People keep saying that ARM will not be cheaper. I think people are missing few things here.
Apple will provide their complete silicon -> that is CPU and GPU in one. Now, lets take 27" iMac as example that ships with 570X minimum GPU and goes to 580X GPU before BTO options. I don't know how much these are sold for to Apple but that is savings there. Then, Intel CPU will not be purchased also so savings there.
Now, are you telling me, that paying 2 external vendors is cheaper than what Apple is building inhouse and its actually one chip instead of 2?
I think people are completely missing the point here and don't realise how big this ARM is. Apple will kill every competition in terms of performance and if Apple decides to pass the savings on customer then even the price.
Look at smartphone market - no one can match Apple's performance. Now, Apple will dominate that computers the same way as they dominate the performance in smartphones.
Intel is pretty much done longterm unless they come up with something that would be able to compete.
Think of a scenario where in few years Apple's solution will be 2+ time faster than anything Intel produces. More people and businesses will switch to Apple as there is no way people (or anyone) would say no to that kind of performance. Just like they are dominating with iPhone they will dominate (eventually) with computers.
If Maya runs crazy fast on Apple's solution then why in the hell would my work still keep the crappy xeon's and quadro's?
Am I the only one that sees this? @Azrael9 I'm sure you are with me too, right?
This is the beginning of the x86 end. Intel is pretty much dead and AMD we shall see if they innovate and keep up with Apple (unlikely).
Sooner or later, everyone will switch to ARM.
Intel has been doing chips for what? Half a century?
Now Apple comes in and in 10 years achieve amazing results. Imagine Apple in another 10 years.
I wish that 27 (or 32) iMac was first but I also know that 1st gen will be 'weak' compared to the beast that we will get in 2nd or 3rd generation!
So yeah, I will probably get the last intel iMac and then in 2-3 years (before Apple Care runs out) sell it and upgrade to what hopefully will be a monster! The future looks bright guys and I cannot wait to be part of this.
WWDC was fusion crap but this ARM looks so good!
I wish I wasn't so impatient though. 🙂
Hello Freida,
'Freida will like that.' Thought I.
I was wondering if you enjoyed the Mac ARM preview of Maya.
😉 I was mightily impressed with the demo'.
I remember when the 'Maya' guy introduced the 'Mac' version of Maya back when it was quite a landmark for it to arrive on the Mac. In fact, I think Apple hired the Maya person to Apple not that long after. (What was his name, Nick Kerr or something?)
A few things were noticed at the time. ie. That the 'Mac' version (not for the 1st time...) was not optimised and it didn't run as fast as the Windows version. (Probably getting the 2nd class Open GL experience amongst other issues like code optimisation for a 1st time port.) It probably got 'better' since it's Mac introduction.
It's running on Mac ARM wayyyyy faster than that 1st time Mac port.
🙂 And, more seriously, it's running super fast in emulation with Mac ARM for 6 million polygons!! Then you add the shaders? BOOM! Smooth as butter. I know my 2012 iMac and Lightwave3d just couldn't do that without crawling. :O
With all due respect to people with Xeons and Quadros. It's about software optimisation with hardware. Non-optimised software can kill hardware. Intel's single core performance is nothing special. They've sat on their lead for half a decade. Whereas single core performance for Apple's A cpu has been very strong with each iteration. Expecially vs the mobile competition. I wouldn't bet against Apple AS cpu tonkin' a Xeon in single threaded performance.
Apple have been making 'process' progress. And Intel hasn't. Ofc. Apple subcontract that out to TMSC. 5nm. AS 14 8 +4 lower power core cpu? In eg. An iMac 24 inch? I think a native port of Maya runs like gangbusters on that. It's a what? 3 day port according to Craig. Can be up and running natively. Let alone in emulation where it seemed eye poppingly good.
So, the former world of 2nd class, late ports. With bad code optimisation...and paying the same £price for Windows based gpus that perform half as good on Mac because of out of date Open GL drives and the inherent weakness of it as 'middleware' (how do you gain any advantage of Open GL on Mac when Windows/Apps/Nv and AMD all pile in far more resources into the GL drives than the Mac version? IT was a no win deal for Mac creatives.) so you're £1000 gpu performs like a £500. That's just not good enough for Mac customers.
So that's what the deprecated GL is about. The past. Metal is the future. And between Maya and Lara Croft (even under emulation...) they showed that an A12z is quite remarkable. The AS 14 will be mouth wateringly good.
And, yes. That Mini A12z was running a 32 inch XDR. :OOO
I think there is every chance the AS ARM for Mac will be twice as fast as the Intel cpu. It's humiliation or nothing.
I'd def' expect gains of 50-100%. On some things. Perhaps it will be greater depending on the task.
And I woudn't underestimate an apple GPU against anyone. 1000x greater in ten years on iPad gpu. That's a world class silicon team. No doubt.
3x4k streams on Final Cut? The vega 48 on a £3560 iMac only just allows 4k playback smoothly? And here we have an iPad chip embarrassing it.
As for passing on price savings. I hope Apple take the opportunity to put the boot into Windows marketshare. This is their chance.
If they 'merely' went back to their old price points eg.
Mini ARM = £499 and £750.
iMac ARM 24. = £999 and £1250.
iMac ARM 27 = £1450 and £1750.
iMac ARM Pro = £1950 and £2250.
Mac ARM Pro = £2500 and £2750.
Standard price points minus BTO. They can charge much less and still make the same profit. Sure, there is R&D but it will be amortised over the life time of the product. They don't have to pay Intel so that is £3billion to pay for the R&D. So they can still make a profit and pass on savings to the customer.
But Apple's pricing behaviour of late is likely being the 'seeded' rumour of R&D up front costs of silicon blah blah etc.
Listen, the iPhone and iPad pay for the cost of Apple silicon. Putting that R&D on Mac prices in isolation to justify higher or even current high prices is in line with the current 'stand' and 'wheels' thinking...and iPhone £1k thinking and iPad £1500 thinking. (ie world's away from Steve Job's iPad at £399 thinking.)
If Macs held at current price Apple could say...'We're giving you twice the speed at the same price.' That would be more like their bag. Holding prices and adding 'value.'
But this is a real chance to break the 5 million Macs sold per quarter glass ceiling. With Mac ARM. I can see Apple selling 10 million Macs per quarter.
If they cut prices to 'affordable' levels which they, currently, are not.
Azrael.
[automerge]1593004980[/automerge]
Yeah.. hard to imagine under Tim Apple... which reminds me... w/e happened to that random rumour about Tim Apple being on his way out?
Well, an heir apparent is being groomed...
Azrael.