New References to AMD Processors Discovered in macOS 10.15.4 Beta

[Unregistered 4U]

but it would still be "courageous" to launch a new Mac that couldn't run (say) MS Office or Photoshop on day one

Agreed, it would be courageous, but I still think they’d do it. From one of the other posts, Apple’s in a position to make having, say, Photoshop running on an ARMac on day one, more likely than not. If Apple’s been testing alternate platforms, I’m sure they’ve had partners under NDA to try them out as well. I could see a WWDC announcement of the new ARM hardware, with many of the major vendors that are still in operation voicing support for the hardware when it ships later in 2020. Those that have already been left behind by Catalina’s Extinction Event won’t be affected by ARM because they’ve already settled on staying behind.

I think the recent refresh of most of the Intel machines last year was a way to say “buy these ‘cuz you may want to hold on to them for awhile”. Legacy Pro’s will hold on to those old machines as consumers and new Pro’s snap up the new ones. I’m very interested in the performance of FCP tailored for an ARMac.

 

[MikeZTM]

It certainly appears that the T2 is Apple's answer to several questions:

1. Quicksync - the encoding improvement means that Apple aren't so reliant on the (very good) Intel hardware decoding/encoding of simple jobs for features such as AirPlay2.

2. SSD Controller - as it runs Apple's Secure Boot and encrypted storage it's effectively Apple's DRM solution for killing of Hackintosh within a few generations.

3. System management controller

4. Image signal processing from the FaceTime HD camera (face detection, exposure control, tone mapping)



Apple really need too keep upgrading it to keep it up to date, given that they sometimes let things lie for years there is a possible danger of it becoming a bottleneck in the future.

T2 chip is quite old now but still get better performance at encoding H265 than Intel's QuickSync.

We probably don't need a T3 now since T2 is still pretty capable at what it does until PCIe 4 SSDs are added into Mac.

And I really want to see is a A14 something replacing Intel + T2 combo in the future as Intel is doing exactly what IBM was 15 year ago now.

 

[Tekguy0]

It would be interesting to see something like this (all theoretical):

MB12: Apple A13X or A13M, 8 GB, and a powerful Apple GPU (PowerVR Based, of Course) or Ice Lake at a very low TDP + T2 chip
MBA13: Intel Ice Lake Y i5/i7, 8/16 GB, Iris Graphics, T2
MBP13: AMD Ryzen 5/7, 8/16/32 GB, Radeon Graphics, T2
MBP16: (Here's where it gets interesting...)

• Base Model: Ice Lake/Tiger Lake with JUST Iris GPUs, and maybe 16 GB only, or AMD Ryzen 7 H-Series (could even be semi-custom) with Radeon graphics onboard and 16 GB only, perhaps $1699-$1999, and limit the storage options, essentially make this like the Mid 2009 15" base model, and the 2013-2015 15" base models
• Upgrade Model: Whatever Intel's fastest is, plus whatever the latest AMD GPU is, basically more of the same.

It would be cool to see the T3 act as another processor and do more background tasks, or even being able to run the OS at idle or while doing things like video decode, to switch off the main x86-64 CPU and save a lot of power. The T2 already probably has a built in GPU (for the touch bar), and could function as a chipset. Perhaps an A-Series chip would be better for that, especially if it could replace the T-series, such as "A13M" for Mac that combined the capabilities of T2 with the cores and more powerful GPU of the A-series chips. All of this would rule out hackintosh within a few years, but luckily Apple still made macs without the T2 as late as 2017 (the fn-keys MBP13). Pros want the x86, but for people just watching Netflix on their couch or on a plane where battery life and lightness are key, macOS running on ARM would really be the way to go. But first, fixing those keyboards...

EDIT: We could also see x86 and ARM cores on the same chip, ad AMD uses an ARM core for their Platform Security Processor and Intel does something similar by using a Quark based CPU. Multiple architectures can exist on the same chip.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

More interesting... if we’re looking at AMD, I’d rather see a 64bit pure variant of AMD’s solutions, specially made by TSMC for Apple. Part of why Apple’s where they are now is because they’ve gone through the painful steps of denying legacy access to the latest frameworks. If you could remove the parts of the AMD processor that specifically deals with non-64 bit commands, then I think things could get really fun!

 

[cmaier]

More interesting... if we’re looking at AMD, I’d rather see a 64bit pure variant of AMD’s solutions, specially made by TSMC for Apple. Part of why Apple’s where they are now is because they’ve gone through the painful steps of denying legacy access to the latest frameworks. If you could remove the parts of the AMD processor that specifically deals with non-64 bit commands, then I think things could get really fun!

