Don't forget 26-bit ARM
(although they're historical at this point).
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.
Could Apple be going through yet another architecture change?
- Thread starter KawaiiAurora
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
(although they're historical at this point).
http://macdailynews.com/2019/02/21/...es-arm-based-macs-could-come-as-soon-as-2020/
It’s happening /gif.
Let’s keep this forum about PPC. Intel users will be our cousins in 5-8 years, but our discussions will be fewer and more like the 680x0 forums.
It’s been a fun ride.
It’s happening /gif.
Let’s keep this forum about PPC. Intel users will be our cousins in 5-8 years, but our discussions will be fewer and more like the 680x0 forums.
It’s been a fun ride.
I found this part rather telling
Which raises the question: While this is all well and good for low end hardware, which is fine for consuming media and basic communication over social media, what is this telling us about the forthcoming MacPro and why should the likes of Microsoft and Adobe bother with Apple since Disney is where it sees its future?
Is ARM only good for low end hardware? It seems to me that it's just like the PPC->Intel transition. The Apple chips are now faster and more efficient and Intel's progress has slowed down to the point that they can get more performance by switching. I have a feeling that a lot of the big name software companies will be onboard right from the launch - Adobe expecially. Look at how quickly they make use of new hardware like the iPad Pro. The only way I can see it going badly is if they try to port over iOS apps and we end up with just an ipad with a keyboard instead of a true laptop.
In a word, yes. All the favourable comparisons have been between the iPhone/iPad and Intel's lower offerings. Still waiting for the ARM Xeon equivalent. There is a world of difference in performance between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro purely on the basis of the processors in each.
Yet the Macbook and Macbook Air sell just fine. I bet they would sell even better with the power and battery life of an Apple chip. At a certain point the processor isn't really a bottleneck anymore and most people can do everything they need with the processing power on an iPhone. You can't even get a Xeon in an Apple portable at the moment so I don't see the point of that comparison.
I think the better question to ask is if an ARM processor can outperform alternatives for general purposes devices which do not have power and thermal constraints. To my knowledge there are no current, general purpose computers which utilize an ARM processor. ARM in the mainstream currently means iPhones and iPads.
While ARM advocates like to state the ARM processor used in the iPad Pro is already faster than x64 I have yet to see anything other than lousy GB scores to show as much. A lot of hype about ARM but I haven't seen it widely used in a general purpose computer like a Macintosh.
[doublepost=1550877684][/doublepost]
The question still remains: What of the other Macintosh systems? Using it in the MB and MBA seems reasonable. Those devices favor portability over all else. But what about the MBP, Mini, iMac, iMac Pro, and Mac Pro? Do they remain on x64? If so does it make sense for Apple to maintain two different processor architectures?
That’s the fun part of an architecture change. Apple must see a payback of performance vs. their cost. Intel chips aren’t cheap and require fancy cooling systems even in MacBooks. Equal performance and less hardware costs sold for the same or lower price means profit for Apple.
Mac Pro may always be intel. Or it may die. We don’t know yet. iMacs on intel are still fat in the middle. An ARM iMac would be paper thin and silent. Perhaps a larger display with an equally fast process for the same price.
I’m actually a little excited.
Mac Pro may always be intel. Or it may die. We don’t know yet. iMacs on intel are still fat in the middle. An ARM iMac would be paper thin and silent. Perhaps a larger display with an equally fast process for the same price.
I’m actually a little excited.
The question is: Would it be competitive with Intel offerings? There's a great case to be made that ARM is suitable for thin and light systems. I haven't seen any evidence in support of it being offered in larger systems.
If Apple moves to consumption of media then ARM is enough. Apps will wither as utilities, productivity, development, film and graphics software become secondary and limited by the hardware.
Microsoft had a go at ARM and wasted time and money on devices and would-be laptops. People wanted full-fat Windows, not its vegan equivalent.
Microsoft had a go at ARM and wasted time and money on devices and would-be laptops. People wanted full-fat Windows, not its vegan equivalent.
My mid-range Android phone with an ARM based Snapdragon 626 running at 2.2GHz scores 4600 in Geekbench 4. Compared to just 2500 on my main Mac, which is a late 2009 MacBook with a 2.26GHz C2D.
My point is that even Mid-range ARM chips from 2 years ago can clean the floor with many Intel Macs.
My point is that even Mid-range ARM chips from 2 years ago can clean the floor with many Intel Macs.
We have to remember that Apple is in complete control of the design, integration, memory design, architecture, ETC, of the Axx chip systems. They have learned so much in 10+ years of building iphones and iPads making efficient systems running on batteries. We have no idea what they have done in their labs at the desktop level running on 120/240V plugged into a wall. The laptop part we can guess.
Don’t forget the Axx chips are small compared to an Intel chip. They carry no legacy baggage (or very little). What happens if one cranks up the size on such an energy efficient system?
We have no idea if a 32 core A13 exists with an optimized heat sink, tons of RAM, etc, running in their labs, driving a 31,6” display at 6K resolution with 4 thunderbolt 3 posts, a special version of photoshop, Lightroom, FCP, etc. Imagine the possibilities if you strip away the limitations of portability and weight when you start with a system a fraction of the weight and cost of an Intel.
No one ever thought an iPad could drive a 2048x1536 display because they never saw a video card that could do it, but Apple did it with the iPad Retina. Before the iMac Retina, a 5K display was impossible. And now, they are commonplace.
Too bad we have to wait until 2020. I heard that WWDC would announce some MacPro details. Could it be something else than an Intel Mac Pro that has taken them so long? (I don’t think so, but...)
Don’t forget the Axx chips are small compared to an Intel chip. They carry no legacy baggage (or very little). What happens if one cranks up the size on such an energy efficient system?
We have no idea if a 32 core A13 exists with an optimized heat sink, tons of RAM, etc, running in their labs, driving a 31,6” display at 6K resolution with 4 thunderbolt 3 posts, a special version of photoshop, Lightroom, FCP, etc. Imagine the possibilities if you strip away the limitations of portability and weight when you start with a system a fraction of the weight and cost of an Intel.
No one ever thought an iPad could drive a 2048x1536 display because they never saw a video card that could do it, but Apple did it with the iPad Retina. Before the iMac Retina, a 5K display was impossible. And now, they are commonplace.
Too bad we have to wait until 2020. I heard that WWDC would announce some MacPro details. Could it be something else than an Intel Mac Pro that has taken them so long? (I don’t think so, but...)
I see nothing impressive here. You have a processor released 10 years ago and based on technology from 13 years ago being out performed by a processor from 2 years ago. Color me surprised.
It's the rate of development. In 10 years there have been improvements to Intel but it has been very slow. A 2018 MBP isn't THAT much faster than the first get of i5/i7s. Meanwhile in just a few years ARM chips have gone from very low end cell phone stuff to wiping the floor with 5 year old laptops.
This is pretty much the same way I was looking at it. A lot of the i5's in Macs only score around 5000 in Geekbench. And these are computer chips... not phone and tablet chips like most ARM are right now.
Five year old laptop? I think you meant to say ten year old laptop (2019 - 2009 = 10). Furthermore the processor in the 10 year old laptop is based on technology released in 2006, 13 years ago. If you want to convince people ARM is a better option then please do it with something current or, at a minimum, of the same timeframe.
As for the performance increase, or lack of in you argument, you really don't know what Intel could have done during that time. There is speculation Intel, due to lack of competition, rested on their laurels, and released ho hum updates over the past decade. Is that true? I don't know.
What I do know is Intel's core business is microprocessors and they have a lot of talent. To convince me Apple can step in and make, by all the hype found in these forums, a fantastically better processor is going to take more than pointing to a two year old processor outperforming a 13 year old processor architecture. Furthermore such evidence is going to have to be with like systems running real world applications. None of this Geekbench BS.
I'm keeping an open mind but this whole ARM beats the pants off of Intel talk is just that: talk. Many processor architectures have come and gone because the cost to develop and produce competitive processors was too high. Many ceded to the x64 architecture as a result. ARM has been around and published for a long time so I have to question: Where has it been?
5nm
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/22/tsmc-to-supply-5nm-chip-orders-for-2020-iphones/
Tell me this won’t be fast.
https://www.macrumors.com/2019/02/22/tsmc-to-supply-5nm-chip-orders-for-2020-iphones/
Tell me this won’t be fast.
It’ll be fast. For phone apps. Not so much for Final Cut X.
Intel has been struggling with getting 10nm chips out the door, meanwhile AMD looks set to put out 7nm CPUs this summer on schedule and has made useful strides to catch up and, in some cases, overhaul Intel. I just don’t see the ARM Threadripper-killer in the offing anywhere.
No no, I meant 5 year old laptop. Not sure why you think we need to go back to 2006.
2015 MBP 13" i5 Geekbench - 3733 single core, 7071 multi core.
iPhone Xs Geekbench - 4797 single core, 11269 multi core.
Ohhh wait, you said "none of that Geekbench BS" which just automatically shuts down any argument and makes you the winner. How convenient for you. I guess I could point out that the iPad Pro can currently run a very powerful version of photoshop, edit videos just fine (I'm sure it could run FCPX if they wanted to) and has the graphics power to run all sorts of games the MBP could never handle.
Because that's what the individual who I responded to referenced:
My mid-range Android phone with an ARM based Snapdragon 626 running at 2.2GHz scores 4600 in Geekbench 4. Compared to just 2500 on my main Mac, which is a late 2009 MacBook with a 2.26GHz C2D.
The 2006 comes into play because the Core 2 Duo processor used in that 2009 MBP is based on technology used in computers dating back to 2006.
I don't know about you but I, and I suspect the vast majority of computer users, use computers to do things other than run Geekbench. If there are some non-GB benchmarks you can point to I'll be happy to look at them. Do you have any?
The question isn't: Can it run Photoshop? The question is: How well does it run Photoshop compared to a computer? Are there any benchmarks to show an iPad Pro outperforming a computer? I'd be very interested in them.
Last edited:
It certainly wouldn't surprised me as Apple now places profits and form over function.