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]

Use iPhone18,2 only and then compare the entries again.

Typical scores for iPhone18,2 are about 3900/10000 aside from the aforementioned cluster mostly.

There are only 2 single-core scores over 4000, and they were done within 15 minutes of each other.

P.S. Regarding the cold stone block method I mentioned earlier, I used something similar to test my fanless 2017 MacBook back in the day. These are Cinebench R15 scores, with the test running repeatedly for 10 iterations, with the Core m3 on a wood table, m3 on a granite counter, vs. i5 and i7.

 

[smalM]

So your problem is not a to big gap between the two highest scores and the third one but that the numbers are higher than 4000?
1. FB3
2. FAD
3. F93
Better now?

 

[okoroezenwa]

AMX has been used before. SME, I don’t think has been used by any app yet. Could be wrong though

Oh got it, just SME. Yeah you may be right.

 

[Eug]

So your problem is not a to big gap between the two highest scores and the third one but that the numbers are higher than 4000?

I decided to go through all the numbers all for all the models:

iPhone18,1 - Highest SC score 3904 <-- Previously identified as iPhone 17 Pro
iPhone18,2 - Highest SC score 4019 <-- Previously identified as iPhone 17 Pro Max
iPhone18,3 - Highest SC score 3866 <-- Previously identified as iPhone 17
iPhone18,4 - Highest SC score 3796 <-- Previously identified as iPhone Air

Some may argue it's just that the iPhone 17 Pro Max has the best cooling, but given that the highest iPhone18,2 scores are clustered*, I still think they could be the same user with the same phone doing multiple tests under the same optimized conditions, and that optimization may be something as simple as having a caseless iPhone resting directly on a stone counter.

*The top four SC scores for iPhone18,2 are all within half an hour of each other.

1. FB3
2. FAD
3. F93
Better now?

Please educate me, because I do not understand. If they are codenames or motherboard names, I don't recognized them.

If you are saying they are unique device identifiers, where are those from? I don’t see those in the data that shows for me.

 

[mvprod123]

"The N1 chip in all of the new iPhone models supports up to 160 MHz channel bandwidth for Wi-Fi 7, short of the standard's 320 MHz maximum."

Apple's New N1 Chip in iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone Air Has a Wi-Fi 7 Limitation

The latest iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, and iPhone Air models are equipped with Apple's all-new N1 chip for Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6,...

www.macrumors.com

 

[Eug]

"The N1 chip in all of the new iPhone models supports up to 160 MHz channel bandwidth for Wi-Fi 7, short of the standard's 320 MHz maximum."

Apple's New N1 Chip in iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone Air Has a Wi-Fi 7 Limitation

The latest iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, and iPhone Air models are equipped with Apple's all-new N1 chip for Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6,...

www.macrumors.com

Heh. I guess full support is waiting for N2. This is the usual pattern for Apple development, which is fine. However, how many phones support the full 320 MHz anyway? Just asking as I honestly don't know.

However, I still am on WiFi 5 at home anyways. I haven't felt the need to upgrade my WiFi network in the last decade, aside from adding more WiFi 5 access points to fill out dead spots.

 

[Doug S]

Ironically, I will point out the basis for AirPlay for cars actually already does exist in iOS 26, but no existing cars support it, and AFAIK no car manufacturer has announced support for this feature either. Its purpose though is to play video on the car's infotainment screen (not to funnel lossless audio from multiple iPhones through a single connected iPhone), but car manufacturers haven't seemed to have jumped on implementing this feature yet, maybe because it can't function while the car is moving anyway. I suspect the first cars that will support this are those that implement CarPlay Ultra, and brands like Kia which pushes cars based on their included infotainment features rather than reliability.

Playing video while the car is moving would be desirable for parents who have a vehicle with a separate display for the rear seats. Having only the one display in my car I don't know if or how CarPlay might handle multiple displays.

I seem to recall mentions that there was some resistance among automakers for the more advanced CarPlay because it gives it control over more of the car's (non driving/safety related) systems like climate control and the entertainment system (i.e. letting it control non phone sources like FM radio) I imagine every brand thinks the way they implement that stuff is better than the way their competition does, so surrendering that control to Apple/Google reads to them like giving up an advantage. As consumers we'd prefer the same interface whether we're driving our own car or a family member's car or a rental car. Even if that interface isn't as good as the "best" interface there is, there is a benefit not having to figure out how the heck you turn on windshield defrost while speeding down the highway.

 

[Doug S]

My concern is that companies decide that the only model they'll make is the foldable phone and I don't get a choice. That's a rather silly worry that's not likely all that realistic, and one could always argue that a foldable phone is just like a regular one if you never fold it.

There's nothing I hate more than having some product that I've liked and that suited me perfectly undergo some kind of forced change for the sake of change and having things I don't want or need shoehorned in.

There's nothing you have to worry about if you see tepid adoption like we've seen with folding phones despite years of them being around. Sure some of it is the cost and durability, but people would be more willing to make sacrifices on those fronts if they truly wanted that form factor. Even if it cost the same I don't see folding phones as being a majority product, let alone one so popular that they become the only option.

Contrast with larger phones, which quickly filtered from no name Chinese brands experiencing unexpectedly wild success, to Samsung noticing and jumping on the bandwagon, to Apple bringing up the rear. And the "huge" phones from those early days were barely 5", now it is hard to find a phone smaller than 6" and most brands have models pushing 7". If you were one of the few pining for the days of 4" phones you'd be pretty much SOL in today's world, not just with Apple but all of the major brands.

 

[Doug S]

"The N1 chip in all of the new iPhone models supports up to 160 MHz channel bandwidth for Wi-Fi 7, short of the standard's 320 MHz maximum."

Apple's New N1 Chip in iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone Air Has a Wi-Fi 7 Limitation

The latest iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, and iPhone Air models are equipped with Apple's all-new N1 chip for Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 6,...

www.macrumors.com

Oh no, if you spend $500 on a wifi 7 router you might top out at a theoretical max of only 10 Gbps? Honestly this is something Apple shouldn't fix. Supporting 320 MHz channels requires more chip area but will benefit almost no one. What's the use case, downloading iOS updates twice as fast?

 

[dr1337]

Oh no, if you spend $500 on a wifi 7 router you might top out at a theoretical max of only 10 Gbps? Honestly this is something Apple shouldn't fix. Supporting 320 MHz channels requires more chip area but will benefit almost no one. What's the use case, downloading iOS updates twice as fast?

I wonder how the channels affect WIFI reception. Say if you're in a far corner of the house with bad speed, would the full 320mhz not give you more?

 

[Doug S]

I wonder how the channels affect WIFI reception. Say if you're in a far corner of the house with bad speed, would the full 320mhz not give you more?

320 MHz channels only work on the 6 GHz band, which doesn't travel that well through multiple walls. 2.4 GHz is better in that regard, so that's what your connection would use if you're in a "far corner of the house". And since the most useful thing about Wifi 7 is not support for 320 MHz channels but rather simultaneous connections on the 2.4, 5 and 6 GHz bands, it will use the 2.4 GHz band in that situation.

 

[LightningZ71]

Wifi 6 was the last big boost for 2.4Ghz throughput. 6e and 7 added things to wifi as a whole, but didn't make a useful impact on exclusive 2.4ghz performance in practice. For punching through walls and having good range, 2.4ghz is what you need the most.

 

[dr1337]

320 MHz channels only work on the 6 GHz band, which doesn't travel that well through multiple walls.

okay but if Im already on 5g, 6g isn't going to make a huge difference in terms of penetration. But if my 5g connection isn't pulling its full speed, 320mhz channels on 6g should still pull more.

maybe I'm wrong but isn't wifi 7 supposed to use all radios at once? instead of the goofy split SSID regime we've been stuck with? so even if the 6g connection isn't perfect, it can still get some packets out? or nah?

 

[LightningZ71]

The spec allows it, but I've not personally seen a device in the wild that has it and uses it to achieve greater throughput than what 6+ could achieve. Also, consider that getting multi gigabit throughput to the base radio is one thing, how many devices are limited by backhaul speeds? If we're talking home use, how many have multigigabit internet service. If we're talking commercial, with more than a few devices connected and active, a 2.5 or 5gb Ethernet connection becomes saturated. There are a LOT of places that still only have 1Gbps Ethernet driving their WAPs. And, if we include mesh setups, save for the most expensive devices out there, full realized throughput from end device to the mesh hub often can't sustain multi-gig speeds.

