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.
i7 7700 K for next high end iMac ?!
- Thread starter komiez
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
steady on, don't say that one out loud ... I could see that becoming a reality. You can have a basic computer, but you want anything more powerful there's always iCloud Plus (project name, we have you by the balls).
I guess it partly depends on whether or not Apple sticks to the thinner=better mantra this time or next time around. The other part of the equation is that no matter the TDP of the chips, transistor density is getting higher, so even the same TDP dissipated over a smaller surface area means a hotter chip if Apple does not redesign the cooling system to compensate.
Of course, but the M395X and the M295X are essentially the same chip. They have had time to iterate both iMac design (hardware+software, if you are saying that the hardware cooling system didn't change, then I suspect mostly software, if any) and GPU tuning (binning, mostly and drivers) to get that essentially same chip under control. I believe the clocks vary by about 50Mhz on the core and a few Mhz on the VRAM.
Unlikely as the AMD R9 4xx series is much more energy-efficient than the R9 2xx and R9 3xx series. TDPs are said to be similar, but the R9 395x doesn't run as hot as the R9 295x so I expect the R9 4xx to be even cooler.
The A10 in the iPhone 7 is not *remotely* as fast as an old Windows PC. I have both and I just ran GeekBench 4 on them. My PC uses an i7-875K at 3.8 Ghz. That is a "Lynnfield" CPU (same as Nehalem) using 45 nm. Depending on how you count Intel CPU generations, it is about SIX generations old.
Despite this the old Windows PC does 8759 multicore, vs the iPhone 7 at 5592, IOW the PC is nearly 60% faster. It is amazing the iPhone 7 is that fast but it is still a lot slower on real world multithreaded workloads than a seven-year-old PC.
To replace x86 CPUs in the upper iMac range (what the OP was asking about), ARM-type CPUs must provide equal or better multicore performance than *current* x86. They are nowhere near this. My 2015 iMac 27 does just shy of 16,000 on GeekBench 4 multicore, so it's nearly 3x faster than the iPhone 7.
When you are starting from lower performance (like ARM), it is easy to make big gains. Intel experienced that decades ago. Those gains cannot continue whether ARM or x86. You encounter fundamental architectural issues with superscalar instruction decoding, leakage current and fabrication. ARM is making more rapid progress because their performance is lower so they haven't yet reached that point of diminishing performance. When they do their performance gains will taper off, just like Intel. Nobody knows the way around this -- not Intel, not ARM, not Apple, not AMD, not IBM.
Yes if you were willing to give up Windows compatibility, an ARM-type CPU could (performance wise) replace the x86 in lower-end Macs. I'm sure Apple is considering that. It would fragment the product line, creating x86 and ARM-based Macs. It would greatly reduce the software catalog for ARM-based Macs. They would essentially be like Windows RT -- a special version of macOS for ARM for which there are few apps. Apple might judge the tradeoffs as worthwhile but I don't think so.
That's my point. An ageing PC is more than most people need - not you or I - most people. An ARM-based computer would probably be quick enough for those people too. Apple may not do a complete range on A10, but if they even put a single model out on their own CPU's then the writing is on the wall for Apple using x86. I'm not saying it would be a good idea either - personally I'd love the fabled X Mac, with a 10 core Haswell E and the ability to put my own GPU, RAM and storage in there. Of the two an ARM-based Mac is more likely given how Apple like to simplify things. I'm just saying don't be surprised if Apple do another platform change as they have ignored recent Intel CPU's completely and their current hardware is very old.
Well Intel's recent CPUs have been really recent - as in released this year - so Apple hasn't really been "ignoring" them. It's just that they were not available during Apple's traditional hardware refresh windows (in no small part because Intel was late).
Apple will be using their most recent units with next month's refresh. Yes, they should be Kaby Lake family instead of Skylake, but Intel is - once again - late on Kaby Lake and won't have the models Apple uses available until next year.
The OP's point (which your A10 post was in response to) was specifically about high-end iMacs, IOW the desktop market segment. There is no way ARM-based CPUs will challenge Intel on the high-end desktop anytime soon. They do not remotely have the multicore horsepower.