That would make a bit less difference than you’d think. Some of the control logic, for sure, goes to 32-bit compatibility, but I doubt any of the timing critical paths are 32-bit related.

 

[Tekguy0]

That would make a bit less difference than you’d think. Some of the control logic, for sure, goes to 32-bit compatibility, but I doubt any of the timing critical paths are 32-bit related.

It would be cool to see a custom 64-bit only solution that includes an AMD CPU, Radeon GPU, NVMe SSD controller, DDR4 or HBM memory controller, perhaps some machine learning cores/neural engine, I/O controllers for USB and Thunderbolt. This could replace intel + T2 with one chip.

 

[PostApple2016BrainWash]

Stop ignoring the base TDP. That's totally nonsense.

We are not ignoring the base TDP.

 

[MikeZTM]

We are not ignoring the base TDP.

TDP right now almost do nothing with "Thermal" any more.

AMD TDP is a make up number that totally not related to CPU itself.
It is based on recommended working temperature, room temperature and cooler's cooling efficiency--none of them are related to CPU itself. All three numbers are made up by AMD and different CPU even have different room temperature numbers! That's pure garbage and you shouldn't look at it.

Intel TDP is just the power limit for long time execution (PL1) without any overclock like Multi Core Enhancement MCE. Most people with Intel desktop CPU are running in MCE mode so TDP is useless and their CPU is burning double the power than their TDP numbers.

 

[sublunar]

TDP right now almost do nothing with "Thermal" any more.

AMD TDP is a make up number that totally not related to CPU itself.
It is based on recommended working temperature, room temperature and cooler's cooling efficiency--none of them are related to CPU itself. All three numbers are made up by AMD and different CPU even have different room temperature numbers! That's pure garbage and you shouldn't look at it.

Intel TDP is just the power limit for long time execution (PL1) without any overclock like Multi Core Enhancement MCE. Most people with Intel desktop CPU are running in MCE mode so TDP is useless and their CPU is burning double the power than their TDP numbers.

I think we could probably accept that the only accurate measure of thermal performance appears to be within each manufacturers own definitions - compare Intel to Intel and AMD to AMD.

That said, on that basis Intel's Ice Lake S looks to run hotter than Coffee Lake at high end TDPs. And it's this that has to get Apple thinking about what they have to do to use Ice Lake S (and successive) CPUs.

From the AMD side of things, regardless of what the thermal envelope has to be Apple have an opportunity in the redesign to double down on the whole 'silent computing' thing that they have a decent reputation for already.

 

[MikeZTM]

I think we could probably accept that the only accurate measure of thermal performance appears to be within each manufacturers own definitions - compare Intel to Intel and AMD to AMD.

That said, on that basis Intel's Ice Lake S looks to run hotter than Coffee Lake at high end TDPs. And it's this that has to get Apple thinking about what they have to do to use Ice Lake S (and successive) CPUs.

From the AMD side of things, regardless of what the thermal envelope has to be Apple have an opportunity in the redesign to double down on the whole 'silent computing' thing that they have a decent reputation for already.

Still you can not compare AMD's TDP to AMD's TDP as they have different "room temperature" and dramatically different "recommended working temperature". If they recommend a higher working temperature the TDP will become higher -- it's not related to the CPU and doesn't make any sense to anyone.
The number is a pure marketing make up.

For Intel each different generation have different thermal characteristics. 15W Icelake is not the same as 15W Whiskeylake and also the OEM dependent PL2 is much more important for Intel laptop CPUs.
Intel obviously will not put a higher TDP on icelake to make them looks worse than whiskeylake (which they are).

We know AMD Zen2 is much more power efficient than Intel Skylake.

But that's only after we see the benchmarks from third party. There's no way we can tell which Cpu is more power efficient from AMD and Intel.

 

[827538]

Thats true! But AMD is using 7nm chiplets in their APU & CPU's! While Intel is still fighting its way into 10nm.

I'm sure before the end of the year we will see 5nm AMD processors! Then Intel will be 3 years behind AMD in development!

