Bloomberg’s source spills the beans on Apple’s 2021-2022 CPUs and it’s crazy

[saltycaramel]

Summary

The usually reliable Bloomberg’s sources revealed a ton of new info about both Apple 5nm 2021 CPUs and 5nm+ 2021-2022 CPUs, including

- 12p+4e configurations

- 16p+4e configurations

- “half sized” Mac Pro mentioned once again, it’s happening

- 32p configurations

- 16-32 “cores” GPU

- 64-128 “cores” GPU

- transition away from Intel to be completed in 2022

 

Quotes

Quote

For its next generation chip targeting MacBook Pro and iMac models, Apple is working on designs with as many as 16 power cores and four efficiency cores, the people said.

While that component is in development, Apple could choose to first release variations with only eight or 12 of the high-performance cores enabled depending on production, they said. Chipmakers are often forced to offer some models with lower specifications than they originally intended because of problems that emerge during fabrication.

For higher-end desktop computers, planned for later in 2021 and a new half-sized Mac Pro planned to launch by 2022, Apple is testing a chip design with as many as 32 high-performance cores.

With today’s Intel systems, Apple’s highest-end laptops offer a maximum of eight cores, a high-end iMac Pro is available with as many as 18 and the priciest Mac Pro desktop features as much as a 28-core system. Though architecturally different, Apple and Intel’s chips rely on the segmentation of workloads into smaller, serialized tasks that several processing cores can work on at once.

Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which has been gaining market share at Intel’s expense, offers standard desktop parts with as many as 16 cores, with some of its high-end chips for gaming PCs going as high as 64 cores.

While the M1 silicon has been well received, the Macs using it are Apple’s lower-end systems with less memory and fewer ports. The company still sells higher-end, Intel-based versions of some of the lines that received M1 updates. The M1 chip is a variation of a new iPad processor destined to be included in a new iPad Pro arriving next year.

Apple engineers are also developing more ambitious graphics processors. Today’s M1 processors are offered with a custom Apple graphics engine that comes in either 7- or 8-core variations. For its future high-end laptops and mid-range desktops, Apple is testing 16-core and 32-core graphics parts.

For later in 2021 or potentially 2022, Apple is working on pricier graphics upgrades with 64 and 128 dedicated cores aimed at its highest-end machines, the people said. Those graphics chips would be several times faster than the current graphics modules Apple uses from Nvidia and AMD in its Intel-powered hardware.

 

My thoughts

Bloomberg’s reports on future Apple products yet-to-be-mentioned anywhere else are so reliable, detailed and accurate that I suspect them to be Apple-planted. This is not your average wannabe-leaker. If this is all true (and I don’t doubt it is), we are gonna see some crazy performances both on the CPU and the GPU side in Apple Silicon Macs in the next 12 months. 

 

Sources

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-07/apple-preps-next-mac-chips-with-aim-to-outclass-highest-end-pcs

[Spindel]

4 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

Summary

- 64-128 “cores” GPU

 

HOLY SHIT!

 

(if true)

[LAwLz]

Mark Gurman is one of the few people I trust when it comes to leaks.

With that being said, this article doesn't really tell us a whole lot. Of course higher core count ARM chips from Apple are coming, and I am sure they will perform REALLY well. They will probably beat even Zen3 at similar core counts, at much lower power.

The questions that I am interested in aren't being answered by this article though. Questions like, will they be able to keep everything on the same chip like they are now, even if they go bigger?

How will they handle RAM? Will it support external RAM and how will that impact latency?

What will I/O be like?

 

 

That GPU config sounds insane though. 

If we assume a linear single precision throughput from the 8 core variant then we get around 40 TFLOPs. For comparison, the RTX 3090 has around 30 TFLOPs.

So even if we are conservative with our estimates, we're still talking about something much faster (like 20-30%) than a 3090 (in FP32). Of course, FP32 throughput isn't the be all and end all performance metric so take it with a grain of salt. But it might be a decent indication.

[RejZoR]

I wonder how they'll scale these many core CPU's and how they'll "integrate" more memory in them. Using GPU like arrangement with RAM chips surrounding the main chip? Will see...

[Spotty]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

How will they handle RAM? Will it support external RAM and how will that impact latency?

