Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's A12Z Under Rosetta Outperforms Microsoft's Native Arm-Based Surface Pro X

For most people processor performance is overrated. My 12-core xeon box is under my desk, powered off. My 6-core xeon Mac Pro is sleeping. My MBP spends the vast majority of its life waiting for me to type something into it.

Most consumers care about playing video without stuttering, web performance, and maybe applications. Being able to run mobile on their desktop would be a nice-to-have, especially if it meant seamless synchronization and cost savings.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: Alan Wynn, rp2011, BeatCrazy and 1 other person
mannyvel said:
For most people processor performance is overrated. My 12-core xeon box is under my desk, powered off. My 6-core xeon Mac Pro is sleeping. My MBP spends the vast majority of its life waiting for me to type something into it.

Most consumers care about playing video without stuttering, web performance, and maybe applications. Being able to run mobile on their desktop would be a nice-to-have, especially if it meant seamless synchronization and cost savings.
Click to expand...

Very true - for one line of business i'm involved with, other than some excel work that occurs, all applications are cloud based and rendered in Chrome.

B
 
nexu said:
They already have M chip line and it serves different purpose
Click to expand...

True.. but M for Mac would... make sense? Shrug? I know, this is Apple we're talking about, so I wouldn't be shocked if the chips ended up being "N*" .. N14, N15, etc...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
I expect, I hope, that Apple will utilize the same strategy that AMD has in terms of their infinity fabric and chiplets. That would allow them to quickly ramp up or down demand based on which computer is selling best at the time. Pretty sure Intel is moving to the same strategy just because it's been doing wonders for AMD.

It would also make it easier to use the same 4-core chip in an iPad and then have a bunch of 4-core chiplets assemble into a larger chip for an eight-core MacBook Air or something.
 
It appears Apple can easily make an Apple Silicon Mac mini Pro as one of its initial arm-based products.
 
That’s not a Microsoft designed processor. It’s a slightly modified Qualcomm device. Microsoft isn’t at the point where they can design a processor, and depending on what they want to accomplish, they may never be. Apple has several thousand engineers working on their chips. Does Microsoft really want to go that route?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickgovier
jlocker said:
To get to a level of a xeon processor it is going to take Apple about 4 years, and Intel is still going to be improving the Xeon workstation and server processors. So if you need a machine now you might as well get it and in 4 years then evaluate xeon vs Arm. I loved the PowerPC and it was a RISC processor but Apple has a long way to go to get to a workstation/server level. Get a machine get Applecare and enjoy a system for the next 4 years. Yes they should be about to match a i5 soon but then the i7 and then the i9.
Click to expand...

I’d take it one step further. Even when the new consumer class Macs with Apple Silicon are released to the public later this year / early next year I wouldn’t go near them with a ten foot pole. You don’t want to be a hardware beta tester for Apple. I’d be holding off on any ARM based Mac until rev 2. They’ll continue to support Intel for a long time to come. iMac Pro and Mac Pro users will throw a fit if they drop support anytime soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jlocker
Stromos said:
Bahaha if Apple could make these processors for free they would still charge more than ever and people would still buy them. Prices only go one way with Apple.... Up.
Click to expand...
Except we've seen Macs fall in prices. Also, the iPhone 11 is $50 cheaper then the iPhone 10r. The iPhone 12 is rumored to be $50 less at $650.
 
I can’t believe we are quibbling about translation vs emulation again. For all linguistic and practical purposes it’s emulating a completely different chip set with the performance hit that incurs translating ahead of time or translating just in time.
 
m4mario said:
I cant wait for Mac to be truly ahead in performance as they used to be before the transition to Intel. Intel chips kind of flattened the market.
Click to expand...
You mean a long time ago, right? They certainly weren't ahead in performance at the time they transitioned to Intel in '05.
 
jlocker said:
To get to a level of a xeon processor it is going to take Apple about 4 years, and Intel is still going to be improving the Xeon workstation and server processors.
Click to expand...

Here are a set of questions I have been asking of people in another thread, so that we can have a clear set of metrics to judge people’s claims and the success of the product. I am gather the answers and will post them in a new thread.

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?

So if you need a machine now you might as well get it and in 4 years then evaluate xeon vs Arm. I loved the PowerPC and it was a RISC processor but Apple has a long way to go to get to a workstation/server level. Get a machine get Applecare and enjoy a system for the next 4 years. Yes they should be about to match a i5 soon but then the i7 and then the i9.
Click to expand...

Again, feel free to add a time frame for each metric, if you are this confident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: burgerrecords
now i see it said:
Classic
Click to expand...

We all love to see this stuff, but I still wish these developers would have a bit more reserve and respect for Apple. They were specifically asked not to do something, and they blatantly ignored it. Sad, I say. But LOVE that Apple is delivering the goods! The next 10 years is going to be the Mac's time to shine!
 
Can't wait for Sheep Saver to produce a PowerPC emulator for ARM so we can run those old ppc games.
 
wellander1 said:
Apple should require people that violate the terms have to return the units and have their dev accounts disabled.
Click to expand...
I’m sure they do, if they catch them.
[automerge]1593484526[/automerge]
MacBH928 said:
I love all the comments on how this is an older 2-year chip!!
Didn't Apple go 6 years without updating its Mac Mini?
Click to expand...
The nice thing about switching to apple’s chips is that they will now have a regular cadence of greatly improved CPUs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lone Deranger
vader3d1 said:
This is why Apple will succeed because they make their product for diehard simps. Unless AMD is supplying Apple with its next RDNA2 GPU, MacBook Pro will get demolish in video production. But hey, writing a novel and browsing the web on safari will be stylish.
Click to expand...

You willing to go on record with your opinions or just throw rocks from the side lines?

Here are a set of questions I have been asking of people in another thread, so that we can have a clear set of metrics to judge people’s claims and the success of the product. I am gather the answers and will post them in a new thread.

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?
 
m4mario said:
I cant wait for Mac to be truly ahead in performance as they used to be before the transition to Intel.
Click to expand...
You mean the Intel processors that were twice as powerful as the G5? Like the 2.0GHz quad core Mac Pro that could wipe the floor with a 2.5GHz quad G5?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JosephAW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back