Is Apple going to ARM to simply be different?

[bousozoku]

No idea why they still run the 8th gen Intel on these things. Dell and everyone SMALLER can update yearly with new products but Apple is two years old on the cpu. Half of me thinks they’re going ARM to eliminate comparisons. Every Gen is the latest even if it’s a couple years old.

Dell and everyone smaller depend on whatever is available. They don't have the resources to be better.

When Mac OS X was new, Apple was using PowerPC processors and the line went from a huge jump in power to an unsteady set of steps forward AND backward until they couldn't count on Motorola or IBM and went to Intel. When Apple brought out the 12 inch MacBook with the m3 processor and realized how awful it was, they knew that it was time for something better and less expensive--inside, at least.

Now, Apple have a chance to use their own experience developing their own processors, and through careful cooperation (they don't do that any better than Microsoft did), they can fuel their own progress.

Those millions of phones and tablets, plus macOS Big Sur, could show their product lines to finally be an integrated solution.

I don't believe that it's going to work out that well, but anything is possible.

 

[the8thark]

I think we're talking past each other here. I don't disagree that Apple will be able to do some neat stuff with the hardware. My point is that it really doesn't matter if there are no programs that can make use of it, let alone run on it. People are making a big deal about Final Cut Pro, and as a Final Cut Pro user I can say that yes, I think it's going to be really awesome. But I run a lot more programs than just Final Cut Pro, and do a lot more than just video editing, and if those programs don't make the transition over, then I'm stuck - regardless of how amazing the hardware may be.

I think that's the point that's also being missed when people are talking about Apple and gaming in this thread. Does Apple care about gaming? Sure, they're doing some neat things with Metal, but is that really for gaming? Have they made any major overtures to gaming companies, or any major efforts to get games onto their platform? I don't think many of us have any insider information - I certainly don't - and while Apple Arcade seems like a promising effort, the proof is in the fact that Apple still misses out on major gaming titles, and when it does receive them they're not even natively coded, but instead "ports" using various kludges to run (many iOS games excluded, although it's worth noting that mobile games are really a different class of games compared with traditional console games).

We'll see how things shake out. If the software I use makes the transition, then I can make the transition. Otherwise, Apple Silicon can be the most amazing car engine out there, but without a proper chassis, human interface, and set of wheels, it's basically useless to me. And if I have to go back to Windows, well... if Android turns out to play more nicely with Windows than my iPhone, then I might end up going there. And that means my Apple Watch goes away, and the iPad needs to fend for itself. As I said in an earlier post, the "walled garden" is a strength, but it all has the potential to crumble quite quickly if one of the major stones is removed.

My whole point was the users literally can't find a 3rd party alternative if what they need done is powered by ASi. It's the ASi that keeps them in the Apple ecosystem.

However what you are saying is different. You're talking about 3rd party apps that might or might not transition over to ASi. That's a totally different issue. It's an issue I agree with you that is important. If your mission critical 3rd party apps don't make the switch, then you're stuck on intel. Or at the very least have a 2nd back up intel machine for those mission critical apps.

Also the walled garden has worked for a long time for Apple. It's also worked for the big 3 gaming console makers as well. Apple doesn't put much effort into gaming because it's not in their DNA. It's not what they do. Sure they have Apple Arcade but it's not as good as it could be because Apple are just not that interested in it. I agree with you that Metal's primary purpose is not gaming, however it can be applied to gaming so more money can be made. A side bonus benefit. Many non Apple, PC games are hodge podge ports as well, because the main fonus is the big three consoles. The PC gaming market is not what it was decades ago. The consoles really took over and with the PS5/Series X and Switch you have both ends covered. Mid tier gaming with the PS5 and Series X and lower tier but still really good and portable with the Switch. The number of people who want to go high tier on a gaming PC is shrinking every day. Not many want to spend the thousands of dollars to make a gaming PC that's higher specced than the PS5 and Series X.

As an aside, Apple has zero interest in buying up or partnering with game development studios. Sony and MS do this. Sony and MS, for the most part, do not develop games, they just buy up or partner with game development studios who do this for them.
In a way I'm glad Apple's focus is not gaming. Apple are sticking to what they are good at. And that's why most of us here are in the Apple ecosystem.

[edit] RE FCPX, that only applies of all your FCPX plugins will be updated to be 64 bit and ASi compatible.

 

[Ledgem]

May I ask, if you do end up going back to Windows, will it reduce any software costs for you?

I never said it would.

With the AS Mac, you upgrade the software as it becomes avaialble. If it takes a while, you let it run in Rosetta 2 until it does (some software won't run in Rosetta 2, I know).

You wrote this long, beautiful post, and I'm sorry to say that it was a bit of a waste because you should have stopped once you wrote that line above. I don't sit in front of my Mac just to let the fans run, I use my computer to run the programs. The programs, in turn, allow me to get my work done. End of discussion. Few to none are buying computers just to have them sit on their desk. You're making the assumption that all of the programs we're using now will either transition over or work nicely under emulation (although you seem to acknowledge that this may be the case). For all our sakes, I hope you're right. Because otherwise, this statement at the end of your post:

But do not pretend that the AS Mac is forcing you to move to Windows, because that is obviously NOT true.

... also doesn't hold true. If Apple stops supporting the system I'm running (which is just a matter of time), and if the third-party companies whose software I use choose not to support the new architecture, then I am literally forced to move to Windows. Because otherwise, pending a legitimate alternative program that does run natively, the alternative is to keep using outdated hardware and an outdated operating system.

I don't bring up Android and Windows because I want to make the move. I bring it up to say that Apple had really better have thought this one through. I'm all-in with Apple because I love the integration and their general design philosophy; I lightly read about competing products for self-interest but I don't do any deep dives because at this point in time I wouldn't even consider them. But if I am forced to start fragmenting my computing devices, the allure of Apple really diminishes. The computer has become a secondary device for many people, with the iPhone or iPad taking the lead; based on screen time it has happened for me, as well, but not based on workflow. I am excited to see what Apple can do with the new architecture, and I am also afraid. Hopefully the fears will prove to be unfounded.

My whole point was the users literally can't find a 3rd party alternative if what they need done is powered by ASi. It's the ASi that keeps them in the Apple ecosystem.

Sure, but you're also talking hypotheticals. The hardware isn't even released; how do you know that there's anything hardware-bound that is not or will not be available outside of Apple? If you're thinking about the Afterburner card as an example, you're sort of right - but that's also an extremely specialized piece of hardware, and I'm skeptical that anyone is buying in specifically for it. Maybe it will represent what's to come, but that's a big assumption to make.

Apple doesn't put much effort into gaming because it's not in their DNA. It's not what they do.

I agree with you that games are not their priority, despite some of the overtures that they seem to be making. But it's also worth remembering that mobile phones weren't in their "DNA" either, up until 2007. Television shows weren't in their "DNA" until last year. If they wanted to make a run at gaming, they could. A lot of the hardware and tools are in place. Nintendo has proven that you don't need Uber-powerful hardware to make a successful gaming platform, although I dare say Apple's hardware would beat out the Nvidia Tegra chips that Nintendo is using in the Switch. Who knows what the future holds?

 

[the8thark]

Sure, but you're also talking hypotheticals. The hardware isn't even released; how do you know that there's anything hardware-bound that is not or will not be available outside of Apple? If you're thinking about the Afterburner card as an example, you're sort of right - but that's also an extremely specialized piece of hardware, and I'm skeptical that anyone is buying in specifically for it. Maybe it will represent what's to come, but that's a big assumption to make.

Yes the hardware is not yet out on the Mac. However many of the features the ASi macs will have at a hardware level have been shown to us by Apple via that WWDC video. Many of these features will be directly ported from the A Series silicon in the iOS devices. What we know about ASi on iOS devices and on the Mac is a whgole package that no one else offers.

