Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread

[Eug]

M1
5 nm
Unified memory architecture - LP-DDR4
16 billion transistors

8-core CPU

4 high-performance cores
192 KB instruction cache
128 KB data cache
Shared 12 MB L2 cache

4 high-efficiency cores
128 KB instruction cache
64 KB data cache
Shared 4 MB L2 cache
(Apple claims the 4 high-effiency cores alone perform like a dual-core Intel MacBook Air)

8-core iGPU (but there is a 7-core variant, likely with one inactive core)
128 execution units
Up to 24576 concurrent threads
2.6 Teraflops
82 Gigatexels/s
41 gigapixels/s

16-core neural engine
Secure Enclave
USB 4

Products:
$999 ($899 edu) 13" MacBook Air (fanless) - 18 hour video playback battery life
$699 Mac mini (with fan)
$1299 ($1199 edu) 13" MacBook Pro (with fan) - 20 hour video playback battery life

Memory options 8 GB and 16 GB. No 32 GB option (unless you go Intel).

It should be noted that the M1 chip in these three Macs is the same (aside from GPU core number). Basically, Apple is taking the same approach which these chips as they do the iPhones and iPads. Just one SKU (excluding the X variants), which is the same across all iDevices (aside from maybe slight clock speed differences occasionally).

EDIT:



M1 Pro 8-core CPU (6+2), 14-core GPU
M1 Pro 10-core CPU (8+2), 14-core GPU
M1 Pro 10-core CPU (8+2), 16-core GPU
M1 Max 10-core CPU (8+2), 24-core GPU
M1 Max 10-core CPU (8+2), 32-core GPU

M1 Pro and M1 Max discussion here:

Page 78 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 78 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

M1 Ultra discussion here:

Page 109 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 109 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

M2 discussion here:

Page 127 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 127 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

Second Generation 5 nm
Unified memory architecture - LPDDR5, up to 24 GB and 100 GB/s
20 billion transistors

8-core CPU

4 high-performance cores
192 KB instruction cache
128 KB data cache
Shared 16 MB L2 cache

4 high-efficiency cores
128 KB instruction cache
64 KB data cache
Shared 4 MB L2 cache

10-core iGPU (but there is an 8-core variant)
3.6 Teraflops

16-core neural engine
Secure Enclave
USB 4

Hardware acceleration for 8K h.264, h.264, ProRes

M3 Family discussion here:

Page 215 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 215 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

M4 Family discussion here:

Page 263 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 263 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

 

[DrMrLordX]

Maybe this is the sort of thing the EU ought to worry about as far as "e-waste" (i.e. disposing of these larger power supplies down the road) instead of whether iPhones ship with a cable that's got USB-C on one end or two.

It's easier for a government bureaucrat to understand the notion of excess cables vs bigger power supply/smaller power supply issues as you have articulated. One potential source of waste requires no real technical understanding.

 

[Doug S]

No, this feature is key IMO. Many people here think of the display as being built for the Mac Studio or Mac mini, but it's likely that far, far more people will be running this monitor with a MacBook Pro.

Plugging this into the MacBook Pro means you get the secondary display and charging over the same cable.

BTW, the LG monitor this replaces also charges the MBP over Thunderbolt.

I'm not saying it is a bad thing overall, just that it is a tradeoff.

But I agree with those who say it should have an ethernet port and a couple USB-A ports so it could act as a full dock for the laptops.

 

[Heartbreaker]

I agree. I guess my point (not directed at you specifically, but just in general) is that it's great it's repairable, but people shouldn't conflate "repairable" with "upgradable". Although he didn't actually spell it out that way in that YouTube video, that was the main takeaway I got from it.

I agree. People should assume no more than Apple said. Storage is not user upgradable.

I just found the ranting hysterics annoying. Unfortunately that's much of youtube these days.

It seems people are complaining more since they discovered SSD is slotted, than when they assumed it was soldered in, which just seems weird.

I wouldn't worry at all about a couple of day one issue trying this kind of stuff on a brand new product, or statements about it being repair only.

