Monday, October 18th 2021

Apple Introduces M1 Pro and M1 Max: the Most Powerful Chips Apple Has Ever Built

Apple today announced M1 Pro and M1 Max, the next breakthrough chips for the Mac. Scaling up M1's transformational architecture, M1 Pro offers amazing performance with industry-leading power efficiency, while M1 Max takes these capabilities to new heights. The CPU in M1 Pro and M1 Max delivers up to 70 percent faster CPU performance than M1, so tasks like compiling projects in Xcode are faster than ever. The GPU in M1 Pro is up to 2x faster than M1, while M1 Max is up to an astonishing 4x faster than M1, allowing pro users to fly through the most demanding graphics workflows.

M1 Pro and M1 Max introduce a system-on-a-chip (SoC) architecture to pro systems for the first time. The chips feature fast unified memory, industry-leading performance per watt, and incredible power efficiency, along with increased memory bandwidth and capacity. M1 Pro offers up to 200 GB/s of memory bandwidth with support for up to 32 GB of unified memory. M1 Max delivers up to 400 GB/s of memory bandwidth—2x that of M1 Pro and nearly 6x that of M1—and support for up to 64 GB of unified memory. And while the latest PC laptops top out at 16 GB of graphics memory, having this huge amount of memory enables graphics-intensive workflows previously unimaginable on a notebook. The efficient architecture of M1 Pro and M1 Max means they deliver the same level of performance whether MacBook Pro is plugged in or using the battery. M1 Pro and M1 Max also feature enhanced media engines with dedicated ProRes accelerators specifically for pro video processing. M1 Pro and M1 Max are by far the most powerful chips Apple has ever built.
"M1 has transformed our most popular systems with incredible performance, custom technologies, and industry-leading power efficiency. No one has ever applied a system-on-a-chip design to a pro system until today with M1 Pro and M1 Max," said Johny Srouji, Apple's senior vice president of Hardware Technologies. "With massive gains in CPU and GPU performance, up to six times the memory bandwidth, a new media engine with ProRes accelerators, and other advanced technologies, M1 Pro and M1 Max take Apple silicon even further, and are unlike anything else in a pro notebook."

M1 Pro: A Whole New Level of Performance and Capability
Utilizing the industry-leading 5-nanometer process technology, M1 Pro packs in 33.7 billion transistors, more than 2x the amount in M1. A new 10-core CPU, including eight high-performance cores and two high-efficiency cores, is up to 70 percent faster than M1, resulting in unbelievable pro CPU performance. Compared with the latest 8-core PC laptop chip, M1 Pro delivers up to 1.7x more CPU performance at the same power level and achieves the PC chip's peak performance using up to 70 percent less power. Even the most demanding tasks, like high-resolution photo editing, are handled with ease by M1 Pro.
M1 Pro has an up-to-16-core GPU that is up to 2x faster than M1 and up to 7x faster than the integrated graphics on the latest 8-core PC laptop chip. Compared to a powerful discrete GPU for PC notebooks, M1 Pro delivers more performance while using up to 70 percent less power. And M1 Pro can be configured with up to 32 GB of fast unified memory, with up to 200 GB/s of memory bandwidth, enabling creatives like 3D artists and game developers to do more on the go than ever before.
M1 Max: The World's Most Powerful Chip for a Pro Notebook
M1 Max features the same powerful 10-core CPU as M1 Pro and adds a massive 32-core GPU for up to 4x faster graphics performance than M1. With 57 billion transistors—70 percent more than M1 Pro and 3.5x more than M1—M1 Max is the largest chip Apple has ever built. In addition, the GPU delivers performance comparable to a high-end GPU in a compact pro PC laptop while consuming up to 40 percent less power, and performance similar to that of the highest-end GPU in the largest PC laptops while using up to 100 watts less power. This means less heat is generated, fans run quietly and less often, and battery life is amazing in the new MacBook Pro. M1 Max transforms graphics-intensive workflows, including up to 13x faster complex timeline rendering in Final Cut Pro compared to the previous-generation 13-inch MacBook Pro.
M1 Max also offers a higher-bandwidth on-chip fabric, and doubles the memory interface compared with M1 Pro for up to 400 GB/s, or nearly 6x the memory bandwidth of M1. This allows M1 Max to be configured with up to 64 GB of fast unified memory. With its unparalleled performance, M1 Max is the most powerful chip ever built for a pro notebook.

Fast, Efficient Media Engine, Now with ProRes
M1 Pro and M1 Max include an Apple-designed media engine that accelerates video processing while maximizing battery life. M1 Pro also includes dedicated acceleration for the ProRes professional video codec, allowing playback of multiple streams of high-quality 4K and 8K ProRes video while using very little power. M1 Max goes even further, delivering up to 2x faster video encoding than M1 Pro, and features two ProRes accelerators. With M1 Max, the new MacBook Pro can transcode ProRes video in Compressor up to a remarkable 10x faster compared with the previous-generation 16-inch MacBook Pro.
Advanced Technologies for a Complete Pro System
Both M1 Pro and M1 Max are loaded with advanced custom technologies that help push pro workflows to the next level:
  • A 16-core Neural Engine for on-device machine learning acceleration and improved camera performance.
  • A new display engine drives multiple external displays.
  • Additional integrated Thunderbolt 4 controllers provide even more I/O bandwidth.
  • Apple's custom image signal processor, along with the Neural Engine, uses computational video to enhance image quality for sharper video and more natural-looking skin tones on the built-in camera.
  • Best-in-class security, including Apple's latest Secure Enclave, hardware-verified secure boot, and runtime anti-exploitation technologies.A Huge Step in the Transition to Apple Silicon
  • The Mac is now one year into its two-year transition to Apple silicon, and M1 Pro and M1 Max represent another huge step forward. These are the most powerful and capable chips Apple has ever created, and together with M1, they form a family of chips that lead the industry in performance, custom technologies, and power efficiency.
macOS and Apps Unleash the Capabilities of M1 Pro and M1 Max
macOS Monterey is engineered to unleash the power of M1 Pro and M1 Max, delivering breakthrough performance, phenomenal pro capabilities, and incredible battery life. By designing Monterey for Apple silicon, the Mac wakes instantly from sleep, and the entire system is fast and incredibly responsive. Developer technologies like Metal let apps take full advantage of the new chips, and optimizations in Core ML utilize the powerful Neural Engine so machine learning models can run even faster. Pro app workload data is used to help optimize how macOS assigns multi-threaded tasks to the CPU cores for maximum performance, and advanced power management features intelligently allocate tasks between the performance and efficiency cores for both incredible speed and battery life.

The combination of macOS with M1, M1 Pro, or M1 Max also delivers industry-leading security protections, including hardware-verified secure boot, runtime anti-exploitation technologies, and fast, in-line encryption for files. All of Apple's Mac apps are optimized for—and run natively on—Apple silicon, and there are over 10,000 Universal apps and plug-ins available. Existing Mac apps that have not yet been updated to Universal will run seamlessly with Apple's Rosetta 2 technology, and users can also run iPhone and iPad apps directly on the Mac, opening a huge new universe of possibilities.
Apple's Commitment to the Environment
Today, Apple is carbon neutral for global corporate operations, and by 2030, plans to have net-zero climate impact across the entire business, which includes manufacturing supply chains and all product life cycles. This also means that every chip Apple creates, from design to manufacturing, will be 100 percent carbon neutral.
Add your own comment

156 Comments on Apple Introduces M1 Pro and M1 Max: the Most Powerful Chips Apple Has Ever Built

#76
apoklyps3
oh, good old benchmarks, especially on a closed system.
everybody powers up their system of preference just to run benchmarks all day long
laughable, at best. the day we compare pears and knives is not far away.
Posted on Reply
#77
Valantar
apoklyps3oh, good old benchmarks, especially on a closed system.
everybody powers up their system of preference just to run benchmarks all day long
laughable, at best. the day we compare pears and knives is not far away.
... so ... you're just demonstrating that you haven't really understood what you're bringing up. "Benchmarks" are never a problem. A benchmark is just a comparable way of measuring something. Synthetic benchmarks can be a problem, as they often purport to represent something which they can't really claim to represent - such as 3DMark being a gaming benchmark. A benchmark being synthetic means it uses custom-made tests rather than replicating actual workloads from actual real-world use cases. A good example would be CrystalDiskMark vs. AnandTech's Storage Bench SSD benchmark - CDM runs a fully synthetic test that is explicitly designed for peak performance ("advertising numbers" and is in no way representative of any real-world performance), while ATSB uses captured application traces (i.e. logs of how real-world software reads from and writes to storage while in use) and is thus both reliable and representative (as long as the applications used are the same, obviously). Single workload benchmarks used to represent the full range of performance of a system - such as how Cinebench is often used - is also a problem, but that's not down to it being "a benchmark". And single workload benchmarks are both valid and useful as long as they aren't used as a singular indicator of overall performance, but are viewed as what they are: a test of a specific use case.

SPEC? SPEC is not synthetic, nor is it a single workload. SPEC is a very wide-ranging benchmark suite, put together by an industry-spanning consortium, and uses sections of real-world software for its performance measurements. You can read about what each benchmark does and what software it is based on on the SPEC website. The tests range from video compression to code compilation to weather simulations and 3D modelling . Is this a perfectly representative set of tests? Of course not. That is literally impossible. But it's the best and most widely accepted set of performance tests in the computing industry. That does mean it has a bias: it's very much focused towards the types of workloads where heavy computation are useful for professional use. That means no gaming tests, no regular office workloads, etc. Still, it is a good representation of actual CPU performance across a wide range of heavy CPU-focused tasks.

Oh, and if you're still not happy with that, did you even bother to look at the other pages where they test other software? Sure, there isn't a lot of it, but that isn't all that strange given that this was essentially a day 1 test on a brand new hardware+software platform. When AT looks at the new chips, there will absolutely be other software tested.



Edit: for those of you speculating in GPU performance (@r9 @billEST @Ravenas): Apparently Apple's comparison GPU in their M1 Pro charts was a 3050 Ti in a Lenovo Legion 5 (82JW0012US). No word on the benchmarks used though. For the M1 Max they were comparing against a mobile 3080 in both a Razer Blade 15 (their "slim laptop" example, 100W GPU TDP) and an MSI GE76 Raider (160W GPU TDP). They're not claiming quite 3080-level performance looking at those (very vague) graphs, but it's pretty close. Of course real-world tests will be extremely dependent on software and driver support, as we can see in AT's M1 testing (where they use both synthetic benchmarks as well as RotTR, and the M1 comes close to a mobile 1650 in synthetics but falls well behind in actual gaming). Apple is undoubtedly most focused on GPGPU tasks like rendering, but this still looks mighty interesting overall. Might we see game developers start to target Apple devices now that some of them can deliver actually good GPU performance? Or will drivers and platform issues hold them back

My 500mm² guess was also a bit off, but even 432mm² is downright insanity for a monolithic laptop SoC. Especially on 5nm. Renoir is ~150mm², for reference. Plugging that into a wafer calculator gives us a total of 124 dice per 300mm wafer, so assuming a ~$10 000 wafer cost (which might be higher with 5nm, especially these days), that's $80 just in pure die costs for these chips assuming all dice can be used (which won't be the case), before packaging and any accounting for engineering/R&D costs. That is a very, very, very, very expensive chip. Though I guess that goes to show the benefits of vertical integration, as that R&D cost integrates into everything else the company is working on, rather than forming the basis for profit margins on something that's sold on to a second company.
Posted on Reply
#78
apoklyps3
yeah, yeah, sure...apple is magic, the best in the world and the leader of inovation.
:roll:
Posted on Reply
#79
Vya Domus
ValantarAnd how is "trounce" extreme when we're talking about a >50% IPC advantage?
How did you come to that figure ? :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#80
Valantar
Vya DomusHow did you come to that figure ? :kookoo:
By them matching or beating the ST performance of Intel and AMD desktop CPU performance (10900K and 5950X, 5.3GHz and 4.9GHz max boost) with a 3.2GHz SoC? Though you're right, 40% is more accurate. No less insane, but more accurate (I didn't actually look up the exact clock speeds or actually calculate anything before now - I obviously should have). The M1 falls slightly behind the 5950X in integer workloads but wins by a clear margin in FP workloads, making it overall faster despite only having 65% the clock speed (or the 5950X being clocked 53% higher, depending on which way you calculate). Saying they have a 40% IPC advantage is definitely no stretch, though.

The exact numbers (assuming both chips maintain peak boost during the entire workload, which they likely do for an ST test):
5950X:
SPECINT2017: 7.29, or 1.4878/GHz
SPECFP2017: 9.79, or 1,9980/GHz

M1:
SPECINT2017: 6.66, or 2,0813/GHz (39.9% higher IPC, or the 5950X has 28.5% lower IPC, depending which way you calculate)
SPECFP2017: 10.37, or 3,2406/GHz (62,2% higher IPC, or the 5950X has 38.3% lower IPC, depending which way you calculate)

As we're talking relative numbers here any percentage will always be somewhat misleading, but the advantage is undeniable and massive.
apoklyps3yeah, yeah, sure...apple is magic, the best in the world and the leader of inovation.
:roll:
Magic? Not at all. Just an insanely rich company with near unlimited R&D budgets and the funds to hire whatever engineers they want, licence whatever patents they need, and buy oversized, ludicrously expensive silicon on cutting-edge nodes in a way nobody else can. Could Intel or AMD match them if they had the same resources and could sell these chips? Sure. But they don't, and they can't. The M1 Max is the size of Intel's largest monolithic server CPUs, but with a much lower core count, integrated GPU, NPU and a bunch of other stuff. Intel and AMD's laptop chips are mostly in the 150-200mm² range. Nobody has ever made a laptop SoC even remotely like this - in part because nobody has a guaranteed market for $4000+ laptops like Apple does.
Posted on Reply
#81
usiname
ValantarMagic? Not at all. Just an insanely rich company with near unlimited R&D budgets and the funds to hire whatever engineers they want, licence whatever patents they need, and buy oversized, ludicrously expensive silicon on cutting-edge nodes in a way nobody else can. Could Intel or AMD match them if they had the same resources and could sell these chips? Sure. But they don't, and they can't. The M1 Max is the size of Intel's largest monolithic server CPUs, but with a much lower core count, integrated GPU, NPU and a bunch of other stuff. Intel and AMD's laptop chips are mostly in the 150-200mm² range. Nobody has ever made a laptop SoC even remotely like this - in part because nobody has a guaranteed market for $4000+ laptops like Apple does.
Also this is 430mm^2 on 5nm, almost 60 billions transisotrs. For comparison 5950x + rtx 3090 have 47 billions transisotrs in total
Posted on Reply
#82
Caring1
This is why I love TPU. :lovetpu:
So much intelligent discussion to learn from, and of course the odd numbnut thrown in for a laugh.
Posted on Reply
#83
apoklyps3
Keep writing nonsense, makes my day.
while you're at it don't forget tu buy apple's 25$ cleaning cloth. there's some "magic story" behind it too :roll:
Posted on Reply
#84
ppn
They really maxed out the 5nm EUV with the MAX die with 420mm2, as wikichip said once the photo imprint the EUV machine makes or whatever can't be bigger than that. SO this is like big Ampere A100 as transistor count. but half size smaller.
Posted on Reply
#85
Valantar
apoklyps3Keep writing nonsense, makes my day.
while you're at it don't forget tu buy apple's 25$ cleaning cloth. there's some "magic story" behind it too :roll:
Lol, I have literally never owned a single Apple product in my life, so... meh. Their current engineering prowess is undeniable though. But if you have anything to contradict this, I'd love to read. Got any sources?
usinameAlso this is 430mm^2 on 5nm, almost 60 billions transisotrs. For comparison 5950x + rtx 3090 have 47 billions transisotrs in total
Just goes to show how a 'wide and slow' design will always be more efficient than a 'narrow and fast' one as long as you can keep it fed. PC components are generally low margin and highly competitive, so they tend to minimize area and maximize clocks, which makes them inefficient. Of course that's a simplification (making a wide cpu core that performs well isn't easy!), but it works as a rule of thumb.
Posted on Reply
#86
Valantar
apoklyps3engineering prowesss =)))
sir, I know a fan-boy when I see one.
no need to bury us in apple-fed promo material.
Hm, let's see, someone who had never bought a company's products, and generally doesn't advise others to do so (really not a fan of their closed ecosystems and monopolist tendencies) is a fanboy? That's interesting, for sure. Keep going, what else do you know about me that I don't?
Posted on Reply
#87
Vya Domus
ValantarThe exact numbers (assuming both chips maintain peak boost during the entire workload, which they likely do for an ST test):
That is indeed an assumption. Irrespective of that, I still don't think their core architecture is that much better, virtually all of SECS's tests are known to rely heavily on memory ops, favoring either huge caches or fast system memory.
Posted on Reply
#88
Richards
ValantarBy them matching or beating the ST performance of Intel and AMD desktop CPU performance (10900K and 5950X, 5.3GHz and 4.9GHz max boost) with a 3.2GHz SoC? Though you're right, 40% is more accurate. No less insane, but more accurate (I didn't actually look up the exact clock speeds or actually calculate anything before now - I obviously should have). The M1 falls slightly behind the 5950X in integer workloads but wins by a clear margin in FP workloads, making it overall faster despite only having 65% the clock speed (or the 5950X being clocked 53% higher, depending on which way you calculate). Saying they have a 40% IPC advantage is definitely no stretch, though.