This is shown by my 2015 iMac 27 which has Intel's latest, fastest 4-core Skylake CPU at 4Ghz. I have seen no credible development roadmap or projection for ARM CPUs (whether developed by Apple or not) where they reach the multicore performance of top Intel desktop and workstation CPUs *today*, much less where Intel will be in several years.
Now if instead of addressing the OP's point, if you're talking about could ARM-type CPUs be used in lower-performance Macs, yes that is technically possible. It would mean elimination of Windows compatibility -- no Boot Camp, no Parallels Desktop, no VMWare. It would eliminate the entire Mac application catalog, since those binary apps will not run on ARM. However Apple could port macOS to ARM and you'd have a slower maybe less expensive, maybe more power efficient MacBook which couldn't run any current Mac software nor Windows either. It would in essence be a Mac Chromebook that could run browser-based apps. If touch-enabled it might allow running iOS apps on a MacBook. But it wouldn't really be a MacBook it would be an iPad Pro in the shape of a notebook.
If Apple did that they'd still have to maintain the x86 Mac lineup, so there is zero possibility they'd "have one platform to write for and support". It would be an *additional* platform they'd have to support.
There is no straightforward way to have some kind of core OS for all Apple devices and computers. This has been tried previously with Windows NT and other operating systems which initially had a single OS core with an API "personality" wrapper. They didn't work well.
Apple will not do another platform change in the fashion of previous ones -- where their entire product line from top to bottom changed. They might use ARM on some kind of low-end touch-enabled notebook if they judge all the drawbacks to be worth the benefits.
There is a slightly greater chance they might use some AMD CPUs since those mostly have x86 binary compatibility, and AMD (unlike Intel) will embrace 8-core mainstream desktop CPUs.
I agree. I'm merely speculating that Apple may not bother producing high-end stuff any more. What straps is where it's at
[doublepost=1475081531][/doublepost]
They ignored skylake on the rMBP - still have a 16GB RAM limitation on the current one, where as the competition have moved to DDR4 and have a 32GB limit. Matters if you need the RAM.
If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use?... Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?"-- Seymour Cray.
Unless the AMD is actually faster than the Intel chip at real world applications, there's no real advantage.
Here's a review of the Intel 6950X 10 core processor.
The Skylake i5 CPUs that the MBP will likely use (i5-6267U) were not released until late 2015 and the Skylake i7 CPUs they will likely use (i7-6770HQ) were not released until early 2016. The last update to the MBP was mid-2015 ((WWDC 2015?), so those CPUs were not available.
I think Apple was hoping to release the MBP at WWDC this year, but perhaps Intel might not have been able to get them the i7-6770HQ in sufficient quantities. There may also have been issues with the new case and/or the OLED strip. So everything was pushed back to next month.
Like the video illustrates "faster" depends on the work being performed. Higher core count on an iMac of all machines seems to make the most amount of sense.
Whereas a gaming PC will still likely see advantages from less cores but higher clock speeds.
I would pay a premium for a higher core count CPU even if single core task took a small hit to performance.
Cinebench Singlethreaded:
6700K 183
6950XX: 151
That's a 20 percent hit. For this, you pay $1350 more.
Of course, you'll get an impressive boost in multithreaded workloads (1852 in mt cinebench vs 925) But if the work you do can't take advantage of more than 4 cores-- a very common scenario--, you're shelling out big bucks for a slower computer.
I'm not arguing that fast computers are best reserved for a special, elite class of computer user who does more than facebook. I'm arguing that these things involve compromises, and depending on your workload, you could well end up with the short end of the stick.
Last edited:
Unless they reintroduce the vents on the top of the case and add proper fans the answer is probably 'yes, it will struggle with thermal issues'.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple tries to make the next iMac even thinner, so I'm not holding my breath for this issue to go away any time soon (just like the lack of upgradeability).
But hey, it looks pretty, so there. Rose gold iMac anyone?
