New References to AMD Processors Discovered in macOS 10.15.4 Beta

[koyoot]

But WHY is the PC market shrinking Zdigital2015?

Intel went on autopilot for a decade. People aren't going to replace their computers for a 3-5% performance increase. That is precisely why the 4,1s & 5,1s lasted as long as they did. Intel stopped innovating.

AMD is showing a 15 - 20% performance upgrade per generation (which is about 18 months). If you go from a 1st gen Ryzen to a 3rd gen Ryzen, you will see a major performance increase (for very little money).

One thing that no one has pointed out is that going with AMD means that Apple wouldn't have to completely redesign a motherboard everytime AMD releases a new CPU. The AM4 platform goes from 1st Gen Ryzen to 4th Gen Ryzen.

If AMD does the same thing with the AM5 socket (4 years or so), Apple wouldn't have to redesign a motherboard. Simply drop in the next gen AM5 processor.
[automerge]1581106615[/automerge]


I'd first have to troubleshoot the system to discover the bad ram & then I would have to have a replacement DIMM handy.

Saving time from that is worth the cost of ECC, but that is just me.

You mean, 15-20% increase per generation per core.

But we forget about how much boundaries have increased with core counts.

Remember. In 2016 Broadwell-E 10 core was the Dogs Bollocks of desktop computer hardware. Today, in 2020, just 4 years later, we have 64 core monsters, on the same High-End Desktop segment, and mainstream is on 16 cores.

This is the best way to make customers change their computers more often. Make them WANT to switch their machine. What Intel did in the last 5 years? They made people do not want to change their hardware with each generation, because it was good enough.

 

[Mr. Awesome]

Apple ARM based CPUs are not faster than Intel CPUs because they have better cores. They don't. With each cycle, any 4 GHz x86 CPU will do 4-5 times more work than any ARM based CPU. There is a reason why ARM is RISC(REDUCED Instruction Set...) Architecture.

The reason why iPad processes video faster than Intel CPUs is because of integrated Image processor, not the cores, themselves. The cores are, and will always be slower, than any x86.

Guys, if you are not enough educated on the topic of CPU architectures, don't hype products up, because if Apple will switch to ARM on anything other than basic Services-access computers, competitors to Chromebooks, to put it plainly - you will make other customers hurt in their workflow.

ARM is not ready, and will never be ready to replace x86 for anything High-Performance. There is a very good reason why there does not exist a single SuperComputer that is based on ARM, all of them are based on x86. Apple is not going to change this.

It’s not just raw clock speed or operations per second that matter. The integration between the chip and the software in iOS that makes it so fast could be brought to macOS as well. A lot of the speed in iOS comes from the hardware/software working together. I’m just saying that if Apple controls all the silicon AND all the rest of the hardware and software, we’ve opened up serious performance/optimization possibilities.

 

[Doc C]

Apple ARM based CPUs are not faster than Intel CPUs because they have better cores. They don't. With each cycle, any 4 GHz x86 CPU will do 4-5 times more work than any ARM based CPU. There is a reason why ARM is RISC(REDUCED Instruction Set...) Architecture.

The reason why iPad processes video faster than Intel CPUs is because of integrated Image processor, not the cores, themselves. The cores are, and will always be slower, than any x86.

Guys, if you are not enough educated on the topic of CPU architectures, don't hype products up, because if Apple will switch to ARM on anything other than basic Services-access computers, competitors to Chromebooks, to put it plainly - you will make other customers hurt in their workflow.

ARM is not ready, and will never be ready to replace x86 for anything High-Performance. There is a very good reason why there does not exist a single SuperComputer that is based on ARM, all of them are based on x86. Apple is not going to change this.

I recall reading somewhere that some of the difference could be mitigated by eliminating the thermal restrictions (which would be possible in a laptop or desktop, as compared to a tablet or phone) and by introducing massive numbers of cores (not sure if this is feasible.) If this is the case, wouldn't it be possible to temporarily introduce an emulation layer to make it appear like an x86 processor to the software?

I also wonder - often we get stuck with technology that is no longer the optimal solution only because it is so entrenched in society that the resistance to change outweighs the benefits. With Microsoft having developed an ARM-based version of Windows, is it possible that an industry-wide shift is possible?