It probably wasn't the case early on, but you can now buy SSD Kits from Apple to upgrade the 2019 Mac Pro SSD, though they are brutally expensive. The procedure seems the same, where you need a second Mac to initialize it:

2TB SSD Kit for Mac Pro

The 2TB SSD Kit for Mac Pro enables you to upgrade the internal SSD storage capacity of your Mac Pro. This kit, containing two 1TB modules, replaces the current SSD module(s) in your system. Installation required.

www.apple.com

Even if it isn't Apple's intent I expect you will be able to buy the SSD modules for the Studio Macs as well and install them (including for upgrades) if you want to. But that probably costs more than picking that storage in the first place, so best left for when you actually need to replace a worn SSD and that won't be for MANY years most likely.

Though there might never be generic cheaper version. That is probably the biggest real downside.

Bottom line, not much to see here. It's a similar to situation to other Apple proprietary SSD modules, that has been like this for some time.

 

[MadRat]

Brilliant, throw a new SSD into the system and be constrained to continue to rely on the degraded original. Lose the first then you lose the second because you've lost the 'settings.'

 

[Doug S]

Brilliant, throw a new SSD into the system and be constrained to continue to rely on the degraded original. Lose the first then you lose the second because you've lost the 'settings.'

I would assume there's a way to copy the "boot" portion to a second one, so it is effectively mirrored.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Having ports able to deliver power is a good thing in some respects, but it is very wasteful on the power supply side - both in terms of requiring larger power supplies and running them in a far less efficient range most of the time.

I mean theoretically Apple could design the Mini to run under 100 watts total, so it could be powered by Thunderbolt. Only problem is that would compromise its ability to deliver power so that's probably not going to happen.

The latest USB PD spec allows for delivering 240 watts. That will have two effects, 1) we will see even larger power supplies in devices that use a fraction of that power, 2) we will see some Chinese phone announce support for 240 watt fast charging and too many idiots will think that's a feature not a bug.

Maybe this is the sort of thing the EU ought to worry about as far as "e-waste" (i.e. disposing of these larger power supplies down the road) instead of whether iPhones ship with a cable that's got USB-C on one end or two.

Modern power supplies aren't that wasteful. You do realize its not always pulling that much, right? Like this is a completely baffling argument. Its not always pulling 285W. And I'd hazard a guess that because of that 285W power supply, this monitor will be used longer than others, leading to less waste.

There's a tradeoff there, and that being that its not going to take as long to charge. So sure 240W for charging a phone is pretty silly, but that's going to reduce the charging time, so the overall power isn't that drastic. Also, there are other devices that would use USB. Chances are this actually will improve efficiency, having several devices charging/powered via USB from a single power supply versus multiple ones with their own wall warts/etc.

I'm also baffled at the griping about regulations pushing to sort out cable waste issues. There's other benefits to that (which circle back, because of that, and USB becoming a ubiquitous charging standard these days), its very likely that improves efficiency by helping ditch all the wall warts and other stuff that was previously the manner in which things were done.

 

[lobz]

I agree. People should assume no more than Apple said. Storage is not user upgradable.

I just found the ranting hysterics annoying. Unfortunately that's much of youtube these days.

It seems people are complaining more since they discovered SSD is slotted, than when they assumed it was soldered in, which just seems weird.

I wouldn't worry at all about a couple of day one issue trying this kind of stuff on a brand new product, or statements about it being repair only.

It probably wasn't the case early on, but you can now buy SSD Kits from Apple to upgrade the 2019 Mac Pro SSD, though they are brutally expensive. The procedure seems the same, where you need a second Mac to initialize it:

2TB SSD Kit for Mac Pro

The 2TB SSD Kit for Mac Pro enables you to upgrade the internal SSD storage capacity of your Mac Pro. This kit, containing two 1TB modules, replaces the current SSD module(s) in your system. Installation required.

www.apple.com

Even if it isn't Apple's intent I expect you will be able to buy the SSD modules for the Studio Macs as well and install them (including for upgrades) if you want to. But that probably costs more than picking that storage in the first place, so best left for when you actually need to replace a worn SSD and that won't be for MANY years most likely.

Though there might never be generic cheaper version. That is probably the biggest real downside.

Bottom line, not much to see here. It's a similar to situation to other Apple proprietary SSD modules, that has been like this for some time.

I mean... take a step, a decision and just own it, that's it. No place for made-up and bogus reasons. That applies for all companies of course!