In recent weeks we've seen how a smaller company can bet the pants off a much larger one. Just look at Boeing and SpaceX! Smaller aggressive teams tend to do better than larger companies which is too sprawled out. Even Apple is now getting too big! They need to breakup the development in to smaller units and setup wall definitions, that is how their device will interplay with others. These wall specs are all encompassing not only what it needs to do today by the vision moving forward. This is the secret sauce Apple has failed to build to make them get to the next level! The don't have anyone driving the overall vision! That is what Steve did quite well.

I have no doubt, as a TSMC and AMD shareholder I follow the development of both closely. Fully expect AMD's 3rd gen Zen cores Q4 2020 on TSMC's N5 process, going to perhaps be the point AMD actually pulls in front of Intel in just just cores/cost/efficiency but in IPC and single threaded performance.

Intel is getting its' 10nm process going (well a version of it at least) but if it will be as competitive as TSMC's EUV 5nm is the question and one I highly doubt.

I agree Tim Cook lacks vision and is not the guy to be leading Apple - even if he is reaching new heights of profits - but I don't think Apple needs broken up, it's companies without any real competition that need broken up. Apple's walled garden on iOS approach is a benefit in my opinion.

The companies that need split is Amazon retail from AWS, Alphabet/Google, AT&T, Comcast/TWC. Those companies are genuine threats - also basically every major bank in America.

 

[throAU]

You’re not gonna get a high end gaming computer with an AMD SoC

No, but you might get higher end gaming than Apple currently has, if you use the same (or very similar) SoC as say, the playstation 5 or new Xbox.

"High end gaming" is relative. Apple have nothing in that market right now. I mean the iMac Pro or Mac Pro might handle it (RX580 as the "high end" GPU in most of Apple's desktops? Don't make me laugh!), but they're way, way out of budget for a gaming machine, and the new AMD SoC in the new consoles will be competitive with both of them at vastly lower cost - at running games.

 

[Peace]

No, but you might get higher end gaming than Apple currently has, if you use the same (or very similar) SoC as say, the playstation 5 or new Xbox.

"High end gaming" is relative. Apple have nothing in that market right now. I mean the iMac Pro or Mac Pro might handle it (RX580 as the "high end" GPU in most of Apple's desktops? Don't make me laugh!), but they're way, way out of budget for a gaming machine, and the new AMD SoC in the new consoles will be competitive with both of them at vastly lower cost - at running games.

Real gamers don't use consoles.

I'mjustsayin.

 

[throAU]

Real gamers don't use consoles.

I'mjustsayin.

Real gamers don't use Macs, either.

 

[PostApple2016BrainWash]

TDP right now almost do nothing with "Thermal" any more.

AMD TDP is a make up number that totally not related to CPU itself.
It is based on recommended working temperature, room temperature and cooler's cooling efficiency--none of them are related to CPU itself. All three numbers are made up by AMD and different CPU even have different room temperature numbers! That's pure garbage and you shouldn't look at it.

Intel TDP is just the power limit for long time execution (PL1) without any overclock like Multi Core Enhancement MCE. Most people with Intel desktop CPU are running in MCE mode so TDP is useless and their CPU is burning double the power than their TDP numbers.

That's just how TDP work for providing some estimation of how much power it might draw by the CPU.

 

[MikeZTM]

That's just how TDP work for providing some estimation of how much power it might draw by the CPU.

AMD: 3950x is 105W. Every test media: 3950x is 140W+ (no PBO)
Intel: 9900k is 95W. Every test media:9900k is 160W+ (no MCE)

This number is useless and we should rely on third party numbers.

And also Intel do not support overclock yet all benchmark are done with XMP enabled effectively overclocking the IMC(Integrated Memory Controller) in the CPU die.

 

[chucker23n1]

It would be interesting to see something like this (all theoretical):

MB12: Apple A13X or A13M, 8 GB, and a powerful Apple GPU (PowerVR Based, of Course) or Ice Lake at a very low TDP + T2 chip
MBA13: Intel Ice Lake Y i5/i7, 8/16 GB, Iris Graphics, T2
MBP13: AMD Ryzen 5/7, 8/16/32 GB, Radeon Graphics, T2
MBP16: (Here's where it gets interesting...)

• Base Model: Ice Lake/Tiger Lake with JUST Iris GPUs, and maybe 16 GB only, or AMD Ryzen 7 H-Series (could even be semi-custom) with Radeon graphics onboard and 16 GB only, perhaps $1699-$1999, and limit the storage options, essentially make this like the Mid 2009 15" base model, and the 2013-2015 15" base models
• Upgrade Model: Whatever Intel's fastest is, plus whatever the latest AMD GPU is, basically more of the same.

