throAU
macrumors G4
re-reading i see that some of it i disagree with. but as above is my point of view. The A* processors re improvements on the previous A* generation.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ARM MacBook Pro I don’t want an Overpriced Netbook.
- Thread starter TheRealAlex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
re-reading i see that some of it i disagree with. but as above is my point of view. The A* processors re improvements on the previous A* generation.
Their cores are not derivatives of an architecture license whatever that means.
Architectural license means the cores have to meet the qualification suite and binary compatibility to the ARM ISA, it has nothing to do with core design whatsoever.
Yes, in a manner, newer processors are usually improvements over the previous ones.
The A5 was the last ARM core derived Apple processor. The A6 is completely Apple designed and has nothing to do with ARMs core or silicon IP. You seem to be arguing that since the A6 is an improvement over the A5 it is derivative design, nothing could be further from the truth.
throAU
macrumors G4
I'm arguing it runs ARM code and is therefore an ARM processor. It may be Apple Silicon as well, but it processes ARM code.
OldCorpse
macrumors 68000
I think that while these semantic disputes are doubtlessly highly involving to the participants, it’s gotten the thread sidetracked from the original topic. Perhaps we can return to the main issues? It seems the consensus has started to form that the laptops will have different chips from the iPads... no?
Yeah, I agree. It's just nitpicking words at this point. I'm stopping.
Anyways, to answer your other question, I'd guess... yes. It's highly likely that the MacBooks will receive chips that are more powerful than the iPad. Or at least the chip used for this mythical first Apple Silicon MacBook will be of a different configuration. More cores, maybe? Or Apple can also make the cores faster and increase power consumption slightly, since the MacBook will most likely have a much bigger battery than the iPad does.
We're in October already so if we don't see any announcement this month, it has to be within the next month if Apple wants to catch the Holiday season.
The A14 already showed us a glimpse of the performance gain expected over the A12X that's in the DTK. It's not looking bad so far.
smoking monkey
macrumors 68020
I'm starting to think if Apple releases a 14 inch this year I might grab it as the 16 inch may not be available until this time next year. And while my 2013 MBP is doing good enough, I do a lot of intense Pages and Keynote work and having that workflow sped up a fair bit would be great. My current MBP also slows down if it's charging and I try and do anything intensive.
I refuse to by an intel machine at this point.
I refuse to by an intel machine at this point.
Guys, you are arguing over semantics. There are simply multiple meanings attached to “ARM”. Yes, Apple CPUs are ARM CPUs in the wide sense that they implement the ARM machine interface. And no, Apple CPUs are not ARM in the narrow sense, since they do not use hardware IP designed by ARM. Both of these things are true simultaneously. Not much point in choosing one aspect at the expense of the other one... I think everyone made their point and it’s probably time to stop 🙂
These numbers are from browsing, not sales.I see the fiction continues....
Apple has already demoed full Office (and no - LibreOffice is trash by comparison) running natively on Apple Silicon (not ARM - Apple's home designed SOCs only use the ARM ISA; they are NOT Cortex). They likewise demoed Creative Suite - which means all CS products are already ready. They also demoed Autodesk Maya to show how fast Rosetta 2 is (and it is fast).
Also, the latest market shares have Apple much higher than 6% of the market. It is more like 17% market share for MacOS worldwide and 27% in the US:
Desktop Operating System Market Share United States Of America | Statcounter Global Stats
This graph shows the market share of desktop operating systems in United States Of America based on over 3 billion monthly page views.gs.statcounter.com
Maximara
macrumors 68000
With regards to the whole is Apple Silicon ARM debate:
"Apple is bringing its ARM processor technology to desktops"
"The company expects all software should run on the new processors on day 1, though obviously they will need to be optimized for the ARM architecture to maximize performance gains."
"The move to ARM will also make life a lot easier for developers working on both desktop and mobile apps, as the software will be able to share more code."
"While the switch to ARM will be a major shift for developers, it’s not the first time Apple has made such a transition."
"As for when you’ll be able to get an ARM-based Mac, the company says they will arrive by the end of the year, although developers can get a head start with a new $500 A12Z-based Mac Mini"
( ARM-based Apple silicon will replace Intel processors on the Mac )
"Intel Macs vs. Apple Silicon ARM Macs: Which Should You Buy?"
Either there are a whole host of clueless reporters out there or Apple Silicon is ARM. "From a certain point of view." 🙂
If you really want to get to semantics think Intel and AMD with regards to how they handle code.
"Apple is bringing its ARM processor technology to desktops"
"The company expects all software should run on the new processors on day 1, though obviously they will need to be optimized for the ARM architecture to maximize performance gains."
"The move to ARM will also make life a lot easier for developers working on both desktop and mobile apps, as the software will be able to share more code."
"While the switch to ARM will be a major shift for developers, it’s not the first time Apple has made such a transition."
"As for when you’ll be able to get an ARM-based Mac, the company says they will arrive by the end of the year, although developers can get a head start with a new $500 A12Z-based Mac Mini"
( ARM-based Apple silicon will replace Intel processors on the Mac )
"Intel Macs vs. Apple Silicon ARM Macs: Which Should You Buy?"
Either there are a whole host of clueless reporters out there or Apple Silicon is ARM. "From a certain point of view." 🙂
If you really want to get to semantics think Intel and AMD with regards to how they handle code.
