The iPhone already matches the fastest of Tiger Lake and Zen 3 in single core. Add two more high performance cores and the A14 will be running circles around Tiger Lake - even at the same 3.0ghz frequency the phones use.
Last edited:
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.
ARM based MacBook Pro discussion [merged]
- Thread starter Omega Mac
- Start date
-
- Tags
- arm intel macbook pro macos sierra
- Sort by reaction score
The iPhone already matches the fastest of Tiger Lake and Zen 3 in single core. Add two more high performance cores and the A14 will be running circles around Tiger Lake - even at the same 3.0ghz frequency the phones use.
Apple doesn’t need 45 watts to beat Tiger Lake processors. They won’t need half that much.
I'd bet they don't need that much to beat Rocket lake when the appear next year.
Maybe I’m just a pessimist, but I have a nagging feeling that AS Mac performance won’t be as crazy of an improvement in speed/power and/or energy efficiency over intel as a lot of people are expecting it to be. Maybe it’s not so straightforward to extrapolate the performance to higher wattages and thermal capacities, and with a desktop OS. Maybe it’s more complicated than we’re making it out to be. I don’t know much about anything so I can’t say why I think this—it’s just a feeling. I do think it will be a major improvement in certain regards and an improvement overall, otherwise I don’t think Apple would be making this move, but I just don’t think it will be such a wild improvement in every regard, as people are projecting. I’m trying to manage my expectations, but again maybe it’s just pessimism. Happy to be refuted.
Why would it be more complicated? I think you might be overestimating the difference between a desktop OS and a mobile OS. Sure, the desktop has to run more applications at the same time, but it also has more RAM. I have seen people suggesting that a desktop OS is somehow more "taxing" on the CPU, but that doesn't make much sense to me — both desktop and mobile OS have hundreds of threads in flight, most of which are either suspended or on very low priority. If anything, the efficiency cores of A-series CPUs will make an even bigger difference on desktop, since backgrounds tasks like indexing, backups and data fetches can be delegated to them, saving tremendous amounts of energy. Similar considerations go for cache. A-series pack more cache per core than most server-grade CPUs, which will be a great bonus for many complex workloads.
As to the rest... performance and efficiency characteristics of A-series CPUs are pretty much known. The conservative estimate is the A14 in the iPhone. Desktop performance can't really get lower than that, with higher TDP, more/faster RAM and faster SSDs. And we know that the iPhone 12 is basically on par with Tiger Lake when you look at core-to-core performance. So that is the most conservative estimate we can get for new Macs. Frankly, I don't expect big surprises here. We will get a compact ultraportable that will run miles around the likes of XPS 13" while probably being cheaper.
Where I agree with you that skepticism is prudent is with the higher-end segment. We just don't know how well these things will scale. Is 3.0 ghz the practical limit or can Apple get it to 3.5 ghz? How many cores can they fit in? How big can they make the GPU? Will their SoC approach break down on higher-end Macs? These are the big unknowns that Apple will have to answer within the next two years.
I'd caution against comparing Geekbench scores and proclaiming A14 is on par with Tiger Lake and Zen 3. On that note.
The Surface Pro X scores very similar to Intel i5 10210U but the latter runs circles around Surface Pro X in Windows 10, at literally everything. In fact, the Surface Pro X is a classic example of how synthetic benchmarks cannot be trusted to represent real world usage.
We will see soon (next week) whether AS is up to the task, but I'd say:
1. Apple most likely won't come out with worse performing machines. So we know performance will be good. What's unknown is how power scaling will work here. Real world would say: it's not linear. I'd believe AS is more efficient than whatever Intel can cook up, but perhaps not by as much as many are thinking. We may get 10 hours of battery life with the first AS Macs but I'm not expecting more. And I'm also not expecting fanless.
2. There is no way in hell they'll sell AS Macs for cheap. Even if they can make the chips for cheaper than whatever Intel is selling them, the fact is that Apple still has to recoup R&D costs. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if AS Macs are even more expensive than their Intel counterparts.
