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 Says 10nm Chip Development is On Track
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Okay, stupid question time: how will moving macOS to A# affect code sharing between iOS and macOS? Since both will be on A# instead of iOS being on A# and macOS on Intel, I'm sure at least some code could be shared.
Exactly.
Apple gets their chips from Intel just like everyone else. So if Intel has a delay... that would affect Apple and Dell, HP, Lenovo and a dozen other computer manufacturers.
But more often than not... Apple themselves are the reason Macs don't get updated.
Intel makes 100 processors a year... from low-end consumer chips to fire-breathing Xeon workstation chips. That's what they do! They sell chips to companies. Yet somehow everyone except Apple releases new computers every year.
The Mac Pro was a mistake in design. Apple admitted it. It wasn't Intel's fault... since every other company has released updated workstations with Intel chips every year since 2013. We haven't been waiting 5 years to get an updated Dell Precision or HP Z-series workstation, have we?
Mac Mini... same thing. Intel makes plenty of chips for tiny desktops. Hell... they make their own line of tiny desktops: the Intel NUC. So the Mac Mini delays are clearly Apple's fault... not Intel's.
Does Intel have problems? Absolutely! But that's not the reason for Apple's lack of updates.
I can sum it up like this:
Companies who use Intel processors and who make yearly computer updates:
Dell
Lenovo
HP
Asus
Acer
Microsoft
Samsung
Gigabyte
MSI
Zotac
etc...
Companies who use Intel processors and who don't make yearly computer updates:
Apple
Last edited:
The real question to answer before buying the last of a generation is how long you can expect Apple to support (new OSes, security updates, app updates, compatibility with other Apple devices using the latest software, etc) that previous generation machine. I don't recall Apple providing much support for PowerPC machines after the transition to Intel.
Nice sentiment but slightly disingenuous way to make the point there:
1. 9th Gen Intel CPUs are around but the full range that Apple would need to use across their desktop machines won't be completely out till sometime during 2Q19. It's mostly the CPUs that would make up the base and middle SKUS we're missing - Apple may not even be interested in all of the top spec ones that are currently announced.
2. In just over a week's time, there's a scheduled Mac event. The landscape may look like this afterwards:
- Mac Mini using 8th generation Intel CPU (because it certainly won't be using a 9th generation K series space heater)
- iMac using 8th Generation Intel CPU (because of reason 1)
- MBA will be replaced by 'affordable' portable Mac using 8th generation Intel CPU after defying Apple attempts to kill it off by letting it wither on the vine.
You forgot:
- MBP with Touch Bar is already using 8th Generation Intel Coffee Lake since July. This is the latest version available.
- MBP without Touch Bar using the latest Kaby Lake version of the suitable Intel CPU from last year - who knows what Apple will do with it because Intel aren't selling a 15w Iris Graphics equipped Coffee Lake CPU this year.
- And in 2019 we'll almost certainly be seeing a modular Mac Pro using a latest generation Xeon. Whatever that is.
Intel's main PC manufacturers have to update in a timely fashion because of competition. If Dell dawdle then HP, Acer, etc will get their models out sooner. Apple don't have any competition in making Macs so they aren't tied to constantly making new models just so people who need a PC can have the latest and greatest.
It will make it easier to do things like support iMessage apps on mac. iOS software could run without being recompiled. In the end it shouldn't make too much difference, though, since all iOS software is distributed through the app store, and apple could compile from bitcode to x86 on-the-fly for installation on macs through the MAS if they wished.
All you armchair engineers comparing intel 10nm to tsmc 5/7nm, intel chips have a much larger wafer size, which reduces yields, ARM processors of the same wafer size would have the same yield issues, the reason why ARM chips are ahead is because the actual size of the die is smaller, and the yield is better with the same defect rate on a smaller process. Its the reason why inte releases smaller (mobile) chips first on a new process, and then as it matures introduces larger dies (desktop/perf laptop) later in the manufacturing process
As a result, Apple is said to be planning to transition away from Intel chips to its own custom-designed chips as soon as 2020 or 2021, using supplier TSMC as a manufacturer.
Full circle back to this again?
Remember when Apple used to lie about how the PowerPC chips performed faster even with their slower clock speeds?
Apple needs to sell off the Mac to Dell or HP to save it.
Full circle back to this again?
Remember when Apple used to lie about how the PowerPC chips performed faster even with their slower clock speeds?
Apple needs to sell off the Mac to Dell or HP to save it.
In my opinion, it isn't "full Windows 10" if it can't emulate x86 64-bit software. Plus, the only native Windows on ARM apps are UWP apps, which are the minority of popular applications.
And do you really think macOS on ARM will have any significant bearing on the server market?
Anyone seen the kind of ARM CPUs that Apple could be testing in the UFO?
"In summary: it's a 32-core 64-bit Armv8 CPU clocked up to 3.3GHz in turbo mode, with a shared 32MB L3 cache. It supports up to 1TB of DRAM from 16 DIMMS plugged into eight DDR4-2667 memory controllers, has 42 lanes of PCIe 3.0, draws up to 125W, and is a single-socket chip. It'll be made using 16nm TSMC FinFETs. The cores were designed by Silicon Valley-based Ampere, and the whole package is branded the eMAG."
This is a little excessive but it's at least designed to run in a server and not sip juice in a phone or iPad. Apple will surely be working on similar processors - optimised for workstation use - for release in a couple of years time. It's notable that this ARM CPU has 42 PCIe Lanes. That's a lot of Thunderbolt 3 ports. Enough for a Mac Pro...
And I still wonder if Apple are planning their CPU to include Thunderbolt 4.
"In summary: it's a 32-core 64-bit Armv8 CPU clocked up to 3.3GHz in turbo mode, with a shared 32MB L3 cache. It supports up to 1TB of DRAM from 16 DIMMS plugged into eight DDR4-2667 memory controllers, has 42 lanes of PCIe 3.0, draws up to 125W, and is a single-socket chip. It'll be made using 16nm TSMC FinFETs. The cores were designed by Silicon Valley-based Ampere, and the whole package is branded the eMAG."
This is a little excessive but it's at least designed to run in a server and not sip juice in a phone or iPad. Apple will surely be working on similar processors - optimised for workstation use - for release in a couple of years time. It's notable that this ARM CPU has 42 PCIe Lanes. That's a lot of Thunderbolt 3 ports. Enough for a Mac Pro...
And I still wonder if Apple are planning their CPU to include Thunderbolt 4.
I don't think their goals are necessarily the same. For example Xeon is a type of x86 where always-on is NOT a priority.
That's an oversimplification and not entirely true. x86 now has RISC features as well. And there is no real data to prove that ARM could replace Intel for extremely complex work. My current discontinued Mac Pro was once used for CGI on a Pixar movie. I do not see Pixar ever using ARM chips from an iPhone to do any of that, especially now that Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field is gone for good. But I could certainly see Tim Cook's Apple get into the computer disposable toy business in the same way he regards iPhones as disposable. But no one is going to fall for that Rosetta scam again since Apple couldn't wait to discontinue it. Windows users would never put up with that level of overtly planned obsolescence. But don't worry. Apple stock won't plummet since Apple is basically iPhone, Inc. now anyway.
If this is really true then the analysts were right. AMD’s party will be over. Intel is a behemoth and there is no way this roadblock was going to keep them down for long. Especially with the quality of their teams. Much of the groundbreaking stuff has been coming out of Haifa in the past decade. So much so that many now see Intel as an Israeli company.
I will personally upgrade as soon as Ice Lake is released. It should finally have a hardware Meltdown/Spectre fix and of course AVX-512. This should be out in 2020 and hopefully by then Apple will release the MacBook Pro with Super Retina display aka OLED. This will be a big f’ing deal.
I heard they recently shifted some chipset production back to 22nm while they get 14nm and 10nm back on track.
I will personally upgrade as soon as Ice Lake is released. It should finally have a hardware Meltdown/Spectre fix and of course AVX-512. This should be out in 2020 and hopefully by then Apple will release the MacBook Pro with Super Retina display aka OLED. This will be a big f’ing deal.
I heard they recently shifted some chipset production back to 22nm while they get 14nm and 10nm back on track.
Last edited:
Apple's A12 chip has 6.9B transistors for 6 cores on an 83 mm^2 chip. Intel's Xeon has 7.2B transistors for 22 cores on a 456mm^2 chip. That's 5.5x as dense, and the transistor count per-core is 3.5x higher for the Apple (ARM) cpu than the Xeon. So why do you consider Intel the more complex of the two?
How the transistors are interlinked and how registers are connected. A Ram memory has more transistors than a CPU but the connection between them is simpler. Remember that the magic of CPU is not the quantity only but how everything works together and that is determined by how they are connected. (Plus a lot more things).
Modified instead chips in the original --> transistors. Sorry my fault.
thank you but i was meaning what types of performance and battery are we talking there has to be some point when it ends and we can no longer achieve or am i missing something .
This, my friends is the God's-honest truth.
Exactly.
Apple gets their chips from Intel just like everyone else. So if Intel has a delay... that would affect Apple and Dell, HP, Lenovo and a dozen other computer manufacturers.
But more often than not... Apple themselves are the reason Macs don't get updated.
Intel makes 100 processors a year... from low-end consumer chips to fire-breathing Xeon workstation chips. That's what they do! They sell chips to companies. Yet somehow everyone except Apple can release new computers every year.
The Mac Pro was a mistake in design. Apple admitted it. It wasn't Intel's fault... since every other company has released updated workstations every year since 2013. We haven't been waiting 5 years to get an updated Dell Precision or HP Z-series workstation, have we?
Mac Mini... same thing. Intel makes plenty of chips. Hell... they make their own line of mini computers: Intel NUC. So the Mac Mini delays are clearly Apple's fault... not Intel's.
Does Intel have problems? Absolutely! But that's not the reason for Apple's lack of updates.
I can sum it up like this:
Companies who use Intel processors and who make yearly computer updates:
Dell
Lenovo
HP
Asus
Acer
Microsoft
Samsung
Gigabyte
MSI
Zotac
etc...
Companies who use Intel processors and who don't make yearly computer updates:
Apple
When/if they get to less than 1nm, they will probably just start using decimal places (0.7 nm, etc.). Or they could start using angstroms. There are 10 angstroms to 1 nm. Another option is to use picometers. There are 1,000 picometers in 1 nanometer.
For reference, the atoms used in a silicon chip are around 0.2 nm (or 2 angstroms).
Considering the chips in the current iMac are almost two years old, it's not like this really matters,
By the way when you are down to less than 8 a in communication lanes distance inside the chip, is when all the quantum stuff starts to get funny and taking over the classical physics....