What are the benefits of Apple switching to Arm Macs?

[trevpimp]

Why did Apple switch to Arm Macs?

Still new to Arm

What are the benefits of Arm Mac Computers?

(Rather learn research on here, Macrumors)

 

[leman]

There are tons of threads in this sub forum discussing exactly this...

To put it short: Apple is not switching to ARM. They are switching to in house designed chips since they have better tech than Intel.

 

[Realityck]

Why did Apple switch to Arm Macs?

Still new to Arm

What are the benefits of Arm Mac Computers?

(Rather learn research on here, Macrumors)

You should read the Keynote Transcript

Specifically look at Tim Cook: (01:26:03) time point and on

Because today is the day we’re announcing that the Mac is transitioning to our own Apple Silicon. When we make bold changes, it’s for one simple yet powerful reason, so we can make much better products. When we look ahead, we envision some amazing new products, and transitioning to our own custom Silicon is what will enable us to bring them to life.

While they were allowing a development kit of a Mac mini with a A12Z with 16GB RAM to be used for software testing the actual enhanced SoC referred to a Apple Silicon was not present that Macs should be able to run from. Notice they did not refer to it as ARM as stated in the next paragraph. In fact if you do a search of all the keynote text the term ARM is not mention at all.

And our high performance GPU is going to bring a whole new level of graphics performance to every Mac, making them even better for pro applications, and really great for games. And combined with our Neural Engines, our chips will make the Mac an amazing platform for machine learning. And we’re bringing many other custom technologies such as our video display and image processing engines, that will help make the Mac better than ever before. So, what does all of this mean for the Mac? First, we’re designing a family of SOCs specifically for the Mac product line.

Lots here are anxious for more details, as the number of Apple Silicon (ARM) threads show. But that will come with time.

 

[jdb8167]

What @leman said. I’ll add that Intel has been disappointing recently. They haven’t kept up on the latest silicon manufacturing and have been delayed on many promises. This is a problem for a company like Apple that has their own desired timeline that they miss when Intel doesn’t deliver. Since Apple now has the technology and expertise to design their own CPUs nd GPUs, it makes sense to own the whole design.

 

[burgerrecords]

1. More efficient notebooks (some combination of better temps, battery life, and faster performance - desktops will benefit from this too but notebooks much more important)

2. Ability to run iOS apps on MacOS

3. ??? Everything else is speculation and marketing-speak as far as i can determine (for example will Apple keep margins the same or emphasize market share? will apple build a GPU that really competes with high-end workstations or leading edge gaming systems? does apple wish to have more frequent mac hardware cycles? is apple going to create "meaningful" new ways to use computers than otherwise? will apple integrate ios and macos further even though they say they will be separate?)


(Semantics of whether to avoid using Arm Mac as shorthand, or not, it probably didn't factor in Apple's decision to move to arm macs from x86 macs)

 

[ChromeCloud]

Simply stated, Apple Silicon Macs will be much faster, and they will have much better battery life than Intel Macs (and PCs).

As an added bonus, they will get features that have been previously only available on iPhone and iPad, such as Face ID, and they will be able to run iPad and iPhone apps natively.

 

[Realityck]

What @lemanSince Apple now has the technology and expertise to design their own CPUs nd GPUs, it makes sense to own the whole design.

Company's that switched from their own custom parts to COTS are less vulnerable to unpredictable costs and delays. This is what many companies discovered the last decades. So I agree with pairing of software to hardware that Apple is rather unique in this industry but not with owning everything. Delays against technology development and running into issues can occur with any company even Apple.
[automerge]1595970340[/automerge]

Simply stated, Apple Silicon Macs will be much faster, and they will have much better battery life than Intel Macs (and PCs).

As an added bonus, they will get features that have been previously only available on iPhone and iPad, such as Face ID, and they will be able to run iPad and iPhone apps natively.

