Macs With Intel Processors Still Coming Amid Transition to Apple Silicon

[JippaLippa]

I don't know, I'd do the opposite.
I'd push even more for a fully apple silicon lineup; this way the developers would have even more reasons to update their tools.
This way developers could still defend the narrative "Pros only use intel".

 

[citysnaps]

I'm skeptical, especially as this story appears to be unsourced.

Thus...I don't believe that will happen. It doesn't make any sense at this point in time, anyway.

 

[azentropy]

When Apple made the transition from PPC to Intel I kinda thought they would do the same for a while. There were some PPC chips in the pipeline that were very competitive (or better) with Intel performance/cost wise along with some apps slow to transition to Intel builds. However that turned out not to be the case then.

 

[dspdoc]

can i join this lovefest

Come on in!

 

[robinp]

This seems like a really strange approach.

 

[dohspc]

Why would anyone buy already end of life computers???

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

And since they have already denied Intel processor boxes some of the new goodness from Monterey, can someone thump them on the head and get them to hold off on that until they ARE going to stop releasing Intel boxes?

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

While Apple is rapidly transitioning its Mac lineup from Intel processors to its own Apple silicon, it's worth highlighting as 2021 wraps up that the relationship between Apple and Intel hasn't been entirely severed as reports indicate Apple still has one more Intel-based Mac in its pipeline that's yet to be released.

With the Mac Pro, Apple is not expected to entirely transition its most powerful Mac to Apple silicon yet, as we're expecting at least one new ‌Mac Pro‌ to feature an Intel chip. Apple is working on two new Mac Pro machines, one featuring an entire redesign, and another that will feature the current design with updated internals.

Apple silicon has proven itself to be a worthy competitor to even some of Intel's best portable processors, but it seems that Apple is not yet entirely confident enough to transition the Mac Pro, a desktop-class professional workstation used by animators, photographers, Hollywood insiders, and more, to Apple silicon.

For its Intel-based Mac Pro, we're expecting the desktop to feature Intel's Xeon Scalable processor, which Intel says has "advanced performance, security, efficiency, and built-in AI acceleration to handle IoT workloads and more powerful AI."

It may seem odd that, amid the transition of its MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, Mac mini, and iMac lines to Apple silicon, Apple would release another Mac with an Intel chip, but there are reasons even beyond performance that are likely influencing Apple's decision. Apple silicon chips run on an entirely different architecture than Intel-based Macs. On Apple silicon Macs, Apple uses Rosetta 2 to automatically and seamlessly translate apps built for Intel computers to run on Apple silicon.

While Rosetta 2 works for the majority of customers, Apple may be wanting to hold out a little longer to ensure the translation technology is more mature before allowing its most high-end professional and demanding customers to use it. By offering an Intel Mac Pro alongside an Apple silicon powered option, Apple can buy itself a little more time before completing its transition to its own chips.

Alleged renders of the redesigned Mac Pro featuring a smaller and more compact design​

As for the redesigned Mac Pro, expected sometime next year, it may feature up to 32 high-performance cores and up to 128 graphics cores. Some reports have suggested the new Mac Pro could be equipped with two or four dies of the M1 Max chip for ultra-high performance.

Article Link: Macs With Intel Processors Still Coming Amid Transition to Apple Silicon

I remember seeing some mockups for the new new new new Mac Pro, and I fell in lust with a number of them. That might have been before the 'trash can', but there were so many ideas that would have been so much better than those machines. I remember seeing them in the stores, and aside from 'Wow', there was a major problem with them: Upgrading. Upgrading *should* be designed into every device. #RightToRepairAndUpgrade...

 

[thingstoponder]

It takes courage to admit Apple silicon and Rosetta 2 aren't perfect.

I doubt it has to do with that. It’s more of the fact that the current Mac Pro can support GPUs and it doesn’t look like Apple silicon will.

 

[Love-hate 🍏 relationship]

You’ve totally missed the point and your screen name is perfect. 😂

I think I missed the point too.would u mind explaining us what you meant ?

 

[MacsRgr8]

I doubt it has to do with that. It’s more of the fact that the current Mac Pro can support GPUs and it doesn’t look like Apple silicon will.

Yep, looks like it. See Barefeats tests

 

[cmaier]

Why would anyone buy already end of life computers???

Because they have software that continues to need that type of computer, and the cost of the hardware, especially taking into account depreciation, is tiny compared to the cost of the software and the productivity of the users of that software.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Upgrading *should* be designed into every device. #RightToRepairAndUpgrade...

Nope, not every device.

 

[sunny5]

I highly doubt it.

The performance for professional uses already proven and Apple Silicon needs more native software to work with. M1 Max is already proven that high end workstation with Apple Silicon can be powerful. I dont know what's the reason of holding back while developers are waiting for a high end Mac Pro.

If Apple is worrying about lack of native software, then they really need to make AS Mac Pro asap so that many companies like Adobe can start optimizing and testing for their software to see how it goes. M1 Max showed a new opportunity for 3D and Apple is trying to bring Blender to Apple Silicon as an example so I dont see any reasons not to bring Mac Pro with AS. Or are there any other professional software still require Apple Silicon support like Unreal Engine?

 

[darkus]

This is welcome news if true. There are still many of us in need of both windows and macOS on the same machine, with an intensive work environment that demands stability. Performance aside, the Intel based macs with boot camp have proven very stable over the long haul for many of us.

Despite what useless YouTube reviews tell you, people don’t buy Mac pros just to edit videos all day. ?

Besides, it’s always wise to be slow and steady with these kinds of transitions. Despite what Apple or worse yet, their rabid and illogical fans constantly yell about.

Remember when usbc was the future and should be the only way one would charge their MacBook? And yet MagSafe has made its return. Be logical.

It’s a good idea to keep both pathways open (Intel/boot camp and Apple silicon) and let the marketplace decide. Alternatively, if the ecosystem around Apple silicon flourishes and we don’t see any compatibility issues with our expensive gear and peripherals and windows somehow made a native return to Apple silicon then that would also offer users the options some of us need.

Until then, this is welcome news and there is no logical sense why even the most bizarre Apple fanboy would oppose this. It’s a very niche product for niche users.

 

[Freeangel1]

YES!! Bring it on! 1 more Intel Mac Pro.

I watched a video on these New Intel Xeons with AI acceleration. Usually used on web servers with high traffic or data centers.

 

[docbop]

Makes sense. The typical Mac Pro user want a workstation class computer for large scale programs that require huge amounts of RAM. So traditional computer design can accommodate those huge quantities of RAM, look at the previous Mac Pro's and the removable RAM trays they had. Doing that with SoC defeats the speed advantage of being on one piece of silicon. The other option is making huge SoC chips and that is expensive to R&D and manufacture. Now chips like this are going to be needed in the future for autonomous vehicles and robotic AI two areas Apple wants to move into for the future. So makes sense for Apple to continue pushing forward in SoC for large scale computing.

 

[JippaLippa]

This is very relevant news. There are many businesses reliant on software that won't be ported to M1 anytime soon.

Considering how expensive some subscriptions are, I'd expect developers working full time on the transition.
Even Adobe, the slowest company in existence, has completed half its transition, with many apps with advanced betas (After Effects works surprisingly well).
I don't buy the whole "poor developers, it takes so much energy porting the apps to apple silicon" narrative.
Not at those subscription prices.

 

[JosephAW]

Still holding out for a G5 PowerBook.

 

[palev]

Makes sense, really. Anyone buying that kind of configuration probably has very specific and critical software in mind. If Apple releases Mac Pros for both architectures next year, that would buy time for such software companies to transition from x86 to AS without making their customers bug test software in a production environment. Even just being the last Intel Mac, we don’t know how long it might stay in production. The Trash Can Mac Pro ran for many years with no significant design changes, and this last Intel Mac might do the same in order to keep a niche customer base with deep pockets.

This is the reason I believe they are doing it. Pros using that much power with software designed for Intel are not going to switch unless/until software developers make an AS version.

 

[zoomp]

Would that be the reason why we didn't see any high end minis? Maybe they will replace those with they mid-tier Mac Pro, with all the M1 Max dies.

 

[unsui_grep]

I think any new Intel chips are more an indication of developers who are laggards and late to the Apple Silicon party. With M1/M2, Apple is on the their own release cycle so there is no reason they couldn't release one new Mac Pro model featuring Intel and another model featuring Apple Silicon at the same time. Either way, Apple gets the sale and they also get to compare both models to each other in order too embarrass Intel and further pressure their own customers to switch to Apple Silicon.

I agree and assumed this was their strategy all along

 

[Eorlas]

I guess all of Intels "BUT YOU CAN PLAY GAMEZ ON AN INTEL" ads look pretty stupid now.

not really. apple's insistence to keep using an intel mac somewhere in the lineup is likely for environments that would choose to use macOS, but for some software/hardware reason cannot migrate to ARM yet, so an x86 mac platform is still necessary to them.

and that environment would not care at all about playing games.

intel's ad is still relevant to gaming as apple has incredible powerful M1pro & max machines now, but continues to use an API they arent giving a whole lot of support to, and have only issued a major upgrade to once. it has no compatibility with other major APIs of its kind, including Vulkan which would be very beneficial.

intel's ad, at least that part youre describing since i havent seen any of them, isn't relevant to this particular thread or issue.

 

[LonestarOne]

Or there are customers that still need Bootcamp with Windows capability, maybe that's why we'll see extended refreshing on Intel CPUs. I use Bootcamp for gaming

Once again, gamers are not the center of the Mac universe. The machine is called the Mac Pro, not Mac Game. The target customer for $12,000 Mac towers is not likely to be swayed by the ability to play games on it.

 

[Gasu E.]

We had an issue where we had to switch to lower power computers because the electric feed coming into the building could not be upgraded any further to accommodate the thousands of worstations.

If you have thousands of workstations, you are talking about the concerns of a large business, not a "professional". I don't think anyone would disagree that a a business with thousands of workstations wouldn't care about their very sizable electric bill. But for a business that size, IT management can exploit economies of scale that just aren't worth it for a single professional or small outfit.