Bloomberg: Apple's First Arm Mac to Launch by 2021 With 12-Core Processor

[futureisfilm]

No, Leopard was the last OS released for PowerPC in 2007. In 2011 it received it's last security updates.
I haven't lost the support on my 2010 MacBook. I still get security updates and have the latest Safari. That's why I've been tinkering around PCs and a MacBook again. As I've said: You can get a powerful gaming PC for the price of Air and it'll be probably supported for ages.

You can always build a cheaper gaming PC then a MacBook Air. But compare the MacBook Air to other ultrabooks, and Apple isn’t the most expensive. And the new Air has the best keyboard and best trackpad on any laptop.

And Microsoft does eventually phase out older hardware. Apple might do it sooner I don’t really know. I’ve never looked at it. But then you can Install Windows on your MacBook and start getting new OS updates (not just Security Updates).

 

[throAU]

And Microsoft does eventually phase out older hardware.

Both Apple and Microsoft are limited by their suppliers.

If Intel or AMD for example drop support for the chips inside a particular model, Apple will drop support - because they can't support hardware they can't get support for themselves.

Just recently intel dropped support for a lot of CPUs after the meltdown debacle. Any Mac with a CPU in it that intel has dropped for example can expect to lose support.

Ditto for Microsoft. If intel drop support for say, HD3000 or HD4000 graphics, then Microsoft can't get technical assistance with drivers, etc. for it and will drop it.

Whilst macOS or Windows may have Apple or MS branding on it - a lot of the software in there is either written (either partially or entirely) by their hardware vendors.

Microsoft is a little more lax because they don't officially "support" the hardware via warranty, tech support, etc. They don't deliberately stop it running or block particular hardware, but they don't support it either.

Apple provide bug fix support for drivers in their own products. Whilst something might "run" on Windows, if you have a driver bug, etc. Microsoft will just kick you to the hardware vendor and good luck with that if it is for hardware 5 years old. The response will be "we no longer support that".

 

[Val-kyrie]

There is benchmark that can directly compare x86 and ARM.
It's called SPEC.

It's a source code distribution that if you provide the compiler it will run on literally any CPU. Intel officially submit their score to SPEC database. This is a silicon industry standard benchmark. If you do not trust this number then I suggest you to stop talking about this topic and start writing your papers. You gonna earn a lot of money if you can destroy SPEC and bring up a new standard.

A13 is reaching 9900k level single core performance at merely 2.65Ghz by SPECint 2006.
That's almost double the IPC from Skylake and only 20% slower by SPECfp 2006.
Remember this is only an iPhone. If you plug a fan on this chip you can easily bump the frequency.

just a 5%-10% bump will leave Intel's best of the line single core performance behind.

iPad Pro A12X could runs Fortnite at 120fps + medium settings and please check which Intel CPU is needed to run Fortnite at 120fps with lowest settings.

We already seen how well iPad runs Civ6. Civ 6 even enabled PC mod on iPad.
We all know games are single thread bonded but Apple ARM chip will not be the slower part here.
It's Intel being the slower one and base on their 10nm failure they will stuck at this slow speed for the next few years.

How does ARM compare to AMD’s 4000 series chips? In CPU and GPU performance? Intel is no longer the performance leader.

Apple has already exceeded 3 GHz on their latest phones, while none of my Intel laptops have (unless you count a millisecond of turbo.) If you look at benchmark comparisons (which I admit aren't the whole story), only Intel's highest end cores edge out Apple's ARM cores in single thread performance, but that's comparing an Intel CPU to a 1 watt phone CPU. Once you can pipe 45 watts into it, you should be able to run it at substantially higher speeds.

Don't forget how far behind Intel is in single threaded performance because of their complacent years. It got to the point where almost anyone can make a chip with single thread performance as good as Intel. Because they went almost a decade without significant improvements in single threaded performance. Intel initially thought AMD was only ahead in multithreaded workloads - now they admit they're even ahead in single threaded performance.

