Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ARM based MacBook Pro discussion [merged]

So I know they edit smoothly, but will the ARM based MBPs be faster at transcoding/exporting video than my 2016 MBP does even if it doesn't have a dGPU like AMD? I've never seen an iPad Pro vs 2016-20 MBP comparison and they're unfair comparisons due to no FCPX on iPads, but is it comparable/better/worse?
 
In time, yes, it will kick the MBP16's butt. But it won't right out the door. It'll take time until Apple gets their GPUs working well. I was initially upset at the switch, such as losing Windows compatibility, but these new CPUs are going to make Intel look like relics within just a couple of years.
 
I'd guess that a lot of video editing and transcoding programs use x86-specific vector acceleration and that will need to be ported for best performance on the ARM stuff unless Apple has a layer that makes that transparent. Most compilers added Intrinsics about ten years ago so you didn't have to program in assembler and so that you didn't have to worry about registers as well but the Intrinsics themselves are geared to x86 architectures.
 
Rob.G said:
In time, yes, it will kick the MBP16's butt. But it won't right out the door. It'll take time until Apple gets their GPUs working well. I was initially upset at the switch, such as losing Windows compatibility, but these new CPUs are going to make Intel look like relics within just a couple of years.
Click to expand...

There is already a x86 CPU kicking Intels butt, AMD Ryzen. I'm angry over this move, I have a MBP 16 that going by past history, I now have to worry about having limited MacOS support and dwindling third party developer support. Thinking about selling this and going to Windows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Basic75
I wouldn't. I just bought a refurb MBP16 the other day. I figured this will be my last Intel-based Mac. It'll be 2-3 years before they have the transition to ARM complete, so there's plenty of time for this to still be a viable machine. Plus there will be people who need the Intel CPUs for virtualization and other stuff, so it could hold it's value pretty well.

As for Windows, gack. I have a Dell laptop that work sent me and I HATE WINDOWS more and more each day. It's so freakin' unstable and the UI is just terrible. Just moving the laptop off of my work table this morning to clean was enough to make Windows crash. It crashed yesterday too... Skype did something to piss it off. Last week, Outlook caused it to crash. I haven't had a genuine Mac crash in over a year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximara and Basic75
I bought the parts for a new Windows desktop build and that will be my main system for a while until ARM. WFH has helped to make that decision. I will still have my MBP 15s but they will see less duty. I will keep at least one MBP Intel for a long time as I have a bunch of software on it that may not run on Apple Silicon.

I do look forward to Apple Silicon even though there will be some rough edges moving my computing over to the other side.
 
Rob.G said:
I wouldn't. I just bought a refurb MBP16 the other day. I figured this will be my last Intel-based Mac. It'll be 2-3 years before they have the transition to ARM complete, so there's plenty of time for this to still be a viable machine. Plus there will be people who need the Intel CPUs for virtualization and other stuff, so it could hold it's value pretty well.

As for Windows, gack. I have a Dell laptop that work sent me and I HATE WINDOWS more and more each day. It's so freakin' unstable and the UI is just terrible. Just moving the laptop off of my work table this morning to clean was enough to make Windows crash. It crashed yesterday too... Skype did something to piss it off. Last week, Outlook caused it to crash. I haven't had a genuine Mac crash in over a year.
Click to expand...

It took them must less than that for the powerpc -> intel transition. 2007 first intel mac, 2009 first macOS intel only, adobe dropped intel support. Having just 2 or 3 years tops of support for a latest gen device is not acceptable, I usually keep my machines for much longer than that and to make it worse it's not like I can install Linux on this easily and Bootcamp is crap. Honestly I've not had such problems with Windows lately that I use for work and the XPS 17 looks mighty tempting.
 
Rob.G said:
As for Windows, gack. I have a Dell laptop that work sent me and I HATE WINDOWS more and more each day. It's so freakin' unstable and the UI is just terrible. Just moving the laptop off of my work table this morning to clean was enough to make Windows crash. It crashed yesterday too... Skype did something to piss it off. Last week, Outlook caused it to crash. I haven't had a genuine Mac crash in over a year.
Click to expand...

I turned off my MacBook Pro and am just using Windows 10 right now. I find that it's extremely stable and they've copied so many features from macOS that I'm able to do almost all of the things that I like about macOS. Yes, the UI is mess but at least I have a lot of hardware options, especially as it relates to thermals and ports.

I have not had a Windows crash this year.
 
spacepawn said:
It took them must less than that for the powerpc -> intel transition. 2007 first intel mac, 2009 first macOS intel only, adobe dropped intel support. Having just 2 or 3 years tops of support for a latest gen device is not acceptable, I usually keep my machines for much longer than that and to make it worse it's not like I can install Linux on this easily and Bootcamp is crap. Honestly I've not had such problems with Windows lately that I use for work and the XPS 17 looks mighty tempting.
Click to expand...
Uh. Apple demonstrated Linux via virtualization so I have no idea what you are talking about. Unless there a reason you need the latest and greatest version of software computers last a minimum of 3-4 years for PC and 4-5 for Macs. Project Hangover for WINE (86/x86_64 Windows programs on 64-bit ARM) seems to be on track and unless the WINE community just sit on their hands odds are they will have something available by the time Apple puts Rosetta 2 out to pasture.

Furthermore, unlike the powerpc -> intel transition era Apple now has a sizable refurbish store which results in Macs up to three years old being available. The means Apple has incentive to keep Rosetta 2 around a little longer than we saw with Classic. Nevermind, Microsoft wants its ARM version of Windows to take off and Apple is likely the best way to make that dream a reality.
 
pshufd said:
I turned off my MacBook Pro and am just using Windows 10 right now. I find that it's extremely stable and they've copied so many features from macOS that I'm able to do almost all of the things that I like about macOS. Yes, the UI is mess but at least I have a lot of hardware options, especially as it relates to thermals and ports.

I have not had a Windows crash this year.
Click to expand...

Yep, windows is very stable these days and I rarely run into issues. In fact my Mac is less stable than my pc.
 
lJoSquaredl said:
So I know they edit smoothly, but will the ARM based MBPs be faster at transcoding/exporting video than my 2016 MBP does even if it doesn't have a dGPU like AMD? I've never seen an iPad Pro vs 2016-20 MBP comparison and they're unfair comparisons due to no FCPX on iPads, but is it comparable/better/worse?
Click to expand...

I think it will depend on what Apple's GPUs will be like. I saw a tech Youtuber speculating that for the ARM MBPs, Apple will have their own GPUs that are part of the Apple Silicon SoC with different accelerator cores on them to handle transcoding and other similar tasks. Think like a mobile version of the Afterburner card that is an option in the current Mac Pro that exists to accelerate ProRes encoding (and potentially other codecs, but right now it's just ProRes). Something along those lines makes sense to me. It's essentially what they already do with the T2 chip, which handles H.265/HEVC processing. So i think that will be expanded upon for ARM Macs. I can't imagine they don't have something in mind for this. They wouldn't drop AMD graphics if they didn't.
 
I know it's early but I wish Apple was sticking with Intel or AMD. I like the ability to install Windows or Linux. I am just not sure about the GPU capabilities as compared to a current MacBook Pro with an AMD GPU or a Windows laptop with an nVidia GPU. There are even thin Windows laptops with dedicated GPU's.

It just seems to me that the Mac's will be iPads with a keyboard and no touchscreen. I guess that remains to be seen.

I have an older 2015 MBP that I still love and I would have bought a 16", but I really don't want to invest in an Intel Mac at this point. I bought a Dell XPS 13.
 
robvas said:
They tried....no hardware maker cares enough to build a good ARM PC except for Apple
Click to expand...

Apple has spent a fortune on chip design and they've reaped rewards because of volume phone sales and then leveraged that expertise on PCs. That would be very hard to replicate. It's not just that Apple is good at designing chips - it's that they are world class and routinely beat other chipmakers in performance. They've been at this for over a decade and Microsoft isn't just going to come in and have a huge chip design team.
 
Basic75 said:
Good point, I really wonder whether Apple's shift to ARM will make Microsoft release a full Windows for ARM.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that this is part of Nvidia's plan to acquire ARM with the intention of producing chips for phones/tablets and likely Windows laptops in future.

The issue at the moment is that no ARM manufacturer has been able to create a chip which offers adequate performance to run a laptop or desktop computer and compete with x86 Intel/AMD options. Previous ARM Windows variants have offered terrible performance and incredibly poor compatibility with legacy software.

I'm sure that will change in the near future though as more companies focus their R&D on that sector.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanMan619
hungryghosty said:
I have a feeling that this is part of Nvidia's plan to acquire ARM with the intention of producing chips for phones/tablets and likely Windows laptops in future.

The issue at the moment is that no ARM manufacturer has been able to create a chip which offers adequate performance to run a laptop or desktop computer and compete with x86 Intel/AMD options.
Click to expand...

Uh did we forget about Apple who just demoed an ARM desktop that offers adequate performance even when running x86 Intel code? :)

hungryghosty said:
Previous ARM Windows variants have offered terrible performance and incredibly poor compatibility with legacy software.

