dGPU is dead with Apple Silicon, meaning that eGPUs are also dead?

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm actually not assuming that the only part of the console hardware that matters is the GPU. That's not at all what I'm saying. You read the completely wrong thing into what I was saying.

Apparently two can play at that.

They have performant enough hardware to compete with consoles today.

But most consumers are not aware of this.

They support using existing industry standard controllers on ALL of their platforms (excluding watchOS for obvious reasons).

But most consumers are not aware of this.

These are controllers that have already been adopted by gamers and developers alike.

But most consumers are not aware of this.

Saying that Apple's only drawback here is a killer controller is completely missing the point.

Heres where you read into my post wrong. A killer controller from Apple is a gimmick. Something to gain attention if done right. Apple's problem is that no-one knows the Apple TV is a games console. For one thing, it has TV in the name so its not obvious there. Most people probably think its a subscription streaming service (Because it sounds almost exactly like an actual subscription streaming service, especially when people get bored of saying the full name of the service half way through and drop the 'plus' from the end).

Most consumers don't know the AppleTV box exists. Only a small subset of the ones that do, know its any good for games. A smaller subset of those know it can use adequate games controllers (Consoles have controllers in the box right? Wouldn't be much good without them!)
If Apple wants it to work as a console they probably ought to change its box to something bigger with flashing RGB lighting on it and a couple of games controllers in the box. At the very least a bolt-on-type controller so you can use your iPhone or something. Maybe they could get Phone carriers to push these bundles with phone contracts? Throw in an iTunes gift card to buy a few titles for good measure.

There is no consumer awareness of the AppleTV box at all, let alone of it being a decent console. Because Apple still calls it a hobby. Or did the last time they even bothered to mention it anywhere at all.

Meanwhile, this has been happening for years:

Apple's problem is software. Developers need to develop Apple's way in order to make games sing on an Apple TV, let alone an Apple Silicon Mac. Developers begrudgingly do this on the iPhone because it makes up such a large percentage of the mobile market and they do it for the iPad because the iPad ~98% of the tablet market. But there's no such incentive to do this on the Apple TV and now that Apple is effectively leaving the common processor architecture (x86), making GPUs that don't operate the way GPUs do on PCs, Intel Macs, consoles, there's not much incentive to get AAA gaming on a Mac, especially when Mac and PC users alike keep bashing the idea of gaming on the Mac. Plus, at least OpenGL was an industry standard, unlike Metal which is Apple proprietary. These things matter to the developers that would make the games. Not the controller.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Games that run on iPhone will run on AppleTV without much modification no?
The modification comes down to the controller. I think I mentioned controllers somewhere before....

Developers will make the best games they can when they have a lucrative enough market to build for. Apple users spend more money. When iOS games can be played on Macs too, they will embrace the whole system and make their games scalable across all devices.

Epic started the current fight. But they started it due to Apple's (and Google's) in-app purchase fee structure which, if you are a developer, is not insubstantial.

Its not but when you can charge £10-100 x several thousand users for a set of shiny pixels that took a couple of people a few days work to make, and do that every week, sometimes multiple times per week, 30% off the top doesn't seem like something you should bitch about too much.

Anyway, who started it and why is beside the point. Apple kicking off the Unreal Engine for pretty much every platform they have in response to that fight will cost them in the gaming arena and they can't really afford to be losing battles there. It will further the notion that anyone needing a Mac for most high-end purposes should look to Windows instead.

I'm with you as far as the idea that kicking Unreal altogether is a somewhat risky move, but the last sentence is a rather bizarre stretch. Doesn't seem even vaguely relevant really.

 

[CMMChris]

Another hint at dropped support for 3rd party GPUs on macOS ARM:

According to a tweet from a retired engineer who goes by the Twitter handle of @chiakokua, Chinese publication Commercial Times reveals that Apple will start relying on home-grown 5nm Graphics Processing Units (GPU) during the second half of next year. The chips will have a code name of Lifuka. Because of the revised U.S. export rules, TSMC will not be allowed to manufacture 5nm chips for Huawei after September 14th. However, there are no worries for TSMC since the 5nm production capacity that opened up in the light of the new U.S. export rules has been grabbed by Apple for its new GPU line.
(..)
Apple has reportedly dropped support for the AMD produced GPUs used in the macOS ARM 64-bit operating system.

Apple said to design its own GPU chips for production during the second half of 2021

There is speculation that Apple is replacing AMD's GPU chips with its own in-house designed GPU which will be available starting in the second half of next year for certain Apple devices.

www.phonearena.com

 

[Unregistered 4U]

When Apple Silcom comes to marz(ket it is going to have to be better than Intel and AMD options. Anyone that has NOT bought an Apple product specifically because it doesn’t support 6 screens may simply continue to not purchase Apple products.

It doesn’t have to be better than Intel and AMD. As you can see on Apple’s marketing pages for their products, they never compare against other systems anymore. These ONLY have to be better than the last comparable Mac.

Again, do you have sources for this? Would love to see them.

There are other sources out there that say similar. Unfortunately, it’s not all tied up in one neat wiki-ball. When I looked into the back and forth between Nvidia and Apple about a year ago, I ended up going across several sites to get what I thought was a fairly complete picture. Of course, I know none of those links now LOL

 

[Waragainstsleep]

It doesn’t have to be better than Intel and AMD. As you can see on Apple’s marketing pages for their products, they never compare against other systems anymore. These ONLY have to be better than the last comparable Mac.

But if they are better, you can bet they will compare the crap out of everything.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

But if they are better, you can bet they will compare the crap out of everything.

Maybe, but I don’t Apple believes there’s a need to. Folks using or interested in buying macOS now are aware of what they’re getting. Microsoft Office could, say, repaginate 20% slower, or Adobe Premier compress 15% slower, but that’s not going to deter anyone that wants what the hardware and OS combination brings. Generally speaking, anything that runs on Windows and Mac will run faster on Windows primarily because you can spec out a fairly hefty PC as high as you’d like. And, that hefty PC will still be cheaper than a similarly configured Mac in most cases. If speed is the number one priority, you’ve already left for other platforms awhile back.

As a result, no one is buying a Mac these days because it’s better than a PC in raw speed. They’re buying it because they’ve used it before and don’t want to switch, because it has some app that’s not available on Windows (FCPX, Logic Pro X), or because they really like the hardware and the shiny Apple logo.

When you add the fact that Windows PC’s can be faster/cheaper across the board with the fact that folks don’t really care about faster (if they did, they would have went Windows a long time ago), you’re down to the point where folks in the market for a new Mac primarily just want to know how much faster it is than the current thing they’re using.

Dell, Lenovo, HP, they HAVE to do these head to head showdowns because there’s nothing happening on one that can’t just as well happen on the other. Apple’s put themselves above that, all the way up to the Pro (where they compare it against the last fastest Macs and doesn’t say anything about other PC makers).

 

[theorist9]

Maybe, but I don’t Apple believes there’s a need to. Folks using or interested in buying macOS now are aware of what they’re getting. Microsoft Office could, say, repaginate 20% slower, or Adobe Premier compress 15% slower, but that’s not going to deter anyone that wants what the hardware and OS combination brings. Generally speaking, anything that runs on Windows and Mac will run faster on Windows primarily because you can spec out a fairly hefty PC as high as you’d like. And, that hefty PC will still be cheaper than a similarly configured Mac in most cases. If speed is the number one priority, you’ve already left for other platforms awhile back.

As a result, no one is buying a Mac these days because it’s better than a PC in raw speed. They’re buying it because they’ve used it before and don’t want to switch, because it has some app that’s not available on Windows (FCPX, Logic Pro X), or because they really like the hardware and the shiny Apple logo.

When you add the fact that Windows PC’s can be faster/cheaper across the board with the fact that folks don’t really care about faster (if they did, they would have went Windows a long time ago), you’re down to the point where folks in the market for a new Mac primarily just want to know how much faster it is than the current thing they’re using.

Dell, Lenovo, HP, they HAVE to do these head to head showdowns because there’s nothing happening on one that can’t just as well happen on the other. Apple’s put themselves above that, all the way up to the Pro (where they compare it against the last fastest Macs and doesn’t say anything about other PC makers).

I agree with most of what you're saying. But just a couple of points:

1) "folks don’t really care about faster (if they did, they would have went Windows a long time ago)". There are some exceptions to this. I think a decent subset of the Mac "power users" category consists of people (like myself) who've always really wanted their Macs to be faster, but still buy a Mac because while a PC would (for the same cost) be faster, *we* are faster (and less frustrated!) when working in MacOS than in Windows.

I.e., we don't buy Macs b/c we don't care about speed, we buy them in spite of having to give up speed, because the OS is even more important.

2) Yes, Apple has historically avoided comparison with other companies' machines. But there is an interesting subtlety with AS: They have explicitly marketed AS as significantly faster and more power-efficient than current laptops and desktops. In so doing, they are effectivey* (if not directly) saying the AS machines will be superior to their competitors' products in a way they've not done before:

*When Tim presented this slide during the Keynote, he never said whether he was referring to Apple notebooks/desktops, or other companies' notebooks/desktops. So while it wasn't explicitly a comparison to other companies' products, neither was it explicitly a comparison to Apple's current products.

 

[Jyby]

I agree with most of what you're saying. But just a couple of points:

1) "folks don’t really care about faster (if they did, they would have went Windows a long time ago)". There are some exceptions to this. I think a decent subset of the Mac "power users" category consists of people (like myself) who've always really wanted their Macs to be faster, but still buy a Mac because while a PC would (for the same cost) be faster, *we* are faster (and less frustrated!) when working in MacOS than in Windows.

I.e., we don't buy Macs b/c we don't care about speed, we buy them in spite of having to give up speed, because the OS is even more important.

2) Yes, Apple has historically avoided comparison with other companies' machines. But there is an interesting subtlety with AS: They have explicitly marketed AS as significantly faster and more power-efficient than current laptops and desktops. In so doing, they are effectivey* (if not directly) saying the AS machines will be superior to their competitors' products in a way they've not done before:

View attachment 950889

*When Tim presented this slide during the Keynote, he never said whether he was referring to Apple notebooks/desktops, or other companies' notebooks/desktops. So while it wasn't explicitly a comparison to other companies' products, neither was it explicitly a comparison to Apple's current products.

I take issue with the screen you quoted from Apple.... Because the blue area is so vague wrt the desktop box... To me it suggests Apple will make ARM Macs that are as fast as desktops using non-ARM.. Which is kinda disappointing.

I really hope Apple does justice to pro users- because many of us use Mac because certain software/work flows are only available for Mac.. And I expect my Mac to be fast because I depend on it for work.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I.e., we don't buy Macs b/c we don't care about speed, we buy them in spite of having to give up speed, because the OS is even more important.

Yes, agreed, well put.

So while it wasn't explicitly a comparison to other companies' products, neither was it explicitly a comparison to Apple's current products.

Yes, there’s some fuzziness here that will have it’s waveform collapsed once observed on Apple‘s website for the Apple Silicon Mac

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I take issue with the screen you quoted from Apple.... Because the blue area is so vague wrt the desktop box... To me it suggests Apple will make ARM Macs that are as fast as desktops using non-ARM.. Which is kinda disappointing.

Why is it disappointing? I’m expecting that “Desktops” include the Mac Pro and they’re inferring that the performance will still be there, it will just consume much less power. Sure, power consumption isn’t extremely important for a desktop form factor, but the power consumption decrease should be seen as a by product of the more efficient system, not that, due to lower power, you won’t get the same or better performance.

 

[jinnyman]

Given how Apple excels at the way they do marketing, that quoted screen can mean anything. Going fully optimistic, that desktop may be PC's fastest consumer CPU like 3950x or even EPYC/Xeon. Going conservative, that may be the chip from Mac Mini who knows?

One thing is certain to me. Apple is yet to prove their ability in computing world, and the type and degree of workload people's going throw at Apple Silicon is vastly different than the one's in iPad Pro (mainly because how iPad OS is limited in such way).

I'm pretty optimistic about how AS will do in Mobile sector. Apple's not making a true workstation class laptops anymore like what HP,Dell and Lenovo is offering with graphics like Quadro RTX), and we are yet to see any desktop scale AS aimed to directly compete with top of the line consumer PC or workstation class. In that sectors, I'm not so sure. Perhaps what Apple will introduce in this year can shed some light on future possibility of Apple.

With that in mind, many of speculation on workstation class chips and especially dGPU in here seem almost a pipe dream for me. Until Apple can share some more information on their AS, I will be skeptical.

 

[leman]

I'm pretty optimistic about how AS will do in Mobile sector. Apple's not making a true workstation class laptops anymore like what HP,Dell and Lenovo is offering with graphics like Quadro RTX), and we are yet to see any desktop scale AS aimed to directly compete with top of the line consumer PC or workstation class. In that sectors, I'm not so sure. Perhaps what Apple will introduce in this year can shed some light on future possibility of Apple.

I think this is the most reasonable attitude. We can of course speculate how a high-end Apple Silicon workstation might look like, but that's all just empty talk until we know what Apple is really up to.

 

[thenewperson]

Going conservative, that may be the chip from Mac Mini who knows

I'd be surprised. I don't think they've disrespected the Mac Pro as much as they have the mini. If there's any Mac I'd assume they'd leave out it'd be the mini. But then I can't imagine them claiming they're switching their entire line to ASi then just leaving one out of it completely.

When Tim presented this slide during the Keynote, he never said whether he was referring to Apple notebooks/desktops, or other companies' notebooks/desktops. So while it wasn't explicitly a comparison to other companies' products, neither was it explicitly a comparison to Apple's current products

I automatically assumed it was in comparison to Macs only, because if not them I guess we should expect even more from ASi Mac performance. Then again they did boldly brag about how the 2018 iPad Pro was faster than 92% of PCs, and if they can do it for the iPad why the hell not for the Mac? Anyway I'm still being conservative and assuming this is solely in comparison to Macs.

 

[deconstruct60]

It doesn’t have to be better than Intel and AMD. As you can see on Apple’s marketing pages for their products, they never compare against other systems anymore. These ONLY have to be better than the last comparable Mac.

In their own marketing material, perhaps. But few if anyone else is going to limit themselves that way in the general PC class review and evaluation market. It is quite possible Apple will in a general sense themselves. Apple has made claims that the iPad Pro is faster than "most of the PC laptops" sold. If there is a large gap on battery life Apple there is a decent change Apple will wave their gap on that aspect in front of consumers. At that point they are the slippery slope of comparisons across multiple fronts.

For Laptops, Apple there is a good chance some cross comparisons . Desktops Apple is more likely to avoid the comparisons and use as 'old' an pretransition ( Intel ) based system as they can manage to make.

Competing in the laptop space both Intel and AMD are pushing the envelope on the GPU performance aspect. And where they don't go "max" GPU they are enabling discrete mobille GPUs to move the performance curve even higher. Apple is going to be challegned in the space the MBP 16" tries to sit in.

 

[deconstruct60]

I take issue with the screen you quoted from Apple.... Because the blue area is so vague wrt the desktop box... To me it suggests Apple will make ARM Macs that are as fast as desktops using non-ARM.. Which is kinda disappointing.

It isn't particularly vague at all. The boxes represent generally where Apple's current Mac products are at. Apple doesn't use the lowest ( in cost or performance ) Intel CPU products. So Laptops at the higher end are already into the blue target zone on high end. If Apple pulls the low end of notebooks into that rang and the top end laptops into the higher blue range. ( So laptops are targeted to moving more 'up' than to the 'left'. Apple will take a higher compute power instead of maximizing battery life, but some battery life gains. ) . Desktops have the opposite ratio. Which is more power savings and not to the exclusion of increase compute.

If look at the desktop line up ( Mini , iMac , and Mac Pro) , then two out of the three have thermal issues that have constrained Apple. ( If throw the 2013 Mac Pro into the mix , then it is three for three ). The Mini transition to desktop processors was constrained for a long time by getting CPU and other component adjustments. The iMac 27" has a limiter. Just looking at the latest Mac Pro as being the "desktop" of the whole Mac line up missing what they have as objectives.

Apple will probably move the Mac Pro up on the performance curve. There is some room in the blue zone above where they are now for the top of the desktop box. But looking to "double" or "triple" performance just with Apple Silicon? Probably not. That doesn't mean that a new Mac Pro is necessarily tightly constrained if throw most of the embarrassingly parallel work at one or more discrete GPU cards. Since the current Mac Pro is at the max power draw from a normal wall plug, more CPU power savings means more power to throw at the GPU cards. ( in a zero sum game at this point. ) . That chart doesn't necessarily point to overall system performance. ( unless fanantically clinging to Apple banishing dGPUs from all of their systems forever. )

I really hope Apple does justice to pro users- because many of us use Mac because certain software/work flows are only available for Mac.. And I expect my Mac to be fast because I depend on it for work.

There is nothing in Apple's blue zone chart that indicates they are not going to push forward performance. But they aren't chasing performance at any cost of power. The AMD and Intel CPUs with absolute core count for max results probably will be in a different zone.

The primary target for the Apple Silicon base design will be mobile though. It is where 65-80+% of the Macs units sold are. It is where all of the iOS and iPad OS devices are. The upper end desktops are going to be somewhat tethered to those. Not off on some completely independent track with orders of magnitude units sold foundation to pay for development. They still should be "good enough" but probably won't be uber, max , ulitmate workstation killer CPUs.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

But few if anyone else is going to limit themselves that way in the general PC class review and evaluation market.

