Discussion Apple Silicon SoC thread

[Eug]

M1
5 nm
Unified memory architecture - LP-DDR4
16 billion transistors

8-core CPU

4 high-performance cores
192 KB instruction cache
128 KB data cache
Shared 12 MB L2 cache

4 high-efficiency cores
128 KB instruction cache
64 KB data cache
Shared 4 MB L2 cache
(Apple claims the 4 high-effiency cores alone perform like a dual-core Intel MacBook Air)

8-core iGPU (but there is a 7-core variant, likely with one inactive core)
128 execution units
Up to 24576 concurrent threads
2.6 Teraflops
82 Gigatexels/s
41 gigapixels/s

16-core neural engine
Secure Enclave
USB 4

Products:
$999 ($899 edu) 13" MacBook Air (fanless) - 18 hour video playback battery life
$699 Mac mini (with fan)
$1299 ($1199 edu) 13" MacBook Pro (with fan) - 20 hour video playback battery life

Memory options 8 GB and 16 GB. No 32 GB option (unless you go Intel).

It should be noted that the M1 chip in these three Macs is the same (aside from GPU core number). Basically, Apple is taking the same approach which these chips as they do the iPhones and iPads. Just one SKU (excluding the X variants), which is the same across all iDevices (aside from maybe slight clock speed differences occasionally).

EDIT:



M1 Pro 8-core CPU (6+2), 14-core GPU
M1 Pro 10-core CPU (8+2), 14-core GPU
M1 Pro 10-core CPU (8+2), 16-core GPU
M1 Max 10-core CPU (8+2), 24-core GPU
M1 Max 10-core CPU (8+2), 32-core GPU

M1 Pro and M1 Max discussion here:

Page 78 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 78 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

M1 Ultra discussion here:

Page 109 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 109 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

M2 discussion here:

Page 127 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 127 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

Second Generation 5 nm
Unified memory architecture - LPDDR5, up to 24 GB and 100 GB/s
20 billion transistors

8-core CPU

4 high-performance cores
192 KB instruction cache
128 KB data cache
Shared 16 MB L2 cache

4 high-efficiency cores
128 KB instruction cache
64 KB data cache
Shared 4 MB L2 cache

10-core iGPU (but there is an 8-core variant)
3.6 Teraflops

16-core neural engine
Secure Enclave
USB 4

Hardware acceleration for 8K h.264, h.264, ProRes

M3 Family discussion here:

Page 215 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 215 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

M4 Family discussion here:

Page 263 - Discussion - Apple Silicon SoC thread

Page 263 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

 

[name99]

Isn't the bulk of Apple's data center activity centered around content distribution or cloud storage? Most of what they're doing doesn't seem like it needs a significant number of servers or computational power since it's mostly storage. It seems like they're trying to do most of their AI stuff on device.

For NOW. The whole point is that's going to change...
XCode in the Cloud is the small case right now. Some Siri.
Private Cloud Compute will be larger.

And things like Maps are a hybrid that require both sides to be useful.

 

[oak8292]

Is Apple doing its own iCloud data storage or is that still be outsourced to other cloud providers? iCloud may be big but it is a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of Amazon or Microsoft's cloud data storage. I'm not sure they DIY it less expensively than they could negotiate it with third parties.

As more countries are likely to have requirements that data has to be stored in their borders, Apple datacenters acting as a front end to talk to end user devices in "iCloud protocol" and passing the data off to third parties to store makes more sense than building infrastructure every time a country passes a law requiring local data storage.

Apple has a combination of solutions. They have eight dedicated data centers. Six in the U.S., one in China and one in Europe. They rent space in 29 third party data center locations. They still use third party cloud service providers like AWS and Akamai.

Apple has over a billion users and their services business is $100 billion per year. AWS revenue last year was $107 billion.

 

[Doug S]

Apple has a combination of solutions. They have eight dedicated data centers. Six in the U.S., one in China and one in Europe. They rent space in 29 third party data center locations. They still use third party cloud service providers like AWS and Akamai.

Apple has over a billion users and their services business is $100 billion per year. AWS revenue last year was $107 billion.

