Also only a single external display (6K@60Hz) for the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro as per the tech specs, which is a deal breaker for me. The Mac Mini supports one on thunderbolt also and a second at 4K 60Hz that has to be on the HDMI port.
“Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display in millions of colours and: One external display with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz”
Those people can still get an Intel-based Mac. For me, the dealbreaker is the 16GB memory limit - it's too little for comfort right now and I assume a 32 or 64GB machine is what it would take to carry me for the next five years or so.
That is the problem. In _2015_ I bought a tablet PC (!) which had 16GB of RAM. I've been having 16GB of RAM as standard/minimum for at least 5 years already. And it was on the same pricing that these 2020 machines which have 16GB of RAM _as a maximum_.
I am not willing the entertain the idea "more RAM is no longer possible nor necessary", either. Software keeps creeping up as usual (MS Teams _by itself_ uses >2GB, and I have already complained dearly -- Teams is basically a glorified IRC client!).
And next year if not this year already it's highly likely my phone will have 16GB of RAM. My phone! On my pocket!
It's just ridiculous that a $1200 laptop has 8 GB, and it is just unbelievable it maxes out at 16GB. Looks designed to be thrown away next year.
What laptop manufacturers sell $1200 laptops that don't come with a base 8GB RAM option? I don't know any. Not Dell, or HP, or Lenovo.
Apple still sells 13" Macbook Pros that go up to 32GB RAM, they're just Intel ones. If you need more than 16 GB in a Pro Mac, or a Mini you can still get it. So these options have not been taken off the table. The M1 machines simply offer a new tradeoff of smaller but faster memory if that works for you. Not every machine needs to offer every possible configuration.
>It's just ridiculous that a $1200 laptop has 8 GB
Is it? Dell sells a $1499 laptop with 8GB. They also have 16GB models, but once you add specs equivalent to the new MacBook (at least i7, SSD, 13") the prices are $1299 and above (and you get a plastic box, not exactly the same build quality, trackpad, etc - though you do get a probabl better camera and more ports).
I thought 16 GB never seemed saturated until I installed 64 GB. The OS will definitely use more if you have more. It seems like I use typically around 32 GB.
To each his own, I'm close to saturating 2013 32G iMac almost every day. To me personally, anything less than 64-128G these days is a joke, especially given how cheap the ram is (non-integrated, of course).
I also think 16GB is a perfectly reasonable amount of memory (and even 8GB is fine on a low-end machine), but the fact that it's the limit is... troubling. I assume it'll be fixed in time, but, still.
I thought my MBP's 16GB was fine. For a long time I rarely saw usage over 8GB.
But for a few months everything was running rather slow and I put it down to other causes.
One day I looked at the memory usage and saw it was using 10GB swap in addition to about 14.5GB RAM. And when I clicked things that responded slowly, the memory pressure meter was lighting up. Swapping was why it was slow.
It's pretty fast swap, being on SSD, but it was the reason for the slowdowns. Probably not doing the SSD any good either (they wear out if written to constantly).
Turns out Safari was using 8GB by itself. Restarting Safari helped (it's quick to restart which is nice). Safari, like Chrome, uses a lot of memory after opening a bunch of tabs because of using separate processes for each tab.
I also use Firefox, but it uses 6-8GB for me too.
Then there's my VM running my Linux dev environment. Now I only give it 4GB, which is a bit tight but I run some things remotely so it's ok. I had to shrink it from 6GB to get my performance back.
Sometimes I'm foolish enough to have LibreOffice or MS Word open to look at documents. They aren't memory hogs, but when you've lost most of it to the browser(s) and dev VM, little things like office apps push it a few GB over the edge.
I'm also running Emacs with quite a lot loaded into it, and many iTerms, but they use so little RAM compared with the big stuff, it barely registers.
Nowadays I pay more attention to memory use, mostly use only one browser at a time, and restart more often.
Even so, it's hovering around 5GB swap at the moment, and I haven't got much going on at the moment.
Based on this, I know I can live with 16GB but it is restricting what I use and how I work now. 32GB would be let me stop thinking about RAM again, and I expect in a few years it will be nearly full, as usage tends to grow over time (as I found already).
If I could buy a new MBP knowing I could upgrade the RAM I'd be happy to buy at 16GB, but as you can't upgrade, and I want a new laptop to last at least 5 years, I wouldn't be comfortable buying a dev machine at 16GB now.
The memory limit was the dealbreaker for me, but I've seen people mention several others for their uses cases - no eGPUs, weak multi-monitor support out-of-the-box, etc.
Apple obviously knows that a lot of people rely on those power-user features, so I'm sure at some point you'll be able to buy an ARM Mac with 128GB RAM that you can hook 6 monitors up to.