 

[Mr. Awesome]

My last years AMD PC has Thunderbolt 4. Intel is behind. AMD has been more interesting for about 24 months now, in my opinion. If you going to game, do it on a PC, you will be happier, and I am a life long Mac user.

Thunderbolt 4?

 

[Zdigital2015]

But WHY is the PC market shrinking Zdigital2015?

Intel went on autopilot for a decade. People aren't going to replace their computers for a 3-5% performance increase. That is precisely why the 4,1s & 5,1s lasted as long as they did. Intel stopped innovating.

AMD is showing a 15 - 20% performance upgrade per generation (which is about 18 months). If you go from a 1st gen Ryzen to a 3rd gen Ryzen, you will see a major performance increase (for very little money).

One thing that no one has pointed out is that going with AMD means that Apple wouldn't have to completely redesign a motherboard everytime AMD releases a new CPU. The AM4 platform goes from 1st Gen Ryzen to 4th Gen Ryzen.

If AMD does the same thing with the AM5 socket (4 years or so), Apple wouldn't have to redesign a motherboard. Simply drop in the next gen AM5 processor.

The PC market is shrinking because there are no truly compelling applications at the consumer level driving the need for more horsepower. VR is not, AR is useless on the desktop.

The market shifted to mobile devices and that’s where the bulk of the energy in the market has gone. Consumers that have moved on to an iPhone, iPad, Android phone or Chromebook are simply not interested in updating their desktop or even their laptop on a frequent basis. Their main computing device is an iPhone, iPad or an android phone now.

Intel and AMD can innovate all they want on the desktop, but outside of business cycle lease and lifecycle turnover, gamers and creatives, there is zero desire by the average consumer to upgrade or even need more horsepower than many 5-7 year old PCs already provide.

AMD’s performance gains are not a guaranteed thing each and every refresh. Be prepared for those gains to get smaller and smaller as time goes by. We live in a golden age now, but it never lasts forever.

 

[koyoot]

The first step of software testing is putting AMD specific code into the OS build. That is what they did. Going from Intel to AMD is not a small MB change. It is a total redesign.

Yeah, and Hackintoshes were running on AMD CPUs for past 3 years because of the Hackintosh Community redesigned themselves the code, eh?

No. AMD and Intel use the same ISA. There is no redesign, you just switch the CPU vendors, and the instructions are the same.

The reason why there is AMD code in Apple Catalina beta is because Apple is readying AMD CPU based Mac(Macs) and need software to be able to test it. There is no better way to test the stability of the OS, and software, than the cheap, old APUs: PIcasso, Raven Ridge, etc. AMD Based Macs will use most likely Renoir, Van Gogh, and Zen 2 based Ryzen CPUs.

 

[Mr. Awesome]

Nothing is ever “seemless” in these types of transitions, although Apple has “THE” best record at this, so I have to give them their due. However, if Apple does move to AMD, then it means Intel is gone after a period of transition and it also means that Apple is NOT transitioning to A-Series for at least another decade. Apple does not invest in multiple parallel paths, especially not on a product line that only accounts for 8% of total sales in 2019.

Based on Apple’s desire to control as much of their product as possible, I think it’s more likely that they switch to ARM. Then they can schedule chip releases to be when they need them, plus they get to integrate macOS and the chipset together.

 

[xnu]

Thunderbolt 4?

Gigabyte Enables PCIe 4.0 on X470 and B450 Motherboards (Updated)

Gigabyte's latest BIOS update adds support for PCIe 4.0 to existing X470 motherboards, but you'll need a Ryzen 3000 series processor to unlock the faster speeds.

www.tomshardware.com

It was a little difficult to buy the new Mac Pro knowing that TB4 was right here. I am not sure if there is a lot of things that take advantage of the TB4, I think one of AMD mid range GPU does, but Intel is a little behind.

 

[koyoot]

Based on Apple’s desire to control as much of their product as possible, I think it’s more likely that they switch to ARM. Then they can schedule chip releases to be when they need them, plus they get to integrate macOS and the chipset together.

And render their computers useless for anything meaningful?

Yeah, doubtful. ARM is not and never will be ready to replace CPUs in MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro. Apple just made Mac Pro, for the filmmaker industry. And they would switch to arm and achieve what? 4-5 times worse performance, than measily 28 core Intel CPU? It won't happen. ARM in any Mac apart from Chromebook-Competitor is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Gigabyte Enables PCIe 4.0 on X470 and B450 Motherboards (Updated)

Gigabyte's latest BIOS update adds support for PCIe 4.0 to existing X470 motherboards, but you'll need a Ryzen 3000 series processor to unlock the faster speeds.

www.tomshardware.com

My friend its PCIe 4.0. Not Thunderbolt 4 .

 

[smulji]

I think at this point everybody should get back to that Mark Gurman's Report that in 2020 Apple will start phase out Intel CPUs from their computers.

Finding AMD APU/CPU references in Mac OS Catalina Beta, which will be ready in time for March event should show you that paint is on the wall quite clear.

This sounds more like a WWDC announcement instead of a March announcement.
[automerge]1581108547[/automerge]

Intel’s fab issues aside...the $64,000 question is WHY would Apple maintain both in a shrinking PC industry? Why would they move from Intel to AMD given that the Mac sits at 8% of it sales? Because Intel is not doing great, but they aren’t so bad that Apple couldn’t ride it out a while longer.

Apple’s upgrade path for Mac Pro customers is to buy a new Mac Pro, they aren’t going to take your trade-in if they introduce an AMD-based Mac Pro.

IF Apple is willing to maintain both AMD AND Intel product lines in tandem, it means that a quantum shift in Apple’s thinking about the PC industry has occurred. People need to adjust their expectations accordingly, myself included (IF it happens).

"People need to adjust their expectations accordingly, myself included (IF it happens). "

Meaning what, exactly?

 

[DaveOP]

No they don’t. They only have them minimally beat for games at 1080p. Anything 2K and higher ... the difference is almost non-existent. But yes they have them beat on single core, but not by much. A lot of things are moving to multi-threaded now that AND finally pulled their heads from their arses.

I have not found that to be the case. For 2560x1440, 165HZ, I found my Intel system to smoke my Ryzen system. Both with a 2080ti, so I am thinking the bottleneck is the CPU. This is in heavily single threaded games, where it really does make a difference. I agree, multithreaded games it doesnt matter nearly as much.

 

[koyoot]

AMD’s performance gains are not a guaranteed thing each and every refresh. Be prepared for those gains to get smaller and smaller as time goes by. We live in a golden age now, but it never lasts forever.

Yes, they are.

Zen 3 will 15-20% faster, per core, than Zen 2, again because of new architecture.

AMD is on a yearly schedule of innovation. And they will get double digit increases with each generation.

And you should get used to it already. AMD is not going to stop innovating.

I recall reading somewhere that some of the difference could be mitigated by eliminating the thermal restrictions (which would be possible in a laptop or desktop, as compared to a tablet or phone) and by introducing massive numbers of cores (not sure if this is feasible.) If this is the case, wouldn't it be possible to temporarily introduce an emulation layer to make it appear like an x86 processor to the software?

I also wonder - often we get stuck with technology that is no longer the optimal solution only because it is so entrenched in society that the resistance to change outweighs the benefits. With Microsoft having developed an ARM-based version of Windows, is it possible that an industry-wide shift is possible?

It won't be mitigated in any way, because 64 Core threadripper can get 200 amps of power, while ARM 16 core server CPUs top at 60 Amps. This the nature of architecture. Circuit design is part of it. ARM is designed for low power usage. It will never mitigate the disparity between anything High Performance.

10 years ago, when ARM was on the rise, and everything in desktop computing was going down in power consumption people genuinely believed we will find a spot where both will meet.

During last few years something opposite happened. There is a reason why already High-Performance companies are touting cooling requirement of 1000W of dissipated heat.

Thirdly. On smaller nodes, that are designed for High-Performance, the heat density is absolutely "stupid" for ARM architecture. Power leakages would render ARM effectively not worth the design efforts, considering the problems it create for this architecture. You need a high-performance architecture that was designed with HPC in mind. Not make low-power architecture do High-Performance.

Its a comparison between 730 horsepower Pagani Huayra, and 730 Horsepower Nissan Juke.

In theory - they are the same thing. In practice - absolutely not.

 

[xnu]

And render their computers useless for anything meaningful?

Yeah, doubtful. ARM is not and never will be ready to replace CPUs in MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Pro. Apple just made Mac Pro, for the filmmaker industry. And they would switch to arm and achieve what? 4-5 times worse performance, than measily 28 core Intel CPU? It won't happen. ARM in any Mac apart from Chromebook-Competitor is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.