3. Graphics performance is the big unknown here. Will Apple be able to match Navi 2 performance? Also, it's worth noting that Big Sur already has references to new AMD GPUs, so that makes graphics performance of AS chips not so amazing. Beating Intel's integrated solution is honestly not really all that impressive.
4. And what about support for Thunderbolt 3 eGPU? Will AMD provide AS-specific drivers? Or are our external GPUs worthless now? Granted, they weren't even that useful before, but quite a few of us have eGPU docking stations in our current setups. I'm curious if Apple will still allow eGPUs to be connected. If not, it's not a big deal to me, but it means my AS Mac is less "upgradable" than my Intel Mac then.
I wouldn't bet on there being no catch at all for the first AS Macs. Realistically, I'd say I can safely assume performance is about on par with my current Intel Macs, and maybe the chips will run cooler overall, but I honestly think many are extrapolating too much on synthetic benchmarks
The Surface Pro X scores very similar to Intel i5 10210U but the latter runs circles around Surface Pro X in Windows 10, at literally everything. In fact, the Surface Pro X is a classic example of how synthetic benchmarks cannot be trusted to represent real world usage.
We will see soon (next week) whether AS is up to the task, but I'd say:
1. Apple most likely won't come out with worse performing machines. So we know performance will be good. What's unknown is how power scaling will work here. Real world would say: it's not linear. I'd believe AS is more efficient than whatever Intel can cook up, but perhaps not by as much as many are thinking. We may get 10 hours of battery life with the first AS Macs but I'm not expecting more. And I'm also not expecting fanless.
2. There is no way in hell they'll sell AS Macs for cheap. Even if they can make the chips for cheaper than whatever Intel is selling them, the fact is that Apple still has to recoup R&D costs. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if AS Macs are even more expensive than their Intel counterparts.
3. Graphics performance is the big unknown here. Will Apple be able to match Navi 2 performance? Also, it's worth noting that Big Sur already has references to new AMD GPUs, so that makes graphics performance of AS chips not so amazing. Beating Intel's integrated solution is honestly not really all that impressive.
4. And what about support for Thunderbolt 3 eGPU? Will AMD provide AS-specific drivers? Or are our external GPUs worthless now? Granted, they weren't even that useful before, but quite a few of us have eGPU docking stations in our current setups. I'm curious if Apple will still allow eGPUs to be connected. If not, it's not a big deal to me, but it means my AS Mac is less "upgradable" than my Intel Mac then.
I wouldn't bet on there being no catch at all for the first AS Macs. Realistically, I'd say I can safely assume performance is about on par with my current Intel Macs, and maybe the chips will run cooler overall, but I honestly think many are extrapolating too much on synthetic benchmarks
Hello guys, I tried to read parts of this thread, but I really have to say that most posts are way to technical for me (even more for a not native English speaker) and I really would appreciate if something could tell me:
I bought just 10 days ago the MBP 13" 2020 and it's my first Apple MBP. I bought it even though I knew there were rumors on that a new one with new technology will come soon. Since of all this Covid delays I thought it will be begin of 2021 and I need a working laptop latest in december this year.
So now I am here not knowing what to do. On my MBP battery and heat is not great but well... if the new one doesnt support most stuff it is also not helpful. I know there is not a sure and perfect answer but can someone give me in a not too technical way an overcview (pros/cons) why I should give back my MBP 13" 2020 and instead buy in around 2-3 weeks the newer one? THANKS A LOT!!
(btw. I hope I can give it back still, since I live in Vienna and the store is closed due to the terrible attack yesterday night and they think the store wont open up this week again)
I bought just 10 days ago the MBP 13" 2020 and it's my first Apple MBP. I bought it even though I knew there were rumors on that a new one with new technology will come soon. Since of all this Covid delays I thought it will be begin of 2021 and I need a working laptop latest in december this year.
So now I am here not knowing what to do. On my MBP battery and heat is not great but well... if the new one doesnt support most stuff it is also not helpful. I know there is not a sure and perfect answer but can someone give me in a not too technical way an overcview (pros/cons) why I should give back my MBP 13" 2020 and instead buy in around 2-3 weeks the newer one? THANKS A LOT!!
(btw. I hope I can give it back still, since I live in Vienna and the store is closed due to the terrible attack yesterday night and they think the store wont open up this week again)
It’s best to wait until November 10th the day of the event. Nobody really knows what’s going to be announced for sure.
Another vote for 'wait until 11/10 to see what's coming.' The new machines will likely have better battery life and run cooler. They will support and run most existing macOS software through Rosetta (software that translates applications for use on the new Macs), but you will not be able to install Windows via Boot Camp as you could on Intel Macs.
If you watch the 11/10 event live or via replay many of the aspects of your concern will likely be explained in simple terminology by Apple's leadership team. I am guessing the new 13" machines will ship in late November / early December but that is only a guess on my part.
So normals "Apps" such as Photoshop, Lightroom etc. will work just fine on the new one? Also basic stuff like Zoom, Skype etc?
Apple has indicated they expect to release new Intel systems during the transition and those won’t have Apple GPU’s so that makes sense.
They'll work mostly fine. Rosetta will probably run the majority of apps fine but it's not a guarantee to run perfectly until the app developer codes an Apple Silicon native version of the app. But yes for the majority of things Rosetta will likely be a good hold you over solution with no major noticeable differences in useability. If you use apps for paid work, it would be a risk to get an Apple Silicon Mac until you can get some reviews of how well Rosetta runs the apps you need.
1) I agree with this point fully. People are expecting the Moon and need to tone it down.
2) This is where people keep stumbling - R&D has already been "recouped" in the form of iPhone and iPad sales. Besides Apple will want people to flock to the AS Macs ASAP.
3) Apple supposedly has its own AS GPUs planned but they have to have something to get theAS CPU to the masses
4) I think AMD knows that ARM is the future and writing ARM drivers for eGPUs would be good practice.
I would think R&D for the Mac side is separate. That's how big corporations typically work. Just because everyone lives under the same Apple roof doesn't mean one department's profits will "save" the other product lines.
Also I don't think Apple needs to get AS CPUs to the masses... with the Mac. They already have products that are pushing AS CPUs to the masses: the iPhone and iPad. The Mac line is looking like it'll be glorified machines to write codes on.
AMD still has their x86 business, and they are killing it with the Xbox Series X and PS5. They are in no hurry to get on the ARM bandwagon. I think you are confusing AMD with nVidia...
Also I don't think Apple needs to get AS CPUs to the masses... with the Mac. They already have products that are pushing AS CPUs to the masses: the iPhone and iPad. The Mac line is looking like it'll be glorified machines to write codes on.
AMD still has their x86 business, and they are killing it with the Xbox Series X and PS5. They are in no hurry to get on the ARM bandwagon. I think you are confusing AMD with nVidia...
I agree with your points, and here are my thoughts:
1. 1000% agree - Apple is going to make sure at a minimum that the cpu geekbench style scores show some kind of significant improvement over the last gen/intel. Now, the question is how much they want to balance better battery life which they have always emphasized vs. performance. It would be amazing if they provided a performance/power setting like windows machines have for years (i.e. low power, balanced, high performance). You could leave the macbook running super cool ARM for every day tasks and then just ramp it up when you need it. I also agree that the 13 pro will still have fans. If they want to compete on performance, they are still limited on the thin chassis size, and an ARM chip will still probably be cranking out 15-20w relative to the old 28w - not exactly the same as a little 5w phone style cpu.
2. Agree. Apple is all about profit. Maaaaybe we'll see $100 breaks at the lowest models so they can address more markets, but probably not much more than that. Honestly I just wish they'd not upcharge so much for more RAM... +$400 to move from 16gb to 32gb is so painful, especially since it's only a net difference of 16gb.
