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.
Kuo: Apple Silicon Macs to Include 13-inch MacBook Pro and MacBook Air This Year, 14.1-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro Models Next Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This sounds plausible in broad terms. Schedule. Spec. Branding.
Dual ARM. Sure. But they could add more cores?
Azrael.
I know how thunderbolt works better than you, and I am aware of that. I mentioned a Thunderbolt hub, which is how that monitor works. Obviously you missed that part from my post.
Adding more cores requires several variations of the CPU in the same generation. Instead, they opted for using two of the same CPUs.
Did you ask Jon Prosser for his?
Last edited:
I used to be a strong proponent of the 12" being the first AS Mac. I no longer believe it will be a model.
Instead, I believe the MacBook Pro 14" and 16" will move to AS along with the MacBook Air 13" (which will anchor the "value" end of the portable market).
I do not see Apple going with dual CPUs - especially for portables. The "A14M" is said to be 12 cores and I expect they can go higher if they need to.
I feel the TouchBar is not long for this world, instead replaced by the "TouchScreen" (but only for laptops). Apple has pretty much ignored the TouchBar since WWDC 2017 per reports. I think it was something a very senior someone in the Apple Hardware Group was really hyped about and pushed it through, but then left and their successor didn't share that enthusiasm so it languished.
Apple seems really partial to the "Air" moniker for their entry-level laptop models so I believe it will stay. But I believe it will remain at 13.3" so as to differentiate it from the MacBook Pro line. FaceID is too much of a benefit to omit so I believe the MBA will have it, as well and I believe Apple will offer a standardized FaceID / Webcam module for all Macs (cheaper than having custom designs) so they will all be 1080p for the webcam part.
Apple could just disable cores for "lower-spec" models like Intel and AMD do or use parts that bin lower. The A12X always had eight GPU cores, but the yields were not good enough (one core often didn't pass testing) so Apple only enabled seven (even if the eight passed testing). As TSMC's process improved, the eighth core was always working and they enabled it to create the A12Z.
It is Apple that is doing this, not Intel. The Dell XPS 13 runs cooler and has better battery life (14 hours) with the same Intel chip than the 13” MBP.
I wonder if that's due to differences in display resolution:
PCmag.com compared the MBP13 and XPS13, and did indeed find longer battery life with the Dell -- but the Dell has a lower-resolution display than the Mac.
By contrast, when they compared the MBP16 with the XPS15, the reverse is the case for display resolution: the Mac's is lower than the Dell's (which is 4k) and, correspondingly, they also found the reverse with battery life: The Mac's is longer than the Dell's.
Display resolution has an important effect on battery life -- that's supposed to be why Apple hasn't gone with 4k in its 15" and 16" MBPs.
I own XPS 13’s and 15’s and if you go to the Dell forums, you’ll see many complaints on it. Also MBP 13” 4TB use the 28W chips while the XPS 13 uses 15W chips. It also doesn’t have 14 hour battery life unless you do very little and purchase the FHD screen. And it sucks you have to choose between FHD and 4K.
I actually like the Dell laptops but they are far from perfect and the Intel chips are holding them back heavy as can be seen by the throttling. This laptops bursts to 37W of power to get the benchmark scores it does, before settling to around 25W. Ideally it would be much better if these machines could perform this well around the 15W mark which would mean a cooler and quieter machine overall. We have already seen how much performance Ryzen chips have been able to push at much lower power (so imagine optimised Apple silicon).
Did you know most windows laptop throttle hard to improve battery life while on battery while the Mac doesn’t? There is also some dynamic contrast/brightness bs Dell employs to increase battery life in addition to throttling - in a nutshell the Intel chips are so problematic, Dell felt the need to interfere all over the place to give people a nicer experience.
Last edited:
I think you should have thought of that (not getting into a fight) *before* you personalized it and told the other poster he didn't know what he was talking about!:Well, my bad! As you can see from the models I talked about, I meant Thunderbolt 3 not 2! Let’s not get into a fight over this....
Something to keep in mind for next time
.Display resolution is 1 aspect. But Apple also is very aggressive with the tuning of chips in general, letting them run to their limits. Dell uses far less aggressive tuning (it is therefore a bit slower, but it will go nowhere near 100 degrees like what Apple is doing).
Apple could have easily let the MacBook Pro run cooler if they use a less aggressive tuning profile by giving up a little bit of performance.
Not convinced it's the case that Macs run hotter b/c their chips are tuned to higher clocks than Dell's. Could be they run hotter because of poorer thermals. [E.g., Maybe Macs are tuned to be less noisy than Dells, which means lower peak fan speeds.] Take a look at this comparison of the 16" MBP and the Dell XPS15, both with the same Intel i9-9980HK. On one CPU-focused test (Cinebench) the Dell is faster, on the other (Handbrake) the Mac is faster:
Apple MacBook Pro 16-Inch Review
With a larger display, a beefier graphics chip, and (vitally and finally!) an improved keyboard, Apple's 16-inch MacBook Pro is a beyond-capable big-screen powerhouse built for creatives.
And in earlier tests, looking at the 15" MBP vs. a contemporary Dell XPS 15, IIRC the latter was generally a bit faster.
Last edited:
I will definitely go for the 14 or the 16 inch mbp with the mini-led display. I hope they solve the current hardware issues and they feature a _new_ OS that correct all the software and compatibility problems that will surely arise.
Dell have changed their policy and do allow going near 100c, at least in the newer laptops in the last couple of years or so.
I don't recall mentioning that I believed any recent Jon Prosser 'leak'.
In your post, however, you're stating your opinions as facts; if you're going to do this then you're going to need something to back it up.
I don’t have to do anything. Wait and see.
Man, this summer is going to be so sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow....waiting for ARM-based Macs, waiting for iPhones in the fall and everyone is stuck at home for quarantine....so hard to pass the time....
Look at Linus his 2020 13" MBP review. You will see in charts that the 13" 2020 MBP runs hotter than machines like the Dell XPS 13.
Apple basically pushes the MacBook Air and 13" MBP to it's thermal limits. So it is basically a choice of Apple to let the MacBook Air and 13" MBP to run so hot.
*at peak (that it can’t sustain)
**in geekbench w metal
***using half precision (for gpu)
AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals
Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
www.anandtech.com
Unless they specifically changed it for 2020 - google XPS 13 (or 15) 100c, many of these laptops in the past couple of years went to 100c just like the MacBooks. Could be they had to reign it in this year due to thinner chassis and surface temps getting too hot? Josh did a review saying the XPS 9300 is a hot furnace surface temperature wise so could be a reasonable change.
*at peak (that it can’t sustain)
**in geekbench w metal
***using half precision (for gpu)
AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals
Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I was referring to single core and multi core CPU, not GPU scores. I'm guessing with active cooling the peak will be more sustainable too.
When you talk about software restrictions, there are two very distinct groups of customers: Those that don't care one bit about Bootcamp and x86 VMS, and those that do. Apple will keep building Intel Macs for a while for a second group. And the second group likely wants more powerful machines, so it will be the higher end Intel Macs that stay. Meanwhile I think Apple has lower performance ARM chips ready right now (the iPad chip running at higher clock speed), so the new ARM Macs will come with lower performance first, and then with higher performance as soon as it is ready.
[automerge]1594720652[/automerge]
No, that happens if you have _some_ clients always calling for redesigns very loudly, and you listen to them. For me, then can keep using that iMac design for the next 20 years. It's fine. No need to change it for the sake of changing.
Last edited: