I take it you didn't notice that they didn't show a single real world example.
3x the compute performance compared to what?
They didn't show a single number that was quantified - if they had real world examples - they would have shown them.
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 feel that Apple nailed it with the new Apple Silicon machines?
- Thread starter Moakesy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I take it you didn't notice that they didn't show a single real world example.
3x the compute performance compared to what?
They didn't show a single number that was quantified - if they had real world examples - they would have shown them.
Considering that the iPhone 7 was more powerful than the 12 inch MacBook or MacBook Air of the time, Apple did just fine with their first group of machines. It had to be an embarrassment to watch them being surpassed year after year.
What they do with the more powerful machines will require more effort to get right.
What they do with the more powerful machines will require more effort to get right.
It isn't 2000 anymore.
Single threaded performance isn't really that important anymore.
It is like releasing the greatest buggy whip.
It’ll probably be a good thing in the long run, but it’s still early days. It ain’t over til it’s over; you can’t say “nailed it” until the results are in and on the board, and that will take many months, at least.
Many things: Can I use all the apps I and others need and use now without a hitch? Will it enable new and better stuff or functions that we’ll come to love? Will it lead to more Mac sales, increasing market share? Let’s wait and see.
Many things: Can I use all the apps I and others need and use now without a hitch? Will it enable new and better stuff or functions that we’ll come to love? Will it lead to more Mac sales, increasing market share? Let’s wait and see.
it's tough... i think for end users a redesign would highlight that the entire computer, including the CPU/GPU were different... BUT at the same time many are fearful of a chip change, starting with corporations who buy these en masse. By keeping them looking the same it actually psychologically reinforces that there is nothing to worry about, the new computers will "work" because they look and feel the same. Apple didn't change the design of the first intel Macs for the exact same reason.
....
Please elaborate.
I was under the impression that the world should be taking advantage of multithreaded technology but 90% of what regular people do is still stuck entirely in the world of single threading.
I think everyone has this backwards. The current chassis industry wide were designed for Intel’s promised roadmap that they perpetually failed to deliver. That’s why it was such a big deal when the Air went BACK to a fan design, because Intel couldn’t deliver the chips for the thermal envelopes they have been promising for years.
Intel couldn’t deliver, Apples chips were finally ready to slot right in to the design because they were designed to meet the requirements Intel consistently promised but missed.
the problem is in the case of the macbook pro 13 they are STILL SELLING the higher end intel models of the same computer. if the performance is truly going to be better than those it doesn't make sense? i think we have to wait for reviews and see the truth of how multi-core performance is, how the integrated GPU compares to the discrete GPUs in the intel machines, and how the OS performs when running non-ARM compiled apps through rosetta.
I'm a bit sceptical, but its apple, I'll wait to see it how performs in real world, not synthetic tests. At least the MBP13a doesnt fit in my workflow, I need at least 32GB ram now, and not buying less than 64gb ram
The ARM Mini only supports a quarter of the memory the Intel Mini does. One quarter. 25%.
FWIW, I have plenty of Intel Macs that'll last a lifetime. E.g. I'm running typing this on a 2011 iMac running Linux Mint. Mac OS will be dead to me once Catalina is no longer supported.
I agree with you that they are entry level machines. The disappointment for me is that my loaded 2020 Mac Mini with eGPU, isn’t. Why they decided to go backwards with the new Mini, I have no idea.
For what they were introducing, this is outstanding. For the the MB Air, they didn't just nail it, they knocked it out of the stadium - and it was a domed stadium!
Look, I get that if you render 3d animation for Disney while editing your 8K indie film using 100 megapixel RAW files from your 100K image library in your 256 track music studio, that 16GB is nowhere near enough memory for you. So how, exactly, did you do that on the MacBook Air last week? You didn't. This machine isn't for you (or me, but the rest of my household will love it). Double the battery life and triple the performance while removing the fan and maintaining the price point of an already successful design is just outstanding. There is nothing to fault here unless you were holding out for a Mr. Fusion powered laptop that runs on garbage - forever.
For the MB Pro, "Pro" doesn't just mean 3D animators and Video editors. Some professionals do things like spreadsheets and presentations. In fact, and this is true, MORE professionals use spreadsheets and presentations than edit video and render in 3D. A LOT more. Again, if you are a high end content creator, they didn't make this machine for you. You have complex needs, and Apple is building a foundation first. That way, when the "pro enough" machine comes out for you, you will be able to make a presentation to pitch your 8K 3D rendered Opus to the studio and include a spreadsheet that shows how it makes financial sense for them to back you. It would be a bummer if it rendered video, but couldn't do the basics, right? Let them get the platform out and improve it up to the high end.
This was a really good start. Sure, I wish there was a 16" MB Pro with Pie in the Sky performance and week long battery life. But at least have the good sense to realize that isn't a remotely realistic expectation.
Look, I get that if you render 3d animation for Disney while editing your 8K indie film using 100 megapixel RAW files from your 100K image library in your 256 track music studio, that 16GB is nowhere near enough memory for you. So how, exactly, did you do that on the MacBook Air last week? You didn't. This machine isn't for you (or me, but the rest of my household will love it). Double the battery life and triple the performance while removing the fan and maintaining the price point of an already successful design is just outstanding. There is nothing to fault here unless you were holding out for a Mr. Fusion powered laptop that runs on garbage - forever.
For the MB Pro, "Pro" doesn't just mean 3D animators and Video editors. Some professionals do things like spreadsheets and presentations. In fact, and this is true, MORE professionals use spreadsheets and presentations than edit video and render in 3D. A LOT more. Again, if you are a high end content creator, they didn't make this machine for you. You have complex needs, and Apple is building a foundation first. That way, when the "pro enough" machine comes out for you, you will be able to make a presentation to pitch your 8K 3D rendered Opus to the studio and include a spreadsheet that shows how it makes financial sense for them to back you. It would be a bummer if it rendered video, but couldn't do the basics, right? Let them get the platform out and improve it up to the high end.
This was a really good start. Sure, I wish there was a 16" MB Pro with Pie in the Sky performance and week long battery life. But at least have the good sense to realize that isn't a remotely realistic expectation.
But the MacBook PRO is a Pro machine targeted for the high-end so they released both low-end and high-end laptops. The Mini had always used laptops chips so that’s why that got a release.
I disagree. Single threaded performance gives you more flexibility, since a CPU that has great single threaded performance excels both at running demanding single-threaded workloads (which are still pretty much predominant in everyday computing) and at preemptively running multi-threaded code.
But what might be more relevant is the fact that excellent single-threaded performance, in combination to Apple's unheard of performance per watt, enables massive multi-threaded performance. A multi-core Apple chip can run on higher clocks relative to its peak, while consuming less energy than x86 designs that need to clock down significantly in order to fit into their thermal envelope. Apple delivers with 5 watts what x86 vendors deliver with 20 watts. The rest is just an exercise in arithmetics.
I ordered the MacBook Air to replace a 2018 MBA.
That said, the obvious gaps indicate a variant to M1 is likely coming soon to fill the higher end Mac Mini (which is still Intel) and the MBP13 4-port configurations.
My guess is a different M1 SOC with double the I/O, maybe a 10GBE interface, and up to 64GB ram. It may or may not add a few more cores as well. I still expect it to be an M1, possibly named M1X... and would complete the Mini and MBP13 lineups, possibly power the MBP16 and entry-level iMac.
I would expect a completely different M-series chip with the rumored 12 cores to go into higher end iMacs (and maybe top line MBP16 configurations) using their Apple discrete graphics chip.
I think the big disappointment for me is lack of support for TB3 eGPUs..... I can't think of a hardware reason for this, maybe its Apple doesn't want to dedicate their time to making sure AMD drivers that they previously maintained work on apple silicon.... I'm sure their were some native CPU optimizations at some spots they didn't feel like re-writing. But with everyone else jumping into full onboard ray tracing and making huge leaps in that technology with every new release, I'm not impressed with being stuck with Apple's GPUs - and their lack of a public roadmap makes it hard to know if they will catch up anytime soon since they don't care as much about gamers.
That said, the obvious gaps indicate a variant to M1 is likely coming soon to fill the higher end Mac Mini (which is still Intel) and the MBP13 4-port configurations.
My guess is a different M1 SOC with double the I/O, maybe a 10GBE interface, and up to 64GB ram. It may or may not add a few more cores as well. I still expect it to be an M1, possibly named M1X... and would complete the Mini and MBP13 lineups, possibly power the MBP16 and entry-level iMac.
I would expect a completely different M-series chip with the rumored 12 cores to go into higher end iMacs (and maybe top line MBP16 configurations) using their Apple discrete graphics chip.
I think the big disappointment for me is lack of support for TB3 eGPUs..... I can't think of a hardware reason for this, maybe its Apple doesn't want to dedicate their time to making sure AMD drivers that they previously maintained work on apple silicon.... I'm sure their were some native CPU optimizations at some spots they didn't feel like re-writing. But with everyone else jumping into full onboard ray tracing and making huge leaps in that technology with every new release, I'm not impressed with being stuck with Apple's GPUs - and their lack of a public roadmap makes it hard to know if they will catch up anytime soon since they don't care as much about gamers.
I was both impressed and underwhelmed. All the Macs released are entry level so while I’d like to buy one just to test the waters, none of them fit my needs for testing.
Now I’m wondering if we’ll need to wait another year or 6 months before we get iMac or Mac Mini that has 4 TB ports and 32gb or more memory.
I do orchestral music in logic as a hobby (expensive hobby!) and my current 15” with 32gb barely cuts it because virtual instruments are cached in memory and 64gb would be the minimum I’d want if I were spending thousands on a new computer. My current setup is a 5k LG, a TB3 1tb SSD for samples, and a TB2 audio interface, with a TB2 512 SSD chained to it, so I have to have 3 TB ports as a minimum.
Now I’m wondering if we’ll need to wait another year or 6 months before we get iMac or Mac Mini that has 4 TB ports and 32gb or more memory.
I do orchestral music in logic as a hobby (expensive hobby!) and my current 15” with 32gb barely cuts it because virtual instruments are cached in memory and 64gb would be the minimum I’d want if I were spending thousands on a new computer. My current setup is a 5k LG, a TB3 1tb SSD for samples, and a TB2 audio interface, with a TB2 512 SSD chained to it, so I have to have 3 TB ports as a minimum.
A downside. Did you miss the post right before yours comparing a 999 dollar air to a 800 dollar cpu only and noting that it has similar single core performance. Did you miss the point about how that cou is the fastest x 86 cpu you can buy.
People are going to be surprised on Tuesday when reviews start coming out.
What we call entry level is what most users have and want. Apple has offered them a no cost update that takes their slow hot intel system and makes it perform like systems costing several times more.
If you are someone who does advanced 3D or editing 8k video, then your Apple silicone Mac has not been released. Yet. Imagine a 12 core Cpu or 16 for that matter, with a external GPU with 12 or 16 cores, 32 or maybe even 64 gigs of ram, 2 io controllers so 4 ports. 10 gig Ethernet. that’s coming next year. And as you will see starting Tuesday, those systems will outperform every x86 system ever by a large margin. It’s nothing like a downside.
Last edited:
I really don't understand why you are so upset. Yes, the high-end Mac mini was canned. Maybe a replacement with a more powerful chip is coming, maybe it is not. For now the mini is back to it's roots. Maybe they determined that the "big mini" was not performing well. Who knows.
This still has no relevance on the performance of M1 Macs or the future of the lineup. I don't see anything rational in quitting a platform just because one specific niche model was discontinued — even if it happened to be your favorite for some reason. Especially now that we got a taste of what Apple can do with their own chips. The pro-level M series is going to make the x86 laptops literally obsolete.
This is a 32-core processor sharing tasks and system resources usually reserved for the traditional federated CPU & GPU design (plus Neural Engine), together with dedicated on-package silicon for other routine computational functions, makes the M1 quite a beast.
Don't make the mistake of thinking the M1 is just an 8-core ARM CPU. It is way more than that.
Don't make the mistake of thinking the M1 is just an 8-core ARM CPU. It is way more than that.
Attachments
Last edited:
When real world testing shows that 16GB of RAM with M1 can do far more than 16 GB with an Intel chip will people cling to the false equivalency? I bet you they will....
You kind of have to compare that to the total number of cores in an Intel Mac: All those now redundant components that are now embedded.
*shrug*
I buy my computing HW for my convenience, not Apple's. I see ARM Macs as Apple's attempt to exert and dominate their users to the extreme. I've no interest in being constrained like so which is why ARM Macs is not something that interests me in the long run. With x86 I am able to re-purpose my Macs after Mac OS X is no longer supported. Apple wants to get Macs into an iPad/iPhone style upgrade path which is the control that these ARM chips allow them to do. That and Big Sur's UI is a bit of a step too fan in trying to make it look like iPAD OS. As I say, it's not for me.
We can only wait for the professionals to run tests to see which Apple Marketing is truthful and which is creative.