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
There's a chance that they may want to use this ARM switch to cut off something that doesn't align with their future plan.
Remember Apple is trying to become a service provider and the name "BootCamp" is always a hint that it will be gone someday.
Who knows. But I suspect the system provided virtual machine framework will stay as it's a new macOS feature just release 3 year ago.
I welcome ARM because it’s like the PowerPC and will feel like a real Mac
Im guessing there will be 3 ARM-based Mac cause Apple does not make multiple chips for one product like iPad Pro and iPhone.
Until Apple does it. Having a 12 core processor in a MacBook base option is something you never would happen with Apple using Intel. And there is no reason Apple wouldn’t use the same ARM chips Amazon used to design their server chips.
No there wasn’t. It was something Exponential Technology was trying to do, but the x704, when it was released, could only run PowerPC instructions. (I know, I helped design that chip
There was also an IBM project to do an x86, but it was apparently never going to also run PowerPC code. Nothing was ever released.
@ph001bi may have been thinking of the various Macs that came with an add-on DOS card.
[automerge]1587941442[/automerge]
I really think the advantages of a 12-core processor in a low-end laptop are questionable. An Air with twelve cores seems well past the point of diminishing returns.
Between the vastly different power ceiling, Amazon probably being unwilling to license their design, and Apple already having a perfectly suitable design of their own, there's a lot of reasons, really.
Graviton 2 64 cores @ 7nm with PCIe 4.0 connections is already available. And it make Intel Xeon Platinum obsolete compare to it.
There's no reason Apple can not build a high core count ARM chip using it's A series core design.
If one core use only 6W at top then 80 core fully turbo-ed is a 480W beast.
Even it's highly not possible that's still cooler than the water cooled dual G5 Mac Pro.
If they put 64 cores in it and make all core turbo 20% less it will be much cooler sitting at less than 200W and still smash any Intel Xeon even those glued parts 56 cores "**lake-AP".
That's more than doubled performance of current Mac Pro 2019 at a lower TDP. Just imagine a 32 core "mainstream" machine that beats the best Mac Pro 2019 config.
Last edited:
I guess the way I look at the various Apple can do better than Intel type discussions are maybe missing one of Intel's bigger problems, it has basically taken a major Fab hit trying to get to 10nM, so most of its current chips are 14nM kickers, and you can kick only once effectively. Apple at 7nM therefore has advantages on A13. But eventually Intel will get its Fab problems sorted (or go Fab-less or some joint deal with TSMC or Samsung), and the price/performance will end up in the same ballpark. A 64-bit add is, after all, a 64-bit add. And MacBook users are not really seeing Intel/AMD's full capabilities, anyway, if you want fast you go PC at the moment. You probably could use low end iPad type chips in a MacBook, if you ignore all the software and application conversion costs, but something else x86 gives you is you do not have to spend for their development, that is joint across the whole industry. And x86 gives you a lot of support chips and software, the whole infrastructure thing. So Apple not only has to meet a moving target, it has to do so across a whole range (including the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro users), so it is more like moving targets. Ironically, it is probably on those platforms that most developers do their work. So it may be interesting to see if/how this all works out.
Time will tell.
Time will tell.
Considering ARM’s power requirements is well below what Intel requires, I doubt power will be an issue.
And Amazon didn’t make ARM’s Neoverse N1. Amazon licensed it from ARM and custom designed it. No reason Apple can’t do the same.
I didn't leave the Mac, my workplace did.
No, there was plenty of commercial software released as recently as 3 years ago with 32 bit code, especially in software ported from other platforms. Much of the open source world is still on 32 bit code as well hence why Ubuntu dropped their attempt at depreciating 32 bit support.
First off this rumor surfaces every year, I’ll believe it when I see it.
I think they should use AMD instead.
I have no problem with ARM, in fact I like alternatives to x86 computers. But I do believe if they do this, it will be the end of Macs. Not because of ARM, ARM is very viable. Qualcomm has proven that. However, Apple has already ignored Macs almost entirely since around 2010. They’re not what they used to be. This is just going to be the next step to turning them into iPhones. Eventually they’ll be out of the personal computer business forever. Unfortunately.