I do think starting at the low end makes sense for Apple though. These machines will sell mostly to everyday folks who just use a handful of common apps - I wouldn't be surprised if Safari is the #1 app used on these machines. That gives Apple a start to this transition, without the reputational hit that might have occurred if they sold a bunch of machines to power users right away. We'll whine a little bit that the machines weren't what we wanted, and then we'll just wait for the M1X machines. But that's better than if we all bought M1X MacBook Pros yesterday and then were disappointed when a couple of crucial apps didn't work yet. This "flattens the curve" of application incompatibility reports if you will.
I'd say that's an exaggeration. Hannibal Lecter is insane.
An entry-level laptop not supporting dual 4K screens (for whatever reason) sounds more tame, especially if the vendor has statistics that show that a tiny minority use theirs with such a setup even in the Intel version that does support it...
The 16GB max memory is another problem, but again mostly not for the kind of users the machine is intended for.
a €1.909,00 laptop(Cost of macbook pro 13 inch with 16gb of RAM) is not entry level. It's not even mid-tier. That is a high-end laptop. Entry level would at least be sub €600 laptop.
>a €1.909,00 laptop(Cost of macbook pro 13 inch with 16gb of RAM) is not entry level.
For Apple it is. And for most other companies (Dell, Lenovo, Razer, etc).
When you configure any kind of developer-class or workstation-class machine, it gets way above $2000 soon regardless of vendor.
I wanted to try a Lenovo or Razer with compatible specs to a high end MacBook Pro 16 (to use if as a high end Linux workstation), and it gets into the same ballpark very quickly as you narrow the specs down.
Entry level and workstation class are completely orthogonal concepts. You can have an entry-level workstation. But the macbook pro 13 inch is not an entry-level workstation. It's not a workstation at all. It's also not an entry-level laptop. Razer, like Apple, doesn't offer entry level laptops. Apple and Razer simply don't operate in that market segment. But Dell and Lenovo do. Here are some examples of their entry level stuff:
>Entry level and workstation class are completely orthogonal concepts. You can have an entry-level workstation.
In a pedantic way yes, but not on the casual axis I was talking about.
Workstations are not merely "different" configurations that can be equally cheap to an entry level consumer machine, they are also typically much more expensive.
For us that remember the era of the actual workstation (HP, Sun, SGI, IBM, Dec, etc), it wasn't just some "completely orthogonal concept", it was "hella high end, hella expensive, 3-10 times your average PC" reality...
And when we talk about machines worthy to be called workstations, for graphics, video, 3D, etc, this remains so...
I'm wondering if a DisplayLink docking station like the Dell D6000 would support more, if they manage to get the drivers working for it (or if Apple integrates DisplayLink support natively, which I doubt will happen).
Single displays driven as two half panels over MST has been supported since 10.9.3, including the UP2414Q that I mentioned. Otherwise, DisplayPort 1.2 could only give the screens enough bandwidth to run at 30 Hz.
> MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013) or Mac Pro (Late 2013) also support 60 Hz displays using multi-stream transport (MST). These displays need to be manually configured to use MST. Follow the steps below to use the display's built-in controls to enable this feature.
> [display specific instructions omitted]
> Your Mac will automatically detect an MST-enabled display. However, your display may require a firmware update to support 60Hz operation. Please contact your display vendor for details. If your specific DisplayPort display is not listed above, check with the display’s manufacturer for compatibility information.
Having used that Dell screen on both OS X and Windows, I can tell you this MST capability was better supported on Mac than it was on Windows. On a Mac it worked perfectly. On Windows you'd frequently get half of the screen either black or shifted sideways, creating several visible seams in the image.
That's however a software limitation of macOS. DisplayPort with Daisy Chaining works fine on MacBook Pros (and probably all other Macs too) running Linux.
I really hope some of the limitations we are seeing with the M1 chip being from a slow roll out to the new technology and not some sign of a new wall.
the biggest concern to me is the on die memory. while nice from a performance perspective I do not understand how they will do this going forward for true Pro models where users want 64g or even more memory. I also await their on dGPU solution.
A few users have also commented on the lack of ports and while I have not dug into this, are the controllers for these also all integrated in the chip?
I think you (and users like you) are simply not the target customer for Apple anymore. They used to aim for the professional market segment, where people are using multiple displays, need external GPU for creative work and other external gear, and computers that don't throttle their CPU that easily.
But if the last few years of Apple's new hardware is telling us anything, is that Apple is now strictly casual-oriented, and if you're in any capacity a professional, you need to start thinking about getting a PC again.
Sure, and I imagine the ARM ones will in time - but it moves the MBP further along the admittedly already in progress line of it not really being a Pro machine anymore.
Every professional group has different bottlenecks. For me, the amount of memory is more of a problem than CPU speed and I couldn't care less about GPU, although I like having more screens. These Pros would be a tight fit for me, but other people may want a faster CPU more than large memories, so everyone's mileage may vary. I suppose the next generation will bump it up to 32 or 64GB, so they may be more comfortable for me.
One thing I'd love would be more low-power cores. I don't do heavy lifting on VMs and, because of that, these cores seem like perfect for that little MySQL container. Also, the lower the single-thread performance, the sooner you'll see concurrency issues.
Overreaction much? Last I checked the vast majority of their devices are sold with Intel chipsets. So if having multiple displays while running your MacBook Air for "professional work" is a deal-breaker then you can just get a different Mac. M2 chips and later will obviously support multiple external displays. Not everyone needs to be an early adopter. Sheesh.
As a "professional", getting a PC is a deal breaker. It's not a Mac. It doesn't run macOS. That's the whole point.
No overreaction, just sharing what I'm seeing in the European film industry already. Film professionals couldn't care less if it's Mac or PC, as long as it runs the software they want to run, that it won't make them lose their mind with performance issues and won't cost similarly to a semi-fancy car.
Apple currently is making it clear that they are not actively targeting those people anymore (max 16GB of memory, really?) and professionals are finally noticing, which is why in the last few years you see more and more professionals moving back to PC after being on macOS for many years.
Apple hasn't made anything clear. These are entry level devices. They don't have anything to do with the customers you describe. Some other variants of Apple Silicon will address those customers. No data available yet to draw any conclusions.
>But if the last few years of Apple's new hardware is telling us anything, is that Apple is now strictly casual-oriented, and if you're in any capacity a professional, you need to start thinking about getting a PC again.
Was the new Mac Pro not 'professional' enough for you? Up to 28 core CPU, 1.5 TB of RAM, capable of driving six 6K monitors and so on? Even the iMac Pro is absurdly overpowered for 'casual' usage.
It's plenty professional, just not portable. The problem is that just like with the iPhone, the pro line has just become the high class line so people buy it for the bling factor. They need to make a dev or nerd line or whatever marketing decides to call it. This would be more configurable and not thin and light just for the sake of being thinner and light that last year's model.
This is the third time I read this comment and lightly smiled. Wasn't until now that it occurred to me that "Apple Wheel" might actually be a real product. Lo and behold, it's 4 cart wheels that retails for $699, I'm not even joking. https://www.apple.com/shop/product/MX572ZM/A/apple-mac-pro-w...
Yeah, I'm mostly picking on Apple and their ardent refusal to use articles ('on [an] iPhone...', 'We've made [the] iPad xxx times faster') which drives me crazy for some reason, and also nodding to The Onion's aardvark 'Macbook Wheel' spoof. It could go either way.
But this product segmentation is not at all new. Apple has never had a "pro" workstation-style laptop like the Thinkpad P. The MacBook Pro line has always been relatively-thin, relatively-light, not-very-upgradable: going back almost fifteen years.
I agree that Apple isn't trying to serve the market for "portable workstation", but they never really have, so why do you say they have lost their way?
It's also worth saying you can still buy a 16" MacBook Pro with an 8-core i9 processor, 64GB of RAM, a Radeon Pro 5600M with 8GB of RAM, 8TB of SSD storage - a specification that's hardly "casual".
> Apple has never had a "pro" workstation-style laptop like the Thinkpad P. The MacBook Pro line has always been relatively-thin, relatively-light, not-very-upgradable: going back almost fifteen years.
The 17" lunch trays were that product, and were bought by people who wanted to edit photos in the field or get a lot of spreadsheet cells on the display. They had the highest performance as well.
> are the controllers for these also all integrated in the chip?
Yes, in the unveiling video they showed the thunderbolt controller as one of the things they'd put in the SoC. I'm not sure if this is reflected in the documentation, but in the video itself it was pretty clear.
I wonder if it would be feasible to release a product with different classes of memory. So you'd have the 8GB or 16GB in the M1 chip + an extra 48 GB elsewhere one the board.
Obviously the M1 memory would be faster, but e.g. Xbox series X has 16GB memory of which 10GB is considerably faster than the remaining 6GB.
So I guess it becomes a software challenge then... can they make the necessary changes to MacOS to manage different classes of memory efficiently?
Yes the Thunderbolt controller etc are integrated into the SoC of the M1
Yesterday's models just replace the Air and lowest spec Pro
Seems likely that next year or so there would be an "M1X" chip with more RAM to support the higher end Pro models - the 16" and rumoured 14", hopefully both with four ports
Genuine question from someone who doesn't know hardware architecture that well:
It seems clear that we'll see non-PoP variants of their SoC's, for instance to support multiple RAM configurations in the high-end models.
However, at this point, if Apple's own GPU scales well, should we except 3rd party dGPU at all? Can't Apple ship SoCs with multiple times the M1 core count and graphics units, package 8 or 16GB of fast memory (GDDR or HBM), and call it a day? They're going to push their own software stack anyway, why bother with AMD GPUs fabbed on a previous generation TSMC process.
Dedicated/external GPUs are 10x as powerful as internal ones. Apple doesn't have a miracle technology that can make a fanless 2080 Ti. AMD and Nvidia arent stopping improving cards just because M1 exists
I haven't said anything about Apple GPU architecture being a miracle fanless technology. Right now they ship SoCs with 7 or 8 graphics units, what happens when they put 64 of them?
Look at the architecture of AMD SoCs in the PS5 and Xbox. Obviously Apple cannot get away with unified memory in the higher-end machines, but what would make them prefer an AMD dGPU when it seems they have everything they need internally. Again, assuming the GPU scales well.
If you want GPU performance to match a dedicated GPU, you can't fit it in a Macbook (or any Mac except the Mac Pro, for that matter). Even if the M1's graphics units only used 50% as much power as an equivalently-powerful Nvidia or AMD dedicated GPU, putting enough graphics power onboard to match even a midrange GPU would immediately overwhelm the cooling abilities of the computer.
Apple could absolutely choose to make better cooling, but they've demonstrated time and time again that they'd rather just let thermal throttling happen and trust that their users will continue to buy a product that doesn't live up to its spec sheet's promises.
Any cooling that could support dedicated-GPU-level performance would require making the chassis dramatically thicker - take a look at some of the gaming laptops out there today with desktop-class GPUs, they can get be like 2 inches thick in pursuit of cooling good enough to support a full-power GPU without massive throttling.
I don't understand your argument at all. You realize Apple does put dedicated AMD GPUs in their Macbook Pros?
The Radeon Pro 5600M with 8GB of HBM2 has a pretty significant power envelope, and is coupled to 6 or 8 core Intel H series that are equally power hungry.
The fact 16" MBPs are undercooled is beyond the point. Apple ships laptops with a ~95W TDP. Why would they not ship a SoC with 16/24/32 graphics units for high-end laptops and iMacs?
Unless I'm mistaken, this isn't about the GPUs inside the MBP but about the external ones you can connect separate power and a Thunderbolt cable to.
In that case, you're not talking about a Radeon Pro 5600M but rather a desktop-class RTX 3090 with 24GB of high-performance RAM and a TDP of 350W.
A MBP couldn't hope to power or cool one of those with a built-in GPU, never mind come close to matching the performance or supporting CUDA without nVidia sueing Apple out of existence.
In theory there's nothing stopping Apple from making a large single die that contains a desktop-class CPU and desktop-class GPU. There are also rumors that Apple is designing their own "Lifuka" discrete GPU that would presumably be a larger version of the same design that they use in their SoCs.
It looks like what Apple did was take their cellphone Arm processors. Do the minimal changes to get it to work in a laptop, and jammed that into laptops they already had.
Which seems to me, to be the right strategy, but you do then end up with some weird limitations. I expect these issues to be sorted in the future generations of Apple silicon laptops.
Yeah, like most first gen Apple gear, it's probably wise to hold off until they work the kinks out. That being said, my MacBook Air is getting a little long in the tooth so I may upgrade sooner rather than later.
That's also why they updated their large sales volume, entry level to average hardware.
That will give them loads of data to smooth out the kinks out of Rosetta and the rest of software chain while having enough time to work on the M2.
I expect the first "real" Apple silicon hardware will be in November 2021 staring iMac and MBP 16.
Then 2022/2023 for the MacPro where Apple really goes all out, deprecate the last of their x86 line up but at this stage we are at the M4 and nobody cares anymore.
In terms of core count (4 performance cores, 4 efficient cores, 8 GPU cores) it’s the tier of hardware used in the iPad Pro, except those are currently based on the A12 instead of the A14.
But yeah, I agree they must have a roadmap past these limitations. When we get a 16” MBP I’d bet on it having more RAM and 4 thunderbolt ports. They’ve launched the low end machines with M1 first because this is a first step in the M-processors, and it’s the first time they’ve had any sort of thunderbolt controller with this architecture.
Makes me wonder if any of these changes will make their way back to the iPad Pro. Right now they’re USB-C without thunderbolt, but the new iPad Air is getting awfully close to the iPad Pro’s territory. Thunderbolt support and being able to drive a 6K display would be an interesting differentiator.
But I assume the SoC or the processor itself does have PCIe expansion ports, right? Internal GPUs should in theory work should the part be sold by itself.
Unless Apple starts selling some overpriced PCIe devices, don't hold your hopes up on this. Ram is soldered / integrated into the SoC. Tomorrow even the SSD will be (if it isn't already). Ultimately you will not be able to upgrade anything, just like your iPhone or iPad.
Apple Silicon has not yet been made available in a Mac Pro enclosure (where PCIe internal GPUs could be used). We can only guess what the story will be when it is, as no statement has been made by Apple either way.
That's distressing to hear. For many months I struggled with performance issues and throttling on my Macbook Pro (15 inch, mid 2017). I went down a bunch of rabbit holes, messing with Time Machine backup, paranoia about specific apps pegging the CPU. The issue with one side of the thunderbolt ports running hotter than the other, and maybe that was causing the system to heat up to the point of throttling.
Finally I discovered it was my external monitors - I have have 2 4k monitors connected and I use display scaling on both. This apparently strains the integrated GPU, heats up the system, and caused the throttling. As ridiculous as it was to purchase an external enclosure and video card - that solved the issue. Now the system runs flawlessly.
