Apple Silicone or Intel Mac more reliable

[drbrodix]

So I'm sure that a lot of people have already had this question, but I believe my approach is somewhat different. I'm torn between going for the 13 inch MBP with 10th gen Intel CPU or getting a new MB with Apple Silicone, which will most likely release by the end of November. The main factor for me, however, is which one might be more reliable. I don't really care about performance in this case because I'm quite sure that either one should serve my needs perfectly. App compatibility is also not an issue, since the only third party apps that I need are Affinity Photo and occasionally MS Office which will be / have been already ported to Apple Silicone. What worries me is what several people mentioned, which is how this first generation device/s might suffer from various issues, since Apple Silicone is still new and not thoroughly tested, which sounds like a fair concern. There's the option to get an Intel based MBP, which, however, is infamous for having thermal issues (this is the aspect that makes the Apple Silicone Macs really attractive, as they will likely stay a lot cooler), which worries me a lot, as this problem may reduce the device's lifespan a lot and might even cause mainboard issues or a swollen battery. So from this aspect, which option would be a better choice, which would be the more reliable/safer bet? Thanks for the answers in advance!

 

[hallux]

Apple Silicone,

As the son of a chemical engineer who worked for a company that MADE Silicone, I die a little inside every time someone does this. Silicone (with an E) is a sealant, Apple isn't making sealants. Computer chips are silicon (NO E), the element on the periodic table.

On to your question - at this point only the Intel chips have a proven track record in Apple laptops. Am I saying the Apple chips will be bad? Not at all. All I'm saying is that we know what we're getting with Intel chips at this point and the real-world experience of Apple chips in a MacBook (Air, Pro or otherwise) has yet to be experienced.

 

[maswriter]

I bought a 16-inch MBP last month because my 13-inch 2015 was conking out on me. So, I'm out of the Mac buying market for at least the next four years. But if I could return this one and buy an Apple Silicon Mac, I wouldn't. We really won't know the performance and other benchmarks until they've been out in customer hands for a while.

I was in a similar situation in 2016. I bought my 13-inch 2015 just before the redesigned ones came out, and I'm glad I did. I didn't have to suffer through the butterfly keyboard, underwhelming performance, thermal throttling, and other problems. Like the 2015 I had, the 2019 model is the best of this series. It has the redesigned Magic Keyboard, larger screen with thinner bezels, and all the other issues worked out. We also have more mature and lower priced hubs and other peripherals that work with USB-C ports. Judging from Apple's track record, I'm not concerned about getting abandoned for OS and software updates for a long time.

If you need to buy a new Mac now, buy the best one you can afford. If you can wait, I'd wait to see how the new Apple Silicon Macs shake out before you get one.

 

[brianmowrey]

You can take your chances with the known unknowns or the unknown unknowns. Crowdsourcing predictions isn't going to make you better able to compare reliability.

A safer guess is that if ARM does unlock new frontiers for the MBP, Tim Cook will turn 80% of that into More Smallness and leave the other 20 for yearly incremental performance gains. Reliability won't even be on the menu.

 

[drbrodix]

Thanks for all the answers! I'll definitely wait until after the release of the new machines, and then make a decision. However, I guess it still will be sort of a gamble considering reliability.

 

[drbrodix]

As the son of a chemical engineer who worked for a company that MADE Silicone, I die a little inside every time someone does this. Silicone (with an E) is a sealant, Apple isn't making sealants. Computer chips are silicon (NO E), the element on the periodic table.

On to your question - at this point only the Intel chips have a proven track record in Apple laptops. Am I saying the Apple chips will be bad? Not at all. All I'm saying is that we know what we're getting with Intel chips at this point and the real-world experience of Apple chips in a MacBook (Air, Pro or otherwise) has yet to be experienced.

Sorry, I'm neither a native English speaker, nor someone very knowledgable about tech, just a geek how's interested in this stuff ?

 

[hobowankenobi]

The mature tech is more likely to be reliable, generally speaking. But not that easy, as Apple has been doing A series for over a decade, on their biggest volume product. And in that time, while there have been great advances in performance, I don't recall any unreliable iPhones or iPads. Sure, there were some less than perfect frame designs (see: bendgate and antennagate), and other gripes about battery life and so on...but not really a single lemon in the bunch with regard to CPU, boards, and primary function/reliability.

Traditionally, it has been wise not to buy the first model year of anything tech. But I don't see that being as big an issue as it was 10 or 20 years ago. And, even more complicated, actual reliability/defects/issues often take more than a year of use to show up. Maybe even 3-4 years. Think about some of the big issues in the past, like GPU issues (both iMac and MBP models), the flex issue with the old white MacBooks, and even the flex issue with the iPhone 6.

So the first few weeks/months of AS Macs, we are likely to see any performance/heat/charging/noise issues surface during rigorous public testing and reporting. We may not know about actual long term reliability for many months or years...unless the first model(s) are actual lemons. And that seems very unlikley, given Apple's recent track record, and considering how big/important/closely monitored this shift in design and fab will be for them.

 

[drbrodix]

The mature tech is more likely to be reliable, generally speaking. But not that easy, as Apple has been doing A series for over a decade, on their biggest volume product. And in that time, while there have been great advances in performance, I don't recall any unreliable iPhones or iPads. Sure, there were some less than perfect frame designs (see: bendgate and antennagate), and other gripes about battery life and so on...but not really a single lemon in the bunch with regard to CPU, boards, and primary function/reliability.

Traditionally, it has been wise not to buy the first model year of anything tech. But I don't see that being as big an issue as it was 10 or 20 years ago. And, even more complicated, actually reliabilty/defects/issues often take more than a year of use to show up. Maybe even 3-4 years. Think about some of the big issues in the past, like GPU issues (both iMac and MBP models), the flex issue with the old white MacBooks, and even the flex issue with the iPhone 6.

So the first few weeks/months of AS Macs, we are likley to see any performance/heat/charging/noise issues surface during rigorus public testing and reporting. We may not know about actual long term reliability for many months or years...unless the first model(s) are actual lemons. And that seems very unlikley, given Apple's recent track record, and considering how big/important/closely monitored this shift in design and fab will be for them.

That's true. While the chips will be a modified version/s and will be used in a new machine/s, it will still be A chips that's not something new for Apple. If the new machine/s won't sport a new form factor, then it actually doesn't seem that big a risk compared to the Intel machines. But of course this is all just guessing.

 

[leman]

What worries me is what several people mentioned, which is how this first generation device/s might suffer from various issues, since Apple Silicone is still new and not thoroughly tested, which sounds like a fair concern.

Apple chips have been powering iPhones and iPads for years, so they are not an unknown quantity. If you are not worried about the new iPad's reliability, then you also should not worry about the new Apple Silicon Mac reliability. The software they run is not that difficult after all — it's the same OS, just slightly different apps. There might of course be some early hiccups, but I expect them to be software in nature, they will get patched eventually.

There's the option to get an Intel based MBP, which, however, is infamous for having thermal issues (this is the aspect that makes the Apple Silicone Macs really attractive, as they will likely stay a lot cooler), which worries me a lot, as this problem may reduce the device's lifespan a lot and might even cause mainboard issues or a swollen battery. So from this aspect, which option would be a better choice, which would be the more reliable/safer bet? Thanks for the answers in advance!

The worries about device lifespan are mostly unsubstantiated. They are based on "bro-science" of the gaming community, in particularly overclockers who routinely over volt their chips beyond their safety margins. High temperatures on their own are not a critical problem for modern chips.

That said, Intel chips do run hot — and it's almost certain that Apple chips will need much less power to deliver comparable performance. I don't think that they will run considerably cooler when doing demanding work, but they should definitely run cooler under normal everyday operation.

