What are you talking about. The A16 is much better in comparison to other Macs and Windows PCs than the Core M3 of the 12" MacBook was at the time. The Core M3-7Y32 was *abysmally* bad. The performance was not 'very good' under any metric. The A11 Bionic released the same year was 50% faster!
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.
Macbook 12" that uses iPhone chip?
- Thread starter sam_dean
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Finally! Someone gets it!
Below is a table of 2017 devices. See the performance difference between a 14nm Intel chip and 10nm Apple A11 Bionic chip.
Source: https://appleinsider.com/articles/1...erates-top-chips-from-qualcomm-samsung-huawei
This is why I am very adamant and confident that a 3nm A17 Bionic chip with macOS Ventura or later from an iPhone 15 Pro coming out in Sep 2023 will be more than adequate to drive a $699 Macbook 12" or a $299 Mac mini/nano using a 2022 Apple TV 4K enclosure.
The only drawback of Apple doing this would be accusation of monopoly as it is trying to have price points entering mainstream PC MSRP.
A12 Bionic that came out a year after the A11 Bionic that you mentioned was used for the 2021 Apple TV 4K. It consumes less than 3.5W. Again this is far lower than the TDP of the Intel Core m3-7Y32 14nm of 3.75-7W.
As each iPhone chip uses far less power every die shrink then a 3nm A17 Bionic chip would sip power approaching 1W?
More powerful than a 2012 Core i7 22nm chip and sips nearly 1W of power... looks like a chip that would match well with a $699 Macbook 12" or $299 Mac mini/nano.
Last edited:
I’ve got a 2017 12” MacBook, and I love the form factor. It’s super light and easier to travel with. Downsides are the anemic Intel processor and lack of Thunderbolt as it only has one USB-C port. I thought when buying usb-c would be enough but now I wish it had a bit more oomph.
I feel like I’m part of the target demographic, and I wouldn’t touch a Macbook with an A17, I’d rather grab my iPad. I doubt the A17 would handle Thunderbolt, and I don’t think the cost of an M1 or M2 is that much more than an A series to bring the price down significantly. The new Mac Mini is a good example of that. I think if you went with a cheaper screen and plastic case you’d have more savings.
I feel like I’m part of the target demographic, and I wouldn’t touch a Macbook with an A17, I’d rather grab my iPad. I doubt the A17 would handle Thunderbolt, and I don’t think the cost of an M1 or M2 is that much more than an A series to bring the price down significantly. The new Mac Mini is a good example of that. I think if you went with a cheaper screen and plastic case you’d have more savings.
If you look at the table above the 2017 iPhone 10nm chips ere faster than 2017 Core i5 14nm chip.
So if raw performance improvements kept pace then a 3nm iPhone chip then it would be more powerful than any 2020 Intel iMac.
With USB-C being a requirement with iPhone 15 odds are Thunderbolt 3 may be built-in so that future Macbook 12" would probably have it.
Cheaper part
Smaller size
Lower power consumption
Increased performance per watt
Increased raw performance
Macbook 12" is really physically small and light weight so you need a chip that accommodate these targets.
I was looking at the transistor count of last Sep 2022's A16 iPhone chip and it has 16 billion transistors. This 2012 iMac I'm using has a Core i7 chip with just 1.4 billion transistors.
iPhone chip's more than capable to outperform an Intel Mac.
You are misunderstanding the cost of production on the A series vs M series also the power envelope. The M2 powers a 5.5mm iPad Pro in a 11” frame and gets 10 hours of battery life. Apple does not for any reason need to use the cut down A chips for a Mac.
Why would they, buy an iPad 😜 wouldn’t shock me if this was sorta their thought. The capability is here anyone shopping for a 12” MacBook would do perfectly fine on a iPad. I’m sure this will only become solidified as iPadOS furthers its “desktop class” feature set over time. iPadOS 17 will be interesting to see.
The current A16 is 3x single core and 6x multicore compared to my daily driver, a 2016 M3 Macbook. An A chip Macbook would be more than sufficient as a low end Mac.
But I will wager there is much financially to gain over producing an A chip compared to a low end M chip with those numbers being manufactured.
Why bother with an A17 when you could just use an M3? I do believe the M3 will have 10 Cpu Cores and also more Gpu Cores than the M2 as standard so they could hypothetically use an ultra binned version with 8 Cores and 7-9 Gpu ones.