 

[igor_kavinski]

Apple M1 Performance On Linux: Benchmarks Better Than Expected For Its Alpha State Review - Phoronix



Now THAT is amazing! Asahi Linux beating MacOS in some benchmarks despite Alpha state.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Now THAT is amazing! Asahi Linux beating MacOS in some benchmarks despite Alpha state.

Kinda makes you wonder if Linux is letting the CPU pull more power/reach higher temps.

 

[MadRat]

Kinda makes you wonder if Linux is letting the CPU pull more power/reach higher temps.

If Mac OSX is based off BSD it may be the different in software age. Linux may simply offer better support for something in those tests. Improvements in OSX need to have a business case or they may remain frozen in time.

 

[Glo.]

Kinda makes you wonder if Linux is letting the CPU pull more power/reach higher temps.

Or simply MacOS is a piece of garbage in terms of performance?

It consistently was losing to Windows and Linux in crossplatform tests done on the same machine. Phoronix did tests quite some time ago. Nothing changed to this day.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I feel bad for their hardware team. They had to build a faster CPU to overcome their slow OS's limitations and their architecture is so performant and power efficient that they still managed to do really well. I'm in awe of their skills and at the same time, sorry what they had to work with.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Or simply MacOS is a piece of garbage in terms of performance?

If you look at some of the M1 Ultra tests, you'll see that Apple has limited the temps (an power draw) of the CPU in situations where the cooling apparatus is more than capable of reaching higher temps/higher clocks. There may be similar throttling going on with other M1 products.

 

[Ajay]

M1 Ultra vs M1 Max:

View attachment 58948

M1 Max:

View attachment 58949

View attachment 58950

View attachment 58952

M1 Ultra:

View attachment 58951

View attachment 58953

Hmm, they flipped those images. I thought there were two different motherboards till I noticed that the ports were in the wrong place. I did a quick and dirty flip in Gimp:



There are a couple of small differences in the discrete chips that are installed (more power MOSFET stages are likely as well - but under tape). Also, the location of the M.2 SSD are different - strange.

 

[Ajay]

I would assume there's a way to copy the "boot" portion to a second one, so it is effectively mirrored.

One would think, but Apple firmware is pretty much a black box, so they can lockout whatever they want to.

 

[Doug S]

Modern power supplies aren't that wasteful. You do realize its not always pulling that much, right? Like this is a completely baffling argument. Its not always pulling 285W. And I'd hazard a guess that because of that 285W power supply, this monitor will be used longer than others, leading to less waste.

Of course I realize they aren't always running at the max. You do realize that all power supplies are less efficient under a very low load, right? Many power supply efficiency curves don't even show the efficiency below 20% load because it starts to rapidly degrade beyond that point in all but the most well designed power supplies.

Now maybe Apple is sourcing really good power supplies that have great efficiency even down to 10% load, i.e. 30 watts for the monitor with a 285 watt max. They can't get them off the shelf though, "80 plus" certification levels that require between 80% and 90% efficiency at 20% load don't even rate for 10% load, because when they designed those standards they probably figured "who would be dumb enough to buy a power supply with a max rating 10x higher than they need". So Apple would have to specify efficiency at 10%, rather than simply choosing 80 plus gold or whatever.

The real problem is if everyone in the industry starts doing this you can bet that a lot of crappy power supplies that are terribly inefficient at base load will be shipped in the lower end section of the mass market where every penny of the BOM matters. A lot of that stuff uses power supplies that don't even qualify for the base 80 plus level and may well waste over half the power at a 10% load.

 

[repoman27]

Well, it looks like iFixit was successful in swapping NAND modules between two Mac Studios and performing a DFU restore. So as long as you're not an idiot, this seems to work as expected. Of course there are probably rules concerning the order in which you populate the slots, and modules likely need to be matched or at least sufficiently similar when using both slots. It's also possible that all modules of similar capacity are not the same; there might be versions designed specifically for single-slot or dual-slot configurations that could differ in NAND organization or have additional terminating resistors.

Personally, I would have taken a moment to compare ioreg output, NAND package markings, and module layout / location of passives before just blindly swapping them into different machines. But hey, I'm no YouTube influencer or right to repair warrior.

