I may be the only one, but I was hoping maybe a little AMD inside®.
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.
Macs With Intel Processors Still Coming Amid Transition to Apple Silicon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah I don’t see it happening. It literally makes zero sense. It would be a massive waste of time and resources.
I wonder what brand of Windows and Linux PCs Apple uses in their own electrical engineering design and test labs.
So the people working in that business weren’t “professional?” I feel like we were.
Instead of using a traditional logic/motherboard design where all the main computational power is on the main board maybe it is feasible to use something more akin to a PXIe backplane where the board mainly serves as a communications bus for the modules. That way if you wanted to upgrade you would buy a card/module directly from Apple that would contain the M series chip and the backplane would offer multiple slots to install them.
What news? MacRumors is just quoting articles they’ve run in the past.
They’d rather rewrite their old articles than go out and beat the bushes to find new information to report.
Last edited:
Mac with M1 has worthless library of software. This is even worse for actual pros and not Youtube pretenders.
And Intel's latest Golden Cove CPU is superior to everything in the market right now. If they can get Xeon based on that architecture, then there's really no reason to glue more slow cores on the M1.
And Intel's latest Golden Cove CPU is superior to everything in the market right now. If they can get Xeon based on that architecture, then there's really no reason to glue more slow cores on the M1.
Maybe they can finally create that mythical xMac and have it be the very final Intel Mac Pro! I can imagine... x for Max, then Mac for, well, Macintosh.
iMac (24")
iMac Pro (27")
xMac (max, buildable)
iMac (24")
iMac Pro (27")
xMac (max, buildable)
So when you click through and click through to the actual Bloomberg article this "news" is originating from, it is something from January 2021. The "redesign" link is from 2020. The processor one is from July.
Macrumors just shooting out imaginary news where they lump together a bunch of old rumors together...
Macrumors just shooting out imaginary news where they lump together a bunch of old rumors together...
I see this rumor being true for a few reasons.
1. The "new" Mac Pro design will coincide with its transition to Apple Silicon. It's the only conceivable approach - why do a re-design for the Intel chips but not your new "flagship" machine? Additionally, it's clear the M1-series of chips require significantly less active cooling than the current generation Intel Xeon chips. A redesign for a new cooling mechanism makes the most sense in this regard.
2. The Intel Mac Pro update will be a silent/low-key refresh: new generation processors, some minor spec adjustments, and that's it. Would make sense to have a last alternative for customers wanting an Intel device (for software/hardware compatibility, etc.)
It's clear Apple Silicon does a great job at a lot of tasks - just look at the performance benchmarks of the M1 Pro and Max devices, even receiving positive accolades from custom PC reviewers.
However, these transitions just don't happen overnight, even with something like Rosetta 2. I would imagine Apple understands their pro customers, just recently satisfied with the new Mac Pro 2 years ago, have different needs than the rest of their lineup. And if that means a few more years of Intel hardware and software support in MacOS to sell their highest-end machines, then so be it.
1. The "new" Mac Pro design will coincide with its transition to Apple Silicon. It's the only conceivable approach - why do a re-design for the Intel chips but not your new "flagship" machine? Additionally, it's clear the M1-series of chips require significantly less active cooling than the current generation Intel Xeon chips. A redesign for a new cooling mechanism makes the most sense in this regard.
2. The Intel Mac Pro update will be a silent/low-key refresh: new generation processors, some minor spec adjustments, and that's it. Would make sense to have a last alternative for customers wanting an Intel device (for software/hardware compatibility, etc.)
It's clear Apple Silicon does a great job at a lot of tasks - just look at the performance benchmarks of the M1 Pro and Max devices, even receiving positive accolades from custom PC reviewers.
However, these transitions just don't happen overnight, even with something like Rosetta 2. I would imagine Apple understands their pro customers, just recently satisfied with the new Mac Pro 2 years ago, have different needs than the rest of their lineup. And if that means a few more years of Intel hardware and software support in MacOS to sell their highest-end machines, then so be it.
Pat Gelsinger, please go.
What I think would be an interesting concept for a Mac Pro would be to include both an M1 based chip and an intel chip in the same computer. The OS could run on the M1 and could use the intel chip to execute applications that are x86 specific. Best of both worlds. There are a lot of challenges with doing this though so I doubt it will happen. Would be cool though.
I don’t know if this has been said yet, but Apple is still using an Intel Thunderbolt controller chip in Apple Silicon Mac’s. Unless/until Apple moves this into the M chips they’ll still be an Intel customer.
I'm not sold on the M1 unseating a Xeon with dedicated graphics just yet. Time is money. It seems on the Macbook Pros at least, the M1 is often not able to compete with other chips.
Old school developers will never develop an AS version as long as an Intel one exists.
If Apple releases a new Intel machine it'll be an ever greater excuse for them to pospone this move indefinitely.
Some old school apps, such as Avid Protools and Media Composer are still long from having even a stable AS version available.
Anyway I'm not that concerned about the programs (which are being updated fairly fast), rather the plugin makers, most of which haven't even started converting their tools to apple silicon.
With regards to the Intel Mac Pro thing, I think having an intel version would be idiotic...however Apple must have being developing an SOC that'd make RAM and GPU upgrades possible, otherwise the Mac Pro would make very little sense and it'd be better to invest in an iMac Pro.
Also, I don't see why a future version of macOS couldn't run an ARM release of Windows 11, when this will have been made available for purchase.
With apples latest naming conventions it could be the MacMini Max with either the Pro or the Max
I agree that many plug-in devs are dragging their feet. They need to be stripped of all crutches like new Intel machines and have Rosetta 2 removed. This would force their hands and take their excuses away. I don’t understand why so many devs are lazy like this. Actually, yes I do. They just don’t have the resources or residual income to make it worth it to them. In these cases they should pull the plug on their companies and be honest by announcing to their customers that there will be no AS versions. This would be the noble thing to do for those who are waiting in the dark for AS ported versions.
No they don’t. Or more precisely, no more than they did before. Mac Pros are not gaming machines.
If true (and still current info) then this is marketing 101. Two outcomes are possible:
- Last Intel-based Mac fails: "Even with the release of the best Intel Mac that Apple has ever created, Apple Silicon-based Macs outsold it 5-to-1."
- Last Intel Mac succeeds: "We've got the finger on the pulse of our customers and know that, for some, it takes longer to embrace change. That's why we still offer the latest Intel technology for legacy users who want a powerful Mac that may not yet be supported by all their tools."
It’s C) Apple’s marketing will barely acknowledge the existence of the product at all.
One can only presume that when Apple release the M1 QuadMax/DuoMax, it will not only have up to 256GB RAM on SOC, but will also have the ability to add extendable external RAM up to, at the very lease, 1.5TB, but I'd guess Apple would want to blow that away and allow much more than that. I mean, 32 bit had the limitation of only being able to address 4GB, but 64 bit can address up to 18 Exa Bytes, i.e. 18,000,000 TB, so that's the upper limit at the moment, before we'll have to move to 128 bit architecture.
Yes, but have you noticed they've started to add OS functionality that is only supported for AS machines. Sneaky.