Intel's Operating Margins are 30%. AMD's 20%. Apple's 30%. -- Yahoo Finance
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.
Anyone else a bit skeptical about Apple silicon future?
- Thread starter dapa0s
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Intel's Operating Margins are 30%. AMD's 20%. Apple's 30%. -- Yahoo Finance
Mostly Stack Exchange and similar- I wouldn’t mind someone hitting me with K&R, haha
Yeah, it’s pretty light.
I have always very much avoided engaging in places like stack exchange - I learned to code before any of that existed, and most people on-line are jerks. When I‘ve searched stack exchange for answers to questions i might have, i see the question, usually followed by a dozen people telling the original poster that they aren’t asking the right question, they should be using a different programming language, that if they don’t know the answer they shouldn’t be coding, etc.
Yep. That’s exactly what I mean. - I don’t actively use Stack myself to ask questions - in part because I find that all the questions I may have have already been asked by someone else.
There are more developers that have been supporting iOS on ARM than they were that supported Mac Os on Intel.
So developers are already there, now it's easier for them to write code that works both on a Mac and iOS.
And games on Apple Silicon are not a thing? iOS is probably the biggest gaming platform out there. You mean AAA games.
And the definition of AAA games will evolve, over time, so it always means “games not playable on Apple hardware.”
I doubt Apple is all that concerned about perpetually being the performance king especially using synthetic benchmark scores. The performance of M Series will continue to increase simply from microarchitecture design evolution and of course as they ramp up the core counts (especially for GPU) but remember that Apple always ranks PPW higher than pure raw speed if you were hooked up to a nuclear reactor.
For Apple user experience is king - they are more interested in seeing all the apps run fast and snappy and everything be smooth than a benchmark score. And of course they want to increase the kinds of software devs can provide that is the aforementioned fast and snappy - hence for example the major ramp up on GPU cores.
For Apple user experience is king - they are more interested in seeing all the apps run fast and snappy and everything be smooth than a benchmark score. And of course they want to increase the kinds of software devs can provide that is the aforementioned fast and snappy - hence for example the major ramp up on GPU cores.
I look at used Apple hardware frequently and I always check the GB5 scores on everymac. I find that the correlate really well with my user and production experiences. My opinion is that Apple is doing a good job with their hardware. Software has a few more bugs than I like but they don't bother me or I find workaround.
I want to see how Alder Lake looks in a thin and light laptop. I don't really care for a 250 Watt PL2 CPU during the summer. It would be okay during the winter here so that I don't have to run my space heater.
Thanks for the correction, I should have included the word "gross" in my post, below are links that show historical data for the 3 companies you're mentioning.
My original post was merely trying to say that Intel will not be the "good samatarian" and not increase prices when the market allows for that, they are a company just like any other looking at their bottom line.
Intel Profit Margin 2010-2024 | INTC
Current and historical gross margin, operating margin and net profit margin for Intel (INTC) over the last 10 years. Profit margin can be defined as the percentage of revenue that a company retains as income after the deduction of expenses. Intel net profit margin as of December 31, 2024 is...
www.macrotrends.net
AMD Gross Margin 2010-2024 | AMD
Current and historical gross margin for AMD (AMD) over the last 10 years. The current gross profit margin for AMD as of December 31, 2024 is <strong>%</strong>.
www.macrotrends.net
Apple Profit Margin 2010-2024 | AAPL
Current and historical gross margin, operating margin and net profit margin for Apple (AAPL) over the last 10 years. Profit margin can be defined as the percentage of revenue that a company retains as income after the deduction of expenses. Apple net profit margin as of December 31, 2024 is...
www.macrotrends.net
Thanks for the correction, I should have included the word "gross" in my post, below are links that show historical data for the 3 companies you're mentioning.
My original post was merely trying to say that Intel will not be the "good samatarian" and not increase prices when the market allows for that, they are a company just like any other looking at their bottom line.
Intel Profit Margin 2010-2024 | INTC
Current and historical gross margin, operating margin and net profit margin for Intel (INTC) over the last 10 years. Profit margin can be defined as the percentage of revenue that a company retains as income after the deduction of expenses. Intel net profit margin as of December 31, 2024 is...
AMD Gross Margin 2010-2024 | AMD
Current and historical gross margin for AMD (AMD) over the last 10 years. The current gross profit margin for AMD as of December 31, 2024 is <strong>%</strong>.
Apple Profit Margin 2010-2024 | AAPL
Current and historical gross margin, operating margin and net profit margin for Apple (AAPL) over the last 10 years. Profit margin can be defined as the percentage of revenue that a company retains as income after the deduction of expenses. Apple net profit margin as of December 31, 2024 is...
I generally prefer operating margin for comparison between companies because it factors in a lot of the stuff that doesn't make it into the income statement and balance sheet.
I wouldn't expect Intel to lower prices except for trying to gain marketshare.
Which they are going to do with Alder Lake from the pricing leaks that I've seen. It indicates that AMD has done some damage to Intel. I think that we saw some of this in response to Zen 3 as well. Intel lowered prices in the mid-range to be competitive. They also gave us two more cores in the mid-range after AMD went crazy with cores.
True statement and Intel has "competed" with AMD that way in the past, they always had deeper pockets ...
You can if you choose to ignore it. If you are used to having an Intel based game or application like Microsoft Access, even if you happen to running a AMD work-alike Rhyzen processor, if there are other more efficient processors or systems on a chip like Apple is using or transitioning to, but it can't run your software, then you ignore it. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of Windows users will go along happily doing what they have always done and ignore what those Mac users are up to.
I'm not a gamer, but gamers do hold some significance in the market since they are the loudest and often the most represented bunch. So their opinions do matter, as they tend to punch above their weight, in a way. If gamers were somehow to switch to Apple and started to recommend to others to buy Apple, which they won't, it would most certainly boost Apple's desktop sales across the board.
The same goes with "professionals" with the Mac. Apple doesn't need to appease them, since they are a tiny, tiny fraction of the market, but their opinion does matter, especially considering Apple's whole marketing strategy of appealing to "creatives" and "people who think different".
It's an abstract concept, but a valid one.
It's not even necessarily dynamic dispatch (although that will also help and lessen the burden).
It is recompiling your app. We aren't writing in freaking assembly language any more. If you use the apple provided APIs, there should be minimal work to recompile to get a native app. You don't need to write code specifically for Apple Silicon - this is what libraries are for.
Correct. I was talking about APIs like AVFoundation that will dynamically dispatch work to video Encoding/decode blocks or GPUs or afterburner cards or what have you. Or CoreML that'll use GPUs or Neural Engines. Or even OpenCL that can actually run on both GPU, CPU and FPGAs as long as an OpenCL compatible driver unit is on the system. Though of course OpenCL is no longer considered best practice on Apple platforms and is deprecated in favour of GPGPU Metal with Metal Performance Shaders easing some of that. - That's getting rant-y though
Yeah I get it, but even worst case (recompile) isn't bad - you should be doing application updates for new features/bugfixes/security updates regularly anyway.Correct. I was talking about APIs like AVFoundation that will dynamically dispatch work to video Encoding/decode blocks or GPUs or afterburner cards or what have you. Or CoreML that'll use GPUs or Neural Engines. Or even OpenCL that can actually run on both GPU, CPU and FPGAs as long as an OpenCL compatible driver unit is on the system. Though of course OpenCL is no longer considered best practice on Apple platforms and is deprecated in favour of GPGPU Metal with Metal Performance Shaders easing some of that. - That's getting rant-y though
People like to see turning molehills into mountains.
As you say most of the libraries are dynamically bound and run natively anyway, it JIT recompiled into quick native code by rosetta2 anyway.
The people crying right now about "re-writing" their stuff for Apple Silicon native are going to be massively butt-hurt if Apple silicon evolves into SiFive based for whatever reason.
While it’ll be true for most systems, it isn’t always that simple though. If you have a program that loads in plug-ins or other executable code you can’t mix native and Rosetta 2 in the same process space.
If you depend on a framework or library that’s outside your control it has to be updated first. It being a dylib isn’t an advantage there if it’s only distributed in binary form and you want to go native but the binary is x86 only, see problem above.
You may also have code that uses compiler intrinsics or in-line assembly. That’s not common but it exists. You may also have made assumptions about the GPU being an immediate mode renderer in Metal code, and if you build against older SDKs macOS will emulate this behaviour on the M1 GPU, but it might give you visual glitching if you build against newer SDKs (native or not) holding back the updating process while you debug your shaders.
In short, for a lt of developers it will just be a matter of recompiling. Not all can do it immediately for factors outside their control, and some will have to put in more effort than that.
Not all situations are equal.
Exactly.
And we should also remember that Apple Silicon M1, M1X, M2, or whatever are *only* available in Apple's devices.
So it doesn't matter what happens with all these chips. The next great Intel or AMD CPU won't be inside an Apple device... and Apple's next great M-series processor won't be in a Dell or HP computer.
We should, instead, compare the actual devices.
And it also depends on what applications you intend to run.
If you're looking to run XCode or Final Cut Pro... it doesn't matter how great the AMD Zen 4 or the next Intel "Lake" processors are.
That's not correct. Dell and HP have always had more powerful laptop and workstation models than anything Apple offered. For example, they have so called mobile workstations (laptops). Apple never played in this market.
Its WAY better to get a desktop than a mobile workstation. They are stupidly expensive and the Xeons that come with them are utter garbage.
Ultimately, all of the back end computing will end up in the cloud. AWS, Microsoft, Google and the others begging for scraps from their table. It's just a matter of time until they get it right and they're actually cheaper than the bulk of in-house IT. They just need to work on inproving their service levels.
Apple has never taken the enterprise market seriously. It's always baffled me, as the market's pretty damn rich in terms of margin - especially when you look at the government contracts.
Apple IS the only game in town in terms of a secure platform - ever since BlackBerry folded up. (yes, open source vs closed source is a religious debate - but you can't argue the nefarious depths of how much spying Google does).
I really wish Apple would get serious about going after the "entire ball of twine". As much as they lamented IBM in the 1984 video - they could really become the dominant IT company if they really wanted to be - and do it in a fashion that enables capabilities.
- Go after emerging markets with a cheap phone (Ala 5c)
- Go after the enterprise market with REAL mobile device management
Apple has never taken the enterprise market seriously. It's always baffled me, as the market's pretty damn rich in terms of margin - especially when you look at the government contracts.
Apple IS the only game in town in terms of a secure platform - ever since BlackBerry folded up. (yes, open source vs closed source is a religious debate - but you can't argue the nefarious depths of how much spying Google does).
I really wish Apple would get serious about going after the "entire ball of twine". As much as they lamented IBM in the 1984 video - they could really become the dominant IT company if they really wanted to be - and do it in a fashion that enables capabilities.
- Go after emerging markets with a cheap phone (Ala 5c)
- Go after the enterprise market with REAL mobile device management