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

 

[gdansk]

Time will tell, but I don't see Apple accomplishing it either.

The confidence they must have in their marketing team to try to sell such a (currently niche) device for $3500.

 

[Muadib]

unification on the soc has its benefits and its cons. there's a few cons with the mac pro, but it's too early to tell how apple may address the problems in future. what you order is what you get, and the 192 gb ignoring the speed and latency benefits of the design is shared over the entire system and is anemic compared to the 1.5 tb on the 2019 for ram alone whereas new xeons are 3 tb.

if you don't give a hoot about power, get a dual socker epyc 96 core board and go wild with it. 6tb a socket, 12 tb total dunno if it pools or holds separately, be able to use high end nvidia gpus for scientific work, a100, h100, a6000, whatever random names jensen's company gives them. dunno em don't care enough to learn.

Once again, I agree! 192GB is a joke when you have to split it with video.

 

[A///]

vr's what 10 years old now? it's still the same as i remember it being then, plus you still look like a knob waving your arms around like a deranged lunatic. and if you've got a massive bay window in your living room your neighbors will think you're stark raving mad, you'd have to be for dropping that kind of dough on a first gen product.

 

[Muadib]

The confidence they must have in their marketing team to try to sell such a (currently niche) device for $3500.

Exactly!!! What are they smoking over there?!?

 

[A///]

Exactly!!! What are they smoking over there?!?

it's a very polished ar product, i said vr in my other post but ar is different. ar has its uses in some industries as does vr, but apple is a "luxury' company but i can't see people buying this. even companies wouldn't take the dive here. if this were microsoft or microsoft x nvidia there would be a lot of sales.

 

[Doug S]

This M2 Mac Pro feels like a placeholder, a "because we said two years back in 2020 and its already been three we have to give you something" and the real thing comes later with M3. This thing is just a Studio with $1000/ea PCIe slots added lol

Apple patents showed the three sets of I/O pads necessary to connect four Max dies together, the question is did they include those on M2 Max - anyone seen any third party die photos of M2 Max (since we know Apple cut the I/O pads out of the die photo they supplied for the M1 Max announcement) Guess we'll have to wait for M3 to get the 'Extreme' version that links four dies together.

 

[Muadib]

it's a very polished ar product, i said vr in my other post but ar is different. ar has its uses in some industries as does vr, but apple is a "luxury' company but i can't see people buying this. even companies wouldn't take the dive here. if this were microsoft or microsoft x nvidia there would be a lot of sales.

That's because with Microsoft and Nvidia you could use their ar for gaming. You can't do that with this Apple product. That better change.

 

[Heartbreaker]

This is literally what Meta tried to accomplish but couldn't.

Really not the same thing at all. Meta is focusing on VR and wants you to live and work in their world (while they serve you targeted ads).

Apple is focusing on AR, and wants to augment your world.

Vision Pro is some very impressive and polished tech. Naturally this has early adopter pricing, but it will get cost reduced in future generations.

 

[coercitiv]

and wants to augment your world.

That verb has no meaning for the average person. It's a marketing term.

 

[pj-]

Really not the same thing at all. Meta is focusing on VR and wants you to live and work in their world (while they serve you targeted ads).

Apple is focusing on AR, and wants to augment your world.

Vision Pro is some very impressive and polished tech. Naturally this has early adopter pricing, but it will get cost reduced in future generations.

That is an unfairly charitable interpretation of what apple is doing, considering the previous sentence.

How about this:
Apple is focusing on AR, and wants to augment your world (where all products you own are made by apple, which they accomplish through slick marketing and peer pressure and vendor lock in, where devices are unnecessarily expensive and accessories are outrageously expensive, all to propagate their multi trillion dollar valuation)

Meta sucks but apple is no better

 

[Heartbreaker]

Meta sucks but apple is no better

I'd disagree strenuously.

Apple wants to sell you products. You are the customer.

Meta wants to sell you, to advertisers as they are the customer, and you are the product.

 

[smalM]

This M2 Mac Pro feels like a placeholder, a "because we said two years back in 2020 and its already been three we have to give you something" and the real thing comes later with M3.

Agreed.

anyone seen any third party die photos of M2 Max (since we know Apple cut the I/O pads out of the die photo they supplied for the M1 Max announcement)

They are only available for a lot of money. Die analysis included...

Guess we'll have to wait for M3 to get the 'Extreme' version that links four dies together.

Guess we'll have to wait for N3 to get the 'Extreme' version that links four dies together.
Maybe there will never be a version that links four dies together and we'll have to wait for the chiplet version of the Max. M4? M5?

