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

 

[Panino Manino]

With M1's success, there will not be a lack of software support.
So, to prevent Windows's users from making the switch, I just thought, would AMD be Microsoft's answer?

I heard that maybe Microsoft may start to design it's own ARM chips because ARM/Qualcomm keeps failing to catch up with Apple, by wouldn't a partnership with AMD be a shortcut for this?
I also heard that AMD still have people "looking at ARM" CPUs, then maybe K12 could be resurrected along with "skybridge", that would mist x86 cores with ARM cores. Couldn't this be achieve fast? AMD doing the hardware work and Microsoft doing the software work? But only if with the ARM CPUs also comes with those neat DSPs and NPU that makes so much difference.

 

[you2]

The PR i saw said MS is developing arm chips for data centers.

I heard that maybe Microsoft may start to design it's own ARM chips because ARM/Qualcomm keeps failing to catch up with Apple, by wouldn't a partnership with AMD be a shortcut for this?

 

[Staples]

I'd love to hear more about this MS chip. In fact, I'll believe it when I see it.
For all their consoles, they always say there were MS/AMD partnerships. For their Surface, MS/QCOM partnerships.

Seems all that comes out of these partnerships with AMD and QCOM is 98% the same chip that these vendors make for everyone else. I think MS just writes the check and that is as far as their input goes. QCOM has been making chips that can't compete with Apple's ARM chips for ever and neither can anyone else. Looking down the road in 5 year the scenarios are.

1) I and all power users will have switched to Mac because everyone else sucks at ARM chips
2) MS invests money into ARM chips and makes an in house product that can compete with Apple M series chips.
3) NVIDIA comes to the table and makes desktop ARM chips. Say what you want, NVIDIA is great with chip designs and I am thinking in the short term, NVIDIA is the only one who can make a competing chip in the next year or two. MS has the money and resources to hire enough smart people but they are years behind as it is.

I have never been an Apple fan but I think this move is huge and it is one of the few things Apple has done that has impressed me.

 

[name99]

Test. Are article comments down?
---
Well forum is working. I guess we wait and see if they are fixed tomorrow.

 

[moinmoin]

Forum is completely disconnected from the main site. We already had several times where the main site was essentially unreachable, but if you hang out in this forum you noticed nothing of it.

 

[moinmoin]

May be of interest: with Asahi Linux there is now a public project trying to port Linux to Apple Silicon. The founder Hector Martin “marcan” is known for porting Linux to PS4, for the bootloader on PS3 including Linux support on PS3 Slim as well as numerous contributions to the Wii homebrew scene. Contributing to the project is Alyssa Rosenzweig who under the project name panfrost reverse engineered ARM Mali for open source driver support in Linux and won support from Google. She's currently dissecting the M1 GPU. (GitHub, via)

 

[Mopetar]

1) I and all power users will have switched to Mac because everyone else sucks at ARM chips

Apple has a way of getting in their own way when it comes to them taking over a market. They'll always insist on doing things their way which will always ensure enough people remain on the PC.

2) MS invests money into ARM chips and makes an in house product that can compete with Apple M series chips.

If this were easy one of the other companies that has dumped a lot into ARM would have already done so. It also doesn't get around advantages Apple enjoys due to tighter software and hardware integration. MS would almost need a different version of Windows to be able to get the same results.

3) NVIDIA comes to the table and makes desktop ARM chips. Say what you want, NVIDIA is great with chip designs and I am thinking in the short term, NVIDIA is the only one who can make a competing chip in the next year or two. MS has the money and resources to hire enough smart people but they are years behind as it is.

Nvidia already tried their hands at ARM CPU design and they didn't fare any better than Samsung or Qualcomm with their designs and in a lot of ways ended up doing worse. Nvidia also has some of the same problems as Apple in that they don't play well with others. There's a reason that companies like Apple and Microsoft have avoided working with them or using their GPUs even when they were clearly the superior choice.

 

[Staples]

There's a reason that companies like Apple and Microsoft have avoided working with them or using their GPUs even when they were clearly the superior choice.

Yes, I remember the original Xbox. Microsoft pretty much said at one point that they were hard to deal with, they said that about Bungie too. And that is why all their consoles and I suspect Sony as well have been AMD hardware. And might explain why Apple switched to AMD. I wonder if Nintendo is having any problems since it seems so many others have.

 

[LightningZ71]

Nintendo wanted a turn-key solution for the switch. It didn't matter who they went with, as long as they could hit the price/performance/thermal/power target that they had. Nintendo's problem now is that a follow on product that makes meaningful improvements on the switch is going to be difficult to change vendors with. That being said, most current non-bargin-bin smartphone SoCs are more performant that the chip in the existing Switch, so, they have a lot of choices available to them for hardware, but doing the gpu side could be a challenge with respect to programming to allow 1st gen switch games to play well.

What does this have to do with Apple? Not a whole lot, though, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they could ink a deal with Nintendo to supply a SoC for the switch. The A14 or the A14x/M1 would do VERY well in a follow on Switch Pro, and the extra volume would help offset some of Apple's costs.

 

[Staples]

Interesting take. I don't think Apple has ever been the supplier of anything in the last 20 years so this would be a big change from a business perspective.

 

[Doug S]

Why would they want to hand an advantage to Nintendo? They would rather people interested in mobile gaming do it on an iPhone. And given that over 200 million A14s will ship in iPhones alone over the next couple years, they hardly need any help with its cost.

 

[trexfromouterspace]

Humans are going to colonize Alpha Centauri before Apple supplies chips for the Nintendo Switch.

 

[jpiniero]

Current rumor on the next Switch is that they are using a Samsung designed chip that uses RDNA2.

 

[Roland00Address]

Nintendo wanted a turn-key solution for the switch. It didn't matter who they went with, as long as they could hit the price/performance/thermal/power target that they had. Nintendo's problem now is that a follow on product that makes meaningful improvements on the switch is going to be difficult to change vendors with. That being said, most current non-bargin-bin smartphone SoCs are more performant that the chip in the existing Switch, so, they have a lot of choices available to them for hardware, but doing the gpu side could be a challenge with respect to programming to allow 1st gen switch games to play well.

What does this have to do with Apple? Not a whole lot, though, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they could ink a deal with Nintendo to supply a SoC for the switch. The A14 or the A14x/M1 would do VERY well in a follow on Switch Pro, and the extra volume would help offset some of Apple's costs.

Okay this next comment is for FUN and it would never happen...for a dozen reasons why that I am not going to touch.

But think of the possibilities if Nintendo and Apple decide to release a switch sequel that is running on Apple A hardware whether the A12, A12x (the older stuff), A14, or whatever version that is new and current.

Apple makes money selling the A series chip, but also hopefully (from apple's perspective) more people would target Metal, and if you are already going to do a Switch Plus version of the game you could also sell the game on the iOS and appleTV store.

This will never, ever happen, even if there could be pluses of it could happening.​

 

[JasonLD]

Nintendo wanted a turn-key solution for the switch. It didn't matter who they went with, as long as they could hit the price/performance/thermal/power target that they had. Nintendo's problem now is that a follow on product that makes meaningful improvements on the switch is going to be difficult to change vendors with. That being said, most current non-bargin-bin smartphone SoCs are more performant that the chip in the existing Switch, so, they have a lot of choices available to them for hardware, but doing the gpu side could be a challenge with respect to programming to allow 1st gen switch games to play well.

What does this have to do with Apple? Not a whole lot, though, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they could ink a deal with Nintendo to supply a SoC for the switch. The A14 or the A14x/M1 would do VERY well in a follow on Switch Pro, and the extra volume would help offset some of Apple's costs.

Nvidia also had a lot of input on providing Nintendo modern 3D development tools which Nintendo was lacking due to being late transitioning to HD era. I don't think that is something Apple could provide as well as Nvidia.
As long as the business relationship between Nintendo and Nvidia doesn't go sour (Nvidia doesn't have a great track record there, but afaik, I haven't heard any bad things yet), Nintendo most likely to remain with Nvidia on Switch successor.

 

[MarkizSchnitzel]

Nintendo most likely to remain with Nvidia on Switch successor.

What DOES nvidia have next in pipeline? Tegra 3?

 

[podspi]

Nvidia also had a lot of input on providing Nintendo modern 3D development tools which Nintendo was lacking due to being late transitioning to HD era. I don't think that is something Apple could provide as well as Nvidia.
As long as the business relationship between Nintendo and Nvidia doesn't go sour (Nvidia doesn't have a great track record there, but afaik, I haven't heard any bad things yet), Nintendo most likely to remain with Nvidia on Switch successor.