In the end, I think you have the winning strategy: wait until the devices are released, read some reviews, maybe try both of them out in the Apple Store (or even order them to try at home and return the one you don't like). We will know fairly soon

 

[drbrodix]

Apple chips have been powering iPhones and iPads for years, so they are not an unknown quantity. If you are not worried about the new iPad's reliability, then you also should not worry about the new Apple Silicon Mac reliability. The software they run is not that difficult after all — it's the same OS, just slightly different apps. There might of course be some early hiccups, but I expect them to be software in nature, they will get patched eventually.



The worries about device lifespan are mostly unsubstantiated. They are based on "bro-science" of the gaming community, in particularly overclockers who routinely over volt their chips beyond their safety margins. High temperatures on their own are not a critical problem for modern chips.

That said, Intel chips do run hot — and it's almost certain that Apple chips will need much less power to deliver comparable performance. I don't think that they will run considerably cooler when doing demanding work, but they should definitely run cooler under normal everyday operation.

In the end, I think you have the winning strategy: wait until the devices are released, read some reviews, maybe try both of them out in the Apple Store (or even order them to try at home and return the one you don't like). We will know fairly soon

Thank you for the thorough answer! Your take on the topic is reassuring.

 

[pmiles]

The only absolute is that any Mac not equipped with an ARM (or Apple Silicon) chip going forward will be relegated to EOL status. They (Apple) will be focusing 100% of their efforts on ARM-based Macs. That means newer OSes et al will be written to run natively for ARM and *possibly* still be supported in emulation mode for INTEL (for an unspecified period of time). The ARM Macs will also NOT support bootcamp. Whether that means no Windows applications will ever run on these, nobody knows. They just said they will not run bootcamp (which should be a warning to all you INTEL users that they going to stop supporting it shortly).

It's a matter of which side of the fence you want to be on, the side that has come to the end of the road or the side that is just starting it.

A lot of things are changing.... GPU, CPU, OS... it's like a whole different computer than what you have now.

Don't buy a new Mac until you at least see a ARM Mac officially released by Apple to try out at your local retailer. Listen to actual user feedback and not some PR pitch. Honestly a 2 year transition period is relatively fast... impatience is what makes it feel like an eternity.

Forget about Santa and the Black Friday deals... if you have a real need for something, it doesn't blossom during the holiday hoopla... that's a marketing induced itch.

 

[drbrodix]

The only absolute is that any Mac not equipped with an ARM (or Apple Silicon) chip going forward will be relegated to EOL status. They (Apple) will be focusing 100% of their efforts on ARM-based Macs. That means newer OSes et al will be written to run natively for ARM and *possibly* still be supported in emulation mode for INTEL (for an unspecified period of time). The ARM Macs will also NOT support bootcamp. Whether that means no Windows applications will ever run on these, nobody knows. They just said they will not run bootcamp (which should be a warning to all you INTEL users that they going to stop supporting it shortly).

It's a matter of which side of the fence you want to be on, the side that has come to the end of the road or the side that is just starting it.

A lot of things are changing.... GPU, CPU, OS... it's like a whole different computer than what you have now.

Don't buy a new Mac until you at least see a ARM Mac officially released by Apple to try out at your local retailer. Listen to actual user feedback and not some PR pitch. Honestly a 2 year transition period is relatively fast... impatience is what makes it feel like an eternity.

Forget about Santa and the Black Friday deals... if you have a real need for something, it doesn't blossom during the holiday hoopla... that's a marketing induced itch.

Thank you for your take on this matter!
True that the holiday deals are coming but I actually NEED a computer in the coming weeks as I don't have any right now. I don't need one for work but I need one for various hobbies and everyday stuff. (e.g. photo editing, media consumption etc..) I won't necessarily pull the trigger on a nice deal though, I would rather pay full price on a better machine than get a lesser one on sale. I wouldn't mind if the two things happened to be combined though ? Anyway, I'll wait for the first reviews on the new machines, and then make a decision. I can't test them personally though (partially because of the Covid situation, also because I live in a small German town and the nearest Apple Store is really far too), so I'll just trust the more reliable reviewers on this.

 

[hobowankenobi]

If it were me, and I needed a new(er) Mac today, and could not wait for 2-6 months to see the AS Macs...I would be looking at a transition machine. Maybe used, maybe a refurb. Maybe a black Friday blow-out deal on close-out stock.

Something that I would expect to replace in 1-2 years again. 3 years max. In my case, I would likely roll the transition machine down to a family member that just does basic computing (web and email), and then let them run it until it dropped...hopefully for another few years at least.

 

[Pakaku]

Like most things from Apple, the first iteration tends to be more like a public beta test. Personally I'm waiting for Silicon to drop so that I can gauge my options with the Intel line. By the time I need a newer computer, Silicon should more more than thoroughly tested.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Reliability tends to be a function of overall system design. There are many components and subsystems, any of which may turn out to have a weakness.

If you read complaints of poor thermal performance, those are not due to the CPU that is being cooled but rather the steps taken to keep that CPU cool. If the CPU fails due to inadequate cooling it is not the CPU that is at fault - it's collateral damage. It doesn't matter what brand or model CPU is installed - Intel, AMD, Apple... So long as its electrical and thermal properties are known (which they are by the time the cooling system is designed) - heat in, heat out.

Apple has been designing computers and computing devices for 44 years. TSMC has been making chips for 33 years. That's the experience that counts. It's highly unlikely that Apple will be abandoning its approach to system design. Sure, they've produced some notable failures over the years, but far more successes. And TSMC's 5nm process is already tried-and-true.

I'd expect that Apple will be fairly conservative about most aspects of hardware design - no Cubes or Trashcans this time around. The teardowns of the first Apple Silicon Macs are likely to look very much like today's Mac teardowns. Will the exteriors look substantially different than Intel Macs? It seems likely, as that helps to highlight the change, but those appearances will likely be skin deep. And if they keep the current exterior appearances it seems highly unlikely they'd change much about the interiors.

The real changes are in the software - in the OS and the apps that run on it. Software is not a matter of reliability, it's a matter of maturity. You screw up hardware design and there's rarely a way to undo the error. You screw up in software and you issue an update.

As far as I'm concerned, the real risk for people buying Apple Silicon in the first year or two is that they'll encounter a higher than average number of software faults. The underlying hardware will be as reliable as it has ever been. If the hardware falls short in some way, odds are that the weakness will be somewhere other than the silicon.

So I'd say, approach this the way you would OS upgrades/updates. Some of us are enthusiastic beta testers, others will wait until the last public update before the next major version is released. The same warning applies to this as applies to beta testing in general - don't run a beta on a mission-critical production machine.

Me? I'll likely buy the first 27" (or larger) Apple Silicon iMac that comes along. It'll replace my personal iMac, which is the one I've always used for betas. My work Macs? They probably won't be replaced with Apple Silicon for at least two years. I expect macOS 11.1 (Point Lobos?) or 11.2 (Napa Valley?) will be adequately mature.

 

[drbrodix]

Reliability tends to be a function of overall system design. There are many components and subsystems, any of which may turn out to have a weakness.

If you read complaints of poor thermal performance, those are not due to the CPU that is being cooled but rather the steps taken to keep that CPU cool. If the CPU fails due to inadequate cooling it is not the CPU that is at fault - it's collateral damage. It doesn't matter what brand or model CPU is installed - Intel, AMD, Apple... So long as its electrical and thermal properties are known (which they are by the time the cooling system is designed) - heat in, heat out.

Apple has been designing computers and computing devices for 44 years. TSMC has been making chips for 33 years. That's the experience that counts. It's highly unlikely that Apple will be abandoning its approach to system design. Sure, they've produced some notable failures over the years, but far more successes. And TSMC's 5nm process is already tried-and-true.

I'd expect that Apple will be fairly conservative about most aspects of hardware design - no Cubes or Trashcans this time around. The teardowns of the first Apple Silicon Macs are likely to look very much like today's Mac teardowns. Will the exteriors look substantially different than Intel Macs? It seems likely, as that helps to highlight the change, but those appearances will likely be skin deep. And if they keep the current exterior appearances it seems highly unlikely they'd change much about the interiors.

The real changes are in the software - in the OS and the apps that run on it. Software is not a matter of reliability, it's a matter of maturity. You screw up hardware design and there's rarely a way to undo the error. You screw up in software and you issue an update.

As far as I'm concerned, the real risk for people buying Apple Silicon in the first year or two is that they'll encounter a higher than average number of software faults. The underlying hardware will be as reliable as it has ever been. If the hardware falls short in some way, odds are that the weakness will be somewhere other than the silicon.

So I'd say, approach this the way you would OS upgrades/updates. Some of us are enthusiastic beta testers, others will wait until the last public update before the next major version is released. The same warning applies to this as applies to beta testing in general - don't run a beta on a mission-critical production machine.

Me? I'll likely buy the first 27" (or larger) Apple Silicon iMac that comes along. It'll replace my personal iMac, which is the one I've always used for betas. My work Macs? They probably won't be replaced with Apple Silicon for at least two years. I expect macOS 11.1 (Point Lobos?) or 11.2 (Napa Valley?) will be adequately mature.

That's an interesting approach! When I was on Windows and Linux machines, I liked to tinker with them, joined the Insider Program and the likes, because I use my computers only for personal stuff, so I might pull the trigger on one if I'll like what they'll show on the November event.

 

[satcomer]

All I know it is time to upgrade when updates to apps start coming and I make it hard stop in the Mac OS area after only one Mac OS upgrade on that machine!

During the teens I used DAS connections and have been there from the PPC era to the Intel change and Rosetta lasted about two years! It will take developers about 11-12 months to catch up! Plus from experienceI wait at least two years before I jump on any new model!

 

[Fishrrman]

Which will be "more reliable" ???

Answer:
UNKNOWN at this point.

It won't become known until there are ARM Macs in fairly wide circulation...

 

[maclove2020]

Have fun with your choosen device!

 

[cardfan]

For me it’s not a question of which is more reliable or better performing. Apple silicon just won’t be viable anytime soon. Maybe down the road.

 

[leman]

Apple silicon just won’t be viable anytime soon.

What do you mean by this?

 

[pmiles]

What do you mean by this?

I think they are referring to the full adoption period taking place. On day one, you can buy the new Mac, but software developers may not have released a native version of your software yet, thus you might be running in emulation mode until that day comes. On the flip side, they might have been writing a native version all along (usually the big developers) and it will be everyone else who will be running in emulation mode that doesn't have a new Mac.

As far as issues with a new system... there are issues with any new system... can't avoid them. Most people don't go out and buy last years model or a few years older than that because it's been on the market the longest, therefore all the issues that are going to arise have already risen and been addressed.

With that being said, Apple has had designs that never actually worked (butterfly keyboard is one example)... people literally avoid the entire line that had them. The MacPro Trash Can was a disaster from the get go but anyone could see that a mile away.

Which is why one needs to see an actual working model to get an idea as to what direction Apple is taking these new things. Some people suspect Apple will use its own GPU.. others think it will be AMD or nVidia modded for their specific architecture... no one really knows just how "closed" Apple intends to get. With an iPhone or iPad... its obvious... with a desktop it's not so obvious... but we will know soon enough.

 

[pianojoe]

Apple has a proven track record in building durable laptops. Also, they have been using ARM silicon for years. Since the new CPUs will be custom-crafted for their intended use, the interplay of system components (like the various "bridges" in former times) should not be an issue. I’d go with the new Apple Silicon CPUs. I predict more bang for the buck, and higher resale value.