No idea why they still run the 8th gen Intel on these things. Dell and everyone SMALLER can update yearly with new products but Apple is two years old on the cpu. Half of me thinks they’re going ARM to eliminate comparisons. Every Gen is the latest even if it’s a couple years old.
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.
Is Apple going to ARM to simply be different?
- Thread starter FlyingTexan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't you think it's more likely that they haven't updated the chips in the last year or so because they're switching to ARM?
Apple get both more control, better integration and more overall margin on the product that way. Plus they’re big and rich enough now independently to do it, whereas in years gone by they could not have got into the CPU/GPU game. Which component is next for vertical integration, where they can make a step change to consumer experience? Screens? Sensors?
One of the reasons they may have not updated the Intel inside is that the chips themselves haven’t changed much over the last two years.
Intel, while launching new generations isn't really doing a whole lot nowadays so there is little gain to be had with bi-yearly refreshes as was the case in the 2000s. I cannot say how often Apple will refresh ARM Macs, but the refreshes should be worthwhile, I'd hope.
My opinion only:
It's not so much about "being different".
It IS about increasing "control".
Control.... over the user.
Apple seems to be wanting a MacOS that, like iOS, locks in the user and gives them (Apple) a higher degree of control over what can run on the product, how much customization the user can apply, etc.
They want the Mac to be almost as much of a "walled garden" as is the iPad.
(which is why I don't use any iOS products)...
It's not so much about "being different".
It IS about increasing "control".
Control.... over the user.
Apple seems to be wanting a MacOS that, like iOS, locks in the user and gives them (Apple) a higher degree of control over what can run on the product, how much customization the user can apply, etc.
They want the Mac to be almost as much of a "walled garden" as is the iPad.
(which is why I don't use any iOS products)...
They want to control the amount of heat generated from the processor and steady upgrades! Heck even Hard core gamers are dumping Intel and moved on to AMD Chips! Intel is it’s own worst enemy at this time!
I think they are doing it so they can extend the iOS App Store catalog to MacOS. What we don't know is whether the benefit of that cross-platform app support outweighs the negatives like the end of boot camp and other stuff that might end up not being supported.
I also think it is funny that a lot of people completely discount that this could all just be a money grab and not about (insert inspirational Tim Cook message about next gen processing with Apple chips here).
There is a non-zero chance we could see significant performance decreases as a result, especially higher end users.
I am sure they can make a Silicon Mac that can surf the internet and check email. Can they make a Silicon Mac that can render 4K video as well as my Mac mini with an eGPU? I'll believe it when I see it.
I also think it is funny that a lot of people completely discount that this could all just be a money grab and not about (insert inspirational Tim Cook message about next gen processing with Apple chips here).
There is a non-zero chance we could see significant performance decreases as a result, especially higher end users.
I am sure they can make a Silicon Mac that can surf the internet and check email. Can they make a Silicon Mac that can render 4K video as well as my Mac mini with an eGPU? I'll believe it when I see it.
The thing is, the vast majority of users don't see a walled garden, you do perhaps but most don't. The iPad delivers everything that the consumer masses need/want. That is all that matters, not the outliers (you).
Not saying you are wrong, just that it doesn't matter.
Three years ago Apple went out of their way to make the iMac Pro because professional users were starting to leave the Mac ecosystem when Apple dropped the ball. Apple just released the Mac Pro last year as a further commitment to professional users. It might not be until the end of the 2 year transition period but Apple are absolutely going ti have Macs powerful enough for the high end professional users.
Also, we have no reason to believe that third party GPUs can’t still be used with ARM Macs.
Which is why you are not seeing focus in that area.
If they can provide users with a MBA/MBP 13 that is equivalent to the current intel chips in use that do not thermal throttle, have extended battery life and so on then they are already a success, without needing to be more 'powerful'
Chips for the iMac and other devices will come in time once they are able to match the alternatives.
Uhhh...Apple has been ignoring the Professional community for years. Yes they have released a couple systems to not completely abandon them but they are clearly more focused on Phones, tablets, and laptops which get refreshed yearly, vs professional computers like the Mac Pro line which took 6 years to see an upgrade. Maybe that changes with the move to Silicon but if recent history is any indication I wouldn't bet on it.
As far as eGPUs, we can say with a lot of certainty the current eGPUs that are built around Intel chipsets won't work as is.
Best case scenario is we have something similar to the PowerPC days where we can "flash" an Intel card to make it work with silicon.
Worst case scenario we have a situation where the architecture is too different and the eGPU is some sort of Breakaway box that is built solely for silicon systems which means there will only be a couple expensive options because 3rd parties are not going to line up to build something for such a small community.
Worst worst case scenario, no eGPUs with silicon.
I guess there is another best best case scenario in that silicon is so powerful and awesome eGPUs aren't needed.
They were ignoring the professional community for years and then they turned that around with the iMac Pro, the Mac Pro, Pro Display XDR and you can even argue the more recent 15 and 16 inch MacBook Pros. Heck, even the Mac Mini is more pro than it used to be. If you're looking at the last 10 years then I understand your trepidation but if you look at even more recent history, as in the last 3-4 years, they're throwing a whole lot at professional users.
Current Nvidia GPUs already work with ThunderX2 ARM processors, it isn't a big hurdle to get current GPUs working on ARM. I am certain we will see great graphics on the low end without discrete GPUs but on the high end there will be iMacs and Mac Pros with a combination of Apple silicon and proper GPUs. The only real question is when in the transition this happens, not if.
I also don't believe that Apple would be pushing eGPUs so hard since 2018 only for them to abandon them to Intel Macs alone. They have a plan for eGPU usage.
I'll make a prediction here and you can come back and tell me I told you so if it doesn't pan out lol.
The first ARM Mac Mini (assuming it is released between now and next summer) will match Intel 6-core 10th gen processors, it will have built-in graphics better in performance than an Xbox One/PS4 and it will support eGPUs. If it is released later than that we can assume it will have even better processing power.
Are you talking about Mac Mini? Apple doesn’t update it too often, it’s a basic office computer and on lower update frequency. All other product lines use up to date CPUs.
As to the question in the title, there are multiple reasons, one of them being that they currently have a better CPU architecture than Intel.
I think you've got it backwards. Just because many don't think of it as a walled garden doesn't mean that it isn't one, or that it doesn't matter. The walled garden approach is something that continues to hobble the iPad because no matter how powerful the hardware gets, it is inherently limited by what the software allows users to do. If we limited ourselves to simply making things to fit the masses, we'd never have anything good, because the masses are largely unimaginative or uninformed.
Those came too late. Far too late.
I know many professionals in areas which really needed the computing power of the Mac Pro (e.g. science, engineering) turning away from Apple and switching to Windows/Linux equivalents in the time between the trashcan MP and the new one because Apple simply didn't meet their needs.
The iMac Pro was a stop-gap solution at best which didn't really fit the use cases of many of these users.
I didn't say the person I quoted was wrong. But the point still stands. You keep thinking bigger, but Apple is not coming with you on that journey, they will continue doing what they are doing and that suits the masses.
I think strongest reason is Intel failing to deliver on their promises over and over again for the past few years.
I didn't say you did.
I disagree. If they just kept doing what the masses wanted, they wouldn't be switching to ARM on Macs. They're a little slower than I'd like in a lot of ways, but they are thinking bigger.
We'll end up with better computers running under Apple silicon. And no more waiting on Intel who are constantly behind schedule.
My iP8 "Photos" walks-all-over Photos on my 2015 MBP (let-alone my 2012 MP) . . . if it's all about effortlessly getting stuff into the face of the operator/user, I *am* impressed 
I could care less the substrate that leads to satisfaction.
Regards, splifingate
I could care less the substrate that leads to satisfaction.
Regards, splifingate
Apple transitioned to ARM because (in order of importance):
1. That gives them more control: Apple wants to get rid of 3rd party players and dependencies as much as they can. Intel messed up for many years their timelines, and specially their lithography which basically makes Apple's restricted thermal design become a toaster. With their own SoCs they can literally release a new computer whenever they want instead of waiting for Intel's next gen.
2. More benefit margins: an Apple's SoC costs Apple about $66 while Intel's used range between $200-300 to $600 depending on the model. If you sell millions of units, you can imagine how much they will be saving.
3. Performance & performance/energy ratio: Apple's iPhone/iPad SoC designs already offer same performance as 13" MBPs, using 50% or less of its energy. Now imagine the next ones that are designed for laptops and desktops.
1. That gives them more control: Apple wants to get rid of 3rd party players and dependencies as much as they can. Intel messed up for many years their timelines, and specially their lithography which basically makes Apple's restricted thermal design become a toaster. With their own SoCs they can literally release a new computer whenever they want instead of waiting for Intel's next gen.
2. More benefit margins: an Apple's SoC costs Apple about $66 while Intel's used range between $200-300 to $600 depending on the model. If you sell millions of units, you can imagine how much they will be saving.
3. Performance & performance/energy ratio: Apple's iPhone/iPad SoC designs already offer same performance as 13" MBPs, using 50% or less of its energy. Now imagine the next ones that are designed for laptops and desktops.
Last edited:
Switching to Apple Silicon isn’t a prerequisite for that, though. They could do all that you describe with an Intel CPU.
Switching to Apple Silicon makes your scenario no more or less likely than if they were to stick with Intel.