Well, what do we know now
M1 Series
M1 4 High Performance Cores, 4 Energy Cores, 4 GPU Cores
Geekbench:
Singe Core: 1,709
Multi Core: 7,398
Metal Score : 21,982

Cinebench
Single Core: 1.498
Multi Core: 7,508
If I make the assumption that more CPU in the SOC is 80% effective and more GPU is 90% effective (this is both conservatively estimated, reality probably more) then I come up with the following

M1 24 High Performance Cores, 8 Energy Cores, 32 GPU Cores
Geekbench:
Singe Core: 1,709
Multi Core: 41,915
Metal Score: 158,256
Cinebench
Single Core: 1,498
Multi Core:38,387
M1 36 High Performance Cores, 12 Energy Cores, 64 GPU Cores
Geekbench:
Single Core: 1,709
Multi Core:62,872
Metal Score:316,512
Cinebench
Single Core: 1.498
Multi Core: 57,566
M1 48 High Performance Cores, 16 Energy Cores, 64 GPU Cores
Geekbench:
Single Core: 1,709
Multi Core: 83,830
Metal Score : 633,024
Cinebench
Single Core: 1,498
Multi Core:76,755
However, if this is made based on the M2 at 3NM, which is certainly possible since TSMC is going into production with that this fall, and volumes for the MacPro are not super high, and I make the assumption that this, along with core improvements gives a performance improvement of 10% (I put this a bit low because I suspect Apple also wants less heat with that many cores) then I come up with:
M2 4 High Performance Cores, 4 Energy Cores, 4 GPU Cores
Geekbench:
Singe Core: 1,880
Multi Core: 8,137
Metal Score: 24,180
Cinebench
Single Core: 1,648
Multi Core:8,259
M2 24 High Performance Cores, 8 Energy Cores, 32 GPU Cores
Geekbench:
Single Core: 1,880
Multi Core: 46,107
Metal Score : 174,096
Cinebench
Single Core: 1,648
Multi Core: 42,221
M2 36 High Performance Cores, 12 Energy Cores, 64 GPU Cores
Geekbench:
Single Core: 1,880
Multi Core: 69,160
Metal Score : 348,192
Cinebench
Single Core: 1,648
Multi Core:63,331
M2 48 High Performance Cores, 16 Energy Cores, 64 GPU Cores
Geekbench:
Single Core: 1,880
Multi Core: 92,214
Metal Score : 696,384
Cinebench
Single Core: 1,648
Multi Core: 84,442

For comparison, at Geekbench an
AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo a Metal score of 97208 and an AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X
2.9 GHz (64 cores) a Multi Core score of 25.033.

All of you who are so excited about the prices, The fastest Mac Pro with a 2.5GHz 28-core Intel Xeon W processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.4GHz, 384GB of memory and 2 Radeon Pro Vega II Duo with 2x32GB of HBM2 memory, afterburner card and 1 TB SSD now costs 32,199.00 in the U.S.
This one scores at Geekbench
Dual Core 1,710
Multicore 19,185
One of those 2 Radeon Pro Vega II Duo scores 97,208 two would then score double.
I added an Afterburner ($2000) because the M series hardware moderately does the tasks that an Afterburner card does.
So clearly the Top of the Line M series Mac Pro is much cheaper than the current one (if these prices are correct).

I would like to know how with these amounts of memory these are implemented there, on the SOC? Those are going to be big SOC.

I struggle to see any reason to include the high-efficiency cores in a pure desktop design. And no less than 16 of them in the top configuration. That makes zero sense to me whatsoever. If there were 4 of them, I could close my eyes. But what on Earth could you be doing that would benefit from 16 of those things?

Quote from: saijanai on March 08, 2021, 09:41:03
If you're using a non-Apple monitor stand, AppleCare won't cover the stand breaking, and so breaking the $5000 monitor.

Have you ever seen a monitor stand breaking?

Sound amazing but the problem is, they still run Mac OS.

Trash.

Two thumbs up for 64-core M1!
I love the title for this article.
I can't personally justify buying an Apple PC (it just doesn't fit my workflow, and it costs too much to try to force it to work in my use cases), but I'm happy to see Apple's CPUs adding further pressure on Intel, AMD, Qualcomm and the rest to up their game!

The thing about the wheels is the same as the thing about the $1000 monitor stand...

It's a closet insurance policy. Apple won't cover breakage if you use a non-Apple monitor or wheels, but AppleCare WILL cover breakage if you're using their addons, so the wheels cost so much because that is the extra AppleCare price for having a moveable computer. They just don't call it an "AppleCare extension." Likewise with the monitor stand. If you're using a non-Apple monitor stand, AppleCare won't cover the stand breaking, and so breaking the $5000 monitor. Use THEIR ultra-expensive stand, and the extra insurance is built into that $1000 price tag.

Its all to emulate windows XD