Apple GPUs haven't been PowerVR-based for years (depending on how significant you count Apple licensing IP from Imagination).

The line-up above seems very convoluted and not Jobs-ian. It would bring us back to the days of ca. 2017, when I had a hard time understanding let alone explaining to someone else why certain MacBook models exist. It's kind of nice that they've radically simplified it since.

I don't think the MB (in the 2015 fashion) and MBA should have ever existed side-by-side. Clearly, the MB was an attempt to reboot the Air, and it failed for several reasons (including Intel failing to deliver on Core M's promise). Instead, they brought back the Air. If they ever do an ARM-based small MacBook, it'll either have to be significantly different enough from the Air (I don't see how?), or it'll have to come with a plan to also kill the Air once and for all.

Also, Tiger Lake is a non-starter on the MBP. It's interesting on the MBA, but for the MBP, they'll have to stick to Comet Lake and Rocket Lake, i.e. 14nm. If they want to do Intel, that is. If they do go AMD, that becomes more interesting.

It would be cool to see the T3 act as another processor and do more background tasks, or even being able to run the OS at idle or while doing things like video decode, to switch off the main x86-64 CPU and save a lot of power. The T2 already probably has a built in GPU (for the touch bar), and could function as a chipset. Perhaps an A-Series chip would be better for that, especially if it could replace the T-series, such as "A13M" for Mac that combined the capabilities of T2 with the cores and more powerful GPU of the A-series chips. All of this would rule out hackintosh within a few years, but luckily Apple still made macs without the T2 as late as 2017 (the fn-keys MBP13). Pros want the x86, but for people just watching Netflix on their couch or on a plane where battery life and lightness are key, macOS running on ARM would really be the way to go. But first, fixing those keyboards...

I can see bridgeOS taking up more tasks in order to extend battery life, yes.
[automerge]1581548422[/automerge]

It would be cool to see a custom 64-bit only solution that includes an AMD CPU, Radeon GPU, NVMe SSD controller, DDR4 or HBM memory controller, perhaps some machine learning cores/neural engine, I/O controllers for USB and Thunderbolt. This could replace intel + T2 with one chip.

If they ever do remove the T2, it'll be because the entire machine is ARM, not because they have an AMD CPU.

 

[smulji]

Apple GPUs haven't been PowerVR-based for years (depending on how significant you count Apple licensing IP from Imagination).

The line-up above seems very convoluted and not Jobs-ian. It would bring us back to the days of ca. 2017, when I had a hard time understanding let alone explaining to someone else why certain MacBook models exist. It's kind of nice that they've radically simplified it since.

I don't think the MB (in the 2015 fashion) and MBA should have ever existed side-by-side. Clearly, the MB was an attempt to reboot the Air, and it failed for several reasons (including Intel failing to deliver on Core M's promise). Instead, they brought back the Air. If they ever do an ARM-based small MacBook, it'll either have to be significantly different enough from the Air (I don't see how?), or it'll have to come with a plan to also kill the Air once and for all.

Also, Tiger Lake is a non-starter on the MBP. It's interesting on the MBA, but for the MBP, they'll have to stick to Comet Lake and Rocket Lake, i.e. 14nm. If they want to do Intel, that is. If they do go AMD, that becomes more interesting.



I can see bridgeOS taking up more tasks in order to extend battery life, yes.
[automerge]1581548422[/automerge]


If they ever do remove the T2, it'll be because the entire machine is ARM, not because they have an AMD CPU.

“Also, Tiger Lake is a non-starter on the MBP.”

For the 16” MBP, I agree. It’d be perfect for the 13” MBP.

 

[chucker23n1]

“Also, Tiger Lake is a non-starter on the MBP.”

For the 16” MBP, I agree. It’d be perfect for the 13” MBP.

Maybe. I think they’ll go Comet Lake-U for now. Whether they go Rocket Lake-U (14nm) or Alder Lake-U (10nm) I find harder to say. Will they have ramped up 10nm production by then (and if so, why not cancel Rocket Lake altogether?)?

Intel is still hedging bets. It’s not a great look. And Apple seems tired and to prefer the safe side.

(Yes, I’m ignoring AMD as a wild card here.)

 

[throAU]

For the 16” MBP, I agree. It’d be perfect for the 13” MBP.

It would be far less cores and still (very) likely inferior GPU to AMD's offering in that thermal/power envelope.

