7 ms·

M1 and M2 actually are not produced on the exact same process node. M1 is N5 and M2 is N5P, an optimized version of N5. I think Kuo might be misinterpreting th

by eis 4y ago

M1 and M2 actually are not produced on the exact same process node. M1 is N5 and M2 is N5P, an optimized version of N5. I think Kuo might be misinterpreting the statement from TSMC regarding revenue from N3. The key is that they said it wont "substantially" contribute to revenue until 2023. Of course processors like M2 Pro/Max/Ultra wont generate the same amount of numbers like something more high volume like an iPhone and in the grand scheme of things can't represent a substantial contribution to TSMC revenue. The fact is TSMC said they'll start N3 HVM in September. So they are producing something and we know Apple is expected to be the first customer for this node. It's too early for the A17 so either it's the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra or something new like the VR headset chip. Can someone see another possibility? Apple still btw has to replace the Mac Pro with an Apple Silicon based model and their own deadline (2 years from first M1) is running out. It could make sense that they want to bring this one with a "bang" and claim the performance crown just to stick it to Intel :)

xiphias2 4y ago
They don't ,,have to'' be ready in 2 years. The M2 numbers from the N5P process were underwhelming, I wouldn't replace my M1 MacBook pro without seeing significantly superior performance / watt numbers, and happy to wait for the N3 process to be in production whatever it takes.
- eis 4y ago
  Of course nothing forces them to be ready within 2 years but alas, that's what Apple said they'd do. I agree the M2 numbers were not amazing. I guess after the big M1 shock it's hard to follow up with something that comes even close. You can't get similar gains like the transition from x86 to an integrated arm based SOC brought, doubly so when there's no substantial process node improvement (N5 -> N5P is a minor optimization). In the end they mostly bought better performance with a bigger die and increased power consumption. I'm pretty convinced they'll need N3 for the next jump but even that wont be on the level of the Intel -> M1 step. The revolution has happened, now it's all about evolution. BTW if Apple wants to increase the prices of the Pro macbooks like they did with the M2 Air due to inflation then they better justify it with some good gains. The big changes in terms of hardware redesign already happened last time.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    > I agree the M2 numbers were not amazing. What other CPU core design iteration managed to improve performance while also cutting power draw? Anandtech's deep dive on the performance and efficiency cores used in the A15 and M2: Performance: >In our extensive testing, we’re elated to see that it was actually mostly an efficiency focus this year, with the new performance cores showcasing adequate performance improvements, while at the same time reducing power consumption, as well as significantly improving energy efficiency. Efficiency: >The efficiency cores have also seen massive gains, this time around with Apple mostly investing them back into performance, with the new cores showcasing +23-28% absolute performance improvements, something that isn’t easily identified by popular benchmarking. This large performance increase further helps the SoC improve energy efficiency, and our initial battery life figures of the new 13 series showcase that the chip has a very large part into the vastly longer longevity of the new devices. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-performance-review-faster-more-efficient/4 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-perfo... Intel and AMD seem to have both returned to the Pentium 4 days of chasing performance via increased clock speeds and power draws.
    - eis 4y ago
      The report you quoted and linked to is about the A15 and not the M2. The M2 is based on the A15 but from what I've seen it does use quite a bit more power (~30%?) than the M1 when loaded. Anandtech did not analyze the M2 yet as far as I can see.
      - GeekyBear 4y ago
        As previously noted, those core designs are used in both the A15 and the M2. Just as the same cores were used in the A14 and M1. Using more power overall comes from adding additional GPU cores and other non-CPU core functionality.
        eis 4y ago
        If the increase in power consumption comes from the additional GPU core, from increased frequencies in the CPU cores or other added parts to the chip imho is not that important for users (and depends on what they are doing). They see the system as a whole. They get x% more performance for y% more power usage. For the CPU x is smaller than y. This is totally normal when increasing frequencies. Note: I'm not saying the M2 is bad. It's a very good chip indeed. All I said was it was not amazing. It was an iterational, yet welcome, improvement. And I think one couldn't expect anything amazing quite so quickly.
- yoz-y 4y ago
  Almost nobody should update from one generation of CPUs to the next one though. Incremental upgrades are fine.
- rvz 4y ago
  After the November 2020 launch day chaos, with not that much existing software available was working on those machines at the time like Docker, Java, Android Studio / Emulator, VSTs, etc a typical developer would have to wait more than 6 months just to do their work with fully supported software on the system and to take full advantage of the performance gains rather than using Rosetta. At that point, they might as well skipped the M1 machines and instead waited to purchase the M1 Pro MacBooks. Now there isn't a rush in getting a M1 Macbook anymore as now Apple is already moving to the M2 line up. By the time they have made an Apple Silicon Mac Pro, they are already planning ahead for the new series of Apple Silicon chips; probably M3, which will be after the M2 Pro/Ultra products. After that, it will be the beginning of the end of macOS on Intel.
  - simonh 4y ago
    >…not much existing software was working [lists a few nerdy dev tools used by 0.01% of the Mac user bsse]…
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      Surely software developers (and other people using x86-only software like Photoshop) are more than 0.01% of the mac user base. Apple has specifically said that vim users are the reason they put back the physical escape key…
      - KerrAvon 4y ago
        Photoshop worked on M1 on day 1. What is the argument even about here? Someone is upset that all software developers didn’t port everything to M1 overnight?
        rvz 4y ago
        > Photoshop worked on M1 on day 1. Complete and absolute nonsense. From [0]: As of March 2021, Photoshop now runs natively on Apple computers using the Apple Silicon M1 chip with 1.5X the speed of similarly configured previous generation systems. Even before that it wasn't supported or designed to run on M1, hence the frequent crashes and freezing users were getting. Therefore, it wasn't working. So how exactly is waiting until March 2021 for a stable M1 version of Photoshop, "working on day 1"? [0] https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/kb/photoshop-for-apple-silicon.html https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/kb/photoshop-for-apple-...
- saagarjha 4y ago
  idk, I feel like most people don’t replace their expensive MacBook Pros every single time there’s a new one
- kergonath 4y ago
  > I wouldn't replace my M1 MacBook pro without seeing significantly superior performance / watt numbers What makes you think that this will happen in one generation? The point of the M2 is not to get M1 users to migrate, it’s to keep improving so that MacBooks are still better products than the competition. Apple does not care that you don’t get a new computer every year, they are most likely planning for 3 to 5 years replacement cycles.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Maursault 4y ago
  > The M2 numbers from the N5P process were underwhelming. No, they weren't. Performance improvements are precisely in line with every previous hardware update. Apple hardware updates are always and only incremental improvements, since the very beginning. Apple is reasonably predictable in this regard. Expecting more than what Apple has always given in hardware updates is overtly unrealistic.
simonebrunozzi 4y ago
> something new like the VR headset chip My bet is on this one.
- whazor 4y ago
  Given that there is an iPad with a M1-chip, I think Apple is smart and produces broad chips that fits in all the devices and potentially VR glasses. It makes sense that their more expensive M2 Pro chip is made on the 3nm process, which is more expensive and has less capacity. It would go to more expensive Macbooks because those are less in demand and have a higher price. For the VR glasses it makes sense they release an expensive developer unit and wait for 3nm to ramp up for the mass consumer version.
greenknight 4y ago
I would expect that Apple would push its goldenchild (iphone) onto the node first. Its a small chip which they can use as a pipecleaner, makign sure they can get the yields up and optimise the process before pushing a larger die onto the node. They easily could have been allocating risk production on the iphone for the past couple of months, ready for the launch. Apple being like yes we will take lower yields for less cost. I do not expect any company to announce production 3N product, until apple has had one out for atleast 6-12 months. Look how long it took the rest of the industry to move to 5N. I swear part of that reason was an exclusivity agreement with Apple, and it massively paid off for their CPUs. Having a node advantage is always massive in terms of price / performance / power matrix.