Knowing how many datacenters and how many they rent space us doesn't tell us anything about what percentage of iCloud data lives on Apple owned storage vs third party cloud storage.

The makeup of Apple's vs AWS's services businesses is quite different. ~$20 billion of Apple's "services" is Google paying them to make Google Search the default on Safari. A bunch of the rest is the 30% fee on App Store payments. Both are under threat - the DOJ may force Google to quit making deals like the one with Apple, and may force Apple to let third parties make it easy for iPhone owners to bypass Apple and pay with them.

Since almost every app these days is "free", with all the revenue coming in the form subscriptions and other in-app payments, Apple might be in a position where they have to maintain a huge App Store infrastructure to handle all the downloads but not derive any revenue from it (OK in reality some people would continue to pay through Apple because it is easier, but the government's position would force them into a situation where theoretically they could have to operate it for free) So Apple Services revenue might go from AWS scale to a quarter of the size in a few years, unless they can find new sources of services revenue. And Services may go from their highest margin to their lowest margin business if that happens.

 

[oak8292]

Knowing how many datacenters and how many they rent space us doesn't tell us anything about what percentage of iCloud data lives on Apple owned storage vs third party cloud storage.

No it doesn’t.

The makeup of Apple's vs AWS's services businesses is quite different. ~$20 billion of Apple's "services" is Google paying them to make Google Search the default on Safari. A bunch of the rest is the 30% fee on App Store payments. Both are under threat - the DOJ may force Google to quit making deals like the one with Apple, and may force Apple to let third parties make it easy for iPhone owners to bypass Apple and pay with them.

Apple may use their own servers for search and cut out the Google ad revenue made from Apple users. Google isn’t paying Apple out of charity.

Since almost every app these days is "free", with all the revenue coming in the form subscriptions and other in-app payments, Apple might be in a position where they have to maintain a huge App Store infrastructure to handle all the downloads but not derive any revenue from it (OK in reality some people would continue to pay through Apple because it is easier, but the government's position would force them into a situation where theoretically they could have to operate it for free)

This seems highly unlikely. If there is no revenue in serving Apps the App vendors will need to serve their own Apps. Is Apple serving any Apps for free? Even small developers are paying just a lower percentage of revenue from in App purchases or Ads,

So Apple Services revenue might go from AWS scale to a quarter of the size in a few years, unless they can find new sources of services revenue. And Services may go from their highest margin to their lowest margin business if that happens.

There is a site that breaks down where they think the services revenue is coming from

Breaking Down Apple's Services Revenue. | Trefis

AAPL services revenues

www.trefis.com

I think the cost for Apple to make server processors is much lower than for AWS. Apple is selling over 300 million processors with advanced cores utilizing high volume discounts on wafers. Most of the IP is already developed. If Apple has enough volume to pay for masks then it seems like a no brainer to bring in house more of their stack.

Since they aren’t selling server capacity to third parties they will probably continue to purchase cloud services and bias to 100 internal utilization.

 

[jpiniero]

Apple may use their own servers for search and cut out the Google ad revenue made from Apple users. Google isn’t paying Apple out of charity.

Google doesn't really make money off of ads - they make money off of the data mining & stealing people's personal info.

 

[Eug]

Is Apple serving any Apps for free? Even small developers are paying just a lower percentage of revenue from in App purchases or Ads

Completely free apps are served for free. The only payment required is the $99 yearly developer membership fee, but that's for the developer, not per app, so it's the same $99 whether it's 100 apps or 0 apps.

 

[oak8292]

Completely free apps are served for free. The only payment required is the $99 yearly developer membership fee, but that's for the developer, not per app, so it's the same $99 whether it's 100 apps or 0 apps.

Are there developers actually working for free? ‘Free’ Apps are typically just beta for something that can eventually be monetized if they gain traction.

It looks like in the EU there are core technology fees, truly free apps still won’t pay, however some ‘free’ apps from enterprise may need to start paying for downloads over 1 million annual, e.g. Barclays?

Europe's top 10 mobile banking apps

A new in-depth benchmark of nearly 80 mobile banking applications has shed light on the top performing apps in Europe.

www.consultancy.eu

 

[Doug S]

Are there developers actually working for free? ‘Free’ Apps are typically just beta for something that can eventually be monetized if they gain traction.

Almost all apps are "free" - by that I mean that you can download and install them for free. Most will charge later with in app payments, either for a subscription or payment to enable certain features or disable "features" you don't want like showing ads.

If apps can do all their own billing for in app payments then Apple gets nothing. Your talk of "beta for something that can eventually be monetized" will be 100% monetized for the app developer and 0% going toward maintaining the App Store.

Now there are ways around this, they could charge more than $100 developer fee and make it per app rather than per developer, they could charge per download or per gigabyte for installations. That would be fine for big companies like Facebook or Epic that are making billions, but kill off the small independent developers who just want to write truly free apps to tickle some itch, or just make enough money to pay a Mac and a spare iPhone to do their dev work on. That would be a sad outcome.

 

[oak8292]

Almost all apps are "free" - by that I mean that you can download and install them for free. Most will charge later with in app payments, either for a subscription or payment to enable certain features or disable "features" you don't want like showing ads.

If apps can do all their own billing for in app payments then Apple gets nothing. Your talk of "beta for something that can eventually be monetized" will be 100% monetized for the app developer and 0% going toward maintaining the App Store.

Now there are ways around this, they could charge more than $100 developer fee and make it per app rather than per developer, they could charge per download or per gigabyte for installations. That would be fine for big companies like Facebook or Epic that are making billions, but kill off the small independent developers who just want to write truly free apps to tickle some itch, or just make enough money to pay a Mac and a spare iPhone to do their dev work on. That would be a sad outcome.

“Apple’s compliance with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (2024) now allows developers to distribute apps outside of the App Store within the EU and integrate external payment systems. However, Apple still takes a reduced commission of 10% to 17%, depending on the payment method used. And crucially, this flexibility ends at the EU’s borders.”

https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2025/05/06/the-real-cost-of-app-store-fees-a-founders-guide-to-understanding-the-landscape/

I don’t think this is the wild west that you think it is. Here is a link to the EU Addendum.

https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alternate_eu_terms_addendum.pdf

There are also fees for annual downloads over 1 million annual for anybody making money on an App (internal or external). The rate is 0.5 euro per download over 1 million.

 

[Eug]

Are there developers actually working for free? ‘Free’ Apps are typically just beta for something that can eventually be monetized if they gain traction.

It looks like in the EU there are core technology fees, truly free apps still won’t pay, however some ‘free’ apps from enterprise may need to start paying for downloads over 1 million annual, e.g. Barclays?

Yes, my banking apps are all completely free. No in-app purchases.

The smallest bank I deal with is worth about $40 billion. The biggest one I deal with is worth about $2 trillion.

I don’t live in the EU.

I also have some small utilities that have always been free.

 

[oak8292]

Yes, my banking apps are all completely free. No in-app purchases.

The smallest bank I deal with is worth about $40 billion. The biggest one I deal with is worth about $2 trillion.

I don’t live in the EU.

I also have some small utilities that have always been free.

There is a benefit to Apple to include banking Apps so maybe they are free?

My speculation is that as an enterprise that your bank is paying Apple to host the App. There was some comment on App development that the size of the App can affect fees and I do know that a number of my financial services Apps for the iPad were dumbed down and lost capabilities. My speculation is that they were paying too much for downloads or I could be wrong and it was just too much for App maintenance.

There are free Apps for sure, non profits and small projects have Apps without fees. If there is no profit then Apple serves those Apps for free. Small profit and small fees.

 

[Eug]

There is a benefit to Apple to include banking Apps so maybe they are free?

Maybe.

My speculation is that as an enterprise that your bank is paying Apple to host the App. There was some comment on App development that the size of the App can affect fees and I do know that a number of my financial services Apps for the iPad were dumbed down and lost capabilities. My speculation is that they were paying too much for downloads or I could be wrong and it was just too much for App maintenance.

There are free Apps for sure, non profits and small projects have Apps without fees. If there is no profit then Apple serves those Apps for free. Small profit and small fees.

I actually just now asked someone who was one of the lead designers of the iOS app for a major bank (which holds about a trillion $ in assets). Unfortunately, he didn't know for sure. All he could say was that he was not aware of the bank paying Apple anything, but he didn't develop the back end, nor was he involved on the finance side. He was a front end guy.

