What are the benefits of Apple switching to Arm Macs?

[Wolfpup]

Huh? The only benefit?
It's been stated and it's common consensus at this point that the Arm Chips will run more efficiently and far cooler meaning better potential battery life, less or no fan noise and better thermals meaning less thermal stress to the insides of the computer.
That's a massive deal if you're using a lap top computer.

yes, obviously the only benefit.

and yes, “it’s been stated”, but those things are obvious nonsense. They won’t run cooler or have better battery life or have less noise. They only way to do those things is to have less power, which you can also do just as easily (at least) on x86 hardware by limiting clocks. Other companies do that today.

this doesn’t do ay of those nonsensical things, it just gives Apple more money.

 

[dmccloud]

yes, obviously the only benefit.

and yes, “it’s been stated”, but those things are obvious nonsense. They won’t run cooler or have better battery life or have less noise. They only way to do those things is to have less power, which you can also do just as easily (at least) on x86 hardware by limiting clocks. Other companies do that today.

this doesn’t do ay of those nonsensical things, it just gives Apple more money.

There is a metric called "performance per watt" that many companies are using now. This metric essentially takes the raw performance of a processor and divides it by the wattage said CPU consumes. The A-Series chips used in the iPhone and iPad are among the industry leaders in this metric for consumer products. This means that Apple can have performance comparable to current Intel-based Macs with a lower power draw, meaning significant increases in battery life, or they could theoretically keep the power draw as-is and have a significantly more powerful processor under the hood.

 

[leman]

and yes, “it’s been stated”, but those things are obvious nonsense. They won’t run cooler or have better battery life or have less noise. They only way to do those things is to have less power, which you can also do just as easily (at least) on x86 hardware by limiting clocks. Other companies do that today.

You are not looking at the available facts. Here are a few:

- Apple CPUs are more efficient. Looking at single-core performance, an A13 iPhone CPU is within a 10% margin of a 5.0Ghz 14nm Intel's CPU, while consuming around 6-10 times less power. A 2 year old Apple Chip (A12Z) offers comparable CPU performance (and better GPU performance) to newest Intel Ice Lake chips at 1/3 power consumption

- Apple CPUs are asymmetric designs, combining performance and efficiency cores. Low-priority background tasks can be offloaded to slower efficiency cores which consume only a fraction of power (even though the performance cores are already incredibly energy efficient, all things considered)

- Intel has been aggressively tuning their Turbo Boost profiles in the recent years in order to get more sales from their stagnating hardware. The result are CPUs running at the absolute limit of their power curve. While boosting even laptop CPUs can draw over 100 watts for brief periods of time. Apple CPUs will likely behave better in this regard. Don't get me wrong, I am pretty sure that they will also get warm during demanding sustained workloads, but their power usage is going to be much more predictable than that of the current Intel chips.

 

[AlphaCentauri]

I can literally cook eggs on my 2018 Mac mini while making music at my home studio. It is an amazing machine, don’t get me wrong, but it runs sooo hot. If ASi Mac mini will be running cooler with similar performance - I am going to love it, despite the fact that some software I use might not survive the transition...

 

[Boil]

I can literally cook eggs on my 2018 Mac mini while making music at my home studio. It is an amazing machine, don’t get me wrong, but it runs sooo hot. If ASi Mac mini will be running cooler with similar performance - I am going to love it, despite the fact that some software I use might not survive the transition...

Pretty sure that would void your warranty there...! ;^p

 

[farewelwilliams]

Probably dreaming on that.

Apple in 2011 Considered Collecting a 40% Fee From Some Subscription Apps

Apple once considered taking a 40 percent cut from some subscription apps, according to documents shared today by the House Judiciary Committee (via...

www.macrumors.com

Any CPU package bill of materials (BOM) cost reduction Apple will likely shuffle either into some other component of higher BOM or just pocket it. So perhaps larger SSD capacity (at same Apple $400/TB rate) , micro-LED screens , etc.

At the higher end of the Mac product line up the volume of Macs is low enough that there my not be a drop in BOM costs for the CPU packages. A-series are cheaper in part because Apple selling 10's of millions per year of them. 27" iMac , iMac Pro , Mac Pro are probably 2 , if not 3 , orders of magnitude lower in volume. That isn't going to reduce BOM costs at all (fixed costs up and volume cost spread over much smaller number of units ).


Same thing on the iPhones when Apple drops Qualcomm later. Probably going to cost just as much.

turns out, not dreaming at all
Mac mini is now $100 cheaper

 

[deconstruct60]

turns out, not dreaming at all
Mac mini is now $100 cheaper

Down two Thunderbolt ports. Can drive one less display. No 10GbE capability at all.
Capped at 16GB of RAM. ( as opposed to maxing out at 64GB and RAM can actually be updated. ) .

If get less not particularly surprising that you pay less.

When Apple has an actual desktop class I/O SoC ... we'll see what the price is.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Down two Thunderbolt ports. Can drive one less display. No 10GbE capability at all.
Capped at 16GB of RAM. ( as opposed to maxing out at 64GB ) .

If get less not particularly surprising that you pay less.

When Apple has an actually desktop class I/O SoC ... well see what the price is.

1. Supports 6k + 4k while previous only supported 5k+4k.
2. 10GbE cap + 16cap are not comparing against base model. Those cost extra.
3. Had Apple added more functionality and kept the same price, pretty sure you'd say "I told you they wouldn't lower the price".

 

[deconstruct60]

1. Supports 6k + 4k while previous only supported 5k+4k.

Largely only because the processor is old. Current Intel integrated graphic tech does 4 display while Apple is only doing two here.

2. 10GbE cap + 16cap are not comparing against base model. Those cost extra.

Paying to have an option. Don't get the 64GB of RAM with the base model either. But you can get there with the Intel Model. You'd need to soak up one of the "two fewer" TB ports on the MIni to get to 10GbE. You are getting less options and flexibility.

3. Had Apple added more functionality and kept the same price, pretty sure you'd say "I told you they wouldn't lower the price".

The price drop here is more so coming off that Apple is reverting the Mini back to costing off of high volume Mac Laptop parts. If someone had said that Apple was going to take the Mini back to "laptop" zone after finally getting on the desktop SoC footing. Then I probably would have said I didn't see them going that way.

This is taking the Mini back into the "headless laptop zone". And if someone had said that was what Apple was going to do then ... yeah I would have expected some incrementally lower prices. In part, because were probably going to lose features.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Largely only because the processor is old. Current Intel integrated graphic tech does 4 display while Apple is only doing two here.

You're assuming a new Intel 2020 Mac mini would use the latest gen Intel chips anyways. 2018 mini was released with 8th gen chips when 9th gen chips were available (or at the very least, 8th gen was reaching its end on the shelf). Considering they used old Intel chips in 2018 (which would be cheaper), yet this new generation uses latest technology with a lower price, arguing the case of potentially using latest Intel chips doesn't make sense as it would have likely increased the base price.

Paying to have an option. Don't get the 64GB of RAM with the base model either. But you can get there with the Intel Model. You'd need to soak up one of the "two fewer" TB ports on the MIni to get to 10GbE. You are getting less options and flexibility.

1. We're comparing the base model. Not options.
2. WiFi 6 is likely more applicable to more customers than 10GbE, so "soaking up" one port is a non issue since the solution for a faster network connection is built into the machine.

The price drop here is more so coming off that Apple is reverting the Mini back to costing off of high volume Mac Laptop parts. If someone had said that Apple was going to take the Mini back to "laptop" zone after finally getting on the desktop SoC footing. Then I probably would have said I didn't see them going that way.

This is taking the Mini back into the "headless laptop zone". And if someone had said that was what Apple was going to do then ... yeah I would have expected some incrementally lower prices. In part, because were probably going to lose features.

Price drop here is removing Intel from the picture.

Regardless, your original point was "Any CPU package bill of materials (BOM) cost reduction Apple will likely shuffle either into some other component of higher BOM or just pocket it." which didn't turn out true for Mac mini.

 

[lie2me]

Why did Apple switch to Arm Macs?

Still new to Arm

What are the benefits of Arm Mac Computers?

(Rather learn research on here, Macrumors)

As I understand it, Intel was slow (having difficulty) to develop better semiconductor processes with smaller transistors. This was causing delays in introducing new macs with faster processes. Power consumption/heat/battery life became an issue with a complex instruction set computer (CISC) processor and the larger transistor sizes of Intel. Reduced instruction set computer (RISC) processor of the ARM has benefits over a CISC processor. The desire to merge IOS and MAC OS together was apparent to allow IOS apps be used on Macs. It is going to be a long transitiion.

 

[MaxinMusicCity]

You're assuming a new Intel 2020 Mac mini would use the latest gen Intel chips anyways. 2018 mini was released with 8th gen chips when 9th gen chips were available (or at the very least, 8th gen was reaching its end on the shelf). Considering they used old Intel chips in 2018 (which would be cheaper), yet this new generation uses latest technology with a lower price, arguing the case of potentially using latest Intel chips doesn't make sense as it would have likely increased the base price.



1. We're comparing the base model. Not options.
2. WiFi 6 is likely more applicable to more customers than 10GbE, so "soaking up" one port is a non issue since the solution for a faster network connection is built into the machine.




Price drop here is removing Intel from the picture.

Regardless, your original point was "Any CPU package bill of materials (BOM) cost reduction Apple will likely shuffle either into some other component of higher BOM or just pocket it." which didn't turn out true for Mac mini.

Yes, you're removing the "Intel" name....but You're still paying premium for the "Apple" name. ?

 

[farewelwilliams]

Yes, you're removing the "Intel" name....but You're still paying premium for the "Apple" name. ?

yet, $100 cheaper.

 

[thenewperson]

yet, $100 cheaper.

Whole lot of trolls won't even update their talking points

 

[Abazigal]

Yes, you're removing the "Intel" name....but You're still paying premium for the "Apple" name. ?

Given the speed improvements these M1 chips will have over intel chips, AS could be cheaper to manufacture for Apple, they could still charge more, and I will gladly pay.

 

[Lucifer666]

Intel made some very serious business/technical errors, and failed to address them. You snooze you loose.

 

[cmaier]

yes, obviously the only benefit.

and yes, “it’s been stated”, but those things are obvious nonsense. They won’t run cooler or have better battery life or have less noise. They only way to do those things is to have less power, which you can also do just as easily (at least) on x86 hardware by limiting clocks. Other companies do that today.

this doesn’t do ay of those nonsensical things, it just gives Apple more money.

This aged well

 

[MaxinMusicCity]

yet, $100 cheaper.

Until it starts selling bigger!

 

[farewelwilliams]

Until it starts selling bigger!

still cheaper