Five Games Worth Firing Up to Show Off Your New MacBook Pro

[CarlJ]

This would mean the transition is ongoing. Volkswagen can't claim to have transitioned entirely to the electric engines when they're still making combustion engine cars and nor can you claim an "intel-refresh of the big Mac Pro" doesn't constitute an ongoing transition that's not yet finished.

You're arguing semantics. Apple can quite reasonably say (at that point), "Yes, we've completed the transition to Apple Silicon. We now offer an Apple Silicon version of every machine we had in the lineup when we announced the transition. We still offer a few specific models with Intel processors for those customers who need them." That seems quite reasonable - and in keeping with their original statement - to me.

Would your insistence that they not offer any Intel-based models extend to their refurb store?

 

[lysingur]

The Mac Pro is a special case. Some of the customers it's targeted at (recall that they made a big deal out of getting design feedback from various industry professionals) have large collections of them and use them to run very specialized software, some of which isn't ported to Apple Silicon yet. I can totally see a case for them bringing out another revision of the Intel-based Mac Pro (to best support said customers), at or around the same time that they also release the new Apple Silicon-based Mac Pro, for customers who are able to transition off of Intel hardware. Wouldn't look good for them to tell these high-end customers they courted, "okay, the AS version of the Mac Pro is out, time to recycle your Intel Mac Pros, we don't care if the software you need doesn't run on Apple Silicon yet".

Well, I agree with you on them bringing out another Intel Mac Pro, obviously. My reasoning has more to do with engineering and logistics.

1. They need to get Apple Silicon outperforming Intel Xeon by a wide margin to justify the refresh. It doesn't look like in terms of multi-core performance at least, M1 is there yet.
2. They also need to get Apple Silicon outperforming the best graphics card currently available for Mac Pro by a significant margin to justify the refresh. It also doesn't look like M1 is there yet.
3. Designing for entry-level machines and laptops is much less complex than a desktop tower like the Mac Pro. The pandemic most likely has slowed the Mac Pro team down. It has been reported that Apple had opted to communicate with suppliers via video calls rather than in-person in the making of the iPhone 13 and that it was a difficult process for both parties. There is no reason for us to believe that this isn't the case with the next iteration of Mac Pro.
4. The urgency to get another iteration of Mac Pro out is greater than completing the transition by Nov 2022.

You can say it's playing with semantics but as long as Apple is making and selling new Intel Mac Pros, the transition is ongoing. I used the transition to electric engines as an example. Volkswagen cannot claim to have completely transitioned to electric engines while their next Tiguan still offers combustion engine models. Neither you nor I get to re-define what "transition" means. When you "complete" a transition, it means just that. Otherwise, you're still transitioning.

No, my "insistence" doesn't extend to the refurb store. Volkswagen can advertise or even sell certified used combustion engine cars but as long as they stopped, completely, making new combustion engine cars, they can claim to have completely transitioned to electric engines.

 

[januarydrive7]

I agree with you on them bringing out another Intel Mac Pro. My reasoning has more to do with engineering and economics.

1. They need to get Apple Silicon outperforming Intel Xeon by a wide margin to justify the refresh. It doesn't look like in terms of multi-core performance at least, M1 is there yet.

The rumored Max x2 or Max x4 will see big multi-core gains. Not sure if you could really claim it's not there yet without seeing how these configurations perform.

1. They also need to get Apple Silicon outperforming the best graphics card currently available for Mac Pro by a significant margin to justify the refresh. It also doesn't look like M1 is there yet.

This is somewhat reasonable (barring the same argument from above). Although, it seems that with proper software support, the graphics capabilities of Apple Silicon will be much better than we're seeing today (i.e., this isn't a hardware limitation). Would like to see what comes out of Apple's various contributions to open and closed source projects in the next year.

1. Designing for entry-level machines and laptops is much less complex than a desktop tower like the Mac Pro. The pandemic most likely has slowed the Mac Pro team down. It has been reported that Apple had opted to communicate with suppliers via video calls rather than in-person in the making of the iPhone 13 and that it was a difficult process for both parties. There is no reason for us to believe that this isn't the case with the next iteration of Mac Pro.

If Apple is to be believed, they've designed Apple Silicon with this vertical integration in mind -- in other words, they're not designing whole new chips for these machines, but building on the same foundation. I don't think there is as much work to do for an AS mac pro that you're imagining.

