Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 71 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,825
1,396
126
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:

Screen-Shot-2021-10-18-at-1.20.47-PM.jpg

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:


M1 Ultra discussion here:


M2 discussion here:


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:


M4 Family discussion here:

 
Last edited:

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,595
761
136
Why do you think they'd push to end x86 support after only two years? They support old iPhones a lot longer than that, I imagine they wouldn't support old Macs for a shorter time.

I'm not looking at it from a malicious perspective, but a business one. Apple is on a huge push to get away from paying Intel for their chips, would Apple support and resources be also pulled from x86 after a certain point because it is better business to spend money on the Mx ecosystem?

I found a G3 iMac on the curb that still works, picked up a used G4 tower randomly that still works, have a big body MacBook Pro with the optical in it, and a MacBook Air before they went Retina.

They are so many cool software and hardware things Apple did that they essentially killed or stopped supporting for business reasons.

But for all the crap MS does, they still have a 32 bit Windows 10; and a lot of old x86 software can theoretically run on the newest x86 processors.

I am still avoiding upgrading Mac OS to keep the 32 bit compatibility.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
15,223
5,768
136
I'm not looking at it from a malicious perspective, but a business one. Apple is on a huge push to get away from paying Intel for their chips, would Apple support and resources be also pulled from x86 after a certain point because it is better business to spend money on the Mx ecosystem?

No question it's just a matter of when. As mentioned PowerPC was three years from when Apple stopped selling PowerPC machines.
 

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,595
761
136
No question it's just a matter of when. As mentioned PowerPC was three years from when Apple stopped selling PowerPC machines.

I bought a physical copy of Tiger, the G4's and G5's I find will live forever :) I am good until the disc turns to dust or is not readable :tearsofjoy:
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
But for all the crap MS does, they still have a 32 bit Windows 10; and a lot of old x86 software can theoretically run on the newest x86 processors.

I am still avoiding upgrading Mac OS to keep the 32 bit compatibility.

I was like that for a while, but I just couldn't sit on an old OS simply to run an ancient app or two that had modern equivalents. I'm glad I moved to Catalina and later Big Sur.

Microsoft's legacy support is a double-edged sword. It keeps apps running for ages... but it also gives companies and users the impression they can run every app forever, and that causes real problems when Microsoft needs to drop support to move forward. The stereotypical example is a company refusing to upgrade to Windows 10 because it needs Windows 7 to run XP mode to run a database app meant for NT 4.0.

Apple may be more ruthless, but it also isn't chained to old tech like Microsoft is. It can assume you'll have 64-bit software that much sooner, and design accordingly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and scannall

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,784
4,744
136
I'm not looking at it from a malicious perspective, but a business one. Apple is on a huge push to get away from paying Intel for their chips, would Apple support and resources be also pulled from x86 after a certain point because it is better business to spend money on the Mx ecosystem?

Apple has the resources to do both. They can let their x86 support phaseout be guided by numbers. They know how many Macs are connecting to their servers to check for OS updates, and what OS they are currently running. They'll see the numbers decline as x86 Macs are retired, see how many are upgrading to the latest OS release and how many are hanging back on an older one.

Once they decide to stop supporting x86 with new versions of macOS (whether that's in three years like it was for PPC for they go longer as they do with the iPhone today) they'll still have a run of some number of years where they provide patches for that last x86 version. That's gotta be pretty cheap from a support perspective - if a bug is found on ARM Macs that affects that "last x86 macOS version" they merely need to check if the same bug exists on x86 and port the fix. If a bug unique to x86 is found, more effort is required but the number of such bugs found will decrease over time along with the userbase.

It isn't like once they stop even making security patches the Macs will stop functioning. They'll be a little less safe, but how many people today are willing to run unsupported Windows PCs or Android phones that aren't getting security patches? The worry is overblown, some of those x86 Macs will still be in use well into the 2030s, long after Apple and all third party developers stop caring about them.
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,795
5,549
136
The worry is overblown, some of those x86 Macs will still be in use well into the 2030s, long after Apple and all third party developers stop caring about them.
Not all 3rd party developers. Not even the majority.

They will be boot camping into windows where a considerably larger number of software developers service the considerably larger Windows software ecosystem, and any old computer running an up to date venison of Windows 10 is treated as a first class citizen until the end of time.

Of course, there is also the Linux ecosystem awaiting those old Macs.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,825
1,396
126
Bloomberg says:

Jade C-Chop: 8+2 CPU cores, 16 GPU cores, up to 64 GB RAM
Jade C-Die: 8+2 CPU cores, 32 GPU cores, up to 64 GB RAM

Jade 2C-Die: 16+4 CPU cores, 64 GPU cores
Jade 4C-Die: 32+8 CPU cores, 128 GPU cores

Basically it seems C-Die is being aggregated in 1X, 2X, and 4X configurations, for 10 CPU / 32 GPU, 20 CPU / 64 GPU, and 40 CPU / 128 GPU configurations respectively.

Perhaps Jade C-Chop is the binned variant of C-Die, at 10 CPU / 16 GPU, although that seems like a lot of GPU cores to "Chop".

Also, does that mean Jade 4C-Die will support 256 GB RAM? My guess is yes.
 
Last edited:

defferoo

Member
Sep 28, 2015
53
57
91
Bloomberg says:

Jade C-Chop: 8+2 CPU cores, 16 GPU cores, up to 64 GB RAM
Jade C-Die: 8+2 CPU cores, 32 GPU cores, up to 64 GB RAM

Jade 2C-Die: 16+4 CPU cores, 64 GPU cores
Jade 4C-Die: 32+8 CPU cores, 128 GPU cores

Basically it seems C-Die is being aggregated in 1X, 2X, and 4X configurations, for 10 CPU / 32 GPU, 20 CPU / 64 GPU, and 40 CPU / 128 GPU configurations respectively.

Perhaps Jade C-Chop is the binned variant of C-Die, at 10 CPU / 16 GPU, although that seems like a lot of GPU cores to "Chop".

Also, does that mean Jade 4C-Die will support 256 GB RAM? My guess is yes.
The current Mac Pro supports 1.5TB of RAM, I don't see them reducing that amount in a new Mac Pro. The Jade 2C and 4C probably have a different memory controller that allow for much more memory and ECC.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,825
1,396
126
The current Mac Pro supports 1.5TB of RAM, I don't see them reducing that amount in a new Mac Pro. The Jade 2C and 4C probably have a different memory controller that allow for much more memory and ECC.
You're probably right. I crossed out that line in my post (but left it in place, as a record of my idiocy ;)).

However, could that still mean that the 'base' die is Jade-C and they are packaging 4 of them together with a separate memory controller for the Mac Pro?

That could mean a vastly simplified Mac Pro lineup, with just two (or three) CPU options: 4C, 2C, and maybe C. Memory would be separately upgradable, offering anywhere from 32 GB and up.
 

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,784
4,744
136
Those code names confirm they're using chiplets like many of us speculated, assuming this rumor is more true than the one from six months ago claiming they were designing monolithic chips for the Mac Pro.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,825
1,396
126
Those code names confirm they're using chiplets like many of us speculated, assuming this rumor is more true than the one from six months ago claiming they were designing monolithic chips for the Mac Pro.
Where was that rumour about monolithic designs from? I remember some people here mentioning it, but I don't recall a legit leaker saying that.
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
5,064
8,032
136
Bloomberg says:

Jade C-Chop: 8+2 CPU cores, 16 GPU cores, up to 64 GB RAM
Jade C-Die: 8+2 CPU cores, 32 GPU cores, up to 64 GB RAM

Jade 2C-Die: 16+4 CPU cores, 64 GPU cores
Jade 4C-Die: 32+8 CPU cores, 128 GPU cores

Basically it seems C-Die is being aggregated in 1X, 2X, and 4X configurations, for 10 CPU / 32 GPU, 20 CPU / 64 GPU, and 40 CPU / 128 GPU configurations respectively.

Perhaps Jade C-Chop is the binned variant of C-Die, at 10 CPU / 16 GPU, although that seems like a lot of GPU cores to "Chop".

Also, does that mean Jade 4C-Die will support 256 GB RAM? My guess is yes.
Sounds to me like Apple may be repeating AMD's approach with Zeppelin (the Zen 1 server/desktop die).
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,825
1,396
126
Possibly confusing with the Higher End Mini? That product could be called Mac Pro Mini.
Yeah, the Bloomberg article says an updated Mac mini would just use the same higher end MacBook Pro chips, so 10 CPU / 32 (or 16) GPU.

As you suggest, this would likely represent a new (more expensive) higher end tier, not a replacement for the current M1 Mac mini.

I'm not sure I buy the idea of a "Mac Pro mini" naming scheme though. I'd guess it'd just be called "Mac mini" again.

BTW, I hope they finally update the form factor.
 

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,784
4,744
136
Yeah, the Bloomberg article says an updated Mac mini would just use the same higher end MacBook Pro chips, so 10 CPU / 32 (or 16) GPU.

As you suggest, this would likely represent a new (more expensive) higher end tier, not a replacement for the current M1 Mac mini.

I'm not sure I buy the idea of a "Mac Pro mini" naming scheme though. I'd guess it'd just be called "Mac mini" again.

BTW, I hope they finally update the form factor.


I was thinking about today and it made sense for them not to update the designs of the products that got the M1, since that was the first gen / low end version. They want to give the people who are waiting to buy the higher end version something so maybe this is when you see redesigns for stuff like less bezel on the laptops.

Not sure what you want from a redesign of the Mac Mini exactly though. It is a Mac and it is Mini. It could be minier I suppose, but what's the point? What benefit is there to customers if they made it the size of a deck of playing cards instead of its current size?
 

defferoo

Member
Sep 28, 2015
53
57
91
I was thinking about today and it made sense for them not to update the designs of the products that got the M1, since that was the first gen / low end version. They want to give the people who are waiting to buy the higher end version something so maybe this is when you see redesigns for stuff like less bezel on the laptops.

Not sure what you want from a redesign of the Mac Mini exactly though. It is a Mac and it is Mini. It could be minier I suppose, but what's the point? What benefit is there to customers if they made it the size of a deck of playing cards instead of its current size?
They could make the low end one a Mac nano considering the amount of unused space left in that enclosure :p

I think they could even fit everything in an Apple TV 4K sized box if they wanted to, basically out-NUC Intel's NUC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fkoehler

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,595
761
136
They could make the low end one a Mac nano considering the amount of unused space left in that enclosure :p

I think they could even fit everything in an Apple TV 4K sized box if they wanted to, basically out-NUC Intel's NUC.

Maybe, but the mini form factor is used in server racks, lol.

 

defferoo

Member
Sep 28, 2015
53
57
91
Maybe, but the mini form factor is used in server racks, lol.

Yeah, that's true. Not saying they will, but they could if they wanted to.
 

defferoo

Member
Sep 28, 2015
53
57
91
Regarding the "Chop" having only 16 GPU cores, the GPU seems like it will make up a significant amount of die space of the new chip. Going by M1 die shots, the 8-core GPU takes up ~25% of the space? In a theoretical Jade C a 32 core GPU would be as big as the M1. The rest of the components would probably be about the same size as the M1 (+4 Firestorm cores -2 Icestorm cores + additional Neural Engine cores +updated memory controller), making it approximately 2x the size of the M1. Having the "Chop" version only require 16 GPU cores gives Apple a lot of room for error so that they can maximize yields. Up to 25% of the die could have problems before the chip is unusable. Most people would be happy with the performance of the 16 core version of the chip, so it makes sense for Apple. They probably also don't want to have too many SKUs and want to keep their lineup simple as well.

M1.png
 

ashFTW

Senior member
Sep 21, 2020
312
235
126
Regarding the "Chop" having only 16 GPU cores, the GPU seems like it will make up a significant amount of die space of the new chip. Going by M1 die shots, the 8-core GPU takes up ~25% of the space? In a theoretical Jade C a 32 core GPU would be as big as the M1. The rest of the components would probably be about the same size as the M1 (+4 Firestorm cores -2 Icestorm cores + additional Neural Engine cores +updated memory controller), making it approximately 2x the size of the M1. Having the "Chop" version only require 16 GPU cores gives Apple a lot of room for error so that they can maximize yields. Up to 25% of the die could have problems before the chip is unusable. Most people would be happy with the performance of the 16 core version of the chip, so it makes sense for Apple. They probably also don't want to have too many SKUs and want to keep their lineup simple as well.

M1.png

I agree. What about memory technology? I think M1 is 2 channel LPDDRx. This 2xM1 chip needs access to up to 64GB memory. What about 4 channels of LPDDR5, with about 3x the bandwidth of M1.

Will this be on TSMC 5nm or 4nm?
 

defferoo

Member
Sep 28, 2015
53
57
91
I agree. What about memory technology? I think M1 is 2 channel LPDDRx. This 2xM1 chip needs access to up to 64GB memory. What about 4 channels of LPDDR5, with about 3x the bandwidth of M1.

Will this be on TSMC 5nm or 4nm?
Most likely still TSMC 5nm given the size of the chips, I don't expect they would try a new node with these chips. Memory could be LPDDR4x again with additional channels for addressing more memory, but they could surprise us with LPDDR5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and ashFTW

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,825
1,396
126
I was thinking about today and it made sense for them not to update the designs of the products that got the M1, since that was the first gen / low end version. They want to give the people who are waiting to buy the higher end version something so maybe this is when you see redesigns for stuff like less bezel on the laptops.

Not sure what you want from a redesign of the Mac Mini exactly though. It is a Mac and it is Mini. It could be minier I suppose, but what's the point? What benefit is there to customers if they made it the size of a deck of playing cards instead of its current size?
While I'm usually not one to obsess over thinness, I think the Mac mini could go thinner. This would also help the Mac-mini-as-server types too. Even with a faster SoC, I suspect they could go thinner.

Unlike older models, the M1 Mac mini is largely empty space inside.

Right now the Mac mini is 1.4 in / 3.6 cm tall.