This problem still occurs with the latest MBPs even with one 4k monitor. As you mentioned, it's a heat issue. Once I turn on the AC, it starts to pick up speed again.
The integrated GPU isn't the problem. The MBP only uses the dGPU for external monitors. The problem is that the dGPU driver/firmware/whatever is broken so it runs at a minimum of 8W even when there's no work to do, overloading the thermals.
The 2019 16" MPB made this problem far worse, raising the minimum dGPU to 18W, making external displays almost completely unusable for more than 1hr at a time unless you put the laptop aside in an external cooling solution (stand and fans) where you can't ergonomically use the integrated keyboard.
That makes me glad I figured things out, and got the eGPU, because I was really close to buying a newer model in hopes that it would fix things.
I really don't understand how this isn't more of an issue for Apple. Surely theres a lot of pros out there using external monitors. Two external monitors is pretty standard - in my previous life as an IT guy we set that up for probably half of our clients.
I run a 4K monitor, 1440p gaming monitor, and the internal monitor without issues. Lots of scaling on all of them.
My windows computer has an issue with the 4K monitor. The cursor has notice ticks and other weird refresh issues. I even bought a 2070 and the issues remain.
I could see "kernel_task" running and eating up CPU, in an attempt to throttle the system and cool things off. At least that's my understanding of it. Basically it came down to process of elimination, although I'm sure someone more experienced in the various fan and temperature readings on the Mac could have diagnosed it sooner.
It completely stopped once I ran the 4k monitors at native resolution, and when I got the eGPU setup.
The enclosure I purchased is the Razer Core X Chroma. One silver lining is it basically acts like a dock - has USB, wired NIC, and powers the system. Video card is a Radeon RX 580.
Thunderbolt is one of the things keeping me on intel for now. I am happy Apple added it but not sure Apple Silicon can handle the video editing and transcoding at the speed I’d like it to.
Yeah, I always figured this would be one of the major obstacles to overcome. In hindsight, it's now clear why there are so much Apple people in these USB-C standards documents.
Do we know whose IP they use? And is it integrated on die, or integrated in the package of the SoC?
I wouldn’t read too much into this, at least not at this point. Same for some of the other technical limitations.
The Apple slotted these M1 macs into the entry-level position for their lower-end models. One thing that lets them do is focus on fundamentals of this migration first and take on more sophisticated use-cases over time.
Support for more RAM, more external displays, etc. is coming.
I agree this will improve, but I think the previous commenter was referring to these particular models.
I was considering the 13 inch until i noticed only 2 Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports. There is a $100 discount from the equivalently configured Intel Pro. I guess that is for the external USB4 hub you'll need. The lack of a 32 GB option also gives me pause.
Looks like I am holding out for the 16 inch with the M1X...
This seems very, very much like a first generation product, but I hope future iteration of their M-chip SoCs support more RAM, more ports, eGPUs, etc.
I'm pretty sure they'll support more RAM and more ports and more displays in the future, but I'm worried about the eGPU support. Pulling a GPU into the SoC might make them think they've got that covered, but it won't be enough.
This and the eventual lockout of non-signed apps makes this a no go.
I'm not supporting a device that will give the EU the power to force removal of apps that don't have an encryption back door [1]. Same goes for apple's app store. At least I can still side load android apps for now.
Thanks to Apple and everyone copying these "for security" features we are rapidly loosing our democracy and freedoms. 1984 is already here and most want it.
Sadly no one seems to realize that in these last few acts of terrorism in France and Austria the purpatraitors where known. In fact some where already in prison before. Reading their IMs wouldn't have made any difference with the amount that was known and the incompetent government bureaucracy. Killing encryption won't fix that.
Have you heard any additional news about "the eventual lockout of non-signed apps" on Apple Silicon? I'm curious if they announced anything besides the behavior we already know about in Big Sur.
102 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 181 ms ] threadhttps://www.apple.com/au/macbook-pro-13/specs/
“Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display in millions of colours and: One external display with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz”
I am not willing the entertain the idea "more RAM is no longer possible nor necessary", either. Software keeps creeping up as usual (MS Teams _by itself_ uses >2GB, and I have already complained dearly -- Teams is basically a glorified IRC client!). And next year if not this year already it's highly likely my phone will have 16GB of RAM. My phone! On my pocket!
It's just ridiculous that a $1200 laptop has 8 GB, and it is just unbelievable it maxes out at 16GB. Looks designed to be thrown away next year.
Apple still sells 13" Macbook Pros that go up to 32GB RAM, they're just Intel ones. If you need more than 16 GB in a Pro Mac, or a Mini you can still get it. So these options have not been taken off the table. The M1 machines simply offer a new tradeoff of smaller but faster memory if that works for you. Not every machine needs to offer every possible configuration.
