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.
iPad Pro's A9X Chip Rivals Performance of Intel's Low-End Core M Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I always thought sub set. Either way would be interesting. I’m assuming the A9 isn’t that good or it’d be in at least the lowest end MacBooks?Which means Apple's ARM CPU is now performs as well on SPEC as AMD's highest end CPU (pre-Zen of course).
The Anandtech comparison is even more impressive when you see that Apple's ARM core was using 1/20th the power of the i3.
[doublepost=1453494056][/doublepost]
My impression is that iOS is a SUPERSET of OS-X, that is, they start with all of OS-X and then build a new GUI on top of it with some additional hardware interfaces. In theory, an iPad Pro should run OS-X faster than iOS. But I know what you mean.
Like I said several months ago...
Im predicting Macbook Air to become a tablet that have OSX and possibly have A series chip as its CPU.
My reason:
1. Retina Macbook have extremely small motherboard thats perfect for tablet
2. Macbook "AIR" series have to be thinner than regular Macbook (so delete keyboard)
3. There may be a reason why regular iPad is called "Air" -- to bridge naming to Macbook Air
4. Apple's CPU is challenging that of Intel's
5. High demand for tablet OSX
6. Apple is keep updating OSX to be touch friendly (See OSX app launcher)
Im predicting Macbook Air to become a tablet that have OSX and possibly have A series chip as its CPU.
My reason:
1. Retina Macbook have extremely small motherboard thats perfect for tablet
2. Macbook "AIR" series have to be thinner than regular Macbook (so delete keyboard)
3. There may be a reason why regular iPad is called "Air" -- to bridge naming to Macbook Air
4. Apple's CPU is challenging that of Intel's
5. High demand for tablet OSX
6. Apple is keep updating OSX to be touch friendly (See OSX app launcher)
I can see the new MacBook getting ARM and the MacBook Air getting cut... can't see ARM doing anything more than that in the next 2 years.
Maybe in 4-5 years they'll be in the iMac, MacMini, and MacBook Pro. But I feel like trying to make predictions that far out is a fool's errand - Apple could easily decide to drop and/or replace some of those product lines in that time frame.
In that timeframe, I'm expecting people to stop own computers entirely and instead you just use something like an iPad Pro which seamlessly offloads intensive tasks to a cloud service over a cellular connection.
Maybe in 4-5 years they'll be in the iMac, MacMini, and MacBook Pro. But I feel like trying to make predictions that far out is a fool's errand - Apple could easily decide to drop and/or replace some of those product lines in that time frame.
In that timeframe, I'm expecting people to stop own computers entirely and instead you just use something like an iPad Pro which seamlessly offloads intensive tasks to a cloud service over a cellular connection.
Pretty sure an ARM os x version exists, somewhere deep in the Apple labs.
A version capable of running iOS apps, yet supports a mouse and keyboard, with the energy efficiency of iOS.
Wonder if that will be iOS X.
A version capable of running iOS apps, yet supports a mouse and keyboard, with the energy efficiency of iOS.
Wonder if that will be iOS X.
Don't be ridiculous, iPads run iOS, MacBooXs run OS X. Apple stated their dislike for hybrids often enough. A possible migration of CPU architecture won't change that. It's either mouse or touch screen, pick one.
The funny thing about this comparison is that neither processor is designed with performance as a primary goal.
This test is about as useful as knowing which lawn mower is faster. Speed isn't the point of it.
Both the A-series from Apple (based on ARM and Imagination designs) and the CoreM-series from Intel are primarily focused on low-energy usage (and indirectly, low-head generation). They aren't mean to offer the best performance, they just have to hit a certain known hurdle. If you want general performance, look at the Xeon or Core-i7 lines. If you want maximum performance per watt, look at nVidia's Tesla or Quadro lines.
Nevertheless, if Apple releases an ARM-based Mac, I will buy the latest and greatest Intel-based Macs, hold on to them for as long as possible, and ultimately probably switch to a Windows OEM.
This test is about as useful as knowing which lawn mower is faster. Speed isn't the point of it.
Both the A-series from Apple (based on ARM and Imagination designs) and the CoreM-series from Intel are primarily focused on low-energy usage (and indirectly, low-head generation). They aren't mean to offer the best performance, they just have to hit a certain known hurdle. If you want general performance, look at the Xeon or Core-i7 lines. If you want maximum performance per watt, look at nVidia's Tesla or Quadro lines.
Nevertheless, if Apple releases an ARM-based Mac, I will buy the latest and greatest Intel-based Macs, hold on to them for as long as possible, and ultimately probably switch to a Windows OEM.
They have that already, it's called a MacBook. Priced around the same too.
This doesn't really surprise me for 2 reasons:
1. Mobile ARM chips have been nearly doubling in power for the last 3 years
2. The intel M-series chips are quite weak. Most benchmarks put them on par with standard desktop cpu's that are more like 3-4 years old
I know that some applications in particular are much faster under x86 than ARM - it depends which programs they are using for the benchmarks.
ARM has been great for mobile, but I really, really, really don't want laptops or desktops to move to this architecture. I still require bootcamp/vms/wine/etc to support various windows programs. I hope Apple doesn't forget that they started to gain most of their market share when they switched to an x86 platform.
1. Mobile ARM chips have been nearly doubling in power for the last 3 years
2. The intel M-series chips are quite weak. Most benchmarks put them on par with standard desktop cpu's that are more like 3-4 years old
I know that some applications in particular are much faster under x86 than ARM - it depends which programs they are using for the benchmarks.
ARM has been great for mobile, but I really, really, really don't want laptops or desktops to move to this architecture. I still require bootcamp/vms/wine/etc to support various windows programs. I hope Apple doesn't forget that they started to gain most of their market share when they switched to an x86 platform.
Same here. I can see a transition period for Apple where the Pro models continue using Intel, but eventually it will be a non-starter for me. It's possible things will meet in the middle and Windows machines will start transitioning to ARM as well, with "fat binaries" for Windows apps.
Apple also stated that the finger was the best way to use touch screen devices... Oh wait.
"Who wants a stylus?" - Steve Jobs
Because mobile devices (like the iPad Pro & Surface) are evolving into full-blown PCs.
This is tired now and just obtuse. The stylus is not a primary input device. You don't navigate your emails with it. It's an optional accessory for drawing and similar functions. You really think the iPad would be a better product if it were exactly the same except that you couldn't draw on it?
I'd guess if they switch over then they would want to switch everything over. Not have some new Macs on ARM and some on Intel with possible exceptions of their highest end stuff like the Mac Pro.
Apple doesn't sell styluses. The Apple Pencil is a drawing device, it doesn't control the interface.
Pretty impressive, but I hope Apple stays with Intel for a while until they (ARM Arch) really is as fast as Intel.
And, you won't be able to run Windows natively, not that I care though.
1) You could run Windows 10, because it runs on ARM.
2) That said... the other issue would be porting apps over and trying to run older apps...etc. Yeah, 68k --> PPC --> x86 --> ARM... I dunno! Also, I suspect that the Core M processors may perform a lot better in real-world tasks.
Still... it's pretty amazing progress. If fanless, low-cost ARM processors were able to rival mid-range Intel CPUs (while using nowhere near as much power) then there would be a serious argument for using them.
My opinion is that if Apple is building this to compete with the MS Surface Pro then they are losing the battle. The biggest problem is the lack of desktop type software as capable as X86 apps which MS has available for their tablets.
If I were in the market for a pro type tablet I would have to pick the Surface Pro for universal X86 capability.
I can see where the Apple iPad pro would be a better choice for Artist though.
If I were in the market for a pro type tablet I would have to pick the Surface Pro for universal X86 capability.
I can see where the Apple iPad pro would be a better choice for Artist though.
In part I think you are right but I'm also pretty sure they design and run the processors slow to allow for max yield.
So don't get it. It works better for me than any Mac I've used in the past. Personal preference.
That was my gut/academic impression, too. I think I was wrong. I have a fully maxed out MacBook Retina. I used it for web/email/travel/docs work when traveling. I also loaded a full Dev stack on it. I found it maddening for the latter and pretty good for the former.
When iPad Pro came along with the keyboard case, I figured I'd give it a try (we had to buy a few of them for test/Dev units, anyway).
Given the Core equipped MacBook was too anemic for anything beyond Web/email/docs work, I wasn't really using it for x86/OS X-only tasks, and let me tell you, the iPad Pro *BLOWS THE THING AWAY* on performance in productivity apps, web, and email. Not to mention, I now find myself touching my MacBook screen (if I ever use it anymore) after doing these things on the iPad pro.
Just because we've done things "a certain way" for years does not mean there isn't a better way. IMO, I was wrong to assume that for many use cases the iPad Pro wouldn't be as good or better a solution. I think it is.
For Dev work or bigger docs, the laptop and OS X comes out, but not on the MacBook.
When iPad Pro came along with the keyboard case, I figured I'd give it a try (we had to buy a few of them for test/Dev units, anyway).
Given the Core equipped MacBook was too anemic for anything beyond Web/email/docs work, I wasn't really using it for x86/OS X-only tasks, and let me tell you, the iPad Pro *BLOWS THE THING AWAY* on performance in productivity apps, web, and email. Not to mention, I now find myself touching my MacBook screen (if I ever use it anymore) after doing these things on the iPad pro.
Just because we've done things "a certain way" for years does not mean there isn't a better way. IMO, I was wrong to assume that for many use cases the iPad Pro wouldn't be as good or better a solution. I think it is.
For Dev work or bigger docs, the laptop and OS X comes out, but not on the MacBook.