 

[Doug S]

“Apple’s compliance with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (2024) now allows developers to distribute apps outside of the App Store within the EU and integrate external payment systems. However, Apple still takes a reduced commission of 10% to 17%, depending on the payment method used. And crucially, this flexibility ends at the EU’s borders.”

https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2025/05/06/the-real-cost-of-app-store-fees-a-founders-guide-to-understanding-the-landscape/

I don’t think this is the wild west that you think it is. Here is a link to the EU Addendum.

https://developer.apple.com/contact/request/download/alternate_eu_terms_addendum.pdf

There are also fees for annual downloads over 1 million annual for anybody making money on an App (internal or external). The rate is 0.5 euro per download over 1 million.

Sure but that all lives by the EU rules which allow them to charge in those ways. Maybe the courts here decide to allow them to do the same, but if so such future flexibility isn't apparent from the proceedings so far.

Isn't the EU forcing them to permit alternate app stores? That's way around all fees (and RULES!) for big companies like Facebook and Epic, though it may not make sense to set up your own app store so long as it is just the EU. Meta might be particularly interested in that, because Apple's App Store rules about tracking that cut Meta's ad revenue in half on iPhone won't apply if they tell all Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp users they have to use Facebook's app store in the future (which they could force by making the App Store downloaded versions quit working after a few months) Then only whatever Apple could build into the iOS API itself would limit Meta's data collection empire.

The EU has some pretty strict regulations about data collection and privacy so Meta likely wouldn't think it is worth it open their own app store there. But if Apple was forced to permit third party app stores here? Meta would be first on board with that since non-existent US privacy laws leave basically a wild west of "whatever you can grab you can have".

 

[Doug S]

My speculation is that as an enterprise that your bank is paying Apple to host the App.

Based on what? I haven't seen anything anywhere in Apple's developer rules that ANYONE is paying Apple to host their app on the App Store. They take a cut of what consumers pay them but that's it. If it is free then Apple eats the cost of hosting it. They don't care about the free riders today because they make plenty of money on the ones with in app payments (mostly games) they get a 30% cut from. That more than pays for my credit union, American Express, Chase and Citibank apps I have all of which were free to download and have no in app purchases.

 

[oak8292]

Sure but that all lives by the EU rules which allow them to charge in those ways. Maybe the courts here decide to allow them to do the same, but if so such future flexibility isn't apparent from the proceedings so far.

Isn't the EU forcing them to permit alternate app stores?

The EU is forcing Apple to allow ‘side loading’ in alternate app stores however it seems that Apple isn’t allowing ‘side’ operation. Apps still need to use Apple APIs and they need a financial agreement with Apple to run Apps. Apple can’t vet the Apps as effectively but they still have rules and expect to control what runs on their devices, e.g, no scams or malware.

Apple thinks the rules they have in place meet the EU laws and I guess we will see.

That's way around all fees (and RULES!) for big companies like Facebook and Epic, though it may not make sense to set up your own app store so long as it is just the EU. Meta might be particularly interested in that, because Apple's App Store rules about tracking that cut Meta's ad revenue in half on iPhone won't apply if they tell all Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp users they have to use Facebook's app store in the future (which they could force by making the App Store downloaded versions quit working after a few months) Then only whatever Apple could build into the iOS API itself would limit Meta's data collection empire.

I won’t even pretend to know what the U.S. will do.

The EU has some pretty strict regulations about data collection and privacy so Meta likely wouldn't think it is worth it open their own app store there. But if Apple was forced to permit third party app stores here? Meta would be first on board with that since non-existent US privacy laws leave basically a wild west of "whatever you can grab you can have".

 

[Eug]

I'm not sure I completely buy this post (at least from the translated Chinese), but the post claims Apple had tested M3 Ultra MacBook Pros, according to evidence buried in (of all places) iOS from an iPhone 16 engineering sample.

验证码_哔哩哔哩

Even if true though, I guess that wouldn't be complete surprise, since Apple tests a lot of prototypes that never make it to market.

