tenthousandthings

dewme said:

runswithfork said:

I was so excited to get a Mac Studio until I saw the GPU benchmarks. Very disappointed and the wait continues for a Mac with great 3D performance. They should really clarify that  their performance graphs are for video editors only - this is no where near the performance of a 3090 for 3D and I didn't think it was but even if it was 70% of the performance of a 3080 I would have got one. Will there ever be a Mac with comparable GPU performance? Probably not, it seems their focus is solely on the video side of things.

While I think there may be more GPU performance in the M1 Ultra than what we’ve seen in current benchmarks there is a point where you have to recognize that physics still do apply. The Mac Studio with M1 Ultra is still a very small form factor machine that you can run very comfortably right on your desktop next to or underneath your monitors. I’m not a gaming PC person but I can only imagine it would be somewhat difficult to find an RTX 3090 equipped machine with the same form factor, power supply requirements, operating thermals, and audible characteristics (fan noise) as Apple’s Studio systems without losing something on the performance side. 

I’m very interested to hear about directly comparable machines (as defined above) that demonstrate that Apple has somehow missed the mark on the graphics performance of the M1 Ultra. I don’t discount the possibility of their existence. I’m also expecting that Apple will deliver a new Mac Pro that breaks through some of the constraints imposed by the Studio’s very small form factor and user friendly operating characteristics, i.e., no earplugs required to operate the system 12 inches from your keyboard. 

At the same time, I do agree that Apple has some 'splaining to do regarding their M1 launch presentation material that shows their wonderchip running neck and neck with competitive graphics platforms. This includes ones like the RTX 3090 that require small fission reactors and cooling towers to supply them with sufficient power to max out those critical benchmarks and 3D applications that drive some people's purchase decisions. This is where even diehard Apple supporters are feeling like we’re not getting the whole story from Apple. What exactly did they mean by those graphs and what assumptions were they making? The review numbers don’t add up and we need to know why.

robaba said:

tenthousandthings said:

melgross said:

tenthousandthings said:

melgross said:

tenthousandthings said:

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.

John was introducing the UltraFusion process when he said that. That process may also allow them to connect two Ultras together, much like what you’re suggesting when you say they may use multiple M1 Ultras in the Mac Pro. It’s a plausible technical solution to the problem. That’s the whole point of the “chiplet” approach. I think you’re getting hung up on semantics, although I’ll concede that it was not a live event and everything said was carefully reviewed.

It isn’t hard to imagine how John would introduce the idea, “UltraFusion not only allows us to fuse two M1 Max together and create the M1 Ultra, but it also allows us to connect two M1 Ultras together …”

Look, he made it pretty clear that the Ultra was the last M1 chip. I don’t know why people insist that isn’t true. He didn’t say it had anything to do with Ultra /fusion, or anything else, just that the Ultra was the last. Earlier on, when they announced the Pro and Max versions, they could have said that too, and then popped out the Ultra with the UF connect, and acted as though it was just the same chip.

but they didn’t. And like it or not, that means something. What would have wrong with not saying anything? It’s not semantics. Semantics is something that’s interpretable. A definitive statement is just that.

the other thing thats] you guys are forgetting is that the cost of making these chips increases more than the added area because of increased defects and the risk of unusable chips. The greater percentage of wafer area a chip takes up, the more the cost. It’s a $1,000 upgrade to go from a 48 core Ultra to the 64 core version. And the cheapest Ultra costs more than twice what the Max version costs. So, even if they would do it, this new chip would likely cost at least three times as much. Maybe more. would that be worth it? I’m not so sure.

The good thing is we’ll know soon enough. There’s no way this uncertainty is prolonged past WWDC. 

But reading your last paragraph here makes me think you haven’t looked at the mock-up I’ve been referring to, in conjunction with the patent about this packaging tech Apple filed in January. It’s two Ultras stacked on top of each other (back-to-back)—doing so doesn’t change anything about the wafer layout for making the Max/Ultra. That’s why, no matter how it works, it can’t be considered a new chip. Because it’s not. The Max Tech video that someone pointed to is goofy YouTube sensationalism, but the reading of the patent seems accurate. 

I would just add that TSMC and others have been talking about and carefully crafting the techniques of silicon-pass-through connectors which is the basis for Apples patent mentioned above.  It is not bleeding edge, but just getting into the realm of full scale application.  Apples patent appears to be just a clever use of the pass though technology.

Editing to note that this isn’t a total fantasy, it’s pretty much exactly what some of that patent describes and illustrates (to be clear, though, this image is not from the patent)…

melgross said:

tenthousandthings said:

melgross said:

tenthousandthings said:

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.

John was introducing the UltraFusion process when he said that. That process may also allow them to connect two Ultras together, much like what you’re suggesting when you say they may use multiple M1 Ultras in the Mac Pro. It’s a plausible technical solution to the problem. That’s the whole point of the “chiplet” approach. I think you’re getting hung up on semantics, although I’ll concede that it was not a live event and everything said was carefully reviewed.

It isn’t hard to imagine how John would introduce the idea, “UltraFusion not only allows us to fuse two M1 Max together and create the M1 Ultra, but it also allows us to connect two M1 Ultras together …”

Look, he made it pretty clear that the Ultra was the last M1 chip. I don’t know why people insist that isn’t true. He didn’t say it had anything to do with Ultra /fusion, or anything else, just that the Ultra was the last. Earlier on, when they announced the Pro and Max versions, they could have said that too, and then popped out the Ultra with the UF connect, and acted as though it was just the same chip.

but they didn’t. And like it or not, that means something. What would have wrong with not saying anything? It’s not semantics. Semantics is something that’s interpretable. A definitive statement is just that.

the other thing thats] you guys are forgetting is that the cost of making these chips increases more than the added area because of increased defects and the risk of unusable chips. The greater percentage of wafer area a chip takes up, the more the cost. It’s a $1,000 upgrade to go from a 48 core Ultra to the 64 core version. And the cheapest Ultra costs more than twice what the Max version costs. So, even if they would do it, this new chip would likely cost at least three times as much. Maybe more. would that be worth it? I’m not so sure.

fastasleep said:

melgross said:

tenthousandthings said:

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.

So what do we make of the myriad rumors going way back of the Jade 4C-Die alongside those of the Jade 2C-Die which came to fruition with the M1 Ultra? It seems unlikely that was a very similar codename for a next gen 4x SoC design. The Ternus comment of course complicates all this, so did they maybe test that design at one point and decide to skip it this gen for some reason? Certainly possible, but it seems like it'd be a disappointment for many if the Mac Pro tops out with the same top end as the Studio. I feel like there's gotta be another trick up their sleeve.