Is it? Dell sells a $1499 laptop with 8GB. They also have 16GB models, but once you add specs equivalent to the new MacBook (at least i7, SSD, 13") the prices are $1299 and above (and you get a plastic box, not exactly the same build quality, trackpad, etc - though you do get a probabl better camera and more ports).
https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/sr/laptops/inte...
But for a few months everything was running rather slow and I put it down to other causes.
One day I looked at the memory usage and saw it was using 10GB swap in addition to about 14.5GB RAM. And when I clicked things that responded slowly, the memory pressure meter was lighting up. Swapping was why it was slow.
It's pretty fast swap, being on SSD, but it was the reason for the slowdowns. Probably not doing the SSD any good either (they wear out if written to constantly).
Turns out Safari was using 8GB by itself. Restarting Safari helped (it's quick to restart which is nice). Safari, like Chrome, uses a lot of memory after opening a bunch of tabs because of using separate processes for each tab.
I also use Firefox, but it uses 6-8GB for me too.
Then there's my VM running my Linux dev environment. Now I only give it 4GB, which is a bit tight but I run some things remotely so it's ok. I had to shrink it from 6GB to get my performance back.
Sometimes I'm foolish enough to have LibreOffice or MS Word open to look at documents. They aren't memory hogs, but when you've lost most of it to the browser(s) and dev VM, little things like office apps push it a few GB over the edge.
I'm also running Emacs with quite a lot loaded into it, and many iTerms, but they use so little RAM compared with the big stuff, it barely registers.
Nowadays I pay more attention to memory use, mostly use only one browser at a time, and restart more often.
Even so, it's hovering around 5GB swap at the moment, and I haven't got much going on at the moment.
Based on this, I know I can live with 16GB but it is restricting what I use and how I work now. 32GB would be let me stop thinking about RAM again, and I expect in a few years it will be nearly full, as usage tends to grow over time (as I found already).
If I could buy a new MBP knowing I could upgrade the RAM I'd be happy to buy at 16GB, but as you can't upgrade, and I want a new laptop to last at least 5 years, I wouldn't be comfortable buying a dev machine at 16GB now.
Apple obviously knows that a lot of people rely on those power-user features, so I'm sure at some point you'll be able to buy an ARM Mac with 128GB RAM that you can hook 6 monitors up to.
I do think starting at the low end makes sense for Apple though. These machines will sell mostly to everyday folks who just use a handful of common apps - I wouldn't be surprised if Safari is the #1 app used on these machines. That gives Apple a start to this transition, without the reputational hit that might have occurred if they sold a bunch of machines to power users right away. We'll whine a little bit that the machines weren't what we wanted, and then we'll just wait for the M1X machines. But that's better than if we all bought M1X MacBook Pros yesterday and then were disappointed when a couple of crucial apps didn't work yet. This "flattens the curve" of application incompatibility reports if you will.
An entry-level laptop not supporting dual 4K screens (for whatever reason) sounds more tame, especially if the vendor has statistics that show that a tiny minority use theirs with such a setup even in the Intel version that does support it...
The 16GB max memory is another problem, but again mostly not for the kind of users the machine is intended for.
For Apple it is. And for most other companies (Dell, Lenovo, Razer, etc).
When you configure any kind of developer-class or workstation-class machine, it gets way above $2000 soon regardless of vendor.
I wanted to try a Lenovo or Razer with compatible specs to a high end MacBook Pro 16 (to use if as a high end Linux workstation), and it gets into the same ballpark very quickly as you narrow the specs down.
The sub €600 category Apple doesn't cater to.
Dell: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/sr/laptops/insp...
Lenovo: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/ideapad/ideapad-100-ser...
In a pedantic way yes, but not on the casual axis I was talking about.
Workstations are not merely "different" configurations that can be equally cheap to an entry level consumer machine, they are also typically much more expensive.
For us that remember the era of the actual workstation (HP, Sun, SGI, IBM, Dec, etc), it wasn't just some "completely orthogonal concept", it was "hella high end, hella expensive, 3-10 times your average PC" reality...
And when we talk about machines worthy to be called workstations, for graphics, video, 3D, etc, this remains so...
Single displays driven as two half panels over MST has been supported since 10.9.3, including the UP2414Q that I mentioned. Otherwise, DisplayPort 1.2 could only give the screens enough bandwidth to run at 30 Hz.
> MacBook Pro (Retina, 15-inch, Late 2013) or Mac Pro (Late 2013) also support 60 Hz displays using multi-stream transport (MST). These displays need to be manually configured to use MST. Follow the steps below to use the display's built-in controls to enable this feature.
> [display specific instructions omitted]
> Your Mac will automatically detect an MST-enabled display. However, your display may require a firmware update to support 60Hz operation. Please contact your display vendor for details. If your specific DisplayPort display is not listed above, check with the display’s manufacturer for compatibility information.
Having used that Dell screen on both OS X and Windows, I can tell you this MST capability was better supported on Mac than it was on Windows. On a Mac it worked perfectly. On Windows you'd frequently get half of the screen either black or shifted sideways, creating several visible seams in the image.
