Apple Transitioning Macs to Custom Chips With 'Incredible' Performance Starting Later This Year

[Alan Wynn]

Exactly! So any claims they're superior have to be taken with a grain of salt. Such claims are based on nothing but speculation and conjecture. Until Apple releases their ARM based Macintosh systems perhaps it would be prudent to temper performance expectations?

Right, so instead of arguing over something that will never be able to convince you, why do we not look to the future, so we can have some solid answers with fixed metrics once Apple Silicon starts shipping. The goal is to get everyone on the record so there will be no moving of the goal posts.

1. What set of benchmarks will you consider as the basis for comparison between the released Apple Silicon Mac systems and competitive Intel/AMD machines?
2. When doing our comparisons between Apple Silicon-based hardware and AMD/Intel based hardware, how will you pick the AMD/Intel chip to compare? What objective metric would you use to define equivalent systems for comparison? Machines at the same price point? Machines with the same max TDP? Something else? The point of this question is that since Apple will not be selling its SoCs to others, one cannot do it purely on price of the chip, one needs some other objective metric to decide what two items should be compared.
3. What objective criteria would Apple Silicon have to meet to be a successful product vs. Intel/AMD’s chips? (10% faster? 25%? 10% better battery life? 25%? Something else?) Once Apple starts to deliver high-end GPUs, what are your answers on those same metrics for those?
4. When did you purchase your most recent Mac from Apple or a third party reseller that was currently shipping at the time you purchased it?
5. What would be required for you to purchase an Apple Silicon-based system?

Once we have everyone’s answers, we can wait a few months and see who was right. Much easier than trying to do this retro actively. So far CMaier, Gerdi and I have fully answered these questions, and SSGBryan has partially answered them. Still waiting for answers from Nugget, IPProng and you.

For the record, anyone else who wants to be on record should feel free to answer. I will create a new thread collating everyone’s answers so it is easy to review when it makes sense.

 

[SteveW928]

I am annoyed that I wasted 3 years waiting on the 7,1 - If the 3 stooges had just come out and said they were exiting the workspace the Mac Pro used to occupy, I could have moved on in 2017, rather than waiting on a $1,400 computer with a $4,600 case.

Only 3 years? (A lot of us were waiting a lot longer than that.) But, I'm curious what you were hoping for? Did you think they were building the much-wanted xMac? If so, I'll agree that I'd have liked that as well. I still think Apple needs one of those, and maybe there will be something equivalent in the new Apple Silicon models (they should at least have more flexibility in their lineup and cost-margin).

But, I didn't get the impression that is where they were headed. I was a bit surprised the new Mac Pro was as high-end as it is, but I wasn't expecting something prosumer.

It sounds more like you need a Mac mini with an eGPU... or stick with a Windows box. My 2018 mini and eGPU should keep me happy for a few years while I evaluate where Apple is headed with this new tech.

... Until you stick your toes in the Winpool, you really won't understand how far behind you are with what is actually state of the art software.

In render engines, you have 3 choices - CUDA with Nvidia GPUs, AMD ProRender Engine with AMD GPUs, or CPU driven engines, like LuxRender, which no longer has an SDK available for OSX, so I don't see it making a transition to ARM.

I'll admit I don't have my fingers on the pulse of 3D these days anymore (like I used to). Unfortunately I've dipped my toes in the Winpool more than I'd have liked over the years. I can certainly do it, and have done it, but I don't enjoy it. I enjoy using my Mac.

If I have to go there, I will (and currently use it for Revit), but unless the difference is just too substantial reasonably get around, the workflow and enjoyment count for a lot to me.

For example, before the Covid stuff hit, I had just completed some Revit courses... I studied at home and then had to take exams in the CAD labs at a local college. I was using Windows either way, but man, did using the PC hardware SUCK! Now, if I picked my own stuff, I'd do better, but there is also the benefit of being able to use the Mac for everything possible besides the stuff I HAVE to use Windows for. If I had a Windows box, I'd be stuck on it for all of that or I'd have to hop between systems & peripherals.

People use Maya on the Mac and Cinema 4D, in terms of popular apps. I'm awaiting the update/modernization of a former industry leader, Electric Image. The other CAD apps I use (while also available on Windows) pretty much runs circles around many of the Windows-only CAD apps, IMO.

I'm mostly interested in CPU based rendering, as you can easily distribute it to scale as needed. Some of the people I know had even built routines to scale out on Amazon or Google cloud-computing on demand for projects so they didn't have to have as much on-site expensive hardware sitting around.

I get that CUDA has certain benefits, but I don't run anything that needs it. And, my understanding is that some of the apps that depended heavily on it have also been releasing or working on Metal versions that have similar performance. But, I'm a bit out of the loop there... just stuff I've been running across in forum discussions.

So, what do I do? Do I continue to argue that it's the wrong decision (I did very much believe it would not happen, and tried to explain what would be lost) and, I dunno, hope to win some internet points for convincing other people Apple are wrong? Or do I accept a change is coming, and either adapt, or go elsewhere?

... If you've "left" why do you need to keep telling everyone about it? Is there another kind of internet points I'm not aware of? I assume they're called crying over spilt milk points??

Well, I'll give you my impression and motivation on this over the years. I feel I've always been a mixture of fanboy for Apple but also quite harsh on them when needed. In fact, if you read through some of the threads I've been involved with up until recently (and going back a decade or two), I was often taken for a troll by the actual fanboys.

I really didn't know what I was going to do until Apple released the 2018 mini, and I was pretty darn vocal about it. I know it probably doesn't make a *direct* difference (though maybe some Apple employees or connected people read/participate?), but if there is enough outcry, eventually that fuss makes it back to Apple. I'm convinced that sometimes they actually do listen, too.