You do realize that comparison is much more aligned with laptop or mobile usage, not desktop/workstation?

 

[burgerrecords]

if you look at the heart of this simple graph, notebooks benefit dramatically. Even the worst performing AS Macs are going to be as fast as the best apple x86 notebooks

edit: (if i can something with 16gb of ram and a 512 ssd for $1500 i'm definitely buying one )

 

[jdb8167]

Company's that switched from their own custom parts to COTS are less vulnerable to unpredictable costs and delays. This is what many companies discovered the last decades. So I agree with pairing of software to hardware that Apple is rather unique in this industry but not with owning everything. Delays against technology development and running into issues can occur with any company even Apple.

But how will you know that Apple had an issue? Apple generally doesn’t pre-announce products. They can put out new Macs on a regular cadence with upgraded ASi and call it good. With Intel they couldn’t do that. What were they going to do, put out a new Mac with the exact same CPU and performance? We are entering a new era where the old rules for Mac updates no longer apply. Now updates will be more like iPhones and iPads.

 

[dmccloud]

Company's that switched from their own custom parts to COTS are less vulnerable to unpredictable costs and delays. This is what many companies discovered the last decades. So I agree with pairing of software to hardware that Apple is rather unique in this industry but not with owning everything. Delays against technology development and running into issues can occur with any company even Apple.
[automerge]1595970340[/automerge]
You do realize that comparison is much more aligned with laptop or mobile usage, not desktop/workstation?

Many of the issues that Apple has had with the Intel-based Macs is due to issues on Intel's end, so the "less vulnerable" argument is really a moot point. Intel keeps pushing back their 7nm process because they seemingly can't get it right, and that is going to affect a lot of PC manufacturers unless they embrace AMDs parts as a viable (and often better performing) alternative to Intel silicon. The last truly smooth generational launch for Intel was the 8th gen parts, both the 9th and 10th generation releases have been inundated with supply and yield issues. Another thing to consider is that Intel basically rushed out the 10th generation parts to better compete with the 3rd generation Ryzen chips, although Intel still does not have a viable alternative to Threadripper.

 

[Realityck]

But how will you know that Apple had an issue? Apple generally doesn’t pre-announce products. They can put out new Macs on a regular cadence with upgraded ASi and call it good. With Intel they couldn’t do that. What were they going to do, put out a new Mac with the exact same CPU and performance? We are entering a new era where the old rules for Mac updates no longer apply. Now updates will be more like iPhones and iPads.

Thats right there is the most interesting aspect of this all. First even though its quite old, teachers still teach about the Osborn Effect.

The Osborne effect is a social phenomenon of customers canceling or deferring orders for the current soon-to-be-obsolete product as an unexpected drawback of a company's announcing a future product prematurely.

Apple has to be careful with this, I already seen multiple examples of people changing their opinions about buying Apple products, returning what they just bought, pointing out the positives and negatives of this business plan. I am sure this could be discussed back and forth one heck of a lot, but there is some elevated marketplace risk involved to many different participants.
[automerge]1595971850[/automerge]

Many of the issues that Apple has had with the Intel-based Macs is due to issues on Intel's end, so the "less vulnerable" argument is really a moot point. Intel keeps pushing back their 7nm process because they seemingly can't get it right, and that is going to affect a lot of PC manufacturers unless they embrace AMDs parts as a viable (and often better performing) alternative to Intel silicon. The last truly smooth generational launch for Intel was the 8th gen parts, both the 9th and 10th generation releases have been inundated with supply and yield issues. Another thing to consider is that Intel basically rushed out the 10th generation parts to better compete with the 3rd generation Ryzen chips, although Intel still does not have a viable alternative to Threadripper.

So why hasn't Apple switched to using AMD?

 

[burgerrecords]

example of what i believe is speculation already in this thread

1. The switch is attributable to Intel delays (and if so that it was an sufficient or important consideration)

2. That Apple will release macs more frequently

 

[dmccloud]

So why hasn't Apple switched to using AMD?

Biggest reason is performance per watt and heat generation, plus Intel let Apple have some input into mobile chip designs whereas AMD was reluctant to cede even a little control over to them.

 

[JMacHack]

So why hasn't Apple switched to using AMD?

Allegedly this plan was hatched in 2015, well before Ryzen started kicking Intel's ass. Likewise, I'm sure that a few people at Apple took a look at AMD before announcing the ASi switch. Apple's the only one who knows both Intel and their own processor roadmaps, and I wouldn't doubt they looked at AMD's roadmaps as well before making the final call.

From that I'd say that they see more potential from their own processors in the future than that of AMD or Intel.

 

[leman]

So why hasn't Apple switched to using AMD?

Because AMD is not really doing that much better. They only now managed to catch up with Intel in per-core performance. Their CPUs scale better though (probably in part due to improved process) - they dint need to burn down a hole in your main board to run multiple cores at the same time.

The thing is, Apple currently has a better microarchitecture than either Intel or AMD. They annihilate them in both performance per clock and performance per watt. Apples move to own desktop hardware means that Apple is dead certain that they can scale that microarchitecture up to the needs of a desktop. If this is correct, they could deliver a 30 watt chip that will outmatch an Intel 60 watt part (what the current i9 essentially are in spite of being marketed as 45watt parts) - and that includes a GPU on par with state of the art lower-mid-range dGPUs out there.

 

[jdb8167]

example of what i believe is speculation already in this thread

1. The switch is attributable to Intel delays (and if so that it was an sufficient or important consideration)

2. That Apple will release macs more frequently

Why wouldn’t they? It’s better for them and the customer. Are you suggesting that Intel’s delays didn’t play into Apple’s uneven release schedule?
Anyone paying attention could see Apple waiting on a particular part to release the next Mac (with some notable exceptions like the Mac Pro).

A the very least we are likely to see a release schedule that is more regular.

 

[dmccloud]

example of what i believe is speculation already in this thread

1. The switch is attributable to Intel delays (and if so that it was an sufficient or important consideration)

2. That Apple will release macs more frequently

Apple's dissatisfaction with the delays on the part of Intel is not speculation, it's known fact. That has had a direct effect on the release cycle for new Macs over the last few years as well, because Apple could offer little more than a slight spec bump absent a new CPU from Intel.

 

[burgerrecords]

Are you suggesting that Intel’s delays didn’t play into Apple’s uneven release schedule?

Apple has gone long time periods without updating products, for no apparent reason, and other Intel OEMs managed to update much more frequently than Apple - so i don't know what they are going to do. Mac only represents like 10% of their revenue and just isn't as critical as iPhone so maybe that will have an effect. Or maybe they will update more frequently?

Regardless it's speculation to say that switch is driven by anything other than a more efficient platform in arm/apple silicon.

As i said elsewhere, I speculate that some enthusiasts on here still have PTSD from PowerPC losing out to "unwashed" Intel and so they're excited to stick it back to Intel.

 

[dmccloud]

Apple has gone long time periods without updating products, for no apparent reason, and other Intel OEMs managed to update much more frequently than Apple - so i don't know what they are going to do. Mac only represents like 10% of their revenue and just isn't as critical as iPhone so maybe that will have an effect. Or maybe they will update more frequently?

Regardless it's speculation to say that switch is driven by anything other than a more efficient platform in arm/apple silicon.

As i said elsewhere, I speculate that some enthusiasts on here still have PTSD from PowerPC losing out to "unwashed" Intel and so they're excited to stick it back to Intel.