I am not into performance speculation. Let’s see what Apple can offer and then you can boast about performance “at 45W.” Of course, without software support, speed matters not.

 

[chucker23n1]

How does ARM compare to AMD’s 4000 series chips? In CPU and GPU performance? Intel is no longer the performance leader.

We don't know anything about how a hypothetical Apple chip would compare at similar TDPs, because such a chip doesn't publicly exist.

We can only see that, especially in single-threaded performance, Apple CPUs at <10W compete with desktop-level Intel CPUs at ~65W, albeit only for short bursts. For example, the 11-inch iPad Pro 2018 scores almost identical to the 27-inch mid-2017 iMac.

iPad Pro (11-inch) Benchmarks - Geekbench

browser.geekbench.com

iMac (27-inch Retina Mid 2017) Benchmarks - Geekbench

 

[Val-kyrie]

We don't know anything about how a hypothetical Apple chip would compare at similar TDPs, because such a chip doesn't publicly exist.

We can only see that, especially in single-threaded performance, Apple CPUs at <10W compete with desktop-level Intel CPUs at ~65W, albeit only for short bursts. For example, the 11-inch iPad Pro 2018 scores almost identical to the 27-inch mid-2017 iMac.

iPad Pro (11-inch) Benchmarks - Geekbench

browser.geekbench.com

iMac (27-inch Retina Mid 2017) Benchmarks - Geekbench

This is the problem. Talk to me again once sustained performance has been tested. Right now, AMD’s 4000 series mobile chips offer TWICE the sustained performance of Intel’s offerings.

 

[chucker23n1]

This is the problem. Talk to me again once sustained performance has been tested.

Sure, well, like I said. We don't really know if Apple ARM Macs are a thing at all, and we certainly don't have any chips to test with.

But it's reasonable to surmise that, with much higher thermal ceilings, Apple chips can sustain their performance for longer. Only question is how much longer.

Right now, AMD’s 4000 series mobile chips offer TWICE the sustained performance of Intel’s offerings.

Source?

 

[cmaier]

How does ARM compare to AMD’s 4000 series chips? In CPU and GPU performance? Intel is no longer the performance leader.

That’s like asking ”how does electric compare to a Chevy Corvette?” 20 years ago. ”Arm” is just an ISA. There are an infinite number of possible Arm designs. Some possible designs are slow, some are fast. As soon as someone is motivated to beat Intel, then in the real world there will be a product faster than Intel. Just like when Tesla came along and suddenly electric was fast and not just efficient.

What’s exciting is that right now is the first time that motivation to beat intel has intersected with actual design ability to beat intel.

 

[ssgbryan]

If you want to beat intel, get AMD. It is available today. Not at some point, potentially in the future.

 

[Jury]

x86-ZEN 3 is a good candidate for the mac lineup and Apple will be thrilled to announce that product in the near future.

 

[cmaier]

If you want to beat intel, get AMD. It is available today. Not at some point, potentially in the future.

To Apple, its own chips are also available today. Just because you don’t know about them doesn’t mean they don’t.

 

[Nütztjanix]

x86-ZEN 3 is a good candidate for the mac lineup and Apple will be thrilled to announce that product in the near future.

Not in this reality, I‘d say.

 

[HighSierraCatalina]

Microsoft will just kick you to the hardware vendor and good luck with that if it is for hardware 5 years old. The response will be "we no longer support that

I disagree. I have a PC at home from 2004 that runs Windows 10. Can any PowerMac from 2004 do that? Nope.
It's much easier to be a PC user and there's so much choice out there.

 

[throAU]

I disagree. I have a PC at home from 2004 that runs Windows 10. Can any PowerMac from 2004 do that? Nope.
It's much easier to be a PC user and there's so much choice out there.

Anecdotes are great.

I'm saying Microsoft have it easier because they aren't the ones maintaining hardware support for every driver out there.