Not my screenshots, but see here for examples: https://www.dell.com/community/Monitors/UP2414Q-Rev-A03-Wake...
I suspect what macs may become to many of us is the trusted machine we buy for child/spouse/parent, then run off to our linux machine.
I was going to say windows for games, but it seems I wasn't paying attention and linux machines run lots of games well nowadays.
the biggest concern to me is the on die memory. while nice from a performance perspective I do not understand how they will do this going forward for true Pro models where users want 64g or even more memory. I also await their on dGPU solution.
A few users have also commented on the lack of ports and while I have not dug into this, are the controllers for these also all integrated in the chip?
But if the last few years of Apple's new hardware is telling us anything, is that Apple is now strictly casual-oriented, and if you're in any capacity a professional, you need to start thinking about getting a PC again.
Every professional group has different bottlenecks. For me, the amount of memory is more of a problem than CPU speed and I couldn't care less about GPU, although I like having more screens. These Pros would be a tight fit for me, but other people may want a faster CPU more than large memories, so everyone's mileage may vary. I suppose the next generation will bump it up to 32 or 64GB, so they may be more comfortable for me.
One thing I'd love would be more low-power cores. I don't do heavy lifting on VMs and, because of that, these cores seem like perfect for that little MySQL container. Also, the lower the single-thread performance, the sooner you'll see concurrency issues.
As a "professional", getting a PC is a deal breaker. It's not a Mac. It doesn't run macOS. That's the whole point.
Apple currently is making it clear that they are not actively targeting those people anymore (max 16GB of memory, really?) and professionals are finally noticing, which is why in the last few years you see more and more professionals moving back to PC after being on macOS for many years.
Again, this is the first iteration of the M1 chip. Again, you can buy a different Mac and spec it out to 32GB if you have that requirement.
I'm a professional. I'm "noticing". I'm still buying a Mac.
Was the new Mac Pro not 'professional' enough for you? Up to 28 core CPU, 1.5 TB of RAM, capable of driving six 6K monitors and so on? Even the iMac Pro is absurdly overpowered for 'casual' usage.
That's because the base model doesn't come with Apple Wheel. They're only 700$.
I agree that Apple isn't trying to serve the market for "portable workstation", but they never really have, so why do you say they have lost their way?
It's also worth saying you can still buy a 16" MacBook Pro with an 8-core i9 processor, 64GB of RAM, a Radeon Pro 5600M with 8GB of RAM, 8TB of SSD storage - a specification that's hardly "casual".
The 17" lunch trays were that product, and were bought by people who wanted to edit photos in the field or get a lot of spreadsheet cells on the display. They had the highest performance as well.
Yes, in the unveiling video they showed the thunderbolt controller as one of the things they'd put in the SoC. I'm not sure if this is reflected in the documentation, but in the video itself it was pretty clear.
Obviously the M1 memory would be faster, but e.g. Xbox series X has 16GB memory of which 10GB is considerably faster than the remaining 6GB.
So I guess it becomes a software challenge then... can they make the necessary changes to MacOS to manage different classes of memory efficiently?
IIRC the 16GB could be configured as an "L4 cache" for the rest of the memory.
I assume the same approach could be taken.
OTOH, it shouldn't be too complicated to just add more memory dies to the package as higher densities become available.
Yesterday's models just replace the Air and lowest spec Pro
Seems likely that next year or so there would be an "M1X" chip with more RAM to support the higher end Pro models - the 16" and rumoured 14", hopefully both with four ports
Genuine question from someone who doesn't know hardware architecture that well:
It seems clear that we'll see non-PoP variants of their SoC's, for instance to support multiple RAM configurations in the high-end models.
However, at this point, if Apple's own GPU scales well, should we except 3rd party dGPU at all? Can't Apple ship SoCs with multiple times the M1 core count and graphics units, package 8 or 16GB of fast memory (GDDR or HBM), and call it a day? They're going to push their own software stack anyway, why bother with AMD GPUs fabbed on a previous generation TSMC process.
Look at the architecture of AMD SoCs in the PS5 and Xbox. Obviously Apple cannot get away with unified memory in the higher-end machines, but what would make them prefer an AMD dGPU when it seems they have everything they need internally. Again, assuming the GPU scales well.
Apple could absolutely choose to make better cooling, but they've demonstrated time and time again that they'd rather just let thermal throttling happen and trust that their users will continue to buy a product that doesn't live up to its spec sheet's promises.
Any cooling that could support dedicated-GPU-level performance would require making the chassis dramatically thicker - take a look at some of the gaming laptops out there today with desktop-class GPUs, they can get be like 2 inches thick in pursuit of cooling good enough to support a full-power GPU without massive throttling.
The Radeon Pro 5600M with 8GB of HBM2 has a pretty significant power envelope, and is coupled to 6 or 8 core Intel H series that are equally power hungry.
The fact 16" MBPs are undercooled is beyond the point. Apple ships laptops with a ~95W TDP. Why would they not ship a SoC with 16/24/32 graphics units for high-end laptops and iMacs?
In that case, you're not talking about a Radeon Pro 5600M but rather a desktop-class RTX 3090 with 24GB of high-performance RAM and a TDP of 350W. A MBP couldn't hope to power or cool one of those with a built-in GPU, never mind come close to matching the performance or supporting CUDA without nVidia sueing Apple out of existence.
Wish Apple would reintroduce those with the M1. Awesome form factor, held back by Intel's anemic Core M CPUs.
That will give them loads of data to smooth out the kinks out of Rosetta and the rest of software chain while having enough time to work on the M2.
I expect the first "real" Apple silicon hardware will be in November 2021 staring iMac and MBP 16.
Then 2022/2023 for the MacPro where Apple really goes all out, deprecate the last of their x86 line up but at this stage we are at the M4 and nobody cares anymore.
But yeah, I agree they must have a roadmap past these limitations. When we get a 16” MBP I’d bet on it having more RAM and 4 thunderbolt ports. They’ve launched the low end machines with M1 first because this is a first step in the M-processors, and it’s the first time they’ve had any sort of thunderbolt controller with this architecture.
Makes me wonder if any of these changes will make their way back to the iPad Pro. Right now they’re USB-C without thunderbolt, but the new iPad Air is getting awfully close to the iPad Pro’s territory. Thunderbolt support and being able to drive a 6K display would be an interesting differentiator.
But as TB is PCIe this comment isn't intended to contradict your core point.
Finally I discovered it was my external monitors - I have have 2 4k monitors connected and I use display scaling on both. This apparently strains the integrated GPU, heats up the system, and caused the throttling. As ridiculous as it was to purchase an external enclosure and video card - that solved the issue. Now the system runs flawlessly.
M1 (or at least the macbooks) only supports a single external display, problem solved!
The 2019 16" MPB made this problem far worse, raising the minimum dGPU to 18W, making external displays almost completely unusable for more than 1hr at a time unless you put the laptop aside in an external cooling solution (stand and fans) where you can't ergonomically use the integrated keyboard.
I really don't understand how this isn't more of an issue for Apple. Surely theres a lot of pros out there using external monitors. Two external monitors is pretty standard - in my previous life as an IT guy we set that up for probably half of our clients.
I run a 4K monitor, 1440p gaming monitor, and the internal monitor without issues. Lots of scaling on all of them.
My windows computer has an issue with the 4K monitor. The cursor has notice ticks and other weird refresh issues. I even bought a 2070 and the issues remain.
What GPU enclosure do you use?
It completely stopped once I ran the 4k monitors at native resolution, and when I got the eGPU setup.
The enclosure I purchased is the Razer Core X Chroma. One silver lining is it basically acts like a dock - has USB, wired NIC, and powers the system. Video card is a Radeon RX 580.
Apple is shipping an integrated Thunderbolt controller before Intel does with Tigerlake.
Do we know whose IP they use? And is it integrated on die, or integrated in the package of the SoC?
The Apple slotted these M1 macs into the entry-level position for their lower-end models. One thing that lets them do is focus on fundamentals of this migration first and take on more sophisticated use-cases over time.
Support for more RAM, more external displays, etc. is coming.
I was considering the 13 inch until i noticed only 2 Thunderbolt/USB 4 ports. There is a $100 discount from the equivalently configured Intel Pro. I guess that is for the external USB4 hub you'll need. The lack of a 32 GB option also gives me pause.
Looks like I am holding out for the 16 inch with the M1X...
More pro machines (e.g. 16" MBP) will probably get announced Q1 - Q2 2021. These will also have more available RAM, support more displays, etc.)
I'm pretty sure they'll support more RAM and more ports and more displays in the future, but I'm worried about the eGPU support. Pulling a GPU into the SoC might make them think they've got that covered, but it won't be enough.
I'm not supporting a device that will give the EU the power to force removal of apps that don't have an encryption back door [1]. Same goes for apple's app store. At least I can still side load android apps for now.
Thanks to Apple and everyone copying these "for security" features we are rapidly loosing our democracy and freedoms. 1984 is already here and most want it.
Sadly no one seems to realize that in these last few acts of terrorism in France and Austria the purpatraitors where known. In fact some where already in prison before. Reading their IMs wouldn't have made any difference with the amount that was known and the incompetent government bureaucracy. Killing encryption won't fix that.
[1] https://www.ccc.de/de/updates/2020/cryptowars-2020
I will however say there is a legitimate, non-crippleware reason: Secure Boot (device boot/kernel integrity).
Before we had basic constructs like TPMs it was quite trivial to long-term rootkit a box or specifically a network security appliance.
Secure Boot with the keys in the hand of the owner of the hardware is a very useful tool to ensure you aren't silently running an owned kernel/etc.
But it is like any story: A useful tool immediately becomes a weapon.