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

[zerozoneice]

"Kuo confirms that an all-new design iMac is launching imminently, and it will apparently be Apple’s last new Mac featuring an Intel CPU"

...meaning this is the one to get for proper Bootcamp action.

 

[Picard J.L.]

Good news. That switch can't come soon enough. I will probably wait for a proper 27" ARM iMac.

 

[Orionfox]

They can buy a PS5 for a 1/3rd of the price of a 2080Ti and an expensive PC rig.

Yes but a PS5 cannot play PC games. The types of games played on a PC are very different and more complex than a PS5.

With Marzipan and Apple Arcade it will open the floodgate to iPad games.

Again. iPad games are not PC games, they are not even up to console standards. I play 2 and that's the only 2 I have been able o find that could hold my intrest in 6 years. Apple Arcade games are even worse.

As for triple AAA games. They'll have to port to Metal to have access to the $$$ 'i' platform and app store.

You mean like Blizzard? I saw on the WoW forum that Blizzard had disbanded its Mac dev team and I bet this upcoming change may've something to do with it. Blizzard has been one of the only major developers to support Mac and windows at the same time. As a long time Mac gamer (early 90s) I remember the dark days.

If I can't game on Mac, the best answer is not to get a pc and a Mac, its to drop the Mac. If I stop my Mac, the integration features between my tablet, my ATV, my phone and my Mac matter less. I can use my smart tv (already have), a cheap android phone and a pc all for less than a Mac mini. As a longtime Mac owner (who has gone through all of these transitions before) all I can ask is why are you trying to drive a loyal customer away?

 

[gf1b]

really interesting thread; glad I read through it. Fwiw I’ve been an Apple business customer since buying a PowerBook G3 in 1999, and windows emulation was a nightmare until Intel in 2006; not sure that businesses here in the Valley or elsewhere will maintain their past decade’s enthusiasm for Apple when it goes back to proprietary CPUs. Good luck to everyone, regardless of his or her choice!

 

[dgdosen]

With so many people talking about gaming - it makes me wonder if Apple is rushing to beat MS to a better ARM implementation so that they can try to take the lead away from MS in terms of being the PC gaming platform of choice...

Especially as Apple is showing more competence at chip building than MS.

 

[rwxx]

When Apple gets going with Mac ARM deployment...they're going to bury Intel.

I assume you're talking performance, and that remains to be seen. Apple sells a few million computers per quarter with Intel chips compared to how many Wintel boxes? While I'm sure Intel is unhappy to be losing Apple's business, it won't have much of an impact on them overall.

Apple will no doubt see performance improvements by moving to ARM. Whether those performance gains continue long-term is anyone's guess. It's also quite premature (and I'd say foolish) to count Intel out. Moving to ARM will also give Apple better control over their hardware roadmap. It won't sell more Macs, though. What sold more Macs was switching to Intel. Switching back to a proprietary architecture will likely drive a lot of those folks from the platform. It won't bring new customers into the fold. If new PC buyers haven't wanted to buy a Mac by now, switching to a less-compatible custom architecture isn't going to inspire them to jump.

Apple has always wanted to design, build, and control the whole widget, so I'm not surprised that they're moving in this direction, but plenty of other companies (in the PC/workstation space) have bet on their own chips and where are they now? Of course things are very different for Apple these days. They have hundreds of thousands of active developers (mostly on iOS), so it's not the same developer wasteland as the 90s. It'll be interesting to see how this transition goes. Personally I'm not all that excited.

 

[McG2k1]

XPS 13 gonna get a bump in sales.

 

[Orionfox]

Especially as Apple is showing more competence at chip building than MS.

Here is the problem though. I run low end CPUs - mostly i3s. Most games have NOT been optimized for multi core or don't even support more than 1 core. On the games I play, my CPU usuageis usually very low. MY GPU is 70-80 % though. I can't game on a Mac mini (thoughtcrimes my EGPU arrives tomorrow)and you can't put a real EGPU in an iMac.