If you want an example of MS dropping support faster than Apple, where MICROSOFT are responsible for the support, go try and install say, Windows 2000 on an Alpha or MIPS workstation.

Or see any one of the number of failed Windows phones that were dropped with Windows phone 8.

 

[HighSierraCatalina]

Anecdotes are great.

I'm saying Microsoft have it easier because they aren't the ones maintaining hardware support for every driver out there.

If you want an example of MS dropping support faster than Apple, where MICROSOFT are responsible for the support, go try and install say, Windows 2000 on an Alpha or MIPS workstation.

Or see any one of the number of failed Windows phones that were dropped with Windows phone 8.

Dude, I'm being totally serious right now. It can run Windows 10. Of course I downgraded it to Windows 7 and I dont even use it anymore.
We're talking about computers and computer operating systems, not phones. Microsoft has provided every OS updates longer than Apple has. Take a look at Windows XP for example. Apple would never do that. Apple even drops support on your mac even when some guy named @dosdude1 can make the latest OS run on your computer fairly smoothly. The last time I tried Mojave it ran better than High Sierra and the night shift worked as well. Apple drops stuff on purpose as well.

 

[throAU]

Dude, I'm being totally serious right now. It can run Windows 10. Of course I downgraded it to Windows 7 and I dont even use it anymore.

So am i.

I'm not saying there aren't examples where you can run a Microsoft OS on 10+ year old hardware. I am saying that:

• it still is not "supported". if there is a security problem or bug in a driver, etc. it is most probably it will not be fixed, because the hardware vendor gave up supporting it years ago
• Microsoft do not include hardware repair in their "support". Apple drop "support" when the are no longer able to obtain replacement parts or programming assistance, because their "support" includes ability to fix hardware.
• Just because something runs, doesn't mean it is supported. I can make macOS 10.6 run in VMware or Linux KVM for example. Doesn't mean it is supported.
• Hardware wise - I have had multiple Surface Pros. My Surface Pro 4 had a bug in the intel display driver causing regular crashes for 12 months. Microsoft supplied the driver in their driver bundle. Intel wrote the driver. Microsoft didn't provide an update, intel didn't care.

 

[HighSierraCatalina]

So am i.

I'm not saying there aren't examples where you can run a Microsoft OS on 10+ year old hardware. I am saying that:

• it still is not "supported". if there is a security problem in the driver, etc. it is most probably it will not be fixed, because the hardware vendor gave up supporting it years ago
• Microsoft do not include hardware repair in their "support". Apple drop "support" when the are no longer able to obtain replacement parts or programming assistance, because their "support" includes ability to fix hardware.
• Just because something runs, doesn't mean it is supported. I can make macOS 10.6 run in VMware or Linux KVM for example. Doesn't mean it is supported.

Do you not understand me? Sierra doesn't receive SECURITY UPDATES anymore, while Windows 8.1 does. That is my point. You see?

 

[futureisfilm]

If you want to beat intel, get AMD. It is available today. Not at some point, potentially in the future.

They definitely could, but the question is if they can’t get A: a better deal, B: would AMD’s roadmap stay ahead of Intel and most importantly for Apple C: Is AMD’s processors (or Intel) better performance per watt?
A and B are debatable, but C is the million dollar question because clearly that’s what Apple cares about. Look at their choices, look at how they announced and talked about the first Mac Pro. That’s the spec that means most to them.

We obviously don’t that that answer, but I can tell up until May 2020 the answer is no. Intel is better. How do I know that? Because Apple hasn’t changed yet.

But they are clearly developing their own processors for their computers and getting close enough for leaks to start happening and being more specific. And Apple is all about control, so if they are close to answering that last question with the answer “Yes, Apple Designed Chips give better performance per watt” Apple won’t even care about AMD right now. Because they can’t control AMD’s roadmap but they can control their own roadmap.
[automerge]1588302816[/automerge]

Do you not understand me? Sierra doesn't receive SECURITY UPDATES anymore, while Windows 8.1 does. That is my point. You see?

