ARM based MacBook Pro discussion [merged]

[gnasher729]

My prediction: Apple will build one Silicon processor that matches available iPhone technology of Dec. 2020, increasing the clock speed to 3.5 Ghz. Then they'll check which current Macs would be significantly improved by this (all dual cores, maybe quad cores, maybe not) and replace the processor.

As soon as possible, Apple will create a processor with twice the number of cores, and again replace the processors where this new chip is a significant improvement. That would be everything with 4 and six cores, possibly eight.

And as soon as possible, Apple will create a processor with four times the number of cores, and again replace the processors where this new chip is a significant improvement. That would be everything with 8 or 12 cores, possibly 16 and 18. All Macs except the highest Mac Pro models.

What next? Either Apple builds another bigger processor or takes existing server designs, like the 80 core Ampere Altra to replace the Mac Pro Intel chips.

Apart from that, no model changes. Apple may continue selling a very small number of Intel models for people who need to run Windows etc. Apple may build 2.5 GHz versions for laptops or possibly a mixed 2.5 / 3.5 GHz version (I don't know how hard this is to do, but it would save power for laptops), and they might create a Mac mini that is at least twice as powerful than the current six core model.

 

[coffeeplease]

If hypothetically the Apple Silicon chips for Mac beat Intel drastically, then yes, I agree that they wouldn't put it in the Air first as it would cannibalize MBP sales.

Are they going to remove the Air all together? Doubtful. It's the $999 entry level to portable Macs. I bet they'll put a lower performing chip compared to the new MBP chip. Perhaps a modified A13/A14 chip. Tim loves to reuse old chips, look at the entry level iPad.

 

[satchmo]

Apple has likely already roadmapped their entire lineup with different Silicon. They have also likely benchmarked everything from an iPhone right up to a Mac Pro.
You don’t transition your entire product line unless you have your ducks in row.

 

[AFPBoy]

My prediction: I think Apple is going to merge the MacBook Air and the 13" MacBook Pro moving into the ARM transition.

You make some very reasonable arguments. This isn't quite the same thing, but what if Apple releases a smaller MacBook ARM? I loved my 11" MacBook Air until the battery started swelling and I still love my 12" MacBook. While the 13" laptops aren't large, I find that slightly smaller size better for travelling. So an ARM Macbook that's super light (700-800 g) with really long battery life would be an ideal computer for me.

 

[bill-p]

If hypothetically the Apple Silicon chips for Mac beat Intel drastically, then yes, I agree that they wouldn't put it in the Air first as it would cannibalize MBP sales.

An Intel iMac just leaked.

If Apple wanted to "come out strong" with their own chips, they'd have an iMac model (at least the 24") with their ARM chip.

That's looking increasingly unlikely.

So I think at this point, ARM supporters will have to concede that Apple did not beat physics. They couldn't achieve desktop-level performance with their current ARM chips this year.

And it makes perfect sense. Even in their own presentation, they did not promise "drastically improved performance". Please go back and watch very carefully how they worded their presentation. They mentioned only efficiency improvements.

I don't doubt Apple will eventually have desktop-class ARM chips. But it's not like they can just suddenly beat AMD and Intel by... developing chips for just 10 years. That's very unrealistic.

Also Intel has just barely gotten started with 10nm chips. Apple and TSMC are well into 7nm now. That means Apple is fast approaching physics limitations (you can only shrink a chip so much), while Intel still has a lot of room for growth. That's food for thought.

I'll still wait and see what Apple can come out with, but again, I'm under no illusion they can break physics.

 

[tagy]

I don't think Apple would say "drastically improved performance" even if it was true (I have no idea if that is true or not myself). They revealed just enough to about the transition to let people know it is happening, but nothing that could seriously stop people buying intel macs if they want one now. No mention of battery life either etc.

 

[Yebubbleman]

You make some very reasonable arguments. This isn't quite the same thing, but what if Apple releases a smaller MacBook ARM? I loved my 11" MacBook Air until the battery started swelling and I still love my 12" MacBook. While the 13" laptops aren't large, I find that slightly smaller size better for travelling. So an ARM Macbook that's super light (700-800 g) with really long battery life would be an ideal computer for me.

The MacBook Air was pretty close to the size and weight of the 12" MacBook. I think if you get it any smaller, you're cannibalizing the 12.9" iPad Pro which isn't far off from the 12" MacBook.

 

[DanMan619]

Apple has likely already roadmapped their entire lineup with different Silicon. They have also likely benchmarked everything from an iPhone right up to a Mac Pro.
You don’t transition your entire product line unless you have your ducks in row.