1. The urgency to get another iteration of Mac Pro out is greater than completing the transition by Nov 2022.

You can say it's playing with semantics but as long as Apple is making and selling new Intel Mac Pros, the transition is ongoing. I also used the transition to electric engines as an example. Volkswagen cannot claim to have completely transitioned to electric engines while their next Tiguan still offers combustion engine models. Neither you nor I get to re-define what "transition" means. When you "complete" a transition, it means just that. Otherwise, you're still transitioning.

No, my "insistence" doesn't extend to the refurb store. Volkswagen can advertise or even sell certified used combustion engine cars but as long as they stopped, completely, making new combustion engine cars, they can claim to have completely transitioned to electric engines. Not sure why this is complicated for some to understand.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple doesn't release a single new intel-based Mac Pro. The only reason for continuing to sell intel-based Mac Pro's I can think of would be software-support not quite being there, but Apple wants native software ready for Apple Silicon yesterday, and I just don't see Apple enabling lazy developers to get away with hamstringing Apple Silicon ad infinitum.

 

[lysingur]

The rumored Max x2 or Max x4 will see big multi-core gains. Not sure if you could really claim it's not there yet without seeing how these configurations perform.

Not sure if you could claim it's there without seeing how it performs.

If Apple is to be believed, they've designed Apple Silicon with this vertical integration in mind -- in other words, they're not designing whole new chips for these machines, but building on the same foundation. I don't think there is as much work to do for an AS mac pro that you're imagining.

An Apple Silicon Mac Pro requires a completely new form factor. Due to its power efficiency and lack of support for external graphics cards, much of the space dedicated to the power supply and cooling in the existing Mac Pro isn't needed anymore. This is on top of the engineering challenge of putting an unprecedented 40-core/128-core inside an SoC. There is more work than you imagine.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple doesn't release a single new intel-based Mac Pro. The only reason for continuing to sell intel-based Mac Pro's I can think of would be software-support not quite being there, but Apple wants native software ready for Apple Silicon yesterday, and I just don't see Apple enabling lazy developers to get away with hamstringing Apple Silicon ad infinitum.

I would be surprised if they can manage to complete the transition within the timeframe that they promised considering we're still in the middle of a fourth wave. You have to know that Mac Pro isn't like Apple's other product lines. The need to get it right far outweighs the need to get it out.

I would love to be proven wrong though. If Apple manages to finish the transition to Apple Silicon without major hiccups by Nov 2022 or even lowering the cost of Mac Pro significantly in the process, then they really have done it. It will change computing as far as we know. And my prediction about Apple Silicon starting to dominate gaming from 2023 onwards would be more or less a certainty.

 

[CarlJ]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Apple doesn't release a single new intel-based Mac Pro. The only reason for continuing to sell intel-based Mac Pro's I can think of would be software-support not quite being there, but Apple wants native software ready for Apple Silicon yesterday, and I just don't see Apple enabling lazy developers to get away with hamstringing Apple Silicon ad infinitum.

It's not a million lazy developers that are the concern, it's a dozen developers of apps that are the tools of the trade for some high-profile companies that Apple spent a lot of time targeting this current Intel-based Mac Pro at. Apple doesn't really have much leverage over those developers - if Apple cuts the developers off from the Mac lineup (by discontinuing the Intel Mac Pro), it won't cause these highly valued customers to stop using the software they need, it'll cause them to stop using Macs, involving lots of time and expense and aggravation switching to Windows, and it will blow Apple's reputation with them for a long time to come - Apple's goal with the Mac Pro was to court these customers, to get them into and/or keep them in the Mac camp.

There have been other devices that Apple has produced for a long time after they stopped being top-of-the-line, because there were big corporate or government customers that relied on that particular model. If you have 10,000 of a particular model of device, loaded with a particular set of custom apps, out in the field, and some break, and you need 100 more to cover replacements and such, then being told, "we don't make that model any more, but this completely different model is better", doesn't go over well (your software, documentation, and training procedures are all set up for the discontinued model, and there's no contingency fund for redoing all that just because the vendor "improved" things). That's the kind of response that gets you skipped over for the next large contract, so there have been some cases where Apple continued making a model long after its replacement was well established in the market (in some of these cases, a guarantee from Apple to continue making the particular model for X years may have been written into the original bulk purchase contract).

I won't be surprised if Apple doesn't release any more Intel-based Mac Pro models. But I also won't be surprised if they do.

 

[Homy]

Please cite where I took Apple literally. The whole point about this taken-out-of-context argument about when Apple will complete its transition to Apple Silicon is to not take Apple too literally.

I also never said Apple meant by that statement that they will refresh every Mac with Intel.

I also never tried to deconstruct what Apple meant by "exciting" nor was it ever brought up by me. You should really learn to stop putting words in people's mouths.

Again, like our dear friend ErikGrim, please explain why you're so confident that there won't be any new Intel Mac Pro despite rumours to the contrary.

Keeping Intel Mac Pro alongside Apple Silicon Mac Pro literally means the transition isn't complete. And you're literally backtracking by saying that. 😂

And if Apple does fresh Mac Pro with new Intel chips, that LITERALLY means the transition is still ongoing.

I feel this is another of those discussions that keeps going round in circles and changing focus. You have a strange way of interpreting things.

Talk about putting words in one’s mouth when you first claimed I call Apple a liar when I never did, just because you have a different comprehension? You don’t have to say the exact same words to mean something. I responded to things you said, suggested or quoted to build your case. You should also really learn to stop contradicting yourself or first suggesting things and then denying it.

You responded directly to my post by posting a large image where you underlined ”Apple has exciting new Intel-based Macs in development” as a proof for your claim that there will be a new Intel Mac Pro. That quote doesn’t mention Mac Pro or any other Macs but when you use that as proof for your claim you are taking it literally. By misreading that quote you also suggested that I’m calling Apple a liar. As I already explained Apple said that at WWDC 2020 and fulfilled their promise by releasing new Intel-based iMacs two month later, meaning they don’t have to release any other new Intel Macs. So first you take that sentence too literally and use it as a proof, then say the whole point is to not take Apple literally and you never meant that Apple will refresh every Mac with Intel? Then why you use that sentence to back your claim?

As for providing proof we all are making assumptions without concrete proofs. Only Apple knows for sure how it’s going to be, but the rest of us can make educated guesses based upon current facts. Your main point here was not whether Apple will release another Intel-based Mac Pro or not, even though you have focused on that later. Your main point was that Apple won’t manage to complete the transition next year and release a Apple Silicon Mac Pro, because ”The remaining time simply won't allow Apple to keep all of the "promises" they made on Jun 22, 2020.” and ”They won't rush a half-baked Pro machine just to keep a silly "promise"."

You do realize that these kinds of transitions start and are planned several years ahead? It’s not like Apple announced the transition at WWDC 2020 and then said ”Okay, it’s time to get to work and start planning how we’ll do it so we can push out half-baked potatoes by the end of 2022". They know already which products they’re going to make and release for the next several years and how to get there and this transition also started years ago, in 2015

You are of course free to have your own definition of ”transition”. If you feel the transition is not over until there are no Intel Macs in Apple’s Mac line it’s your choice but for me the transition is over when Apple has managed to replace all Intel Macs with a similar Apple Silicon-based one, no matter if they keep a few for their old customers.

As for the article about new Intel chips names found in Xcode I did mention that myself before you referred to it as a proof. I also did admit that they may update the CPU one last time but that would also mean perhaps higher CPU prices for the new chips. I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple just kept selling these old Mac Pros and discontinued them like iMac Pro without much updates. M1, M1 Pro and M1 Max are already faster in many tasks than Mac Pro and people with Mac Pros, like Max Tech, have a hard time to sell them because nobody wants an Intel Mac Pro.

Again your main point wasn’t that though but that Apple needs more time for a M-based Mac Pro. Why I’m confident about them not needing longer time than 2022 is their track record. They have transitioned 6 of their Macs just after one year and have only three left, the high-end Mac Mini, iMac 27” and Mac Pro. They have showed that they easily can put 2-4 M1 chips together to build M1 Pro and Max and all the rumors and leaks also suggest that they’re working on chips with up to 40 CPU cores and 128 GPU cores buy simply putting more dies together like they did with Pro and Max. The new Macbook Pros with M1 Pro and Max were already ready last summer but were delayed because of the hacker attack so you can be sure they’re already testing and finishing those big M-chips and the new Mac Pros. Again if they do they do and if they don’t and are delayed a few months it’s not the end of the world.

 

[lysingur]

Talk about putting words in one’s mouth when you first claimed I call Apple a liar when I never did, just because you have a different comprehension? You don’t have to say the exact same words to mean something. I responded to things you said, suggested or quoted to build your case. You should also really learn to stop contradicting yourself or first suggesting things and then denying it.

• I never said you are calling Apple a liar. There is a difference between wanting clarification and an affirmative statement.

