Should Apple merge its silicon lines?

[WebHead]

With MacBooks using A-series processors and iPads using M-series, should Apple just merge them into one line of processors for simplicity, eg make them all A-series?

 

[arc of the universe]

future strategy will be 3 levels of chips, regardless if A or M. those names are meaningless now.

chips good for iPhones, iPads, and macs at "neo" level.
underpowered for a lot of things but meets basics.
maybe 15%-20% of sales by units. only 10% of profits.

chips good for iPhones, iPads, and Macs at "Air" level.
Air level is perfect for 60% of people. great devices. more power than we really need.

chips good for iPhones, iPads and mac at "Pro" level.
super expensive. latest chips. 20% of sales by units. 30% of profits.

Ultra terminology may be used for some devices, but going forward, anything using the name Ultra will be for posers.

 

[theluggage]

With MacBooks using A-series processors and iPads using M-series, should Apple just merge them into one line of processors for simplicity, eg make them all A-series?

I think they should come up with a completely new naming system which put the target workload up front and separate from the "generation" to get rid of the pro/max/ultra nonsense. More like the Intel i3/i5/i7/i9 labels - followed by a generation number - that stay the same across chip generations (but I'm not saying copying that exactly - Apple Silicon avoids the desktop/mobile divide and multiple TDP ratings that complicated the Core i system).

Gets rid of silly "pro", "max" and "ultra" labels, avoids "MacBook Pros" with non-Pro chips etc.
Makes it clearer that (say) a M3 Ultra may be better than a M4 Max for that chips intended workload.
Avoid the confusion between "M4 series" and the "M4" chip.

Say:
A-series: personal productivity (current A-series)
C-series: Mainstream/general (current Mx-series)
E-series: Advanced general (current Mx Pro)
G-series: Content creation (current Mx Max)
J-series: Highend content creation/scientific (current Mx Ultra)

(Get some marketing guru on a mid-6-digit salary to choose the names... and, yeah, the MxPro/MxMax distinction is tricky and has frequently changed between generations, but has often been mainly based on GPU power).

 

[FreakinEurekan]

They already are “merged” - M series is built off cores from A-series.

Whatever they call them, is just marketing. Doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.

 

[maflynn]

should Apple just merge them into one line of processors for simplicity, eg make them all A-series?

Mobile processing needs are a lot different then laptop computer needs. The A processor is significantly smaller then the M series processor, draws a lot less power, and doesn't have the same capacity for ram.

While the m series was born out of the A series, it doesn't make sense to try to squeeze it back into a phone processor form factor.

My suggestion would be to develop a M series desktop processor, and it have desktop features that the mobile processor does not have. In many respects the Mac Pro was doomed as soon as apple updated it with Apple silicon. Lets have a desktop specific design that offers clear advantages for desktop users.

 

[Harddrive]

This reminds me of jack of all trades but master of none. Use the right tool for the job I do not want a desktop chip in my iPhone ever it would run hot a chew through a battery in no time.

 

[WebHead]

They already are “merged” - M series is built off cores from A-series.

Whatever they call them, is just marketing. Doesn’t matter to me one way or the other.

That's exactly what I was getting at. Would it simplify things to call them all the same thing, or do consumers not care either way?

 

[theluggage]

That's exactly what I was getting at. Would it simplify things to call them all the same thing, or do consumers not care either way?

Doesn't "Apple Silicon" cover that? Although the name only emerged with the launch of M-series, I thought it retrospectively applied to the A-series.

Apart from that, you need some way to distinguish the various levels of power. Probably more than just "A" and "M" (as per my previous post).

Mobile processing needs are a lot different then laptop computer needs. The A processor is significantly smaller then the M series processor, draws a lot less power, and doesn't have the same capacity for ram.

Except... there's no real line in the sand. The big difference between A-series and M-series seems to be support for TB/USB4 and multiple external displays. We've long since passed the point where top-end phones need as much, if not more, processing/GPU/NPU power than low-end laptops - that was really demonstrated back with the A12 Bionic-based Developer Transition System. Witness how many people seem to be delighted with what their MacBook Neos can do...

In many respects the Mac Pro was doomed as soon as apple updated it with Apple silicon. Lets have a desktop specific design that offers clear advantages for desktop users.

The Mac Pro was doomed as soon as the M-series Apple Silicon system-on-a-chip concept was conceived. Apple Silicon works really well in everything from the iPad Pro through the MacBooks to the Mac Studio - which, honesty, is where Apple make their money - giving them an edge over the PC/Chromebook competition. It also gives Apple a uniquely heterogeneous architecture across the whole range, for which future MacOSs and applications can be optimised.

As for desktop processors - well, the Mini and Studio range are supposedly seeing unprecedented demand and are considerably nicer than PC SFF systems (which have huge external power bricks but still tend to run loud and overheat).

What people seem to mean by "desktop" is a system with discrete PCIe GPUs and extendable DDR RAM that they can stuff with cheap plug-in RAM & SSD (irony alert!) and NVIDIA's latest dGPUs. That's definitely Apple Silicon's kryptonite - but a new SoC with 64+ lanes of PCIe that used external DDR RAM and off-chip SSD controllers would throw away some of Apple Silicon's key features and end up being a "me too" competitor to x86 systems, with performance determined by the same NVIDIA or AMD GPUs. Mx Ultra can punch above its weight in applications that benefit from unified memory c.f. conventional systems that may have more RAM but have to continually move data between system RAM and VRAM. A "desktop" PCIe/DDR AS chip would lose that advantage and only really win in terms of power consumption - which is pretty irrelevant in a desktop system already loaded with NVIDIA's finest space heaters.

Apple doesn't need to have a product in every category unless they can offer some sort of premium advantage. Plus the "personal desktop workstation" market is being eaten away at both ends - increasingly powerful laptop/SFF systems at the low end and "pay for what you need" cloud computing at the high end.