Those that have chosen to do their work, say, in Final Cut Pro X or Logic Pro X (and, as a result, are potentially in the market for a new Apple Silicon system) have already limited themselves by their tool choice. The fact that some random PC can be configured to run Adobe Premier 300% faster than a future Apple Silicon PC means nothing if that’s not what you use to do your work.

That’s why I say Apple only has to be a faster than the fastest Intel Mac in that particular class. Whatever they ship in any of the Apple Silicon form factors just needs to be the thing you need to buy if you need to run macOS and macOS applications the fastest. Any competition in the MBP 16” area will lose because none of them run macOS!

 

[deconstruct60]

I'd be surprised. I don't think they've disrespected the Mac Pro as much as they have the mini. If there's any Mac I'd assume they'd leave out it'd be the mini. But then I can't imagine them claiming they're switching their entire line to ASi then just leaving one out of it completely.

The Mini should actually get easier to do with Apple Silicon. They could either take the iMac or MBP 16" class SoC and do it with the Mini ( tweak the clock speed and/or tweak off some cores ) . The Mini has thermal fit problems with Intel CPUs that the AS SoC probably won't have.

The system with the much larger philiosphy disconnect is the Mac Pro. It is an enclosure design pushed much further to adapt to the CPU thermals than the other way around. macOS doesn't really deal with a "max CPU core count" mentality of the modern era ( > 64 thread/cores ). Also with maximum I/O ( 8 slots and lots of ports ).

I automatically assumed it was in comparison to Macs only, because if not them I guess we should expect even more from ASi Mac performance.

It is probably to Macs only. There are luggable workstation laptops that are much further higher than than the box on that chart. Also workstations with server based logic boards with dual CPU processor packages that are also in a different zone. Apple isn't going to try to compete against future dual package set ups. Dual package will be more rare ( a smaller zone they just won't chase into. Hence just ignore it on the chart ).

Then again they did boldly brag about how the 2018 iPad Pro was faster than 92% o16f PCs,

Not PCs. Faster than 92% of the laptops. Desktops are down in overall percentage, but not down that far.
And the vast number of laptops sold are slower than latest four port MBP 13" also (let alone the MBP 16"). The bulk of PCs sold are sub $800 laptops and desktops. If Apple was in the business of selling sub $800 classic form factor personal computers they would have it made. Apple doesn't.

and if they can do it for the iPad why the hell not for the Mac? Anyway I'm still being conservative and assuming this is solely in comparison to Macs.

However, they didn't really do it for the iPad ( "covering the whole PC market"). Two major issues. The iPad Pro only gets one SoC. ( and the iPads get "hand me down" SoC from the leading edge phone). Apple uses uniformity to crank up the volume for specific SoC designs to recover fixed costs. There isn't much relative volume once get into the upper levels of the Mac desktop product space. ( Sub 1M units and probably sub 100K units for Mac Pro). The farther from the laptop space get the more likely Apple will be doing "stretch to fit" SoC that will on a different track that processors more explicitly designed for the high end desktop space. Mac have had a much broader set of processor + gpu combinations than any of the other product spaces have used. Apple has no track record here of "keeping up with the Jones" across a wide set. ( the major modus operandi has to be quite extensive use of 'old', 'hand me down' SoCs to cover broad product offerings. That is probably going to have problems in the classic PC product form factor space. )

Second , Apple going for a Apple GPU first and any other GPU options second with Metal and the GPU driver stack will probably have some blowback in the upper end desktop space. The laptops do need the widest set of maximally optimized Apple GPU code. Strategically that is a bigger issue. Not the best path for the desktops.

 

[Jyby]

It isn't particularly vague at all. The boxes represent generally where Apple's current Mac products are at. Apple doesn't use the lowest ( in cost or performance ) Intel CPU products. So Laptops at the higher end are already into the blue target zone on high end. If Apple pulls the low end of notebooks into that rang and the top end laptops into the higher blue range. ( So laptops are targeted to moving more 'up' than to the 'left'. Apple will take a higher compute power instead of maximizing battery life, but some battery life gains. ) . Desktops have the opposite ratio. Which is more power savings and not to the exclusion of increase compute.

If look at the desktop line up ( Mini , iMac , and Mac Pro) , then two out of the three have thermal issues that have constrained Apple. ( If throw the 2013 Mac Pro into the mix , then it is three for three ). The Mini transition to desktop processors was constrained for a long time by getting CPU and other component adjustments. The iMac 27" has a limiter. Just looking at the latest Mac Pro as being the "desktop" of the whole Mac line up missing what they have as objectives.

Apple will probably move the Mac Pro up on the performance curve. There is some room in the blue zone above where they are now for the top of the desktop box. But looking to "double" or "triple" performance just with Apple Silicon? Probably not. That doesn't mean that a new Mac Pro is necessarily tightly constrained if throw most of the embarrassingly parallel work at one or more discrete GPU cards. Since the current Mac Pro is at the max power draw from a normal wall plug, more CPU power savings means more power to throw at the GPU cards. ( in a zero sum game at this point. ) . That chart doesn't necessarily point to overall system performance. ( unless fanantically clinging to Apple banishing dGPUs from all of their systems forever. )




There is nothing in Apple's blue zone chart that indicates they are not going to push forward performance. But they aren't chasing performance at any cost of power. The AMD and Intel CPUs with absolute core count for max results probably will be in a different zone.

The primary target for the Apple Silicon base design will be mobile though. It is where 65-80+% of the Macs units sold are. It is where all of the iOS and iPad OS devices are. The upper end desktops are going to be somewhat tethered to those. Not off on some completely independent track with orders of magnitude units sold foundation to pay for development. They still should be "good enough" but probably won't be uber, max , ulitmate workstation killer CPUs.

Where does Apple say the Notebook and Desktop boxes are their computers? Pretty sure it represents all computers according to what they said. Also 80-90% of the blue is below the Desktop box. So it means there is a chance they are just as good as non-Arm Desktops. Also it’s vague because it’s a probability not specific points for specific product lines.. it is vague.

 

[Jyby]

Why is it disappointing? I’m expecting that “Desktops” include the Mac Pro and they’re inferring that the performance will still be there, it will just consume much less power. Sure, power consumption isn’t extremely important for a desktop form factor, but the power consumption decrease should be seen as a by product of the more efficient system, not that, due to lower power, you won’t get the same or better performance.

It’s disappointing because Apple isn’t say they will be better than the competition in performance they are just saying they will be vaguely the same performance and most likely less power consumption.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

It’s disappointing because Apple isn’t say they will be better than the competition in performance they are just saying they will be vaguely the same performance and most likely less power consumption.

It’s disappointing that a consumer PC vendor is going to shift from Intel to their own solution AND the performance is expected be pretty much the same, something NO OTHER consumer PC vendor has done?

 

[Jyby]

It’s disappointing that a consumer PC vendor is going to shift from Intel to their own solution AND the performance is expected be pretty much the same, something NO OTHER consumer PC vendor has done?

Uhmmmm... Chromebook. Microsoft? They have arm solutions too... Arm isn't exclusive to Apple. And sure they may have some performance to improve. What about Raspberry Pi? Apple isn't special here.

 

[Joelist]

Apple at WWDC indicated that performance will rise and at the same time power consumption will drop - there was more than just that graphic (which shows exactly what I said).

 

[Unregistered 4U]

They have arm solutions too... Arm isn't exclusive to Apple. And sure they may have some performance to improve. What about Raspberry Pi? Apple isn't special here.

This is the point. Apple is indicating they will match current expectations with no performance to improve. Several Have shipped ARM solutions, NONE rival contemporary systems in performance. Apple will be the first.

 

[Joelist]

Apple Silicon is exclusive to Apple. The only thing ARM about it is the instruction set and even there Apple has added its own instructions. The designs of the cores and every other element in there is 100% Apple.

 

[Michael Adams]

Trying to follow this discussion, since my wife is ex-Apple & a gamer; and a bunch of my coworkers and peers are Apple users. Given all the stuff going on with AI, graphics, PCIe SSDs... I would hope at the very least the ability to mount PCIe devices via USB-C / Thunderbolt is retained; and the ability for AMD & Nvidia to offer their wares still possible. Apple could make bank on a "Pro Box" or whatever that upgraded your Mini, be it ARM or x86; something third-parties try to offer now.

 

[Boil]

Trying to follow this discussion, since my wife is ex-Apple & a gamer; and a bunch of my coworkers and peers are Apple users. Given all the stuff going on with AI, graphics, PCIe SSDs... I would hope at the very least the ability to mount PCIe devices via USB-C / Thunderbolt is retained; and the ability for AMD & Nvidia to offer their wares still possible. Apple could make bank on a "Pro Box" or whatever that upgraded your Mini, be it ARM or x86; something third-parties try to offer now.

Nvidia is a non-option, has been for quite some time...