AMD are shortly offering up to 8 cores that will work in a 13" form factor's design constraints (as little as 15 watts "nominal", configurable between 12-25 watts for 8 cores boosting "up to" 4 ghz). That's not rumour, they are officially announced and other vendors are starting to reveal machines based on them as of CES.

8-Core AMD Ryzen 4000 Mobile APUs Launching in Q1 2020 With 15W, 45W Chips - ExtremeTech

AMD's long-awaited 7nm mobile chips are finally hitting the market in Q1 2020, with up to eight cores and 16 threads in 15W TDP envelopes.

www.extremetech.com

Intel aren't even close. They're stuck on 14nm+++ and it is beginning to be a real problem. They've milked it for all its worth, and it's impressive for a 14nm process. But they're end of the line with it and until they get their new process up and running for actual high core counts, they're screwed.

 

[smulji]

Maybe. I think they’ll go Comet Lake-U for now. Whether they go Rocket Lake-U (14nm) or Alder Lake-U (10nm) I find harder to say. Will they have ramped up 10nm production by then (and if so, why not cancel Rocket Lake altogether?)?

Intel is still hedging bets. It’s not a great look. And Apple seems tired and to prefer the safe side.

(Yes, I’m ignoring AMD as a wild card here.)

Assuming that Apple sticks to Intel and the fact that Tiger Lake processors won’t be available till Fall 2020, I bet money Apple goes with this Ice Lake processor in the 13” MBP 1H of 2020. It’s being released to OEMs Q1 2020

Intel: 28 W Ice Lake Core i7-1068G7 Coming Q1

www.anandtech.com

[automerge]1581573522[/automerge]

It would be far less cores and still (very) likely inferior GPU to AMD's offering in that thermal/power envelope.

AMD are shortly offering up to 8 cores that will work in a 13" form factor's design constraints (as little as 15 watts "nominal", configurable between 12-25 watts for 8 cores boosting "up to" 4 ghz). That's not rumour, they are officially announced and other vendors are starting to reveal machines based on them as of CES.

8-Core AMD Ryzen 4000 Mobile APUs Launching in Q1 2020 With 15W, 45W Chips - ExtremeTech

AMD's long-awaited 7nm mobile chips are finally hitting the market in Q1 2020, with up to eight cores and 16 threads in 15W TDP envelopes.

www.extremetech.com

Intel aren't even close. They're stuck on 14nm+++ and it is beginning to be a real problem. They've milked it for all its worth, and it's impressive for a 14nm process. But they're end of the line with it and until they get their new process up and running for actual high core counts, they're screwed.

AMD’s new mobile processors look great on paper but I’m waiting too see their performance claims tested against real world results.

 

[chucker23n1]

Assuming that Apple sticks to Intel and the fact that Tiger Lake processors won’t be available till Fall 2020, I bet money Apple goes with this Ice Lake processor in the 13” MBP 1H of 2020. It’s being released to OEMs Q1 2020

I don’t believe so. Ice Lake on the Air? Sure, if they have room for the TDP increase (7 to 9). On the Pro? They’ll just use Comet Lake instead.

Intel: 28 W Ice Lake Core i7-1068G7 Coming Q1

www.anandtech.com

[automerge]1581573522[/automerge]

AMD’s new mobile processors look great on paper but I’m waiting too see their performance claims tested against real world results.

Indeed.

 

[PostApple2016BrainWash]

AMD: 3950x is 105W. Every test media: 3950x is 140W+ (no PBO)
Intel: 9900k is 95W. Every test media:9900k is 160W+ (no MCE)

This number is useless and we should rely on third party numbers.

And also Intel do not support overclock yet all benchmark are done with XMP enabled effectively overclocking the IMC(Integrated Memory Controller) in the CPU die.

You are sort of confuse that CPU is not the same for both form factors.

 

[lowendlinux]

I'd honestly like a little more complexity in the lineup

I'd like a 14" and 16" rMB with a fan less A series at iPad Pro prices

The MacMini and 13" MBP can be APU based, and the 16" can do whatever, AMD/Intel IDC

The iMac line can just be big 16's with better cooling

iMac Pro goes away with a MP lite with bottom end Epyc/Xeon

MP does what MP does everything from 6k to 50K

I'd welcome AMD and I'd welcome ARM

 

[throAU]

You are sort of confuse that CPU is not the same for both form factors.

Elaborate? the 3950X is a consumer (non HEDT) desktop chip, same as the 9900k
[automerge]1581594717[/automerge]