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.
Which SoC for first consumer ARM-based Macs?
- Thread starter marty1980
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple has already mentioned that they will use specific chips for their Mac lineup. Possibly related one way or another to the A14 for the late 2020 / early 2021 laptops, but not the A14x for the iPad Pro.
Personally I'd like them to develop a SOC for the MBA that can be passively cooled without significant throttling, and a higher TDP one for the 13" MBP with active cooling, but still quieter than the current 2 ports 13" TB MBPs, and that allow for a significant jump in battery life for light use with the MBA and even under intermittent load for the MBP.
Personally I'd like them to develop a SOC for the MBA that can be passively cooled without significant throttling, and a higher TDP one for the 13" MBP with active cooling, but still quieter than the current 2 ports 13" TB MBPs, and that allow for a significant jump in battery life for light use with the MBA and even under intermittent load for the MBP.
casperes1996
macrumors 604
I mean... They literally said they'll have a new family of Mac specific SoCs
ruslan120
macrumors 65816
I’m betting this.
Interested to see what grades there will be or whether processors will be configurable per model or whether it’s just storage and RAM and maybe graphics now.
robbieduncan
Moderator emeritus
It will be Mac specific but using the same core designs (and probably GPU clusters) as the A14. Just more. Hopefully many more in the case of the GPU
As others have already mentioned, Apple clearly stated that they will be using own family of SoCs for the Mac. Of course, they will be built on the same technology as the iPhone/iPad chips. I expect the Mac-specific SoC to have higher clocks, more cores, more cache and more memory controllers.
For the entry level (MacBook Air/12" MacBook), I wouldn't be surprised if they just reused the iPad SoC.
For the entry level (MacBook Air/12" MacBook), I wouldn't be surprised if they just reused the iPad SoC.
Yea I would not be surprised if the A14X makes an appearance in the MacBook 12"... Perfectly fine by me considering the A14X is likely to be faster then the majority of current Intel Macs.
Boil
macrumors 68040
Imma jump on the dogpile, Apple specifically stated they would be creating a family of SoCs for the Mac line-up...
Abazigal
Contributor
I agree. Seems like a natural fit. Replace that slow atom processor with an A14x chip and you have an extremely thin and light laptop with long battery life and no heat (read: no thermal throttling) issues.
Cut the price further and you are going to a cheap entry level laptop that puts every other windows ultrabook to shame.
Mitthrawnuruodo
Moderator emeritus
I agree, although I think maybe they will start off with the something like the 14X in an Air and 14Z in the 13" MBP (with same form factor as now for both), and then differentiate on other stuff.
I believe they said there will be SoC for Mac specifically which make sense. These will likely scale from 8W and upwards. For entry level notebooks, the SoCs will likely be very similar to iPad A14X but with some tweaks that are better for MacOS and laptops (A14M?).
Let's see what gets used in the next iPad Air (ie 2+4 cores, no special faster GPU) - that seems likely to be an equivalent basis for a 12" MacBook.
The MacBook Air equivalent would get the iPad Pro equivalent with 2+4 cores and more GPU compute.
Extra high performance cores sounds like the sort of thing that a 13" MacBook Pro replacement would have - 4+4 for example.
And we can then open things up for a 16" MacBook Pro with even more GPU compute and put 8+4 cores in there too.
iMac would concentrate more heavily on GPU compute with standard 8+4 cores and sustained throughout over time thanks to extra cooling.
The USP of all setups ought to be low heat output compared to Intel and therefore quieter (thinner?) but I'd dare say longer battery life as a main USP. The mini LED screens would be an Apple Silicon exclusive.
The MacBook Air equivalent would get the iPad Pro equivalent with 2+4 cores and more GPU compute.
Extra high performance cores sounds like the sort of thing that a 13" MacBook Pro replacement would have - 4+4 for example.
And we can then open things up for a 16" MacBook Pro with even more GPU compute and put 8+4 cores in there too.
iMac would concentrate more heavily on GPU compute with standard 8+4 cores and sustained throughout over time thanks to extra cooling.
The USP of all setups ought to be low heat output compared to Intel and therefore quieter (thinner?) but I'd dare say longer battery life as a main USP. The mini LED screens would be an Apple Silicon exclusive.
Strange tha Mac has the same processors as the iPad. Your lineup make sense but it is awfully crowded at the bottom.
Well, I've not said it's an A14 or anything, but if we're talking equivalencies for the sake of argument the iPhone CPU goes into a 12" MacBook, the iPad Pro CPU ends up in the MBA - and you can see that the current MBA (with its custom 10w TDP Intel CPU) may have been engineered with an A12z or similar in mind because of the fan placement. It could therefore do very well with an A14x in it.
Don't forget at the moment that iPad Pro A12z only has 2 high performance cores. If you no longer need passive cooling you can start adding high performance cores into the MacBook Pro range.
We are discussing unseen CPUs for both MacBook Pros, with the 16" one getting extra GPU capability to run a 5k panel at a sustained clip. I stopped at a total of 12 cores due to the Apple Silicon rumour.
Obviously Apple haven't mentioned GPU performance and I think this could be where Apple's version of the iMac will come under intense scrutiny rather than any Geekbench comparisons which initially appear to be very impressive.
The A12Z has four high performance cores. It is the A13 that has two cores. I agree that we will not see more than 12 core this year but it will be sufficient for the rumored Macs including the 24 inch iMac if it arrives.
What is strange is that we consider iPhone and iPad chip in he Mac line. Most people would have laughed if you said that the next Mac/MacOS will run on a iPhone/iPad chip. Well slightly modified.
Unless you are running high end games, I think many of the coprocessors will offload the GPU. I would not be surprised if a node shrink and slightly larger chip allows for three times as many GPU cores for the iMac 24 (I assume 4K) but it is unclear if it is needed. iPad Pro has 5.6 Mpixels and runs at 120 Hz without issues (8 core GPU). A 4K screen at 8.6 MPixels at 120 Hz seem to be easily achieved with more GPU cores (16?) and that high speed GPU cache.
Waragainstsleep
macrumors 6502a
My inclination is that Apple will release AS Macs with SoCs that gradually deviate further and further from their current offerings.
For example if they started with a new MacBook/Air ultraportable, this would house an SoC very similar to the an iPad Pro. It could even get away with an A14X.
An entry level Mac Mini could do the same, then at the higher end have something similar to an entry level MacBook Pro which would have a beefier GPU component that the A14X.
Top end MacBook Pro and lower end iMacs would be another step up with extra CPU cores. I'm not sure if they need an iMac that eclipses the 16" MBP. I suspect the iMac Pro will not be renewed. The Mac Pro will obviously have the most powerful hardware, varying most from the A14/X.
This makes sense from a development point of view and gives Apple the opportunity to impress us a number of different times as each new product launches over the next two years.
For example if they started with a new MacBook/Air ultraportable, this would house an SoC very similar to the an iPad Pro. It could even get away with an A14X.
An entry level Mac Mini could do the same, then at the higher end have something similar to an entry level MacBook Pro which would have a beefier GPU component that the A14X.
Top end MacBook Pro and lower end iMacs would be another step up with extra CPU cores. I'm not sure if they need an iMac that eclipses the 16" MBP. I suspect the iMac Pro will not be renewed. The Mac Pro will obviously have the most powerful hardware, varying most from the A14/X.
This makes sense from a development point of view and gives Apple the opportunity to impress us a number of different times as each new product launches over the next two years.
I have slightly different take on this. I think that they need to demonstrate quite soon something far more powerful than a Mac AS that has performance as an iPad chip in order to convince people Apple can pull this off also for high end computers. Thus I think it is failure if Apple do not present an 30W (or so) SoC quite soon. Such a chip would be suitable for a iMac/Mac mini.
iMac should be more powerful than an MBP16 and considering the performance per power ratio of AS as well as no dedicated GPU, the iMac Pro makes even more sense. I have a feeling though that all computer lines will be simplified and in that process the iMac Pro as a name will go.
MyopicPaideia
macrumors 68020
There is going to be no 12” Macbook revival, at least not this year or next, and there is not going to be any Macs using the same SoC’s as any iPad or iPhone. Mac’s are not going to use A series SoC’s at all. Let’s not confuse or even speculate the issue. Apple has explicitly explained that Macs are getting their own family of SoC’s. The DTK is exactly that, and not an indication of what to expect in a commercial release of a product.
Quite amazing that some people on here are suddenly speculating that a mid-range iPad model would share an SoC with a Mac. I mean, that would have been an absurd suggestion just 3 months ago. If this is the adjusted expectation, Apple is going to probably blow your minds.
The credible rumours are that the first Apple Silicon Mac will be a 13” MBP/MBA and is going to have a custom SoC based on the A14 core architectures but have 12 CPU cores (most likely 8 high performance cores and 4 efficiency cores) and probably an equal amount of GPU cores. By contrast, the A14 will probably be a 4-6 CPU core SoC in iPhones, and the iPad Pro variant will most likely be 8-10 CPU cores - both will probably also get a matching number of GPU cores.
No earlier variants of Apple’s A series core architectures will ever see the light of day in a commercially released Mac SoC. Going forward the two SoC families will in all likelihood share CPU and GPU architecture design, just have much different implementations with scale out and performance vs efficiency balances.
Quite amazing that some people on here are suddenly speculating that a mid-range iPad model would share an SoC with a Mac. I mean, that would have been an absurd suggestion just 3 months ago. If this is the adjusted expectation, Apple is going to probably blow your minds.
The credible rumours are that the first Apple Silicon Mac will be a 13” MBP/MBA and is going to have a custom SoC based on the A14 core architectures but have 12 CPU cores (most likely 8 high performance cores and 4 efficiency cores) and probably an equal amount of GPU cores. By contrast, the A14 will probably be a 4-6 CPU core SoC in iPhones, and the iPad Pro variant will most likely be 8-10 CPU cores - both will probably also get a matching number of GPU cores.
No earlier variants of Apple’s A series core architectures will ever see the light of day in a commercially released Mac SoC. Going forward the two SoC families will in all likelihood share CPU and GPU architecture design, just have much different implementations with scale out and performance vs efficiency balances.
Apologies, you're right there. 4+4 for A12z - half asleep when I wrote that. 🙂
So 2+4 (iPhone equivalent) for 12" and maybe even MBA; 4+4 for 13" MBP/Mini, 8+4 for 16", Mini, and iMac.
And I think that Apple Silicon will have their own 'letter' as far as Apple are concerned so people can't immediately dismiss a Mac running an 'iPhone CPU'. They could start with an M1 cpu for example, and name an M1x or M1z for extra graphics cores.
All this offloading to custom processors does start to remind me of the old Amiga days when there was a variety of co-processors designed to do a job: Agnus for memory control(?), Denise for video, Paula for audio.
This is brilliant, of course, and may lead us to specific specialisations where the Apple Silicon could kill Intel in benchmarks - HEVC encoding for example. I really do look forward to FCPX benchmarks on that basis.
Those of us who remember that the 68000 CPU in the Amiga ran at a downclocked 7.14MHz (for reasons of syncing with video refreshes if I recall) may also remember that Atari ST ports ran slower because the ST had an 8MHz 68000 but no co-processors for graphics or sound so you had situations where games would be ported over and run *slower* on the Amiga because they didn't use the superior graphics and sound capabilities. Later on games would be hamstrung by PCs which used a planar bitmap which helped a lot on 3D games whereas the Amiga used 'chunky' graphics which helped a lot on scrolling games.
All of this will be built into the existing Apple silicon though, I expect the T2 feature set (reportedly based on the A10) to be rolled into the future Apple silicon - maybe even having some of the efficiency cores do that job?
What Apple have to be aware of is lazy porting of games from ARM systems in the medium to long term future (I'm thinking tablet and Windows for ARM). If Apple aren't producing the highest performing CPUs then they might get left behind again. I would say the best way to do this is to have an in-house AAA team lead with exclusive games - it doesn't have to be Bungie but could be one hell of a story if it was.
If loads of software houses are already predicting iPad/Mac games in the future, rather than coming to iOS/macOS only when Windows on ARM becomes popular I think that would be repeating a mistake - I dare say Apple wants coders to code for Apple Silicon first rather than try and port across later as an afterthought.
As I may have mentioned before, the divergence for Apple silicon will clearly be with extra graphics capabilities and high performance cores for Macs depending on the performance/cooling profile required. At the low end there's clearly a high efficiency benefit to use something similar to what Apple have for the iPhone/iPad already but clearly we'll see what Apple can do when they pile on the high performance cores.