And, I suppose in terms of 'points', if I'm convincing with my viewpoint in the forums, maybe I'll be able to add some more people to that side of the argument (which applies a bit more pressure on Apple).

The advantage of being on Intel was that it was easy to run non-macOS Intel software. The disadvantage was that there was never going to be a way of beating the low priced clones nor the "build it yourself" crowd who do place no value on warranty support, macOS or the Apple ecosystem.This transition gives them a chance to build truly differentiated hardware. They actually have to deliver, but if they do it becomes much more interesting to develop for the platform. Previously, these niche products could say: "Well, they can just run our product under Parallels." Something I have seen from companies explaining their "macOS support". That it was so easy for them to argue that, meant they had no incentive to actually port. This transition may force them to rethink that strategy, especially if the hardware has a much better price performance profile.

That's a really good point! Double-edged sword, I guess. But, they can't just brush it off... they have to deal with it, or people leave (either Apple, or their software).

Unless some emulation gets good enough, unfortunately, I'll probably just have to add a Windows box and deal with all the unpleasantness that involves (or keep my mini for that).

Unless I get rich/successful enough that I can pick and choose my software, I have to use what the industry does. And, I seriously doubt it will be coming to Mac soon, if ever. (They can't even seem to update crucial aspects of the software on one platform, let alone write for multiple platforms.)

BUT... *IF* the performance is there, that could put a lot of pressure on them.

Sooooo, you're not interested in the hardware, unless it has absurd specs.
...
OK, so you're not interested in spending money on software either.

Heh, and it costs what, $1400?

I understand that this kind of software is expensive, especially if you're trying to do it as a hobby. But, I think most software is moving to the subscription model, so he is probably going to be getting sadder and sadder as time goes on.

... I think that's a reasonable position to take. Especially when I've heard all of this before when it came to PPC. There is absolutely nothing new here with the claims of the superiority of ARM. ...

Nothing new? You mean like Apple having assembled a world-class chip-design team and started producing their own chips, quite successfully for some time now? Or, like being a $1.5T company? Or, not having to hope you can persuade your 'partners' to actually include your priorities in their path, at least a bit?

Isn't it more like almost everything is new?

The lack of perfect evidence is not lack of *any* evidence.

Then by all means show me some evidence.

I just did. Everything I listed is evidence. You may dispute the weight of its probative value, but to say it’s not evidence is simply a lie.

LOL... I do some work in Christian apologetics, and the conversation runs pretty much exactly like this.
Any evidence? Bunch of evidence. That's not evidence (that I like)!

I guess we should start down the road of defining terms (like evidence), but typically when things get to this point, the possibilities are pretty bleak.

I think Apple should have built a Mac Mini Pro much earlier (discrete GPU, more Thunderbolt ports, more RAM and maybe a higher end CPU since I really want ECC). I think they should have a system/phone/laptop/etc. above the current top end with best in class performance that was expensive, but maybe at a lower margin to show what could be done (Extreme instead of Pro).

...

I think they should pay more attention to the Mac Mini. I think they should have a first party game controller for the AppleTV and that they should update it more frequently. (You may already have seen my suggestions on what they should do in gaming.)

Yes, Apple needs to fill in a middle or prosumer spot more. I think they believe the iMac is that machine, but it just isn't. I don't care so much any more if it is the 'xMac' or whatever, as I just don't need a box to shove cards into any more (with TB3, eGPUs, etc.).

I'm pretty darn happy with my 2018 mini, though if it could have been a bit bigger with better thermals, I'd love it even more. I also wish they directly pushed and supported eGPUs more.

re: game controller - they should have just supported the PlayStation/Xbox controllers right from the start! The kind of games available was a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are a few exceptions like Minecraft and Fortnite (which have a dedicated enough following to pursue controller solutions), but for the most part, they got a lot of relatively simplistic games to go with touch-controls. Now they have to try and convince game developers they are back and doing it more right this time.
[automerge]1593391774[/automerge]

What software do you use that you need to run on Windows? (Serious question, trying to get a sense of what of the various non-macOS software will be an issue for people.)

Oops, somehow missed this question.

Autodesk Revit currently. But, I've also wanted to run various apps (3D and CAD apps or tools) in the past.

I don't have much hope on this one either. As I said earlier, they seem to have their hands full just trying to modernize it let alone port it. The interface is a complete nightmare. The problem is that it has functionality big architecture/engineering firms need, so it has become the standard.

The 3D solids app I use ViaCAD/SharkCAD (and used since the later 90s, under the Ashlar Cobalt name) on the Mac can run circles around any of its modeling tools. I had better text handling in a CAD app on my Atari ST in the late 80s. But, what it does, few things can do.

 

[chucker23n1]

Heh, and it costs what, $1400?

I understand that this kind of software is expensive, especially if you're trying to do it as a hobby. But, I think most software is moving to the subscription model, so he is probably going to be getting sadder and sadder as time goes on.

Yeah. Adobe costs are kind of annoying when you only casually need their products. When you regularly do, they're not that big a deal.

But regardless, my point was that I don't think Apple or Adobe are particularly interested in the thoughts of someone who makes high demands then openly acknowledges they wouldn't want to spend that amount of money anyway.
[automerge]1593419173[/automerge]

My question for the two of you - Do you you think Apple has made any materially bad mistakes in the past decade, or do you see none of that?

They've surely made mistakes.

The 2013 Mac Pro suggests that, at the time, Apple understood their pro Mac customers poorly. The 2015 MacBook, I think, was problematic in part because Intel overpromised ("Core M" never really became a thing, and the Y-class that has evolved from it now takes at least twice the TDP; this may have been one of the major factors in moving away from Intel), but also in part because they couldn't get keyboard reliability right. Using that same keyboard on all the other MacBooks was also a major mistake — that works when you have a general-purpose keyboard, not such an extremely thin one, and doing so (regardless of reliability) made their MacBooks Pro hard to recommend. Maps was possibly rolled out too early. The iOS 7 redesign overshot (but so did 10.0's version of Aqua) in one extreme.

Lots of things.

I don't know what makes a mistake "materially bad", though.

 

[mrxak]

Why are people saying 2020, 2019, and earlier Intel Macs are “dead” or that those who bought them aren’t happy with this announcement? Despite my being here for many years, I’m
not super tech literate. I just bought a 2020 MBP. What does this switch to Apple Silicon mean for me and others who bought one?

It means any software you want to use for more than a couple years, that wasn't made by a huge team with the money a big company like Microsoft or Adobe can put behind it, is dead-ended. Any games, any smaller utility programs, forget about them because they are never going to get ported. It means any new software won't run on Intel Macs, too, starting probably next year as ARM-exclusives begin appearing. I was around for the 68K->PPC transition. I was around for the PPC->Intel transition. I will not be around for the Intel->ARM transition. I've learned my lesson, and there are viable alternatives today that never existed during the previous transitions. I would recommend everyone learn Linux, or make the switch to Windows. I saw the writing on the wall with the iOSification of Mac OS X that began years ago, so I am already well into my Linux transition and I won't be buying any future Macs.

I know how these things go. Apple makes big promises, a few big software companies make big promises. In the end, business decisions make all those promises meaningless. A few flagship products Apple can point to in a keynote enthusiastically support the new paradigm (while diverting serious manpower away from new features and bug fixing), but that'll be all. Those medium-to-big companies that don't have a monopoly on the platform like Adobe or Microsoft will not have the resources to switch over. A whole slew of developers who make serious software will be leaving the Mac because of this. A bunch of software companies will simply go out of business.

Oh, there will be new devs coming to the Mac, too. New programs will appear to fill some of the gaps left behind, just lacking the maturity and features one has come to rely on. They will also lack the sort of UI polish one expects from Mac software since these new devs will all be from the iOS world, or young kids straight out of college seeing a new gold rush as the old giants realize they can't afford to be on the Mac anymore. Eventually, maybe in 6 or 7 years, the platform will finally stabilize and the software you rely on today will have suitable replacements. Good luck in the interim. Good luck when Apple changes their mind about something fundamental again a few years after that.

What it comes down to is, developers are only human. They're lazy, they get bored of old projects, and they need to pay their bills same as you. There's a lot of really big changes coming as these realities set in. It's like the curse, may you live in interesting times. A few of the changes may be good in the long term, most will be bad in the short term, and nearly everything will be annoying for many years for users and devs alike. Every Mac user should be asking themselves, if they're going to be forced into a major transition of the hardware and software they use no matter what: is the Mac, going forward, the best option for me? For many, the answer will be no. All those inroads Apple has made with corporate clients in recent years will probably go up in smoke too, as companies decide that if they're being forced into a transition and retraining it makes more business sense to go with a more reliable platform that keeps their options open.

For the record, I am no Intel fanboy, and I've despised the company for a long time. I think RISC architectures, such as ARM, are objectively better than CISC architectures like Intel's x86. I hope that ARM or something like it comes to dominate the computing world. Apple is not going to be the company that forces that change, because Apple is too interested in proprietary and locked-down ecosystems, and they have zero interest in computers. No one in a leadership position at Apple uses a computer at work or at home, and it shows. Maybe they will inspire another company that plays well with others, and isn't so fickle, and I hope they do, but anyone sticking with Apple is signing up for a miserable walled garden wholly dependent on the whims of an increasingly-abusive and out-of-touch company. Even if the whole world switches to ARM, Apple's proprietary SOCs will be fundamentally incompatible with the rest of the universe.

If all you use your computer for is running a small handful of subscription-based apps from a software monopoly, and do a little light web surfing and social media, then you won't know the difference and nothing I've said here matters. For those who actually need a computer, I strongly suggest learning Linux and save yourself a lot of grief long-term as Apple continues to make choices that only make sense to their shareholders and ivory tower executives. In the past week, I've had more people ask me about Linux, among my Mac-using friends, than I have in the entire rest of my life. I also have yet to hear from a single Mac dev who is excited about this change. Mac devs aren't very happy people in the best of times, but the response I've heard to this announcement has been the most negative I've heard from long term devs.

 

[chucker23n1]

It means any software you want to use for more than a couple years, that wasn't made by a huge team with the money a big company like Microsoft or Adobe can put behind it, is dead-ended. Any games, any smaller utility programs, forget about them because they are never going to get ported.

I don't follow.

Are you saying existing apps won't get ported to ARM, or are you saying that new apps won't run on Intel?

I was around for the 68K->PPC transition. I was around for the PPC->Intel transition. I will not be around for the Intel->ARM transition.

I was around for both transitions, and neither left me losing a lot of apps.

 

[arkitect]

It means any software you want to use for more than a couple years, that wasn't made by a huge team with the money a big company like Microsoft or Adobe can put behind it, is dead-ended. Any games, any smaller utility programs, forget about them because they are never going to get ported. It means any new software won't run on Intel Macs, too, starting probably next year as ARM-exclusives begin appearing. I was around for the 68K->PPC transition. I was around for the PPC->Intel transition. I will not be around for the Intel->ARM transition. I've learned my lesson, and there are viable alternatives today that never existed during the previous transitions. I would recommend everyone learn Linux, or make the switch to Windows. I saw the writing on the wall with the iOSification of Mac OS X that began years ago, so I am already well into my Linux transition and I won't be buying any future Macs.