Yeah, they almost certainly do. I don't know why some are thinking ARM chips for the Mac Pro or other high performance products is this nebulous thing. If Apple is saying the transition will be done in 2 years, it's because they have a chip for every product already. Just because they finally confirmed the transition just now doesn't mean they just started developing these chips this year. Moves like this are planned years in advanced, with roadmaps for the years to follow the actual thing happening. I think people will be surprised once these things actually start releasing.

 

[AFPBoy]

The MacBook Air was pretty close to the size and weight of the 12" MacBook. I think if you get it any smaller, you're cannibalizing the 12.9" iPad Pro which isn't far off from the 12" MacBook.

True, but until there's a merger I see a MacBook with a physically integrated keyboard and MacOS as very different from an iPad with added keyboard and iPadOS, even if they are otherwise equal in dimensions and performance.

 

[Mohamed Kamal]

(I've said this in a few threads, but it probably makes sense to start a separate discussion about it.)

The A12Z in the current iPad Pro and the ARM Mac mini DTK is powerful enough to match the current 2020 MacBook Air WITH ROSETTA 2. Certainly, it has the power to best the current 2020 13" MacBook Pro. Plus, it clearly fits in a thermal envelope as thin as the current iPad Pro without needing a fan.

If you put an Apple SoC that requires even the cooling of the current 2020 MacBook Air, it would run circles around the current Intel 2020 13" MacBook Pro.

My prediction: I think Apple is going to merge the MacBook Air and the 13" MacBook Pro moving into the ARM transition.

Why? The things separating the 2020 MacBook Air and the 13" MacBook Pro is processing power, a 32GB RAM option, a TouchBar, and maybe two extra USB-C connectors. If you upgrade the MacBook Air with an Apple SoC that completely runs circles around the current 10th-gen based 13" MacBook Pro, fits the Air's current thermal envelope, give it two more USB-C ports, the option for 32GB of RAM, and give or take a TouchBar, what need is there for a 13" MacBook Pro? If the idea is to make a thinner 13" MacBook Pro (while keeping the scissor-switch, of course) because Apple now can, at what point does the MacBook Air become repetitive?

Right now, you effectively have three 13" Macs. You have the MacBook Air, the 8th-Gen Intel 13" MacBook Pro with two ports and the 10th-Gen Intel 13" MacBook Pro. The 8th-Gen based MacBook Air is basically the spiritual successor of the 2010-17 MacBook Air, which only existed to offer a lighter machine that could fit into a smaller thermal envelope at the expense of speed. These three different machines exist as a result of the speed and chipset disparities thereof and how that affects the enclosures that they're in. If there's no speed expense or thermal constraints for making a machine that fits in a MacBook Air-sized body, but otherwise has speeds that run circles around the 10th Gen Intel 13" MacBook Pro of current and the few features that said 13" Pro has over the Air, why do we need a 13" MacBook Pro at all? I guess whether the new machine be called a 13" MacBook Pro or a MacBook Air doesn't really matter. If the best of both worlds scenario can be achieved at the cost of the Air, then we don't need two computers, no?

Thoughts?

The MBP 13”/MBA distinction makes sense because of price.
I think a perfect scenario for apple would be increasing the performance across the board with the 16” MBA bought by professionals or video editors who currently work on a desktop but need portability.

 

[Yebubbleman]

True, but until there's a merger I see a MacBook with a physically integrated keyboard and MacOS as very different from an iPad with added keyboard and iPadOS, even if they are otherwise equal in dimensions and performance.

I'm not talking about a merger between the iPad and the MacBook Air. Apple seems pretty adamant about that not happening. I'm talking about a merger between the MacBook Air and the 13" MacBook Pro.

The MBP 13”/MBA distinction makes sense because of price.
I think a perfect scenario for apple would be increasing the performance across the board with the 16” MBA bought by professionals or video editors who currently work on a desktop but need portability.

I agree that the 16" MacBook Pro will be distinct from any 13" Mac, by screen size if nothing else. But saying that price would be the only reason for there to be two different products seems stupid if you can make a 13" MacBook Air that has the same portability and form factor, but with all of the features present in the higher-end 13" MacBook Pro with a processor that kicks the crap out of the 10th Gen Intel 2020 13" MacBook Pro, still make your profit margins, and have it cost what a MacBook Air would cost. The only reason to make another 13" Mac notebook would be because you could put that much more powerful of an SoC in that much bigger of an enclosure. With Intel's chips, things like that mattered. With Apple's SoC, it really looks like that won't matter as much.

 

[AFPBoy]

I'm not talking about a merger between the iPad and the MacBook Air. Apple seems pretty adamant about that not happening. I'm talking about a merger between the MacBook Air and the 13" MacBook Pro.

Your post that I quoted mentioned that a smaller MacBook could cannibalize the iPad Pro sales.

Your merger suggestion is interesting, but I have to agree with another poster that Apple likes to have lower priced, entry model. Maybe they’ll eventually start to follow the iPhone model of offering the previous year's model at a lower price.

 

[AttilaTheHun]

Why not just wait until they release ARM? If you're so convinced you'll get an Intel MBP then you may get some good deals once the ARM MBPs land. If you are not 100% convinced they may convince you, so nothing to lose for waiting I guess?

I already said it in another post, but I can see many people buying their Intel Mac just before ARM just because of fear and then regretting it because "my Mac won't last 6 years" and/or "ARM Macs aren't a problem at all as many thought"

Yes we don't know but as you know the moment ARM is out map intel will be discontinue my map 15" is mid 2014 time to upgrade and from what I understand and maybe I am wrong the ARM will do many thing that I don't need in computer for that I have the iPad Pro

 

[Yebubbleman]

Your post that I quoted mentioned that a smaller MacBook could cannibalize the iPad Pro sales.

Your merger suggestion is interesting, but I have to agree with another poster that Apple likes to have lower priced, entry model. Maybe they’ll eventually start to follow the iPhone model of offering the previous year's model at a lower price.

My original statement was about merging the two laptops. You mentioned that you like the 12" size and that you wanted a 12" MacBook. I said, only in response to that reply, that it could cannibalize the 12.9" iPad. In the past, the two were different enough devices in terms of the kinds of work that could be done on them. I think now, Apple is trying to position the iPad Pro as enough of a computer replacement that it really wouldn't make much sense. But that's just me.

 

[drewyboy]

Apple has likely already roadmapped their entire lineup with different Silicon. They have also likely benchmarked everything from an iPhone right up to a Mac Pro.
You don’t transition your entire product line unless you have your ducks in row.

Exactly. I work in a very large tech companies R&D department and we have 3 roadmaps. 2-3 yr, 5 yr, and 10yr. And even our 10 yr isn’t nebulous, sure we’re projecting how bleeding edge tech in the lab might pan out, but it’s still a sound and reasonable path.

 

[UltimateSyn]

Then they'll check which current Macs would be significantly improved by this (all dual cores, maybe quad cores, maybe not) and replace the processor.
...
As soon as possible, Apple will create a processor with twice the number of cores, and again replace the processors where this new chip is a significant improvement. That would be everything with 4 and six cores, possibly eight.
...
And as soon as possible, Apple will create a processor with four times the number of cores, and again replace the processors where this new chip is a significant improvement. That would be everything with 8 or 12 cores, possibly 16 and 18.
...
Apple may build 2.5 GHz versions for laptops or possibly a mixed 2.5 / 3.5 GHz version (I don't know how hard this is to do, but it would save power for laptops)

I'm trying (and failing) to understand your thought process here. The iPad's (and DTK's) A12Z already has 8 cores. There would be almost no reason for them to revert down to 2 or 4 core systems on the Mac with its increased thermal capacity... Presumably the Macs will have at least as many cores as the iPad, if not more. My personal guess is that the 13" MBP actually ends up with 12 cores; 8 performance and 4 low power.

That's the other thing, on your 'mixed 2.5 / 3.5 GHz' comment they sort of already do that in the iPad. There are both high-performance ("big") and low-power efficiency ("little") cores in the A12Z. I'm not sure if they run at the same clock speed or not (I'm assuming not) but the intent is to achieve the same goal that I believe you're talking about with the mix of clock frequencies.

 

[Jaekae]

I got a windows computer and a macbook pro that i will upgrade to arm when the 16 inch get it. Solves the bootcamp problem to have 2 computers 😁

 

[kaans]

I got a windows computer and a macbook pro that i will upgrade to arm when the 16 inch get it. Solves the bootcamp problem to have 2 computers 😁

Kinda bad for productivity tho, I had a Windows computer too, I guess because it was a hard to maintain high-end gaming system, it was dragging me down too much, I had switches in place that took me from one system to the other in 3 seconds, but still, I can't describe what a breather it is to sell everything else and reduce to a single device (I only have one Thinkpad remaining that's only purpose is to driver a 3D-Printer )

Is there any definitive info on x86 virtual machines on ARM Macbooks'? I'm 99% sure it will happen, and it will be enough to just compile things for Windows/Linux and deploy from inside

I just hope Virtualbox was more rounded at this point, and Parallels was less of a leech/thrashware - Parallels is so fast/seamless, yet it's default and unoptable thrash installation probably compromises the host, while in theory a virtual machine could be used to keep host safe, it's the opposite for Parallels (I obviously didn't prove it, but it sets up 2 way execution etc. - it's thrashy enough to put a Microsoft Edge icon on the MacOS desktop)

I decided to use Bootcamp for my compilation needs this time around, I use Linux with Hyper-V inside Windows, it's very practical, keep macos clean as Virtualbox taps into too many things too, but I guess once Arm's arrive, one of the virtualization solutions will be a necessary evil

I just hope for once Apple would solve the problem, brew, Virtualbox etc. - a trillion dollar company, and the computing side is all thanks to the efforts of these open source community efforts ... It feels bad to be honest, Apple doesn't deserve it

 

[BluAffiliate]

Kinda bad for productivity tho, I had a Windows computer too, I guess because it was a hard to maintain high-end gaming system, it was dragging me down too much, I had switches in place that took me from one system to the other in 3 seconds, but still, I can't describe what a breather it is to sell everything else and reduce to a single device (I only have one Thinkpad remaining that's only purpose is to driver a 3D-Printer )

Is there any definitive info on x86 virtual machines on ARM Macbooks'? I'm 99% sure it will happen, and it will be enough to just compile things for Windows/Linux and deploy from inside

I just hope Virtualbox was more rounded at this point, and Parallels was less of a leech/thrashware - Parallels is so fast/seamless, yet it's default and unoptable thrash installation probably compromises the host, while in theory a virtual machine could be used to keep host safe, it's the opposite for Parallels (I obviously didn't prove it, but it sets up 2 way execution etc. - it's thrashy enough to put a Microsoft Edge icon on the MacOS desktop)

I decided to use Bootcamp for my compilation needs this time around, I use Linux with Hyper-V inside Windows, it's very practical, keep macos clean as Virtualbox taps into too many things too, but I guess once Arm's arrive, one of the virtualization solutions will be a necessary evil

I just hope for once Apple would solve the problem, brew, Virtualbox etc. - a trillion dollar company, and the computing side is all thanks to the efforts of these open source community efforts ... It feels bad to be honest, Apple doesn't deserve it

Any proof that Parallels can compromise the host machine? That's a serious allegation.

 

[kaans]

If it sets up 2 way execution without opting in, it's as good as compromising the host

The way I remember, it just set up without asking anything, and when it's done, I had Windows desktop icons on my MacOS, and my entire MacOS Desktop etc. was available to the Windows machine by default

So, minimally, anyone can write a malicious Windows program to just read/upload the data of the host

I concluded that it's simply not made for developers or power users, it was made for people who just install anything blindly on their machines, and from their marketing and the way the solution works, it's to easily and practically let these people merge the 2 operating systems - it works really well too, if you just don't care

 

[simonmet]

Any proof that Parallels can compromise the host machine? That's a serious allegation.

It tries to present the appearance of integrating with macOS including putting Windows stuff all throughout the Mac file system, which some people don’t want. It takes 10-15 seconds to boot into Boot Camp for a fully native experience so I don’t know why people don’t want that.

I guess because they want to use Mac and Windows apps simultaneously, but I’ve never needed that personally and I can’t think of many applications where it is necessary.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

Kinda bad for productivity tho, I had a Windows computer too, I guess because it was a hard to maintain high-end gaming system, it was dragging me down too much, I had switches in place that took me from one system to the other in 3 seconds, but still, I can't describe what a breather it is to sell everything else and reduce to a single device (I only have one Thinkpad remaining that's only purpose is to driver a 3D-Printer )

Why not get a Raspberry Pi and run OctoPi on it? It works very well with my Ender 3, and cost <$100.

 

[kaans]

I'd need a screen etc. - plus I use Simplify3D and do quite a bit of tinkering on it too (pre-print, during the print), so it'd require a full desktop setup, so highly impractical

I do have a Pi tho, love it, moved my 24/7 tasks into it, passive cooling, use it like a server even though it runs the full OS

In the past I had my own computer open 24/7, but ever since they made these Macbook's so brittle, I have to baby the Macbook, and Pi takes the abuse like a champ - It's such a marvel

My biggest dream is cheap/powerful ARM machines taking over the market, and I hope Apple paves the way to it's destruction - look at this thing for example, it's just $200: https://www.pine64.org/pinebook-pro/

 

[PBG4 Dude]

Yeah, I use my MBP for my Cura / Prusa slicer / FreeCAD / MatterController needs. OctoPi is so I can keep a camera on my printer / make time lapse videos as well as monitor printer output and to watch the GCode output screen draw what the printer is doing.

 

[thedocbwarren]

I've looked at lots of SoCs and Arm-bases systems for the last few years. I'm excited about this as I love the idea of RISC and better efficient systems. x86 is tired and complex. I'm tired of the heat and power consumption for little to nothing. Same for GPUs as well. From here on out I'm done with x86 Macs (I have the 16 so I'm good) and will only purchase Arm when it's available. I could care less for Windows as I play a game or two and frankly I'll write that nonsense off. I play ESO mostly and DeusEx which, for now, has Mac versions.