This makes no sense, especially given that the main PC manufacturers (i.e., Dell, HP, Lenovo, ASUS, etc.) change out their models three times a year REGARDLESS of whether or not Intel has released new processors. Most of the time a new Windows-based laptop might change out the chassis or add something such as Thunderbolt3/USB-C to their products, but they don't update the processors between Intel releases other than a small spec bump (i.e., replacing a 3.1 GHz i5 with a 3.2 GHz i5). Those manufacturers release new models to maintain a steady revenue stream. Apple themselves have said that issues on Intel's side have been a concern to them for a few years now. Again, that is fact, not speculation.

 

[burgerrecords]

Apple's dissatisfaction with the delays on the part of Intel is not speculation, it's known fact. That has had a direct effect on the release cycle for new Macs over the last few years as well, because Apple could offer little more than a slight spec bump absent a new CPU from Intel.

You can be upset about something and still not have it influence a parallel strategy/plan. Apple made powerful processors, and have a tightly controlled ecosystem. Why wouldn't they use them in their computers?

(And if you are not a notebook user, you look at Apple as having no excuse to put out such relatively under powered hardware for what they charge.)
[automerge]1595981641[/automerge]

This makes no sense, especially given that the main PC manufacturers (i.e., Dell, HP, Lenovo, ASUS, etc.) change out their models three times a year REGARDLESS of whether or not Intel has released new processors. Most of the time a new Windows-based laptop might change out the chassis or add something such as Thunderbolt3/USB-C to their products, but they don't update the processors between Intel releases other than a small spec bump (i.e., replacing a 3.1 GHz i5 with a 3.2 GHz i5). Those manufacturers release new models to maintain a steady revenue stream. Apple themselves have said that issues on Intel's side have been a concern to them for a few years now. Again, that is fact, not speculation.

I don't use a notebook for productivity work so i'm not as familiar with the bleeding edge there, but Apple is really bad at updating desktop processors.

I think the constant updating of products is gross no matter who does it (i guess Apple isn't as concerned with steady revenue as those other folks)

What is speculation is that Intel delays are the reason for the switch to an inherently much better platform.

 

[dmccloud]

You can be upset about something and still not have it influence a parallel strategy/plan. Apple made powerful processors, and have a tightly controlled ecosystem. Why wouldn't they use them in their computers?

(And if you are not a notebook user, you look at Apple as having no excuse to put out such relatively under powered hardware for what they charge.)

You do realize that Apple is very specific about the criteria Intel processors have to meet before they will include them in a Mac, right? There's a reason why you can buy a HP with an i5 processor for as little as $500 or as much as $1500+ depending on the specific i5 processor used and what other specifications the machine has. On the laptop side, you have the Y-series, U-series, H-series, and even a HK (unlocked) series for all of the core processors, plus the different sub models within each series. Most of those processors would not meet Apple's requirements for TDP, heat generation, and other factors that go into Mac design.

 

[glenthompson]

Another factor is that processors have not gotten that much faster the past few years. They have just added more cores and better GPUs. Moving to ASi (I like that abbreviation) lets them build core arrangements that better fit their system design. The DTK with a mix of power efficient cores along with high performance cores exemplifies this. They can build a laptop with great battery life when processor power isn’t needed but then shift into fast mode when needed. I remember Marco Arment mentioning an app to disable turbo mode to improve battery life and reduce fan noise.

 

[burgerrecords]

DTK with a mix of power efficient cores along with high performance cores exemplifies this

The x86_64 chipmakers are doing power and energy cores in future too.

 

[jetjaguar]

Larger margins for Apple

 

[burgerrecords]

You do realize that Apple is very specific about the criteria Intel processors have to meet before they will include them in a Mac, right? There's a reason why you can buy a HP with an i5 processor for as little as $500 or as much as $1500+ depending on the specific i5 processor used and what other specifications the machine has. On the laptop side, you have the Y-series, U-series, H-series, and even a HK (unlocked) series for all of the core processors, plus the different sub models within each series. Most of those processors would not meet Apple's requirements for TDP, heat generation, and other factors that go into Mac design.

This still doesn’t explain why Apple wouldn’t use their own good processors regardless of intel.