Wednesday, February 17th 2021

Alleged Apple M1X Processor Specifications Leaked Again

Apple impressed everyone with the launch of their M1 processor last year and it would appear they are preparing to do it again with an upgraded version named the M1X for the 2021 Mac lineup. The Apple M1X will reportedly include an upgraded 12-core CPU consisting of eight Firestorm performance cores and four Icestorm power-efficiency cores compared to the 8-core 4+4 configuration of the M1. The M1X GPU is rumored to include an even greater upgrade with 16 cores and 256 execution units which is exactly double then found on the M1 CPU. The chip will also include an increased TDP of 35 W - 45 W and will double the maximum RAM configuration to 32 GB. This information is not official so take it with a heavy dose of skepticism, the Apple M1X is expected to be announced by Apple in the coming months and will likely power the 2021 MacBook Pro 14, MacBook Pro 16, and 27" iMac.
Source: CPU Monkey
Add your own comment

18 Comments on Alleged Apple M1X Processor Specifications Leaked Again

#1
Fouquin
Think I've mentioned it before; but boy isn't it interesting how many more leaks there have been now that the iOS teams work with Mac. Hmmm.
Posted on Reply
#2
blobster21
include an upgraded 12-core CPU consisting of eight Firestorm performance cores and four Icestorm power-efficiency cores
This information is not official so take it with a heavy dose of skepticism
Incoming shitstorm ? :D
Posted on Reply
#3
m2geek
blobster21
Incoming shitstorm ? :D
Shit-hurricane even!
Posted on Reply
#4
Luminescent
They will probably beat any cpu AMD or Intel has at single core in "custom benchmarks" but the biggest problem they have and will never be resolved is GPU performance, you can't get around beating or at least getting close to RTX 3090 and RX 6900XT.
Why is that important ? Every productivity app slowly moves away from CPU to GPU.
I hope i'm wrong and will see better GPU performance but Apple needs to steal a lot of IP from Nvidia and AMD to make this work and their lawyers can't make this happen without some serious payoff to these corporate giants.
Posted on Reply
#5
piloponth
Not really interested until second-generation M2 comes. I paid my dues being an early adopter. Not anymore.
Posted on Reply
#6
watzupken
Luminescent
They will probably beat any cpu AMD or Intel has at single core in "custom benchmarks" but the biggest problem they have and will never be resolved is GPU performance, you can't get around beating or at least getting close to RTX 3090 and RX 6900XT.
Why is that important ? Every productivity app slowly moves away from CPU to GPU.
I hope i'm wrong and will see better GPU performance but Apple needs to steal a lot of IP from Nvidia and AMD to make this work and their lawyers can't make this happen without some serious payoff to these corporate giants.
They don't need to steal. AMD will surely like to work with Apple here for a price, which Apple can easily afford.
piloponth
Not really interested until second-generation M2 comes. I paid my dues being an early adopter. Not anymore.
I agree. As far as I am curious and excited with the M1 chip, I feel it is too early to jump into the bandwagon. Software kinks will need time to iron out.
Posted on Reply
#7
Vayra86
piloponth
Not really interested until second-generation M2 comes. I paid my dues being an early adopter. Not anymore.
Did you know that x86 is pretty much fully developed right now?

its glorious. Everything works, virtually full backwards compatibility, you can emulate whatever doesn't work... and there is a super rich market of applications not served by a single gatekeeper. And you're not paying arms legs and kidneys to get it either.
Posted on Reply
#8
pat-roner
piloponth
Not really interested until second-generation M2 comes. I paid my dues being an early adopter. Not anymore.
While I follow the notion of being an early adopter, M1 isn't really first gen. Apple has made chips for years now, and the M1 chip builds on the A14 chip which is on it's 11th generation.

Personally I'm jumping on a 15" with a M1 chip as soon as it drops. So sick of hearing the fan noise on my current Intel MBP
Posted on Reply
#9
InVasMani
APPLE TSMC impressed with it's leading edge node.
Posted on Reply
#10
TumbleGeorge
Last days of X86 is in near future? Apple M2 on 3nm should be it's killer!
Posted on Reply
#11
Ravenas
InVasMani
APPLE TSMC impressed with it's leading edge node.
TSMC couldn't have achieved leading edge node without Apple contracts, and Apple/TSMC contracts wouldn't exist without a successful product with a well-designed SOC. Apple started their relationship with TSMC in 2014 at 20nm. Essentially the same as Intel nodes at that time at 22nm. Which company has seen Moore's law in action as of late?
Posted on Reply
#12
RandallFlagg
And is this one going to have soldered in non upgrade-able RAM too?

