nicholfd

JustSomeGuy1 said:

nicholfd said:

JustSomeGuy1 said:

As noted in other threads, while the performance gains are massive (and larger than widely appreciated - AI got it wrong at least once already), there's a lot we really don't know yet.

- Clock speed: how much higher is it? (My guess: minimal)

- Why is the 32-core gpu said by apple to be only 60% faster than the 16-core gpu? (See slide where they are respectively 400% and 250% speed of the 5600M)

- What are the cores? (Most people seem to think they're the same as the M1s, but from GPU perf alone, those cores are likely the same gen as the A15. No clue about the CPU cores, but you'd think they'd be same-gen.)

- How big is the SLC? (My guess: 24/48MB for Pro/Max)

- How fast is the LPDDR5? (Probably LPDDR5-6400)

- >7GB/s reads of the SSD are great, but what about writes?

Also some non-performance questions, like can we run 4x 4k displays on the Pro? (Probably not.)

Apple generally does not release this information, and to most buyers it doesn't matter.

Regarding the displays - it was answered during the presentation & on the MacBook Pro spec page:

Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display at 1 billion colors and:

Up to two external displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz at over a billion colors (M1 Pro) or 
Up to three external displays with up to 6K resolution and one external display with up to 4K resolution at 60Hz at over a billion colors (M1 Max)

About the displays - That in no way answers the question. The reason those limits exist is not made clear, and depending on that reason, more 4k displays might or might not be possible. It will depend on implementation details that could go either way. Basically, can the chip drive multiple 4x streams over a single thunderbolt link. The M1 couldn't. But that doesn't mean the M1P/M can't. They already have more support for displays than the M1. So anything's possible (within the bandwidth limits of Thunderbolt, anyway).

As for the other questions... Of course it doesn't matter to buyers, my order's in already. It matters to those of us interested in technology for its own sake. And the answers will be forthcoming even without Apple's cooperation. I'll figure out at least some of it when mine comes, if I haven't already learned it by reading Andrei's analysis.

It was clear in the presentation - M1 Pro can drive 2 x external displays, up to 6K resolution.  The M1 Max can drive 4 x external displays, with 3 x external displays up to 6K & 1 x external display up to 4K.  There was no doubt about the number of external displays possible - it was crystal clear.  And for me the tech specs are also crystal clear.  You seem to be looking for something else, but that does not make it possible. 

saarek said:

It's a shame that the switch to Apple silicone has resulted on a free for all price gouge by Apple. Bye bye dreams of Apple silicon meaning better pricing.

You know this how?  Source?  No one has any idea what it costs to produce the M1 Pro & M1 Max.

MplsP said:

melgross said:

crowley said:

Looks like an old AirPort Express.

Yes, it does.

Where’s the 3.5mm audio jack?

wood1208 said:

Apple should build all of there power bricks to use GaN tech. Not sure efficient but smaller size for the same power output.

They may move that way eventually. I’m sure they cost more so the cost-benefit ratio isn’t there for lower power chargers.

AppleInsider said:

For the 16-inch model, you can recharge using either MagSafe 3 or Thunderbolt 4, but you won't reach the 140W fast charging capability of the new charger unless you use the MagSafe port and Apple's charger -- for now.

The new 140W charger is being sold as a separate purchase to the MacBook Pros, at $99. That price excludes the $49 USB-C to MagSafe cable.

 Well, there’s an answer to the people complaining about the MagSafe port - the USB C ports have a lower power capacity. Theoretically it seems like they should be able to handle more power. I assume there was a limitation with the TB4 controller?

$100 and $50 for the charger/cable seems a bit pricey. There aren’t any other $140W GaN chargers on the market, though so you really can’t compare but Apple’s straight USB C charging cable is only $20. A $30 premium for the MagSafe connector is a bit steep. The good news is unlike the old MacBook MagSafe chargers, you can simply swap out the cable if it breaks or wears out. (Or get a USB C cable if you don’t need the extra speed/convenience.)

The TB4 standard only allows/support 100W.

Price other 140W chargers of any type.  $100 is not bad.  And if you order a maxed out 16" (CPU/GPU), you get the 140W charger included.

$50 for a custom MagSafe cable isn't bad.  You get one with the laptop.  NOW, because it's USB-C connector on the other end, you can move the cable and leave bricks at home, office, etc.  You can take the cable and use it with any USB-C PD brick (at reduced wattage).

For a price comparison, look up Apple's old high wattage MagSafe chargers...

muthuk_vanalingam said:

nicholfd said:

zoetmb said:

laytech said:

Im sure someone has commented above but no Face ID, surely not. Are we still logging in with finger print? Surely not.

So?  I prefer TouchID and I would prefer it on the iPhone as well.    It's easier to stick a finger over there than to have to stare at the camera and be recognized.   Especially on the phone in the car.    I HAVE to buy a new IPhone because I'm currently using an iPhone6 and a lot of the apps won't work anymore and it's bugging me that they won't restore TouchID until next year, so I'm going to be stuck without it. 

And I wouldn't hold my breath "waiting until next year".  No one knows if Apple will ever return Touch ID.  Face ID is superior in almost all scenarios (and is proven more secure), so why return to something that is in general, inferior?

Except when you are wearing masks and try to unlock your phone in the last 1.5 years.

Not if you have an Apple Watch (I do).  My watch unlocks my phone almost as quickly as my face does.  The only time I'm not wearing my watch is when I'm cleaning up/showering.  So not an issue for me.

ps. I did say "almost".

zoetmb said:

laytech said:

Im sure someone has commented above but no Face ID, surely not. Are we still logging in with finger print? Surely not.

So?  I prefer TouchID and I would prefer it on the iPhone as well.    It's easier to stick a finger over there than to have to stare at the camera and be recognized.   Especially on the phone in the car.    I HAVE to buy a new IPhone because I'm currently using an iPhone6 and a lot of the apps won't work anymore and it's bugging me that they won't restore TouchID until next year, so I'm going to be stuck without it. 

Sound like maybe you haven't used Face ID.  You don't have to "stare at the camera" - just a glance.  It's almost instantaneous.  Much faster than fingerprint for me.  The device is usually unlocked before my eyes see the open lock at the top of the screen.  I assume that when you "stick a finger over there", you then look at the device?  That same look would have it already unlocked, without you touching anything.  And for the phone in the car, I prefer to use Siri - no touching or looking anywhere.

And I wouldn't hold my breath "waiting until next year".  No one knows if Apple will ever return Touch ID.  Face ID is superior in almost all scenarios (and is proven more secure), so why return to something that is in general, inferior?