I know how these things go. Apple makes big promises, a few big software companies make big promises. In the end, business decisions make all those promises meaningless. A few flagship products Apple can point to in a keynote enthusiastically support the new paradigm (while diverting serious manpower away from new features and bug fixing), but that'll be all. Those medium-to-big companies that don't have a monopoly on the platform like Adobe or Microsoft will not have the resources to switch over. A whole slew of developers who make serious software will be leaving the Mac because of this. A bunch of software companies will simply go out of business.

Oh, there will be new devs coming to the Mac, too. New programs will appear to fill some of the gaps left behind, just lacking the maturity and features one has come to rely on. They will also lack the sort of UI polish one expects from Mac software since these new devs will all be from the iOS world, or young kids straight out of college seeing a new gold rush as the old giants realize they can't afford to be on the Mac anymore. Eventually, maybe in 6 or 7 years, the platform will finally stabilize and the software you rely on today will have suitable replacements. Good luck in the interim. Good luck when Apple changes their mind about something fundamental again a few years after that.

What it comes down to is, developers are only human. They're lazy, they get bored of old projects, and they need to pay their bills same as you. There's a lot of really big changes coming as these realities set in. It's like the curse, may you live in interesting times. A few of the changes may be good in the long term, most will be bad in the short term, and nearly everything will be annoying for many years for users and devs alike. Every Mac user should be asking themselves, if they're going to be forced into a major transition of the hardware and software they use no matter what: is the Mac, going forward, the best option for me? For many, the answer will be no. All those inroads Apple has made with corporate clients in recent years will probably go up in smoke too, as companies decide that if they're being forced into a transition and retraining it makes more business sense to go with a more reliable platform that keeps their options open.

For the record, I am no Intel fanboy, and I've despised the company for a long time. I think RISC architectures, such as ARM, are objectively better than CISC architectures like Intel's x86. I hope that ARM or something like it comes to dominate the computing world. Apple is not going to be the company that forces that change, because Apple is too interested in proprietary and locked-down ecosystems, and they have zero interest in computers. No one in a leadership position at Apple uses a computer at work or at home, and it shows. Maybe they will inspire another company that plays well with others, and isn't so fickle, and I hope they do, but anyone sticking with Apple is signing up for a miserable walled garden wholly dependent on the whims of an increasingly-abusive and out-of-touch company. Even if the whole world switches to ARM, Apple's proprietary SOCs will be fundamentally incompatible with the rest of the universe.

If all you use your computer for is running a small handful of subscription-based apps from a software monopoly, and do a little light web surfing and social media, then you won't know the difference and nothing I've said here matters. For those who actually need a computer, I strongly suggest learning Linux and save yourself a lot of grief long-term as Apple continues to make choices that only make sense to their shareholders and ivory tower executives. In the past week, I've had more people ask me about Linux, among my Mac-using friends, than I have in the entire rest of my life. I also have yet to hear from a single Mac dev who is excited about this change. Mac devs aren't very happy people in the best of times, but the response I've heard to this announcement has been the most negative I've heard from long term devs.

This (In fact, all of what you wrote.) sums up my concern 100%.

A workflow (well mine at least) is often put together by separate pieces of software.

My biggest concern is Rhino3D for the Mac. It is the lynchpin of my workflow. No, not hobbyist. I wrote, WORK flow. I earn my living from this.
So far MacNeel have been lukewarm about this latest transition. And I do not blame them. I doubt the port will be as easy as Apple like to reassure us.
If the Mac market is not large enough, then goodbye Rhino3D for Mac.

And quite frankly at 56 years I am too much of an old fart to get to grips learning a new way of doing things. If that one crucial bit is missing on Mac, I'd probably have to move to PC… kicking and screaming all the way. 😫

 

[cmaier]

I don't follow.

Are you saying existing apps won't get ported to ARM, or are you saying that new apps won't run on Intel?



I was around for both transitions, and neither left me losing a lot of apps.

And aren’t ”smaller utility programs” exactly the sort of thing that gets ported (if they are applicable to the new architecture?). A lot of the are open source, and a lot of them are made by ”apple guys/gals” who have kept these things alive as passion projects for more than a decade.
[automerge]1593437746[/automerge]

This (In fact, all of what you wrote.) sums up my concern 100%.

A workflow (well mine at least) is often put together by separate pieces of software.

My biggest concern is Rhino3D for the Mac. It is the lynchpin of my workflow. No, not hobbyist. I wrote, WORK flow. I earn my living from this.
So far MacNeel have been lukewarm about this latest transition. And I do not blame them. I doubt the port will be as easy as Apple like to reassure us.
If the Mac market is not large enough, then goodbye Rhino3D for Mac.

And quite frankly at 56 years I am too much of an old fart to get to grips learning a new way of doing things. If that one crucial bit is missing on Mac, I'd probably have to move to PC… kicking and screaming all the way. 😫

Seems like moving to windows would require ”learning a new way of doing things”

 

[mrxak]

Tim Cook said himself that Apple’s ARM chips are designed for minimal power consumption - which is great for phones and tablets, but silly for computers. Computer processors need to be designed for performance!

Power consumption is all but irrelevant on a desktop Mac, but even on notebooks, Macs have demonstrated that they are capable of using Intel and having great battery life. At best it might be a little better for the environment, but I think it is probably the screens that use the most electricity, and Macs are a very small percentage of computers anyway.

This makes me feel like my computer is going to be forced to run on a cell phone CPU - a cell phone CPU that is AWESOME, but it is awesome for cell phones. Why would I want it on my computer?

I hate to say this, but this is the first time in years I am thinking about possibly switching to Windows. I’m not saying that to try to rile anybody up, but I mean, I’m basically losing all my existing software either way now.