 

[Doug S]

I'm not sure I completely buy this post (at least from the translated Chinese), but the post claims Apple had tested M3 Ultra MacBook Pros, according to evidence buried in (of all places) iOS from an iPhone 16 engineering sample.

验证码_哔哩哔哩

Even if true though, I guess that wouldn't be complete surprise, since Apple tests a lot of prototypes that never make it to market.

They might be testing it just to work out the form factor (handling the larger module with two SoCs and more DRAM chips) with the intent of potentially productizing a future version with M4 or M5 Ultra. They might have to cut down the number of cores from what you get in a Studio/Pro and only offer it in the largest screen size, but there's probably a market for it if their cooling solution can handle it while remaining relatively quiet.

 

[poke01]

M3 Ulra“‹ÚuMac Studiov‚𕪉ð@M3 Max‚Æ‚Í‚Ç‚¤ˆá‚¤H

¡‰ñ‚Í2025”N3ŒŽ‚É””„‚³‚ꂽuMac Studiov‚ð•ª‰ð‚·‚éBuM3 Ultrav‚Æ‚¢‚¤ƒnƒCƒXƒyƒbƒN‚̃vƒƒZƒbƒT‚ð“‹Ú‚µ‚½ƒ‚ƒfƒ‹‚¾B‚±‚±‚Å‚àApple‚Ì‚‚¢ŠJ”—Í‚ªŒ©‚¦‚Ä‚‚éB (3/3)

eetimes.itmedia.co.jp

Nice article, confirm the 2025 M3 Max is completely different to the 2023 M3 Max. So based on N3E.

Also we got pictures of Apple’s Thunderbolt 5 controllers.

M3 Ulra“‹ÚuMac Studiov‚𕪉ð@M3 Max‚Æ‚Í‚Ç‚¤ˆá‚¤H

•\3F2023”N”ÅA2025”N”Å‚ÌMac Studio‚ÌAƒvƒƒZƒbƒTˆÈŠO‚ÌApple»ƒ`ƒbƒvˆê——mƒNƒŠƒbƒN‚ÅŠg‘ån oŠFƒeƒJƒiƒŠƒGƒŒƒ|[ƒg

image.itmedia.co.jp

 

[poke01]

What’s impressive is Apple was able to move a aleady shipping N3B design to N3E.

 

[Doug S]

I didn't realize Apple was making their own Thunderbolt chips. SoC, PMIC, cellular, wifi/BT, plus TB too. Wonder if their ultimate plan has them making everything on the board except DRAM and NAND?

 

[mvprod123]

M3 Ultra Mac Studio
Full analysis
Source: https://eetimes.itmedia.co.jp/ee/articles/2505/27/news026.html
Translation from Japanese

Disassembling the Mac Studio with M3 Ultra: How is it different from the M3 Max?
This time, we disassemble the "Mac Studio" released in March 2025. It's a model equipped with the high-spec "M3 Ultra" processor. Once again, Apple’s strong development capabilities are on display.
In March 2025, Apple released the high-end computer "Mac Studio." The top-tier model is configured with the new "M3 Ultra" processor and 512GB of unified memory. Back in November 2024, Apple released MacBook Pro models featuring the "M4 Pro" and "M4 Max" processors. The M3 Ultra, in contrast, is based on the previous-generation M3 Max.
The M3 Max was first released in November 2023 and was used in the highest-end MacBook Pro at the time. At Tekanarie, we obtained both the M4 Max and M3 Max at launch, and thoroughly analyzed the chips by delidding and stripping away the interconnect layers to examine their internal structure.
Neither the M3 Max nor the M4 Max includes the interface for connecting two identical silicon dies — what Apple calls "Ultra Fusion." For the M1 Ultra and M2 Ultra, Apple had released images of the M1 Max and M2 Max chips with built-in interfaces for dual-die configurations. However, the publicly available images of the M3 Max at the time of its 2023 release (many of which can be found online) did not show any such Ultra Fusion interface. Our analysis of actual M3 Max silicon confirmed this — the interface was absent.
Although we also want to touch on the 512GB of unified memory, in this article we focus on the relationship between the M3 Max and M3 Ultra.
Figure 1 shows the March 2025 release of Apple’s flagship computer — the Mac Studio with M3 Ultra. The most significant evolution is in the processor and memory, but the external interfaces have also undergone major upgrades. The six Thunderbolt 4 ports found in previous models have all been upgraded to Thunderbolt 5. Apple began adopting Thunderbolt 5 starting with the MacBook Pro in November 2024, and the Mac Studio follows suit.
The internal re-timer chips are also now Apple-made. As shown on the right side of Figure 1, when the bottom cover of the enclosure is removed, we see the power board, the processor board below it, and then the air-cooling fan and heatsink. Each of these components is intricately crafted and finished in black.