3/4. I know the least about this or what Apple can do. Even Tiger Lake's Xe graphics aren't really that impressive with a 100% improvement, but would be good enough for me. Not sure what GPU possibilities are out there for nvidia/amd + ARM. There's no doubt that Apple will support TB4 though. (which is really not that different than TB3).
Not Apple though. They don't have product divisions. They only have teams. The entire company tracks one P/L.
Apple University Dean Shares Deep Dive Into Apple's Organizational Structure
Apple University dean and vice president Joel Podolny today wrote an in-depth article on Apple's organizational structure for Harvard Business...
www.macrumors.com
I think you may be reading too much into that.Not Apple though. They don't have product divisions. They only have teams. The entire company tracks one P/L.
Apple University Dean Shares Deep Dive Into Apple's Organizational Structure
Apple University dean and vice president Joel Podolny today wrote an in-depth article on Apple's organizational structure for Harvard Business...
The article seemingly suggests there is no single "Mac department" but there must be clear lines. If all product lines are made up to "watch each other's back" per se, it means the Macs selling poorly will cause iPhone and iPad prices to rise. That makes no sense.
Note that engineering is not involved in pricing decision (a quote from that article itself), so pricing of any product line may still be differentiated by finance based on how much has been invested into that line. And I'd be very surprised if they don't account for Apple Silicon on the Mac side as separate from the other lines.
The bottom line is... honestly, this is an opportunity for Apple to raise prices, just as they did with the iPhone 12, and the iPad Air that were announced earlier this year. I doubt Apple will pass up on this opportunity.
He’d definitely have knifed the Mac by now.
I would say it’s more a question of marketshare. There aren’t many Mac gamers OR Mac games because, compared to PC, there aren’t many Macs. If, say 30% of all the PC’s sold every year make up PC’s that folks would buy games for, then consider that 30% of a MUCH smaller number of Macs would be a Mac publisher’s target. Not worth the effort for many.
Those markets are being addressed now by iOS/iPadOS, though, so they wouldn’t need to lower the price of a Mac to reach those.
I'm not sure why people are being pessimistic about likely & comparative performance. I expect all the chips to blow away their recent Intel equivalents. Was there not some extrapolation done by one of the Apple tech sites based on the A14 chip which showed just that?
What tablet has a i5-10210U and runs Windows 10? Can you show a video of this tablet in comparison to the Surface Pro X that shows this behavior?
Of course. Those Intel and AMD chips are in packages that support much higher bandwidth memory and IO interfaces than the A14 mobile SOC package.
I expect an Apple SOC designed and packaged for laptops and desktops to have IO interfaces on the SOC that supports much higher bandwidths and numbers of IO channels. Those bandwidths aren't required for mobile chips for mobile devices with only 1 IO port (Lightning) and smaller sizes of lower-power storage modules and RAM.
The bigger AS SOC will boost sets of large footprint apps to performance levels comparable with the Geekbench numbers.
Lenovo Yoga Duet 7.
- Office Depot
I don't have both the Duet 7 and Surface Pro X right now so I can't make a video. You may just have to take my words for it, but it's not hard to find a Youtube video of somebody complaining about the performance of the Pro X. It's abysmal despite the high geekbench score. I gave up on it after a month.
The Duet 7 is a much more responsive tablet overall.
Why should we just take your word for it?Lenovo Yoga Duet 7.
- Office Depot
www.officedepot.com
I don't have both the Duet 7 and Surface Pro X right now so I can't make a video. You may just have to take my words for it, but it's not hard to find a Youtube video of somebody complaining about the performance of the Pro X. It's abysmal despite the high geekbench score. I gave up on it after a month.
The Duet 7 is a much more responsive tablet overall.
Please stop making claims you aren’t willing or able to back up with evidence.
Then please also show me definitive video proof that Geekbench scores show actual performance difference in all cases.
If you cannot, then please stop trying to ask me to provide evidence.