- eis 4y ago
  Are you suggesting they might have produced millions of A16 chips on N3 during risk production phase and launched it before TSMC even reaches HVM? Highly unlikely. Risk production is a phase where they still make changes and fix issues. It's like a beta phase. It does not come at a lower cost, it would be more expensive to throw out a big chunk of chips. The iPhone chips are very high volume, you can't produce them before reaching... high volume manufacturing phase. The iPhone contributes to TSMC revenue in a substantial manner so that also would totally not fit what TSMC said. The M2 Pro/Max/Ultra are much lower volume and higher margin. It makes sense to start with them.
  - BackBlast 4y ago
    Except that they are much larger chips, that will be much more sensitive to yield issues. They could do that, but they will be expensive. Maybe that's ok.
    - cma 4y ago
      Their biggest (m2 max in studio) are more like chiplets with interposers, which exponentially lowers the yield problems depending on how much you can split it up. Also larger chips can still set a threshold on gpu cores to disable due to defects and that kind of thing, where a mobile one might just throw out the chip with a much lower number of (or any?) defects. Nvidia can make tons of tiers out of the same chip by just setting different thresholds on the number of usable cores, it isn't all just price discrimination (though sometimes I think they have been found to be fusing off much more than needed for the number of defects as a pure price discrimination play, or that might have been Intel with cache size).
ksec 4y ago
Starting HVM in Sept does not mean you get Revenue in Sept. It takes months before volume reached, testing, packaging done and shipped. TSMC isn't unusual in stating it they wont get revenue from N3 until 2023.
- martin_bech 4y ago
  Well dosent Apple usually prepay? Thats normally why they get preferential treatment.
  - refulgentis 4y ago
    It's more complicated than this, accounting as a field exists pretty much because there's intricate sets of rules and ways to interpret them. Here, my understanding is a good accountant would say not to recognize the revenue until you consider it shipped - i.e. if you agree to pay me a bajillion dollars for a time machine with an out clause of no cash if no delivery, that doesn't mean I get to book a bajillion dollars in revenue over the top example, but this was the general shape of much Enron chicanery, booking speculative revenue based on coming to terms on projects they were in no shape to deliver, so its very much an accounting 'code smell' if 'code smell' meant 'attracts regulators attention'
    - bombcar 4y ago
      I think this case is how do you book you paying one billion cash today for a time machine sometime next Tuesday of next year? Accrual accounting says even if you have the money it’s not “yours” until the product ships.
  - ralph84 4y ago
    In accrual accounting payment has very little connection to when revenue is recognized. In order for revenue to be recognized the product has to ship.
- eis 4y ago
  Yes. So either way, Kuo cannot deduce that M2 Pro wont be on N3. If the revenue is realized later or if the numbers are too low to justify calling it a substantial contrubution to TSMC revenue... same result. Kuo's argument does not seem to hold water. Now, that does not mean the inverse is true and M2 Pro is guaranteed to be on N3. I can only come up with the VR chip as alternative and so far I think nobody else came up with a suggestion.
foobiekr 4y ago
The Mac Studio is the obvious Mac Pro replacement. It's hard to do a fixed system and also charge much more than $5k for it, and Apple has failed over and over at any kind of non-fixed Mac Pro. They might just leave it as is. The studio is a very capable machine at the high end, and if given a beefier GPU/CPU and _maybe_ more DRAM it probably replaces the bulk of the professional use cases.
- wmf 4y ago
  Apple explicitly said that a Mac Pro that isn't the Studio is coming.
- rvz 4y ago
  > The Mac Studio is the obvious Mac Pro replacement. No it is not. Mac Pro users wouldn't not migrate to a system that doesn't allow removable or extra drives.
  - icedchai 4y ago
    The trash can Mac Pro was exactly that. It had very little expandability.
    - jasomill 4y ago
      The Mac Studio is a good trash can replacement. The trash can was a poor cheese grater replacement. (speaking as a happy user of both a trash can Mac Pro and a [non-Apple] full-tower workstation)
Maursault 4y ago
> Apple still btw has to replace the Mac Pro with an Apple Silicon based model At about the same price, I think 10x Mac Studios Ultra count as replacing much more than a single maxed-out Mac Pro. Though I do expect an Apple Silicon Mac Pro is still coming, I do not see any need for Apple to rush to meet some marketing deadline from almost 2 years ago.

