4 ms·

M2 seems very unlikely to me because that will create product misinformation easily. Imagine the following M1 -- 4 A14 cores M2 -- 8 A14 cores M3 -- 4 A15 co

by hajile 6y ago

M2 seems very unlikely to me because that will create product misinformation easily. Imagine the following M1 -- 4 A14 cores M2 -- 8 A14 cores M3 -- 4 A15 cores That "third generation" sounds better, but is actually inferior to the second generation. X1 or M1x seem much more likely. It's the same reason why they made an A12x instead of calling it A13. They probably need 3 designs, but economies of scale begin to be a problem. A14 and M1 are now selling in the millions, so they get a huge benefit. More importantly, they are in devices that get replaced a bit more frequently. M1x (8-16 cores) will be in bigger iMac and laptops. They don't sell nearly as many of these. In addition, yields on the larger chip will be lower. Finally, people with these devices tend to keep their machines longer than phones, tablets, or cheaper laptops. The 16-64-core chips are a major potential headache. If they go chiplet, then no big problem (actually, the M1x as two M1 chiplets seems like a desirable direction to head). If it is monolithic, the very limited sales and production will drive prices much higher. A logical way to offset this would be bigger orders with the excess being sold to Amazon (or others) to replace their mini cloud, but that's not been mentioned publicly.

mikece 6y ago
I always assumed the "M" in the M1 designation meant "mobile" and that higher-powered (in terms of processing, electricity, and heat dissipation) would be coming later and have a different letter designator. Either that or we'll get Air/Pro suffixes to the chip numbers (eg: M1 Pro, M2 Air...)
- mcintyre1994 6y ago
  M for mobile could make sense given they've just put an M1 in an iPad Pro. I assumed it was Mac before that and we'd get an M1X or something for higher end models but that seems wrong now.
  - mft_ 6y ago
    ...but they also just put it in the iMac...
    - wffurr 6y ago
      The iMac has long used laptop grade parts.
    - mcintyre1994 6y ago
      The variant of it that uses laptop parts, but fair point. Mobile does seem a stretch for iMac. Let's just call it Apple's unique naming convention :)
- danaris 6y ago
  ...I always thought it was for "Mac". Though the fact that they've just labeled the chip in the latest iPad Pro as such does add a bit of confusion to that.
Eric_WVGG 6y ago
Another possibility is that they skip M1x altogether; if the Pro machines are coming in the autumn and not for WWDC, then the frame will be closer to the iPhones and it would make sense for them to use that later tech. M1 (winter 2020) — 4x A14 cores M2x (autumn 2021) — 8x A15 cores M2 (winter/spring 2022) — 4x A15 cores etc. There’s really no reason for the naming and timing of Pro machines to lag behind consumer machines just because of arcane numbering. And there’s precedent, Intel Core Duo Macs were released before Intel Core “Solo” Macs. But if they’re actually ready for WWDC, then no, it’ll just be called M1x. As for the Mac Pro… we’ll it’s definitely going to be weird. I think the existence of the Afterburner card proves that Apple sees a future in highly specialized modular add-ons providing most of the differentiation, but buyers would still want a bigger chip than in the 16” laptops, so who knows… of course nobody even knows how an M1 would perform with proper cooling and a higher clock! [edit] also making M2x ahead of M2 will give them the benefits of “binning” some chips
- hajile 6y ago
  There’s a couple good reasons for a M1x using A14 cores. With new nodes, it takes time to get things right. A smaller chip is generally preferred as easier to work with and test. It also gives the node more time to stabilize so your big chips get better yields. Addressable market is another factor. There are over a billion iPhone users replacing devices every 1-3 years on average. There’s around 100 million Mac users as of 2018 replacing their computers every 5-8 years and that being split between 2 and 3 major market segments. That means making over 250 million A14 chips, but only around 15 million M1 chips (aside from iPads which are there to improve economies of scale by reducing two designs to one). The M1x probably addresses around 4.5 million computers and the M1p or whatever they call it probably addresses under a half million machines. A lot of people wanting the performance boost or fearing outdated, unsupported x86 machines will probably cause an increase in M1 demand, but that will be followed by a decreased demand for M2 and maybe even as far as M3 or M4 while demand catches up with the altered purchase cycle. Apple is no doubt well aware of this. In any case, it’s best to try a new node with a smaller part where you know you need a million wafers anyway. Once you’ve optimized and refined a couple steppings, you move to the larger chip with smaller demand where yields are worse in general. Personally, I think they would greatly benefit from a unified chiplet design starting with something close to the A14 then scaling up.