My friend its PCIe 4.0. Not Thunderbolt 4 .

Oh crap, you are absolutely right. What a brain fart. So sorry. LOL that is sooo funny, its been a long week.

I spent so much time comparing Intel to AMD last year, and finally deciding to go with AMD for a couple of gaming PC. I am totally thinking PCI.

In any event, having the option for an AMD Mac would be great.

 

[nt5672]

. . . . .
So the question is whether you want to pay for all of this to keep your desktop computer running, or just pop out the bad DIMM and reboot.

Which cannot happen in Macs.

 

[konqerror]

Which cannot happen in Macs.

Wrong. Memory is socketed on all desktop platforms. ECC is not used in mobile platforms due to the power impact.

 

[edgonzalez32]

Apple should have bought AMD a couple of years ago when they were at $2 per share. Would have given them even more control over the Macs graphics and now (possibly) processors.

I would really prefer if they stay away from buying them. AMD is doing just fine on their own. As a matter of fact I just bought a processor from them for my gaming PC. And Apple already has control over what they'd like to include in their macs terms of GPUs.

 

[nt5672]

Which cannot happen in Macs.

True, I was thinking laptops, should have made that clear.

 

[koyoot]

It’s not just raw clock speed or operations per second that matter. The integration between the chip and the software in iOS that makes it so fast could be brought to macOS as well. A lot of the speed in iOS comes from the hardware/software working together. I’m just saying that if Apple controls all the silicon AND all the rest of the hardware and software, we’ve opened up serious performance/optimization possibilities.

No.

What you are saying is that Software-hardware integration will mitigate sheer horsepower. It won't. Software-Hardware integration means that Software exposes dedicated hardware, just like the Mentioned Image Processor on iPad's. The cores in ARM CPUs in Apple computers are 4-5 times slower still than Intels in the same jobs, because of ARM architecture. Each instruction of x86 is 4-5 times wider than on ARM. If you believe it has zero impact on performance - congratulations. But it does have.

No software-hardware integration will ever reduce the difference in sheer core performance between Intel/AMD and ARM architectures. You would need to make ARM CPUs to be 4-5 times faster per clock, than Intel/AMD CPUs to make them EQUALLY fast, at the same clock speed.

And then make them clock equally high, which on smaller nodes will be even harder than ever before.

 

[Wanted797]

Apple should have bought AMD a couple of years ago when they were at $2 per share. Would have given them even more control over the Macs graphics and now (possibly) processors.

Well it depends if AMD where willing to sell.

 

[brinary001]

This is for processors, not GPUs. Apple does not seem to have any plans to switch back to Nvidia for their GPUs.

Even less so if they do, in fact, deepen their relationship with AMD like this.

 

[Nozuka]

Finally we will see nice gains every year like on the iPhone. TSMC is also producing for AMD.
(iPhone is getting their newest tech one year ahead though)

 

[pweicks]

I would like to know who the moron was at Apple that decided to switch from nvidia to amd graphics. And now I’d like to know who the moron is that is letting the first moron also decide to switch from Intel to amd...

 

[koyoot]

I would like to know who the moron was at Apple that decided to switch from nvidia to amd graphics. And now I’d like to know who the moron is that is letting the first moron also decide to switch from Intel to amd...

What is moronic in switching from Intel to AMD and from Nvidia to AMD?

 

[Mr. Awesome]

Gigabyte Enables PCIe 4.0 on X470 and B450 Motherboards (Updated)

Gigabyte's latest BIOS update adds support for PCIe 4.0 to existing X470 motherboards, but you'll need a Ryzen 3000 series processor to unlock the faster speeds.

www.tomshardware.com

It was a little difficult to buy the new Mac Pro knowing that TB4 was right here. I am not sure if there is a lot of things that take advantage of the TB4, I think one of AMD mid range GPU does, but Intel is a little behind.

That would be PCIe 4, not Thunderbolt 4, though, right?

 

[MikeZTM]

No.

Obviously yes.
But the question is what marketing effort they have to investigate into that to make people actually buying them?

I will love to see a Mac with a much power efficient CPU. That means more performance in same form factor. But not able to run windows is already a problem for their retail team.