 

[Saylick]

I'd disagree strenuously.

Apple wants to sell you products. You are the customer.

Meta wants to sell you, to advertisers as they are the customer, and you are the product.

I'm not sure that distinction matters all too much when the intent of the AR/VR headset is the same: use AR/VR to get customers into your ecosystem where you make money off of them.

Apple has a vast ecosystem that many, many people are already neck deep into. Once Apple gets this device down to a price point that is comparable to the iPhone, it'll sell like gang busters because by that time, the software ecosystem will be more thoroughly fleshed out.

 

[Heartbreaker]

I'm not sure that distinction matters all too much when the intent of the AR/VR headset is the same: use AR/VR to get customers into your ecosystem where you make money off of them.

The difference is Ads, and selling your info to advertisers. That is how Meta makes money so that is what they must do.

Apple OTOH make most of it's money selling you HW, SW, and services, NOT ads, or selling your info.

 

[Glo.]

I'm not sure that distinction matters all too much when the intent of the AR/VR headset is the same: use AR/VR to get customers into your ecosystem where you make money off of them.

Apple has a vast ecosystem that many, many people are already neck deep into. Once Apple gets this device down to a price point that is comparable to the iPhone, it'll sell like gang busters because by that time, the software ecosystem will be more thoroughly fleshed out.

If that is the gist of AR/VR - then people clearly do not understand how big AR/VR will become and how it will change interaction with computers.

 

[smalM]

double post, sorry.

 

[soresu]

Naturally this has early adopter pricing, but it will get cost reduced in future generations

The early adopter pricing excuse doesn't fly this far into the current VR/AR tech progression.

This is just Apple being Apple.

The same Apple that charged $1000 for a stand on the old Mac Pro Display.

The same Apple that charged a ridiculous (server HW level price) markup on PC hardware based Macs once they migrated to x86 in the 00s.

They charge that much because they know that there are some people out there who will buy it merely because it is Apple.

Obviously they will need to front a cheaper model later on to get higher sales - but that doesn't mean that the ones buying this current headset need think of themselves are early adopters at all.

The real early adopters bought the Rift, the Vive and later the Index.

After those initial hype stirrers came out the responsible parties fielded cheaper standalone headsets using inside out to reduce costs by eliminating tracking modules.

At this point any talk about early adopters on Apple's part is just insulting the consumers intelligence - like their waiting till phablets had been in the market for years and ignoring them completely, and then adopting them and acting like its the best thing since sliced bread as if Apple engineers personally invented the concept.

This is just how Apple works as a business.

 

[Ajay]

unification on the soc has its benefits and its cons. there's a few cons with the mac pro, but it's too early to tell how apple may address the problems in future. what you order is what you get, and the 192 gb ignoring the speed and latency benefits of the design is shared over the entire system and is anemic compared to the 1.5 tb on the 2019 for ram alone whereas new xeons are 3 tb.

if you don't give a hoot about power, get a dual socker epyc 96 core board and go wild with it. 6tb a socket, 12 tb total dunno if it pools or holds separately, be able to use high end nvidia gpus for scientific work, a100, h100, a6000, whatever random names jensen's company gives them. dunno em don't care enough to learn.

If someone is using this as a serious server - they are nuts anyway. The real question is what is the expected RAM usage that customers applications will be using the Pro for. As @Doug S said, this has to be a placeholder for something a bit bigger and badder - otherwise that tower layout seems nuts. Though I imagine there will be some really cool AIB for pro audio processing. Now that UE 5.2 supports M-series Macs - there could be use for them in certain cinematic work.

 

[Heartbreaker]

The early adopter pricing excuse doesn't fly this far into the current VR/AR tech progression.

This is just Apple being Apple.

The same Apple that charged $1000 for a stand on the old Mac Pro Display.

The same Apple that charged a ridiculous (server HW level price) markup on PC hardware based Macs once they migrated to x86 in the 00s.

They charge that much because they know that there are some people out there who will buy it merely because it is Apple.

This is AR, not VR, so this is still Early adopter times. If you watched the presentation, this is a spare no expense best of everything device. There really is nothing else that works like this.

Obviously they will need to front a cheaper model later on to get higher sales - but that doesn't mean that the ones buying this current headset need think of themselves are early adopters at all.

So expensive first of it's kind followed by less expensive model later.

That is pretty much the definition of Early adopter pricing.

 

[Heartbreaker]

If someone is using this as a serious server - they are nuts anyway. The real question is what is the expected RAM usage that customers applications will be using the Pro for. As @Doug S said, this has to be a placeholder for something a bit bigger and badder - otherwise that tower layout seems nuts. Though I imagine there will be some really cool AIB for pro audio processing. Now that UE 5.2 supports M-series Macs - there could be use for them in certain cinematic work.

I don't think so. This is just all they can do given the constraints of re-using the volume parts from lower end Macs, combined with their complete commitment to unified memory model.

Naturally there will be a more powerful Mac Pro in the future, but that will just be from newer more powerful SoC in the volume models. They aren't going to do a new chip just for the Mac Pro. The volumes are too low.

So next year there will probably be an new M3/Pro/Max/Ultra, and they will use the M3-Ultra in the Mac Pro (but also in the Studio).

Going forward, the Mac Pro is just a Mac Studio with PCIe Slots. If you don't need PCIe slots, you save a lot of money. I do think this will eventually kill the Mac Pro.

 

[Ajay]

Going forward, the Mac Pro is just a Mac Studio with PCIe Slots. If you don't need PCIe slots, you save a lot of money. I do think this will eventually kill the Mac Pro.

Well, maybe that is the plan. Apple may have made some important commitments to IHVs or ISVs that there would be an M-series Mac Pro follow up. In that case, they upgrade the SoC a couple times till the commitment is met.

 

[pj-]

I'd disagree strenuously.

Apple wants to sell you products. You are the customer.

Meta wants to sell you, to advertisers as they are the customer, and you are the product.

yes, that's the cliche everyone uses these days

not really the gotcha people think it is

I've been the product for google for 20 years now and gotten great services in return like gmail and chrome and maps and youtube and android.

There are certainly frequent instances of free services themselves being bad and manipulative to increase screentime to increase ad views, just as there are instances of companies selling bad products or using manipulative tactics to sell them.

I don't think there is anything intrinsically worse about exchanging your eyes and information for a "free" service than there is being convinced to buy a product you don't need. As long as the interactions are honest and consensual, which is not a given in either case, they are both fine.

Data protection was basically non-existent until regulators started catching on (thanks Europe), but having lived through the sketchiest days I'm still waiting for the ill effects of big tech or media having "my data".

 

[Heartbreaker]

I've been the product for google for 20 years now and gotten great services in return like gmail and chrome and maps and youtube and android.

I consider Meta worse that Google as well. Meta has a horrible record on user data.

I don't mind Google as much because I block the ads/scripts, and they don't have as bad a record as Meta. But now that Chrome is the basis of most browsers, Google is working to kill ad blockers, and make YouTube ads unskippable.

A Meta device where they own everything will likely be an unblockable ad fest.

I'd rather just pay full HW price and have HW without the unblockable ads.

 

[pj-]

I consider Meta worse that Google as well. Meta has a horrible record on user data.

I don't mind Google as much because I block the ads/scripts, and they don't have as bad a record as Meta. But now that Chrome is the basis of most browsers, Google is working to kill ad blockers, and make YouTube ads unskippable.

A Meta device where they own everything will likely be an unblockable ad fest.

I'd rather just pay full HW price and have HW without the unblockable ads.

I don't think Meta is subsidizing their VR headsets anymore, and while I don't use my quest 2 very much these days I don't recall ever seeing a forced ad other than promoted apps in the app store. They have been playing a long game trying to build the metaverse where the theoretical revenue stream could be an apple store-style 30% cut on transactions just as easily as it could be ads, but that whole thing seems to be dying before we're forced to find out which, thankfully.

With quest you can connect it to a PC wired or wirelessly and play games on Steam without ever giving a dime to Meta. You can also sideload apps. I'd bet Vision Pro won't do either of those, in which case I'll continue to pay for HW that lets me do what I want with it.

 

[A///]

If someone is using this as a serious server - they are nuts anyway. The real question is what is the expected RAM usage that customers applications will be using the Pro for. As @Doug S said, this has to be a placeholder for something a bit bigger and badder - otherwise that tower layout seems nuts. Though I imagine there will be some really cool AIB for pro audio processing. Now that UE 5.2 supports M-series Macs - there could be use for them in certain cinematic work.

where did you get server from that? by going xeon or epyc you're throwing more cores and memory at a problem. current tr is old and only the pro level supports some or all of the features as xeon ws or xeon. what's disappointing is the overall specs for what you get @ starting and kitted out. the pricing is better than the older xeons but you're getting fleeced on the raw specs @ the hi end. it's fast and great until you need more. least more pro software is heading to linux each day as an option. it would be more stable than windows.