Give Linux a try, before you make you decision. You might be surprised at how much software is available now, and how well it runs. If, by some chance ARM does take over the desktop marketplace, Linux is ahead of the game on that, as well. Linux has all the under-the-hood advantages that OS X had while not restricting you to any particular hardware or UI.

Anyway, I agree with you on the power usage thing. Apple's cult of thinness and it's environmentalist virtue signalling will likely drive chip design decisions far more than performance. They know their customers are locked in, they have no reason to try to deliver anything more than consumption devices.

 

[cmaier]

Anyway, I agree with you on the power usage thing. Apple's cult of thinness and it's environmentalist virtue signalling will likely drive chip design decisions far more than performance. They know their customers are locked in, they have no reason to try to deliver anything more than consumption devices.

Twisted logic - increasing battery life for a portable device is “environmentalist virtue signaling?” What a weird way to twist an obvious benefit to consumers into some strange political narrative.

 

[chucker23n1]

environmentalist virtue signalling

Damn.

Electricity must be way, way too cheap where you live.

 

[Alan Wynn]

A workflow (well mine at least) is often put together by separate pieces of software.

My biggest concern is Rhino3D for the Mac. It is the lynchpin of my workflow. No, not hobbyist. I wrote, WORK flow. I earn my living from this.
So far MacNeel have been lukewarm about this latest transition. And I do not blame them. I doubt the port will be as easy as Apple like to reassure us.

I would argue that they have been lukewarm about the platform from the beginning. They are a small company with a niche product (not intended as a criticism - I think they have a nice product, having first seen it in their private suite at SIGGraph in Orlando in 1994 while it was somewhere between alpha and beta). Their problem is (and will be) their lack of Metal support. When Apple said that for most applications porting would only take a few weeks, they meant for applications that supported Metal.

I read their announcement and I understand your concern. Here is the relevant part:

One aspect of all this that we are very curious about is the fate of OpenGL on the Mac platform. Two years ago, Apple deprecated OpenGL in favor of Metal. Rhino for Mac has yet to make the transition to Metal (this is a significant project 15). We will be curious to see how this move to Apple Silicon impacts our efforts on the Metal front. During the Platform State of the Union, Apple stated that they have a patch to the open-source Blender project ready to help support Apple Silicon. As Blender is also an OpenGL application, this is interesting news for us.

Couple that with this saying that they were targeting version 8 for Metal support:

Looking at my crystal ball I’m targeting Rhino 8 for metal. We will be writing code in Rhino 7 that gets us prepped to switch over to metal as that in itself is a large task.

and you have every right to be nervous. However, let us be clear: you should have been nervous before, as Apple Silicon is neither your problem, nor theirs, Metal is.

Metal was released in 2014 and their first macOS release (Rhinoceros 5) came out a year after. OpenGL was deprecated by Apple in June of 2018, 5 months after the Windows release of Rhinoceros 6 and 13 months before the macOS release. Given their release cadence seems to be about 4 years that would put version 8 around 2026 (they said they wanted to do simultaneous releases for macOS and Windows moving forward). Unlike MicroSoft, Apple does not usually keep deprecated APIs around forever. It is quite unlikely that Metal would still be supported 4 years after it was deprecated, let alone 8. In other words, without a substantial change to MacNeel’s cadence or their plan for Metal support, you would likely have been required not to upgrade your Mac software for 4 years.

This does not seem like a recipe for success on the platform. I cannot imagine any new user adopting Rhino on the macOS during that 4 year period, and it is likely that others will switch (either from Rhino or from the Mac).

While they are blaming their concern on Apple Silicon, their macOS product would be in trouble either way.

If the Mac market is not large enough, then goodbye Rhino3D for Mac.

Absolutely true. That is why Apple Silicon might be the thing that saves this product, not the thing that kills it. If Apple is able to deliver on its promises, these new Mac systems should be substantially more compelling, particularly for 3D. That makes the platform much more compelling for new users. MacNeel will have at least a year to see how these new products do before their lack of Metal support will be a problem. If customers are excited (even if they are not yet Rhino customers), they will have much more incentive to make Metal a priority for them. If they are not, they will leave the platform (and would have left anyway).

And quite frankly at 56 years I am too much of an old fart to get to grips learning a new way of doing things. If that one crucial bit is missing on Mac, I'd probably have to move to PC… kicking and screaming all the way. 😫

Sorry to tell you, but you would have to learn a new way of doing things either way. On one hand you would have to learn Windows and change all your other software, on the other you replace Rhino.

 

[arkitect]

I would argue that they have been lukewarm about the platform from the beginning.

Agreed.

They are a small company with a niche product (not intended as a criticism - I think they have a nice product, having first seen it in their private suite at SIGGraph in Orlando in 1994 while it was somewhere between alpha and beta).

Those were the days!

Though I would not say quite as niche on Windows.

Sorry to tell you, but you would have to learn a new way of doing things either way. On one hand you would have to learn Windows and change all your other software, on the other you replace Rhino.

I am quite at ease with Windows. So if I had to go full Win I would… I'd just genuinely hate to lose the seamlessness and ease of MacOS.
Anyway, time will tell!

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate it.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Give Linux a try, before you make you decision. You might be surprised at how much software is available now, and how well it runs. If, by some chance ARM does take over the desktop marketplace, Linux is ahead of the game on that, as well. Linux has all the under-the-hood advantages that OS X had while not restricting you to any particular hardware or UI.

You are funny. There is no problem for which your Linux hammer does not look like a nail. He complains about a potential lack of commercial software, and your solution is move to a platform that has less of it. Good idea!

Anyway, I agree with you on the power usage thing. Apple's cult of thinness and it's environmentalist virtue signalling will likely drive chip design decisions far more than performance. They know their customers are locked in, they have no reason to try to deliver anything more than consumption devices.

In the same post you argue that Apple customers are locked and therefore Apple does not feel any need to produce competitive hardware, but that Linux is a completely viable alternative. Which is it?

While you seem not to understand much about how power consumption affects performance, you do seem convinced that Apple will choose not to (or will be unable to) deliver competitive systems, so I will ask you the same questions I have asked others letting us actually compare what happens to everyone’s predictions. No moving goal posts, all objective measurements.

1. What set of benchmarks will you consider as the basis for comparison between the released Apple Silicon Mac systems and competitive Intel/AMD machines?
2. When doing our comparisons between Apple Silicon-based hardware and AMD/Intel based hardware, how will you pick the AMD/Intel chip to compare? What objective metric would you use to define equivalent systems for comparison? Machines at the same price point? Machines with the same max TDP? Something else? The point of this question is that since Apple will not be selling its SoCs to others, one cannot do it purely on price of the chip, one needs some other objective metric to decide what two items should be compared.
3. What objective criteria would Apple Silicon have to meet to be a successful product vs. Intel/AMD’s chips? (10% faster? 25%? 10% better battery life? 25%? Something else?) Once Apple starts to deliver high-end GPUs, what are your answers on those same metrics for those?
4. When did you purchase your most recent Mac from Apple or a third party reseller that was currently shipping at the time you purchased it?
5. What would be required for you to purchase an Apple Silicon-based system?

 

[mrxak]

In the same post you argue that Apple customers are locked and therefore Apple does not feel any need to produce competitive hardware, but that Linux is a completely viable alternative. Which is it?

Your reading comprehension is so poor of both my post and the post I was replying to, I find your response to me laughably non sequitur. I almost didn't respond at all, but you seem to think that Linux doesn't have access to high performance computing hardware so I feel that requires some public derision. Is the entirety of your understanding of Linux from the Raspberry Pi or something? I'm honestly very confused at how somebody could be so ignorant. You can use whatever you like in a Linux computer.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Your reading comprehension is so poor of both my post and the post I was replying to, I find your response to me laughably non sequitur.

Really, here is what you said:

Give Linux a try, before you make you decision.

and in the same post you said:

They know their customers are locked in, they have no reason to try to deliver anything more than consumption devices.

That seems pretty clear that you are saying that Apple customers are locked in and cannot switch so Apple does not need to make competitive hardware, but that Linux is a viable alternative. Does not seem that both things can be true.

I almost didn't respond at all

You really did not respond to the substance of the post, not surprised that you do not want to go on the record with your views.

but you seem to think that Linux doesn't have access to high performance computing hardware so I feel that requires some public derision.

You take that from my post? Really? I do not mention discuss Linux’s use on HPC at all in this post.

I will once again ask you to go on the record with your predictions about Apple Silicon.

1. What set of benchmarks will you consider as the basis for comparison between the released Apple Silicon Mac systems and competitive Intel/AMD machines?
2. When doing our comparisons between Apple Silicon-based hardware and AMD/Intel based hardware, how will you pick the AMD/Intel chip to compare? What objective metric would you use to define equivalent systems for comparison? Machines at the same price point? Machines with the same max TDP? Something else? The point of this question is that since Apple will not be selling its SoCs to others, one cannot do it purely on price of the chip, one needs some other objective metric to decide what two items should be compared.
3. What objective criteria would Apple Silicon have to meet to be a successful product vs. Intel/AMD’s chips? (10% faster? 25%? 10% better battery life? 25%? Something else?) Once Apple starts to deliver high-end GPUs, what are your answers on those same metrics for those?
4. When did you purchase your most recent Mac from Apple or a third party reseller that was currently shipping at the time you purchased it?
5. What would be required for you to purchase an Apple Silicon-based system?

 

[mrxak]

Twisted logic - increasing battery life for a portable device is “environmentalist virtue signaling?” What a weird way to twist an obvious benefit to consumers into some strange political narrative.

Increasing battery life is all fine and good, if Apple actually made an effort to do so, but nothing with a battery in it is good for the environment. Mostly I've seen Apple keep battery life the same by shrinking their batteries to offset any actual battery gains they achieve, because they care more about device thinness. Most of those alleged battery gains are actually from low-power modes that disguise the fact that less work is being done for less energy, and the typical user doesn't see any real world gains because the real world requires high-power modes. Even in devices without batteries that never get picked up off the desk, Apple makes them unnecessarily thin, causing CPU throttling which absolutely hurts consumers.

I was actually referring to Apple's "renewable energy" PR, where they pretend they're green by destroying the environment with solar panels, wind turbines, and mining all those noxious chemicals for batteries which have to be replaced every couple years (so many of which end up in landfills), not to mention the inefficiencies in charging and discharging them every day. If Apple actually cared about the environment instead of simply wanting to impress ignorant neo-hippies hanging out in Starbucks drinking their vegan soy lattes, they could dramatically lower their environmental impact with some very different choices across their entire corporation.

Every time Apple shows off one of their giant solar panel fields or wind farms, I can't help but imagine the natural habitat that used to exist there, and the pollution created to build those inefficient power generators. Every time they show off some new Siri feature, I can't help but wonder why Apple's software requires the device to expend energy phoning home across thousands of miles of cabling and routers to some massive centralized Apple server farm when the onboard chips have been good enough for all the voice recognition and processing since the first iPhone. Apple's priorities are simply not the same as the user's, and they are often very wasteful and environmentally unfriendly. That's why I call it virtue signalling. They are pretending to care while behaving like a soulless megacorporation that insists on control because it helps their bottom line. I still like (some of) their products and services, but don't crap in my mouth and tell me it's ice cream.

