tenthousandthings
About
- Username
- tenthousandthings
- Joined
- Visits
- 179
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 2,055
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,068
Reactions
-
First M2 Pro benchmarks prove big improvement over M1 Max
That would be pretty amazing and possibly quite efficient for workloads amenable to that. Someone here recently was saying that it made sense (in their case) to buy four Minis instead of one maxed-out Studio.danox said:
One step further why can’t you take two 24 inch iMac’s set them side-by-side and use them as one computer with two great screens instead of using a second inferior 24 inch monitor from a third-party as a display? Such a set up would be killer can this be done? With the current 24 inch iMac?AniMill said:“Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.”
I believe this to be deliberate. If Target Displays Mode still existed, the reason and need for the Studio Display would be greatly diminished. I believe many iMac 5K users would see the Mac Mini M2 Pro as a great alternative to buying a new Apple display.
So two iMacs working in parallel would be nice. Making that happen would be a macOS feature, I don’t know how big a software-engineering challenge it would be. I mean, what happens if you try to do that today (connect two iMacs via Thunderbolt)?
-
After Apple's busy January, the rest of the quarter may be quiet
Pretty much everything Gurman said in June 2022 (after the M2 MacBook Air launch) was accurate, some was delayed, but most of it has taken shape at this point. But two elements are missing, the first is the Mac Pro and M2 Ultra and "Extreme" (the scare quotes are Gurman's) -- given the existence of the M2 Max, the M2 Ultra is likely set, and so is the Mac Pro, but other rumors say the Extreme has been dropped. I think it's possible the M2 Extreme is just fine, but it's on a different TSMC node, probably N4 like the A16.spongezilla said:What if new M2 launches are basically done? What if Gurman is right in that M3 is near ready to launch? Maybe because of the delays via supply chain it's pushed Apple's roadmap to a weird place where M2 is launching later than Apple wanted but pushed it back into the M3 launch window? What if they opt to hold launches untl Q3/Q4 and ship the Studio, Pro, iMac, and larger Macbooks on M3 leaving the Macbook Air, 13" MB Pro, and Mac Mini on M2 until early 2024? Think about it like this... the lineup is currently on 5nm, 5nm Gen 2. If you move things to M3 it'll be on 3nm which will provide greater performance enhancements in terms of speed and energy efficiency. All are on different lines and therefore that helps with supply chain and product volume (something that with COVID has been a challenge at times). This can be a bet Apple hedges on until they're sure 3nm is solidified to move more of the lineup over to M3 (i.e. maybe they pay for more fab capacity in transitioning a fab, if possible, to additional 3nm parts -- or, as the Macbook Pro and MacBook Air and Mini transition to 3nm M3's... it might shift more of the product to M4 by then on whatever node it's on), while keeping 5nm gen 2 as a possible entry-level pathway with M2's for the models leftover that are still shipping with M1 chipsin 2024. Just something to think about since it's widespread speculation anyhow. It makes reasonable sense if M3 is closer to ready to launch it sooner especially since it would allow the Studio to separate itself a bit more from the Mac Mini wth M2 Pro. Right now there's questionable value for many for whether to buy a Mac mini with M2 Pro or a Studio with the M1 Max. You can argue that you want to change that sooner than later... but shifting directly to M3 by Q3 would create greater separation. It might bring questions with the Mac Pro then... but... Mac Pro is likely an Ultra level machine that also relies on PCI expansion of some sort and possible SDK's for PCI-based expansion.
The other missing element, the M3 iMac and MacBook Air, wasn't expected by now. An October 2023 launch would just barely be inside the window of possibility for TSMC 3nm, and only if it is the first generation, N3. The weirdest thing about that was the M3 iMac. It was and still is a strange nugget of information. But I have to admit, it has held up so far. Very strange. My theory is in my comment above, that the iMac, like the MacBook Air, will be available with both older Apple Silicon (possibly only for Education) and current Apple Silicon. Supply chain issues threw this off, but going forward that's how it will be.
