Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Um, ARM processors have historically lagged behind Intel processors with respect to multithreading performance which is why iOS has been designed the way it has. So it's still a valid question to ask with respect to how they are going to overcome this limitation with both chip design and MacOS design. Why doesn't the latest generation iPad Pro allow for a user to have more than two apps open at once side by side (three if you have an app that supports slide over) especially considering it has plenty of screen real estate to allow for more. Or, why do apps have to be reloaded if you switch away from them to another app and then switch back? These are all important limitations of the current devices running on the Axxx series chips that those of us who use MacOS are curious about.

ARM is behind Intel on single core execution speed but that isn't entirely comparable because the instruction sets aren't 1:1. It isn't a limitation of the chip design and running multiple threads on different cores is a feature of the XNU kernel. Apple have shipped a multithreaded kernel under the hood for iOS since the beginning and whilst you might only interact with a single UI application, there are numbers of processes running behind the scenes.

The demo during the keynote featured the same chipset as is in the iPad Pro, an A12Z. It has more memory (16GB) than the iPad Pro does (6GB) and there is part of the problem. Running multiple applications requires RAM for each of them or they need to swap when you run out of RAM. In general you want to avoid swapping so when there is memory pressure, iOS will terminate applications that were running in the background to make sure memory is available. MacOS also has a similar process as well though less aggressive than on iOS. On iOS once you run out of memory, your app is killed.

That's not an ARM limitation though, that's a memory limitation and a design trade off.
 
I see this as a further move to lock down the platform and kill serviceability, upgradability, and compatibility with non-Apple blessed parts as they've been progressing toward since about 2013. These new Macs will be basically a hardware subscription, turning into e-waste in a fraction of the time just like the iPhone and iPad for the sake of profit. It's also a gigantic middle finger to owners of the Mac Pro.

Most definitely do not want.

The Macintosh is dead.
None of that is true.
 
Multitasking on the ARM Mac will be exactly the same as on an intel mac. Mac is mac - moving to arm cpus does not change this.

I don't doubt that MacOS will continue to support multitasking as we know it today (I don't think Apple would get away with NOT having this). I am just wondering what they have done to overcome the previous limitations. I am also curious to see if this trickles back to their other devices, especially iPad because it still kills me that if I switch away from an app for more than a few seconds, it gets suspended and I essentially have to reload the app when I switch back to it...this is especially a problem with remote desktop type apps.

(And yes, I get that RAM limitations play a part in this, but seems odd that even an iPad Pro can't retain a single app in memory when one switches away to another app).
 
  • Like
Reactions: dysamoria
There is also the community that has the latest OS's running on unsupported Macs, once they say APPLS only OS in "years to come" and Intel support is dropped, I can guarantee there will be a group working on keeping an Intel computer running the latest OS years after that.
 
Um, ARM processors have historically lagged behind Intel processors with respect to multithreading performance which is why iOS has been designed the way it has. So it's still a valid question to ask with respect to how they are going to overcome this limitation with both chip design and MacOS design. Why doesn't the latest generation iPad Pro allow for a user to have more than two apps open at once side by side (three if you have an app that supports slide over) especially considering it has plenty of screen real estate to allow for more. Or, why do apps have to be reloaded if you switch away from them to another app and then switch back? These are all important limitations of the current devices running on the Axxx series chips that those of us who use MacOS are curious about.

You just answered your own question - because iOS was designed that way. It has limited battery and DRAM compared to a desktop or laptop.

macOS already has several battery and energy saving mechanisms implemented and perhaps there are additional power savings levels that macOS will exploit but, fundamentally, the experience is not going to be any different than when using an Intel CPU. Apple does understand they are designing for a desktop and not a space constrained mobile device.

Also, running up to three apps on an iPad Pro where the top screen size is 12.9” is more a function of limited screen real estate and a smaller battery than even a MacBook Air (36w/hour versus 49w/hour), much less a 13” (58w/hour) or 16” MacBook Pro (96w/hour).

So much useless handwringing...people now are so ingrained that it’s intel or nothing. Glad Apple is doing this now. So many armchair engineers that think they’re smarter than Apple.
 
I don't doubt that MacOS will continue to support multitasking as we know it today (I don't think Apple would get away with NOT having this). I am just wondering what they have done to overcome the previous limitations. I am also curious to see if this trickles back to their other devices, especially iPad because it still kills me that if I switch away from an app for more than a few seconds, it gets suspended and I essentially have to reload the app when I switch back to it...this is especially a problem with remote desktop type apps.

(And yes, I get that RAM limitations play a part in this, but seems odd that even an iPad Pro can't retain a single app in memory when one switches away to another app).
RAM limitations and battery limitations are why ipados and ios work the way they do.

And why iphones dont retain tabs, etc. very well is that the virtual memory subsystem is hesitant to do a lot of writes to the ssd. It’s all design choices.
 
I see this as a further move to lock down the platform and kill serviceability, upgradability, and compatibility with non-Apple blessed parts as they've been progressing toward since about 2013. These new Macs will be basically a hardware subscription, turning into e-waste in a fraction of the time just like the iPhone and iPad for the sake of profit. It's also a gigantic middle finger to owners of the Mac Pro.

Most definitely do not want.

The Macintosh is dead.
ROFLMAO...yep, it’s dead. Now go enjoy Windows. Bye!
 
I don't doubt that MacOS will continue to support multitasking as we know it today (I don't think Apple would get away with NOT having this). I am just wondering what they have done to overcome the previous limitations. I am also curious to see if this trickles back to their other devices, especially iPad ...

The difference is more DRAM, and a storage memory system capable of being heavily used as VM swap space. Won’t come to an iPhone or iPad since both of those features cost more and eat up battery life.
 
It took Apple six years to build a stinkin' Mac Pro. Why should we believe that they can make a chip that can keep up with Intel let alone overtake Intel?
While Intel often gets the blame, Apple has been historically slow to adopt Intel's latest chips. The latest and greatest Intel chips invariably show up in Dell, HP and Lenovo PC's first.
Will Apple be playing games to slow down Intel Macs to hide the slowness of ARM Macs? This isn't beyond Apple.
If it becomes obvious that Apple made a mistake by switching to ARM, will they ever admit it and switch back? I'm thinking "No."
Why does Apple refuse to acknowledge that they are using ARM cores? Does that have anything to do with ARM's failure to get a foothold in the server market as predicted? Intel trounced ARM and is making money hand over fist there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dysamoria
Why does Apple refuse to acknowledge that they are using ARM cores? Does that have anything to do with ARM's failure to get a foothold in the server market as predicted? Intel trounced ARM and is making money hand over fist there.

1. Apple hasn't announced A14 yet, so they used "Apple Silicon" instead.
2. Despite using ARM instruction set, Apple's marketing never emphasized using ARM on its A series.
 
It took Apple six years to build a stinkin' Mac Pro.
But Apple’s chip team regularly delivers multiple new SOCs every year (for the iPhone, iPad, Watch, AirPod, etc.)
Will Apple be playing games to slow down Intel Macs to hide the slowness of ARM Macs?
If they did that, then why are Apples single core benchmark numbers better than most Dell & Lenovo’s Intel laptops?
 
Intel Macs purchased in 2020 are still going to be receiving software updates in two years, sure. But we've learned today that they will for sure be an evolutionary dead end and will die a slow and un-glorious death of attrition and neglect as Apple and all third-party developers shift their focus to ARM solutions. Facing that reality, it really does seem like the best path is to switch to a better platform now instead of later. Why forestall the inevitable? For those who need x86/amd64 compatibility there's no incentive to go down with the ship on macOS.

For us, the choice now is whether Linux or Windows is the least-objectionable alternative, and to get on with the migration.
I just bought a 2020 MBP and already gave away my old 2013 MBP away. I really hope that Apple offers a good trade-in program since if Apple Silicon really takes off from a performance standpoint, (and I hope it does), I’d want at least some value to my newly bought laptop.

It’ll be sad if my $2k laptop depreciates much faster than my 2013 MBP which lasted me a healthy 7 years. So I’m all for progress in technology but least Apple can do is to throw us a bone for later Mac Intel purchasers since my lifecycle is typically 5-7 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nightfury326
1. Apple hasn't announced A14 yet, so they used "Apple Silicon" instead.
2. Despite using ARM instruction set, Apple's marketing never emphasized using ARM on its A series.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they call the thing something other than A14 for macs. Because too many people don’t seem to understand that these are very different than iphone chips.

Though they may name it that way specifically to help market phones/pads. “They use desktop processors!”
 
I have a 2015 iMac currently but that thing is GONE when I buy one of these new ARM Macs. People are about to be blown away by how superior these computers will be after a decade or more of Intel stalling back Apple's progression in this space.

Intel stalling? Apple doesn't even include an SSD Drive as a default in any of it's iMac's unless you count the paltry amount of SSD space they give you with the fusion drive.

Hard drive speeds make a much bigger difference to daily performance than the CPU.
 
I think it is hilarious how some are trying to draw parallels in performance between a 5-7 watt chip designed to be passively cooled (any past and current a series processor) and a actively cooled 20 watt plus intel chip.... Of course it is not going to exactly match the performance on all fronts but it comes pretty damn close. Imagine an unchained a series processor with the same tdp (that doesn’t overrun its tdp for short burst benchmarking)....

My point is that no one can truly judge the performance of these processors until we actually see them. I think we are going to be presently surprised. (The fact that the A12z could even run shadow of the tomb raider in emulation mode no less at what looked like an acceptable frame rate is impressive to me)
 
Why does Apple refuse to acknowledge that they are using ARM cores? Does that have anything to do with ARM's failure to get a foothold in the server market as predicted? Intel trounced ARM and is making money hand over fist there.

What failure in the server market? Oh you mean the Intel failure. For example the new servers that AWS is rolling out use ARM SOCs, not Intel.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.