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.
New References to AMD Processors Discovered in macOS 10.15.4 Beta
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well obviously they cannot lie about performance! No company ever lied about it!
Coming Soon – Graviton2-Powered General Purpose, Compute-Optimized, & Memory-Optimized EC2 Instances | Amazon Web Services
We launched the first generation (A1) of Arm-based, Graviton-powered EC2 instances at re:Invent 2018. Since that launch, thousands of our customers have used them to run many different types of scale-out workloads including containerized microservices, web servers, and data/log processing. The...aws.amazon.com
They can not lie about performance.
x264 and simulation is the key here and at least 20% faster than intel Xeon is impressive.
they are not deploying this for lite workloads.
This is for next gen general propose ec2 instance.
M5 C5 and R5 are all mainstream Xeon servers and replaced by M6g C6g R6g arm servers.
20% faster than Intel Xeon you say? What model? Is 64 core/64Thread 20% faster than 28 core x86 CPU in the same tasks?
That would be about right...
Or have they tested 16 core/16 thread(!) Intel CPU vs 16 core/16 Thread ARM CPU?
What will happen when you will run both CPUs without any hindering in performance?
What if you will compare 64C/128T EPYC with this 64 core ARM CPU, head to head?
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
AWS graviton2
32 cores 105w TDP each core is at least 20% faster than Xeon platinum.
how the hell that is slower than a 28 core Xeon burning 300w?
The issue is AMD’s cross-licensing agreement with Intel. If they enter into a business combination, the agreement terminates unless Intel consents.
The average age of systems would drop dramatically if the power/performance/efficiency of systems grew at a faster rate. Maybe AMD shows a better roadmap for the new few years compared to Intel.
I could see that being an attractive way for Apple to encourage future upgrades (better perf) compared to going the obsolescence route (broken keyboards)
I'm not going to manage my Smart Home devices or IoT devices with a MacBook Pro or a Windows PC, I'm going to manage those things with an iPhone (or Android device) or an iPad. So are the vast majority of Apple's consumers and Apple knows this. Or I can simply manage it via a web interface through Chrome or Edge on my 5-7 year old PC. Those devices have their own SoC and pseudo OS via a browser or an App. They aren't putting any overhead on a Mac or PC.
Apple has put all their Machine Learning and AI Framework energies into iOS and the Axx-Series SoC as that is their sole focus. Sure, if those things get picked up on the macOS side, that's great. That's where Catalyst apps and Universal iOS/iPadOS/macOS apps are more important in the immediate future.
The market is pivoting because Microsoft said no more Windows 7 and consumers may reluctantly update an aging PC running Windows 7. Or not.
Businesses that have enterprise support or are cycling in new systems will have no choice. Again, outside of the relatively small gaming and creative markets, the vast majority of people with a system 5-7 years old aren't upgrading their desktop. They are upgrading their iPhone or Android phone or their iPad.
The desktop is just not the future of computing. Mobile devices have permanently altered that paradigm, we're past the point of return to those halcyon days. To me, this is why the possibility of Apple moving to AMD is simply a quarter toss for them. If AMD can provide better performance cheaper for users and give Apple a higher profit margin on Macs, so be it. If not, then it's going to be Intel for a long time.
Either way, Apple is not suddenly going to refocus on Macs as an important part of their business equal to the iPhone, Wearables or Services. If anything, they're more concerned with the iPad's market share and growing that again.
Whether it’s microcode or a simple hardware tweak isn’t known, but it’s a distinction without a difference. Either way, it’s an EPYC feature.
Yes, Mac Pro would use EPYC, as I mentioned in my OP #47. iMac Pro is debatable but likely they could drop ECC support given iMac Pro’s target market.
Last edited:
Well obviously they cannot lie about performance! No company ever lied about it!
20% faster than Intel Xeon you say? What model? Is 64 core/64Thread 20% faster than 28 core x86 CPU in the same tasks?
That would be about right...
Or have they tested 16 core/16 thread(!) Intel CPU vs 16 core/16 Thread ARM CPU?
What will happen when you will run both CPUs without any hindering in performance?
What if you will compare 64C/128T EPYC with this 64 core ARM CPU, head to head?
That is single core performance
this is real not some Geekbench b.s.
Wake up already.
Oh, so it is single core performance. What specific testing they have shown? Testing methodology? What platforms they used?
They cannot be lying if they show only results without testing methodology!
Means its more difficult to acquire AMD, certainly, but not impossible. Intel needs AMD IP as well for things like x86-64. On top of that, there would be antitrust concerns if Intel became such a dominant CPU vendor.
I understand a renegotiation happened before since AMD's agreement prohibited it from sending chips out to external foundries which caused that license agreement to end with the spinoff of fab to GloFo.
keep on.
You will always find excuses to not believe it.
But fact is a fact.
it’s aws you can host them for a test yourself.
So they had to do this weird methodology to pitch it against Xeon. Totally believable.
Because even that Xeon has HyperThreading which will still make this CPU faster.
Dude, stop this circlejerk about ARM. 32 cores at 105 TDP. It tells you everything you should know about this idea. And no, 32 core CPU will not be faster than Intel 250W TDP CPUs, because of two reasons: core clocks and HyperThreading. That power budget will always pay dividence.
No matter how much you believe into something will not change the fact that it is not true, especially - in real world.
“I'm going to manage those things with an iPhone (or Android device) or an iPad.”
or better yet, an Apple Watch. As far the rest of your post, I agree with the overall sentiment. Apple’s future is mobile devices + wearables + services.
You guys aren't correct about Thunderbolt 4 (anymore).
Since Intel is such a pinnacle of innovation right now they "just" change numbers in the names of products/technologies to suggest something more powerful is coming your way.
Thunderbolt 4 is no longer using PCIe 4.0 x4, it's just Thunderbolt 3 meaning PCIe 3.0 x4 and DisplayPort 1.4 - but with a more powerful USB controller that handles 20 Gb/s instead of 10 Gb/s (as it is right now) USB devices.
This means you won't see any performance increases with Thunderbolt 4 if you are using an actual Thunderbolt device, only if you use a Thunderbolt 4 computer with a 20 Gb/s USB device. But you can just get a dedicated USB 20 Gb/s PCIe add-in card to achieve this performance with a computer that already has Thunderbolt 3.
It's pretty sad.
I hope Apple is actually switching to AMD CPUs and Ryzen 4000 APUs and isn't just using internal macOS builds without the digital locks that prevent it from running out of the box on AMD hardware to just increase pressure on Intel to further push down the prices for Intel CPUs and chipsets ("Look how much faster macOS runs on Zen 2-based AMD hardware, why should we pay you amount x for your over-priced and out-dated stuff where we have to develop new security fixes each month that further reduce performance?").
Intel's only current solution is to (indirectly) dump cash on its OEM customers.
Since Intel is such a pinnacle of innovation right now they "just" change numbers in the names of products/technologies to suggest something more powerful is coming your way.
Thunderbolt 4 is no longer using PCIe 4.0 x4, it's just Thunderbolt 3 meaning PCIe 3.0 x4 and DisplayPort 1.4 - but with a more powerful USB controller that handles 20 Gb/s instead of 10 Gb/s (as it is right now) USB devices.
This means you won't see any performance increases with Thunderbolt 4 if you are using an actual Thunderbolt device, only if you use a Thunderbolt 4 computer with a 20 Gb/s USB device. But you can just get a dedicated USB 20 Gb/s PCIe add-in card to achieve this performance with a computer that already has Thunderbolt 3.
It's pretty sad.
I hope Apple is actually switching to AMD CPUs and Ryzen 4000 APUs and isn't just using internal macOS builds without the digital locks that prevent it from running out of the box on AMD hardware to just increase pressure on Intel to further push down the prices for Intel CPUs and chipsets ("Look how much faster macOS runs on Zen 2-based AMD hardware, why should we pay you amount x for your over-priced and out-dated stuff where we have to develop new security fixes each month that further reduce performance?").
Intel's only current solution is to (indirectly) dump cash on its OEM customers.
Last edited:
Couldn't resist....*only* 8% is still billions of profit.
Would Intel even care? Apple is a marginal player in the laptop/desktop market and a non-factor in server market.
Funny. I must have hallucinated running full BSD Unix (including the webserver for a university department) on an ARM workstation back in the 1990s.
You maybe also need to go look up the difference between 'Apple A12' and 'ARM'.
Or google 'ARM supercomputer'.
Or 'ARM server chip'.
...or the fact that iOS has always been a fully multitasking, multithreaded, Unix-like OS, based on the same kernel as MacOS - the 'no Multitasking' has always been an artificial limitation imposed by the user interface and App store rules.
...or the fact that all Android devices are running the Linux kernel.
...or that most of the major Linux distros already have ARM versions along with most of the large open source software products (Apache, PostgreSQL, Mongo, node.js, LibreOffice).
Intel is a powerful enemy, and licensing means Apple don't have to deal with the responsibility of supporting customers.
As others have said already. It's an easy side project for Apple get involved in making macOS work on Ryzen or Threadripper (certainly easier than keeping an ARM powered mobile macOS project going) but Intel will clearly offer bigger discounts based on the threat of Apple going to AMD for a new product.
This would be whether or not Apple were trialling AMD CPUs with any kind of seriousness while designing the next iMac, or even trialling a Mac mini Pro with onboard graphics.
Apple can stave off the threat of Hackintoshes with the T2 CPU which will be used across the board when the iMac gets it's redesign.
Don't underestimate the marketing effect on the public a (perceived) halo hardware manufacturer like Apple has.
To run what games?
And high end gaming isn’t exactly a large market. I don’t see Apple upending their hardware configs just to offer an expensive gaming computer that few would buy and wouldn’t even be running MacOS.
The server market might be switching to AMD, if that is the case Intel is in big trouble, hopefully this will be the case, they've been overcharging and underdelivering for ages.
Currently even if the server market wanted to completely transition to AMD it wouldn't be possible in reality due to production capacity limits of TSMC, even if they are increasing it as fast as they can.
But AMD could probably handle something like supplying the "small amount" of SKUs that would be needed for Macs...