The exact numbers (assuming both chips maintain peak boost during the entire workload, which they likely do for an ST test):
5950X:
SPECINT2017: 7.29, or 1.4878/GHz
SPECFP2017: 9.79, or 1,9980/GHz

M1:
SPECINT2017: 6.66, or 2,0813/GHz (39.9% higher IPC, or the 5950X has 28.5% lower IPC, depending which way you calculate)
SPECFP2017: 10.37, or 3,2406/GHz (62,2% higher IPC, or the 5950X has 38.3% lower IPC, depending which way you calculate)

As we're talking relative numbers here any percentage will always be somewhat misleading, but the advantage is undeniable and massive.

Magic? Not at all. Just an insanely rich company with near unlimited R&D budgets and the funds to hire whatever engineers they want, licence whatever patents they need, and buy oversized, ludicrously expensive silicon on cutting-edge nodes in a way nobody else can. Could Intel or AMD match them if they had the same resources and could sell these chips? Sure. But they don't, and they can't. The M1 Max is the size of Intel's largest monolithic server CPUs, but with a much lower core count, integrated GPU, NPU and a bunch of other stuff. Intel and AMD's laptop chips are mostly in the 150-200mm² range. Nobody has ever made a laptop SoC even remotely like this - in part because nobody has a guaranteed market for $4000+ laptops like Apple does.
If the pro max matches the 3080 in workloads it will be impressive... mark gurman said the desktop m1 max is 128 core gpu thats 3090 desktop performance
Posted on Reply
#89
dyonoctis
Vya DomusThat is indeed an assumption. Irrespective of that, I still don't think their core architecture is that much better, virtually all of SECS's tests are known to rely heavily on memory ops, favoring either huge caches or fast system memory.
But at the end of the day, what matter is the actual performance that people get from those chips on macOS. As time goes by i don't think that trying to see if their cpu core arch is factually better or not will matter that much, since the software will be optimised for their chip characteristics. For exemple, someone buying an AMD laptop who don't have ML hardware, won't get boosted performance when using apps who have ML task (photoshop is going in that direction).