If Apple does focus on keeping their chips running at low power, at the expense of all else, that would be very typical of Apple's corporate culture. It will also mean chips much slower than they could have been, and a lot of human productivity wasted. That human productivity could have been used for making the world a better place, or just for watching more pointless videos on YouTube. At least it would be up to the user to decide.

There's nothing wrong with efficiency, and I'm all for it, but you're all deluding yourselves if you think Apple wants low power chips to maximize the performance you get for the energy used. For them, it's about making a thinner device so they get all the design accolades, they have an excuse to solder in the RAM and other components so the user has less control, and if something breaks you have to buy an entire new one at an Apple mark-up.

Can Apple make better processors than Intel can? I have no doubt. Intel has been complacent for many years and their CISC architecture is terrible. Apple has clearly invested money into acquiring the personnel, patents, and licenses they need to be a real competitor. I hope this proves to be the kick in the pants the entire computing industry needs and either Intel makes some serious changes or goes the way of the vacuum tube. Does Apple actually want to prioritize design decisions that are best for their users? I have serious doubts, and haven't seen much evidence in a very long time that they even know what those would be.

Damn.

Electricity must be way, way too cheap where you live.

Yeah, I enjoy abundant nuclear power where I live.

 

[mrxak]

That seems pretty clear that you are saying that Apple customers are locked in and cannot switch so Apple does not need to make competitive hardware, but that Linux is a viable alternative. Does not seem that both things can be true.

Ah, I see your reading comprehension has still not improved. Very well, I will clarify for the needlessly pedantic or deliberately obtuse: Apple is not literally showing up at people's homes and locking them behind bars and forcing them to use only Apple products. There, are you happy now? The abstract idea of vendor lock-in may elude you as a concept, but it is nonetheless real, because one does not need to be literally forced by corporate goons into making consumer choices to feel a sense of dependency on a particular company's products or services working only with their proprietary ecosystem. There are always alternatives to prison, even alternative prisons, but surely if you rub enough of your neurons together you can realize that prisons do exist even if not everyone currently resides in one, or resides in the same one.

The person I was replying to has a moment in time where they are forced out of their figurative prison (not a literal prison) to make way for a new figurative prison, and must consider whether they go into Apple's new figurative prison, or be free of Apple entirely. I proposed a viable alternative to Apple's new prison that has as few metaphorical walls and bars as possible (again, not literal walls and bars). The Apple jailers (again, not literal jailers) have opened the doors (again, not literal doors) with their switch to ARM and the ripples of consequences that will have throughout the entire line-up of Mac software and available hardware, and he or she can make a run for it to freedom (again, literal running will probably not be involved).

I'm encouraging this run to freedom because for the near future at least, Apple's new prison will be worse than the old one, for the simple reason that Intel's architecture is what the computer world revolves around. While nothing would please me more than for this dynamic to change, it is the dynamic we find ourselves in. Apple is trying to make their own break for it, but that's good for Apple, not good for Apple's customers.

Your request for specific benchmarks or whatever is pointless because those things could not matter any less to the decision that people need to make. Apple will always choose specific hardware and prevent users from using hardware outside of Apple's approval. They might choose fast hardware, they might choose slow hardware. They might choose x86, they might choose ARM. They might choose discrete GPUs, they might choose integrated graphics. They might choose to have expansion slots, they might choose soldered RAM and no PCI slots. The question is whether or not people want Apple to be the one choosing. One is either at Apple's mercy, or one is making decisions for themselves from all the interoperable hardware in the universe. If all you care about is specs, of course, then Apple has never been the correct choice.

If you must know, I bought my last Mac about 6 months ago, and I expect it will be my last Mac in more ways than one. It is not being used as a primary computer for either work or play. I'm sure my future will include many Apple Silicon-based consumer trinkets like iPhones and iPads, at least until Apple does something catastrophic to that line-up as well, or technology advances to the point where I can make my own customized mobile devices based on non-exclusive technologies.

 

[UBS28]

Really, here is what you said:



and in the same post you said:



That seems pretty clear that you are saying that Apple customers are locked in and cannot switch so Apple does not need to make competitive hardware, but that Linux is a viable alternative. Does not seem that both things can be true.



You really did not respond to the substance of the post, not surprised that you do not want to go on the record with your views.



You take that from my post? Really? I do not mention discuss Linux’s use on HPC at all in this post.

I will once again ask you to go on the record with your predictions about Apple Silicon.

1. What set of benchmarks will you consider as the basis for comparison between the released Apple Silicon Mac systems and competitive Intel/AMD machines?
2. When doing our comparisons between Apple Silicon-based hardware and AMD/Intel based hardware, how will you pick the AMD/Intel chip to compare? What objective metric would you use to define equivalent systems for comparison? Machines at the same price point? Machines with the same max TDP? Something else? The point of this question is that since Apple will not be selling its SoCs to others, one cannot do it purely on price of the chip, one needs some other objective metric to decide what two items should be compared.
3. What objective criteria would Apple Silicon have to meet to be a successful product vs. Intel/AMD’s chips? (10% faster? 25%? 10% better battery life? 25%? Something else?) Once Apple starts to deliver high-end GPUs, what are your answers on those same metrics for those?
4. When did you purchase your most recent Mac from Apple or a third party reseller that was currently shipping at the time you purchased it?
5. What would be required for you to purchase an Apple Silicon-based system?

Who cares about Apple Silicon their temporary performance advantage? Because next year AMD will also be on 5nm and then the advantage of Apple will be gone.

AMD is the way to go forward if you need power and energy efficiency. AMD desktop cpu's are even running circles around the 28-core Mac Pro.

 

[seclusion]

Maybe the question is, the Pro lines will be Arm or Intel?
Have the MBP, IMac Pro, Mac Mini Pro, Mac Pro with the strongest CPU's. (Should be arm)
the MB Air, IMac, Mini and ? With the not strongest CPU. (Should be intel)

 

[Alan Wynn]

Who cares about Apple Silicon their temporary performance advantage? Because next year AMD will also be on 5nm and then the advantage of Apple will be gone.

What would you consider a temporary advantage? Six months? Twelve? Two years?

AMD is the way to go forward if you need power and energy efficiency. AMD desktop cpu's are even running circles around the 28-core Mac Pro.

Set some hard criteria and let us check back and see who was right. You have said that AMD will beat Apple next year. Define your terms so there is no goal post moving.

Here are the questions I have asked everyone (interestingly, not one of the critics has been willing to go on record). I am asking you to go on the record with your predictions about Apple Silicon. Given your statements, feel free to add predictions for the second year, and the third (or whatever timeframe you think would make sense).

1. What set of benchmarks will you consider as the basis for comparison between the released Apple Silicon Mac systems and competitive Intel/AMD machines?
2. When doing our comparisons between Apple Silicon-based hardware and AMD/Intel based hardware, how will you pick the AMD/Intel chip to compare? What objective metric would you use to define equivalent systems for comparison? Machines at the same price point? Machines with the same max TDP? Something else? The point of this question is that since Apple will not be selling its SoCs to others, one cannot do it purely on price of the chip, one needs some other objective metric to decide what two items should be compared.
3. What objective criteria would Apple Silicon have to meet to be a successful product vs. Intel/AMD’s chips? (10% faster? 25%? 10% better battery life? 25%? Something else?) Once Apple starts to deliver high-end GPUs, what are your answers on those same metrics for those?
4. When did you purchase your most recent Mac from Apple or a third party reseller that was currently shipping at the time you purchased it?
5. What would be required for you to purchase an Apple Silicon-based system?

 

[cmaier]

Who cares about Apple Silicon their temporary performance advantage? Because next year AMD will also be on 5nm and then the advantage of Apple will be gone.

AMD is the way to go forward if you need power and energy efficiency. AMD desktop cpu's are even running circles around the 28-core Mac Pro.

on the same TSMC process, Apple has 3 permanent advantages over AMD, and I know because I designed many CPUs for AMD:

1) apple can always customize the chip precisely for its own systems and operating systems. AMD won’t do that for Apple.
2) apple has better CPU designers
3) AMD will always have to pay the x86 penalty in its instruction decoder, fetch, and load store units.

 

[UBS28]

What would you consider a temporary advantage? Six months? Twelve? Two years?



Set some hard criteria and let us check back and see who was right. You have said that AMD will beat Apple next year. Define your terms so there is no goal post moving.

Here are the questions I have asked everyone (interestingly, not one of the critics has been willing to go on record). I am asking you to go on the record with your predictions about Apple Silicon. Given your statements, feel free to add predictions for the second year, and the third (or whatever timeframe you think would make sense).

1. What set of benchmarks will you consider as the basis for comparison between the released Apple Silicon Mac systems and competitive Intel/AMD machines?
2. When doing our comparisons between Apple Silicon-based hardware and AMD/Intel based hardware, how will you pick the AMD/Intel chip to compare? What objective metric would you use to define equivalent systems for comparison? Machines at the same price point? Machines with the same max TDP? Something else? The point of this question is that since Apple will not be selling its SoCs to others, one cannot do it purely on price of the chip, one needs some other objective metric to decide what two items should be compared.
3. What objective criteria would Apple Silicon have to meet to be a successful product vs. Intel/AMD’s chips? (10% faster? 25%? 10% better battery life? 25%? Something else?) Once Apple starts to deliver high-end GPUs, what are your answers on those same metrics for those?
4. When did you purchase your most recent Mac from Apple or a third party reseller that was currently shipping at the time you purchased it?
5. What would be required for you to purchase an Apple Silicon-based system?

It has nothing to do with benchmark, but with real world usage.

Would you pick a GoKart over a Porsche 911 Turbo despite performing similar around a track? Nope, because the real world usage of Porsche 911 Turbo is much greater than a GoKart.

I'll take a 5nm AMD chip over a 5nm Apple silicon chip anyday for this reason.

 

[cmaier]

It has nothing to do with benchmark, but with real world usage.

Would you pick a GoKart over a Porsche 911 Turbo despite performing similar around a track? Nope, because the real world usage of Porsche 911 Turbo is much greater than a GoKart.

I'll take a 5nm AMD chip over a 5nm Apple silicon chip anyday for this reason.

The 5nm AMD chip will run slower on the track.

When I designed Opteron I would have killed to have been told to design Arm, or any other RISC, instead (other than the fact that designing the first x86-64 integer instructions was pretty fun and a unique opportunity).

 

[UBS28]

The 5nm AMD chip will run slower on the track.

When I designed Opteron I would have killed to have been told to design Arm, or any other RISC, instead (other than the fact that designing the first x86-64 integer instructions was pretty fun and a unique opportunity).

I don't use a computer to run benchmarks all day. A slightly slower 5nm AMD chip still wins for me (if this will be the case) due to superior software compatibility and thus better real world usage.

For me, AMD Mac is the way to go while Intel is still struggling on 14nm.

 

[cmaier]

I don't use a computer to run benchmarks all day. A slightly slower 5nm AMD chip still wins for me (if this will be the case) due to superior software compatibility and thus better real world usage.

For me, AMD Mac is the way to go while Intel is still struggling on 14nm.

If a cpu can’t run your software then sure, it’s no good for you.

But there’s every indication that Apple Silicon will run nearly any 64-bit software fine, and a lot of it will be ported in the next couple of years in any case.