I'm sure that will change in the near future though as more companies focus their R&D on that sector.
Click to expand...
Which is why I think Microsoft will try to team up with Apple as while they have a 32-bit translator their 64-ibt one is the amazing No Show. Apple's Rosetta 2 seriously kicks butt compared to other efforts to get 64-bit x86 code.
 
hungryghosty said:
I have a feeling that this is part of Nvidia's plan to acquire ARM with the intention of producing chips for phones/tablets and likely Windows laptops in future.

The issue at the moment is that no ARM manufacturer has been able to create a chip which offers adequate performance to run a laptop or desktop computer and compete with x86 Intel/AMD options. Previous ARM Windows variants have offered terrible performance and incredibly poor compatibility with legacy software.

I'm sure that will change in the near future though as more companies focus their R&D on that sector.
Click to expand...

The problem that Microsoft has is that they are a software and cloud company. If they spend the money on R&D, do they just make their own hardware or do they share that R&D with other PC manufacturers? What would be interesting is Microsoft buying AMD so that they could make Intel chips and then bring ARM chips to parity with Intel and AMD chips and then AMD could sell the chips to the PC companies.
 
pshufd said:
The problem that Microsoft has is that they are a software and cloud company. If they spend the money on R&D, do they just make their own hardware or do they share that R&D with other PC manufacturers? What would be interesting is Microsoft buying AMD so that they could make Intel chips and then bring ARM chips to parity with Intel and AMD chips and then AMD could sell the chips to the PC companies.
Click to expand...
I think Microsoft realized the x86 architecture was becoming a road to nowhere when they put out Windows for ARM two years ago. Also don't forget Microsoft makes hardware in the form of the Xbox (at a reasonable 35.77%) though I don't know if they could leverage that to get adoption of ARM on the PC to work.
 
Basic75 said:
So what? It's not like Apple will give the A14X to Microsoft for its devices?
Click to expand...

Apple is not known for sharing technology. They are more known for monopolistic practices.

I do. It see them giving away their ARM IP. It would have to be Microsoft and a bunch of other companies too. I don’t see them giving it to Google or Samsung, two of their rivals,
 
pshufd said:
Apple is not known for sharing technology. They are more known for monopolistic practices.

I do. It see them giving away their ARM IP. It would have to be Microsoft and a bunch of other companies too. I don’t see them giving it to Google or Samsung, two of their rivals,
Click to expand...
ARM is in a weird space as it is basically 'here are the guts of the design go nuts'. The relationship is akin to the square (ARM) - rectangle (AS) issue.
 
Maximara said:
ARM is in a weird space as it is basically 'here are the guts of the design go nuts'. The relationship is akin to the square (ARM) - rectangle (AS) issue.
Click to expand...

Apple is making operating systems, development tools, CPU/GPU architectural designs based on ARM. I do not see why they couldn't come up with their own architecture or just make their own x86 chips for their own use (by licensing from Intel). Yes, they save money in architecture and design using ARM but they have the scale to roll their own architecture as well.
 
spacepawn said:
It took them must less than that for the powerpc -> intel transition. 2007 first intel mac, 2009 first macOS intel only, adobe dropped intel support. Having just 2 or 3 years tops of support for a latest gen device is not acceptable, I usually keep my machines for much longer than that and to make it worse it's not like I can install Linux on this easily and Bootcamp is crap. Honestly I've not had such problems with Windows lately that I use for work and the XPS 17 looks mighty tempting.
Click to expand...
Actually, Apple itself didn't kill Rosetta until Lion (July 20, 2011) So Apple was still supporting PowerPC code via Rosseta for nearly two years after Snow Leopard (August 28, 2009).

I don't know why people keep harping on Adobe because, newsflash, Adobe is not the only software maker out there. Given how long Adobe held on to supporting Flash even after it stopped being relevant with HTML5, we know that if Adobe thinks it can continue to make money on a product it will support it even after it effectively becomes an extra in Night of the Living Dead. :p

Apple supported PowerPC code even with Intel macs from January 2006 to July 20, 2011 or to put it bluntly Apple did NOT stop support for Rosetta (ie PowerPC code) until 2011. 2009 was the end of the line for the hardware not the software. So Apple supported PowerPC code for nearly two years after it became clear that the PowerPC was effectively a road to nowhere.

So this claim of "2 or 3 years tops of support for a latest gen device" is is NOT supported by what happened with the PowerPC to Intel transition. Based on the PowerPC to Intel transition a 5-6 year window of support is more realistic. Heck, with Apple referbed store which can sale Mac as old as three years a 6-7 year support window might be possible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back