I really don't see how they would be able to keep the RAM on chip with the Pro products. 8GB for a Macbook Air is doable but 1TB+ for a Mac Pro is not going to happen. My guess would be some amount of memory on the chip (8GB, 16GB?) with additional memory expansion. I want to say DIMM form factor DDR5 memory, but with Apple who knows it could just be soldered directly to the board.

 

Quote

Advanced Micro Devices Inc., which has been gaining market share at Intel’s expense, offers standard desktop parts with as many as 16 cores, with some of its high-end chips for gaming PCs going as high as 64 cores.

For gaming PCs? Who out there using a $3990 Threadripper 3990X for gaming!? Those are not gaming oriented CPUs.

[Master Disaster]

31 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The questions that I am interested in aren't being answered by this article though. Questions like, will they be able to keep everything on the same chip like they are now, even if they go bigger?

How will they handle RAM? Will it support external RAM and how will that impact latency?

What will I/O be like?

The ARM Macs that are out now already answers one of those questions. I see no reason why Apple would add user upgradable RAM after already removing it. This is Apple, they don't want the user opening the system for ANY reason.

 

As for I/O, what was wrong with the current M1's? They have USB/TB (Thunderbolt was just released to the public and renamed to USB 4 I believe) and Apple have promised to fix eGPU enclosures in the future. What more do you need these days?

 

Edit - Also a 10G NIC is rumoured to be coming already.

3 minutes ago, Spotty said:

I really don't see how they would be able to keep the RAM on chip with the Pro products. 8GB for a Macbook Air is doable but 1TB+ for a Mac Pro is not going to happen. My guess would be some amount of memory on the chip (8GB, 16GB?) with additional memory expansion. I want to say DIMM form factor DDR5 memory, but with Apple who knows it could just be soldered directly to the board.

I can see them going as far as soldering it to the board and reducing the amount of variations available to the consumer.

[Lord Vile]

2 minutes ago, Spotty said:

For gaming PCs? Who out there using a $3990 Threadripper 3990X for gaming!? Those are not gaming oriented CPUs.

3950X is a 16 core part on AM4. Costs about £750.

[Spindel]

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

I really don't see how they would be able to keep the RAM on chip with the Pro products. 8GB for a Macbook Air is doable but 1TB+ for a Mac Pro is not going to happen. My guess would be some amount of memory on the chip (8GB, 16GB?) with additional memory expansion. I want to say DIMM form factor DDR5 memory, but with Apple who knows it could just be soldered directly to the board.

 

I'm with you in this speculation. 

 

On chip will be a smaller amount (8, 16 32(?)) then you might have additional "standard" dims that will (in the OS) act as a high speed swap storage. 

[Lord Vile]

5 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

The ARM Macs that are out now already answers one of those questions. I see no reason why Apple would add user upgradable RAM after already removing it. This is Apple, they don't want the user opening the system for ANY reason.

They did just launch the massively user upgradable Mac Pro not too long ago and went to the effort of designing their own interface for add in cards so wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing with a soldered CPU or even something like a CPU module. 

Quote

 

As for I/O, what was wrong with the current M1's? They have USB/TB (Thunderbolt was just released to the public and renamed to USB 4 I believe) and Apple have promised to fix eGPU enclosures in the future. What more do you need these days?

I can see them going as far as soldering it to the board and reducing the amount of variations available to the consumer.

Issue is they have limited display outs, only 2 TB3 ports and no 10Gb LAN.

[Master Disaster]

9 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

They did just launch the massively user upgradable Mac Pro not too long ago and went to the effort of designing their own interface for add in cards so wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing with a soldered CPU or even something like a CPU module. 

I get the feeling the transition to ARM is Apple trying to get out ahead of Right To Repair. If everything is directly soldered to the board they can claim the user has no need to ever open the system since they can't really fix anything without a soldering iron and microsoldering skills. I realise that's a jaded opinion but Apples behaviour recently has been anything but consumer friendly.

 

Also ARM gives them a reason to drop X86 support from macOS entirely and kill the Hackintosh scene with one fell swoop. It'll be a good few years before they can do it since they generally do offer good support for older systems but it will happen.

Quote

Issue is they have limited display outs, only 2 TB3 ports and no 10Gb LAN.

Display outs I agree with. I reckon the next gens will come with USB4 OOTB and a 10G NIC variant is almost confirmed to be coming on the current models at this point. Plus I'm 99% sure they have promised to fix eGPUs in the future as well.

[Lord Vile]

3 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I get the feeling the transition to ARM is Apple trying to get out ahead of Right To Repair. If everything is directly soldered to the board they can claim the user has no need to ever open the system since they can't really fix anything without a soldering iron and microsoldering skills. I realise that's a jaded opinion but Apples behaviour recently has been anything but consumer friendly.

Macbooks basically are that anyway though nothings changed and spending a boatload of money on the MacPro and R+D for it just seems like something they wouldn't kill that quickly, they're not google after all.

Quote

 

Also ARM gives them a reason to drop X86 support from macOS entirely and kill the Hackintosh scene with one fell swoop. It'll be a good few years before they can do it since they generally do offer good support for older systems but it will happen.

They were already moving to that with the T2 chip though.

Quote

Display outs I agree with. I reckon the next gens will come with TB4 OOTB and a 10G NIC variant is almost confirmed to be coming on the current models at this point.

I think bigger chips definitely will but this is just the first wave to get the chips into people (and more importantly devs) hands.

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Macbooks basically are that anyway though nothings changed and spending a boatload of money on the MacPro and R+D for it just seems like something they wouldn't kill that quickly, they're not google after all.

They have to redesign the entire thing anyway, its not like they can just drop an M1 on a current Intel board and have it just work. They've committed to being fully M1 by 2022 so they are probably already started on full redesigns for everything that currently runs as Intel. They can design the ARM boards to be exactly what they want them to be.

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

They were already moving to that with the T2 chip though.

Yep but the thing with hackers if they love a challenge. It's not inconceivable that some hacker would develop a software defeat and bypass the entire thing. By removing X86 support from the kernel they're basically stamping out the last few embers of the fire.

2 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

I think bigger chips definitely will but this is just the first wave to get the chips into people (and more importantly devs) hands.

Agreed. It might take until after 2022 for the platform to mature fully, once they've transitioned everything over they can focus on implementing other tech.

[Lord Vile]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

They have to redesign the entire thing anyway, its not like they can just drop an M1 on a current Intel board and have it just work. They've committed to being fully M1 by 2022 so they are probably already started on full redesigns for everything that currently runs as Intel. They can design the ARM boards to be exactly what they want them to be.

Obviously but my point was everything on a MacBook is soldered anyway and you can't replace drives etc because of the T2 chip

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Yep but the thing with hackers if they love a challenge. It's not inconceivable that some hacker would develop a software defeat and bypass the entire thing. By removing X86 support from the kernel they're basically stamping out the last few embers of the fire.

I'm sure they'll find a way to do it.

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

Agreed. It might take until after 2022 for the platform to mature fully, once they've transitioned everything over they can focus on implementing other tech.

Which is why I'm holding onto my MBP for a while until everything's matured, never buy into new tech you're always a guinea pig.

[randomhkkid]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

The questions that I am interested in aren't being answered by this article though. Questions like, will they be able to keep everything on the same chip like they are now, even if they go bigger?

The industry seems to be headed towards a chiplet approach, AMD with infinity fabric and Intel using their EMIB tech. Will be interesting to see if Apple will buck the trend given they put such a large focus on memory latency and unification.

 

That said the 16p and 12p each are listed with 4 efficiency cores so Apple's 'chiplets' don't sound like they would benefit from M1 dies.

[AlexGoesHigh]

All I'm gonna say is that if Apple releases that 32 core chip in 2021 and Intel keeps going the way they are, then, they are going to look REALLY BAD that what they are now, because they don't even have that amount of cores on any of their chips at any level unless you count Xeon platinum 9000, but IMO because those are two dies in one socket that feel like knee jerk reaction to AMD EPYC that the only thing they do better that other Xeon is greater rack density that is so expensive only hyperscalers can take advantage of it, it feel almost like picking straws to draw.

 

Seriously one thing is Apple moving away from Intel to in house chips that can match performance but another is to beat them by a significant margin given that Intel is considered "THE CHIPMAKER GIANT" in the market eyes. I hope for Intel own sake whatever they planned in the long run is a revolution that a evolution because evolving what they have on hand seems like is not gonna be enough when even Apple can make better overall chips.

