Apple Expected to Announce Arm-Based Mac Plans at WWDC, Transition Away From Intel to Begin in 2021

[MikeZTM]

Well I certainly hope, and think, Apple will do a better job with macOS on ARM than the lame attempt by Microsoft - so far - at doing the same with Windows. (Surface Pro X. I bought one back in December and sent it back to MS in January after using it for about a month. Many, many applications are incompatible with ARM. And developers don't seem to be in any rush to fix that.)

That is a device targeting developers but was branded as a consumer device and cost an ARM.

Microsoft should build a Windows version of Raspberry Pi or just announce official support for it. No developer will buy a 999 USD tablet for development and that's why no software support for ARM Windows.

 

[jonblatho]

When Microsoft released the (newest) version of ARM-Windows, every app in their Windows Store ran automatically, without recompilation, and even without emulation (!). It turns out, the binaries in the Windows Store are not Intel binaries, but a pseudo-binary generated for a virtual processor (this is standard output of the Microsoft tool chain for many years). So running on Intel or ARM didn't really matter -- it is compiled on the end-user's machine before running.

I assume Apple will take a similar approach. Swift was designed to compile to an IL-language. And/or they will use fat binaries.

Whatever approach they take, they will probably force it on developers for the next OS-release in the fall (like they did with 64-bit apps last year). By the time ARM Macs are released, most of the software in the App Store will probably just run, one way or another.

For iOS and its derivative systems, since 2015 Apple has encouraged developers to enable Bitcode which does exactly what you describe. I don’t think they’ve offered Bitcode for compiled products (even optionally) on macOS quite yet.

I do recall seeing some folks cautioning initially that it wasn’t intended for complete architecture independence (yet?), but Steve Troughton-Smith has successfully used Bitcode to recompile an arm64 iOS binary to x86_64 macOS.

 

[smulji]

No question, they're righting the ship, though it may still be a little bit before we really see significant gains

If this is true, we won't have to wait that long

Intel Tiger Lake 'Core i7-1165G7' Quad Core CPU Performance Leaks Out Once Again, On Par With AMD's 8 Core Renoir Flagship - Xe Graphics Blows Away The Competition

Intel's 10nm Tiger Lake Core i7-1165G7 Quad Core CPU has been benchmarked once again & this time its on par with AMD's 7nm Renoir 8 core APU.

wccftech.com

 

[DNichter]

With the transition of macOS to ARM, I'm curious if Apple rebrands macOS to macOS 11

It makes a lot of sense. They need to do something to preview where we are headed with macOS.

 

[Ronlap]

I wonder when my last purchase of a Apple laptop will be (right before they switch the MacBook Pros to ARM).

I just bought a loaded 16" because I need fast Win 10 and Mojave emulation for legacy software. And as long as Apple supports a firmware-level high-speed x86 emulator, I don't really care what chips are underneath the hood.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I’m on board. Hopefully the first one is a MacBook or MacBook Air. Although at 12 cores we’re probably looking at a high end device.

12 cores equates to a high end device just because that’s what we’ve seen as an industry trend. If Apple does with ArmacOS processors the same as they’ve done the iOS processors, it could be that each model year all have the same level of performance which the main difference being the storage or other features, NOT the CPU/GPU.

 

[Rafterman]

I still say Apple with stay with intel as "high end" Macbook Pros, while ARM will be for Macbooks and Airs.

 

[Rigby]

This segment is really small now.

Maybe in the casual consumer market. But business/productivity PCs and servers are still a big and growing market, and ARM hasn't made any significant inroads there. I don't know anyone who does e.g. development or office work on an ARM device.

And technically there's no problem for a different CPU arch to shine in this segment anyway. It was like that 20 years ago when PPC/DEC Alpha/Intel was competitors in PC segment.

It's not just about the CPU. A whole ecosystem has developed around the x86 platform. The ARM market is much more fragmented.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Somehow I think Intel will be around for quite some time. I can’t really imagine an ARM Mac Pro.

I can imagine one, BUT... I’ve got a REALLY good imagination

There could be a chance where Apple doesn't even advertise GHz or cache or anything. The issue in the PowerPC days is people saw a 733MHz G4 vs a 1.5GHz Pentium 4. This time it might just be "A14" and that's that.

I think this way, too. I mean, the reason why less performant processors find their way into lower cost Macs may not be because Apple WANTS there to be worse performance, it could be because that’s all Intel offers in that dollar range.

 

[rhett7660]

Any chance they could do a hybrid approach? Have both chips in their computers? Maybe one to run items that are built for the Mac and the other to run iOS apps without any conversion.

 

[Naaaaak]

I only care if it runs full macOS.

iPadOS/iOS = gimpedOS.

If they gimp macOS to be more like iOS (where you're not even an admin on your own system cause 'security'), it's DOA.

 

[cmaier]

I still say Apple with stay with intel as "high end" Macbook Pros, while ARM will be for Macbooks and Airs.

First ARM product will be a 16" MBP

 

[Doug0915]

This is a real factor… You are absolutely correct

Nah, not really. We have about 40% Mac users, and when they absolutely have to use an app that is on windows they just fire up Citrix in application mode.

 

[Marx55]

Lack if Intel x86 microprocessors in Mac is a deal breaker for us. We love the Mac and hate Windows interface. But much more important than that is our workflow. And for that we need full Intel x86 compatibility.

