MP All Models Is Apple ****ing themselves over the ThreadRipper 3 yet?

[koyoot]

Even worse - 32 bit macOS is stuck on an older version of the runtime that doesn't get new language features.

Keeping 32 bit support around meant that Apple was using 2005 era macOS development practices. They couldn't use any of the modern stuff they were shipping to third party developers.

Exactly. It has zero to do with the hardware plans like some people are trying to push.

Cut the condescending crap...I’ll talk about whatever I choose.

I am fully aware that Canonical doesn’t make its own hardware, but Apple does, and that’s the difference. Linux distros use their breadth of hardware support as a major “selling” point. Open Source users have their own unique needs, wants and desires AND opinions. It is part of the strength and weakness of the Open Source movement.

Apple has taken considerable time and effort to get itself into this position to design and produce their own SoC, now they’re moving on to making their own 5G modems. There’s a method to their madness and that is to become the sole supplier to themselves of critical components and reduce their dependence on Intel and, eventually, they may end up ditching AMD GPUs as well.

While ditching 32-bit support is a “software” decision, it has as much to do with Apple’s future hardware ambitions moving forward as it does with pushing developers forward to embrace modern technologies and to get them to take advantage of Apple’s unique hardware and software synergies that work over all their different platforms (iOS, iPadOS, macOS, tvOS and watchOS).

Your desire for Apple to switch to AMD is missing that particular piece of reality that the Mac is just one piece of what Apple makes and sells. You won’t be the first or the last to ignore the other 67% of Apple’s hardware revenue.

Ditching 32 Libraries has ZERO to do with Hardware plans. It is beyond me that you can say this, when you have not shown a proof for this concept. Guess what. There cannot be proof for this, because that is not how hardware works.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Exactly. It has zero to do with the hardware plans like some people are trying to push.

Ditching 32 Libraries has ZERO to do with Hardware plans. It is beyond me that you can say this, when you have not shown a proof for this concept. Guess what. There cannot be proof for this, because that is not how hardware works.

Pot meet kettle. Ironic given the push you are making that inclusion of AMD processor references in a beta version of MacOS is definitive of Apple's future hardware plans. Neither is.

 

[koyoot]

If it’s JUST less work to deal with, is there another OS out there that has taken the “less work” and “higher quality code” route and support 32-bit libraries?

Canonical wanted to ditch the 32 bit libraries for very simple reason.

Excluding the moronic decision from Valve to keep 32 bit libraries for Steam, there is genuine minority of Linux Users that use them. Something like 0.45% of ALL of Linux users, and I mean ALL Linux users use 32 bit libraries, excluding Steam.

0.45% of Linux users, where Linux has 2% of ALL computers, as Installed base. It costs money, time, and effort to maintain those libraries.

Pot meet kettle. Ironic given the push you are making that inclusion of AMD processor references in a beta version of MacOS is definitive of Apple's future hardware plans. Neither is.

Current and future APUs are not enough a proof for the topic that Apple is ditching Intel for AMD.

But Semi-Custom APU(Van Gogh) appearing in MacOS Catalina Beta drivers is a proof for this.

Go read about how Semi-Custom AMD's business works.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple does sell mostly mobile systems - but they are the world's largest seller of really fast laptops.

Sorry, but this needs a big BS alert. ?

How do you define "really fast" - the exact definition is important and leaves a lot of room for skewing the results.

Apple doesn't announce unit sales - let alone unit sales by CPU model. How do you know that Apple sells more "really fast" computers than Lenovo/HP/Dell ? You don't.

 

[itdk92]

There’s no machine comparable to the Mac Pro, because, no matter how powerful ANY other system is at general purpose tasks, the Mac Pro runs Final Cut Pro X and Logic Pro X better and faster than all of them.

Once you understand that, at the high end, Apple’s only making systems for those forced (or have a very strong desire) to use Apple’s apps, apps that, year over year, continue to see significant improvements that make that $299 initial purchase a bargain, then you understand that they’re mostly above the AMD/Intel fray. They could come out with an os that runs on Raspberry Pi and that fails every single generic benchmark by HUGE amounts. However, if it still runs Final Cut Pro X better than anything out there (which effectively, is anything that’s not it), it’s still a “winner”.

Not true. I have a Hackintosh running the new Ryzens CPUs and I can tell you it outperforms everything else that's out as I'm writing this.