I think they should use AMD instead.
I have no problem with ARM, in fact I like alternatives to x86 computers. But I do believe if they do this, it will be the end of Macs. Not because of ARM, ARM is very viable. Qualcomm has proven that. However, Apple has already ignored Macs almost entirely since around 2010. They’re not what they used to be. This is just going to be the next step to turning them into iPhones. Eventually they’ll be out of the personal computer business forever. Unfortunately.
Not what they used to be????? Actually they are much better than what they used to be!!!!
The reason the rumor keeps popping up is because Apple has been testing this for a long time. But there is a lot that goes into this. They have to make sure they can make multiple versions of their chips. That they can produce them at higher quantities then they currently do. If it was easy, Windows would have done this successfully by now.
And I’m sorry. I don’t think Apple will ever stop making Mac’s. But I do think merging their iPad/MacBook/Desktop hardware teams together, along with iPadOS and macOS being brothers working hand to hand, and having their ARM Chip Designers making dedicated chips will mean we will see more updates on their computers on a more regular basis.
Indeed, Apple would have to develop all the Windows drivers. This is a different situation compared to today, where the Windows drivers are coming from Intel, AMD etc.
It can with AMD.
Apple abandoned the high performance market - and no, the new Mac Pro isn't a high end machine.
If they switch to AMD, Thunderbolt will be a problem. Although it’s possible with ARM it will still be an issue. But Apple could always license it with Intel if they use their own chips, and with AMD that’s slim to none.
What do you consider a high end machine? I’ve seen what a Mac Pro can do in a sound studio and with video editing. It’s an absolute beast.
10 years from now, maybe even 5 years from now, I don't think Apple will have any Intel-based Macs in their lineup.
Given the amount of iOS, iPadOS, & wearable devices that Apple sells, I would say they sell far more personal computers now than they ever had in the history of the company. Making technology more personal is at the heart of Apple.
The price per GB depends on the base and what tier you’re talking about. Increasing from 32GB to 64GB is only $400, for instance.
In any case, I wouldn’t expect the choice of CPU architecture to change Apple’s pricing structure for RAM.
Intel Finally Certified an AMD Thunderbolt Motherboard: Here's Why That Matters (Updated)
ASRock has something to celebrate.
I guess he doesn't know this.Intel Finally Certified an AMD Thunderbolt Motherboard: Here's Why That Matters (Updated)
ASRock has something to celebrate.www.tomshardware.com
Well, color me surprised. I didn’t know that! I still think Apple will switch to ARM, but the AMD fanboy in me would love to see what Apple could do with AMD.
Why would thunderbolt be a problem (Outside of the fact that it is still a solution in search of a problem.)? TB is available on AMD boards today.
I consider a high end machine one that has a lot of cores, a lot of ram, and the ability to add anything to it I need. (I do 3d art) That isn't a Mac Pro. A low-end Threadripper system will outperform a maxed out 7,1. IPC matters, the ability to use GPU computing matters.
Threadripper systems are high-end systems. Eypc systems are high-end systems (Yes, you can get Eypc based workstations).
A 7,1 starts at 8 cores/16 threads - $1500 worth of parts in a $4,500 enclosure. A $2,500 Ryzen system will out perform it. A maxed out 7,1 ($54,000) is outperformed by a $10,000 Threadripper or Eypc workstation. Every subsystem in the 7,1 was obsolete the day it launched. The CPU, the GPU, the i/o, the storage. It would have been a good, albeit overpriced system in 2016. Furthermore, Zen 3 based CPUs are drop in replacements in AM4 boards, TR40 boards, and Eypc boards. If your hardware is nothing more than a dongle for your software, that isn't a big deal.
In 2020, a 7,1 is yesterday's tech at tomorrow's prices - that is Tim Cook's Apple. The days of being on cutting edge tech ended when P.T. Barnum handed the reins over to Timmy.
So what phone or tablet has a faster processor than Apple uses?
or Do you think only PCs matter? And why? Because they are the small market segment?