Table 1 shows a comparison between the 2023 Mac Studio with M2 Ultra and the 2025 Mac Studio with M3 Ultra. While the chassis size and port layout remain the same, the internal components have been upgraded. The cooling system and SSD are nearly identical to those used in the previous model. The power board maintains the same size and connector layout, but the chips and components mounted on it have been significantly updated. Many of the replacements utilize the latest generation of chips.

Figure 2 shows the disassembly of the processor board in the 2025 Mac Studio. The board is positioned directly above the air-cooling fan and heatsink, and is equipped with multiple heat dissipation features, including heat pipes, an additional heatsink, a metal lid, and thermal gel. On the front side of the board are the processor and memory modules, while the back side is lined with numerous capacitors and inductors.

Every possible measure has been taken to maximize both functional and performance characteristics. It’s likely that extensive thermal and noise simulations were conducted during the design phase. Our company has disassembled many Windows-based PCs, but it's rare to see a product with the level of thermal and structural sophistication found in the Apple Studio (though not unheard of — NVIDIA’s H100 board and Tesla’s HW4.0 board, for example, feature similar measures). It’s no longer just about increasing processor performance; circuit board design, including thermal and noise countermeasures, is becoming increasingly critical in the pursuit of high performance.

Figure 3 shows the underside connectors of the Mac Studio M3 Ultra’s logic board. The Mac Studio includes a wide variety of ports, including legacy connectors. Though not visible externally, there are two SSD slots on the board. The storage ranges from a minimum of 1TB to a maximum of 16TB. In the 1TB model, only one SSD slot is used, while the 16TB model uses both slots with two 8TB SSDs. As mentioned earlier, six Thunderbolt 5 ports are present, and alongside each one is an Apple-designed re-timer chip.

Figure 4 shows the underside of the processor board in the Mac Studio M3 Ultra model. The backside of the processor and memory is densely packed with ceramic capacitors. Directly beneath the central processor area are ten silicon capacitors bearing the Apple logo. This illustrates that Apple not only designs its own processors but also develops its own passive components to maximize power characteristics — in close collaboration with TSMC, of course. This dual-focus design approach — emphasizing both functionality and electrical characteristics — is applied not only to the M-series chips for Macs but also to the A-series chips used in iPhones.

Figure 5 shows the chips used inside the M3 Ultra Mac Studio and their interconnections. At the center are the M3 Ultra chip and the unified memory. Below the center, five Apple-designed power ICs are connected, handling power management. On the left side and upper right are the legacy interfaces, where chips from manufacturers familiar in the Windows PC space — such as Marvell, Parade, and ASMedia — are used.

Table 2 provides an internal comparison between the 2023 Mac Studio with M2 Ultra and the 2025 Mac Studio with M3 Ultra. The form factor and overall size remain nearly identical. However, despite the similar appearance, many specifications have increased by 1.5 times or more. The minimum memory configuration has grown from 64GB to 96GB, and the maximum has expanded from 192GB to 512GB. The number of CPU cores has increased from 24 to 32, and the GPU cores from 76 to 80. This is possible because the M3 Ultra, manufactured with a 3nm process, can accommodate more functions and memory interfaces within nearly the same die area compared to the M2 Ultra, which used a 5nm process. Semiconductor miniaturization is directly tied to increased functionality. The evolution is expected to continue with future nodes such as 2nm, 1.6nm, and 1.4nm — target figures and roadmaps have already been announced by various manufacturers (details omitted).