Apple know their market well, most of the 6,8% buying their computers are doing graphic design, motion design, video editing, music editing, or just "office" like workload. And a lot of those tasks are being more and more accelerated by GPUs and other specialised hardware. I firmly believe that Apple isn't banking on having the most "versatile CPU" arch, but a versatile Soc
Posted on Reply
#90
Vya Domus
dyonoctisBut at the end of the day, what matter is the actual performance that people get from those chips on macOS. As time goes by i don't think that trying to see if their cpu core arch is factually better or not will matter that much, since the software will be optimised for their chip characteristics.
Sure, but if that's the case let's stop thinking that their chips are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
dyonoctisFor exemple, someone buying an AMD laptop who don't have ML hardware, won't get boosted performance when using apps who have ML task (photoshop is going in that direction).
ML can run on GPUs just fine, that's actually still the preferred option. In fact Apple's own APIs most of the time wont even use the NPU.
dyonoctisApple know their market well, most of the 6,8% buying their computers are doing graphic design, motion design, video editing, music editing, or just "office" like workload.
I don't think anyone buys 3000$+ laptops for office work, or if they do they're incredibly unintelligent. What Apple knows is that people want to use some of the professional software available for mac, not necessarily their hardware.
Posted on Reply
#91
Dredi
Vya DomusThat is indeed an assumption. Irrespective of that, I still don't think their core architecture is that much better, virtually all of SECS's tests are known to rely heavily on memory ops, favoring either huge caches or fast system memory.
I don’t think that valantar was talaking about core architecture, but instead of IPC. We’ll see what stupid amounts of L3 do for zen3 soon anyway, but I doubt that it does much for 1T SPEC.
Posted on Reply
#92
Vya Domus
DrediWe’ll see what stupid amounts of L3 do for zen3 soon anyway, but I doubt that it does much for 1T SPEC.
L3 caches are sometimes too slow to provide meaningful speed ups, it's usually the L1 caches that get hammered.
DrediI don’t think that valantar was talaking about core architecture, but instead of IPC.
Then it doesn't even make sense talking about IPC in that case, because any CPU will suddenly have higher IPC if it gets faster system memory or larger caches.
Posted on Reply
#93
Ferd
Waiting for the funny cooling these new macs will have
Posted on Reply
#94
dyonoctis
Vya DomusI don't think anyone buys 3000$+ laptops for office work, or if they do they're incredibly unintelligent. What Apple knows is that people want to use some of the professional software available for mac, not necessarily their hardware.
I did an internship in the communication dept of an university. The computers were either 27" imacs or 15" macbook pro, even for the people who weren't doing graphic work :D . It's stupid, but it's actually happening
Posted on Reply
#95
Dredi
Vya DomusThen it doesn't even make sense talking about IPC in that case, because any CPU will suddenly have higher IPC if it gets faster system memory or larger caches.
IPC is always a system level metric, and always application specific.

why would anyone use faster memory, or add more cache, if it didn’t result in more instructions being executed per clock.
Posted on Reply
#96
Vya Domus
DrediIPC is always a system level metric, and always application specific.
IPC has never been a system level metric, it has always been processor specific. You can search for papers regarding measurements of IPC and you'll never come across a system level study of IPC because it doesn't make sense, the CPU is a constant, the system isn't. They always focus on isolating the characteristic of the CPU alone.

Plus to say that it's a system level thing implies that everything should be measured together, what do we do if we want to measure FLOPS throughput ? Do you count the GPU and all the various other accelerators in as well ? After all it's all on the same SoC, same system, right ?
Drediwhy would anyone use faster memory, or add more cache, if it didn’t result in more instructions being executed per clock.
It results in more instruction been executed per clock some of the time, the upper and lower bounds of IPC and it's behavior remain exactly the same.
Posted on Reply
#97
billEST
Arc1t3ctThe M1 Max, at least on paper, makes every other CPU seem like a decade out of date... How can this be?
you put a 30 year prog on pc it works
Posted on Reply
#98
R0H1T
You're exaggerating, it depends on the program & OS.
Posted on Reply
#99
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
Vya DomusThat is indeed an assumption. Irrespective of that, I still don't think their core architecture is that much better, virtually all of SECS's tests are known to rely heavily on memory ops, favoring either huge caches or fast system memory.
I think you're underestimating the benefits of improving the cache hit ratio. Most of the time in the environment I work in, caching performance is what determines a huge bit of performance since latency otherwise is dominated by reach out to do I/O. Granted, this is caching at a different level of the mem hierarchy, but the idea is the same. Every time you improve the hit ratio, you're improving performance because you're essentially taking a fraction of the time to do the same thing, not to mention that it won't get nearly as close to stalling the pipeline.

Just look at AMD. Infinity cache is serving a very important purpose and it's the same purpose as why Apple has a very large cache as well. More cache means better hit ratios which yields better performance. It might seem like an oversimplification, but it's really not.
Posted on Reply
#100
Vya Domus
AquinusI think you're underestimating the benefits of improving the cache hit ratio.
I'm not, I'm just saying that everyone can throw more cache or faster system memory at the problem and get good results. I am just not impressed by that. Apple has paired server level system bandwidth with their SoC, yeah it's going to be very fast compared to a lot of other CPUs. I'd laughable if it wasn't.

On this note, I do find it really pathetic that PC manufactures haven't moved to a new configuration that allows for wider interfaces. It's insane that we have to wait for years on end so that we can move to a new DDR standard in order to get more bandwidth. This is really the only concrete area where Intel and AMD can't do jack shit about, not by themselves anyway.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 29th, 2024 04:58 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts