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.
Bloomberg: Apple's First Arm Mac to Launch by 2021 With 12-Core Processor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally, I'd like to see a swath of low cost AMD models in the same chassis' with those Vega (and later Navi) iGPUs. Not that we'll get lower prices.
I put ten pence in the irony swear box as I typed that.
If they can put a Radeon 580(low range card...) in a Mac Pro costing 6000£ we can safely assume they'll pocket the difference going to AMD CPUs and not pass on the savings.
Azrael.
[automerge]1587837072[/automerge]
It's pretty bad that you have to go Hackintosh to get more cores, higher performance, higher efficiency and a fair price.
I did say I was dreaming.
Azrael.
Those references don’t seem to mean much. They are in a list of lots of cpus, some of which are obsolete.
You might be too optimistic about how things are going to work out on ARM-Based Macs without providing any of its drawbacks.
There is no guarantee that the A14x performance on macOS will be as fast as x86 fastest performing CPU model and battery life will most likely be a modest improvement at around 13 hours.
It is the developer that will be determining whether or not if the performance improvement from ARM-Architecture worth their time and effort to recompile the application and better not be just 10-20% faster.
The results will be in the pudding proved.
It's not the 1st time we've heard it's going to be 'next' year.
Meanwhile, I'm Macless and awaiting an update 'this' year.
Come on, Apple, pull your finger out on Mac updates. The mini update was an apology.
Transitions can be exciting. But never completely pain free. That's the price of progress.
There will still be intel machiens in the channel whilst they last. They may stay alongside ARM macs.
It's Apple's play book. It's up to them. We don't always know what they'll do for sure. But past behaviour gives some clues but not the total picture.
The train tracks for a Mac 'arm' future are already laid down.
A14x. It will probably be a lot better than the iPad 12xz. It should be a significant update.
There's a difference between that and and a 'Mac' ARM chip. eg. Imagine 'dual or quad core' A14X.
That would be some machine.
Azrael.
It's not the 1st time we've heard it's going to be 'next' year.
Meanwhile, I'm Macless and awaiting an update 'this' year.
Come on, Apple, pull your finger out on Mac updates. The mini update was an apology.
Transitions can be exciting. But never completely pain free. That's the price of progress.
There will still be intel machiens in the channel whilst they last. They may stay alongside ARM macs.
It's Apple's play book. It's up to them. We don't always know what they'll do for sure. But past behaviour gives some clues but not the total picture.
The train tracks for a Mac 'arm' future are already laid down.
A14x. It will probably be a lot better than the iPad 12xz. It should be a significant update.
There's a difference between that and and a 'Mac' ARM chip. eg. Imagine 'dual or quad core' A14X.
That would be some machine.
Azrael.
macOS is more "open" compared to iOS. But performance wise it's the same. macOS runs similar kernel and share a lot of system framework with iOS.
iPadOS could run 3 apps simultaneously and the performance stays the same. It's not about how many apps your running. It's about how fast the computer is.
Right now MacBook using Intel graphics is slower than a iPad Pro. Intel UHD could barely keep full screen animation works at Retina resolution. Even MacBook with Radeon GPU still use Intel to render desktop and at 16 inch there is noticeable different if I disable GPU switching and force using dedicated GPU.
A13 @ 2.65Ghz single core is about 90% performance of a Intel 9900k @ 5.0GHz.
Based on how AMD is using TSMC n7 I guess we can put a fan on A13 and pump in about 20W into its single core without any problem. That should bump up the frequency to about 3.0- 3.5GHz.
I know AMD's architecture is different and Apple's arch may not scale up that well but since this is a mobile chip it is 100% sitting on the lower end of the efficiency curve. Or using NVIDIA's marketing word: "Max-Q". There's definitely some headroom for A13 to overclock to at least 3.0GHz. without silicon changes.
A 12 core A13 @ 3.0GHz is about 10% faster than a Ryzen 9 3900X on multicore performance. And is about 10% faster than 9900k by single core performance!
That chip will overkill the best of the market mainstream Desktop x86 CPUs from both vender. Just like how AMD 4800H kills Intel Desktop 9700k. You can just think Apple ARM as a all round enhanced version of AMD chips.
Sound too impresive even make me think the "12 core" coule be a 8 + 4 or 6 + 6 DynamiQ-like setup.
A14x will not be as fast as x86 fastest performing CPU.
It will be faster. As you already seen, AMD has smashed Intel desktop 9700k performance using 4800H.
ARM chip will only doing better than that and we will finally got faster than desktop performance on a laptop.
And reminds you current Intel laptop aren't anywhere near "fastest x86 performing CPU". They runs much slower and can only keep their max boost speed for less than a second (Thermal Velocity Boost).
We will find new ARM MacBook runs double the performance of current Intel laptops.
Last edited:
Samsung and AMD likely to power Nintendo Switch successors - Optocrypto
Samsung’s graphics partnership with AMD will deliver great performance and bring the power of AMD’s RDNA graphics architecture to the market along with Samsung’s powerful Exynos mobile chipset. The information now circulating is that the successor to Nintendo Switch may have one of these chips...
optocrypto.com
Apparently, Nintendo may have decided that dealing with NVIDIA isn’t worth the effort moving forward.
The butterfly keyboards were a disaster but this is going to be a Titanic disaster with Tim Cook as the Captain.
You can not compare what Microsoft is trying to do, and what Apple will be doing.
Microsoft, from my understanding, has never transitioned from one type of processor to another. They have always supported Intel, and they will always support x86 processors. Can you imagine Microsoft telling developers and customers "Sorry, you can't use x86 anymore." That isn't ever going to happen.
Apple on the other hand will tell developer's and it's customers "You will not be using x86 any more."
And if you believe that Apple will die when they do this, then you don't really know the history here. Apple has done this not once -- but twice. This will be the third time Apple switched from one processor type to another. Each time, there may have been bumps in the road but Apple did not die. Developer's did not get left behind. They moved their software.
And Apple has been preparing developer's for this ever since they released the iPad Pro. Every tech writer and tech YouTuber asked "Who is the iPad Pro for?" But they were asking the wrong people. They kept asking that question as a customer. However, it never occurred to them that this was for developer's. Why do you think Adobe has put Photoshop on the iPadOS? Sure, it's not perfect. But they now have their code on iPadOS -- which is OS X on ARM. If you need a refresher, rewatch Jobs introduce the iPhone. He said they put the most advance OS on the iPhone. OS X. So OS X has been compatible on ARM since even back then. And when Apple released the iPad Pro -- and updated it with iPadOS -- and most recently add amazing mouse and keyboard control -- they aren't doing this because customer's asked for it.
No, they are doing this because they envision the iPad/iPad Pro being Apple's two-in-one competing with Surface. And that can't happen if the Mac and iPadOS don't share the same base code and same app's. And unlike the last two times, where Apple had to convince people to buy their new computers ... this time Apple will be able to say to developers "Your apps will work on the iPad and the new Macs. You have tons of customers who can buy your apps." This will give incentives to developers to bring their apps over.
[automerge]1587859061[/automerge]
I am a little confused by this. If you have been using OS X since day one for work, then you have been doing work without x86. I understand it might take time to get your specific apps ported over (might not be as long as you think) but Apple is pumping out great Intel laptops right now. Buy one in 2020 and it'll be supported for at least 3 years. Maybe even longer. I have a 2017 MacBook Pro and i love it. I expect it to be supported to 2023 at least.
And if you look at Apple's history, in 2006 they released the first Intel Mac's. in 2009 they released the last version of OS X that supported PowerPC. And by that time, virtually every developer out there will have moved over their app's to the new processor's and new macOS ARM.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Apple rebrands iPadOS and macOS under a new name. Maybe Mac OS 11?
Last edited:
In other words, "I'm holding it wrong."
I am happy for those who can do their work in the way you describe. You are correct that they will not be as impacted by this switch as I will be.
[automerge]1587860264[/automerge]
Why would this goal require a transition from x86 to ARM, though? Mac Catalyst is how Apple are accomplishing this and it doesn't benefit from a shared CPU architecture. There's no technical barrier to application cross-compiling between both platforms.
Apple are saying this right now, today, with the current x86 architecture for macOS. None of what you're describing here means that Apple need to move to ARM for macOS.
Last edited:
Sure, if the titanic sank in an ocean of money.
The "advantage" of moving to ARM is that once it is done, Apple products can no longer be compared to PC products. Currently, when Apple develops a computer - they keep making it until they can no longer get parts for it. If your computer is built on a different CPU platform, they are harder to compare.
The goal isn't to make better computers - it is to isolate Apple products from the PC world. Much easier to sell to the rubes, if it is difficult to make an apples to apples comparison. Apple would no longer be releasing products that are obsolete on Day One (See: Mac Pro 7,1).
An added bonus is protect those sweet, sweet margins (along with taking a 30% cut of all software). Timmy dismantled a lot of the walls that built the old Apple walled garden - this is a way to rebuild it.
Apple has become a 1-trick pony. One really bad phone and apple is a much smaller company. This is a way to insulate from that.
The goal isn't to make better computers - it is to isolate Apple products from the PC world. Much easier to sell to the rubes, if it is difficult to make an apples to apples comparison. Apple would no longer be releasing products that are obsolete on Day One (See: Mac Pro 7,1).
An added bonus is protect those sweet, sweet margins (along with taking a 30% cut of all software). Timmy dismantled a lot of the walls that built the old Apple walled garden - this is a way to rebuild it.
Apple has become a 1-trick pony. One really bad phone and apple is a much smaller company. This is a way to insulate from that.
Catalyst leaves a lot to be desired. But again, I believe that was also a step in this direction. Apple knows what they are doing. They have been planning this for a long time. And giving iOS developer's tools to start bringing their apps to the Mac is a step in that direction. It doesn't disprove what Apple is doing here. It actually further supports the theory.
And it's not required, by the way. But Apple would be dumb to switch to ARM and not leverage their iPad Line Up. Developer's see numbers and user's. They go where people are. When they release their first ARM Mac (whatever form it is), there will be zero people using that platform and only Apple's promises that people will buy them (and people will, I am sure). Surely, Apple could do this. They have done this twice before, as I pointed it out.
However, they didn't have a line of computers already running on the processor architecture already the last two times. They didn't have this opportunity like they have it now. And being able to assure developer's that there are millions of customer's who already have an ARM mac and can buy your software is a sure fire way to assure an easier transition. Will it be perfet? No, it will be very bumpy in fact. Developer's will have to design their app's to work well on mouse and keyboard AND touch. But again, Apple is already pushing that with the latest updates and added mouse/keyboard support.
You can choose to see all these moves as separate and not connected. But they aren't. Apple is smart and they know what they are doing. This won't be easy. But Apple will make it look easy and five years after the launch of these new Mac's, people will wonder what took Apple so long.
What is interesting is, the Xbox One was very close being based off ARM tech. Microsoft was building a next gen console and they almost went with ARM. ARM is more powerful than you think. The reason you have this perception is because no one has really put ARM in a consumer level device where it will be pushed to the max. The closest we have is the iPad Pro.
Sure, Amazon uses it on AWS. But you don't see that and you don't see what AWS does.
[automerge]1587864596[/automerge]
macOS is OS X. OS X is the OS Steve Jobs and Apple choose for the iPhone.
They call it something different because that's what Apple does. But the core of the OS is based off the same code.
Apple had OS X running on ARM for a long time. Just like they had OS X running on Intel from day one os OS X. They are forward thinker's and they know where the industry is going. Even though I don't think Jobs thought, "Oh these ARM processors will one day replace Intel." when they made OS X run on iPhone. But, once they saw how powerful their chips were and had the crazy idea I bet you they were happy they made that choice.
None of those application level thing related to ARM.
We all know that compatibility of x86 is both the advantage and disadvantage of x86.
I just want my next MacBook runs double the performance of my current one and use much less battery for that. It is not possible to do so with Intel chip right now and it all looks familiar just like how iBook G5 never exist.
It is possible with ARM now and this step will break the Intel monopoly on PC forever.
People are standing here arguing just like how it was 25 year ago.
"x86 is crap low performance **** that will never become professional and server parts."
ARM is the new x86 and it's super possible after a few decade I will start to hate ARM and praise a new architecture.
Well they are not connected insofar as none of what you describe above is either helped or harmed by shifting macOS away from Intel and to ARM. I'm not saying Apple aren't moving in that direction -- it sure seems like they are. What I am saying is that the reasons you're providing for why Apple are motivated to make this move do not make any sense. If they do move the platform it won't be for the reasons you're describing here.
Apple can do every single one of the things you predict without moving to ARM. A move to ARM does not simplify or accelerate any of the things you are predicting. It's just not relevant to the discussion.
[automerge]1587864903[/automerge]
That is precisely my point, yes.
I am not going to argue how easy or not easy it is currently to move an app from x86 to ARM. In fact, I think anyone saying it is easy would not argue it would be easier if iPadOS and macOS was both running on ARM.
However, what app's are you using that you think will not run on ARM? I'm actually curious. Must be something that demands more power the Amazon's Web Server's.
And game? I honestly don't get why anyone buys a Mac if their main purpose is to game. Mac's hardware is not a very good gaming machine. Sure, I play the occasional game but if I couldn't I'd still own my Macbook and my iMac.
But then again I have also never been a huge PC gamer period. But if I were, I would build my own machine and run Windows.
Most people without coding background dose not understand that porting a application to a different OS using same CPU is much harder than porting it to a different CPU using same OS.
CPU arch is the most not important thing in my development pipeline.
And Mac Catalyst is exact not what they think -- It is done intentionally not compatible with iOS.
But that didn't stop Apple using those terms to attract technology illiterates.
I bet they will claim they sold much more ARM device than x86 device and whole world using more ARM device then x86 device everyday.
If that makes ARM Mac popular then I do not care if those claim are actually related or not.
I am sorry. I don't think I have made myself clear.
I haven't actually been talking about reason's why Apple want to use ARM. Steve Jobs said it best when he described why they moved from PowerPC to Intel. I don't have the exact quote, but he mentioned that Apple looks at the performance per watt and at the time Intel was king at that.
ARM is now king at that. And Apple clearly struggles with cooling. My Macbook Pro is a good example of an extremely hot laptop! But, if you look at that statement it really becomes a no brainer. This isn't even mentioning that Apple's CPU team is killing it. And that Apple will save so much money. They can both lower the cost of their entry level Mac's and increase their profit so they can continue to invest in their ARM chips.
Again, none of this even mentions the fact Apple will control their hardware release schedule. Right now they are slaves to Intel's release schedule. But with them controlling their own CPU's they will be able to have a more consistent launch of new products.
And I could go on. So many reasons to switch to ARM.
However, all the choices they have been making is because they made the choice to switch to ARM.
They made the iPad Pro because they wanted to test out more powerful ARM processors.
They created Mac Catalyst because they want iOS developers to start getting use to Mac development.
They added better mouse and keyboard support to the iPadOS because they want to make it easier to support desktop class software.
All of these choices have been made because Apple made the choice to make Mac run on ARM.
I apologize i wasn't clear.
Sure. That must be why Apple doesn’t use the same processor architecture as everyone else for mobile.
Oh, wait....
Implied in my answer was x86 CPU. Back when Sony and MS started with their consoles, ARM was not an option performance wise and it's not a good option today.