Table 3 lists the Apple-designed chips — excluding the processor — found in the 2023 Mac Studio with M2 Ultra and the 2025 Mac Studio with M3 Ultra. All power ICs are made by Apple and have the Apple logo engraved on their packages. While the M2 Ultra model used four power ICs, the M3 Ultra model uses five, indicating an increase to enable more precise power management. The Thunderbolt interface chips have also been replaced. Although these new packages don’t bear the Apple logo, extracting the silicon and examining the die markings confirms that they are indeed Apple chips (this has been verified through chip teardown and inspection).

Figure 6 illustrates the key relationship between the M3 Max and M3 Ultra discussed in this report. For full details, please refer to the paid Tekanari report. In conclusion, the M3 Max used in the standalone M3 Max model and the one used in the M3 Ultra are entirely different pieces of silicon. The version used in the M3 Ultra is a modified variant — internally referred to as “M3 Max2” — that includes the Ultra Fusion interface, although the internal computational units are shared. Due to the increased die size, the number of chips that can be produced per wafer is estimated to have decreased by about 9%.
These two versions were not developed entirely separately; rather, Apple appears to have planned both configurations from the beginning, producing two silicon variants based on whether or not the Ultra Fusion interface was included. Notably, the M3 Ultra package contains a silicon interposer (extremely thin) to connect the two M3 Max2 dies, along with 62 embedded silicon capacitors. This showcases Apple’s remarkable development capabilities in tailoring silicon designs to match product specifications!

 

[The Hardcard]

Has anyone ever seen any mention of the size of the Apple Silicon team. It seems possible that it one of the largest in the industry, they make a large range of fairly advanced ICs.

 

[name99]

Has anyone ever seen any mention of the size of the Apple Silicon team. It seems possible that it one of the largest in the industry, they make a large range of fairly advanced ICs.

It's also possible that they manage to be so productive because they are all pulling in the SAME direction.

1. We don't see the sort of micro-segmentation that other companies engage in, with time wasted differentiating each segment. Consider the M4; superficially the Pro looks different from the Max because it one (supposedly) has 5 cores in a cluster, while the other has 6. But in fact they're the same design, just the Pro always has the 6th core disabled, and Max has the GPU "stretched out". Likewise there's one differentiation of Pro- and Pro+, likewise Max- and Max+, not the godawful mess you see in the Intel line.

2. Apple realizes, in a way other companies don't, that there's always a tomorrow. You don't need to scramble to ship lousy HW, then scramble to try to work around the first scramble; just do it right each time, and if that means the fancy new GPU ships next year not this year, that's OK.
It's when they forget this rule (eg pre-announcing Apple Intelligence) that they fsck up.

I suspect that in every other company (imagine eg QC) there's always someone fighting that the phone SoC needs this special thing (that's irrelevant to the server SoC) and this gets resolved with ever more duplicate work; whereas Apple seems to have a functioning process where someone decides "this is how we will do it, across the ENTIRE line" and everyone goes along with that.

 

[LightningZ71]

Intel and Apple are not exactly the same type of company. Intel is a processor company that tries to ship as many processors as they can at the highest margin possible. They also happen to make GPUs and a shrinking number of other things. Apple is a technology lifestyle company that makes a broad range of technical devices and provides a platform for software distribution as well as their own software products. As part of what they deliver, they also happen to make their own in-house silicon.

Intel is under much greater pressure to maximize the ASP of each piece of silicon that they sell. For that goal, they have to aggressively bin each item, which results in the massive number of SKUs that they have historically sold.

 

[Mopetar]

They might be testing it just to work out the form factor (handling the larger module with two SoCs and more DRAM chips) with the intent of potentially productizing a future version with M4 or M5 Ultra.

They can put an M3 Ultra in a Mac Studio which is a glorified Mac Mini. If they cut the clock speeds a bit, I think they could squeeze one into an MBP without having to soup up the cooling system overly much.

They would probably bin on CPU/GPU cores as well, but I don't think most users would care as the reason to get an Ultra is for the additional media engines that make video editing workflows that much more efficient.

I do think you're spot on about this being a prototype to help work out logistics for a future product. Putting an M3 Ultra in a notebook now when we're already mid product cycle on MBPs with an M4 doesn't seem like it would be a big seller. Launching an M5 Ultra version along with the next MBP or even early in the lifecycle would be incredibly noteworthy though.