tenthousandthings

mpantone said:

rob53 said:

Not sure NVMe single blades will max out that projected speed and I can guarantee you that TB5 hardware will not be inexpensive. Article talks about 8K displays and only a bit about faster SSDs (for gaming? what about for real work like video production), which also will cost more. Higher bandwidth also ends up meaning people will want larger storage because, conceivably, faster speeds will allow more data to be pushed and stored. There is a usable limit to these speeds, which always has to do with money. You got it, you can buy it. Most consumers will never see the speed of TB5, same as now because most consumers only use USB3.x speeds instead of TB3/4 speeds because of the extra cost in making the interface hardware.

I agree, I don't see how Joe Consumer will be able to saturate TB5 bandwidth.

A pro certain probably could, writing multiple streams of 8K video (or other data) to a disk array with multiple NVMe drives. TB5 is intended more for that professional audience; Thunderbolt compatible hardware is already expensive.

In any case, TB5 is still in the proposal stage. Once it's approved in its final form, there would be more activity to develop compliant hardware.

Up until now, Thunderbolt has essentially been an externalization of the PCIe bus as far as I can tell. As PCIe bus bandwidth increases, Thunderbolt follows.

The other major integrated elements are support for display protocols (DisplayPort) and charging. Apple needs TB5 to support a future ProMotion 8K XDR display in a single cable, and they (and the rest of the industry) are getting that.

Apple’s original involvement was developing DisplayPort support and adapting Light Peak to support both optical cable and copper cable. To answer July’s question above, I don’t think Apple’s role is any different from the rest of the industry at this point. Here’s an early AI article about it:

https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/02/24/intel_details_thunderbolt_as_exclusive_to_apple_until_2012

JP234 said:

roundaboutnow said:

JP234 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

JP234 said:

So give up a Thunderbolt port on your Mac to get more thunderbolt ports? You had two, now you have three. And some USB ports, Ethernet, and an SD port.

I got a dock with HDMI,  Ethernet, SD, micro-SD, (2) USB 3.0 for $16.19 on Amazon.

Is this one really worth $300? Not to me. Maybe you.

Depends on what Mac you connect it to.  Worst case, the MBP 13 M1 has 2 TB ports.  One used for this dock, leaves me with 1 on the MBP and 3 on the dock.  4 Total by my count.  And it's not just "some USB" ports, they are 10Gbps each.  So yes -- if you just need some generic ports to plug in a mouse or a thumb drive, a $20 dock is fine

For those who need more TB4 ports and high-speed USB 3.2 ports plus Ethernet, this is good.  Expensive, but good.  There isn't much else out there like this.

Like M68000 said -- no HDMI is a big bummer.

Your math is just one port off: you have to connect one of those 3 on the dock to one of the TB ports on your Mac. That's a total of 3.

Thunderbolt is expensive tech, no matter who's producing it, and it's really only useful to a handful of professionals in the I/O intensive applications. 10Gb/s USB-C will do just fine for the other 99.99%. So will two USB-C ports, for that matter.

FTA: On the front of the dock is a Thunderbolt 4 host port, which connects to your Mac and can provide 96 watts of power delivery. 

So there are four TB ports — one in front, three in back. 

Also, an HDMI port would be nice, but a TB to HDMI cable about the same price as an HDMI-HDMI cable. 

So you have one port that connects to the Mac. That leaves three that can be used for I/O. But without the hub, you have (minimum) 2 that you can use for I/O. Net gain: 1 port.

You’re forgetting that one of the (minimum) two on the MacBook is still free. So that’s four total I/O. So net gain is two, not one. And if it’s a 13" Pro or an M1 Air, the net gain for I/O is three if you need to charge the battery, because the hub does that as well.

charlesatlas said:

tenthousandthings said:

I’d still love to see Apple come out with an M2 iPad+ in two sizes, around 16-18" and 22-24" …

That wouldn’t be a tablet. That would be a poster board.

Yes, exactly, art is made on poster boards—in reality, Apple is hesitant to compete with Wacom (e.g., Cintiq Pro 16" 24" 27" 32"), and graphics tablets are a niche market anyway. But Wacom tablets and pens are input devices, they are tethered to computers. An M3 iPad+ graphics tablet wouldn’t have that limitation, at least not to the same extent. 

9secondkox2 said:

tenthousandthings said:

netrox said:

tenthousandthings said:

netrox said:

I am pretty sure that the new M2 MacBook Pros will be based on 4nm process, not 5nm process. Apple said that A16 is created on 4nm process and it's likely that it will use the same process. 

Yes, that’s correct. And it’s thought to be the N4P process. It’s useful to know that it is still 5nm, “4nm” is just a name, indicating further refinements. TSMC has four generations of 5nm: N5, N5P, N4, and N4P.

So the M2 being N5P (A15) and M2 Pro/Max being N4P (A16), nicely mirrors the iPhone 14 and 14 Pro divide.

No, Apple literally said, "4 nanometer" - here's a screenshot of the video:

No, maybe you should take like three seconds to look it up before responding. This is text directly from the TSMC site:

“TSMC’s 5nm (N5) Fin Field-Effect Transistor (FinFET) technology successfully entered volume production in the second quarter of 2020 and experienced a strong ramp in the second half of 2020. […]

In addition, TSMC plans to launch 4nm (N4) technology, an enhanced version of N5 technology. N4 provides further enhancement in performance, power and density for the next wave of N5 products. The development of N4 technology is on schedule with good progress, and volume production is expected to start in 2022.”

Source: https://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/technology/logic/l_5nm

It’s been broadly discussed as such — it’s not a secret or anything. 

Um… it’s been 2022 for a while now… plenty of time to have produced the A16 at 4nm and Apple is stating that explicitly and emphatically. It’s 4nm - actually matching the statement and timeline you quoted. There is no disagreement or contradiction. 

The point is that the so-called “4nm” is still the 5nm tech. It’s inaccurate to suggest that it’s not, which is what netrox did. 4nm (N4 and N4P) is just a marketing name.

Yes, it is a refinement. But no, it’s completely wrong to suggest it is like the transition from 5nm to 3nm technology, or from 7nm to 5nm before that, or from 10nm to 7nm before that. 

9secondkox2 said:

crowley said:

9secondkox2 said:

Fidonet127 said:

Due to the timeline of how long Apple said they will replace Macs with ASi versions, I don’t think M1 Pro version was really designed. The mini will stay as the consumer computer, the Studio will stay as the prosumer low to medium pro computer, and the Pro will be the high end. The Studio will not cut it for someone who needs 1.5tb of memory and lots of processing power. Yes the Sudio beats some configurations of the Mac Pro. The Studio wasn’t designed in a short time. The Studio took awhile to design and announced when they were ready.  

I’m skeptical of this. 

The Studio is basically a stretch Mini. They just had to take the Mini CAD files, edit the vertical dimensions, add perforations and port cutouts, and attach a simple tapered and perforated cylinder to the bottom. 

The whole thing could have been designed, tested, and machined in a very short period of time, including the big honking fan assembly - which probably explains the numerous fan issues in the first run. 

It's a completely different logic board, completely different cooling, completely different port construction.  There's no reason to think it went through any less of a design process than any other new Apple product, which would not be "a very short period of time".  No way.

Of course those items needed to be laid out and built but it’s a known quantity. Apple was developing the Mac pro and testing likely indicated the m1 ultra or adoubled up version of that wasn’t what they wanted to share a awe as the best they could do. Somewhere in the testing process, the decision was made to not launch at wwdc. And since wwdc I planned far in advance, this gave more than enough time - in a relatively short period of time - to build a stretch Mac mini and have it ready shortly thereafter. It’s not some new avant-garde industrial design and the motherboard isn’t some feat of engineering. 

As Gurkan noted, apple planned to launch the Mac Pro at wwdc but then decided against it. 

There is no way they would have launched the studio and the pro at the same time. They just needed to buy time with a product that doesn’t have a legacy to live up to and can perform for those who need/want the power. 

It’s not bad that it’s a bit of a bridge. It’s just that apple needed to get some serious performance clout but it’s lauded machine is not ready. 

In addition to the various points others have made, your theory ignores another aspect of the Mac Studio decision, arguably the most important element—abandoning the larger iMac and/or iMac Pro. That was not something done lightly or in response to hypothetical engineering issues with the M1 Mac Pro.

Most likely, the situation was precisely the opposite of what you describe—the existence of the Mac Studio allowed Apple to put the Mac Pro on hold (for whatever reason).

When did the supply-chain rumors of a “Mini Pro” begin? The Mac Studio was already in development for production when those rumors surfaced. Also the 27" iMac rumor. My understanding is the authors of both these rumors have said everything they were seeing is accounted for by the Mac Studio and the Studio Display.