For instance, when we use Microsoft Office for Mac (including track changes in documentes when collaborating for manuscripts, PhD dissertations, PowerPoint presentations with animations, video, special protein fonts, transitions, etc), Clarivate Analytics EndNote for bibliographic management or other applications like DNAStar Lasergene or Molecular Biology Insights Oligo, among many others.

I am not talking here only about Boot Camp or VMware Fusion to run Windows (which is also a must for us to electronically sign some documents for research project grant application, etc), but mainly for working on Mac with Mac native applications that are fully native with 90% of the world that use Windows in x86. We also need the power of Mac desktops, including Mac Pro on x86 for bioinformatics. If Apple switches Mac to ARM, we will be forced to switch to PC with Windows. A shame for all!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I'm intrigued of the talk of starting with a 12-core processor. One advantage over using Intel, was the fact Intel's prices go up quickly as the number of cores increase. Since a 12-core processor isn't significantly more expensive to make than a 4-core or whatever chip, Apple can gain that advantage right off the bat. And when you own the OS, compiler, and all hardware, there is a lot more potential for optimizing the use of multiple cores.

Yeah, when you think about how much space is taken up on the die, the cost difference is just what Intel thinks the market will bear. And, in some cases, the difference between the higher end and lower end device is what features they leave out or disable on the lower end one. Like you, I’m not saying this is what Apple would do, but the possibility is there to have FCP on a MacBook handling 4k video as well as an iMac Pro.

 

[iRun26.2]

I just bought a loaded 16" because I need fast Win 10 and Mojave emulation for legacy software. And as long as Apple supports a firmware-level high-speed x86 emulator, I don't really care what chips are underneath the hood.

I agree there. I find it hard to believe that they could have an emulator anywhere near as fast. But if they did....Wow!!!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

When Microsoft released the (newest) version of ARM-Windows, every app in their Windows Store ran automatically, without recompilation, and even without emulation (!). It turns out, the binaries in the Windows Store are not Intel binaries, but a pseudo-binary generated for a virtual processor (this is standard output of the Microsoft tool chain for many years). So running on Intel or ARM didn't really matter -- it is compiled on the end-user's machine before running.

You’re right, Apple does have a solution for this, a bit different from Microsoft, though. From the link:

This means, in theory, that if Apple wanted every iOS app on the App Store to run on the Mac, today or in the future, they have a mechanism to do so transparently and without needing developers to update or recompile their apps.

Translating an ARM iOS App to Intel macOS Using Bitcode

www.highcaffeinecontent.com

 

[techwhiz]

Except that these days Intel CPUs are so krap at pretty much everything. Just look at the many many many delays and problems that Intel keeps having. This is a major reason for Apple wanting to ditch Intel and about time too. I am sure that the ARM CPUs will work just fine.

Apple will face the same type of challenges when they add things like x number of lanes of PCIe to the ARM processor.
When that add 8 channels of ECC DDR4/5 and multiple threads and shadow registers.
When they try to push whatever process node to 3GHz and beyond.
The challenges will be the same that Intel faces, but without the control to tweak the FAB.

 

[cmaier]

Apple will face the same type of challenges when they add things like x number of lanes of PCIe to the ARM processor.
When that add 8 channels of ECC DDR4/5 and multiple threads and shadow registers.
When they try to push whatever process node to 3GHz and beyond.
The challenges will be the same that Intel faces, but without the control to tweak the FAB.

The control to tweak the fab hasn't gotten intel anywhere since 2015.

And Apple is free to do things like invent its own buses - no need to support PCIe, etc.

 

[techwhiz]

I wouldn't bet against Apple doing that. The iPad A12x/z is pretty close now as is in terms of 90% of laptops 'most' people buy. iPad is proof of concept. The new Mac ARM chip will bury the A12X/z.

Azrael.

You are missing I/O support, more memory, etc.
Synthetic benchmarks mean nothing. Real world workloads do.

 

[jerryk]

Wow. Anyone check Apple stock price today. Up 10+ (3%+) today based on the news of an Apple designed processor.

Glad I am a long time shareholder.

 

[cmaier]

You are missing I/O support, more memory, etc.
Synthetic benchmarks mean nothing. Real world workloads do.

synthetic benchmarks don't mean NOTHING.

After all, even when we design a brand new x86-64 architecture, we run a flurry of synthetic benchmarks to help us determine whether our individual design decisions are worth the cost. If they're good enough for cpu designers to rely upon, they certainly mean SOMETHING. (Mind you, it's a very big collection of benchmarks, not just the ones that everyone can download off the web)

 

[The Game 161]

WWDC should be fun...

 

[dgdosen]

With TSMC going to 5nm, 4nm, 3nm, 2.1 ... can you imagine Apple beating Moore's law for a few years? With the competition following suit?

 

[bluespark]

Damn it, I just bought an Intel Mac mini, too (my first Mac). They'd better not make it "obsolete" soon!

They won't. Apple has been great with transitions like this in the past. Their transition to Intel was methodical and they kept supporting the prior "PowerPC"-based Macs for as long as they ordinarily would support older computers. I just bought one of the higher-end 13" MacBook Pros and am quite confident it will serve me for years until I am ready to transition.