You responded directly to my post by posting a large image where you underlined ”Apple has exciting new Intel-based Macs in development” as a proof for your claim that there will be a new Intel Mac Pro. That quote doesn’t mention Mac Pro or any other Macs but when you use that as proof for your claim you are taking it literally. By misreading that quote you also suggested that I’m calling Apple a liar. As I already explained Apple said that at WWDC 2020 and fulfilled their promise by releasing new Intel-based iMacs two month later, meaning they don’t have to release any other new Intel Macs. So first you take that sentence too literally and use it as a proof, then say the whole point is to not take Apple literally and you never meant that Apple will refresh every Mac with Intel? Then why you use that sentence to back your claim?

• Again, I never try to deconstruct the word "exciting" nor was it ever brought up. You're misdirecting and now attempting to shift the focus away from your unfounded accusation earlier.
• You're making up your own qualifier of what constitutes the fulfillment of a promise—it's pretty redundant for a company to say that before the real transition starts, we'll release more machines based on the old architecture, don't you think?
• If the real transition starts with the release of the M1, then logically we have "exciting new Intel-based Macs in development" means there'll be more Intel-based Mac during the transition. Otherwise why bother saying it at all?

You do realize that these kinds of transitions start and are planned several years ahead?

And I'm sure Apple planned for a pandemic too.

And that's really my point that the pandemic threw a monkey wrench into the whole transition plan. But you chose to ignore it for some reason.

You are of course free to have your own definition of ”transition”. If you feel the transition is not over until there are no Intel Macs in Apple’s Mac line it’s your choice but for me the transition is over when Apple has managed to replace all Intel Macs with a similar Apple Silicon-based one, no matter if they keep a few for their old customers.

It's painful to argue with people who take liberty with language. I don't feel anything about the word "transition." I know what it means and so should you. I already commented twice on this very topic but you chose to ignore it while insisting on rehashing the whole thing all over again without even acknowledging what was said prior.

The transition isn't over as long as Apple is making and selling new Intel Macs. It's not my choice nor is it yours. The qualifier lies in the very definition of the word.

If you're still partially in the previous state or condition, you haven't completed the transition yet. What's so difficult to understand?

As for the article about new Intel chips names found in Xcode I did mention that myself before you referred to it as a proof.

Proof?

You seem to love to play with words. It's a piece of supporting evidence. It's not proof or anything. I'm speculating and so are you.

Why I’m confident about them not needing longer time than 2022 is their track record. They have transitioned 6 of their Macs just after one year and have only three left, the high-end Mac Mini, iMac 27” and Mac Pro.

Where did you get 6? I counted 5: MacBook Air, MacBook Pro 13", MacBook Pro 14" & 16" (which is one category both on this site and on Apple.com), iMac 24", and Mac Mini (where there is an Intel version). You're making up product categories to suit your argument just like you're making up your own definition for words.

leaks also suggest that they’re working on chips with up to 40 CPU cores and 128 GPU cores buy simply putting more dies together like they did with Pro and Max

There are also more recent leaks suggesting a new Intel Mac Pro on the way. What's your point?

You feel like we're arguing in circles because you can't be bothered to read the entire thread so I have to take time to rehash things with you. You aren't giving us anything new despite the higher word count.

 

[diamond.g]

How/why have we strayed so far from the thread topic?

 

[lysingur]

"Developers can start building apps today and first system ships by year’s end, beginning a two-year transition"

This means the transition started at the end of last year, and from then will take two years, meaning end of 2022. It's 100% consistent and clear.

Gurman: Apple Planning No New Mac Releases For Remainder of 2022

Apple is not planning to announce any new Macs in the remainder of this year, with all planned releases expected to take place in the first quarter...

www.macrumors.com

Looks like the two-year transition to Apple Silicon won't be completed by Nov 16 or even the end of the year...like I predicted.

 

[diamond.g]

Hey Resident Evil Village can be added to the list!!

 

[Homy]

Gurman: Apple Planning No New Mac Releases For Remainder of 2022

Apple is not planning to announce any new Macs in the remainder of this year, with all planned releases expected to take place in the first quarter...

www.macrumors.com

Looks like the two-year transition to Apple Silicon won't be completed by Nov 16 or even the end of the year...like I predicted.

Don't want to go off topic after a year but although they haven't released a Mac Pro and seem to be waiting for M2/M3 they fulfilled their promise regarding the performance. They didn't release another Intel Mac Pro as I thought and they released Mac Studio M1 Ultra back in March which outperforms the Mac Pro in almost every way for a third of the price. That's one of the reasons they don't feel they have to rush releasing the Mac Pro. Many pros did get the Mac Studio instead.

 

[lysingur]

Don't want to go off topic after a year but although they haven't released a Mac Pro and seem to be waiting for M2/M3 they fulfilled their promise regarding the performance. They didn't release another Intel Mac Pro as I thought and they released Mac Studio M1 Ultra back in March which outperforms the Mac Pro in almost every way for a third of the price. That's one of the reasons they don't feel they have to rush releasing the Mac Pro. Many pros did get the Mac Studio instead.

Hindsight is 20/20. Your prediction was wrong. Own it.

The reason you're giving now in your latest reply is exactly what I was saying a year earlier. 😂 Did it ever occur to you to think why they're "waiting" for M2/M3?

Now you're moving the goalpost after an entire year saying the promise of the two-year transition to Apple Silicon is about performance?

 

[CarlJ]

Gurman: Apple Planning No New Mac Releases For Remainder of 2022

Apple is not planning to announce any new Macs in the remainder of this year, with all planned releases expected to take place in the first quarter...

www.macrumors.com

Looks like the two-year transition to Apple Silicon won't be completed by Nov 16 or even the end of the year...like I predicted.

So, not that they have to stay on the timetable, but I think they could do so by simply announcing the Mac Pro by December 31st.

 

[lysingur]

Apple can quite reasonably say (at that point), "Yes, we've completed the transition to Apple Silicon. We now offer an Apple Silicon version of every machine we had in the lineup when we announced the transition. We still offer a few specific models with Intel processors for those customers who need them." That seems quite reasonable - and in keeping with their original statement - to me.

I love how you went from:

• Yes, they will complete the two-year transition by Nov 16, 2022.

To:

• As long as they offer an Apple Silicon version in every line of business, they complete the transition

To:

• They will announce the new Mac Pro, and then not so subtly move the deadline to December 31st.

Look at how much the new iPad bombed. Apple is done for the year. Tim Cook failed to deliver Apple Car. He failed to deliver Apple Glasses. And now it looks like he won't even be able to deliver on the transition to Apple Silicon.

 

[Homy]

Hindsight is 20/20. Your prediction was wrong. Own it.

View attachment 2105427

The reason you're giving now in your latest reply is exactly what I was saying a year earlier. 😂 Did it ever occur to you to think why they're "waiting" for M2/M3?

Now you're moving the goalpost after an entire year saying the promise of the two-year transition to Apple Silicon is about performance?

Chill out man! Who cares who was right or wrong a year ago when it's all about rumors and predictions? I have better things to do than digging up old posts from last year and underline sentences just to say I was right. It's easy to say one was right after a whole year and based on recent rumors when you could very well be wrong if the chip market situation was better. It's not like you work at Apple or have a crystal ball. Do you want an award or something? Congrats, you just won the Nobel Rumors award. And if you don't understand the importance of the Mac Studio that basically replaced the Mac Pro in terms of performance and decreased the need for releasing the Mac Pro it's your problem. Have a nice day!

 

[lysingur]

Chill out man! Who cares who was right or wrong a year ago when it's all about rumors and predictions? I have better things to do than digging up old posts from last year and underline sentences just to say I was right. It's easy to say one was right after a whole year and based on recent rumors when you could very well be wrong if the chip market situation was better. It's not like you work at Apple or have a crystal ball. Do you want an award or something? Congrats, you just won the Nobel Rumors award. And if you don't understand the importance of the Mac Studio that basically replaced the Mac Pro in terms of performance and decreased the need for releasing the Mac Pro it's your problem. Have a nice day!

But I'm not wrong now, am I? The situation with TSMC was already sub-optimal after two years of COVID. Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about if you think "the chip market situation" can be better. TSMC was Apple's sole chip supplier. Apple is highly dependent on TSMC in everything they do. I just know where to look and what information to glean to make my predictions. It's definitely not blind guesses like what you and several others here have been doing.

Keep the sarcastic remarks and backtracking coming. Love it.

 

[CarlJ]

Look at how much the new iPad bombed. Apple is done for the year. Tim Cook failed to deliver Apple Car. He failed to deliver Apple Glasses. And now it looks like he won't even be able to deliver on the transition to Apple Silicon.

Sorry, can you please cite when Apple announced the Apple Car and Apple Glasses? I don't see to recall seeing those announcements.

 

[lysingur]

Sorry, can you please cite when Apple announced the Apple Car and Apple Glasses? I don't see to recall seeing those announcements.

If you go by official announcements, why do you even bother to be here on MacRumors?

It's not a secret in Silicon Valley that Apple has been investing heavily in AR/VR and poaching talents as they go for years.

The same goes for their electric car project.

I'm sorry you don't seem to be updated on these things.