by hajile 6y ago

mikece 6y ago

I always assumed the "M" in the M1 designation meant "mobile" and that higher-powered (in terms of processing, electricity, and heat dissipation) would be coming later and have a different letter designator. Either that or we'll get Air/Pro suffixes to the chip numbers (eg: M1 Pro, M2 Air...)

mcintyre1994 6y ago
M for mobile could make sense given they've just put an M1 in an iPad Pro. I assumed it was Mac before that and we'd get an M1X or something for higher end models but that seems wrong now.
- mft_ 6y ago
  ...but they also just put it in the iMac...
  - wffurr 6y ago
    The iMac has long used laptop grade parts.
  - mcintyre1994 6y ago
    The variant of it that uses laptop parts, but fair point. Mobile does seem a stretch for iMac. Let's just call it Apple's unique naming convention :)
danaris 6y ago
...I always thought it was for "Mac". Though the fact that they've just labeled the chip in the latest iPad Pro as such does add a bit of confusion to that.

Eric_WVGG 6y ago

Another possibility is that they skip M1x altogether; if the Pro machines are coming in the autumn and not for WWDC, then the frame will be closer to the iPhones and it would make sense for them to use that later tech. M1 (winter 2020) — 4x A14 cores M2x (autumn 2021) — 8x A15 cores M2 (winter/spring 2022) — 4x A15 cores etc. There’s really no reason for the naming and timing of Pro machines to lag behind consumer machines just because of arcane numbering. And there’s precedent, Intel Core Duo Macs were released before Intel Core “Solo” Macs. But if they’re actually ready for WWDC, then no, it’ll just be called M1x. As for the Mac Pro… we’ll it’s definitely going to be weird. I think the existence of the Afterburner card proves that Apple sees a future in highly specialized modular add-ons providing most of the differentiation, but buyers would still want a bigger chip than in the 16” laptops, so who knows… of course nobody even knows how an M1 would perform with proper cooling and a higher clock! [edit] also making M2x ahead of M2 will give them the benefits of “binning” some chips

hajile 6y ago
There’s a couple good reasons for a M1x using A14 cores. With new nodes, it takes time to get things right. A smaller chip is generally preferred as easier to work with and test. It also gives the node more time to stabilize so your big chips get better yields. Addressable market is another factor. There are over a billion iPhone users replacing devices every 1-3 years on average. There’s around 100 million Mac users as of 2018 replacing their computers every 5-8 years and that being split between 2 and 3 major market segments. That means making over 250 million A14 chips, but only around 15 million M1 chips (aside from iPads which are there to improve economies of scale by reducing two designs to one). The M1x probably addresses around 4.5 million computers and the M1p or whatever they call it probably addresses under a half million machines. A lot of people wanting the performance boost or fearing outdated, unsupported x86 machines will probably cause an increase in M1 demand, but that will be followed by a decreased demand for M2 and maybe even as far as M3 or M4 while demand catches up with the altered purchase cycle. Apple is no doubt well aware of this. In any case, it’s best to try a new node with a smaller part where you know you need a million wafers anyway. Once you’ve optimized and refined a couple steppings, you move to the larger chip with smaller demand where yields are worse in general. Personally, I think they would greatly benefit from a unified chiplet design starting with something close to the A14 then scaling up.