NOTE: There's also an assumption that Apple is going to be out in front, on the cutting edge of TSMC 3nm, but you've got to wonder about that. Changing manufacturing process nodes is expensive and problematic. Apple has a lot of experience with it (I count nine TSMC node changes in the A series since 2014), but the 3nm shift is a big change and thus a big risk. There's a possibility that M3/A17 won't be 3nm at all, but rather N4P. [Not N4X, however, that seems to be money-is-no-object HPC-server territory.] Although I think if that were the case, Apple would have tamped down the M3=N3 speculation by now.
-
After Apple's busy January, the rest of the quarter may be quiet
It's just stating the obvious that all they have left is an iMac refresh and an iPad Air refresh. Both are functioning now as ways to draw down their M1 inventory? Neither would be "new products" so press releases and a colorful, fun video would do. Note that May 21 will be the two year anniversary of the release of the M1 iMac.
I think it's interesting they still have the M1 (7-core GPU) MacBook Air on sale, alongside the M2 Air. It wouldn't be surprising if the iMac went the same way, with the M1 (8-core GPU) iMac on sale beside the M2 iMac. If the M2 iMac were to have M2 Pro/Max as well, then it could step into that role (clearing M2 inventory) in the future, after M3 rolls out.
If anything, all Gurman’s prediction really says is that the Mac Pro and Mac Studio refresh(es), while likely to be introduced in Q2 at WWDC, won't be available until later in the year. Same for new or refreshed displays, and of course the reality device. None of it will go on sale in Q2.
-
M2 Pro & Max GPUs are fast -- but not faster than M1 Ultra
Thank you for bringing up the internal power supply. I think that’s the main reason it didn’t change — the only way they would have redesigned was if they were going to follow the iMac and use an external power supply with Ethernet.tht said:
retrogusto is talking about the Mac mini enclosure. retrogusto just wanted to know if there is "throttling" in the Mac mini M2 Pro, and he wasn't even responding to you. It was just a question. The answer is no. Very few systems throttle. They all work as designed for their given set of design constraints. "Throttling" is just a negative term that fanboys like to throw around to make fun of companies. Very few if any PCs throttle.thadec said:
What small enclosure? I was pointing this out in a "how was Apple able to drop the price on the Mac Mini" article on PCMag yesterday ... the Mac Mini enclosure is HUGE. It is 86 cubic inches, essentially unchanged from 2010. You have Intel Core i7 and AMD Ryzen 7 mini-PCs these days that have 30 cubic inch enclosures - practically 1/3 the size - that include heatsinks and fans. And you have Pentium and Celeron mini-PCs that are 18 cubic inches. An example: the Intel Core i7-1255U is a 10nm chip with 10 cores, and it is in the Acer Chromebox CXI5 that is so small that it will be able to fit inside the mounting bracket of a monitor (where the monitor stand attaches to the back of the monitor screen) to create an All-in-One: https://www.xda-developers.com/acer-chromebox-cxi5/retrogusto said:I’ll be interested to see if anyone does benchmarks comparing the top two processors available in the new Mac Mini. I’m wondering if the fastest one will have any issues with throttling due to overheating in that small enclosure.
The M2 Pro will be able to operate at its designed maximum frequencies in perpetuity in typical room environments. If you run it in the sun outside in 125 °F temperatures in Death Valley, and if its chip temperatures get too high - it will - it will downclock and use less power to protect itself. It may not even power on! If you bring it along up to 15,000 ft altitude on top of some mountain, it will probably downclock to protect itself.
I don't get your response though. You go on about how there are such small SFF PCs, yet you link to a Chromebox CXI5, which looks to be about the same size as a Mac mini. Why not link to an actually small SFF that is 30% the volume of a Mac mini?
There appears to be no published dimensions, but my eyeballs are definitely seeing something the same size as a Mac mini for this Chromebox CXI5. While surely it has fans and heat sinks inside, what it doesn't have inside is a power supply. A lot of these super small SFF PCs do not have internal PSUs. The Mac mini does. So it packs in more performance and more components inside while operating at lower power consumption. That's Apple's current design ethos. Yes, I was disappointed to see an external PSU for the iMac 24.
You should probably wait on knowing what processor will be inside the Chromebox CXI5. All the information so far is that it will be a 12th gen Core i7 or lessor processor. And I will bet it won't have an i7-12800HX as an option. They will need to put in 150 W just for that, and would need a 250 W external power supply.thadec said:Yes, the M2 Pro's 1952 single core Geekbench score is faster than the i7-1255U's 1739 ... but not by a whole lot. (By the way .... the i7-1255U is for thin and light notebooks, which is why it ised used in mini-PCs. Their performance Core i7 chip, the i7-12800HX, used for workbooks and lower end workstation laptops, is a wash in single core and actually beats the M2 Pro in multicore. And this does not get into the Core i7 chips that actually are for desktops instead of laptops like the i7-12700K.)
If there other SFF PCs you want to discuss, I would love to.
No, Apple won't need to make it smaller. They could, but they don't need to. What they need to do is to continuously update it.thadec said:But down the line, Apple does need to make the Mac Mini smaller. If the 10nm Intel Core i7 CPU mini-PCs are that small, you can only imagine how small they will be in 1Q2025 when the 5nm (Intel calls it 20A) chips will be in mini PCs. When that happens, tiny mini-PCs that offer the same CPU and graphics performance as these massive Mac "Minis" will be an embarrassment. (Yes, the graphics performance thing will happen. Starting with 13th gen, Intel is going to have their discrete GPUs, which are already being manufactured by TSMC, manufactured as "tiles" that will become integrated GPUs.) So a redesign will need to happen, even if Apple can't meet the $599 price point.
You should probably be skeptical of Intel meeting its fab schedule. Then, no, x86 SFF PCs will all get bigger. The only way around it is to use 10 to 20 W TDP systems, and keep the turbo power down. This isn't going to happen if they have multiple chip tiles in an SoC. Intel isn't going to drive down their TDPs either. They are all only going up.
This has already been happening in the prior 5 years of SFF PCs. They have been getting bigger. Just look at the Chromebox CXI1 to CXI5 series. Every successive box has been getting bigger. Intel NUCs have been getting bigger every generation it seems. The Intel NUC with the Xe eGPU is basically the size of a small ATX PC. An SoC package with CPU tile, GPU tile, IO tile? It will require more power. The performant SoCs will be 150 to 300 W TDPs.
I think I might be lowballing those numbers. The i7-12800HX can draw 180 W by itself. Add a GPU tile? 400 W for the SoC?So I think we can look at this as Apple drawing a line there, with the Mini and the iMac on opposite sides of that line.I still wonder about a future “Mac micro” that doesn’t need a battery or a power supply, and just uses power from the display via Thunderbolt…
-
First M2 Pro benchmarks prove big improvement over M1 Max
To state the obvious, the comments here about wanting to use the iMac 5K as a display vividly illustrate why the iMac 5K is dead.mikethemartian said:
It is a risk someone takes whenever they buy an all-in-one product from any company.hodar said:
That is my single “ding” against the iMac line. The display is magnificent; but then tech on the motherboard will be obsolete decades before the monitor is done. The monitor doesn’t have the ability to switch inputs; which is why I went with the Mac Minirob53 said:Wish I could simply plug a Mac mini into my iMac display.
With a decent monitor; keyboard, mouse and a little extra storage the cost outlay is not that far apart, assuming you start off with a upper level Mini
Somewhere, I’m pretty sure it was in 2017 when they did the mea-culpa about the 2013 Mac Pro graphics and thermals, someone explained the target audience of the iMac 5K — the same as the Mac Studio. They learned a lot from that — the iMac 5K sold to a broader audience than they expected. So now they’ve got this broad range, from $599 to $3999 (base configurations), plus the Studio Display.
The bonus in this is it returns the iMac to the original vision for it (and that of the original Macintosh as well) — I think we’ll see it in March, along with the M2 iPad Air.
Then WWDC features both the announcement of the reality machine, and the powerful Macs designed to create for it, the Mac Pro and the Mac Studio. Also, one more thing, the new Liquid Retina Pro Display, in two sizes, 28" 6K and 32" 8K, all with Thunderbolt 5, all available in Fall 2023, thus ending the Apple Silicon transition.
