First Arm-Based Macs to Be 13-Inch MacBook Pro and Redesigned iMac, Launches Coming in Late 2020 or Early 2021

[cmaier]

Idk they could release x86-128 processors w/ a more refined instruction set (removing a lot of the extra instructions not really used).. Intel has its own fabs I'm they could go to 3nm and skip 5nm all together.. As far as x86, AMD owns it... There is something can to do make x86 better than ARM. Especially for desktops / workstations.

128 bit doesn’t buy you much of anything. 64-bit was mainly helpful for memory space, not cpu calculations, but even so, 128 bit is only a little better than 64 bit given that most things apps do Or would even want to do can be represented by 64-bit numbers. And the whole point of x86-64 was that we already got rid of all the crappy instructions that were problematic.

Intel COULD go to 3nm, but at that point they’d only be one node ahead of TSMC who already is doing 5nm stuff. That isn’t a big difference. And Intel is still trying to get 10nm to work right - they aren’t skipping to 3nm.
[automerge]1592778441[/automerge]

Here’s my big question: what peripheral interface is Apple going to use on these machines? TB3? USB4?

I am really interested to see if Apple continues to support ThunderBolt 3. If Apple stops supporting TB 3 for USB-C only, then Apple must implement USB 4 or it will be a step backward in performance.

Any ARM processor performance advantage will have to overcome its software compatibility disadvantage.

Mini LED will be nice for Macs but high end PCs are already beginning to adopt the technology.

My guess is that Kuo’s reference to a MacBook with ARM and mini LED in 1H 2021 is the rumored 14”.

I assume USB4. Interesting question though.

 

[rp2011]

It doesn’t stop them from working, but if we look back to the PowerPC to Intel days new versions of Mac OS will probably stop being ported to Intel rather quickly. Intel was introduced with 10.4 and 10.5 was the last OS that worked with PowerPC. Arm will probably be introduced for 10.16 and I’d bet 10.17 will be the last version that works on Intel.

Yep, that‘s been the story in computers since the very beginning. Imagine if we needed to stop making new computers in 1985 because someone had just bought a new computer the year before?

 

[Jyby]

Science Rules!

 

[dallas112678]

ARM would work in the existing form factor or in the form factor they are about to release with x86. The lesser need for cooling doesn’t mean it has to be thinner, just that it could be thinner.
[automerge]1592757058[/automerge]

Yes we can.

Hopefully they don’t make it thinner because they would have more overhead for more powerful gpu’s.

 

[Jyby]

Science Rules!

 

[CWallace]

It will be interesting to see how RAM is dealt with on an ARM Macbook. The max that I’m aware of now in Apple’s A series is 6 gigs built into the SoC. That’s not even close to a starting point with Mac software.

I do not see why they can't solder as much RAM as they want onto the systemboard like they do and have done with certain Mac models.

So much for the Navi/Intel iMac that was going to be released “soon”...

Apple could still do a spec-bump on the current 21.5" 4K and 27" 5K models. Intel has new CPUs and AMD has new GPUs available for such.

It is starting to sound more and more like the "new design iMac" will be ARM-architecture and not x86.

I think the biggest challenge will be convincing people ARM is the right way to go if it turns out Intel/AMD do something miraculous with x86... Imagine if Apple goes to ARM and then Intel/AMD triple leap frog Apple.. What does Apple do then?

Well Intel certainly is not going to do that looking at their current and future roadmaps and even AMD is not talking about anything so ambitious, plus if Apple really thought AMD would be the salvation their proponents on this forum claim, they could have already moved and left Intel behind. From what I have read, AMD is great on desktop, but not so much on mobile and 80% or more Macs shipped every day use mobile components so that might have been keeping Apple wedded to Intel for the near-term.

Here’s my big question: what peripheral interface is Apple going to use on these machines? TB3? USB4?

As one of the founding members of Thunderbolt, Apple should have been able to adopt it even before the Thunderbolt Technology Community made it royalty-free and part of the USB 4 spec. So I expect we will see TB3/USB-C to start and then eventually USB4.

 

[jonnysods]

This better be a compelling argument to make that switch...

 

[theotherphil]

I agree with your assessment, but I still don't see them being able to move the needle on Mac sales with a switch to ARM. They'll continue to do what they do today, sell Macs to existing Mac users. ARM Macs would have to offer some incredible feature that is simply impossible on other platforms to convince more people to ditch their PCs in favor of a Mac. Maybe it'll happen, but it seems very unlikely to me.

They don’t need to increase the sales of Macs if they make each device cheaper for them to make. Given the quantities of A series chips that they produce per year, adding in the designs for the Mac Chip is going to cost very little it terms of outlay. However, the saving of at least $200 per processor will make a big difference to Apple’s bottom line on 5 million Macs sold per year.

That’s $1Bn per year extra in profit. That’s before you even start looking at iPad sales from extra “pro” software available on the ARM platform.

This is why they won’t care about the 2% who use boot camp or the small amount of people who can only possibly use a Mac to run virtualised software.

 

[cwwilson]

This is huge news. A fundamental shift in Apple computers as we know them. It’s actually happening. After years and years of rumors, we are entering the dawn of a new reality. While leaving the tried and true X86 architecture is a bold move by any stretch, Apple has seen that maybe it was just time for a change... Basically they think they have peaked and believe ARM is the future and the new way of computing. We know their design is the best you can get on mobile devices, it’s now time to bring it to the Big Leagues.

This is the most exciting thing to happen to Apple’s computer line in a long, long time.

 

[the.unko.lema]

This iMac rumor seems odd.

Why would they update the 21” into a 23” and then to a 24”...
Also no rumor of the larger 27”?
What about the iMac pro?

 

[smulji]

This is huge news. A fundamental shift in Apple computers as we know them. It’s actually happening. After years and years of rumors, we are entering the dawn of a new reality. While leaving the tried and true X86 architecture is a bold move by any stretch, Apple has seen that maybe it was just time for a change... Basically they think they have peaked and believe ARM is the future and the new way of computing. We know their design is the best you can get on mobile devices, it’s now time to bring it to the Big Leagues.

This is the most exciting thing to happen to Apple’s computer line in a long, long time.

This is the Apple that I grew to love. Bold and daring.

 

[DeepIn2U]

You have to start somewhere and let us not forget that the first two consumer Intel Macs were the MacBook Pro and iMac so there is precedent. As Azrael9 noted directly above me, these two models are likely a significant amount of Apple's laptop and desktop Mac sales and probably primarily used for "general purpose" applications where raw power is not important so they would be the two models most likely to sell well at first.




A 7nm Core CPU that a 16" MacBook Pro or 27" iMac can use? Sure, in 2030 maybe.

Intel are struggling to adapt their 10nm process to anything that draws more than 25W (the Tiger Lake optimization of the current Ice Lake 10nm CPU family will still top out at 25W) and have already said that the 11th Generation CPUs that the MacBook Pro and iMac would use will still be at 14nm (Rocket Lake) and probably still pulling over 100W for the BTO models Apple would be using in a 27" iMac.

Intel has a 15W cpu already at 10nm++ Not for the 16” MBP but you’re making a statement with “Intel are struggling to adapt their 10nm process to anything that draws more than 25W”. Core has been around a long time and we may have a surprise in store you never know - be it 1 yr or 2.

I’m aware the MBP & MB 2008 launched with Intel CPU’s yet it was demonstrated working in a Mac Pro on stage of WWDC as I mentioned. THAT alone demonstrates the power in testing and this rumor only states a consumer / portable professional machine will get it first and I’m concerned by that showing.
We shall see what occurs though this Monday.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Intel was introduced with 10.4 and 10.5 was the last OS that worked with PowerPC. Arm will probably be introduced for 10.16 and I’d bet 10.17 will be the last version that works on Intel.

Note however that OS releases were less frequent back then. I'd expect Intel computers to see more than two years of support.

 

[dspdoc]

I do not see why they can't solder as much RAM as they want onto the systemboard like they do and have done with certain Mac models.




Apple could still do a spec-bump on the current 21.5" 4K and 27" 5K models. Intel has new CPUs and AMD has new GPUs available for such.

It is starting to sound more and more like the "new design iMac" will be ARM-architecture and not x86.




Well Intel certainly is not going to do that looking at their current and future roadmaps and even AMD is not talking about anything so ambitious, plus if Apple really thought AMD would be the salvation their proponents on this forum claim, they could have already moved and left Intel behind. From what I have read, AMD is great on desktop, but not so much on mobile and 80% or more Macs shipped every day use mobile components so that might have been keeping Apple wedded to Intel for the near-term.




As one of the founding members of Thunderbolt, Apple should have been able to adopt it even before the Thunderbolt Technology Community made it royalty-free and part of the USB 4 spec. So I expect we will see TB3/USB-C to start and then eventually USB4.

I will happily settle for a spec bumped 27” iMac. 10th gen. and Navi and I will be thrilled.

 

[InuNacho]

People keep citing Apple's compatibility as a good thing, but I think those people are remembering it with rose tinted glasses.

First Gen 68K applications ran STUPID fast on later 680X0 systems. I remember trying to play Glider and Shufflepuck cafe on a Quadra and it was near impossible.

68K to PPC was pretty smooth but I do recall there being some issues between System 7 to 8 with graphical artifacting and missing options on more graphic intensive applications.

9 to X Classic Environment was just terrible, that's why Apple released a OS 9 G4.

PPC to Intel was more of a repeat of 68K to PPC. If it was light it was ok, anything remotely heavy was going to be slow and clunky. Photoshop CS1 ran at a whopping 160F on my 2006 Macbook just doing light editing on a 4MP image. Most applications that were "Universal" were pretty good overall.

 

[HowardEv]

We were talking bout iMac, so battery life isn‘t an issue.

But maybe the “new form factor” is not an all-in-one, but a two piece: 24” display that wirelessly connects to a portable hub unit, which can be popped in a backpack and taken to a coffee shop and be controlled from phone or laptop.

 

[Abazigal]

Apple will not abandon all professionals out there, especially after the last three years and the investments they made to the Mac platform. Going only ARM without a good (and long) transition plan, would be suicide. I don't believe this report at all. I am confident though that Apple will introduce an ARM entry level Mac at some point and that it will transition completely to ARM, but first the hardware (ARM CPUs) and software (macOS & 3rd party apps), must evolve accordingly. This will not happen in 12 months. I believe that it will take 3-5 years for this transition, especially when talking about Pro software.

Not right away at least.

But there will come a time when professionals will have only an arm Mac as their next viable upgrade option and when that time comes...

 

[cmaier]

But maybe the “new form factor” is not an all-in-one, but a two piece: 24” display that wirelessly connects to a portable hub unit, which can be popped in a backpack and taken to a coffee shop and be controlled from phone or laptop.

But maybe it’s a unicorn that poops ice cream.

What are you talking about?

 

[CWallace]

This iMac rumor seems odd. Why would they update the 21” into a 23” and then to a 24”... Also no rumor of the larger 27”? What about the iMac pro?

It sounds like the 21.5" and 27" may remain Intel and continue to look like they always have (so no new design).

The 24" will be a new design and will use ARM-architecture, not Intel x86.

Intel has a 15W cpu already at 10nm++ Not for the 16” MBP but you’re making a statement with “Intel are struggling to adapt their 10nm process to anything that draws more than 25W”.

The currently-announced 10nm Intel CPUs are all at or below 25W (Ice Lake / Cannon Lake / Tiger Lake). The only two Mac models that are on 10nm is the 2020 MacBook Air and the 2010 13" MacBook Pro because their performance envelope allows those low(er)-power(ed) CPUs.

The 16" MacBook Pro uses a 45W CPU and the iMac 5K uses a 95W CPU. Those are all 14nm and will remain 14nm for the next few years per Intel's product charts.

Core has been around a long time and we may have a surprise in store you never know - be it 1 yr or 2.

I think by now "we know". Intel CPUs used in 16" MacBook Pros and desktop Macs have been on 14nm since 2014 (Broadwell) and will be on it at least through 2021 (Rocket Lake).

I’m aware the MBP & MB 2008 launched with Intel CPU’s yet it was demonstrated working in a Mac Pro on stage of WWDC as I mentioned. THAT alone demonstrates the power in testing and this rumor only states a consumer / portable professional machine will get it first and I’m concerned by that showing.

That Mac Pro had a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 CPU inside it - ironically, the same Pentium 4 that Apple kept throwing the "megahertz myth" slogan at because they claimed their PowerPC chips with clock-speeds up to half that of the Pentium 4 were just as fast or faster. That Pentium 4 was on a motherboard that was like a quarter the size of the PowerPC motherboard normally in the case so Apple likely did it for marketing purposes since Intel was already moving away from the Pentium architecture for the new Core architecture and Core was not yet ready to replace Pentium on the top-end of the Intel CPU pyramid.

 

[ilaird]

Keep in mind that Mac OS X has _always_ had the capability to build binaries for multiple CPUs at the same time so that applications can run across all platforms transparently, with the only effort required being a check box on the compile settings, ever since it was NeXTSTEP. So Apple can add ARM to MacOS and support ARM and x86 in parallel with near-zero effort. There's no reason for Apple to convert to using only ARM unless there's a business reason to. ARM is certainly more power-efficient, and lower cost, but (for example) it might make sense to keep running x86 on high-end desktop computers and ARM on low-end desktops and laptops, since x86 CPUs are more powerful but consume more power and cost more. Or they could use AMD, or whatever else they want. Modern MacOS software should be able to compile to any CPU with minimal effort on the developers' part. I used to build apps for x86, PPC, SPARC, HP PA RISC, and I forget how many other platforms (SunOS and Windows, that I recall, in addition to NeXTSTEP), and it all "just worked". And that was back in the 90s! I've been told that Apple always maintained that portability, to keep their options open.

 

[HowardEv]

But maybe it’s a unicorn that poops ice cream.

What are you talking about?

The new form factor of the iMac. A change of bezel thickness would not be a new form factor. A new form factor means changing where the CPU lives relative to the screen and keyboard. I bet All in One iMacs are on the way out.

 

[dgdosen]

Hopefully we'll find out more tomorrow - but I was just looking at Linux ARM support - and see AWS supports aarch64 (arm64) on their Graviton EC2 instances. I haven't used them, but I can't find anything you can't run on that hardware, and their perf looks more than acceptable. My gut says Apple is a better chip designer and will be using the latest 5nm foundries so perf should be even better... If Apple just hops on that aarch64 bandwagon with the rest of the industry.

Will they?

 

[cmaier]

Keep in mind that Mac OS X has _always_ had the capability to build binaries for multiple CPUs at the same time so that applications can run across all platforms transparently, with the only effort required being a check box on the compile settings, ever since it was NeXTSTEP. So Apple can add ARM to MacOS and support ARM and x86 in parallel with near-zero effort. There's no reason for Apple to convert to using only ARM unless there's a business reason to. ARM is certainly more power-efficient, and lower cost, but (for example) it might make sense to keep running x86 on high-end desktop computers and ARM on low-end desktops and laptops, since x86 CPUs are more powerful but consume more power and cost more. Or they could use AMD, or whatever else they want. Modern MacOS software should be able to compile to any CPU with minimal effort on the developers' part. I used to build apps for x86, PPC, SPARC, HP PA RISC, and I forget how many other platforms (SunOS and Windows, that I recall, in addition to NeXTSTEP), and it all "just worked". And that was back in the 90s! I've been told that Apple always maintained that portability, to keep their options open.

You have it reversed. X86 on low end, Arm on high end. Because Arm is nearly twice as fast, as you’ll find out tomorrow.

 

[ShiggyMiyamoto]

Somehow I do not believe that Apple will make a complete transition so fast. What will happen to the Mac Pro? I am really curious to see what Apple is planing and I hope that they will not make any bad decisions. Remember, one of the major reasons for people buying Macs, was the switch to Intel processors and the ability of Macs to run Windows. Of course now it is a different world we live in, but still Apple hardware should be able to run Windows, for people that need it.

I agree with you. The Mac Pro was just released and it's really shocked people how expensive it is especially at the base model. When it comes to losing BootCamp compatibility that doesn't bother me too much because I have a custom-built AMD Ryzen 5 3600X-based PC with 32 GB of RAM that can handle anything I need or want, including gaming.

Is there any chance that the rumors about ARM-based Macs turn out to be unfounded? I mean, like a few other posters in this thread have said, they JUST released the new Mac Pro last year and I'm sure those customers will be pissed if their new computers are suddenly made obsolete.

I'm really skeptical that they're gonna announce anything ARM related at all. I think they're gonna likely focus on Mac sales in retail and so on, then talk about the adoption of the macOS/iOS etc. Then likely they'll talk about and reveal macOS 10.16 [insert name here].

Apple will not abandon all professionals out there, especially after the last three years and the investments they made to the Mac platform. Going only ARM without a good (and long) transition plan, would be suicide. I don't believe this report at all. I am confident though that Apple will introduce an ARM entry level Mac at some point and that it will transition completely to ARM, but first the hardware (ARM CPUs) and software (macOS & 3rd party apps), must evolve accordingly. This will not happen in 12 months. I believe that it will take 3-5 years for this transition, especially when talking about Pro software.

I would hope not lol.

Is it likely then that Bootcamp will be discontinued?

Unless they create some sort of compatibility layer, that's very likely.

 

[smulji]

The currently-announced 10nm Intel CPUs are all at or below 25W (Ice Lake / Cannon Lake / Tiger Lake).

45W Tiger Lake CPUs have also been announced.
[automerge]1592785654[/automerge]

You have it reversed. X86 on low end, Arm on high end. Because Arm is nearly twice as fast, as you’ll find out tomorrow.

I don't suspect we'll see actual custom Apple ARM processors for Macs tomorrow. Just an detailed out of the transition of macOS to ARM.