Next will be an Hackintosh with one of the new threadrippers, and my workstations needs will be solved for at least 1-2 years.
[automerge]1575318879[/automerge]

Agreed, this is the #1 reason why switched back from Hackintosh to a 2010 Mac Pro a few years ago. The main issue I see is an expectation (promoted by Apple) that the Mac Pro 7.1 is the ultimate workstation, yet in several cases that may not be true?

Never the less, I am using it for 3D and 2D art work with some HitFilm occasionally mixed in. No audio or Abobe Premier. My switch from Nivida to AMD graphics has not been great ether, I admit dropping Nivida really pissed me off, I have and still do work within it, but after a couple years it is clear to me that Apple does not give a ****.

FYI
I read that Threadripper runs faster in Linux, so I guess that might be an option too. I just don't see myself buying the MacPro 7.1 at this time. Almost all the apps I use run native in Linux, except PS. I wish there was an application as good as PS with it comes to painting, editing color channels and filters but I don't see it.

If Octane and Redshift actually delivers on all the promises made at WWDC 19, most 3D workloads might be very viable on the new Mac Pro, but obviously we are talking about the top tier RadeonDuo and dual RadeonDuo options ($$$$).

 

[goMac]

While ditching 32-bit support is a “software” decision, it has as much to do with Apple’s future hardware ambitions moving forward as it does with pushing developers forward to embrace modern technologies and to get them to take advantage of Apple’s unique hardware and software synergies that work over all their different platforms (iOS, iPadOS, macOS, tvOS and watchOS).

A lot of this is based on a misunderstanding.

Catalina still supports 32 bit processes. It just doesn't support 32 bit Mac apps.

That's how, for example, the 32 bit iOS-on-Intel Simulator still runs. It's still running in a 32 bit mode on the CPU, it's just not using any Mac application frameworks.

So Catalina is not 64 bit pure, and 32 bit has not been totally ditched.

This is also coupling the runtimes and the CPU architectures in a way that's... not right. Both iOS and watchOS support the modern runtime on 32 bit, while Mac does not. watchOS is still in active development for 32 bit, actually. Apple Watches were 32 bit up to the series 2.

 

[koyoot]

So Catalina is not 64 bit pure, and 32 bit has not been totally ditched.

it never will be ditched. Those who claim that there will be "pure" 64 bit hardware have no idea how Instruction Sets work.

And those are bloody basics of Computer designs. Being uneducated on this front is understandable. Saying gospel, based on lack of education is completely different thing.

 

[goMac]

it never will be ditched. Those who claim that there will be "pure" 64 bit hardware have no idea how Instruction Sets work.

And those are bloody basics of Computer designs. Being uneducated on this front is understandable. Saying gospel, based on lack of education is completely different thing.

AFAIK, the A series is not 64 bit pure either. I think those CPUs still allow for 32 bit execution, but because it's a closed ecosystem I know less about it. Like the Mac, Apple cut the 32 bit application libraries. But I'd bet just like the Mac, 32 bit processes will still run.

 

[koyoot]

AFAIK, the A series is not 64 bit pure either. I think those CPUs still allow for 32 bit execution, but because it's a closed ecosystem I know less about it. Like the Mac, Apple cut the 32 bit application libraries. But I'd bet just like the Mac, 32 bit processes will still run.

Of course they will run. It is not that you can cut stuff from ISA, without any repercusions.

 

[Pro7913]

Why are we talking about non-AMD stuff? Focus on AMD CPU instead of 32bit or ARM stuff.

 

[AidenShaw]

Like the Mac, Apple cut the 32 bit application libraries. But I'd bet just like the Mac, 32 bit processes will still run.

There are many 32-bit system libraries as well - some of them are wrappers to map 32-bit system calls to the 64-bit system calls.

If the 32-bit system libraries go missing, it would be almost impossible to run any 32-bit applications.

 

[goMac]

Why are we talking about non-AMD stuff? Focus on AMD CPU instead of 32bit or ARM stuff.

Because Apple moving to ARM is also a possibility instead of them moving to AMD.

Personally I think Apple will ship both ARM and x86 Macs starting soon.

The more relevant question would be - Would Apple ship a ARM Mac Pro? I think they're more likely to use AMD, for now. Once they get a bit further scaling up ARM, an ARM Mac Pro is certainly a possibility.

It's certainly one reason I think this thread is absolutely alarmist. Apple has plenty of options, other than Intel. And if Intel gets their act together, Intel is still an option too.

 

[AidenShaw]

Personally I think Apple will ship both ARM and x86 Macs starting soon.

Apple no longer ships x86 Macs, and hasn't for a long time. They're x64 Macs.

 

[koyoot]

Because Apple moving to ARM is also a possibility instead of them moving to AMD.

Personally I think Apple will ship both ARM and x86 Macs starting soon.

The more relevant question would be - Would Apple ship a ARM Mac Pro? I think they're more likely to use AMD, for now. Once they get a bit further scaling up ARM, an ARM Mac Pro is certainly a possibility.

It's certainly one reason I think this thread is absolutely alarmist. Apple has plenty of options, other than Intel. And if Intel gets their act together, Intel is still an option too.

The moment we will see anything apart from Chromebook competitor based on ARM, it will be complete ridiculing of Apple platform from anything "High-Performance" related.

No matter how many integrated Video Encoders you will integrate to your SOC, ARM will be used only by basic stuff in servers, and toys.

I will repeat. There is a good reason why there is no supercomputer based on ARM, and why ARM based servers are complete minority. Not to mention Data Centers based 100% on x86_64.

 

[Pro7913]

Because Apple moving to ARM is also a possibility instead of them moving to AMD.

Personally I think Apple will ship both ARM and x86 Macs starting soon.

The more relevant question would be - Would Apple ship a ARM Mac Pro? I think they're more likely to use AMD, for now. Once they get a bit further scaling up ARM, an ARM Mac Pro is certainly a possibility.

It's certainly one reason I think this thread is absolutely alarmist. Apple has plenty of options, other than Intel. And if Intel gets their act together, Intel is still an option too.

This is a Mac Pro forum. At this point, ARM is not powerful enough to compete with desktop-grade CPU and there arent many software able to use ARM CPU. I think this is out of topic and AMD EPYC or Threadripper is more realistic for Mac Pro.

Also ARM-based CPU for Mac is not yet proven to be powerful because there isnt any software to compare between iPad and Mac.

I wouldn't waste my time talking about ARM-based Mac for Mac Pro instead of AMD CPU for Mac Pro.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

AFAIK, the A series is not 64 bit pure either.

It’s 64 bit pure, like Itanium was 64 bit pure.

 

[goMac]

This is a Mac Pro forum. At this point, ARM is not powerful enough to compete with desktop-grade CPU and there arent many software able to use ARM CPU. I think this is out of topic and AMD EPYC or Threadripper is more realistic for Mac Pro.

All the reviews of Apple's A series paint a very different picture. It's not running at Mac Pro scale, but at laptop scale it's extremely competitive.

Most of the performance analysis of ARM has not been based on Apple's CPU architecture, which is quite different than generic ARM. Apple in house is very competitive with AMD. Why go outside when they have what they need inside?

Also ARM-based CPU for Mac is not yet proven to be powerful because there isnt any software to compare between iPad and Mac.

That's not at all true. Not only is there common software, but Apple's ARM CPUs bench extremely well. And it's built on the exact same process as AMD CPUs. It would be a worthy alternative to AMD, built on the same process, that would give Apple total control.

If Apple could scale up... that's something we'll have to see over the next few years. It's possible. I think it will come down to the cost of Apple building something in house for one of their niche machines.
[automerge]1575323451[/automerge]

It’s 64 bit pure, like Itanium was 64 bit pure.

Do you have any proof? That would be a significant departure from the ARM64 standard, which is why I kind of have my doubts.

 

[Pro7913]

All the reviews of Apple's A series paint a very different picture. It's not running at Mac Pro scale, but at laptop scale it's extremely competitive.

Most of the performance analysis of ARM has not been based on Apple's CPU architecture, which is quite different than generic ARM. Apple in house is very competitive with AMD. Why go outside when they have what they need inside?

I didnt say anything about laptops and aren't we talking about Mac Pro or desktop? Do you even have sources to support your theory that current A series can compete and use for professional software?

That's not at all true. Not only is there common software, but Apple's ARM CPUs bench extremely well. And it's built on the exact same process as AMD CPUs. It would be a worthy alternative to AMD, built on the same process, that would give Apple total control.

If Apple could scale up... that's something we'll have to see over the next few years. It's possible. I think it will come down to the cost of Apple building something in house for one of their niche machines.

The same process does not represent the same performance. How come 12nm Nvidia GPU outperforms 7nm AMD GPU? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. We are talking about reality. All benchmarks for A series chip do not represent the performance in real life and there is no data that A series are powerful enough to be used for Mac Pro. Seriously, are there any servers with ARM CPU? If so, what's the market share percentage?

 

[Zdigital2015]

Current and future APUs are not enough a proof for the topic that Apple is ditching Intel for AMD.

But Semi-Custom APU(Van Gogh) appearing in MacOS Catalina Beta drivers is a proof for this.

Go read about how Semi-Custom AMD's business works.

Apple including the code name for a single supposedly Semi-Custom APU is simply not enough evidence to draw any meaningful conclusion, but this is MacRumors, after all, so have fun with it.

I’m not opposed to Apple moving to AMD, but I just don’t see it happening until AMD has a suitable solution for all of Apple’s mobile computer lineup, of which they have none.

Until AMD does has a complete product stack to replace what Intel supplies, Apple is not moving over, it’s just that simple.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

This is a Mac Pro forum. At this point, ARM is not powerful enough to compete with desktop-grade CPU and there arent many software able to use ARM CPU. I think this is out of topic and AMD EPYC or Threadripper is more realistic for Mac Pro.

Also ARM-based CPU for Mac is not yet proven to be powerful because there isnt any software to compare between iPad and Mac.

I wouldn't waste my time talking about ARM-based Mac for Mac Pro instead of AMD CPU for Mac Pro.

At this point there are no AMD CPU based Apple computers at all, let alone the Mac Pro. Everything in this thread is speculation regardless of whether AMD or ARM. Whether everyone is wasting their time is an open question but probably true (myself included).

 

[Pro7913]

At this point there are no AMD CPU based Apple computers at all, let alone the Mac Pro. Everything in this thread is speculation regardless of whether AMD or ARM. Whether everyone is wasting their time is an open question but probably true (myself included).

But seriously, ARM is not a realistic solution for Mac Pro instead of AMD EPYC or Threadripper.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

But seriously, ARM is not a realistic solution for Mac Pro instead of AMD EPYC or Threadripper.

Seriously? It's a pipe dream to think you'll see a thread ripper, let alone EPYC, powered Mac Pro anytime in the near future. Is it possible some time years out, sure, anything's possible (including ARM) but you won't see one in 2020 or 2021 or 2022 or ... You'll have to wait until AMD can deliver CPUs that meet power consumption specs for the full line of Apple machines before Apple considers a move and then add another year or two of R&D for Apple to bring it to market.

 

[Pro7913]

Seriously? It's a pipe dream to think you'll see a thread ripper, let alone EPYC, powered Mac Pro anytime in the near future. Is it possible some time years out, sure, anything's possible (including ARM) but you won't see one in 2020 or 2021 or 2022 or ... You'll have to wait until AMD can deliver CPUs that meet power consumption specs for the full line of Apple machines before Apple considers a move and then add another year or two of R&D for Apple to bring it to market.

Realsitically, AMD EPYC and Threadripper outperform Intel Xeon series. We are talking about Mac desktop, not a laptop. Clearly, Intel is not able to compete with AMD especially with their security flaws even with 10nm CPU. Even they bring 7nm, there is no guarantee they will be able to compete with multicores.

 

[goMac]

But seriously, ARM is not a realistic solution for Mac Pro instead of AMD EPYC or Threadripper.

Why?

Apple controls the entire chipset. They can do anything with it they want or optimize for anything they want.

AVX512 seems better than NEON, but AMD doesn’t have that either... And Apple could add their own instructions.

It really does come down to cost. Is Apple willing to pay for that development work?

 

[koyoot]

Apple including the code name for a single supposedly Semi-Custom APU is simply not enough evidence to draw any meaningful conclusion, but this is MacRumors, after all, so have fun with it.

I’m not opposed to Apple moving to AMD, but I just don’t see it happening until AMD has a suitable solution for all of Apple’s mobile computer lineup, of which they have none.

Until AMD does has a complete product stack to replace what Intel supplies, Apple is not moving over, it’s just that simple.

Van Gogh is Semi Custom project. It does not exist on any AMD's roadmap, it is based on Zen 2, and is bigger then AMD's Renoir. It is even not for FP5 socket.

Secondly. Semi-Custom projects are ordered solely by AMD's clients, for their specific needs. If Apple has already kexts of it in their MacOS Betas - it means they have ordered the physical design and design of manufacturing of it. Otherwise - what for would it be?

AMD based Macsc are coming. Van Gogh is actually confirmation that Apple and AMD have been working together on this front.

It is this simple.

And we have had in the past articles saying that Apple will move away from Intel starting 2020. I don't know about you guys, but I would not be so sceptical about it being "not so early".