Now, a lot of the above is worst case saturation scenarios. 6 and above have done wonders for expanding channel capacity to gracefully share more devices at once.

 

[Mopetar]

Which car?

Up until last year, the Toyota Camry was only wired CarPlay. That was one reason why I didn't buy a used Camry. Other reasons were no Hybrid AWD option, and because the used pricing here is stupid high. Instead, I got a new 2025 Toyota Camry Hybrid AWD and it's a nicer car, now with wireless CarPlay.

It's a Ford Escape. I should qualify new with the fact that it was an older model (by a year or two) that the dealership had used for test drives and as a loaner vehicle if someone's vehicle needed service that would take a few days. But it had low mileage and the price was too good.

Anyhow, you can buy a cheap dongle that turns wired CarPlay into wireless CarPlay.

That's good to know. I hadn't even thought to look if that was a thing. I'm coming from a vehicle so old that I have to plug into an aux port if I wanted to play music from my phone to give some extra context. I'll have to invest in one of these.

General Motors has actually stopped offering CarPlay too, presumably because they don't want to pay Apple for it.

Why would Apple want to charge for it? If I were them I'd want to make sure my user's could have their phones interface with as many different manufacturers' systems as possible as seamlessly as possible.

I only vaguely knew that CarPlay was a thing from having read about it years ago when it first came out a decade ago. Now I'm finding out there's an Ultra? I wonder what they'll have twenty years from now when I get a new vehicle again. Or another newish one at any rate.

 

[Markfw]

It's a Ford Escape. I should qualify new with the fact that it was an older model (by a year or two) that the dealership had used for test drives and as a loaner vehicle if someone's vehicle needed service that would take a few days. But it had low mileage and the price was too good.



That's good to know. I hadn't even thought to look if that was a thing. I'm coming from a vehicle so old that I have to plug into an aux port if I wanted to play music from my phone to give some extra context. I'll have to invest in one of these.



Why would Apple want to charge for it? If I were them I'd want to make sure my user's could have their phones interface with as many different manufacturers' systems as possible as seamlessly as possible.

I only vaguely knew that CarPlay was a thing from having read about it years ago when it first came out a decade ago. Now I'm finding out there's an Ultra? I wonder what they'll have twenty years from now when I get a new vehicle again. Or another newish one at any rate.

I have apple carplay on my Solterra, but its 3/4 Toyota, and only works when my iPhone is in the car

 

[Mopetar]

I have apple carplay on my Solterra, but its 3/4 Toyota, and only works when my iPhone is in the car

I'm realizing that my own vocabulary on this may be incorrect. I can plug my phone in to a USB port on the car and that replaces the usual center console touchscreen display with something from the phone. I understand this to be CarPlay.

I don't quite understand why all of this couldn't also be done wirelessly over Bluetooth which the car and phone both have and already use to communicate because the car know the phone is there when I get in it.

I could understand if there are some limitations with that kind of connection, but I just want to listen to music on a short trip. It will handle calls that way so clearly playing music shouldn't be too much to ask.

 

[Eug]

I only vaguely knew that CarPlay was a thing from having read about it years ago when it first came out a decade ago. Now I'm finding out there's an Ultra? I wonder what they'll have twenty years from now when I get a new vehicle again. Or another newish one at any rate.

My understanding is that Apple charges the car manufacturers a licencing fee for each CarPlay-equipped car, but that's just from what I've read online.

BTW, I've read from several sources that one reason car manufacturers don't want to implement CarPlay Ultra is not just because it takes over the whole dash, but that Apple is a royal PITA to work with. Apple has extremely strict requirements and guidelines and expects the third party car manufacturers to conform to what Apple asks of them.

In contrast, Android Automotive (which is different from Android Auto) is much more flexible. Interestingly, I believe Ford will be moving to Android Automotive. This will still allow Android Auto and Apple CarPlay support, but Android Automotive will serve as the car's underlying native infotainment OS.