Is like Apple thinks thin light and power sage are the only thing that matter. I really wish the MacBook people would just move to iPads so the Mac can get back to power and cases than can accept upgrades.

 

[theorist9]

Somewhat dubious that the first machine they update would be the 13” MBP, but who knows. Also a little weird to keep it 13” instead of eliminating bezels.

You'd earlier predicted Apple's first ARM machine would be an MBP, so I take it your surprise is that it's the 13" rather than the 16".

If they really want to demonstate the thermal superiority of their ARM chip, the 13" makes sense, since the 13" MBP's don't have dGPU's -- and it's possible they don't have a dGPU solution that is much more thermally efficient than what AMD makes available (indeed, the 16" ARM MBP may use AMD dGPU's, so you'd have no difference in thermal efficiency on the dGPU side).

Just to use some round numbers: Suppose the ARM solutions they put in the 13" and 16" each have half the TDP of the respective Intel chips. And suppose the TDP of the dGPU in the 16" is 1.5 x the TDP of the current Intel CPU, and they don't have a more efficient dGPU to put into the ARM-based 16". Then, while the 13" ARM MBP has 50% the TDP of the 13" Inte MBP l, the 16" ARM MBP has (.5+1.5)/(1+1.5)x 100 = 80% the TDP of the 16" Intel MBP -- a much less striking improvement.

[For simplicity, I'm ignoring the TDP's of the fans, SSD, RAM, power supply, etc.]

 

[Menneisyys2]

It was a huge success. People loved it. My family had two, and we got years of enjoyment out of them.

I know - it was my first iPad too. Loved it, but, then, immediately updated to iPad2 when it hit the shelves (and, then, to the iPad3).

It was woefully underpowered RAM-wise. Apple didn't think they would have a killer in their hand; this is why they didn't bother with making it more future-proof. The result? It only received iOS5, and even with it it was constantly crashing because of the shortage of the RAM. No iOS6 or later was even planned for it because of the RAM.

 

[Detnator]

Maybe you would, but not many would. Just get two 4K displays for below $1k instead.

Indeed, though Apple quality 4K displays will be a bunch more than $500 each - unless you meant below $1K each, meaning under $2K total, in which case I'd still prefer the single larger display personally.

That said, I was only saying it'd be easily worth that to me, to make the point. I don't expect it would need to cost that much, but let's consider...

1. LG 5K Ultrafine is $1300. How much more for (a) Apple quality and (b) 6K resolution? I suppose if that's (wild guess) $400-$500 more then it's $1700-$1800. So yes, under $2K.

2. Current base model 5K iMac is currently $1800. So that has the Apple quality already, plus a bunch of computer stuff that a standalone display doesn't need. Similarly configured 21" 4K iMac is $1500, so $300 difference there for just the size/resolution bump. If 5K -> 6K is a similar or slightly bigger bump, then 6K iMac might start at $2100 or $2200. How much is all the computer stuff in it worth (if we took all that out and just had the display)? Idk. Half the price of a base Mac mini? So $400. That puts us down to $1700-$1800 again.

If any of that is reasonable logic, the $1750 for 32" 6K iMac quality display would be awesome.

Then again, if for some reason Tim really wants to stay out of the display business (I can understand some reasonable business reasons for that direction) the last non-retina iMacs had this thing called Target Display Mode. Essentially use the iMac as a display for another Mac (eg. MacBook Pro). Not everyone's cup of tea of course, but if they'd bring that feature back for today's/tomorrow's retina iMacs I'd spend $2200 on a base 6K iMac over any of the third party display options. (I could use the computer part of the iMac as a server or something to offload some processing to, or any number of other things anyway so I'd benefit from it, but recognize that's not everyone's needs).

It just sucks that there's nothing today (or even rumored), of any brand, in between Apple's overkill (for me) 6K XDR and everyone else's woeful options. 😕

 

[v3rlon]

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.

If Intel REALLY wanted to surprise Apple, they could release their next chip on schedule. This would probably leave the entire industry stunned for the next decade.

If Intel tried to "punish Apple," and Apple needed x86 CPUs, there is already an alternative available. We already know Apple at least flirts with the AMD idea from time to time (possibly just to negotiate with Intel) and we know it works (see Hackintosh).

No, if Intel wants to remain relevant, they need a home run chip that no one can ignore.

 

[rp2011]

Amazon is building their own ARM server chips. Google will soon be building their own ARM chips. Even startups are racing to deliver ARM server chips. Apple and Google will need plenty of ARM server back end to serve their entire ecosystems natively.
Intel is doing fine today, but it should be worried.

 

[justperry]

iMacs should come in a 27" and a 32"

In fact, a 32" would be too small for me, currently I have a 37" TV as my monitor.

 

[Jyby]

Science Rules!

 

[cmaier]

As a longtime Mac owner (who has gone through all of these transitions before) all I can ask is why are you trying to drive a loyal customer away?

To get a bigger customer base that’s even more loyal.
[automerge]1592771804[/automerge]

I assume you're talking performance, and that remains to be seen. Apple sells a few million computers per quarter with Intel chips compared to how many Wintel boxes? While I'm sure Intel is unhappy to be losing Apple's business, it won't have much of an impact on them overall.

The same chips (or very close cousins) are in iPhones and iPads, and that quantity dwarfs Intel.

 

[justperry]

Amazon is building their own ARM server chips. Google will soon be building their own ARM chips. Companies like are racing to deliver ARM server chips. Apple and Google will need plenty of ARM server back end to serve their entire ecosystems natively.
Intel is doing fine today, but it should be worried.

More and more devices run on arm chips, like routers/AP and settopboxes, that's good, those consume too
much power currently.

I know a TV provider here, they had boxes that consume about 30 watts even on standby, same goes for ISP provided modems.

 

[petvas]

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.

 

[chucker23n1]

Indeed, though Apple quality 4K displays will be a bunch more than $500 each - unless you meant below $1K each, meaning under $2K total, in which case I'd still prefer the single larger display personally.

No, I meant below $1k total, and I don't think Apple will ever make a display in that price range again. Which is really at the root of the issue: some people want a display that just looks like something Apple-designed, some want Apple's color accuracy and general QA, some want macOS integration, some just want native Retina resolution. None of those are fulfilled with displays at regular price points.

That said, I was only saying it'd be easily worth that to me, to make the point. I don't expect it would need to cost that much, but let's consider...

1. LG 5K Ultrafine is $1300. How much more for (a) Apple quality and (b) 6K resolution? I suppose if that's (wild guess) $400-$500 more then it's $1700-$1800. So yes, under $2K.

I don't want to invalidate your purchasing choice, but the LG price point is obscene.

2. Current base model 5K iMac is currently $1800.

Right, exactly. So even Apple agrees that $1700-1800 just for the display is a bit much.

 

[rwxx]

The same chips (or very close cousins) are in iPhones and iPads, and that quantity dwarfs Intel.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with the Mac going ARM, nor is that any indicator of how successful ARM Macs will be. One only needs to look at the Mac's history. Switching to Intel and gaining the ability to run Windows (and other operating systems) resulted in more Macs being sold. The idea that going back to a proprietary platform will somehow increase sales further seems, at the moment anyway, quite illogical.

In my mind, the Mac is on life support anyway. Switching to ARM is another step towards eliminating macOS as we know it today. Regardless of what Apple has said in the past, their actions (everything powered by custom Apple chips, Swift UI, etc.) clearly demonstrate a desire to merge their platforms. What that looks like in the future is anyone's guess, but I predict we'll ultimately lose direct access to the Unix layer of "macOS" and be forced to acquire all software through the App Store.

 

[zorinlynx]

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.

 

[chucker23n1]

Amazon is building their own ARM server chips.

Note that those are ARM designs (Neoverse N1, which is a Cortex-A76 variant), not Amazon designs.

Google will soon be building their own ARM chips. Companies like are racing to deliver ARM server chips. Apple and Google will need plenty of ARM server back end to serve their entire ecosystems natively.
Intel is doing fine today, but it should be worried.

I don't see the relevance of "running the entire ecosystem natively". It's not like there are iOS apps running somewhere on the iCloud server farms. Most of the code of iCloud, Siri, etc. probably isn't even Swift. And even if it were, its CPU arch wouldn't matter much.

If you own the source code, by and large, arch changes are just a recompile away these days.
[automerge]1592772507[/automerge]

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.

There's always something new around the corner.

Was Apple supposed to not offer the Mac Pro, just to prevent those purchasers from making a mistake?

(Moving to ARM doesn't suddenly turn those Mac Pros into bricks. They're still fast machines that do their jobs.)
[automerge]1592772579[/automerge]

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with the Mac going ARM, nor is that any indicator of how successful ARM Macs will be. One only needs to look at the Mac's history. Switching to Intel and gaining the ability to run Windows (and other operating systems) resulted in more Macs being sold. The idea that going back to a proprietary platform will somehow increase sales further seems, at the moment anyway, quite illogical.

I do think the Intel switch helped Mac sales, but that isn't as relevant a decade and a half later.

 

[whfsdude]

"12 to 18 months for Apple to transition to an all-Arm lineup"

Surely not? Not for the Mac Pro? Would they really be able to develop workstation class ARM chips in such a short period of time and be willing to EOL an entirely new system that was just released? And all the PCI cards, GPU's and 3rd party stuff that can go into one, do the drivers all need to be recoded?

Seems unlikely in a short period of time. It would be upsetting to me though, I bought the 2019 MP as a long term productivity investment. If it's still not kicking ass or its being harmstrung by some sort of OS based Intel / ARM translation layer in 6 years time, then for the first time I might just reconsider the Hackintosh route. Apple would lose my trust in that matter.

When I invested in the system, i considered the price in regards to lifetime and productivity. If Apple tip that apple cart (pun intended) then the $$$ / value ratio of that system no longer works for me.

I think it's more likely that Apple will just never transition the real "pro" products (iMac Pro & Mac Pro). My guess is we'll see macOS support for 7 years on the existing pro line. With a transition to iOS announced for the remaining hardware portfolio in 5 years. Apple being a subscription and services company doesn't benefit from having an open operating system.

The pro market isn't worth developing a high end chip that supports terabytes of RAM, and lots of IO throughput.

I'm in the same boat with my Mac Pro 2019. I prefer to run virtualization locally + Docker with lots of RAM and IO.

 

[rwxx]

I do think the Intel switch helped Mac sales, but that isn't as relevant a decade and a half later.

I'm not convinced of that. Obviously I have no data to back this up, but my feeling is that the Mac user base isn't really growing. I think Apple's Mac sales are mostly to existing Mac users. Mac unit sales have been flat for years. A switch to ARM isn't going to lure new Mac users...unless Apple surprises us all with a cheap entry-level Chromebook-type product (doubtful). Will some of the folks who came to the Mac after the Intel transition now leave the platform? I think there's a very good chance that will happen and I don't see new customers lining up to take their place.

 

[whfsdude]

the PPC-to-Intel transition happened inside of 18 months. I don't expect any different this time.

It'll take longer. There haven't been any leaks around chips needed for the desktop Macs. If those existed and were ready to go in 1-2 years we'd be hearing about them.

The software transition will take longer. Going from PPC -> x86 opened up a ton of immediate advantages to migrating quickly. Eg. Virtualization, tons of libraries that were never ported to PPC, etc.

Instead we're going from a de facto architecture to one that's unpopular for desktop computing. I'm not suggesting that switching to ARM is a good or bad thing, just that it'll take longer get software ported. Pro users and developers will lose functionality, which might cause them to move away from the Mac. For example, I can't run the dev stack for my day job on a Mac because we use Docker (which runs on a VM in Mac), and some of the libraries we use don't support ARM even on Linux.

If the performance of ARM on servers was better than Intel & AMD, then maybe day job would investing in porting our libraries to ARM. ...but that hasn't happened. Almost no one in the server space is actually using ARM.