 

[Mopetar]

I feel bad for their hardware team. They had to build a faster CPU to overcome their slow OS's limitations and their architecture is so performant and power efficient that they still managed to do really well. I'm in awe of their skills and at the same time, sorry what they had to work with.

The OS is fine. Apple just prioritizes lower clock and fan speeds over maximum raw performance.

I think a small bit of data is leading people to jump to faulty conclusions. An upwards of 100% performance increase should not be coming from the operating system alone.

If it were that simple then Android devices should be regularly smoking iOS devices (or at least matching them considering the Apple hardware advantage) in various cross platform benchmarks, but that's seldom the case.

Until we have figure showing those results we're accomplished with the same power draw any assumptions are likely to be flawed.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Of course I realize they aren't always running at the max. You do realize that all power supplies are less efficient under a very low load, right? Many power supply efficiency curves don't even show the efficiency below 20% load because it starts to rapidly degrade beyond that point in all but the most well designed power supplies.

Now maybe Apple is sourcing really good power supplies that have great efficiency even down to 10% load, i.e. 30 watts for the monitor with a 285 watt max. They can't get them off the shelf though, "80 plus" certification levels that require between 80% and 90% efficiency at 20% load don't even rate for 10% load, because when they designed those standards they probably figured "who would be dumb enough to buy a power supply with a max rating 10x higher than they need". So Apple would have to specify efficiency at 10%, rather than simply choosing 80 plus gold or whatever.

The real problem is if everyone in the industry starts doing this you can bet that a lot of crappy power supplies that are terribly inefficient at base load will be shipped in the lower end section of the mass market where every penny of the BOM matters. A lot of that stuff uses power supplies that don't even qualify for the base 80 plus level and may well waste over half the power at a 10% load.

This is basically irrelevant. So what if Apple PSU is 75% Efficient at 30 Watts, when it could have been 81% by downsizing it more, and pushing it closer to the edge.

That's a difference of less than 2 Watts wasted.

This is pointless trivia.

 

[repoman27]

Of course I realize they aren't always running at the max. You do realize that all power supplies are less efficient under a very low load, right? Many power supply efficiency curves don't even show the efficiency below 20% load because it starts to rapidly degrade beyond that point in all but the most well designed power supplies.

Now maybe Apple is sourcing really good power supplies that have great efficiency even down to 10% load, i.e. 30 watts for the monitor with a 285 watt max. They can't get them off the shelf though, "80 plus" certification levels that require between 80% and 90% efficiency at 20% load don't even rate for 10% load, because when they designed those standards they probably figured "who would be dumb enough to buy a power supply with a max rating 10x higher than they need". So Apple would have to specify efficiency at 10%, rather than simply choosing 80 plus gold or whatever.

The real problem is if everyone in the industry starts doing this you can bet that a lot of crappy power supplies that are terribly inefficient at base load will be shipped in the lower end section of the mass market where every penny of the BOM matters. A lot of that stuff uses power supplies that don't even qualify for the base 80 plus level and may well waste over half the power at a 10% load.

You've seen those teardown photos... Apple doesn't really do "off the shelf". The Studio Display PSU is equivalent to 80 Plus Gold, and the Mac Studio PSU is 80 Plus Platinum, bordering on Titanium. Apple ships really nice power supplies. Regardless of how bad the efficiency is at 10% load, the Studio Display is still only pulling 30.7 W from the wall at 200 cd/m², which is peanuts.

Also, I was wrong about the iMac Pro—the PSU was actually 500 W and it could dissipate up to 370 W! In addition to the power budget for ports, Apple also needs to include headroom for future revisions. The previous iMac designs used the same PSU throughout their lifespan, despite the internals drawing more power in later revisions.