Any Mac that was able to get Sierra, will be able to get High Sierra. It was the switch from High Sierra to Mojave that older machines were phased out.

And High Sierra will continue to be supported until this year.

(and since it doesn’t cost to upgrade your machine, there is no reason not to continue get support).

However, your point does still stand because Windows 8 End of Life on in 2023. So it will continue to be supported longer then macOS High Sierra.

edit:
The main point here is to Apple, they make money (in the Mac World) off hardware purchases. Which means that, it makes a business sense to phase out older hardware and make customers buy new machines.

Microsoft makes money off of software sales (and subsections now). So it makes more sense to make sure more computers can get Windows.

It might suck, but having 9 years of support (like my iMac 2011) isn’t horrible. And it’s perfect timing if they are switching to ARM soon for me. I’d want to buy the new ARM iMac/Mac Mini anyway. If they don’t I’ll probably just be okay with my iMac. My kids only use that now anyway.

 

[ssgbryan]

They definitely could, but the question is if they can’t get A: a better deal, B: would AMD’s roadmap stay ahead of Intel and most importantly for Apple C: Is AMD’s processors (or Intel) better performance per watt?
A and B are debatable, but C is the million dollar question because clearly that’s what Apple cares about. Look at their choices, look at how they announced and talked about the first Mac Pro. That’s the spec that means most to them.

We obviously don’t that that answer, but I can tell up until May 2020 the answer is no. Intel is better. How do I know that? Because Apple hasn’t changed yet.

AMD's roadmap will be ahead of Intel's for at least the next 3 years. By the time Intel gets to 10nm in quantity (equivalent to AMD's 7nm), AMD will be on Zen 5 and 5nm. TSMC is already seeing good results on 3nm.

Better performance per watt? Seriously? - you obviously haven't paid attention over the last 3 years:

1. Intel reports TDP based on core clock speeds - AMD reports TDP based on boost clock speeds.
2. AMD 3950X (16 cores/32 threads) draws 105 watts (at boost). Intel's new 10 core/20 thread i9 draws 125 watts at base - 300 watts at boost (which is why it needs a new mother board to handle the power draw).

So, apparently, you don't actually know.

 

[Azrael9]

AMD's roadmap will be ahead of Intel's for at least the next 3 years. By the time Intel gets to 10nm in quantity (equivalent to AMD's 7nm), AMD will be on Zen 5 and 5nm. TSMC is already seeing good results on 3nm.

Better performance per watt? Seriously? - you obviously haven't paid attention over the last 3 years:

1. Intel reports TDP based on core clock speeds - AMD reports TDP based on boost clock speeds.
2. AMD 3950X (16 cores/32 threads) draws 105 watts (at boost). Intel's new 10 core/20 thread i9 draws 125 watts at base - 300 watts at boost (which is why it needs a new mother board to handle the power draw).

So, apparently, you don't actually know.

You're spot on. AMD are going to be kicking Intel around for a while. And Intel have had it coming. That's what happens when you get greedy...or complacent. We'd still be on (milking it) 4 core with Intel if not for AMD. Now we have 16 cores. Far more in line with the prosumer creative crowd that like to render, stream and game.

16, 12 and 8 core Ryzen are excellent candidates in efficiency, price and performance. Not to mention the eyegasm for those mult-core Geekbench and Cinebench scores.

Azrael.
[automerge]1588342744[/automerge]
In the latest financials, Tim Cook says Apple like to give the customer the best product for the best price.

Sure, Tim...sure...

*looks at the desktops.

Azrael.

 

[Tekguy0]

You're spot on. AMD are going to be kicking Intel around for a while. And Intel have had it coming. That's what happens when you get greedy...or complacent. We'd still be on (milking it) 4 core with Intel if not for AMD. Now we have 16 cores. Far more in line with the prosumer creative crowd that like to render, stream and game.