[Doobeedoo]

I mean, how much will they be able to scale up on a single die is the question. They'll definitely have external parts for high end. But by then, I expect others to also have hybrid ARM based SoC offerings too.

[Spindel]

2 hours ago, Spindel said:

HOLY SHIT!

 

(if true)

Ok had to do some napkin math. 

For simplicity we assume everything scales linearly, performance usually do this fairly well with GPUs anyway since they are heavily parallelized. 

 

But if we take a 128 core GPU that's about 16 times the performance of the current M1 GPU and in the same ball park as a top of the line Nvidia offering (today).

 

And if we assume that the 8 GPU cores today consume about 15 W (it's probably a little less but anyway) that gives a power draw of about 240 W witch is also in line with Nvidia top offering (today).  

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, Spotty said:

I really don't see how they would be able to keep the RAM on chip with the Pro products. 8GB for a Macbook Air is doable but 1TB+ for a Mac Pro is not going to happen. My guess would be some amount of memory on the chip (8GB, 16GB?) with additional memory expansion. I want to say DIMM form factor DDR5 memory, but with Apple who knows it could just be soldered directly to the board.

 

For gaming PCs? Who out there using a $3990 Threadripper 3990X for gaming!? Those are not gaming oriented CPUs.

Probably die stacking of some sort, though even there, the problem I see is that they can't make a Mac Pro with 1TB of ram, no way, no how.

 

MY assumption here is that it's going to be some kind of grid-computing-on-a-board setup where it's a multi-SoC solution where each SoC has 8 cores and 32GB of ram, so you end up with a configuration of 8p+4e+32GB , 16p+4e+64GB,32p+4e+128GB, 64p+4e+256GB

 

Because, by the time it comes out, those configurations make sense. In a non-laptop/non-mobile device, you only need/want 4 low-power cores for running the system when it's mostly-idle/sleeping, rather than spinning up the power cores just to play a sound effect when you receive a twitter dm.

 

On the other hand, it could also be a more conventional workstation design and they will produce a chiplet configuration of 4e+(8 x ?)+(64GB x ?) where instead of something like AM4 (which basically connects RAM and everything else via PCIe to the CPU) the socket part itself is eliminated, and the chiplets are directly built onto a board, but that would require some amazing engineering to pull off.)

 

 

 

[Ankh Tech]

4 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Probably die stacking of some sort, though even there, the problem I see is that they can't make a Mac Pro with 1TB of ram, no way, no how.

 

MY assumption here is that it's going to be some kind of grid-computing-on-a-board setup where it's a multi-SoC solution where each SoC has 8 cores and 32GB of ram, so you end up with a configuration of 8p+4e+32GB , 16p+4e+64GB,32p+4e+128GB, 64p+4e+256GB

 

Because, by the time it comes out, those configurations make sense. In a non-laptop/non-mobile device, you only need/want 4 low-power cores for running the system when it's mostly-idle/sleeping, rather than spinning up the power cores just to play a sound effect when you receive a twitter dm.

 

On the other hand, it could also be a more conventional workstation design and they will produce a chiplet configuration of 4e+(8 x ?)+(64GB x ?) where instead of something like AM4 (which basically connects RAM and everything else via PCIe to the CPU) the socket part itself is eliminated, and the chiplets are directly built onto a board, but that would require some amazing engineering to pull off.)

 

 

 

yeah, probably proiatery daughter boards, soldered perhaps, and each has a soc, and a controller of some sort on the main board, to connect them

[Commodus]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

I get the feeling the transition to ARM is Apple trying to get out ahead of Right To Repair. If everything is directly soldered to the board they can claim the user has no need to ever open the system since they can't really fix anything without a soldering iron and microsoldering skills. I realise that's a jaded opinion but Apples behaviour recently has been anything but consumer friendly.

 

Also ARM gives them a reason to drop X86 support from macOS entirely and kill the Hackintosh scene with one fell swoop. It'll be a good few years before they can do it since they generally do offer good support for older systems but it will happen.

On top of what LV said... I think you're reading too much into Apple's plans. It's not some Snidely Whiplash-like villain designing products purely to spite all that's good in the world.

 

The boring reality is that Apple feels held back by Intel (can't entirely blame it) and wants to design computers that both outrun the competition and help it stand out in the market. It may do things that aren't so consumer-friendly in pursuit of those goals, but there's no evidence that it's purposefully trying to snub enthusiasts.

 

For one thing... the Hackintosh market is insignificant. Apple isn't worried about the handful of people determined to run macOS on non-Apple hardware; pushing them toward real Macs won't lead to a profit windfall. And while Apple clearly isn't the biggest fan of Right to Repair laws, a lot of what it's doing seems to stem more from the nature of ARM chips (a tendency towards all-in-one SoCs instead of classic PC architecture) and its longstanding design philosophy than some kind of renewed contempt.

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

4 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

- 16-32 “cores” GPU

- 64-128 “cores” GPU

I have to wonder if these GPUs will be in a dGPU or will be on die. If the former, will this allow eGPU support on ASi Macs? Actually, do we know why M1 Macs don't support it? I would assume its due to a driver issue, but this would be solved as all Apple GPUs will be supported on their operating systems (or atleast I'd hope).

 

But it's honestly sad that the base model M1 Mac Mini's GPU outperforms the base Mac Pro's GPU. Hopefully that never happens again.

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

How will they handle RAM? Will it support external RAM and how will that impact latency?

I assume most if not all will be external. If they want to fully replace the Mac Pro and iMac Pro and go the route of ECC, I highly doubt they will be able to get away with it within the SOC. 

[saltycaramel]

6 minutes ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

Actually, do we know why M1 Macs don't support it? 

At this point, it looks like a driver thing.

 

At any time, a macOS software update could enable eGPU support on any M1 Mac.

 

Just like in March 2018 every TB3 Mac became eGPU-capable overnight, via software update.

 

Plus, the TB3-but-actually-TB4 ports on M1 Macs would be particularly well suited for eGPUs: they don’t share a bus, they actually have independently true 40Gbps each. (that was not the case on previous 2-port Macs, and even on 4-port Macs each side share a bus).

[Master Disaster]

25 minutes ago, Commodus said:

On top of what LV said... I think you're reading too much into Apple's plans. It's not some Snidely Whiplash-like villain designing products purely to spite all that's good in the world.

Aren't they? To be clear, I'm being half facetious half serious here but there is conjecture that says otherwise. Sure its nothing we know factually but Apple are well known for planned obsolescence, they're famous for not wanting to repair anything and instead insisting the customers just buys a new one and they're leading the charge against R2R.

 

I wouldn't say they're doing anything out of spite but they certainly seem pretty hellbent on making their devices exclusive, expensive and non user serviceable.

25 minutes ago, Commodus said:

 

The boring reality is that Apple feels held back by Intel (can't entirely blame it) and wants to design computers that both outrun the competition and help it stand out in the market. It may do things that aren't so consumer-friendly in pursuit of those goals, but there's no evidence that it's purposefully trying to snub enthusiasts.

How long did they go trying to convince the professional market that a laptop was enough for them? How long did they go without updating the trashcan Mac Pro?

25 minutes ago, Commodus said:

 

And while Apple clearly isn't the biggest fan of Right to Repair laws, a lot of what it's doing seems to stem more from the nature of ARM chips (a tendency towards all-in-one SoCs instead of classic PC architecture) and its longstanding design philosophy than some kind of renewed contempt.

Ever considered that they made the switch because of this fact? I;m not suggesting it was the only reason but the architectural design of ARM and its reliance on SOCs does seem to align with their current ethos more than "traditional" architectural design.

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, Spotty said:

I really don't see how they would be able to keep the RAM on chip with the Pro products. 8GB for a Macbook Air is doable but 1TB+ for a Mac Pro is not going to happen. My guess would be some amount of memory on the chip (8GB, 16GB?) with additional memory expansion. I want to say DIMM form factor DDR5 memory, but with Apple who knows it could just be soldered directly to the board.

 

For gaming PCs? Who out there using a $3990 Threadripper 3990X for gaming!? Those are not gaming oriented CPUs.

It can be. People who stream or record videos can make a good use of stupid high core counts. So they can encode high quality video while gaming and not have framerate affected at all. Or just doing it offline after the gameplay. Dropping the video through so many cores will encode anything quickly. But yeah, just for gaming, something like 5800X or 10700K is plenty enough and you still have some room left even for streaming and rather pain free encoding.