Folks here have not thought enough about enterprise legacy software, which remains the biggest drag on x86 performance. By comparison, the technical constraints innate to x86 remain minor. Microsoft will never obsolete a big chunk of its enterprise customers by forcing them to emulate x86 on ARM or worse. By contrast, Apple has the luxury of largely serving affluent consumers & prosumers who avoid grandfathered software.
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.
Future Apple Silicon Macs Will Reportedly Use 3nm Chips With Up to 40 Cores
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not all RAM upgrades are done years after purchase. It was fairly common practice even just 10 years ago to buy a machine with whatever RAM Apple included and upgrade it with third party RAM after the fact to avoid Apple's high upgrade prices.
I still dont see how this Chiplet "rumour" will work without redesigning the M1 Max in the first place due to NUMA and memory access. But given this rumours is now literally reported again and again and it fast booming fact. We will see what happen when it launch.
Agreed. Also, when you need to upgrade you need to upgrade. No point waiting as the next best thing is always around the corner.
2 M1 Max dies is 16 compute, 4 low power, and 64 GPU cores...that'd be a beefy machine.
Sure.
Only buy an iMac Pro and Mac Pro if you're absolutely sure you need that power right now, and that you'll amortize the cost difference within a few years anyway. Same goes for CPU/GPU upgrades. Do you really need the 10-core option? Probably not, and it's not a good bang for the buck, unless you need that kind of power right now.
Intel will be fine folks. I have no skin in the game (the last Intel product I bought was a 2011 MBP and have no specific plans to go to Intel after my latest AMD build), but projecting dooms day for Intel seems a bit silly. If anything I am happy the market is expanding rather than doing more of the same, even if I wish I had native windows support (yeah I know, hate me if you need to lol).
The question should be why are you so insistent that a company with inferior products should live on. There is also AMD so Apple isn't without competition and Google is developing its own chips as we speak. Just relax, will ya?
You need to take about 40 steps back, realize how much of a fanboy you're being (and this goes for most forum members here), then realize that Intel losing Apple was the equivalent of not buying a coffee every day for a week.
They are more worried about AMD taking over the server market, as Epyc is getting popular.
OK. Then AMD should have died about 10 years ago when it had an inferior product. Same goes for Apple in the mid 2000s when G5 processors were crap.
And AMD isn't exactly competition for Apple.
I'm not a fanboy at all. Typing things doesn't make them true. I'm literally typing on an ASUS Zephyrus 14 right now, but thank you. You don't get to make a failed attempt at winning an argument by calling people fanboys. What I said is true. They lost a client in which they produced millions of chips for. From a business perspective, that's hurtful to anyone. That's lost revenue, regardless if it isn't the biggest chunk of their revenue stream. It's not going to make Intel fold under and go out of business ... that's a ridiculous notion ... but it's still a loss for them. I said nothing about competitors. AMD is obviously Intel's competitor. Apple wasn't a "competitor" until they lost Apple as a client. However, losing them is pushing them to innovate, which is why Intel made the statement that they will try and win Apple back by making better chips than them.
Know what's worse than a fanboy? Going in the exact opposite direction and throwing logic and sound discussion out the window because of your own biases.
Good to see at least you admit Google is enough competition for Apple so now you can put your mind at ease.OK. Then AMD should have died about 10 years ago when it had an inferior product. Same goes for Apple in the mid 2000s when G5 processors were crap.
And AMD isn't exactly competition for Apple.
I think you forget that Apple almost died, in fact, they were only several months away from bankruptcy.
Ryzen is doing great. Not sure why you think it's not competition. Competition doesn't mean equal market share for each competitor, you know.
I have not forgotten about legacy windows/x86 software. But legacy software support does not mean that Microsoft can’t offer ARM software or the entire planet has to stay on x86/64 for them to service that market. I doubt Microsoft will stop making Intel versions of windows and office or any of their other core software in any of our lifetimes, but that does not mean these will be the only versions they will make. Companies that have been reliant on legacy software, until now, have been doing so while still getting generation over generation performance increases due to hardware advances and may start reevaluating those decisions when that train starts to slow. Legacy software entrenchment in business has also been eroding on many fronts over the years and operating system support alone is not going to save it. Nor should it. Even Microsoft has done a lot with Windows 11 to make a demarcation point as to what they considered unsupportable cruft like nixing NTVDM support and other things that make continuing to use 16 and 32-bit software painful.
It won’t take a monumental shift in the market for Intel to be in trouble. It will just take enough people liking light, fan-less, all-day-running notebooks that run windows and office respectfully well alongside a few common programs to sour their fortunes. Over a year ago Intel stock fell 6% on rumors that Microsoft was going to design their own server and laptop chips. Now imagine how bad that would be if it were Dell or HP and you will understand why Intel is spending million on ads to downplay MacBooks.
Last edited:
Nvidia makes high-end ARM (Grace) CPUs for workstations. They are actually trying to buy ARM (the company) but are being held up with regulatory red tape. It‘s no stretch of the imagination that they are are a potential competitor for PC and notebook ARM cpus.
VIA also has a license to make X86 chips in addition to AMD.
Global Foundries, IBM, TSMC and Fujitsu can make X86 processors for any company with a license. You may see a future, many years from now, where Intel goes off in some other direction and licenses X86 to companies that want to keep servicing that market.
Last edited:
That I am, I read it all. So for me, I have to pay off my iPhone 12 Pro. then depending on what happens next, for us, such as wife retiring , will I spring for a new iMac. I figure by then, Apple will have improved the current versions and everything, so at least for a few months, what I will buy will be state of the art. And I can go into the store and buy it right there.
But yes, I read this forum all the time.
But yes, I read this forum all the time.
There was just an article on MR the other day saying Apple's notebook market share had 10% YOY growth and 10% market share.
MacBook Air Drives 6.5 Million Apple Laptop Shipments in Q3 2021
I don't think any company wants to lose 10% of one of their major markets. Anyone who thinks Intel is OK with losing Apple as a customer really doesn't understand how business works. Apple is about 1/2 of Dell for notebooks.
Since most programs are still single-threaded, anything beyond about 8 performance cores is overkill for the overwhelming majority of Mac buyers. [Of course, higher core counts are needed to compete in the pro desktop space.]
However, precisely because most programs can't distribute their workload across multiple cores, they rely on single-core CPU speed to get the job done. Thus, even with these new chips, there's still some wait time when doing heavy-duty processing. Consequently, I expect any power user (i.e., a much larger group than just the Mac Pro buyers) could benefit from far higher single-core speed.
Apple's done a fine job offering the high single-core speeds they have, especially with such low power consumption. But if Apple wants to improve the user experience for most of its customers, in addition to increasing core counts, they'll also find a way to further improve single-core speed—particularly in their desktop models, where they aren't quite as constrained by thermals and efficiency.
However, precisely because most programs can't distribute their workload across multiple cores, they rely on single-core CPU speed to get the job done. Thus, even with these new chips, there's still some wait time when doing heavy-duty processing. Consequently, I expect any power user (i.e., a much larger group than just the Mac Pro buyers) could benefit from far higher single-core speed.
Apple's done a fine job offering the high single-core speeds they have, especially with such low power consumption. But if Apple wants to improve the user experience for most of its customers, in addition to increasing core counts, they'll also find a way to further improve single-core speed—particularly in their desktop models, where they aren't quite as constrained by thermals and efficiency.
Last edited: