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

 

[Eug]

Honestly this seems insane.

iPad Pro is sought to get oled display drastically decreasing weight and thickness. (And increase price by hundreds of dollars)

The basic M chips can draw in excess of 20 W under load which is way over the limits of an iPad or even a passivelly cooled Mac Book.
The M Pro goes over 40W.

While Apple silicon is super power efficient the power draw keeps growing. We are way past the days of 0,5W for full GPU load (on an iPhone 4). Thus having larger SoCs might be irellevant as it is strictly thermally limited. iPad also has much smaller battery than Mac Books.
However I can imagine Apple doing this for bragging rights AND having fans pay 6k$ for fully speced M3Pro 14 oled iPad.

That's a reasonable technical explanation, but the other reason is Apple tends to ration major upgrades. IOW, even if by some magic they were able to control the power utilization enough to be able to stuff an M3 Pro into a new OLED iPad Pro, they wouldn't do it simply because it's already getting a huge upgrade with OLED.

 

[igor_kavinski]

they wouldn't do it simply because it's already getting a huge upgrade with OLED.

I get it. They don't go EVERYWHERE and do EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE. They like to tease. Gotta keep the customer coming back for more.

 

[Doug S]

Honestly this seems insane.

iPad Pro is sought to get oled display drastically decreasing weight and thickness. (And increase price by hundreds of dollars)

The basic M chips can draw in excess of 20 W under load which is way over the limits of an iPad or even a passivelly cooled Mac Book.
The M Pro goes over 40W.

While Apple silicon is super power efficient the power draw keeps growing. We are way past the days of 0,5W for full GPU load (on an iPhone 4). Thus having larger SoCs might be irellevant as it is strictly thermally limited. iPad also has much smaller battery than Mac Books.
However I can imagine Apple doing this for bragging rights AND having fans pay 6k$ for fully speced M3Pro 14 oled iPad.

Apps on the iPad Pro are not going to get all cores running flat out for minutes at a time like unrealistic tests like Cinebench do. They can set a power limit and adjust CPU and GPU clocks as necessary to stay within it depending on overall load.

I'm skeptical about an M3 Pro version of iPad Pro, but if there's demand for it it is probably demand for better GPU performance (for engineering type apps) not better CPU performance.

 

[oak8292]

My speculation is that M processors will transition to MacBook Airs and iPads with the M Pro eventually being the lowest processor for the MacBook Pros when the ‘dust’ settles. The M in MacBook Pros for this generation may be an indicator of wafer limitations. The MacBook Air, iPad Pro and iPhone 15 may need more N3 wafers than they can get going into the holidays. I believe that the pricier MacBook Pros are lower volume.

 

[Eug]

My speculation is that M processors will transition to MacBook Airs and iPads with the M Pro eventually being the lowest processor for the MacBook Pros when the ‘dust’ settles. The M in MacBook Pros for this generation may be an indicator of wafer limitations. The MacBook Air, iPad Pro and iPhone 15 may need more N3 wafers than they can get going into the holidays. I believe that the pricier MacBook Pros are lower volume.

Nah. A ton of people who get the MacBook Pros don't actually need increased performance over non-Pro M series chips. MacBook Pros are often the go-to machine for corporate types for example, even though they may just be working in Word, Excel, Outlook, Teams, and Chrome.

That's likely changing with the Apple Silicon MacBook Airs, but the MacBook Pros are still extremely popular with this crowd.

 

[poke01]

Nah. A ton of people who get the MacBook Pros don't actually need increased performance over non-Pro M series chips. MacBook Pros are often the go-to machine for corporate types for example, even though they may just be working in Word, Excel, Outlook, Teams, and Chrome.

That's likely changing with the Apple Silicon MacBook Airs, but the MacBook Pros are still extremely popular with this crowd.

Having a HDMI port the $1599 model is also a huge plus for corporate and Universities. The Air doesnt have this.

 

[Mopetar]

Why spend $20 to buy a USB-C/HDMI adapter when you can drop several hundreds for a port?

 

[Eug]

Why spend $20 to buy a USB-C/HDMI adapter when you can drop several hundreds for a port?

True, and I use a dongle with my MacBook, although it is annoying to carry around.

However, the prices may be closer than you think:

$1599 - M2 MacBook Air 16 GB / 512 GB
$1799 - M3 MacBook Pro 16 GB / 512 GB

 

[trivik12]

it

Nah. A ton of people who get the MacBook Pros don't actually need increased performance over non-Pro M series chips. MacBook Pros are often the go-to machine for corporate types for example, even though they may just be working in Word, Excel, Outlook, Teams, and Chrome.

That's likely changing with the Apple Silicon MacBook Airs, but the MacBook Pros are still extremely popular with this crowd.

Most corporate buys for MBP are for developers. They go for 32GB these days. So base M3 is not an option there.

 

[Eug]

Most corporate buys for MBP are for developers. They go for 32GB these days. So base M3 is not an option there.

That may be true but I was actually talking more about the non-tech side. Eg. Execs, project managers, sales, etc. Often they will be on Windows but if they get a Mac, more often than not it will be the MBP, not the MBA. Historically that did make sense because the MBAs had lots of limitations. That is no longer the case but the bias toward the MBP is still there. However, they don’t need 32 GB RAM.

 

[Eug]

Apple says there will be no M3 Pro or even M3 27” iMac.

Apple has no plans to make a 27-inch iMac with Apple Silicon

No big screen all-in-one for you.

www.theverge.com

They didn’t say anything about an even bigger iMac but I wouldn’t expect to see that. I’m just holding out hope for a cheaper ~30” monitor at ~5K. Doesn’t have to be from Apple though.

——

M3 non-Pro Cinebench 2024 GPU is 35% faster than M1 Pro and 20% faster than M2 Pro.

Apple iMac (M3) review: when enough is enough | Digital Trends

There's a new iMac, now using the M3 chip. It's not the iMac you want, but it might be the one you need.

www.digitaltrends.com

 

[poke01]

Fastest SC in the world. M3 is sure a "trainwreck". This is why we wait for release, not just judge by the phone SoC.

The MT score is 1672 at 51 watts for M3 Max.

Also M3 Max CPU like the core arch is on par with 7800X3D meaning they match AMD gaming chips despite not being made for gaming. This is balders gate 3 but that is CPU intensive.

Here's the Geekerwan video in which they A17 Pro and M3 are different. The "A17 Pro" architecture is more desktop orientated and it's GPU features work better in the M chips.

 

[Eug]

Fastest SC in the world. M3 is sure a "trainwreck". This is why we wait for release, not just judge by the phone SoC.

The MT score is 1672 at 51 watts for M3 Max.

Also M3 Max CPU like the core arch is on par with 7800X3D meaning they match AMD gaming chips despite not being made for gaming. This is balders gate 3 but that is CPU intensive.

Here's the Geekerwan video in which they A17 Pro and M3 are different. The "A17 Pro" architecture is more desktop orientated and it's GPU features work better in the M chips.

Nice. If we are to extrapolate, M3 Ultra will be well over 3000 in Cinebench 2024 CPU, probably somewhere around 3100-3300, basically twice as fast as M1 Ultra. With these types of speeds, there isn't really much point in Apple pursuing an Mx Max x 4 / Mx Extreme type chip.

However, there is a big increase in Cinebench 2024 CPU power use.

M2 Max 32 Watts
M3 Max 51 Watts

IOW, there is no significant gain in performance per Watt.

 

[poke01]

However, there is a big increase in Cinebench 2024 CPU power use.

M2 Max 32 Watts
M3 Max 51 Watts

Not at all surprisinging. Its got 4 extra P cores and 300mhz frequency boost. The fact it's 51 watts only is great.

Apple P core uses around 5 watts when under load. So 4P x 5 watts is 20 watts. So the math checks out

 

[TESKATLIPOKA]

Not at all surprisinging. Its got 4 extra P cores and 300mhz frequency boost. The fact it's 51 watts only is great.

Apple P core uses around 5 watts when under load. So 4P x 5 watts is 20 watts. So the math checks out

M3 Max has 12P and 4E cores, so your math is wrong. Just the P cores would be ~60W.

 

[Glo.]

True, and I use a dongle with my MacBook, although it is annoying to carry around.

However, the prices may be closer than you think:

$1599 - M2 MacBook Air 16 GB / 512 GB
$1799 - M3 MacBook Pro 16 GB / 512 GB

For that 200$ you get: 45 Hz display with 120 Hz refresh rate, but with MiniLED.

 

[FlameTail]

M3 Max has 12P and 4E cores, so your math is wrong. Just the P cores would be ~60W.

Isn't there a caveat though?

When the 5W is measured for the single threaded test, there are some common parts of the chip which are activated like the L2 cache, that is also shared with the other cores.

 

[poke01]

M3 Max has 12P and 4E cores, so your math is wrong. Just the P cores would be ~60W.

I meant the 4 extra cores are around 20 watts. It's 20 watts x 12P would be 120 watts.


It seems that Apple has increased the efficiency of the P core with M3, with M1 it's used 5 watts of power for a P core. it looks to lower with M3.

 

[FlameTail]

For that 200$ you get: 45 Hz display with 120 Hz refresh rate, but with MiniLED.

45 Hz?

 

[Glo.]

45 Hz?

Standard 60 Hz display should have a response time of 16.67 ms G2G.

Typical response time of, lets say Gigabyte G24F monitor, with 165 Hz had 4.1 ms, which is actually good enough to deliver 240 Hz, but the panel itself has 165 Hz refresh rate, and is considered one of the best budget gaming monitors.

So, what do you think is the G2G response time of Super Hiper Retina XDR Mobile god of displays, to deliver 120 Hz?

21 ms on 14 inch, 22 ms on 16 inch MacBook Pro. Thats good enough response time for 45 Hz display, but the display has 120 Hz refresh rate.

Its absolutely atrocious. Its not good enough for 60 Hz refresh rate, which results in absolutely terrible smearing everywhere, even on the OS level.

From 3:20.

 

[poke01]

Standard 60 Hz display should have a response time of 16.67 ms G2G.

Typical response time of, lets say Gigabyte G24F monitor, with 165 Hz had 4.1 ms, which is actually good enough to deliver 240 Hz, but the panel itself has 165 Hz refresh rate, and is considered one of the best budget gaming monitors.

So, what do you think is the G2G response time of Super Hiper Retina XDR Mobile god of displays, to deliver 120 Hz?

21 ms on 14 inch, 22 ms on 16 inch MacBook Pro. Thats good enough response time for 45 Hz display, but the display has 120 Hz refresh rate.

Its absolutely atrocious. Its not good enough for 60 Hz refresh rate, which results in absolutely terrible smearing everywhere, even on the OS level.

From 3:20.

Yep it's bad for gaming. I highly doubt Apple puts gaming a priority before other display specs like color reproduction, HDR etc.

To fix this while maintaining the excellent specs apart from the the horrible response times, OLED is the way to go. So 2026 or 2027.lol

 

[TESKATLIPOKA]

I meant the 4 extra cores are around 20 watts. It's 20 watts x 12P would be 120 watts.

I really don't understand this math of yours.
20 x 12 is 240W and If 4 extra cores consume 20W according to you, why do you multiply It by 12 instead of 3(12/4=3)?

Let's look at facts.
M2 Max: 12Cores (8P+4E) -> 32W
M3 Max: 16Cores (12P+4E) -> 51W
Even If I left only 3W for the 4E cores(they are idling) and the rest of the chip, It would mean 48W is left and that's 48/12= 4W per a single P-core and not 5W like you said.

 

[Glo.]

There is one possibility why Apple chose to downgrade the M3 Pro, in terms of CPU core count, GPU core count, and memory bandwidth, and transistor count(package size).

There were rumors that next generation iPad Pro would cost 1599$.

Thats because there is a possibility it will get M3 Pro chip.

 

[poke01]

I really don't understand this math of yours.
20 x 12 is 240W and If 4 extra cores consume 20W according to you, why do you multiply It by 12 instead of 3(12/4=3)?

Let's look at facts.
M2 Max: 12Cores (8P+4E) -> 32W
M3 Max: 16Cores (12P+4E) -> 51W
Even If I left only 3W for the 4E cores(they are idling) and the rest of the chip, It would mean 48W is left and that's 48/12= 4W per a single P-core and not 5W like you said.

My bad. Yeah, your right

 

[FlameTail]

There is one possibility why Apple chose to downgrade the M3 Pro, in terms of CPU core count, GPU core count, and memory bandwidth, and transistor count(package size).

There were rumors that next generation iPad Pro would cost 1599$.

Thats because there is a possibility it will get M3 Pro chip.

I just mentioned this in the previous page?