by eis 4y ago

xiphias2 4y ago

They don't ,,have to'' be ready in 2 years. The M2 numbers from the N5P process were underwhelming, I wouldn't replace my M1 MacBook pro without seeing significantly superior performance / watt numbers, and happy to wait for the N3 process to be in production whatever it takes.

eis 4y ago
Of course nothing forces them to be ready within 2 years but alas, that's what Apple said they'd do. I agree the M2 numbers were not amazing. I guess after the big M1 shock it's hard to follow up with something that comes even close. You can't get similar gains like the transition from x86 to an integrated arm based SOC brought, doubly so when there's no substantial process node improvement (N5 -> N5P is a minor optimization). In the end they mostly bought better performance with a bigger die and increased power consumption. I'm pretty convinced they'll need N3 for the next jump but even that wont be on the level of the Intel -> M1 step. The revolution has happened, now it's all about evolution. BTW if Apple wants to increase the prices of the Pro macbooks like they did with the M2 Air due to inflation then they better justify it with some good gains. The big changes in terms of hardware redesign already happened last time.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  > I agree the M2 numbers were not amazing. What other CPU core design iteration managed to improve performance while also cutting power draw? Anandtech's deep dive on the performance and efficiency cores used in the A15 and M2: Performance: >In our extensive testing, we’re elated to see that it was actually mostly an efficiency focus this year, with the new performance cores showcasing adequate performance improvements, while at the same time reducing power consumption, as well as significantly improving energy efficiency. Efficiency: >The efficiency cores have also seen massive gains, this time around with Apple mostly investing them back into performance, with the new cores showcasing +23-28% absolute performance improvements, something that isn’t easily identified by popular benchmarking. This large performance increase further helps the SoC improve energy efficiency, and our initial battery life figures of the new 13 series showcase that the chip has a very large part into the vastly longer longevity of the new devices. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-performance-review-faster-more-efficient/4 https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-perfo... Intel and AMD seem to have both returned to the Pentium 4 days of chasing performance via increased clock speeds and power draws.
  - eis 4y ago
    The report you quoted and linked to is about the A15 and not the M2. The M2 is based on the A15 but from what I've seen it does use quite a bit more power (~30%?) than the M1 when loaded. Anandtech did not analyze the M2 yet as far as I can see.
    - GeekyBear 4y ago
      As previously noted, those core designs are used in both the A15 and the M2. Just as the same cores were used in the A14 and M1. Using more power overall comes from adding additional GPU cores and other non-CPU core functionality.
      - eis 4y ago
        If the increase in power consumption comes from the additional GPU core, from increased frequencies in the CPU cores or other added parts to the chip imho is not that important for users (and depends on what they are doing). They see the system as a whole. They get x% more performance for y% more power usage. For the CPU x is smaller than y. This is totally normal when increasing frequencies. Note: I'm not saying the M2 is bad. It's a very good chip indeed. All I said was it was not amazing. It was an iterational, yet welcome, improvement. And I think one couldn't expect anything amazing quite so quickly.
yoz-y 4y ago
Almost nobody should update from one generation of CPUs to the next one though. Incremental upgrades are fine.
rvz 4y ago
After the November 2020 launch day chaos, with not that much existing software available was working on those machines at the time like Docker, Java, Android Studio / Emulator, VSTs, etc a typical developer would have to wait more than 6 months just to do their work with fully supported software on the system and to take full advantage of the performance gains rather than using Rosetta. At that point, they might as well skipped the M1 machines and instead waited to purchase the M1 Pro MacBooks. Now there isn't a rush in getting a M1 Macbook anymore as now Apple is already moving to the M2 line up. By the time they have made an Apple Silicon Mac Pro, they are already planning ahead for the new series of Apple Silicon chips; probably M3, which will be after the M2 Pro/Ultra products. After that, it will be the beginning of the end of macOS on Intel.
- simonh 4y ago
  >…not much existing software was working [lists a few nerdy dev tools used by 0.01% of the Mac user bsse]…
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Surely software developers (and other people using x86-only software like Photoshop) are more than 0.01% of the mac user base. Apple has specifically said that vim users are the reason they put back the physical escape key…
    - KerrAvon 4y ago
      Photoshop worked on M1 on day 1. What is the argument even about here? Someone is upset that all software developers didn’t port everything to M1 overnight?
      - rvz 4y ago
        > Photoshop worked on M1 on day 1. Complete and absolute nonsense. From [0]: As of March 2021, Photoshop now runs natively on Apple computers using the Apple Silicon M1 chip with 1.5X the speed of similarly configured previous generation systems. Even before that it wasn't supported or designed to run on M1, hence the frequent crashes and freezing users were getting. Therefore, it wasn't working. So how exactly is waiting until March 2021 for a stable M1 version of Photoshop, "working on day 1"? [0] https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/kb/photoshop-for-apple-silicon.html https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/kb/photoshop-for-apple-...
saagarjha 4y ago
idk, I feel like most people don’t replace their expensive MacBook Pros every single time there’s a new one
kergonath 4y ago
> I wouldn't replace my M1 MacBook pro without seeing significantly superior performance / watt numbers What makes you think that this will happen in one generation? The point of the M2 is not to get M1 users to migrate, it’s to keep improving so that MacBooks are still better products than the competition. Apple does not care that you don’t get a new computer every year, they are most likely planning for 3 to 5 years replacement cycles.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Maursault 4y ago
> The M2 numbers from the N5P process were underwhelming. No, they weren't. Performance improvements are precisely in line with every previous hardware update. Apple hardware updates are always and only incremental improvements, since the very beginning. Apple is reasonably predictable in this regard. Expecting more than what Apple has always given in hardware updates is overtly unrealistic.

simonebrunozzi 4y ago

> something new like the VR headset chip My bet is on this one.

whazor 4y ago
Given that there is an iPad with a M1-chip, I think Apple is smart and produces broad chips that fits in all the devices and potentially VR glasses. It makes sense that their more expensive M2 Pro chip is made on the 3nm process, which is more expensive and has less capacity. It would go to more expensive Macbooks because those are less in demand and have a higher price. For the VR glasses it makes sense they release an expensive developer unit and wait for 3nm to ramp up for the mass consumer version.

greenknight 4y ago

I would expect that Apple would push its goldenchild (iphone) onto the node first. Its a small chip which they can use as a pipecleaner, makign sure they can get the yields up and optimise the process before pushing a larger die onto the node. They easily could have been allocating risk production on the iphone for the past couple of months, ready for the launch. Apple being like yes we will take lower yields for less cost. I do not expect any company to announce production 3N product, until apple has had one out for atleast 6-12 months. Look how long it took the rest of the industry to move to 5N. I swear part of that reason was an exclusivity agreement with Apple, and it massively paid off for their CPUs. Having a node advantage is always massive in terms of price / performance / power matrix.

eis 4y ago
Are you suggesting they might have produced millions of A16 chips on N3 during risk production phase and launched it before TSMC even reaches HVM? Highly unlikely. Risk production is a phase where they still make changes and fix issues. It's like a beta phase. It does not come at a lower cost, it would be more expensive to throw out a big chunk of chips. The iPhone chips are very high volume, you can't produce them before reaching... high volume manufacturing phase. The iPhone contributes to TSMC revenue in a substantial manner so that also would totally not fit what TSMC said. The M2 Pro/Max/Ultra are much lower volume and higher margin. It makes sense to start with them.
- BackBlast 4y ago
  Except that they are much larger chips, that will be much more sensitive to yield issues. They could do that, but they will be expensive. Maybe that's ok.
  - cma 4y ago
    Their biggest (m2 max in studio) are more like chiplets with interposers, which exponentially lowers the yield problems depending on how much you can split it up. Also larger chips can still set a threshold on gpu cores to disable due to defects and that kind of thing, where a mobile one might just throw out the chip with a much lower number of (or any?) defects. Nvidia can make tons of tiers out of the same chip by just setting different thresholds on the number of usable cores, it isn't all just price discrimination (though sometimes I think they have been found to be fusing off much more than needed for the number of defects as a pure price discrimination play, or that might have been Intel with cache size).

ksec 4y ago

Starting HVM in Sept does not mean you get Revenue in Sept. It takes months before volume reached, testing, packaging done and shipped. TSMC isn't unusual in stating it they wont get revenue from N3 until 2023.

martin_bech 4y ago
Well dosent Apple usually prepay? Thats normally why they get preferential treatment.
- refulgentis 4y ago
  It's more complicated than this, accounting as a field exists pretty much because there's intricate sets of rules and ways to interpret them. Here, my understanding is a good accountant would say not to recognize the revenue until you consider it shipped - i.e. if you agree to pay me a bajillion dollars for a time machine with an out clause of no cash if no delivery, that doesn't mean I get to book a bajillion dollars in revenue over the top example, but this was the general shape of much Enron chicanery, booking speculative revenue based on coming to terms on projects they were in no shape to deliver, so its very much an accounting 'code smell' if 'code smell' meant 'attracts regulators attention'
  - bombcar 4y ago
    I think this case is how do you book you paying one billion cash today for a time machine sometime next Tuesday of next year? Accrual accounting says even if you have the money it’s not “yours” until the product ships.
- ralph84 4y ago
  In accrual accounting payment has very little connection to when revenue is recognized. In order for revenue to be recognized the product has to ship.
eis 4y ago
Yes. So either way, Kuo cannot deduce that M2 Pro wont be on N3. If the revenue is realized later or if the numbers are too low to justify calling it a substantial contrubution to TSMC revenue... same result. Kuo's argument does not seem to hold water. Now, that does not mean the inverse is true and M2 Pro is guaranteed to be on N3. I can only come up with the VR chip as alternative and so far I think nobody else came up with a suggestion.

foobiekr 4y ago

The Mac Studio is the obvious Mac Pro replacement. It's hard to do a fixed system and also charge much more than $5k for it, and Apple has failed over and over at any kind of non-fixed Mac Pro. They might just leave it as is. The studio is a very capable machine at the high end, and if given a beefier GPU/CPU and _maybe_ more DRAM it probably replaces the bulk of the professional use cases.

wmf 4y ago
Apple explicitly said that a Mac Pro that isn't the Studio is coming.
rvz 4y ago
> The Mac Studio is the obvious Mac Pro replacement. No it is not. Mac Pro users wouldn't not migrate to a system that doesn't allow removable or extra drives.
- icedchai 4y ago
  The trash can Mac Pro was exactly that. It had very little expandability.
  - jasomill 4y ago
    The Mac Studio is a good trash can replacement. The trash can was a poor cheese grater replacement. (speaking as a happy user of both a trash can Mac Pro and a [non-Apple] full-tower workstation)

Maursault 4y ago

> Apple still btw has to replace the Mac Pro with an Apple Silicon based model At about the same price, I think 10x Mac Studios Ultra count as replacing much more than a single maxed-out Mac Pro. Though I do expect an Apple Silicon Mac Pro is still coming, I do not see any need for Apple to rush to meet some marketing deadline from almost 2 years ago.