That would still make a good computer, perfect for something like a Web Browser and light productivity ultra-portable machine.
Heck, they could lower the clocks down so the machine gets decent battery life. Put a price tag of 700-800 on it and Bob's your uncle!
That would still make a good computer, perfect for something like a Web Browser and light productivity ultra-portable machine.
Heck, they could lower the clocks down so the machine gets decent battery life. Put a price tag of 700-800 on it and Bob's your uncle!
3nm M3's a higher-end chip that uses more power as compared to a 3nm A17 if it ran macOS.
The purpose here is to create
- $699 Macbook 12" 8/256
- $299 Mac mini/nano 8/256 that uses a 2022 Apple TV 4K enclosure
They will not be as fast as a M3 but will run circles around any Intel Mac laptop from year 2006-2019.
But that's already a reality. The Mx chips are essentially the AX chips, but slightly scaled up. They're called Mx for marketing reasons – because users aren't happy to know that the chips that power their desktop machines are the same as the ones powering up their phones.
iPhone chips are cheaper to make and a bit lower end. Perfect for Macbook 12" and Mac nano.
They have less GPU cores and RAM, but the difference is small. So much so that they CAN run full-blown MacOS X and Windows.
But Apple won't allow for normal hypervisor access because doing that would make your precious iPhone compete with their desktop products. And they don't want that.
Apple won’t make that not at those prices. The new mac mini is only $600 or $500 for edu and is a M2. any new MacBook would command a premium likely due to design and or display (they’d prolly use one as a first OLED Mac) except we know the iPads already taken that sorta role. apple will never make something just because it will hit a price point, ever, and I wouldn’t want them too. Everyone else can make that crap. Apple has arguably best in class hardware across every price segemnt they have atm.
But they already do, that's what I'm saying. Why do you think it's so easy to port programs from MacOS into iOS and vice-versa?
Because it's the same architecture.
In fact, Apple's architecture is so homogeneous now that in theory you can turn your Apple TV into a Mac Mini – because that's what it is, but with a different firmware.
Some hackers HAVE managed to do just that, but Apple has patched it.
Guess why they don't want to turn your Apple TV into a Mac Mini? Because it would cannibalize their sales.
Why would a mac be slower than an ipad air or ipad pro?! Sorry but no
Apple is about the factor of scaling
You cannot or you shouldnt place an iphone SoC into a macbook...for once a macOS device should have at least 8gb ram and we dont know the A17 will have minimum 8gb ram
And second M3 under shrink die Apple can place only binned M3 SoC with 10 core cpu that draws 5W-7W maximum, Apple can limit also the power consumption to 5W if that makes you happy(we already saw them doing with the M1 max in the 14" Mbp)
So an binned M3 with 8gb unifed memory and 256 ssd i can see it happen
A macbook should not have a lower end spec SoC compared to an ipad air/pro no matter what
Plus we want usbC that can support thunderbolt on our macs, otherwise the ipad is more fitted for you
Last edited:
not exactly, a fully A17 under 3nm in 2023 can at the same price as an binned M3 in mid 2024
You could just run Geekbench 5 and see it for yourself. Technology has evolved so much that an iPad Air IS indeed faster than an old Macbook. The raw power is there.
But that's exactly what I've been trying to telling you. The Mx chips ARE the iPhone processor chips, but scaled up with more GPU and RAM.
Why do you think they are so power efficient? That's one reason for you.
Have you tried to run a virtual machine on an iPhone, or a Wii emulator? It absolutely can pull it up emulating the Wii, and it'll be very smooth to boot!
But i think these talk remains just for pure fun since Apple is thinking more about for an 15" Macbook air than for a smaller mac
And 12" 13" 14" 15"16" it would be simply too much
Only if Apple wants in 2-3 years to replace the current M2 Macbook air with a new small 12.3" Macbook(Air)
And 12" 13" 14" 15"16" it would be simply too much
Only if Apple wants in 2-3 years to replace the current M2 Macbook air with a new small 12.3" Macbook(Air)
to tell me? im sorry we didnt talked until now...and i think you are missing my point?? please read again i think you confuse me with someone else
I didnt even talked about old Macbook with Intel...i was talking about if Apple place an iphone SoC into the Macbook then it will be slower than an iPad air with M2/M3
It won't. The iPads are essentially Macbooks without a keyboard, worse cooling and less RAM. But their processing power is VERY similar to Macbooks. People say that their hardware is being wasted and underutilized for a reason.