until the 12th gen Intel chips come out in September. We have only heard details about 2 so far:
10nm Intel process which is roughly equivalent to an 8nm TSMC process because just as TSMC's foundries achieve better transistor density than Samsung's, Intel's does over TSMC's
14 core chip with 6 performance multithreaded cores and 8 efficiency single threaded cores in a big.LITTLE architecture (for the first time ever with x86, Intel or AMD)
16 core chip with 8 performance multithreaded/8 efficiency single threaded in big.LITTLE
And a couple months later: AMD's Zen 4 chips will come out. They won't have big.LITTLE architecture, but they will be on the same 5nm process as the M1 and M1X from the same foundry. And AMD Zen X performance chips start at 8 performance cores - where Intel's start at 6 - and go up to 16. So yes, in a few months the whole idea of "ARM is better than outdated x86" narrative that were based on terrible comparisons to begin with that never would have been done had they been skewed unfavorably towards Apple will be forgotten and quietly discarded. And we will be back to how Macs have better design, UX/UI, user experience, longevity, support etc. than Wintel. Just like before.
But, & this is a big but, if the next computers from Apple are simply slightly faster with better graphics that’d be a HUGE let down.
Apple will be well aware of Intel’s roadmap, I doubt they’d have been so shortsighted as to release a set of chips that won’t match or exceed what Intel offers.
We will have to see, but just over a year ago people were saying that Apple would never move the Mac to Apple Silicon because it’d never match Intel X86 & they’ve had a rude awakening.I'm not sure what all the hand wringing is about here. Apples chips do demolish anything intel has to offer, all one has to do is look at the thermals to see that.So why is a laptop chip with better graphics and more cores a let down? We are also assuming moe ports and other features will come with the SOC. Honestly what where you expecting?Yes Apple is very aware of Intels road map but that has little to do with what I would expect the M1X to be. That is a chip designed for laptops. It looks like Apple is only going to put it in low end iMacs so there is a desktop version coming.As for the people saying never I never understood that either. The fact is apple has done wonders for the laptop market with the M1 chip and is fielding the best fanless laptop that exists at the moment. Even so I'm not convinced that Apple will drop AMD for GPU's just yet. They are gone on low end equipment but I can see future iMacs and Mac Pros with AMD chips. Well possibly, Apple did hire a lot of AMD GPU engineers so who knows.In any event if true this is a 35 watt processor, that is huge. It would be able to power laptops and effectively compete with intel laptops running at 45 to 65 watts. Even better would be the possibility of a turbo mode or even a clock rate increase. People need to remember that early engineering samples are often running lower clocks than the shipping processors.
-
macOS Big Sur 11.2 now available with Bluetooth fixes for M1 Macs
Just installed - seems OK. I'm not sure if this will correct the Bluetooth issues I have with my truck, beyond that I'm not a big Bluetooth user. This is on a M1 MBA by the way but my understanding is that Apple screwed up Bluetooth for all machines. Beyond that I've been pleasantly surprised by just how good Big Sur is on the M1 based devices. Very few problems considering how massive a change it is.
-
Hyundai bosses 'agonizing' over whether to build 'Apple Car'
Honestly I wouldn't want to partner with Apple on this at all. There are very few car manufactures that have any experience at all building for others. That is one point, but I'm not convinced that Apple has its crap together when it comes to mass producing complex products. When you think about it a Mac or iPhone is not a complex manufacturing endeavor compared to building a car. Beyond that there is a huge number of safety related issues that Apple has never had to address.It is this production of a safe vehicle that likely has Hyundai executive so concerned. Will Apple be accepting all liability for their design or will they try to saddle Hyundai with producing a safe car. In any event there is enough idle production lines that Apple should have little problem buying up a production line and doing every thing themselves.