Azrael.

Yes, AMD has forced Intel to add more cores. But, each uses a ton of power (and thus produces a ton of heat) compared to AMD's cores, so a chip with a lot of cores in an iMac form factor wouldn't even be that quick, not to mention loud and inefficient. If Apple is going to stay on x86, they should really switch to AMD.

 

[Azrael9]

Yes, AMD has forced Intel to add more cores. But, each uses a ton of power (and thus produces a ton of heat) compared to AMD's cores, so a chip with a lot of cores in an iMac form factor wouldn't even be that quick, not to mention loud and inefficient. If Apple is going to stay on x86, they should really switch to AMD.

Nail gunned on.

Azrael.

 

[Nütztjanix]

I'd say a big point in switching to ARM is for Apple to be in control of the roadmap and the features of their CPUs.

For speed and efficiency, they could switch to AMD - but they would still be dependent on some other company's roadmap and their ability to deliver on that. Plus, they might not get the features they want and need for their vision.

 

[Azrael9]

I'd say a big point in switching to ARM is for Apple to be in control of the roadmap and the features of their CPUs.

For speed and efficiency, they could switch to AMD - but they would still be dependent on some other company's roadmap and their ability to deliver on that. Plus, they might not get the features they want and need for their vision.

There's nothing like being in control of your own destiny. Apple has the money, experience and resources to consolidate their Mac platform across iPads, iPhones and 'large screen' computers called 'Macs.' Any ARM Mac is still going to be a Mac. All the other stuff is for Apple and developers to sort out.

But Apple are far better placed than they have ever been to do this transition again.

For those that need x86 they can still buy a decent to powerful PC from £600-£1300 (the latter of which? Would punch the same weight as a Mac Pro 'starter edition' for £6k.)

It's going to happen. It's just a matter of time. You'll still be able to do the Mac type things but with ipad and iphone type things (so an order of magnitude of software will be consolidated and added to the 'Mac' eco-system) that will more than offset any loss of x86 bootcamping which I suspect many use for many edge case bits of software. Any niche case bits of software. Buy x86. If you're that serious about 'that piece of software.' (I bought all my software to be mac/pc cross platform. So that won't hurt me at all.)

You'd be able to buy an ARM iMac for £2k. A PC tower for £1300. And still have loads of change left from an 'entry' Mac Pro and monitor. The performance and value equation from the two machines will cream the Mac Pro entry.

The Mac ARM CPU is going to be interesting. At the rate Intel is going, an APPLE specific 'Mac' Arm 'M' cpu next year will beat the snot out of an Intel CPU.

It's a day that has been a long time coming.

Azrael.

 

[futureisfilm]

AMD's roadmap will be ahead of Intel's for at least the next 3 years. By the time Intel gets to 10nm in quantity (equivalent to AMD's 7nm), AMD will be on Zen 5 and 5nm. TSMC is already seeing good results on 3nm.

Better performance per watt? Seriously? - you obviously haven't paid attention over the last 3 years:

1. Intel reports TDP based on core clock speeds - AMD reports TDP based on boost clock speeds.
2. AMD 3950X (16 cores/32 threads) draws 105 watts (at boost). Intel's new 10 core/20 thread i9 draws 125 watts at base - 300 watts at boost (which is why it needs a new mother board to handle the power draw).

So, apparently, you don't actually know.

I do apologize, but I didn’t make myself clear. Option C was really talking about ARM vs x86. I know AMD right now is years better then Intel. But even by your own admission, that lead may not be there three years down the road. And I doubt Apple would want to switch to AMD for three years and then make a new contract with Intel.

Intel and AMD will be going back and forth. Right now, AMD is the best in town. (I’ve always been an AMD fan, even when they weren’t best in town). But I can’t say for how long that least will last. Maybe it’ll be forever? Maybe three years?

But like I said. These facts are debatable. Some people are still Intel fans for their own reasons. Some people are AMD fans. The truth is, in the PC world, these two will always be going back and forth on who is on the top.

