Unfortunately it doesn’t make the MacOS26 cutoff …
I’ll use this for as long as possible. It still works well for my needs. But the regret returns each time the fans kick in when I use certain photo editing programs.
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 to Apple Silicon Transition for Mac Was Announced Five Years Ago
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unfortunately it doesn’t make the MacOS26 cutoff …
I’ll use this for as long as possible. It still works well for my needs. But the regret returns each time the fans kick in when I use certain photo editing programs.
I didn’t know that Win11 Arm was so old. Microsoft certainly seems to have picked up the pace recently with regard to OS and dev tools ports to Arm. It will be very interesting to see which of their other major software lines get the Arm treatment in the coming years. If Apple really is the reason, then I’ll take that.
I think the issue is that programming code to accelerate video in games never included versions that fully took advantage of the tightly-coupled memory management of the M-series SoC's.
As for RAM size, the M-Series now offer SoC's with 64 and 128 GB of RAM, which is more than enough for even fairly complex programs.
Comcrap business has an app?
Never knew. I've been using it for years, never wanted, needed, or had an app.
Oh, I'm definitely a Power Mac user. Got a few G5 towers, a few iMac G4s, some Platinum G3s, a blue & white G3, every generation of G4 tower...
Never had a 2017 mini. In fact, I've never seen a 2017 mini. Almost like it doesn't exist or something.
I think you’re confusing performance per watt with performance. The A12 wasn’t a patch on Intel chips for performance, it was just really efficient. Even current gen Apple chips struggle against a decent PC in pure performance if efficiency isn’t a consideration.
There’s also the issue of power draw. For every desktop Mac Apple sells six laptops. An RTX 4090 on a laptop would be fun for the entire thirty seconds of battery life. It doesn’t make sense for Apple to design GPUs to blow the roof off when their core audience wants laptops that don’t singe thighs.
That’s simply not true lol
“miniscule at best” 🤦♂️
M1 -> M4 is at least a 70% gain in single thread performance (sometimes waaaay more than that thanks to SME), and multi-thread performance has more than doubled.
The GPUs have grown even more than that - Apple is arguably in second place on graphics now, they are well ahead of AMD and Intel for applications like Blender and running LLMs locally (Metal is well supported, unlike the half baked APIs AMD and Intel are pushing). I don’t think we’ll see them aim for an outright performance win over NVIDIA because they have no interest in chasing the 600W reticle size GPU end of the market 😅
The progress made in just 4 years faaaaaar outpaces the previous status quo.
Still amazed by my M1 Air. I'm also amazed my 2012 Air is still rolling along. The M1 was really an impressive jump.
If only apple silicon was power enough to emulate said top end ryzen and nvidia card in full speed, then maybe his dad wont need to worry about the huge power bill.
Or devs take a look at Mac and develop games for it, or port their old games. As of now, windows still has the largest game library to date and Linux nowhere near the same level.
Last I checked you could still run windows via parallels… and the performance of the apple silicon is leagues ahead of intel or AMD in terms of performance per watt.
Sure, Apple has always prioritised high margins over market share. However, this doesn’t mean they’re entirely disinterested in gaining more of it. There are only so many ways to maximise margins, and at some point, gaining more market share is also necessary . Look at what they’re doing in China , they’re desperately trying to increase iPhone market share.
But at this moment, gaining more market share for the Mac is much easier than for mobile devices, precisely because their share is so small ( 16% for MacOS is almost insignificant , it’s absolutely marginal ). Any other company would have dropped the Mac completely and just focus on mobile stuff ( the iPhone is around 50% of the market ).
Last edited:
Look it's a kludge but you end up with extra workable space that's great for menus.
Putting a BLACK background makes it look like a regular no notch screen with menus.
It looks and works fine for me...
Your milage and expectations may vary, naturally...
I thought I addressed that. These chips are designed primarily for the laptop. They’re mobile first and that was the right call. Apple decided not to build out the highest-power variation on their chips — I think it was being called Extreme — because, among other things, it was laptop-unfriendly.
Conversely, Intel and NVidia started on the desktop and found laptop life less comfortable. That was the driver behind the Apple Silicon transition: Intel could no longer make the chips Apple needed at the thermal footprint Apple wanted.
I simply disagree.
Apple can buy whatever computing power they need to develop AI applications rather than spend time developing new chips that likely will not be huge leaps over what dedicated GPU developers are doing. They also have the money to buy the needed expertise they may lack.
Apple likely sees the value to Apple in AI is integrating it into their existing products and as a service, not in developing the iron to run it. I think that is a wise course since the hardware changes rapidly but the underlying programming doesn't change as rapidly.
It also get back to Apple isn't a computer company anymore; Macs in some ways are a legacy of what it was way back when. Services and integrated solutions for consumers and businesses are a big part of their future and where the money will go, IMHO.
The worldwide sever market size estimates I've seen vary from 64 - 120+ BUSD; with the high end numbers around 7 billion. Apple has much better opportunities than to chase niche markets.
Apple already makes laptops that are high enough performance to provide enough mobile computing power for many users. Make a better GPU and more powerful energy efficient chips for the existing market and expand it; it makes sense to concentrate efforts on them rather than chase a tiny market.
Wrong, eventually Apple needs their own chips for their own server, super computer, and AI just like they did with Intel to Apple Silicon because it's a new future. Now, Nvidia is dominating the market by 90%. Even Apple admitted that they cant develop AI cause they are using old GPUs based on articles few months ago.
Laptop can NOT replace desktop and workstation. Same story for PC that both desktop and workstation's market size is very niche and yet still important cause it's not replaceable. You are telling me that laptops can replace super computers. Since Apple is diving into 3D and AI markets, the need for high end desktop and workstation is higher than ever before. So tell that to all Mac Pro users or people who need high performance.
You seem fixated on the idea Apple needs to be in the server and supercomputer market when the reality is it's a tiny market and Apple's resources are better spent elsewhere.
It's not just chips, but service, support, and getting developers to develop for a new machine instead of sticking with the industry standards.
They left Intel to be able to control the roadmap and not be at the mercy of Intel's delays and problems so the could control the future of their devices.
And as I pointed out Apple has the spare change to buy whatever computing power they need.
Depends on the use, and Apple's high end laptops and desktops are powerful enough for a lot of heavy lifting.
And Apple stayed in the desktop market with 3 different offerings, all based on existing chips.
No, I simply said it's a market not suited for Apple's strategy.
If they need more than a top of the line MacPro for their work they are in a small and very specialized market and a MacBook Pro is not the machine for them; one that doesn't fit in with Apple's strategy. The notion a company needs to be in every market is wrong and what drives some companies out of business.
Could be worse. I ordered a 2020 intel MacBook Pro when they were announced months before the M1 announcement.
Now that it’s not going to receive any new major MacOS updates, I’m going to replace it with the 2026 Air.
Then tell me WHY Apple made their own server with Apple Silicon chips while they are struggling with AI development thanks to 5 years old GPU as CFO didnt provide enough budgets? Ironic.
Same thing for AI.
Buy what? Google or Microsoft? You are ignoring the fact that Nvidia is dominating the AI market by 90% and yet, you are telling me that there are alternatives. This is why Apple is falling behind cause they dont have any chips for AI or have to use slow chips.
And they NEVER be enough for high end and workstation uses. If you really think that Max and Ultra chips are powerful, take a look at RTX 5090. You are only justifying deteriorating the performance. Powerful enough is just a biased word to justify overall limited performance.
Which only means they cant go beyond that. Mac Pro was planned to use 4x Max chips via MCM but it never happened cause it's extremely expensive and yet not powerful. This is why Ultra chips have huge problems as MCM does not provide twice the performance.
Apple is also focusing on 3D, gaming, and AI which requires high specs and performance which already counter your claim. Why do you keep ignoring professional users? Those markets were always around 1% of overall marketshare and yet, there are still many pro users.
Again, Apple is already focusing on 3D, gaming, and AI. You totally misunderstood their strategy after all.
Last edited:
Rendering high resolution complex video scenes isn’t exactly niche. Yes they can do it, but rendering faster means more iterations and less “that’ll do” which leads to better results. Faster processors are nicer for a lot of people, and some of us always plug in so don’t need efficiency. There’s room for more than one requirement here, Apple just tend to focus on the mainstream.
What I’d really like is for Apple to make an Apple Silicon eGPU for when I’m plugged in and driving a big monitor.
Last edited:
From what I've seen, Apple is deevloping its own solution to use in house to drive its AI product; which is a far cry from making servers nd high end workstations for broader sale. Apple apparently is developing a special version of MacOS for them. This allows Apple to tailor the system to their AI needs and is in keeping with Apple's penchant for controlling the entire ecosystem. Apple wants to make their AI solution power how you use your phone, iPad, home automation, etc.
Selling access to their AI solution for iOS/iPad developers would be a path to additional revenue as well; and in keeping with Apple's increasing focus on services.
You keep conflating AI with hardware. Apple could buy the hardware easily if they wanted, but if they need expertise they could simply buy a company like Anthromorphic to get talent or simply hire away the talent they wnat. AI is about software, not hardware which is basically a commodity.
And they do need to be because that is not a market that Apple is interested in.
No, it means Apple is making powerful chips for the markets they care about.
You can do a lot of 3D rendering on existing Macs just fine.
Apple's gaming focus is on handhelds, and just throws a bone to the Mac side by offering a way to port games. They know most game studios aren't going to bring out their games for teh Mac, but if one wants to do so cheaply they have a way.
As for AI, Apple seems to focus on incorporating it into their products rather than building the next OpenAI for general use.
I'm not, there are plenty of pro users for whom the exiting product line is just fine. To try to go into very niche markets with entrenched players, operating systems and software with a new product incompatible with what are industry standard tools is a losing game.
There jsus isn't enough money to go after small markets; Apple is better off spending R&D on more valuable markets and leaving those markets to teh existing players.
NO, I understand why Apple is not interested in the high end workstation and server market.