The MacBook didn’t use an Atom processor. It used the Y-series Core, which was basically a voltage limited version of the main Core i3/i5/i7. The Air uses it now, but it runs at a higher voltage. Of course, it still generates a lot of heat, which is why the MacBook throttled so much.
thenewperson
macrumors 65816
Hmm, I feel like the MBA is being underestimated somewhat. The iPad Pro supposedly currently runs at a typical 7W and max of 15W (I believe Anandtech estimated this in their A12X review). The 7W figure is (I believe) the stated TDP of the MBA today, and we know it uses way more heat. It's not hard to see the MBA using the same core config in the iPad Pros, doing it fanlessly, and being just fine.
I'd speculate 2+4 for 12", 4+4 for 13".
That kind of means pushing up others however, and I'm not sure about that. Rumours claimed both that Apple's initial ASi MacBook will use an 8+4 config, and also it'll be the 13" MBP (also supposedly MBA but I doubt it'll use 8+4).
So, 8+4 for 13" MBP/low Mac mini, low iMac?
Dunno about the rest.
This would be a really good thing indeed. They need to tv+ things a bit here and make their own - just hire the necessary people to get this started and let the do their thing.
Last edited:
I'd suspect that they'd love to headline a huge jump in battery life which is what the 12" and MBA would be about and if the performance is still competitive then why would they not go for a 'lowly iPhone CPU'?.
The figures you quote for the iPad Pro suggest it would fit nicely for the MBA as it stands but I'd say Apple would love to be able to say 20 hours usage for an Apple Silicon MBA, especially as the base model at the moment is a 2 core 4 thread 10th generation Ice Lake i3 CPU.
This has probably been mentioned in other threads but:
On the basis that an iPhone 11 with A13 CPU (and 1792x828 - 1483776 - LCD display) has a 11.91Wh battery; the A12 cpu running the 30.2Wh battery in the iPad Air 3 (2224x1668 - 3709632) is very close to the MBA and the MBA 2020 (2560x1600 - 4096000 pixels) has a 49.9Wh battery. Ok, the different devices are running different OSes and total amount of system RAM could be an issue.
Let's compare the A12 in the iPad Air 3 with a process shrink A14. You'd expect an A14 to be more efficient and performant but if An A12 could produce a theoretical 14-15 hours web browsing with an MBA size battery on a slightly higher resolution display would an A14 at least as good if not better?
MyopicPaideia
macrumors 68020
All Apple Silicon Macs are going to have more powerful SoC’s than the DTK. That is lowest common denominator of app development to target for Mac SoC’s. That, you can bank on. Why in the world would they put a lesser SoC in a Macbook than in an iPad Pro, let alone an iPhone, that have much more limited thermal envelopes??? (Typing this on said 11” iPad Pro)
Also, M1 & M2 is already taken as the name of the motion coprocessor line on the A series SoC...
I am in complete agreement with the DTK Mini being the lowest baseline for the upcoming AS Macs, not just for the SoC. but for RAM and GPU as well. I think even the lowest end MacBooks will have the same complement of high performance cores and efficiency cores, but would not be surprised if base AS Mac will be an 8+4 design.
The DTK Mini is designed to allow developers to see how well their applications will run on a AS SoC. It would be insane to have developers use the DTK Mini to do their evaluation, and redevelop as necessary, only to deliver AS Macs with fewer cores, GPUs or RAM. It automatically invalidates a lot of the work done that was based on the DTK Mini level hardware.
The DTK Mini is designed to allow developers to see how well their applications will run on a AS SoC. It would be insane to have developers use the DTK Mini to do their evaluation, and redevelop as necessary, only to deliver AS Macs with fewer cores, GPUs or RAM. It automatically invalidates a lot of the work done that was based on the DTK Mini level hardware.
fokmik
Suspended
They have a family of SOC for mac based like they have for ipads...but the heart of the first macs will be based on the next A14 5nm chip the iphones will have the "weakest" one and from there they go for ipad pros A14X and for the next macs even more powerful
A12Z will not come into consumers macs..everything will start with 5nm cpu
A12Z will not come into consumers macs..everything will start with 5nm cpu