But Apple doesn’t have to pick between these two. They have a third option, which if they do switch it’ll be because of the performance per watt on top of them controlling the roadmap.

Look, I know you obviously don’t like Apple. And if Apple choose AMD, you’ll probably just find a reason to hate AMD down the road. I’m a fan of technology and I’m very interested in what Apple can do with ARM. And I’m excited about what types of designs Apple will do with ARM. Maybe a super thin iMac? A thinner and lighter MacBook? Maybe a Mac Mini with chops? Who knows!

It doesn’t really matter what we say here though. Apple clearly has a roadmap and they choose whatever is best for them.

 

[ssgbryan]

I do apologize, but I didn’t make myself clear. Option C was really talking about ARM vs x86. I know AMD right now is years better then Intel. But even by your own admission, that lead may not be there three years down the road. And I doubt Apple would want to switch to AMD for three years and then make a new contract with Intel.

Intel and AMD will be going back and forth. Right now, AMD is the best in town. (I’ve always been an AMD fan, even when they weren’t best in town). But I can’t say for how long that least will last. Maybe it’ll be forever? Maybe three years?

But like I said. These facts are debatable. Some people are still Intel fans for their own reasons. Some people are AMD fans. The truth is, in the PC world, these two will always be going back and forth on who is on the top.

But Apple doesn’t have to pick between these two. They have a third option, which if they do switch it’ll be because of the performance per watt on top of them controlling the roadmap.

Look, I know you obviously don’t like Apple. And if Apple choose AMD, you’ll probably just find a reason to hate AMD down the road. I’m a fan of technology and I’m very interested in what Apple can do with ARM. And I’m excited about what types of designs Apple will do with ARM. Maybe a super thin iMac? A thinner and lighter MacBook? Maybe a Mac Mini with chops? Who knows!

It doesn’t really matter what we say here though. Apple clearly has a roadmap and they choose whatever is best for them.

It isn't hate - it's just that the Reality Distortion Field never affected me. I have always known that Steve Jobs was nothing more than a 2nd rate P.T. Barnum. I am technically literate, and the computer is a tool. I came for the powerful hardware (PowerMac G3 then G4, G5, then Mac Pro 1,1, & 4,1) and well designed software. That isn't Apple anymore.

My judgements on Apple products are based on use and in comparison to what is available on the PC side. I am irritated that I stayed with Apple as long as I did - Had Apple actually published a roadmap, I could have (and would have) jumped ship in 2017, along with everybody else.

The Mac Pro series of computers started out as general desktop workstation class computers. With the release of the trashcan, it became a dongle for Final Cut. After the "Mia Culpa" tour of 2017, I (and a lot of other people) were expecting a return to a general purpose workstation.

That isn't the Mac Pro 7,1. It is another dongle for Final Cut. EVERY subsystem in it was obsolete on the day it launched. It's CPUs are a 14nm++++ cul-de-sac that even Intel is dumping. The GPUs are either 2 generations back (580 is a 4 year old card (Polaris) that sells for $150. The Vegas are 1 generation back (AMD has ceased manufacturing Vega 56 GPUs, so the iMac Pro will get an update). The WX5700 (RDNA1) hasn't shown up yet, but RDNA 2 GPUs will ship next quarter. The I/O is PCIe 3.0 - PCIe 4.0 launched last year, PCIe 5.0 launches next year. And then there is the $4,500 case and the $700 wheels.

If Apple had built the Mac Pro 7,1 around Threadripper - I would have happily bought one, because the hardware would once again be cutting edge - and since what I do with my computer is CPU, GPU, and Ram intensive, I wouldn't have had to spend six months on a migration strategy away from Apple.

OTOH, I now have more horsepower for less than a third of the price of a 7,1. Windows 10 is just as bullet proof as OSX. And much more useful, since I don't have to toss all of my 32-bit apps.