Yeah, I'd be shocked if Nintendo switched vendors for next gen (or the next half gen, Switch Pro). All they really need is for NVIDIA to develop an SoC that can hit 1080~1440 --> 4k with DLSS. Knowing Nintendo, they'd probably insist on the same ARM cores, just at a higher frequency. If they can manage that with the Switch Pro that should hold them for this gen.

 

[LightningZ71]

Just a straight die shrink of the Jetson Xavier NX would deliver the goods on mobile 1080p ultra, 1440p high, and 4K medium. It's not ideal, but it's the lowest cost to get there.

 

[Tup3x]

What DOES nvidia have next in pipeline? Tegra 3?

It would be rather trivial for them to take off the shelf ARM cores and add their own GPU there. They don't need anything fancy, just wifi and Bluetooth. Separate chip could even do that.

 

[MarkizSchnitzel]

It would be rather trivial for them to take off the shelf ARM cores and add their own GPU there. They don't need anything fancy, just wifi and Bluetooth. Separate chip could even do that.

Hm.. So like LEGO, at least for these requirements.

Would doing as you suggested cause problems with backward compatibility?

Sorry for being of topic..

 

[Roland00Address]

A few months later we have new Apple Market-Share Numbers.

IDC: Mac shipments rise industry-leading 49% in Q4, Apple boosts market share to 8% - 9to5Mac

A new report out today from IDC features the firm’s latest estimate for worldwide PC shipments for the holiday quarter....

9to5mac.com

Just a reminder. Apple is roughly 7% market-share of the PC Market (roughly 265 to 270 million pc computers a year.)

View attachment 34774

Note these numbers are constantly in flux, and are partly flawed for they are merely "estimates" from people that are doing survey data and thus they are not counting exactly but instead doing the inexact science of polling and prediction. I bring up the flux part for IDC Q32020 numbers think Apple's Market-share is 8.5% during that quarter, yet I provided the image link above which only has 6.6% for a year since that is a yearly number and not a quarter number. (For comparison the Q32019 numbers were 7.0%)

Traditional PC Market Delivers Another Quarter of Double-Digit Growth in Q3 2020, According to IDC

IDC examines consumer markets by devices, applications, networks, and services to provide complete solutions for succeeding in these expanding markets.

www.idc.com

Getting to 10% should be easy (double digit). That is a 50% increase from 6.6% (or 17% increase from 8.5%) but apple dominates in the higher price points, and the price point for the "total industry" is hovering around $630 per computer but that is including the cheapest atom / celeron devices and the most expensive gaming laptops and ultrabooks in a single ASP number.

So in the past few years we had roughly 6.6% apple marketshare for Q42019, well the Q42020 numbers are roughly 8.0%

and since these are estimates here is a different company who estimates the same range of roughly 8.0%

and thus the total for all of 2020 instead of the 4th quarter has apple market share at 7.6%
-----

We will see if future m1 and subsequent apple silicon generations will allow apple to capture more marketshare. One user on this forum estimates we will get 10% marketshare eventually.

Also the whole PC market grew from roughly 265 to 270 million units sold per year to roughly 300 million. IDC thinks 302.6 million devices were sold in 2020 with all 4 quarters.

 

[Doug S]

Apple always sees a jump in Mac sales when they introduce new models, so I wouldn't necessarily attribute this to M1. We'll have to see how things go throughout 2021 to know for sure if the M1 is increasing their market share. It may be faster than PC laptops, but there are still switching costs and "comfort" issues associated with going from Windows to macOS.

 

[Mopetar]

I'd want to see sustained numbers like that to attribute this to anything more than excitement over a new product/architecture. A lot of developers will have picked up a new Mac with an M1 in it just to make sure that they've got something to test against now even though most of their users may still be on x86.

 

[Roland00Address]

Apple always sees a jump in Mac sales when they introduce new models, so I wouldn't necessarily attribute this to M1. We'll have to see how things go throughout 2021 to know for sure if the M1 is increasing their market share. It may be faster than PC laptops, but there are still switching costs and "comfort" issues associated with going from Windows to macOS.

It is alright to be skeptical...

I am not disagreeing with your logic. I bet long term Apple is going to grow market share, but I also recognize there is no way to prove the future with present info.

I am just sharing what info I have now.

 

[jpiniero]

Apple's growth compared to other OEMs might be because their desktop sales aren't that much.