Product	Power Supply (W)	Power Consumption (W)	Measurement
iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2013)	185	136	CPU Max
iMac (27-inch, Late 2013)	300	229	CPU Max
iMac (Retina 4K, 21.5-inch, 2019)	185	166	CPU Max
iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2020)	300	295	CPU Max
iMac Pro (Retina 5K, 27-inch)	500	370	CPU Max
iMac (24-inch, M1)	143	84	CPU Max
Studio Display	285	30.7	On
Mac Studio	370	215	Max

Overall, I don't have any problem with the power supplies Apple is using here, but I do find the degree of over-provisioning to be noteworthy. If anything, I would argue that an all-in-one design like the iMac is better for consumers and the environment because you only need (and pay for) the design, manufacturing, and transportation of one case, PSU, and SoC (along with its associated pool of DRAM and NAND flash memory), rather than two. You could also omit the rather expensive Thunderbolt cable and discrete controller while also freeing up an additional port for other accessories. When you look at the breakdown of environmental impact between the production->transportation and use->EOL phases, it's not at all clear that modular systems have any real advantage, and yet they will almost certainly cost the consumer more in the end. Modularity is all about flexibility and customer choice, and that's perfectly fine, but it has very little to do with reducing e-waste or emissions.

 

[Mopetar]

The Mac Studio is small enough that it's easy to transport around. The same can't be said for an iMac or a Mac Pro and some people may have a need to move it around or to switch between different monitors. Some people might even use them in a largely headless manner for doing render jobs and want to stick a few of them in a rack somewhere.

The iMac is good for certain types of users, but there's no one size fits all form factor that will satisfy everyone. People can buy what best suits their needs.

 

[Ajay]

Well, it looks like iFixit was successful in swapping NAND modules between two Mac Studios and performing a DFU restore. So as long as you're not an idiot, this seems to work as expected. Of course there are probably rules concerning the order in which you populate the slots, and modules likely need to be matched or at least sufficiently similar when using both slots. It's also possible that all modules of similar capacity are not the same; there might be versions designed specifically for single-slot or dual-slot configurations that could differ in NAND organization or have additional terminating resistors.

Personally, I would have taken a moment to compare ioreg output, NAND package markings, and module layout / location of passives before just blindly swapping them into different machines. But hey, I'm no YouTube influencer or right to repair warrior.

IIRC, this only works when swapping another Mac Studio M.2 SSD of the same size! Which is super weird. TB 3/4 run at 40Gbps (5000MBs), so it's pretty fast, just kind of ugly having all these peripherals plugged in.

 

[scannall]

The Mac Studio is small enough that it's easy to transport around. The same can't be said for an iMac or a Mac Pro and some people may have a need to move it around or to switch between different monitors. Some people might even use them in a largely headless manner for doing render jobs and want to stick a few of them in a rack somewhere.

The iMac is good for certain types of users, but there's no one size fits all form factor that will satisfy everyone. People can buy what best suits their needs.

I'm sure fairly soon someone will come out with big rack mounts for the Studio, for render farms.

 

[tomatosummit]

Overall, I don't have any problem with the power supplies Apple is using here, but I do find the degree of over-provisioning to be noteworthy.

To jump in there was an apple cinema from years ago that is in the same niche and it turns out it has a similar power supply.
"Maximum power: 250W (LED Cinema Display while charging MacBook Pro) " from https://support.apple.com/kb/SP597?locale=en_US although it doesn't state the specific power supply design point, a healthy 20% extra should be a minimum though.

I did use that display a while ago and it was quite nice although very heavy (10KG apparently) with the metal construction. I think apple made the usb standard the mess it is today all so the displays no longer needed the embarresing three cables for magsafe/miniDP/usbA.

The same can't be said for an iMac

I see you've never met a hip graphics designer with a 27inch manbag.
I did enjoy seeing a freelancer I worked with once bring their renderer trashcan to our office though, almost burnt my hand from the exhaust trying to plug in the network cable.

 

[Eug]

I see you've never met a hip graphics designer with a 27inch manbag.
I did enjoy seeing a freelancer I worked with once bring their renderer trashcan to our office though, almost burnt my hand from the exhaust trying to plug in the network cable.
View attachment 59156

Yep, it's real.





However, MKBHD used to travel with an iMac Pro in a hard case, until the M1 Max MacBook Pro was released. Something like this:



Anyhow, I don't know anyone who would travel with even a Mac mini. I mean, you would still need a keyboard, mouse, and monitor of course, along with the appropriate cables. That's why I think the idea of a bus-powered Mac Studio (or Mac mini for that matter) is a foolish one. It's simply not something real people are asking for.

99.9% of people traveling with their computers will travel with a laptop (or even an iPad these days). Luckily there are MacBook Pros with serious horsepower available now that don't sound like vacuum cleaners when under load.