It probably depends on which MacBook we are talking about. For the 13"/14", it looks like a quad-core A14X/Z, maybe clocked a bit higher, will be more than enough to take on anything else in that space. It will outperform both the quad-core Tiger Lake and the 8-core AMD Ryzen, and the graphics will surpass anything that Intel or AMD has to offer in the integrated space. Of course, it still depends on what AMD has to offer with their new CPU gen.
For larger MBP, yes, they will need to up both the number of cores and the clocks. Something like an 8 core CPU and a 32 core GPU... a SoC like that should be implementable within the 70W total TDP at performance levels exceeding the current i9+AMD Navi graphics.
lowendlinux
macrumors 603
The cluelessness comes from the fact that intel and AMD don’t license their Core IP. You will never find a Sunny Cove or Willow Cove in anything other than an Intel piece of silicon, same for AMD’s Zen etc.
The other thing that leads to the confusion is the Architecture is usually not the name of the company that made it. ARM is unique in that aspect. Sun made SPARC processors so did Fujitsu, but no talked about Fujitsu using Sun architecture, even though they actually did for a while. No one talks about AMD having intel architecture they call it x86. Same with Power, IBM, Motorola never got conflated with each other etc when the ISA or processors were discussed.
If ARM had called their ISA something completely different there would be no room for semantic disparity.
Case in point
This statement highlights what I am saying. They didn’t call it x86 Macs vs ARM
Macs. The explicitly called them intel even though intel makes or at one point made more than x86 CPUS, like itanium and even ARM CPUs(x-scale).
I don’t see why people are getting their nickers in a bunch having to call the processors Apple Silicon.
The other problem is many current vendors do license ARM silicon IP. Qualcomm for instance stopped making their own cores and use ARM cortex, mediatek, hisilicon all use ARM Cortex IP.
The press and many people conflate the ISA and the core IP and start making state ments that generalize all ARM processor characteristics into one.
“ARM can never compete with intel because it is Designed for low power use” and “we won’t see a ARM Mac Pro because ARM can not handle sustained performance and is designed for bursty loads”
Well this whole thing started out with such statements.
Those statements are only possible when someone confuses the ISA and ARM core IP.
Last edited:
Maximara
macrumors 68000
But take a good look at who is doing that conflation:
"Others have questioned how the Mac Pro can remain a relevant, high powered machine running on ARM."Former Mac boss predicts PC makers will have to dump AMD and Intel to ‘go ARM" - " PC Gamer
"Apple ARM Macs: What you need to know now"- Computerworld
"Will Apple’s ARM Plans Forget The Power Of Gaming?" - Forbes
Why is everybody and his brother (including PC magazines) doing this?
Most of those magazines have the technical prowess of a door knob. Forbes is especially anti Apple so that’s no surprise.
The PC gamer article is not that bad. ARM released the road map for their cores (Cortex-A78 and Coretx-X1) that focuses on higher performance so it is possible Qualcomm and others will make ARM SoCs that are lucrative to the PC market at large and competitive with Intel, AMD and Apple. With Microsoft pushing the SQ1/2 based surface pro X series and improving x86 64 bit support on Windows ARM. It is quite possible we see a uplift in ARM PCs.
Last edited:
OldCorpse
macrumors 68000
SlCKB0Y
macrumors 68040
People simply need to understand that the processors ARE called Apple Silicon. Apple Silicon is a completely arbitrary brand name for processors made by Apple which implement the ARM instruction set. Apple can call this implementation whatever they want - they own it.
Those same people need to understand that if they want to describe the current migration as a move to ARM instead of Apple Silicon, they should also refrain from using ”Intel” in their description because doing this is not consistent.
The only phrasing that is consistent at this time is that it is a move from x86-64 to ARM64 (x86 to ARM) OR a move from Intel processors to Apple Silicon.
Last edited:
lysingur
macrumors 6502a
Having said that, do you think there'll be another update to the MBP line before they got Apple Siliconed?
Krevnik
macrumors 601
It depends. But my speculation is somewhere between a confident “no” to “I doubt it”. We might have to wait a couple more months than usual for the next MBP refresh, but only a major slip in timeline would cause Apple to refresh these machines with Intel. The Apple MBP teams should already be neck-deep in the ARM refresh as it is.
At this point I suspect that the only new Intel Mac updates is likely to be the Mac Pro (and much less likely the iMac Pro) but only if Intel releases new Xeon CPUs that are appropriate. I haven’t kept up with the current vs. next Xeon market to have any real insight. Apple has very specific requirements and I doubt Intel will make any particular effort to help Apple out at this point.
4sallypat
macrumors 603
After all this speculation for the upcoming Apple Silicon (new bezels, 14", no chin, etc..), I have to say that a newly designed AS/ARM Mac lineup will probably NOT be what you may want to dream about.
Based on past experience with Apple transitioning from the RISC based Motorola PowerPC chips to the Intel chips in 2006, I have to agree with Luke Miani's prediction:
Luke Miani's Apple Silicon: it's time for a reality check
Based on past experience with Apple transitioning from the RISC based Motorola PowerPC chips to the Intel chips in 2006, I have to agree with Luke Miani's prediction:
Luke Miani's Apple Silicon: it's time for a reality check
I don't think that'll happen this year. Big Sur does not contain any reference to cellular in its code.
thenewperson
macrumors 65816
I wouldn't be surprised if we get it, but only when Apple gets done with their own modems.
I can see Apple viewing that as low priority given how easy it is to connect to an iPhone hotspot already. There are bigger opportunities to invest engineering effort into.