Last edited:
joema2 said:
The 6950X is not a mainstream CPU and (even worse) it does not have Quick Sync. So in some of the most frequent and demanding tasks such as H264 video encode/decode it can probably be outperformed by a MacBook.
AMD has VCE (Video Coding Engine) but unlike Intel this is implemented in the GPU or on AMD's APU chip. This gives more flexibility since the transistor budget for video encoding is so high that Intel declines to put this in the E-series i7 or Xeon CPUs. By contrast AMD could easily offer a mainstream 8-core Zen CPU with VCE on an APU.
BTW Cray's "chicken" statement 35 years ago was specifically about vector supercomputers with a few fast CPUs being superior to *massively* parallel supercomputers. It was NOT about whether 8-16 cores were better than 4. The Cray-3 was planned for 16 cores. Decades ago Cray was correct but by the 1990s this was wrong and sticking to that ruined his company and tarnished his reputation. Today vector supercomputers (his "two strong oxen") have essentially died out and the "1024 chicken" approach is now pervasive. This account is detailed in the book "The Supermen: The Story of Seymour Cray and the Technical Wizards Behind the Supercomputer", by Charles J. Murray.
Whether Apple continues using only Intel or uses AMD CPUs/APUs in future high-end Macs, this is far beyond the capability of any ARM CPU. ARM cannot approach the multicore performance of a contemporary high-end i7, so it's not even a hypothetical option for Apple in that market segment at present. Whether ARM can *ever* reach the multicore performance of contemporary high-end i7 is debated among CPU architects. Some think maybe yes, given enough time. Others think ARM will hit the same thermal and Instructions Per Clock walls that Intel has and their gains will taper off just like every other CPU design in history has.
Apple killed their business in the past when they did the same thing. The Intel Chip will stay in the Apple Computers if they are smart.
Exactly! It's been nearly a year since Skylake was released and around 6 months since the i7 version was released, yet no update from Apple. Dell, Lenovo, HP and all the two-bit companies that produce utter crap have managed a Skylake release but not Apple. So to say the CPU's weren't available is utter rubbish - Apple just didn't do an update since 2015, and even that one isn't significantly different from the one they released in 2012!! Why are we still suck at 16GB RAM when all of the competition can do 32GB in their lightweight models and 64GB in their workstation-class laptops. They also have room for multiple SSD's and on some models Thunderbolt 3.
For the richest company in the world who charges a premium for their products this is inexcusable!
[doublepost=1475103057][/doublepost]
I just hope I'm wrong and they produce something that can compete with the Dell 7510 and Lenovo P50 in a chassis the size of the current rMBP. A proper workstation class laptop with 64GB RAM and oodles of SSD space. I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I just think they will be slimming down the product range yet again, because lighter and thinner is always best.
Which is why I think they'll have another mid 2017 update with kaby lake and some other modest upgrades.
Whatever, I'm still gonna buy one in the fall. Screw you Apple!!
Unlike the PC manufacturers, Apple doesn't update their machines machines "willy-nilly" which is one of the factors that enables them to command the price premiums they do because their machines hold their value at resale.
Apple has a standardized schedule (generally annually) that they adhere to and when that last schedule landed Skylake CPUs of the type required were not available.
If you mean that by selling a Haswell based laptop for 2,000 dollars, I'd say yes. At this point, most of us would take a "willy-nilly" approch given that apple hasn't done much. There was a report that Apple's laptop shipments dropped 40%, so it seems people are not willing to buy a premium computer that is not really premium.
Skylake was available for the 21" iMac, but they rolled it out for Broadwell why? Why do the 15" MBP and Mini are on Haswell? Apple messed up, they tried to squeeze all the profits out of the computer line without doing much and now they're paying for it.
Sacking x86 now would be a suicide for Mac. ARM could be suitable for Macbook, BUT only it's used for Apple apps. The emulation would hit it so bad, nobody would want to use it for anything else. Last time, jumping from IBM > Intel was easy, because Intel had way more powerful CPUs at that time. Going from Intel to ARM now would go opposite direction.