The important question you are asking is - will all this become industry standard to the point where other hardware manufactures offer similar features? They might. That will take some time to organise though. So eventually there might be some competition for these features but currently there is not.
So I think we can bith say we don't know what the future will hold past the initial ASi Macs which Apple has talked about and we don't know if the other manufactures will add those features into their computers or not.

I agree with you that games are not their priority, despite some of the overtures that they seem to be making. But it's also worth remembering that mobile phones weren't in their "DNA" either, up until 2007. Television shows weren't in their "DNA" until last year. If they wanted to make a run at gaming, they could. A lot of the hardware and tools are in place. Nintendo has proven that you don't need Uber-powerful hardware to make a successful gaming platform, although I dare say Apple's hardware would beat out the Nvidia Tegra chips that Nintendo is using in the Switch. Who knows what the future holds?

There's actually precedence for all of this.

For games, Apple tried with the Pippin and totally failed. So they moved in a different direction with games.
For the iPhone, which is really just a portable PC with a phone modem attached, Apple has a history. There's the old Newton line. After that they had the iPod line. Both portable computers that did various things. The iPhone was just an evolution of those.
For television, Apple had the Macintosh TV. Apple also had a TV tuner card for a few models of Mac after this.

 

[playtech1]

Going back to OP's original question: I could see many reasons to switch to their own silicon.

1. ARM architecture across all products
2. Unified system memory
3. Tightly integrated chip, OS, and software design
4. Neural Engine and machine learning capabilities
5. Hardware accelerators
6. Custom video and audio encoders for FCPX and Logic X
7. A predictable release schedule
8. Better single-core performance
9. Energy efficient for notebooks = longer battery life
10. Smaller mobo = larger battery/fan/storage (or thinner product)

I would add to this list that Apple's CPUs will be cheaper for Apple to buy. Intel's CPUs are expensive: the i7-1065G7 has a $426 list price for an order of 1,000 units, plus you need the chipset from Intel. The 15inch MacBook Pro CPUs are more: $583 list price for an i9-10980k.

Apple will get a big discount, but even a 50% discount off list price still gives Intel a big chunk of the Mac's selling price.

Compare that with TSMC reportedly charging Apple $100 per Mac CPU on 5nm.

Apple has development costs, but with the commonality between the iOS and Mac CPUs it's an incremental cost on top of an existing development spend.

I am not sure whether consumers will see the savings, but I think at first they might, to encourage early adoption and transition.

 

[Polly Mercocet]

Since the post I was responding to was talking about laptop/desktop users, that first segment is irrelevant for the discussion. So it doesn’t matter if Microsoft is getting more or less relevant to the wider market, just to the market of users who want/need a laptop/desktop machine (i.e. what we currently think of as the x86 market).

I guess my point is simply that as time goes on that market is becoming more and more of a niche as far as consumers go. As far as I'm aware, Mac sales have remained steady even as overall laptop sales have continued to decline. The obvious eventuality of this trend, if it continues, will be Apple gaining a larger share of the laptop market.

Desktops are a different story. You mentioned gaming and it does seem as if most consumers still buying (or building) towers are doing so for gaming purposes. Windows undoubtedly is the OS you need on a gaming machine and moving games over to ARM would be, I imagine, very difficult work.

But the bulk of Windows users are enterprise so they're most likely to drive MS's decisions more than the consumer market. It seems to me companies are moving away from desktops and just giving everyone laptops instead. Since those are mobile devices there's obvious advantages to ARM on laptops. The question of how many developers will bother porting over... one can only guess.

As long as Microsoft continues their “toe in the water” approach to ARM and other architectures, companies that make the tools people are using their Windows machines for won‘t come along for the ride. Apple doesn’t have the user share in the desktop market to force the issue alone either, nor does the ensemble of Linux distributions. As long as Microsoft continues to enjoy a 70+% user base share of desktops, any revolution will be entrenched in a corner of the desktop market.

Apple successfully transitioned from PPC to Intel when they were a much smaller fish than they are now. And they're also in a much better position this time since iOS is a huge deal and most consumer and enterprise developers already maintain iOS apps. So porting their Mac apps over to AS should not be an enormous challenge. The potential to straight up run iOS apps on Macs could be a big draw to consumers too, especially light/casual gamers.

Mac laptops are certainly popular enough that major developers will ensure their software runs on AS. I would be amazed if major apps such as Chrome, Photoshop, VLC, whatever do not make the switch. Especially as all of those already exist on iOS.

The worst part of it is that Microsoft didn’t need to “get into” the smartphone market, it practically helped invent the thing back around 2003 or so. It just utterly failed to properly invest in it and see where the puck was going, just like Blackberry and Nokia when Google and Apple came in and turned the business smartphone into what we see today.

Yep exactly. It seems crazy that only Google foresaw the success of the iPhone and cared enough to compete straight away. Everyone else dragged their feet and now they're irrelevant or dead.

It's a shame too because more choice is good for the consumer and a duopoly of mobile OS's isn't very helpful. At least Android can be forked and some cool stuff has been done in that area.

 

[JMacHack]

The PC gaming market is not what it was decades ago. The consoles really took over and with the PS5/Series X and Switch you have both ends covered. Mid tier gaming with the PS5 and Series X and lower tier but still really good and portable with the Switch. The number of people who want to go high tier on a gaming PC is shrinking every day.

One moment, please...

From what I can tell the "shrinking" part of the PC gaming industry is only because of the growth of smartphone/tablet games. It seems to have shrunk less than the console market share. Plus revenue is still growing quite a bit (mostly due to predatory monetization tactics, but I digress). Consoles haven't taken over, they've done the opposite when compared to PC gaming.

Apple's "focus" on gaming has always been iOS. iOS make them more money than Mac gaming ever could, and (whether or not you believe them) they say it leaves more room for "indie" devs. Gaming on the Mac has never been a priority to them, and if I'm blatantly honest, they shouldn't. PC gamers in particular have a prejudice against prebuilt computers, and Apple especially. Any attempt Apple would make toward PC gaming would be coldly met at best, and derided at worst.

I am excited to see what Apple can do with the new architecture, and I am also afraid. Hopefully the fears will prove to be unfounded.

I think that's true for all of us.

 

[Jorbanead]

I would add to this list that Apple's CPUs will be cheaper for Apple to buy. Intel's CPUs are expensive: the i7-1065G7 has a $426 list price for an order of 1,000 units, plus you need the chipset from Intel. The 15inch MacBook Pro CPUs are more: $583 list price for an i9-10980k.

Apple will get a big discount, but even a 50% discount off list price still gives Intel a big chunk of the Mac's selling price.

Compare that with TSMC reportedly charging Apple $100 per Mac CPU on 5nm.

I’m really curious to see how Apple handles the prices because I could see tscenarios:

1) they make their products a bit cheaper

2) they add more features and/or more storage and memory for the same price

Though I sort of predict that their entry-level models will see maybe a $100 price drop to encourage new adopters, while the higher-end machines won’t see any price change (those higher-end processors I’d imagine will use up much more RnD costs for a relatively niche market).

 

[Kostask]

.......

You wrote this long, beautiful post, and I'm sorry to say that it was a bit of a waste because you should have stopped once you wrote that line above. I don't sit in front of my Mac just to let the fans run, I use my computer to run the programs. The programs, in turn, allow me to get my work done. End of discussion. Few to none are buying computers just to have them sit on their desk. You're making the assumption that all of the programs we're using now will either transition over or work nicely under emulation (although you seem to acknowledge that this may be the case). For all our sakes, I hope you're right. Because otherwise, this statement at the end of your post:


... also doesn't hold true. If Apple stops supporting the system I'm running (which is just a matter of time), and if the third-party companies whose software I use choose not to support the new architecture, then I am literally forced to move to Windows. Because otherwise, pending a legitimate alternative program that does run natively, the alternative is to keep using outdated hardware and an outdated operating system.

I don't bring up Android and Windows because I want to make the move. I bring it up to say that Apple had really better have thought this one through. I'm all-in with Apple because I love the integration and their general design philosophy; I lightly read about competing products for self-interest but I don't do any deep dives because at this point in time I wouldn't even consider them. But if I am forced to start fragmenting my computing devices, the allure of Apple really diminishes. The computer has become a secondary device for many people, with the iPhone or iPad taking the lead; based on screen time it has happened for me, as well, but not based on workflow. I am excited to see what Apple can do with the new architecture, and I am also afraid. Hopefully the fears will prove to be unfounded.


Sure, but you're also talking hypotheticals. The hardware isn't even released; how do you know that there's anything hardware-bound that is not or will not be available outside of Apple? If you're thinking about the Afterburner card as an example, you're sort of right - but that's also an extremely specialized piece of hardware, and I'm skeptical that anyone is buying in specifically for it. Maybe it will represent what's to come, but that's a big assumption to make.
.........

i don't sit in front of my Mac and just watch it consume electricity either, what is your point? All Apple can do is make it as easy for third parties to move their software over. With the AS change over, Apple did not automatically assume responsibility for all of the third party software apps out there, nor for the actions of third party software developers. Apple made a decision that they felt that they had to make. The software developers will make the decisions that they have to make. Assuming to know what the software developers will do is nothing more than speculation. Apple has also tried to soften the transition by providing Rosetta 2. Is it enough? Nobody knows, and that is as accurate as it gets. I will say that third parties who do not choose to move over, considering the tools provided by Apple (along with technical support) probably don't have a major presence, or a major commitment to the Mac platform, so even now, they are probably only providing half-hearted support for the Mac, as a platform.

Apple has probably been working out the entire process for years, literally, years. I have next to zero doubt that MacOS has been running on AS SoCs (or what was called OSX when this started) since the A6 or A7 generation of. We are on the A13, and very quickly moving to A14. While this is an indication of how long Apple's labs have been working on this, it hasn't been just the labs. The people who set the product and platform directions have been working on this just as long, if not longer, as they were part of the process that made the original decision. Could Apple have missed something about the transition? Possible, but highly unlikely.

Just so that everybody knows, and I will continue to repeat this, a major part of the reasoning behind the change over is to leverage R&D investment. The Mac SoCs will be using the same CPU and GPU, and most likely, a good part of the accelerator blocks that are used in the iPhone 12. Doesn't mean that they SoCs are the same, but the A14 CPU, GPU and accelerator core designs will be pretty much the same. Apple will add other parts to those cores, things like multiple USB4/TB4 ports, wired Ethernet ports, the hypervisor core, off SoC support for RAM. However, since the common core designs have already been debugged, the R&D costs for the Mac SoC will be considerably cheaper than starting with a clean sheet design. It will be a lot cheaper when 70% of the Mac SoC has already been debugged and tested while being developed for the iPhone 12. The iPhone 12 will spread the cost of the R&D for the common cores across 200M devices/year, not the 12-20M Macs a year.

 

[Joelist]

You need to add together the R&D costs, the costs of the fab, the license cost and the cost of Apple having their own internal hardware design team. Apple Silicon is likely the same or more expensive than Intel for them. This resembles those arguing that Apple created the A Series because it was cheaper while when you add it all up they pay more than if they just put Snapdragons in their products - of course they got a lot of power and fully realized features for their iPhones and iPads and Apple Watches in the bargain.

 

[Michael Scrip]

You need to add together the R&D costs, the costs of the fab, the license cost and the cost of Apple having their own internal hardware design team. Apple Silicon is likely the same or more expensive than Intel for them. This resembles those arguing that Apple created the A Series because it was cheaper while when you add it all up they pay more than if they just put Snapdragons in their products - of course they got a lot of power and fully realized features for their iPhones and iPads and Apple Watches in the bargain.

Yeah... we don't know if it's cheaper, costs the same, or costs more than buying processors from Intel.

But even if it costs more... Apple is finally getting desktop chips designed to their *exact* specifications and needs... rather than getting whatever Intel decides to create.

And like you said... they also get iPhone chips, iPad chips, and Apple Watch chips from their investment in silicon. Apple is building a true processor ecosystem... from your wrist to your desk.

 

[Kostask]

You need to add together the R&D costs, the costs of the fab, the license cost and the cost of Apple having their own internal hardware design team. Apple Silicon is likely the same or more expensive than Intel for them. This resembles those arguing that Apple created the A Series because it was cheaper while when you add it all up they pay more than if they just put Snapdragons in their products - of course they got a lot of power and fully realized features for their iPhones and iPads and Apple Watches in the bargain.

THe only real added costs are the internal design team. They would be paying the R&D, fab, and license cost (for ARM only) throught the cost of the outisde vendor silicon, plus profit margin, unless you think that Qualcom and Intel (who have their own fabs, and are more likely more expensive than TSMC or Global Foundries) don't price in their own R&D, fab costs, and ARM license in the case of Qualcom. I really doubt that is the case. It may be that the A series do cost more than Snapdragons, but I really, really doubt it, as an end result. They will almost certainly save by going to their own SoC vs. buying an Intel solution. The A series SoC for the A13 is hovering in the $60 range, the Mac SoC will be in the $100-120 range, whereas Apple is paying $200 and up for the Intel CPU, and an additional $40-60 for the Intel support chip. All of which, along with things like the T2 chip, will be inside the Apple SoC.

 

[Ledgem]

i don't sit in front of my Mac and just watch it consume electricity either, what is your point?

You know the point because even though you write as if you're rebutting me, you've mentioned this in your posts as well: the hardware is nothing without software to the end-user. It comes to saying that yes, this transition could force some of us to Windows if the software we rely on doesn't make the move. Trying to assign fault to Apple or a third-party developer doesn't change that.

I suspect Apple is leaning heavily on the dominance of iOS and the reported ease with which iOS developers will be able to port and extend their apps on the Mac. Hopefully Rosetta 2 will work flawlessly for those that don't come along right away.

 

[leman]

You know the point because even though you write as if you're rebutting me, you've mentioned this in your posts as well: the hardware is nothing without software to the end-user. It comes to saying that yes, this transition could force some of us to Windows if the software we rely on doesn't make the move. Trying to assign fault to Apple or a third-party developer doesn't change that.

You are right if course, and that is also why Apple Silicon represents a significant risk. But the reward might be high too. Apple is an established company and they carry a lot of weight. If their new hardware is indeed as performant as some hope, third party will rush in to fill the void of native Apple Silicon software.

Overall, the transition will take time, which is also what Apple is doing makes a lot of sense. They will first introduce lower-end models, for users that can switch easily (office and productivity software, internet etc. will be available from day one). This will also show the performance advantage of the new Apple platform. It will take time for pro level software to become available, but same goes for the new pro level Macs. And sure, some older, established companies might choose not to invest into the new Apple. Their users will in part switch to Windows and in part migrate to other software. In the end, it really depends on how well these Macs will perform. If they are on par with Intel, nobody would bother much. But if they are significantly faster... that’s another story.

 

[Ledgem]

But the reward might be high too. Apple is an established company and they carry a lot of weight. If their new hardware is indeed as performant as some hope, third party will rush in to fill the void of native Apple Silicon software.

At the end of the day, third-party support relies on two things: marketshare, and how easy Apple makes it for third parties to get involved. That first one is the more critical of the two. And this represents a difficult chicken-and-egg scenario of sorts, because users are unlikely to flock to a new system even if its theoretical performance is far higher, if they can't get any work done on it. Granted, Apple will not be starting from zero, but transition points represent points of vulnerability for these reasons.

I don't really know that Apple is going to be blowing Intel and AMD away in terms of performance. Likewise, I don't expect them to exceed AMD or Nvidia on the graphical and specialized computing fronts. Apple's dominance in portable devices won't necessarily translate over to desktop devices (although their laptop lines will probably benefit). I do think that they will be able to start changing the way that a traditional computer operates and is thought of, though. To me, that is the more exciting (and again, frightening) prospect.

 

[leman]

I don't really know that Apple is going to be blowing Intel and AMD away in terms of performance. Likewise, I don't expect them to exceed AMD or Nvidia on the graphical and specialized computing fronts. Apple's dominance in portable devices won't necessarily translate over to desktop devices (although their laptop lines will probably benefit). I do think that they will be able to start changing the way that a traditional computer operates and is thought of, though. To me, that is the more exciting (and again, frightening) prospect.

I agree with you that Apple Silicon has more than a few unknowns if we talk about high-end desktop. But looking at performance of their mobile offerings, it is not very difficult to make reasonable estimates of what will be possible in a Apple Silicon laptop. In terms of per core performance, Apple is already in the lead. If the new fabrication process allows slightly higher clocks, Apple will have little difficulty outperforming anything Intel or AMD can offer. GPU-wise, looking at performance-per-watt comparisons, an A12 (two generations old) is at least on par with Navi and Turing in compute performance, while being considerably faster in graphics (simply because it uses an TBDR approach). All these are building blocks to making some very fast ultraportable laptops. The only question is what architectural improvements A14 will bring and which clocks can it reach. Again, looking at capabilities of the A13, I think that i9+1060gtx levels of performance should be reachable with a 30watt Apple SoC.

 

[Joelist]

It's interesting to note that Apple already has major third party support not just lined up but actively in play. Microsoft has full (not mobile) Office running natively on Apple Silicon. Adobe Creative Suite is running natively as well. Autodesk Maya has already been shown running very fast on AS and remember Autodesk already has AutoCAD native for iOS so the transition is lesser.

 

[leman]

It's interesting to note that Apple already has major third party support not just lined up but actively in play. Microsoft has full (not mobile) Office running natively on Apple Silicon. Adobe Creative Suite is running natively as well. Autodesk Maya has already been shown running very fast on AS and remember Autodesk already has AutoCAD native for iOS so the transition is lesser.

It is a common misconception that since Apple Silicon Macs will run ARM CPUs, developing software for them is somehow related to iOS. But it’s not. All these native applications are simply standard Mac applications, compiled to ARM instead of x86. You might need to do some additional work, like replacing x86-specific code and fixing latent bugs in your code. But making an iOS version into a full fledged desktop application is much more difficult than fixing your existing desktop app.

 

[Joelist]

iOS uses Apple Silicon already. The instruction set is there already. It is a superset of the ARM instruction set Apple licenses (it has additional instructions in it). So yes there is a relationship to iOS. In the case of Autodesk it means at least some of the coding is therefore already done. Obviously a mobile app is not just a recompile if you want it to look right, and in all likelihood there will be additional AS instructions for the Mac family. But to act like already being coded for iOS saves nothing is also incorrect.

So regardless of what is involved, Apple already has the big third party players in the fold with native versions of the desktop versions of their tools.

 

[vigilant]

I agree with you that Apple Silicon has more than a few unknowns if we talk about high-end desktop. But looking at performance of their mobile offerings, it is not very difficult to make reasonable estimates of what will be possible in a Apple Silicon laptop. In terms of per core performance, Apple is already in the lead. If the new fabrication process allows slightly higher clocks, Apple will have little difficulty outperforming anything Intel or AMD can offer. GPU-wise, looking at performance-per-watt comparisons, an A12 (two generations old) is at least on par with Navi and Turing in compute performance, while being considerably faster in graphics (simply because it uses an TBDR approach). All these are building blocks to making some very fast ultraportable laptops. The only question is what architectural improvements A14 will bring and which clocks can it reach. Again, looking at capabilities of the A13, I think that i9+1060gtx levels of performance should be reachable with a 30watt Apple SoC.

I largely agree with you on most of what you said, but with that said it’s worth stating that we don’t necessarily know how things are going to go with GPU.

Right now, my 2018 iPad Pro is within 10% of matching my 2019 MacBook Pro on CPU. That shocked me.

In benchmarks the A12Z is more than twice what the integrated performance of Intel GPU and like a quarter of what my dedicated AMD card in my GPU has.

Two extremely important things to note, it’s hard to say what this will look like at scale for Apple. I’d expect a MacBook Pro to have at least twice the GPU cores compared to an iPad Pro. I also expect the MacBook Pro to have fans to allow for longer sustained performance and potentially higher clock rate. We may also see a completely new GPU design as well with A14. Either way I’m cautiously optimistic for what’s to come.

 

[Solomani]

No idea why they still run the 8th gen Intel on these things. Dell and everyone SMALLER can update yearly with new products but Apple is two years old on the cpu. Half of me thinks they’re going ARM to eliminate comparisons. Every Gen is the latest even if it’s a couple years old.

Or maybe because Intel has simply sucked at its game for the last few years? Even AMD, once a far far behind underdog, has been gaining ground on Intel lately.

Apple isn't "going to ARM". They've already been there for years. They've already been deep in control of in-house ARM development for years, to the point that the iPhone ARM CPUs blow the Android phones out of the water.

 

[leman]

In benchmarks the A12Z is more than twice what the integrated performance of Intel GPU and like a quarter of what my dedicated AMD card in my GPU has.

What I am saying here is a gross overesimplofication, but it can be used to do some basic estimation of what we can expect. At this hardware tier, we can reasonably expect the performance to scale more or less linearly with the number of cores. An A14 GPU with 16 cores would therefore perform close to 5300M at half or less power consumption. That would be suitable for a 30W SoC.

 

[vigilant]

What I am saying here is a gross overestimation, but it can be used to do some basic estimation of what we can expect. At this hardware tier, we can reasonably expect the performance to scale more or less linearly with the number of cores. An A14 GPU with 16 cores would therefore perform close to 5300M at half or less power consumption. That would be suitable for a 30W SoC.

Trust me, I agree. But I also think Apple may do what they did with their switch to Intel. Apple moved from PowerPC 32 to Intel 32 with the Core Duo. It was one year later when Apple went to Intel 64. Since then, there has been nothing but complaining about lack of 32 bit support.

I hope Apple doesn’t do this with a year long half step, like they did with Intel. If they do do that, it would probably be in the GPU.

 

[Fusionskies]

At first I was like, what?!, but now that I understand better all of the issues that intel are going through, I am very curious/optimistic to see the performance gains of the first ARM Mac.
Also, my MacBook Pro from 2013 is due an upgrade next year, as Big Sur is the end of the line for my Mac.

Like what others have said, Apple will get more control over the hardware, so I personally think it'll be a good thing for optimisation and efficiency. I am very interested to see battery life of the first portable ARM Mac.

 

[nothingtoseehere]

If the new fabrication process allows slightly higher clocks, Apple will have little difficulty outperforming anything Intel or AMD can offer

I do not know anything about chip manufacturing, so please apologize if this question is silly... How important are the clocks? I got the impression that the thermals (or performance pro watt) is where AS excels, given that iPad Pros have no active cooling at all.

What I am saying here is a gross overestimation, but it can be used to do some basic estimation of what we can expect. At this hardware tier, we can reasonably expect the performance to scale more or less linearly with the number of cores. An A14 GPU with 16 cores would therefore perform close to 5300M at half or less power consumption. That would be suitable for a 30W SoC.

Higher clocks, or more cores, or both? As long as you can get enough airflow ?

I always wondered that the Intel clocks actually seemed to shrink. My 13" early 2015 MBP has 2,9 GHz, current 13" MBPs have 1,4 (8th gen) or 2,0 (10th gen) without turbo. One of the reasons my machine is still competitive, to a certain degree? BTW, nothing compares to my iPad Pro (1st gen) concerning snappiness.