BTW, here is CarPlay Ultra:

CarPlay Ultra, the next generation of CarPlay, begins rolling out today

Today, CarPlay Ultra is available with new Aston Martin vehicle orders in the U.S. and Canada, and will be available for existing models in the coming weeks.

www.apple.com

However, as I said, CarPlay Ultra doesn't really interest me that much. I have two 12.3" screens, and I only need CarPlay on one of them. I don't need my instrument panel as CarPlay too. However, I do get simple turn-by-turn navigation instructions from Apple Maps from CarPlay, displayed in my Toyota OS instrument panel and in the Toyota OS headup display. I also get the song name displayed on my Toyota OS instrument panel, taken from the CarPlay display. So it's clear that you don't need CarPlay Ultra to display at least limited CarPlay info onto the car's native OS instrument panel.

 

[Markfw]

I'm realizing that my own vocabulary on this may be incorrect. I can plug my phone in to a USB port on the car and that replaces the usual center console touchscreen display with something from the phone. I understand this to be CarPlay.

I don't quite understand why all of this couldn't also be done wirelessly over Bluetooth which the car and phone both have and already use to communicate because the car know the phone is there when I get in it.

I could understand if there are some limitations with that kind of connection, but I just want to listen to music on a short trip. It will handle calls that way so clearly playing music shouldn't be too much to ask.

My setup requires Bluetooth to link to the car. Then it works IN THE CAR SCREEN. I can't use the phone while driving.

 

[Doug S]

6 and above have done wonders for expanding channel capacity to gracefully share more devices at once.

Yep 802.11ax REALLY REALLY helps with channel utilization by splitting them up into smaller chunks rather than having one device use the entire width at once, and 6E's main feature was the 6 GHz band - not for more speed but just more virgin territory if you're somewhere with a lot of competing access points like an apartment building.

I don't know why people are so focused on raw speed. If you've got slow wifi, wider channels are not going to solve your actual problem. In fact they might make it worse - if everyone was using 320 MHz channels you and your neighbors are going to use up the 6 GHz band pretty quickly and everyone is back to cranking up their transmit power thinking that shouting in a noisy room is going to help rather than make other people shout as well.

 

[mvprod123]

Full specifications of the A19/A19 Pro

 

[mvprod123]

Full specifications of the A19/A19 Pro

View attachment 130283

As expected, the A19 Pro has an enlarged SLC cache. The E-core has become wider (6-wide vs 5-wide). Memory frequency and bandwidth have increased. Interestingly, the A19 Pro with a six-core GPU has a higher memory frequency. We can conclude that the entire M5 series will have LPDDR5x-9600 memory.

 

[Cardyak]

As expected, the A19 Pro has an enlarged SLC cache. The E-core has become wider (6-wide vs 5-wide). Memory frequency and bandwidth have increased. Interestingly, the A19 Pro with a six-core GPU has a higher memory frequency. We can conclude that the entire M5 series will have LPDDR5x-9600 memory.

The clock speed of the E Cores has increased - From 2.42Ghz to 2.60Ghz

 

[mikegg]

Buddy, I retired early because I made millions understanding that.

Cool, anyone can be anything on the internet.

But I know one thing: You've never led a company like OpenAI or Anthropic.

Yes, it's been less than 3 years, but they have scale. They have 750 million weekly active users. The whole point of these companies has been that they would build value into their cost, and that would bring in more users.

Which they do. The more users they have, the more the cost spreads per training run.

Again, they're highly profitable on inference. Read this again: they're highly profitable on inference. One more time. They're highly profitable on inference.

The reason they're losing money is because they believe there is ample opportunities at ever better models. Should they reach a point where the training run cost is no longer justified, they will scale back on training, but still make a ton of money on inference.

Your statement on OpenAI/Anthropic not having a business model is honestly one of the more dumb things I've read.

 

[jpiniero]

The only people making money off of AI, like real money, is nVidia and maybe AMD.

Selling shares to morons doesn't count.

Apple being forced to burn billions just to pacify Wall Street, when it's not going to lead to more sales, is dumb. But that's the reality.