But, I believe there will be a hybrid system coming very soon, where ARM takes control of many low level processes, for example all external io-traffic and disc encryption. The purpose would be mainly security. But x86 architecture would still exist and do rest of the computing.
Some are afraid of possible AMD CPU in a Mac, BUT if Zen is within 10% of perf/watt and IPC of Intel, its shortcomings can be more than compensated with the HSA approach AMD is highly promoting. HSA would reduce a lot of IO-traffic from the bus because CPU and GPU would have access to the same unified memory, and slow and expensive data copies from RAM to GDDR and back wouldn't need to be done as often as with Intel. It would reduce latency and free CPU time. Adding / using a DSP would take care of 3D & other complex sound producing and CPU would be freed from those tasks too. Giving I/O-traffic and encryption to co-processor will help even more.
So, don't be overly afraid of AMD. ZEN doesn't need to be as good as Intel, and in the end it still would be more powerful than Intel. As a whole system. Intel is and will be CPU centric. AMD offers an option. HSA.
iOS is already fully HSA compatible. I believe it came with iOS 10, because I haven't seen it mentioned earlier. macOS is not, because Intel.
But, I believe there will be a hybrid system coming very soon, where ARM takes control of many low level processes, for example all external io-traffic and disc encryption. The purpose would be mainly security. But x86 architecture would still exist and do rest of the computing.
Some are afraid of possible AMD CPU in a Mac, BUT if Zen is within 10% of perf/watt and IPC of Intel, its shortcomings can be more than compensated with the HSA approach AMD is highly promoting. HSA would reduce a lot of IO-traffic from the bus because CPU and GPU would have access to the same unified memory, and slow and expensive data copies from RAM to GDDR and back wouldn't need to be done as often as with Intel. It would reduce latency and free CPU time. Adding / using a DSP would take care of 3D & other complex sound producing and CPU would be freed from those tasks too. Giving I/O-traffic and encryption to co-processor will help even more.
So, don't be overly afraid of AMD. ZEN doesn't need to be as good as Intel, and in the end it still would be more powerful than Intel. As a whole system. Intel is and will be CPU centric. AMD offers an option. HSA.
iOS is already fully HSA compatible. I believe it came with iOS 10, because I haven't seen it mentioned earlier. macOS is not, because Intel.
Last edited:
Even if the Zen CPUs will be as fast as latest Intel CPUs...?
What would you loose with switch from Intel to AMD, to say something like this?
May I ask you a question? Have you ever compared the technicalities of the architectures in question you are trying to talk about?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10591...t-2-extracting-instructionlevel-parallelism/7
Floating point, Integer, Load and Store - all of this has impact on single threaded performance of each CPU core. They are on the same level, or better than Broadwell-EP. Only thing that can let down Zen architecture are the caches, and core clocks.
And the clocks CAN be higher than Bulldozer, because Bulldozer was 16 stage CPU architecture, Zen is 19-22 stage. So the only real thing that can let down upcoming CPUs are the caches.
In other words. Zen will have Intel Haswell level of IPC, but with much higher core clocks.
http://ark.intel.com/products/82930...ssor-Extreme-Edition-20M-Cache-up-to-3_50-GHz
This was Intel's finest, highest end CPU. And it had Turbo state at 3.5 GHz for SINGLE core. Expect that Zen will start at 3.5 GHz for all cores, at lower TDP(AMD Wraith cooler is designed to work with 125W TDP for a very good reason).
As for mobile. APUs are here to play. 4 core CPU with 8 threads, 16 CU Vega architecture GPU with 2 GB of HBM2, that have 256-512 GB/s bandwidth, shared between CPU and GPU.
2.8 GHz CPU with Haswell level IPC is in Macbook Pro. And it scores this: https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?q=model:"MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Mid 2014)" platform:"Mac" processor:"Intel Core i7-4980HQ" frequency:2800 bits:64
Last thing: Apple will not go away from Intel. At least - for now. But AMD Zen does promise that they might bring hell of a competition back to CPU market.
Last edited: