Apple’s new redesigned M1X MacBook Pro, M1X Mac mini said to debut in Q4

Stolen MacBook Pro schematics confirm Apple's plans to add more ports, restore MagSafe charging
Stolen MacBook Pro schematics confirm Apple’s plans to add more ports, restore MagSafe charging (Image detail via MacRumors)

Rumors about Apple’s new redesigned 14- and 16-inch M1X MacBook Pro models have been percolating for awhile, but the launch dates for these new machines have been all over the map. Now, according to leaker “Dylan” (@dylandkt) who has a track record of correct predictions about unreleased products in the past, Apple will debut new versions of the MacBook Pro in the fourth quarter of this year, along with an updated Mac mini.

Filipe Espósito for 9to5Mac:

According to Dylan, the company plans to introduce new 14-inch and 16-inch models of the MacBook Pro in “late October or early November.” Back in May, Dylan corroborated other rumors about the new MacBook Pro having a brand-new look with flat edges, reduced bezels, and expanded connections — which includes an SD card reader, MagSafe, and HDMI port.

These would also be the first Macs with an upgraded version of the M1 chip, which is the first ARM-architecture Apple Silicon chip used in Macs. The leaker believes that M1X will be “an extension of the M1 that will contain more thunderbolt channels, cpu cores, gpu cores, multiple external monitor support, and greater power draw.”

MacDailyNews Take: Boy, we want MagSafe back on our MacBook Pros almost as much as we want to dump these hot, inefficient Intel chips and their attendant fan noise for fast, efficient Apple Silicon!


        1. He seemed to be comparing a laptop processor with 8 inbuilt graphics cores with a specialist card with 4864. That is comparing apples with looney fruit grown in a desert on planet Zog. What mainstream processors have that many graphics cores built in? As said by ‘Think’ if this card goes in laptops and laptop class products elsewhere and Apple doesn’t provide such a product where such a card can be used then criticism about not doing so might be valid but it has no relevance otherwise. Fact is these are still entry level to middle market products the Mac mini, unless the Mini is to be supercharged at some stage has used laptop chips as has the iMac. The card referred to is not aimed at this market and won’t be used in or for well over 90% of any competing products the overwhelming majority of which won’t match the performance of these products.

          Higher end Macs that might compete in this market are unlikely to be seen this year so let’s wait for Apples to be compared to Apples shall we and see if cards of this nature can/will be compatible. Fact is however this sort or requirement is pretty limited in the overall market over 90% of designers use surprisingly modest specced machines even with Intel chips so these and their successors will be a serious benefit. Be nice if Mac Pro and other top end products cater for the top of the top end needs of creatives and others but either way that’s possibly a year away so Tau Myx you need to be patient because these Apple/Arm designs can fundamentally use extra cores far more efficiently than can present and foreseeable Intel designs (which is why they rely so heavily on external graphics cards to help them out) so it will be interesting to see comparisons between equivalent designs in the next year or so in terms of performance, core efficiency and power consumption.

        2. I repeat:

          “The article is tech geek spec salad and MEANINGLESS to users.”

          Technical language is inside baseball speak. Sorry you don’t understand and FAIL at explaining what it going on in average households kitchen table terms.

          Yes, I know it is BENEATH your elitist ARROGANCE…

          1. The world is under obligation to dumb itself down to your level. If you don’t have the time, patience or smarts to understand the issues, then you should not be expecting anyone to respect your opinions on them. The article mentions the Mac Mini in the headline, so it is not about just laptops, it is about the whole Mac ecosystem. And right now that ecosystem is very limited in graphics performance compared to Window systems.

            In _theory, it seems like Apple ought to be able to put dozens or hundreds of those graphics cores on a chip and make a high end graphics mac at a competitive price. But will that really happen? I hope so, but Apple’s track record on the high end has been terrible for the last decade. They need a bigger change then a new chip.

            1. Yes, I need tech speak dumbed down because it is MEANINGLESS to over 90% of readers inside baseball terms that don’t have degrees in the field. I need to know what it means to the average user, period!

              You want to post as an elitist looking done your nose at common users and not help them to understand Tau Myx, fine.

              Thanks for nothing…

            2. This is a tech site. It does not aim at “average users” with absolutely no technical knowledge. I expect discussions of tech here. I do not expect those discussions to be dumbed down so that people who don’t know anything about tech can understand them without any effort on their part. Tech people need specific information in order to make correct decisions, not general information they already know.

              It works that way on medical sites, too. You do not want the doctor doing your brain surgery to make his decisions based on medical journals that have been dumbed down so that anybody who took high school general science forty years ago can understand them without effort.

              If you don’t understand a term, look it up. If you don’t want to go to that trouble, you are not in the intended audience for this site. It is aimed at people excited by technology, not political junkies.

            3. TxUseless: “This is a tech site. It does not aim at “average users” with absolutely no technical knowledge.”

              You LIE repeatedly. As an Apple customer since my Lisa I do not fit the definition of “absolutely no technical knowledge.” That’s a bald faced LIE, but coming from you its to be EXPECTED.

              You are completely CONDESCENDING WRONG this is an elitist site of Apple geeks.

              I graduated a communications major and the first rule of communication is to explain in common kitchen table terms to your 80 year old Grandma sipping summer lemonade clearly what you are talking about.

              So now I count TWO, Tau Myx and TxUseless INCAPLE of a clear explanation we can all UNDERSTAND CLEARLY.

              Thanks for NOTHING…


      Apple M1X with 32-core GPU could match GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop graphics performance at 43% of the power cost according to astonishing estimates

      A new report from Bloomberg today says that Apple’s redesigned MacBook Pro series with Apple Silicon could launch as soon as this summer. The new MacBook Pros are said to feature eight high-performance cores and two high-efficiency cores, available in either 16 or 32 graphics core variations.

      “Cores” doesn’t mean the same thing as “Cores.”
      Discussion here:

      1. Good news: When I fired up my work computer yesterday morning Adobe Creative Cloud ran an Illustrator update.

        The sweet news full support for Apple’s Silicon M1 chip — WooHoo!

        Older Intel based plugins work with Rosetta and clear, understandable succinct instructions on Adobe’s website explain it all.

        Unlike the tech speak around here at times that throw out specs to impress and confuse rather than communicate and explain. Grandmas everywhere are happy…😉

  1. IF the new 16″ MacBook Pros arrive in Q4 CY21 with an “M1X” chip, it will be disappointing to me. “M1X” implies they will use the same cores (high power, low power, graphics, neural) as the M1, as the leaker states. The “M1X” will just have more of each them. That is good from many processes, but absolutely not for all. It may have a bit higher clock, but that will not be a big leap forward.

    Where’s the M2, Apple? I’m sure you’ve been working on it for some time. Don’t stall out.

    The 68000 was way better than the 6502, but it stalled out at the 68040. (The 68050 and 6060 never really materialized in any quantity.)
    The PowerPC 601 was way better than the 68040, but it stalled out too.
    The Intel chips were more power efficient and eventually faster than the PowerPC variants, but they have stalled out too.
    Now we have the M1 chips that are both faster than and much more power efficient than the Intel chips. Are we looking at a slow roll (or stall already) of the M-series?

    Just more cores and faster/more interfaces makes me wonder. I truly hope it isn’t so.

  2. It’s clear how Apple is proceeding with the transition to Apple Silicon. The Intel model gets replacement when the Apple Silicon version is undeniably better (for most uses) than the best config of Intel version. MacBook Air was an easy call, same with base Mac mini. The last Intel 13-inch MacBook Pro and smaller iMac were older and intentionally less powerful designs. However, 16-inch MacBook Pro and bigger iMac are only about one year since latest refresh, and their top configs are more potent; they (along with “dark” Mac mini) await M1X. October-November (at one-year point of transition) makes sense. Mac Pro and “pro” config of bigger iMac wait until M2X (or maybe it’ll be called M1Z).

    1. Spot on logic. Any failure to smash the performance of previous models and industry standards generally will be presented as some sort of failure especially by its competitors. Even as is Intel have tried it on with M1 but were embarrassed (at least beyond the fundamentalist gaming fanboys) by the fact it even for them was a lost cause that even it’s usual media luvies presented it up for what it was.

  3. Not really sure what you are expecting ting from an M2 chip beyond core numbers and/or clock speed and we are beyond that are entering the extreme end of speculation. I suspect however that chip might not be seen in anything this year as I suspect it may be based on the 4nm process that TMSC are beginning to push through to production sampling as we speak and will be used for the high end products increasingly seen next year if the time table to Apple chips is as suspected.

    For me this makes sense as for the market areas Apple is presently looking to and indeed is the overwhelming proportion of its sales, will be considering the existing performance of the M1, be more than satisfactory provided for by an M1X for this years products certainly so why rush through an M2 if you by doing so will hobble it from true potential that can be better exploited next year when it will be needed to power higher end products. Meanwhile this allows the M1X to fully exploit the architecture’s flexibility by expand compatibility to more monitors and peripheral usage etc that later. chips will have from the off and has perhaps been a bit of a drag presently. Bit early to think about hitting some sort of barrier I think considering it’s less than a year since products shipped. Especially as a range of new designs with many more cores (which remember in this design isn’t a serious performance/power efficiency hog by all accounts) are if accounts are accurate already are already existing in the labs.

    1. “Not really sure what you are expecting ting from an M2 chip beyond core numbers and/or clock speed and we are beyond that are entering the extreme end of speculation.”

      There are three typical ways to speed up a processor:
      1. Increase the Instructions per Clock (IPC), i.e. the number of instructions that are, on average, completed for every clock cycle per core
      2. Increase the base and turbo clock rates across all cores
      3. Increase the number of cores

      The M2 should do all three. The M1X, if real, appears from the leaks to only do #3.

      Stating, “so why rush through an M2 if you by doing so will hobble it from true potential that can be better exploited next year when it will be nefaster eded to power higher end products.” misses the point. It should never be about not bringing out a newer, faster chip unti. l it is needBy that reasoning Apple should say, “Yes, we have this 100% chip ready to go into production, but people don’t need it right now so we’ll wtwo before we bring it to markett” a year or .ed. The pApple oint needs to be bringing out (in all three aspects listed above) a faster Apple as soon as you can reliably do so.

  4. The interesting part of the article is the introduction of the M1X to the Mac mini range. I assume that Apple will sell both ranges if demand for the M1 version continues at a healthy level. It’s somewhat of a surprise when remembering the introduction of the mini as the inexpensive, lower end Mac and now it may be available in the most powerful Apple chip on the market. Depending on available upgrades at purchase the mini could be a real threat to the old line PC companies.

    1. Yes. The original idea for the Mac Mini was that people who owned PCs already had a mouse, monitor, and keyboard, so a Mac that could replace the central box at low cost would be an attractive way to switch. Since laptops dominate these days, I suppose that is no longer the strategy?

  5. I think the M1X will only be weak if we’re talking about playing games. With the Neural Engine and built-in transcoders, the M1X should be very powerful when it comes to video editing which should be valuable to most Mac users. I don’t do gaming, so I don’t care if the M1X is weak at that. Anyway, I would rather have good battery life and no thermal-throttling rather than some super-powerful GPU. I’m sure Apple is targeting most Mac users rather than niche gaming Mac users.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.