As much as Apple Silicon has promise in raw performance, I think their approach hearkens back to the old IBM PC vs Apple battle of the 1980s.

The PC won that fight not because it was faster (it wasn't), nor because it had more modern OS / UI platform (it didn't), but because the hardware platform and even the OS to a large degree were open. There were multiple players on PCs for the OS - not just MS-DOS, you had CPM-86, Xenix, and a host of others. There were even more players who made PC-compatible systems, Compaq, NEC, Zenith, many more.

The direction apple is going with ios/MacOS, I'm getting the feeling that the new Macs will be like the 'Microsoft Bob' of computers, meant for computer neophytes.
Posted on Reply
#13
Ravenas
RandallFlagg
And is this one going to have soldered in non upgrade-able RAM too?

As much as Apple Silicon has promise in raw performance, I think their approach hearkens back to the old IBM PC vs Apple battle of the 1980s.

The PC won that fight not because it was faster (it wasn't), nor because it had more modern OS / UI platform (it didn't), but because the hardware platform and even the OS to a large degree were open. There were multiple players on PCs for the OS - not just MS-DOS, you had CPM-86, Xenix, and a host of others. There were even more players who made PC-compatible systems, Compaq, NEC, Zenith, many more.

The direction apple is going with ios/MacOS, I'm getting the feeling that the new Macs will be like the 'Microsoft Bob' of computers, meant for computer neophytes.
I would agree if this were 1980. Today, most devices used by most of the population are non-upgradable/customizable cycle devices, this includes at home PC devices.
Posted on Reply
#14
RandallFlagg
Ravenas
I would agree if this were 1980. Today, most devices used by most of the population are non-upgradable/customizable cycle devices, this includes at home PC devices.
That may be, but cell phone uses are much different from PC uses and evolved very differently. Before Google and Apple became dominant, it was actually *more* closed than it is now. Think feature phones.

If anything, the phone market is starting to move the other direction as there is intense interest in platforms and tools that are not centrally controlled.

Most of this has to do with the 'store' model, not the hardware - you have options to buy configurable hardware or not, mostly the difference being a mild cost in the PC space for using say SODIMMs vs soldered. I'm certain the software / App store is where Apple is going to push the Mac, and I for one wouldn't touch one with them moving in that direction.
Posted on Reply
#15
Ravenas
Most consumers are using laptop / iPad (which all iPads are SoC). Laptops are moving that direction, as well as PCs in the distant future. Won't be long before all consumer product segments are SoC.
Posted on Reply
#16
RandallFlagg
Ravenas
Most consumers are using laptop / iPad (which all iPads are SoC). Laptops are moving that direction, as well as PCs in the distant future. Won't be long before all consumer product segments are SoC.
Mixing hardware with platform, they're not the same. MS Surface is much like the iPad in terms of lack of internal hardware expansion (though, far far greater connectivity externally) - but it's an open platform. I can download my software from MS, Amazon, Steam, even hook up a DVD drive and buy the box.

Can't do that on the iPad, you get what Apple lets you get and the way they let you get it, and that is that.
Posted on Reply
#17
Ravenas
RandallFlagg
Mixing hardware with platform, they're not the same. MS Surface is much like the iPad in terms of lack of internal hardware expansion (though, far far greater connectivity externally) - but it's an open platform. I can download my software from MS, Amazon, Steam, even hook up a DVD drive and buy the box.

Can't do that on the iPad, you get what Apple lets you get and the way they let you get it, and that is that.
My remarks are not referring to operating systems. I am talking in terms of SoC installment and SoC future install base.
Posted on Reply
#18
InVasMani
RandallFlagg
And is this one going to have soldered in non upgrade-able RAM too?

As much as Apple Silicon has promise in raw performance, I think their approach hearkens back to the old IBM PC vs Apple battle of the 1980s.

The PC won that fight not because it was faster (it wasn't), nor because it had more modern OS / UI platform (it didn't), but because the hardware platform and even the OS to a large degree were open. There were multiple players on PCs for the OS - not just MS-DOS, you had CPM-86, Xenix, and a host of others. There were even more players who made PC-compatible systems, Compaq, NEC, Zenith, many more.

The direction apple is going with ios/MacOS, I'm getting the feeling that the new Macs will be like the 'Microsoft Bob' of computers, meant for computer neophytes.
MSX was also huge most of the world over in the 1980's outside of the US.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment