Talk:Apple M1 Pro, M1 Max, and M1 Ultra

Thread retitled from "Separate article from Apple M1? Why?"., Separate article from Apple M1? Why? and Split again?,

Split or Merge M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, and M1 Ultra

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge to Apple M1. Editors attained consensus that the M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, and M1 Ultra should be covered as part of a larger page about the broader topic of the M1 and variant SoCs. (non-admin closure) — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

---

(Merge) Once Apple announces the "M1 Pro Max", the "M1 Max Ultra", and the "M1 Ultra Plus" I think it will be clear that the correct thing to do was to keep these all on one page so that we don't need 16 tabs open to learn about Apple's foray into chip design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.10.78 (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, and M1 Ultra.

New articles were not opened until M2. 10bu62PpX8kXvox0enKLXo (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually new articles were created once the different M1, M1 Pro/Max and M1 Ultra chips (and information about the different chips) were released. Mark.malewski (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't Merge, keep separate. M1 Architecture / M1 / Pro / Max / Ultra pages should remain separate. The M1 Architecture (is an architecture like AMD "Zen 1" or "Zen 2" or "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" or "Alder Lake"). The M1 Architecture and M1 Series Processors share an architecture (shared among the M1 series and A14 series), but each processor design has a completely different design and the various different M1 Processors have a substantially different layout than the M1, M1 Pro/Max and M1 Ultra. The M1 Pro & M1 Max are a completely different design than the original M1 and the M1 Ultra. The original M1 is very similar to the A14Z. The M1 Pro and M1 Max are a shared design (with most likely binned chips). M1 Ultra is another completely different design. (These are NOT the same chip/design with just different bins and instead are different processor designs like Intel i3/i5/i7/i9 or AMD Ryzen 3/5/7/9, or Threadripper or EPYC designs). 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If you want to make your case using AMD vernacular then just as Ryzen, Zen/Zen+/2/Zen 3 and EPYC are separate articles encompassing a lot of similar chips all sharing architectural elements, so should the M1 family processors be combined into one article. Thanks for making the case against yourself. -- Henriok (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

So if we go with the analogy to Alder Lake (that being the only architecture you list that has both power and efficiency cores - BTW, you presumably meant "or Intel's "Alder Lake""...):

Alder Lake is a family of processors that include two different microarchitectures - Golden Cove for performance and Gracemont for efficiency. The A14, and various flavors of M1, also include two different microarchitectures - Firestorm for performance and Icestorm for efficiency; they have different numbers of cores, but the same applies to different Alder Lake processors. Apparently, for some mobile Alder Lake processors, the same Core In brand may include processors with different numbers of cores, e.g. the 12800H and 12700H Alder Lake-H Core i7 processors have 8 efficiency cores while the 12650H Lake-H Core i7 processor has 4 efficiency cores. Thus, it's not clear that having different numbers of cores requires having separate pages.

Alder Lake also includes Intel Xe GPUs - as do, according to that page, Tiger Lake and Rocket Lake. The various Apple processors using Firestorm and Icestorm also include GPUs. Do they all use the same GPUs, just with different numbers of cores? Or do they have different GPUs?

For the Apple SoCs, the same applies to AI accelerators and image processors. The Apple M1 Pro and M1 Max page indicates that they have "the same 16-core Neural Engine, Secure Enclave, and two media engines as the Apple A14 Bionic", so the Boring Old Undecorated M1 probably do as well. (That page doesn't indicate whether they have the same GPU design.)

And, as SoCs, they also may have some peripherals on chip, e.g. the Apple M1 page says that the M1 has an NVMe storage controller and Thunderbolt 4 controllers. I don't know if any peripherals such as mobile phone modems, Wi-Fi adapters, or Ethernet adapters are on-chip or are just attached to, say, Thunderbolt 4. I suspect that the keyboard and mouse of notebooks using M1-series processors are attached to Thunderbolt 4 as USB devices. Do the A14, M1, M1 Pro and M1 Max have the same on-chip peripherals?

Given all that:

• I could see either Firestorm and Icestorm pages, or a single "Firestorm and Icestorm" page, with the CPU microarchitecture details going on those pages; those would be the equivalent of, for example, the Golden Cove and Gracemont pages.
• If we consider A14/M1/M1 Pro/M1 Max/M1 Ultra as the equivalent of Core i3/Core i5/Core i7/Core i9, then they may deserve their own pages - including M1 Pro and M1 Max having separate pages, as they're branded differently. I.e., give each brand a separate page. The Apple brands are different from the Intel brands, as Intel carries the Core in brand names over multiple generations, while Apple doesn't. Guy Harris (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The articles should be kept separate 116.74.131.159 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly the M1 Pro and M1 Max are derivative from the M1. How much unique content will there be? Even if articles for these two are kept distinct from the M1, they themselves are related and have major overlap. 45.26.61.142 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. M1 Pro and Max are variants of the M1 as confirmed by news reports. We should merge them back to Apple M1.--Lesiw (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! Plus, it would be better to add a comparison table to Apple M1. Gyarudev (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. M1 is an architecture (like "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" or "Alder Lake"), but M1 is also a specific processor/chip design (like A14/A14Z, or Core i3, or Ryzen 3 or Threadripper or EPYC), which is also very confusing. The original "Apple M1" page should discuss both the M1 Architecture (which is a new architecture like A14 or "Zen 3" or "Zen 4") as well as the new/original "M1 processor/chip design" as well as the "M1 Architecture". Then the other two different and unique designs should each have their own unique pages for three pages total (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra). Four pages if you want to create a separate "M1 Architecture" page, but I believe three pages (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra) is sufficient (since the original "Apple M1" page would be fine to discuss both the M1 Architecture as well as the original M1 chip design). 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Now that we have more distinction and a new model, is it worth splitting up these variants? It’s going to be getting cluttered soon. M1 Pro, M1 Max, M1 Ultra. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Merge with Apple M1. 45.26.61.142 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why though? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  because Apple M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, and M1 Ultra are basically the same thing with a slightly different specification. 68.43.179.9 (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Disagree. You are actually INCORRECT. "M1" is an architecture (like "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" or "Alder Lake"), but "M1 Processor" is also a specific unique processor/chip design (like A14/A14Z, or Core i3, or Ryzen 3 or Threadripper or EPYC), which makes the "M1" name very confusing. The original "Apple M1" page should discuss both the M1 Architecture (which is a new architecture like A14 or "Zen 3" or "Zen 4") as well as the new/original "M1 processor/chip design" as well as the "M1 Architecture". Then the other two different and unique processor designs should each have their own unique pages for three pages total (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra). Four pages if you want to create a separate "M1 Architecture" page, but I believe three pages (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra) is sufficient (since the original "Apple M1" page would be fine to discuss both the M1 Architecture as well as the original M1 chip design). 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  They’re far from the same thing even though they’re based on M1, especially the M1 ultra. The article should focus on previous multi processors attempts and explain how Apple were able to do it in a way that makes it appear like a single processor to software. The Pro and Max can be in the same article but still separate from M1 as they have unique features such as media engines and die to die interconnects for the Max 102.22.167.126 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  In what way did Apple "do it in a way that makes it appear like a single processor to software"? And as for "previous multi processors attempts", symmetric multiprocessing has existed for several decades, so there are a lot of "previous multi processors attempts" (most of which were successful) to talk about, all the way back to the 1960s. Guy Harris (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agree. "M1" is an architecture (like "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" or "Alder Lake"), but "M1 Processor" is also a specific unique processor/chip design (like A14/A14Z, or Core i3, or Ryzen 3 or Threadripper or EPYC), which makes the "M1" name very confusing. The original "Apple M1" page should discuss both the M1 Architecture (which is a new architecture like A14 or "Zen 3" or "Zen 4") as well as the new/original "M1 processor/chip design" as well as the new "M1 Architecture". Then the other two different and unique processor designs should each have their own unique pages for three pages total (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra). Four pages if you want to create a separate "M1 Architecture" page, but I believe three pages (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra) is sufficient (since the original "Apple M1" page would be fine to discuss both the M1 Architecture as well as the original M1 chip design). 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Don’t Merge, keep separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShibAlpaca (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Merge with Apple M1; M1 Pro, Max, and Ultra are variants of the M1. In the same way that Alder Lake's Core i3, i5, i7, and i9 don't have separate articles, I don't see the need for the M1 derivatives to have their own articles. Itsquietuptown ✉️📜 06:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  But we already have separate pages for the A5X, A6X, A8X, A9X, A10X, A12X, and A12Z chips from the normal variants. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps we shouldn't. Guy Harris (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  As in "perhaps we shouldn't have separate pages for the An{X,Z} chips and their An bases. I.e., that argument doesn't necessarily support "split", it could also support "merge, and merge the An{X.Z} while we're at it". Guy Harris (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Guy Harris: Given the nearly WP:SNOW support for this, I feel safe in suggesting you just be bold and do what you're suggesting. I'd support that for certain. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Don't merge - keep separate. "M1" is an architecture (like "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" or "Alder Lake"), but "M1 Processor" is also a specific unique processor/chip design (like A14/A14Z, or Core i3, or Ryzen 3 or Threadripper or EPYC), which makes the "M1" name very confusing. The original "Apple M1" page should discuss both the M1 Architecture (which is a new architecture like A14 or "Zen 3" or "Zen 4") as well as the new/original "M1 processor/chip design" as well as the new "M1 Architecture". Then the other two different and unique processor designs should each have their own unique pages for three pages total (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra). Four pages if you want to create a separate "M1 Architecture" page, but I believe three pages (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra) is sufficient (since the original "Apple M1" page would be fine to discuss both the M1 Architecture as well as the original M1 chip design). 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Merge with Apple M1. There's not much point in having them seperate. Souliousery (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

We already have separate articles for the A5X, A6X, A8X, A9X, A10X, and A12X, so that would be some inconsistency QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The M1 variants share most technical details, and the new Ultra variant even seems to go so far as merely being two Max dies fused together.

As such, until the lineup varies more in architecture or other technical distinctions, there would likely be more confusion in the split articles then a combined one with a clear comparison table. 158.248.116.245 (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

We already have the X variants of the existing Apple Chips in their own articles QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. "Apple M1" is a new architecture, and "M1 Processor" is also a new unique processor/chip. The different chips (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra) are three completely different chips/designs/layouts and share absolutely nothing in common (other than the "M1 Architecture" which is like "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" and saying that "Epyc" and "Ryzen" and "Threadripper" shouldn't have their own pages and everything should be combined under "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" which makes absolutely no sense).2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Merge While I don't think they're the same, I think we should follow the same style as the Intel Core and Ryzen pages, where the series is on the same page. Bray (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well that wouldn't be consistent with Apple though since we have separate A5 and A5X, A6 and A6X, A8 and A8X, A9 and A9X, A10 and A10X, and A12 A12X and A12Z pages. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Incorrect. "Apple M1" is a new architecture, and "M1 Processor" is also a new unique processor/chip (although they share the same name "M1" they are different, one is the architecture like "Zen 4" and the other is the processor/chip itself). The different chips (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra) are three completely different chips/designs/layouts and share absolutely nothing in common (other than the "M1 Architecture" which is like "Zen 3" or "Zen 4") and saying that "Epyc" and "Ryzen" and "Threadripper" or "Intel Core" shouldn't have their own pages and everything should be combined under "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" which makes absolutely no sense). Don't confuse the M1 architecture and the unique specific M1 processor/chip design (which unfortunately both share the same name). M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra should all have separate pages. "M1 Architecture" and a table listing the M1 variants should be added to the "Apple M1" page, but besides that the M1, M1 Pro/Max and M1 Ultra chips are completely different and should have their own separate pages. 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Merge, there's not enough to these chips currently to justify separate articles for each. The prior discussion above already seem to lean towards merging this back in to the primary M1 article, we definitely don't need a separate M1 Ultra page beyond the current redirects. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  But that would be inconsistent, as X variants of chips do have their own pages on the A series chips. And there are far more of them. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  @QuarioQuario54321: Do read WP:BLUDGEON. I've seen that argument and it is not a compelling reason to have multiple separate pages for what are very closely related topics. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Merge with Apple M1. M1 Pro, Max and Ultra are variations of M1. While we usually offer a different article for 'X' series of processors, that is easier to manage when we only have the two chips, but the M1 is the A14X. We would have a better article if merged. If we don't merge with the M1 article - the Pro/Max/Ultras should stay within one article as the Pro/Max is already here and the Ultra is just two Maxes stitched together. Conay (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Merge with Apple M1 title it “Apple M1 Series Chips” now that we have four variants of essentially the same chip architecture scaled to different sizes its more confusing to have separate article. Per other comments it would better align with similar Intel and AMD pages. Edavy123 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  yes but, why create this inconsistency. I think would be a bit more confusing that way due to the rather noticeable differences. By this logic we should merge it with the A14 since this is a derivative of that chip. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  @QuarioQuario54321: WP:BLUDGEON is still awaiting your reading. Do you have a new argument? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Incorrect. "Apple M1" is a new architecture, and "M1 Processor" is also a new unique processor/chip (although they share the same name "M1" they are different, one is the architecture like "Zen 4" and the other is the processor/chip itself). The different chips (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra) are three completely different chips/designs/layouts and share absolutely nothing in common (other than the "M1 Architecture" which is like "Zen 3" or "Zen 4") and saying that "Epyc" and "Ryzen" and "Threadripper" or "Intel Core" shouldn't have their own pages and everything should be combined under "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" which makes absolutely no sense). Don't confuse the M1 Architecture, and the unique specific M1 processor/chip design, and the Apple M1 Series (which unfortunately both/all three share the same name). "M1 Architecture" (similar to "Zen 3" or "Zen 4") could be listed as a topic/heading under the original Apple M1 page. "Apple M1 Series" would be wrong, because "Apple M1" is a series (like Core i3, or Ryzen 3) and "M1 Pro" is a series (like "Core i5" or "Ryzen 5") and "M1 Max" is a series (like "Core i7" or "Ryzen 7") and "M1 Ultra" is a series (like "Core i9" or "Ryzen 9" or "Threadripper" or "Epyc"). Each processor/layout/chip design is a separate series. The M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra should all have separate pages. "M1 Architecture" and a table listing the M1 variants should be added to the "Apple M1" page, but besides that the M1, M1 Pro/Max and M1 Ultra chips are completely different and should have their own separate pages (just as "Ryzen" and "Threadripper" and "Epyc" have their own pages). 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Don't Merge with M1, but also Don't split into Pro/Max/Ultra. The M1 has a substantially different layout than the M1 Pro/Max/Ultra, which the latter three of which are all binned variants of a single design. Marketing names notwithstanding, if an M1 Pro is an M1, then an M1 is also an A14. --April Arcus (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at the articles as they currently stand, merging them would provide a clearer overview of the entire M1 lineup while not producing an article of unwieldy size. It's also highly unlikely M1 will be expanded much further. If it is, we can always discuss the matter again. Your comparison to A-series chips is fundamentally flawed, as no A-series chip has ever been used in a macOS computer. A-series chips have only been used (typically) in iOS/iPadOS/tvOS products. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  The A12X was used in the Developer transition kit. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Moreover, the M1 is used in the iPad Pro line. The M1 is nothing other than what we would have been called an "A14X" in previous hardware generations. --April Arcus (talk) 05:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  "We" don't choose what things are called, our sources and the manufacturers (typically) do. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  In a developer-only product that was pulled once M1-based units were available, hardly a glowing counter example... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  M1 vs. A14 is a marketing name. Two "A14" and "M1" articles would align with the way Apple want to market these chips; three articles for "A14", "M1", and "M1 Pro/Max/Ultra" would align the physical hardware that is on them. I'm inclined to assign more weight to the latter consideration. --April Arcus (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  And yet there is little reason beyond WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to why we should have separate articles. To counter that, I invite you to look at Intel Core series chips and AMD Ryzen series chips which do not have separate articles for every possible permutation of what they've released. Given the overlapping amount of information, it makes little sense to needlessly repeat information that is better together and more easily compared in one place (in the M1 article itself). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Keep separate. Merge with M1 may be hard… Usernogood (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's actually harder to keep it separate. 🤷‍♂️ —Locke Cole • t • c 22:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Keep Separate. What you are NOT understanding is that "M1" is a new architecture (similar to "Zen 3" or "Zen 4"). Also "M" is a new series (just like "A" series is for mobile/phones/tablets, the "M" series is for iPad Pro, iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook, and Mac Pro). Apple "M1", "M1 Pro / Max" and "M1 Ultra" are also brands/series. Just like M1 = Ryzen, M1 Pro/Max = Threadripper, and M1 Ultra = EPYC. "M" series is a new series of chips/processors for desktop/laptop/iPad Pro. "M1" is a specific brand (just like Ryzen or "Core i3" or "Xeon E3"), and it is a heavily modified "A14X" chip. The "M1 Pro" (Similar to Threadripper or "Core i5" or "Xeon E5-1xxx" or "Xeon E5-2xxx") and "M1 Max" (Similar to Threadripper Pro or "Core i7" or "Xeon E5-4xxx") are a second heavily modified and unique chip. The "M1 Ultra" is a third heavily modified and unique chip (and brand) similar to EPYC (or "Core i9" or "Xeon E7"). 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Merge. The similarities in tech and product justifies it. It'd be confusing to have them separate, and easier to maintain long term. I also thing that we should merge all previous articles in a similar situation like A12, A12X and A12Z. For the same reasons. -- Henriok (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm. We will merge with M1 article. Do not merge with A12 article with A12X and A12Z, pretty harder to separate 🤷‍♂️ . Usernogood (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Do you mean "don't merge Apple A12, Apple A12X, and Apple A12Z"? If so, I don't see why they shouldn't be merged, but that's a separate discussion. I'm not sure it would make sense to merge a combined M1 article with a combined A12 article; there's more to an SoC than the CPU cores, and I don't know whether the A12 SoC's have the same components in common that the M1 SoC's have in common. Guy Harris (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Here's an idea. Merge each chip generation. Each chip that Apple makes is based off a certain process node and particular component design. For example, we could merge A12, A12X, and A12Z as one article because they all use the same process node and component designs. We could merge the entire M1 family because they all use the same process node and component design. Yes, M1 Pro and Max have additional components compared to M1, but the CPU cores are the same, I believe. Not to mention that Apple markets them all as one family, so this article should reflect that. 163.248.244.203 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Incorrect. "Apple M1" is a new architecture, and "M1 Processor" is also a new unique processor/chip (although they share the same name "M1" they are different, one is the architecture like "Zen 4" and the other is the processor/chip itself). The different chips (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra) are three completely different chips/designs/layouts and share absolutely nothing in common (other than the "M1 Architecture" which is like "Zen 3" or "Zen 4") and saying that "Epyc" and "Ryzen" and "Threadripper" or "Intel Core" shouldn't have their own pages and everything should be combined under "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" which makes absolutely no sense). Don't confuse the M1 Architecture, and the unique specific M1 processor/chip design, and the Apple M1 Series (which unfortunately both/all three share the same name). "M1 Architecture" (similar to "Zen 3" or "Zen 4") could be listed as a topic/heading under the original Apple M1 page. "Apple M1 Series" would be wrong, because "Apple M1" is a series (like Core i3, or Ryzen 3) and "M1 Pro" is a series (like "Core i5" or "Ryzen 5") and "M1 Max" is a series (like "Core i7" or "Ryzen 7") and "M1 Ultra" is a series (like "Core i9" or "Ryzen 9" or "Threadripper" or "Epyc"). Each processor/layout/chip design is a separate series. The M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra should all have separate pages. "M1 Architecture" and a table listing the M1 variants should be added to the "Apple M1" page, but besides that the M1, M1 Pro/Max and M1 Ultra chips are completely different and should have their own separate pages (just as "Ryzen" and "Threadripper" and "Epyc" have their own pages). 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  I meant merge M1 related into one article and A12 related into another one, A8 and A8X into yet another and so on. But yes, that's another discussion. -- Henriok (talk)

• Merge. Much easier to maintain, and much easier for the reader to compare the various versions. 70.233.60.40 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge Im pretty sure everything has already been said, but the 2015 bmw 328i doesn't have its own pages, its just f30 3 series. Same idea 129.171.6.194 (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually it's not. "M1" is like "BMW 1 series" and "M1 Pro" is like "BMW 3 series" and "M1 Max" is like BMW 5 series". "M1 Ultra" is like BMW 7 series. Just because they are BMW's doesn't mean everything should be merged. That would be like saying we should get rid of every single BMW vehicle series page, and merge everything together into ONE single "BMW" page (which is absurd). Apple M1 is a new architecture as well as a new series (like "Ryzen"). Apple M1 Pro and Apple M1 Max are each a new series (based on M1 Architecture, like "Zen 4", but each are a different brand/series like "Threadripper" and "Threadripper Pro"), and Apple M1 Ultra is a new series as well (based on M1 Architecture, like "Zen 4" but it is a different brand/series like "Epyc"). M1, M1 Pro, M1 Max, and M1 Ultra are FOUR very distinct/unique brands (just like "Ryzen" and "Threadripper" and "Threadripper Pro" and "EPYC") and it's just like saying "BMW 1" and "BMW 3" and "BMW 5" and "BMW 7" series should ALL be combined into ONE SINGLE "BMW" page. "M1", "M1 Pro / M1 Max" and "M1 Ultra" are each extremely different and unique chips/series/brands. They should have their own separate pages. 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Merge and expand the content of the article to tell more about the distinct specs and unique capabilities of the variations. 52.128.53.239 (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Merge M1 Pro and M1 Max are part of Apple M1. --Hajoon0102 💬 11:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree. There should be three unique pages (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra) for three total and separate unique pages. Four pages if you want to create a separate "M1 Architecture" page, but I believe that the new "M1 Architecture" (similar to "Zen 3" or "Zen 4" architecture) can be discussed as a topic/heading under the original "Apple M1" page. I do believe there should be three separate pages (M1, M1 Pro/Max, and M1 Ultra) for each of the different processor designs. 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Don't Merge. Keep Separate. What you are NOT understanding is that "M" is a new architecture series/family (like "Zen"). "M1" is a new architecture (similar to "Zen 1" or "Zen 2" or "Zen 3" or "Zen 4") chip design/architecture. The new "M" series (just like "A" series is for mobile/phones/tablets, the "M" series is for iPad Pro, iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook, and Mac Pro - Laptop/Notebook/Desktop/Workstation processors/chips). Apple "M1", "M1 Pro / Max" and "M1 Ultra" are also unique brands/series/chip designs (based on M1 architecture) but completely different designs/series, just like M1 = Ryzen, M1 Pro/Max = Threadripper / Threadripper Pro, and M1 Ultra = EPYC. "M" series is a new series of chips/processors for desktop/laptop/iPad Pro. "M1" is a unique specific brand (just like "Ryzen" or "Core i3" or "Xeon E3") and it is based on the M1 architecture (like "Zen 1"), and it is a heavily modified "A14X" chip. Think of "M" Architecture/Family/Series as "Zen". Think of "M1" as "Ryzen" and think of "M1 Pro" (Similar to Threadripper or "Core i5" or "Xeon E5-1xxx" or "Xeon E5-2xxx") and "M1 Max" (Similar to Threadripper Pro or "Core i7" or "Xeon E5-4xxx") are a second heavily modified and unique chip. The "M1 Ultra" is a third heavily modified and unique chip (and brand) similar to EPYC (or "Core i9" or "Xeon E7"). 2601:240:4A00:7060:1C09:AC1:7DA0:98BA (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  You are seriously misunderstanding how these chips work. The entire point of the M1 Ultra is that it is exactly the same as the M1 Max, so no, it's not a "third heavily modified and unique chip". You're describing *exactly* what Apple *didn't* want to do with the M1 Ultra. Every M1, the base model, Pro, Max, Ultra, and the A14 are just the same family. All of your comparisons just don't make sense. "M1 Max" isn't "like Core i7". M1 Max is and always will be just 1 chip. Core i7 is a 12 year spanning series of chips and counting, as is Threadripper, etc. And "M" isn't an "Architecture/Family/Series" either. Apple's M/A/S all share the same architecture. You're trying to make analogies between Apple and a bunch of other companies where there just are none to make. The M1's aren't entirely different chips. They're the same chip, with different layouts and configurations. You're basically arguing that every chip in Intel's 12th gen should get its own page too, which makes no sense. Beyond performance and configuration, and perhaps what devices they're being used in, there is nothing unique to say about these chips, and performance, configuration, and usage can perfectly be done in a single article.--YannickFran (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agree.

  Especially with M1 Ultra, it doesn't make sense to have individual articles. Who know's, the new Mac Pro might get M2 Ultra Duo / Quadra so 4x M2 Max or 8.

  Following OPs argument, it would make more sense to put the individual cores in separate articles, since Apple apparently designs new cores each generation and puts them together differently. Misosoup-0 (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Merge. These are the same chip architecture, just binned or cut down differently, and with a novel connector in the case of the Ultra. An article about the M1 family makes far more sense as a place to detail all these differences without redundancies. There's currently no length reasons why they should be separate, and I think some of the arguments above are getting into a level of technical information and distinctions that are irrelevant for Wikipedia as a general-purpose encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Merge All M1's are the same architecture. The M1 Ultra is litterally just 2 M1 Max's pasted together. There is no need for these to be their own article. Most processors don't have a page, or even a paragraph, at all. And to that user who keeps copy-pasting the same argument over and over again: No. "M1" is **not** an architecture. All M1's and A14's are the same architecture. Repeating the same argument over and over again doesn't make it true. You don't seem to understand what an "architectures" actually is. Calling M1 an architecture is like calling Core i5 an architecture. --YannickFran (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Merge It’s reasonable to assume that M1/Pro/Max/Ultra are all part of one series named “M1”, but M1 itself is also a specific SoC. To keep things simple, and to make it easy for readers to compare the processors, this page should be merged into M1 and renamed something like “Apple M1 (series of SoCs)”. As for the SoC actually named M1 and the other chips, they should be named like “Apple M1 (SoC)” and only act as redirects to the proposed “Apple M1 (series of SoCs)” page.JackHinkle (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The transistor counts may be misleading

In at least one Medium article, they're being talked about as transistors per chip; ie per cut subset of a wafer. AFAIK they are actually per module, and the M1 Ultra module contains at least two chips. 222.152.28.14 (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC) And here: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2022/03/apple-unveils-m1-ultra-the-worlds-most-powerful-chip-for-a-personal-computer/ 222.152.28.14 (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)