Yeah they did.Kuo says 50-100 percent faster. And I believe it.
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.
Intel Restates Support for Apple During Transition to Apple Silicon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah they did.Kuo says 50-100 percent faster. And I believe it.
Im fine with all this happening. But it won’t happen overnight. Or even in a few years. Buy an intel Mac for now. On the windows side I’ve bought ryzens. I’m not worried they’ll be obsolete vs arm windows in future.
I’m content to let this stuff play out. I could even grab a cheap arm Mac device to play with as well later but not as a main device.
The sad reality is that I couldn’t make an intel Mac viable without windows. If you can do so then great. But an arm Mac? It’s doa without some major major third party support. Support that is currently lacking in macs sold today. In fact it’s the intel macs ability to load up different os that is its appeal along with iPhone support. Mac software though kind of blows as does any apple service usually.
I don’t see Apple getting that kind of support or devs rushing to be App Store victims all over again because you know Apple has plans there to nail it down in arm. That’s the whole point of arm for Apple.
I'm a failure at business type decisions but I wonder if Apple will continue to support Intel and maybe even have new Intel based Macs even after the transition is "complete" in two years. I don't see this as the same as the switch from 68000 to PowerPC or from PowerPC to Intel. In both of those cases, the older platform was hugely out classed by the newer platform and the older platform eventually just died. In the case of Intel, its clear that it will be highly competitive far into the future.
Indeed, in the previous two switches, they switched from a significantly less popular platform to a more popular one. In this case, Apple is switching to a platform that only Apple will be on -- unless you count things like Raspberry Pis and such.
I also really wonder how this is going to affect the container and VM situation. I saw in the key note that Apple is working with Docker but much of the value of both VMs and containers currently is there was one hardware ABI. Now, that's not true.
Indeed, in the previous two switches, they switched from a significantly less popular platform to a more popular one. In this case, Apple is switching to a platform that only Apple will be on -- unless you count things like Raspberry Pis and such.
I also really wonder how this is going to affect the container and VM situation. I saw in the key note that Apple is working with Docker but much of the value of both VMs and containers currently is there was one hardware ABI. Now, that's not true.
The problem with this is that Tim gave a 2 year timeline for the transition to complete -- much like Steve did for the PowerPC to Intel transition. The Intel chips were far and away better and the transition completed a little ahead of time. Obviously this transition could take longer than Tim's stated 2 years, but it could equally take less time. Depends on just how long they've been working on this, but there have been rumblings and leaks for at least a few years. They had Mac OS X running on Intel a couple years before they announced it. These haven't holistically been last minute decisions.
Looking forward to seeing how their "Family of Mac chips" shakes out and how they differentiate the product lines. I expect voltage, clock speed, and core count to vary quite a bit between the models.
How will it be highly competitive? Apple silicon is at least 50% better (perf/watt) than comparable intel silicon for typical usage.
Apple is currently still offering one iMac and one MacBook model with dual core processor at the very low end, so the A12z as it is today could be used as a huge improvement at the cheapest end of the range. Not enough to upgrade, but an improvement when you replace your current Mac after a few years.
[automerge]1592917824[/automerge]
Apple wouldn't ditch Intel for AMD _now_. There may have been discussions at Apple whether to stay with Intel, switch to AMD, or switch to ARM, but the ARM switch is decided, and one switch is enough.
[automerge]1592917889[/automerge]
Excuse me, but practically all Android phones run ARM.
They didn’t want to but announced it anyway years before they released it?
Sounds right to me... /s
I'd expect twice the number of cores that the iPad has (six fast cores; number of slow cores likely not doubled), beating all current Macs up to eight cores.
[automerge]1592918292[/automerge]
Just a thought: I would think that at this point, Apple has downloaded every single Intel app that's on the MacOS App Store and tested that it runs perfectly fine.
