And if you want to do anything else, there might be someone willing to sell you the option as a service.
i wonder if the upcoming imac combo i7+amd gpu will have heat issues like i7+M295x did ?!
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.yes but the current combo i7+amd M395x is no longer a problem (same design)
i wonder if the upcoming imac combo i7+amd gpu will have heat issues like i7+M295x did ?!
...I reckon they'll be going with an A10 (i.e. their own CPU)...I reckon Apple's own CPU's now offer a similar performance to those older Intel CPU's maybe even surpassing them...
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.
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.
That's my point. An ageing PC is more than most people need - not you or I - most people...
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.
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.
and AMD (unlike Intel) will embrace 8-core mainstream desktop CPUs.
They ignored skylake on the rMBP...
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.
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.
i wonder if the upcoming imac combo i7+amd gpu will have heat issues like i7+M295x did ?!
joema2 said:AMD (unlike Intel) will embrace 8-core mainstream desktop CPUs.
If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use?... Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?"-- Seymour Cray...Here's a review of the Intel 6950X 10 core processor...
I reckon they'll be going with an A10 (i.e. their own CPU) or something from AMD. I think Apple's execs have come to a point there they realise the CPU inside the iPad is quick enough for most people and if they move to that they will only have one platform to write for and support. It will also give them end-to-end control, which they tend to like very much.
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.
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.
Which is why I think they'll have another mid 2017 update with kaby lake and some other modest upgrades.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.
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...
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.
LMFAO!! That has got to be one of the funniest things I've heard in ages. Apple don't have a standardised release schedule (just look at the number of threads on here asking why there has been no update in over a year, or nearly 3 years in the case of the nMP). In past years they've done an announced update towards the end of the year and a silent one sometime around the middle, but it hasn't been a hard and fast rule and they haven't done anything now since 2015. And as for the chips not being available. Utter rubbish. Chips have been available in volume since the beginning of this year and every other manufacturer has released an update, quite often a significant one - XPS 15 now has 32GB RAM limit and Thunderbolt 3. Not exactly as you say 'willy-nilly', as none of them could afford to just keep chucking out minor updates, it's only Apple that hasn't done a release at all. Everyone else does a major release once per year and a minor one during the year if newer chips are available.
Apple used to be the only company that could get away with long release cycles and charge a premium, but I think that is now a thing of the past. People have either held off or have jumped ship rather than buying the existing kit. Meanwhile the competition have caught up and in some respects overtaken Apple. And they too have products that they can charge a premium for - have you seen how much Microsoft charges for it's kit? Not exactly budget products here in terms of build quality or price.
Have a look at the Dell XPS 13, XPS 15, the Lenovo X1 Carbon, HP Spectre, Microsoft Surface Book and Surface Pro 4. These are all premium products that run on Skylake and have been available in some cases for over 6 months. Dell are now transitioning the XPS 13 to Kabylake.
I think you need to look at what is happening in the market as you seem oblivious to how much Apple have dropped the ball here.
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.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.
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.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.
Even if the Zen CPUs will be as fast as latest Intel CPUs...?If they move to AMD processors then they may have just lost a loyal customer of almost two decades. Taking the effort to switch would be worth it at that point.
I hope these knuckleheads don't do it, in all honesty I don't think they will.
May I ask you a question? Have you ever compared the technicalities of the architectures in question you are trying to talk about?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.