And why buy the next one since the one after that will be even better.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Apple Developing ARM-Based Mac Chip to Handle Low-Power Functions Alongside Intel Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
If they really wanted to use a second lower power CP, it would probably make much more sense to use the second Intel processor (a lower power one). This way they would be able to run the same software on both.
Someone might've already said it, but I'm calling BS to the whole "macOS doesn't have as large of a software ecosystem as windows" thing. I've always found really nice apps for literally anything I can think of without issue. Whether it's system utility, video/audio production, social/chat/email, development, or design, there's always mountains of options to choose from. The same can't be said when I've tried finding Windows alternatives to essential apps that I have on my Mac.
No point arguing about gaming though because Mac isn't even remotely close to Windows on that front.
God, I hate all these comments with such a passion.
Like any problem.... blindly throw money!
It shows what incredible lack of fundamental understanding of tech these commentators have.
In this case.... the main issue w/ Intel is chip delays. Would Apple owning them magically fix this?? No.
So, why again would Apple buy Intel?? What an insane idea.
I'm all for ARM chips, but Apple stated the Intel uses very little power in nap mode, so the ARM chip isn't really adding anything in that aspect. They should address the much much bigger issue, that when not in nap mode the 10-hour battery drains in much less than 10 hours when using pro level software, and remember, the the MB Pro is named as a pro machine. For those who say you can get 10 hours when reading emails and browsing the web, you can do that on a MB Air or just a plain MB. This is a MB Pro... where's the 10 hours when using pro level applications?
Wait, how does Power Nap run on an ARM? If it's checking emails and stuff, that means parts of the OS are running on it. Surely an ARM CPU can't share the system RAM with the main Intel CPU, right? Is the ARM chip running an entirely separate OS and RAM that just share the disk? This sounds pretty cool, however they're doing it.
be prepared for a 30 minute battery life and carrying lots of power bricks just to be able to send an email
between that stupid LED bar and all these other processors,
there will be no juice left to do any actual work
between that stupid LED bar and all these other processors,
there will be no juice left to do any actual work
Last edited:
I believe people are fooled by benchmarks nowadays. To be precise, different architectures are hardly comparable.
A CISC processor (x86) is much more powerful than a RISC processor(ARM).
Im not sure what this means for the future, but I as a data scientist for example will need a powerful system which is able to process a lot of big data in short time. Honestly I prefer macOS over other OS, but I also need to run smaller non-commercial cross-Platform tools and i don't see the developers rewriting their tools for an ARM processor.
A CISC processor (x86) is much more powerful than a RISC processor(ARM).
Im not sure what this means for the future, but I as a data scientist for example will need a powerful system which is able to process a lot of big data in short time. Honestly I prefer macOS over other OS, but I also need to run smaller non-commercial cross-Platform tools and i don't see the developers rewriting their tools for an ARM processor.
Because some of us need a machine today to address business today. Next year is a new year and probably a new machine.
The problem is Intel processors are power hogs, they just can't compete at very low power usage.
The move to 100% ARM is inevitable, it's only a matter of time.
CISC isn't more powerful, it's just less efficient. You should google it. You're missing the point entirely. As "a data scientist" you should know that data processing at scale is done in parallel and in that scenario using numerous, less powerful, processors always outperforms faster single processors. The key metric today is performance per watt, since power usage limits how processor dense your design is and the total throughput of the machine.
True, of course, if I let run analyses on servers. If I'm working on my local pc (main tool R) I need a powerful CPU due to a very bad mutlicore parallel computing support of R (packages are almost useless to implement parallel computing due to the language itself R is written in).
Let's see what the future brings, I'm excited
For the rest of the world it does not matter at all what CPU macOS is running on.
The only thing affected would be actually running Windows on a Mac.
Yes of course, but Apple wants control over their hardware. Right now they are in Intel's hands when it comes to releases. Intel have all the tech in the world at their disposal which is why their chips are so good. I'm sceptical if Apple can create chips that are as good as what Intel can offer. So I'd be disappointed if Apple reveal a non-Intel based MacBook in a few years time that is only as powerful as an Intel powered MacBook from 5 years ago.
I'm sure it can be done though but can some of us run multiple VM's on an ARM CPU in a few years from now? Or will Apple make machines with only the consumer in mind? Or will Apple continue to produce Intel MacBooks and have a separate product line for ARM-only machines? Lots to think about.
Apple could also simply bring their own external bus to the market. It is not like they would not have the courage doing so. They could name it Applewire, Teslaport, or heck: Firewire ;-)
Or, by then, they could have the courage to nix such external high speed extension ports for good (because it is legacy and who uses it right?) and only have video out ;-) - if at all, …
Windows can already run on ARM CPU's in a preview version.
I still don't understand why some people buy a Mac if they need to run Windows. And it makes no sense at all if your primary need is to run Windows. Just buy a Windows PC!
Windows has been running on Macs with either 68k or PowerPC processors 20 years ago.
[doublepost=1486027068][/doublepost]
I have been at places where having a MacBook was kind of a status symbol (and they _are_ nicer than mast Windows laptop), and if the company has a Microsoft site license, they can install Windows etc. for free. So anybody who _needed_ windows and had a little bit of say in the company would make sure they had a MacBook.
"I have a Mac and you underling have an old Toshiba laptop" is an _excellent_ reason for some people.
[doublepost=1486027610][/doublepost]
Apple said a while ago that the most powerful ARM processors in iOS devices are more powerful than the Intel processors in 90% of all laptops sold. So a MacBook with an ARM processor would actually be perfectly fine for many (but not all) Mac users.
yeah, thats what we want. thicker heavier computers rather than new advancements in technology :sheesh:
Because some people prefer macOS, but also sometimes have to use software which is Windows-only.
Well here in my shared office of Architects, Designers and Marketing/Communications people there are 10 27" iMacs. 7 run windows. 3 run Mac.
Why? They look good and are well designed with high quality fit and finish. They are not Plastic. They are easy to manage. The screens are amazing. They take up very little desk space for their screen size and don't take up any floor space below the desk. And they are powerful enough for what everyone does here [Revit, Autocad, Adobe Suite, MS Suite]
I just think this is what Apple does and not the PC with a better OS that you wish they made.