I'd be really surprised to see new Intel Macs coming to market in 2021H2 and beyond. I'd expect to see some new Intel Macs this year, maybe one or two early next year, and that be it. New Intel Macs are also contingent on Intel to deliver worthwhile chips at the right TDPs for the various models. I'm sure Apple will support them for many years of OS releases, much like they did with PowerPC. I don't think AMD is in the discussion for the last few x86 Mac CPUs, simply because Tim kept saying Intel.
The other side would be performance. I know it's all very pie-in-the-sky or pessimistic (based on Windows-on-ARM computers that have came in the past), but it's not impossible for Apple to deliver a chip that outperforms some of the processors used in higher-end machines. A new MacBook Air that outperforms a current MacBook Pro, for example. I mean, we have Geekbench results now that show the iPad Pro outperforming a MacBook Pro. Yes, the conundrum of benchmarks across different architectures, but what if there's some real meat to that?
There are some ARM chips out there with 32 cores (or more) on them today (granted, not Apple designed), what would happen if you put 2-4 of them in a new Mac Pro? Jumping from 8-28 cores in the Mac Pro we have now, to 64-128 cores? Even if they were half as efficient and performant per core, you're still likely boosting performance.
I think it's best to remember that Apple has made the fastest mobile ARM chips on the planet, who's to say that their laptop, desktop, and workstation chips would come to the market as subpar?
All those years missing deadlines and releases has a price, here it is.
Interesting. Thank you!
I was simply recalling instances where Apple was always stuck waiting for Intel to update a certain class of processor with particular Iris Graphics suitable for the Macbook Pro. We all know those stories. And those chips are pricey.
Whereas a generic consumer Dell laptop can use any ol' cheap chip from Intel.
Yeah right! Keep telling yourself that!
Those of us who lived through prior transitions knows when Apple announces a divorce, they move out of the house before the ink is dried on the divorce papers.
Don’t buy any Macs right now unless you absolutely need it or it’s a tax write off!
I guess this article got it all wrong 🤨
Finally: AWS Gives Servers A Real Shot In The Arm
Finally, we get to test out how well or poorly a well-designed Arm server chip will do in the datacenter. And we don’t have to wait for any of the
www.nextplatform.com
Probably because that isn’t the chip that will actually ship in consumer devices. It’s just to let developers start porting their existing apps and/or write new apps so that they are ready when the new machines ship in 6 months.
Exactly.
The iPad Pro has a processor that is already faster than the processors found in many laptops.
So imagine if Apple designs a chip specifically for a laptop... knowing it will have active cooling, larger batteries, etc.
It's gonna be wild!
That makes no sense. Binning means that a chip runs properly at a given clock rate and voltage.
Swapping a part with an identical part will result in it running and applying the same voltage results in the same clock rate. In other words, binning doesn’t mean one chip runs faster than another at the same voltage.
What is probably happening is that when they swap in the new part they do a better job of applying thermal paste, and thus the thing gets throttled less.
I wouldn’t go that far, but I would advise people to buy something that they would be OK with replacing in 3 years. In other words, forget about “future proofing.”If the i3 MacBook Air with 8GB is good enough for you today, just get it. Don’t bother upgrading to the Ice Lake MacBook Pro. Likewise, if the 13” MacBook Pro with 16GB is what you need, just get it. Save the $400 that the 32GB upgrade costs toward your next Mac with Apple Silicon.
Are you joking? Have you played that game on a different machine or seen footage? That was not helping their case. But it was emulation so who knows what it will really be.
It was emulation using the a12 GPU, too. Considering that the a14 will be much much faster, I think the demo was fine.
That advice worked until yesterday. It would be different if Apple said we’re only switching the lower end lines, but when they said complete top to bottom replacement in 2 years means they’re leaving intel fast. Don’t be orphaned like the G5 Quad Mac Pro users were.
You’re going to be abandoned in short order like the PPC users were.
How do they go from Intel to AMD and vice versa easy enough on windows? I dont need special apps..