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]

I've never read that many BS and Supine post on a single theme about Apple, almost EVERYBODY HERE IS MISINFORMED.

1st APPLE IS WORK TO SUPPORT ARM PLATFORM ON MAC OS DUE 2007 AT LEAST.

2nd ARM SUPPORTS PCIe2 and PCIe3 even is planned it to support PCIe4

3rd ARM ISN'T INTENDED TO REPLACE INTEL CPUs ( YET ), ARM Still on halfway to reach Intel IPC performance (while at half speed it spends only 15% of the CPU power), BUT ARM SHOULD MATCH INTEL SOMETIME AT 2019-2020 TIME FRAME (ASSUMING INTEL DON'T IMPROVE IT'S IPC).

4th DESPITE SOME BENCHMARKS ON A10 PERFORMANCE MATCHING OR BEATING SOME XEON, THOSE BENCHMARKS AREN'T RUNNING THE SAME OS, iOS is a MINIMAL SUBSET OF macOS with ALL MAC OS KERNEL SERVICE (AND PROTECTIONS) RUNNING ITS PERFORMANCE COLLAPSES TO HALF AT LEAST (THIS IS WHY WE HAVE GPUs ACCELERATING SOFTWARE coz GPU's RUN ITS OWN KERNEL FREE OF SUCH SERVICES/PROTECTIONS, SAME DOES THE XEON-PHY).

5th THE MOST LIKELY EARLIER MAC ON ARM WILL BE A SERVER AND/OR AN EDUCATIVE MACBOOK, THE SERVER MAY COME AS HOME NAS TO REPLACE TIMECAPSULE AND AS CLOUD FARM RACK MOUNTED APPLIANCE, The Educational MacBook Has SENSE since APPLE DON'T HAVE PRODUCTS IN THIS MARKET (Sub-300) AND SCHOOLS DON'T WANNA TEACH macOS ON 1000$ MacBooks.

Take it easy, an ARM MacBook Pro Will Arrive some time in 2020-2021.

Don't Cry Intel Haters, Don't Cry Yet, its an Sure Bet Apple WILL ADOPT AMD ZEN as CPU for MacBooks/iMac on Q4/17.

Don't Agree? a Bit of Google-Fú will corroborate what I said.
 
Last edited:
I, for one, will not be buying an ARM based Mac. I'll stick to my Intel based Macs for as long as I can then I'll move to Linux and Windows 10 (I'm already using Linux and Windows 10 on the side).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cape Dave, phrehdd and ssgbryan
bse5150 said:
I, for one, will not be buying an ARM based Mac. I'll stick to my Intel based Macs for as long as I can then I'll move to Linux and Windows 10 (I'm already using Linux and Windows 10 on the side).
Click to expand...

If an ARM-based Mac could achieve the same kind of performance your Intel-based Mac can currently, you would still not use one?
 
bbnck said:
If an ARM-based Mac could achieve the same kind of performance your Intel-based Mac can currently, you would still not use one?
Click to expand...

No - Because I wouldn't have any software.
I don't see software houses doing 2 architecture jumps in a decade - not for the amount of software sold.
 
dogslobber said:
http://www.iclarified.com/57138/apple-adds-arm-support-to-macos-sierra-kernel

This pretty much nails it, folks. Quad core ARM in an Apple TV firm factor running Sierra.

Note that you CAN run Windows 10 on ARM so boot camp support is still there.
Click to expand...

You quite sure about that? The version of Windows that runs on ARM was called Windows RT. The two versions are distinct and different architectures and couldn't run Intel x86 code for obvious reasons.

Emulating the x86 architecture in ARM would be a painfully obvious thing for Apple to avoid for performance reasons so I always thought that if they created a version of MacOS to run on ARM chips they'd be for the lower end of the market and would exclusively run apps signed from a nominal ARM Mac App Store.

I saw the Gatekeeper function on modern versions of MacOS as the starter for that technology.

Ideally, we'd be considering a cheap 12.9" 'Mac' laptop with iPad Pro 2 and A10X Fusion as the base hardware in 2017 and perhaps coming during the lifetime of Sierra say, in March, when we might expect a refresh of iPads. This laptop would sit beneath the Retina Macbook and might be a device that comes with Cellular connectivity built in to set it apart from the Retina Macbook. The CPU benchmarks might suggest it can keep up with a Macbook Pro from 2012 but we need to see what the GPU can do in an iPad Pro.

In other commentary, the Mac Mini could not go AppleTV sized unless Apple were going to use flash storage only (dispensing with the 2.5" hard drive) and have people pay for additional space through iCloud's storage management facilities (Desktop and Document) introduced via MacOS Sierra (although, obviously, there are snafus for advanced users as with many iCloud 'features'). It doesn't make for a 'cheap' computer but should be fast performing I guess.

Although it's a candidate for light media serving duty we'd really need to see versions of FCPX and Logic Pro X for any new device to show that it's usable as a computer.
 
sublunar said:
You quite sure about that? The version of Windows that runs on ARM was called Windows RT. The two versions are distinct and different architectures and couldn't run Intel x86 code for obvious reasons.

Emulating the x86 architecture in ARM would be a painfully obvious thing for Apple to avoid for performance reasons so I always thought that if they created a version of MacOS to run on ARM chips they'd be for the lower end of the market and would exclusively run apps signed from a nominal ARM Mac App Store.

I saw the Gatekeeper function on modern versions of MacOS as the starter for that technology.

Ideally, we'd be considering a cheap 12.9" 'Mac' laptop with iPad Pro 2 and A10X Fusion as the base hardware in 2017 and perhaps coming during the lifetime of Sierra say, in March, when we might expect a refresh of iPads. This laptop would sit beneath the Retina Macbook and might be a device that comes with Cellular connectivity built in to set it apart from the Retina Macbook. The CPU benchmarks might suggest it can keep up with a Macbook Pro from 2012 but we need to see what the GPU can do in an iPad Pro.

In other commentary, the Mac Mini could not go AppleTV sized unless Apple were going to use flash storage only (dispensing with the 2.5" hard drive) and have people pay for additional space through iCloud's storage management facilities (Desktop and Document) introduced via MacOS Sierra (although, obviously, there are snafus for advanced users as with many iCloud 'features'). It doesn't make for a 'cheap' computer but should be fast performing I guess.

Although it's a candidate for light media serving duty we'd really need to see versions of FCPX and Logic Pro X for any new device to show that it's usable as a computer.
Click to expand...

"It is striking that developers no longer send the final binaries when submitting an app, but a bit code. This bit code is then used by Apple to convert the application to the specific platform. Which means that Apple can easily make the transition to a different instruction set, for example, switching from x86 to ARM without all apps need to be resubmitted. It is probably also one of the reasons why legacy applications have recently been removed from the App Store."

This link shows the power of the GPU in the iPad pros:

http://barefeats.com/ipadpro2.html
 
If Apple can give me an arm based Mac mini that has 256gb SSD and 8gb ram for $499 I'll be all over it. I really only use the apple suite of apps so it would have me covered.
 
poorcody said:
True, in fact at some point the overhead of cores can actually slow things down. Although, in practical terms, you could probably make decent use of say an 8-core processor at least on a desktop. Remember you're not just providing threads to one running application, but to the many processes the OS is running. (The speed of shuffling data in and out of the processor becomes the main issue quickly, although separate caches for each core can help with that, sometimes significantly.)

There's something called "Amdahl's Law" that tries to quantify cores/processors versus performance. Here is a graph of what they came up with:
Amdahl.png


That's from: http://www.extremetech.com/computin...m-one-core-to-many-and-why-were-still-stuck/2
Click to expand...
Most of the tasks the processor has to switch for concurrent execution tend to have high latencies. That's why performance doesn't get better. The only place where you gain something out of the use of several cores is when you paralelize tasks that make an intensive use of the processor like for example rendering 3D graphics.

That graphic makes no sense as they don't explain what they tested and code they used to make it. Not always you are getting that high speedup for paralelizing 95% of your code. It depends on what the code does. "paralelize all things" makes as little sense as "increase cores on all things".
 
Omega Mac said:
I don't understand this point. I have Mac's running on Intel core 2 duos, they run El Capitan fine (these a SL gen machines) and yet the Geekbench score of my iPhone 6s in far in excess of these machines in terms of raw processing power I am assuming. My point is that power is not an issue since Mac can run fine on much older and far less powerful Intel CPU's. (Maybe there is a technical aspect I am missing that means rather than things been apples vs apples we really are dealing with apples vs oranges)

The Ax Chips in a Mac as the previous poster pointed out will come in far cheaper for Mac, with greater control, if power is a problem they can beef it up by including for e.g. 4 A10 chips in a MacBook (16 cores!!! 8 high power and 8 low power). The format facto is so huge compared to a iPhone, they may be so liberate dint eh way they can design their internal configuration you might see totally new thinking in how machine are put together. I imagine that would be a huge attraction because then the build cost come down even more not just the cup inclusion.

The main issue at this point seems to be the Intel backward compatibility at this point.

'Course Intel will be fabbing these Mac Ax chips either way! ;)
[doublepost=1475355117][/doublepost]

Exactly. This is a huge motivation for Apple, money!

If you can reduce the amount of 3rd party components that makes your final package (because Apple are all about the whole final package) you can reduce your cost, increase your margin and maybe even reduce your retail price points and win on every level.

AMR'd Mac are not far away. Closer than many care to believe.
Click to expand...




Lol you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Can't just add cores and expect better performance. There is a reason why adding an Intel i7 for a workstation with 16 cores and say a 2 ghz isn't better than say a consumer i7 with 4 cores at 3.5ghz. Each core runs at max 2 ghz for the first example and 3.5ghz for the second. A lot of consumer products can only utilize one to two threads at a time so having more cores is useless. As I said before you don't have a grasp on how Intel chips work or even cpu's in general so there is no point in explaining further but in essence you can't just slap in an ARM chip and expect programs to work. I would take a 2 ghz intel ( amd even) dual core over a theoretical say a A11 with a dual core clocked at 3 ghz....
 
dogslobber said:
"It is striking that developers no longer send the final binaries when submitting an app, but a bit code. This bit code is then used by Apple to convert the application to the specific platform. Which means that Apple can easily make the transition to a different instruction set, for example, switching from x86 to ARM without all apps need to be resubmitted. It is probably also one of the reasons why legacy applications have recently been removed from the App Store."

This link shows the power of the GPU in the iPad pros:

http://barefeats.com/ipadpro2.html
Click to expand...

That reads for me like developers can easily create a binary from one codebase that will run on an appropriate version of macOS (i.e. Intel or ARM). It doesn't mean that a binary designed for Intel will run on an ARM platform. It won't, and emulation would be unacceptably slow.

Back during the PPC to Intel transition days Apple had people creating Universal binaries containing both versions of a program that would run on both Intel and PPC but Apple used the Rosetta technology to allow vastly more powerful Intel CPUs to emulate PPC CPUs running the older OS.

One Adobe related example is Adobe Photoshop CS3 - worked on both PPC and Intel at the cost of an inflated size app because both binaries were in the same package.

Emulated PPC apps were never as fast as on a native fast G5 unless the host Intel Mac was a particularly powerful one (e.g. Mac Pro) although early Intel Mac iterations started with Core, moved to Core 2 and soon outpaced the old PPC technology.

Ah the good old days of double digit improvements by Intel!

It would be a mistake to assume that an ARM Mac would be able to emulate Intel for Intel binaries at anything like the speed that Intel emulated PPC. Remember how slow a G4 or G5 was when emulating Intel for VirtualPC? Bootcamp and modern software like Parallels and VMWare Fusion all take advantage of the fact that Windows and current macOS stuff both run on Intel so Windows runs at 100% full speed on the same hardware as a Mac.

At the highest end of the CPU market there's no competition for Intel and they know it. AMD may come close with their Zen architecture but there's been no official benchmarks yet and all signs point to close but no cigar - or more cores and better onboard graphics but in no way toppling Intel for single threaded raw power.

And I'll point out again that with Gatekeeper technology an ARM powered Mac would in fact be a third platform alongside iOS and macOS (Intel). Apple don't have to persuade developers to create Universal Binaries that take up precious disk space because there's no defined transition period at the moment.

They could in fact force adoption of Mac App Store for directly downloaded binaries, keeping their 30% cut of in-app purchases and paid-for app prices in the same way that Sony and Microsoft take their commission for Xbox and PS4 software. That's another nice revenue stream for them.
 
sublunar said:
That reads for me like developers can easily create a binary from one codebase that will run on an appropriate version of macOS (i.e. Intel or ARM). It doesn't mean that a binary designed for Intel will run on an ARM platform. It won't, and emulation would be unacceptably slow.

Back during the PPC to Intel transition days Apple had people creating Universal binaries containing both versions of a program that would run on both Intel and PPC but Apple used the Rosetta technology to allow vastly more powerful Intel CPUs to emulate PPC CPUs running the older OS.

[...]

They could in fact force adoption of Mac App Store for directly downloaded binaries, keeping their 30% cut of in-app purchases and paid-for app prices in the same way that Sony and Microsoft take their commission for Xbox and PS4 software. That's another nice revenue stream for them.
Click to expand...

This is all supposition on your part. I certainly never mentioned emulating x86 on ARM which would be futile. As for locking down any ARM based system to run Mac App Store only programs, that would be broken within 10 minutes on an open OS like Sierra.
 
dogslobber said:
This is all supposition on your part. I certainly never mentioned emulating x86 on ARM which would be futile. As for locking down any ARM based system to run Mac App Store only programs, that would be broken within 10 minutes on an open OS like Sierra.
Click to expand...

I thought that's what you meant when you said in our OP: "Note that you CAN run Windows 10 on ARM so boot camp support is still there."

The original link in your OP makes no mention of Windows which I makes your Windows 10 statement a bit of a leap on your part.

I pointed out that it would have to be a special version of Windows 10 called Windows 10 RT (written for ARM cpus) which is not binary compatible with Intel compiled Windows software and is also crucially discontinued.

Microsoft's modern Surface tablets appear to all run Intel CPUs now including the Y series CPUs in the Retina Macbook making full-fat Windows the default OS.

Any ARM macOS product is better off being a standalone platform but it'll crucially be without the ability to run Windows because its not running on an Intel chip and I can only see the average punter getting very confused about why their 'Mac' couldn't run some software. Remember not every piece of software on 3rd party websites will have ARM versions so it's better for Apple to draw a line under those and use the App Store.

I'm more interested in how cheap Apple can make such a system and if they can do something really interesting with it such as making a 2 or 4 bay NAS (Time Capsule Pro). Obviously we're better off looking at iPad Pro prices as a comparison of product prices.
 
dogslobber said:
http://www.iclarified.com/57138/apple-adds-arm-support-to-macos-sierra-kernel

This pretty much nails it, folks. Quad core ARM in an Apple TV firm factor running Sierra.
Click to expand...

Thank you Mr. Slobber. (Down boy; no licking!)

I did not see the part about the form factor.

Still it is hard to figure how the relatively small production runs of the laptops and the mini justify building a new chip at a cost of millions. My guess is the chips must be the same as those in the telephones. Sheesh!
 
All of the people complaining have to see the same exact comments on the PPC vs Intel thread when the bombshell announcement was made.
 
leman said:
It wasn't the same Windows, thats the point. I don't know details as I never looked into WinRT in any depth, but I have read a lot of complains that APIS were missing or shifted.
Click to expand...

It was a huge failure because you weren't able to run any Win32 or .NET apps, except a few Microsoft apps like Office which were actually also stripped down RT versions that had most of the important features of the 'full version' of Office.
 
I must ask.

Where does it says there's going to be a 2016 MM? And where does it says there CPUs are for computers and not for development reasons?

Basically, I'm asking how the heck you concluded there's going to be 2016 ARM MM or any other device.
 
Omega Mac said:
Note: Please merge if there is an ARM thread that is more fitting for my post but I couldn't find one after multiple searches and/or place it in the more relevant forum. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I object to (am pissed about) the Macrumors minders moving these blogs around (they call it merging threads - who cares if there are two threads?) because I can never find them once they do. There was a perfectly good thread about ARM MM and now where is it? I do not want to read about laptops or some other topic to learn about the MM.
 
Apple doesn't seem to be in a hurry to update the computer line.
Sure there's speculation that a refresh is coming.

Based on the upgrade trends the next generation MBP and MacBook lines just might be ARM based.
 
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