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.
What does A14 mean for the first Apple Silicon Macs?
- Thread starter Tafkaeken
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just a few anecdotal numbers on a Keynote presentation slide.
Until someone like iFixit does a teardown of a production unit, any discussion would basically be speculative and possibly not worth the time reading.
I'm sure there are people who know much more but they're all currently under NDA so it doesn't matter right now.
Also there is no guarantee that a member of the A-series SoC family will be the actual chip in the AS Macs. Apple may release a different chip family line with a different set of features and capabilities. For example, does a AS Mac mini need a motion co-processor?
Of course, the notebook and desktop computers would be operating under vastly different TDP thresholds as well.
Summary: do not automatically assume that A14 in the new iPad Air will be the same chip in the AS Mac.
Until someone like iFixit does a teardown of a production unit, any discussion would basically be speculative and possibly not worth the time reading.
I'm sure there are people who know much more but they're all currently under NDA so it doesn't matter right now.
Also there is no guarantee that a member of the A-series SoC family will be the actual chip in the AS Macs. Apple may release a different chip family line with a different set of features and capabilities. For example, does a AS Mac mini need a motion co-processor?
Of course, the notebook and desktop computers would be operating under vastly different TDP thresholds as well.
Summary: do not automatically assume that A14 in the new iPad Air will be the same chip in the AS Mac.
Last edited:
From the Macrumors transcript
Full Transcript of Apple's 'Time Flies' Event With Apple Watch and iPad Updates
Apple's virtual "Time Flies" event kicks off today at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time, with Apple expected to debut new Apple Watch and iPad...
www.macrumors.com
From that It appears that most of transitor budget expansion when into the GPU and Neural subsystems.
Going through the video
That is was using 5nm is 'old news'.
That a substantive chunk of increased transistor budget is going into bigger system cache is just as much coupled to the GPU and Neural subsystem increases as it is the CPU. If get into corner case where both of those are at low utilization then the CPU cores get an uplift. ( probably a major contribute to them bumping up instructions per clock (IPC i.e. more instructions in parallel). Overall not particularly surprising thing to do with bigger budget that 5nm provisions.
Comparison of new A14 to old iPad Air A12 is skipping two generations. So 40% (on some amorphous benchmark)
The graphics comparison to some relatively low average selling price PCs in the same price range as the iPad Air is P.T. Barnum misdirection flashback to Steve Jobs reality distortion field. It doesn't really tell much new. However, it is indicative that Apple going to push harder on the trend if flipping more Macs into iGPU only solutions. The first several Apple Slicon (AS) Macs probably won't have discrete GPUs. Pretty likely though AS for Macs is bigger than the A14. Apple will need more GPU horsepower to cover the mainstream PCs in the price range that MacBook Pro (and MBA) sell into. Highly likely that the AS for Mac die is a bigger. It isn't the same die or chip.
That Apple's sales pitch here is consistnetly picking on med-low price Windows laptops and lower priced Chromebooks is actually indicative that they had work do with with AS for Macs. Lots of work. Part of it is establishing the iPads are being laptop replacements for the price range, but Macs will need something very substantively better because extremely likely not in that price range.
First Mac to ship with an A series chip will probably come with a higher performance version of the chip (i.e. A14X) with additional CPU and GPU cores.
Here is my unscientific speculation based on the presentation of A14:
A12 6.9 billion transistors, 6 CPU cores, 4 GPU cores, Geekbench 5 single core 1112, multi-core 2866, Metal 4641
A12X 10 billion transistors, 8 CPU cores, 7 GPU cores
A12Z 10 billion transistors, 8 CPU cores, 8 GPU cores, Geekbench 5 single core 1118, multi-core 4631, Metal 10337
A13 8.5 billion transistors, 6 CPU cores, 4 GPU cores
A14 11.8 billion transistors, 6 CPU cores, 4 GPU cores, 40% faster CPU than A12, 30% faster GPU than A12, Geekbench 5 single core 1557, multi-core 4012, Metal 6033
A14Z 17.1 billion transistors, 8 CPU cores, 8 GPU cores, 40% faster CPU than A12Z, 30% faster GPU than A12Z, Geekbench 5 single core 1565, multi-core 6483, Metal 13438
A14Z Mac SoC 25.8 billion transistors, 12 CPU cores, 32 GPU cores, 50% faster multi-core than A14Z, 300% faster GPU than A14Z, Geekbench 5 single core 1565, multi-core 9725, Metal 53752
That would put A14Z Mac on par with 10-core i9 in iMac 2020 and the GPU between RX 580 and RX Vega 56.
A12 6.9 billion transistors, 6 CPU cores, 4 GPU cores, Geekbench 5 single core 1112, multi-core 2866, Metal 4641
A12X 10 billion transistors, 8 CPU cores, 7 GPU cores
A12Z 10 billion transistors, 8 CPU cores, 8 GPU cores, Geekbench 5 single core 1118, multi-core 4631, Metal 10337
A13 8.5 billion transistors, 6 CPU cores, 4 GPU cores
A14 11.8 billion transistors, 6 CPU cores, 4 GPU cores, 40% faster CPU than A12, 30% faster GPU than A12, Geekbench 5 single core 1557, multi-core 4012, Metal 6033
A14Z 17.1 billion transistors, 8 CPU cores, 8 GPU cores, 40% faster CPU than A12Z, 30% faster GPU than A12Z, Geekbench 5 single core 1565, multi-core 6483, Metal 13438
A14Z Mac SoC 25.8 billion transistors, 12 CPU cores, 32 GPU cores, 50% faster multi-core than A14Z, 300% faster GPU than A14Z, Geekbench 5 single core 1565, multi-core 9725, Metal 53752
That would put A14Z Mac on par with 10-core i9 in iMac 2020 and the GPU between RX 580 and RX Vega 56.
Last edited:
That 11.8 billion figure will definitely increase with a14z and mac SOC. Also the a13 already scores 6500 in Geekbench compute - I doubt the a14 would be slower.A14 11.8 billion transistors, 6 CPU cores, 4 GPU cores, 40% faster CPU than A12, 30% faster GPU than A12, Geekbench 5 single core 1557, multi-core 4012, Metal 6033
A14Z 11.8 billion transistors, 8 CPU cores, 8 GPU cores, 40% faster CPU than A12Z, 30% faster GPU than A12Z, Geekbench 5 single core 1565, multi-core 6483, Metal 13438
A14Z Mac SoC 11.8 billion transistors, 12 CPU cores, 32 GPU cores, 150% faster multi-core than A14Z, 400% faster GPU than A14Z, Geekbench 5 single core 1565, multi-core 9725, Metal 53752
That would put A14Z Mac on par with 10-core i9 in iMac 2020 and the GPU between RX 580 and RX Vega 56.
I would also imagine with larger thermal envelope and active cooling - the Mac SOC cpu would have clock higher speeds - scores should increase.
A14 is a phone/iPad chip, not a Mac chip.
It means you can expect significantly faster than that as a baseline.
I'd say clock speeds and core count will increase, as the thermal/power budget in a laptop is larger, even if they aren't likely to do active cooling as generally there's more space.
Desktop? Expect much more performance as there's a LOT more headroom with more space and active cooling.
...unscientific speculation...
A14 11.8 billion transistors, 6 CPU cores, 4 GPU cores, 40% faster CPU than A12, 30% faster GPU than A12, Geekbench 5 single core 1557, multi-core 4012, Metal 6033
A14Z 11.8 billion transistors, 8 CPU cores, 8 GPU cores, 40% faster CPU than A12Z, 30% faster GPU than A12Z, Geekbench 5 single core 1565, multi-core 6483, Metal 13438
A14Z Mac SoC 11.8 billion transistors, 12 CPU cores, 32 GPU cores, 150% faster multi-core than A14Z, 400% faster GPU than A14Z, Geekbench 5 single core 1565, multi-core 9725, Metal 53752
That would put A14Z Mac on par with 10-core i9 in iMac 2020 and the GPU between RX 580 and RX Vega 56.
If you are adding CPU & GPU cores, but keeping the same 11.8 billion transistor count, what are you removing from the rest of the chip...?
Why is everyone ignoring this?:
"... Building upon this architecture, Apple is designing a family of SoCs for the Mac."
(Source: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-announces-mac-transition-to-apple-silicon/)
"... Building upon this architecture, Apple is designing a family of SoCs for the Mac."
(Source: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-announces-mac-transition-to-apple-silicon/)
Because it doesn't mean anything. It could be a new chip, it could be the same chip as the iPhones/iPads, or it could be combination of both. I can certainly see Apple using A14X in a 13" MBP and something much more powerful in a 16" MBP for example...
A14 is important because it will set the expectations for the Mac hardware. If the A14 does not contain any new architectural features, it would be unreasonable to expect them on the Mac side. And it gives us a good estimate on how well new Macs will perform.
Interestingly enough, the little information Apple gave us is consistent with the earlier leaked A14 Geekbench scores. Still, we will have to wait two weeks until more in-depth analysis can be done.
For me, it clearly means we will get custom chips for Macs. ?♂️
What does "custom" mean? Is it the same custom as A12X vs. A12 (same exact architecture but more cores and cache)? Or does "custom" imply deeper architectural changes here?
I think that from Apple perspective, reusing as much stuff as possible would make the most sense. My suspicion is that "custom" simply means same building blocks, but more of them. The iPhone and iPad Air use 2 high-performant A14 cores, a Mac chip might use four or eight. I seriously doubt that they would develop a new sub architecture just for the Mac.
So no big leap compare to A13 but maybe less power consumption?
A14 is a perfectly sufficient chip for the iPad Air, from Apple’s point of view, what’s the point in souping it up? More power draw, less reason to upgrade in future.
Saying that it’s only 20% faster is not indicative of a problem. Mac chips will be able to take way more power in an actively cooled (we assume) thermal envelope. Saying that, I bet the A14 on its own with a bit more RAM is perfectly sufficient to power a low end MacBook.
Saying that it’s only 20% faster is not indicative of a problem. Mac chips will be able to take way more power in an actively cooled (we assume) thermal envelope. Saying that, I bet the A14 on its own with a bit more RAM is perfectly sufficient to power a low end MacBook.
At this point Anandtech does not have more information than us. We don't know whether A14 cores are any different, what clocks they run on and what kind of power consumption they have.
Another, very important point: computer chips are usually performance binned. Due to fluctuations during the manufacturing process, otherwise identical chis will inevitably end up having different characteristics. Some can maintain higher clocks, some will consume less power at the same clock etc. etc. Binning refers to the process of testing the produced chips and sorting out which one's are "better". The few best-performing chips (e.g. able to sustain higher speeds) are then sold at a premium. Mobile (phone) chips instead are power binned — they are checked for how much energy they required and then fine-tuned (in software) to only go until a certain limit. So if you get lucky, you might get a chip that performs 10-20% or so faster at the same power draw, not really noticeable in a phone or a tablet. Power binning usually implies that the speeds are conservative, since you don't want to throw away chips that work fine just are a bit sower.
For Macs, it would make a lot of sense to use performance binning. Chips capable of better speeds (potentially at a sight expense of power consumption) will be a better fit for a Mac laptop, while chips that use less power could go into an iPad Pro. This is also a great way for Apple to save money.
This is why I expect first ARM Macs to run on the same chip as the upcoming iPad Pro, but using higher clocks.
Last edited:
Thank you, very informative!
That bit of binning is really interesting, such high tech process which leads to “analog” outcomes.
The A14 and all of the Apple Silicon processors that preceded it are systems on chips. The iPad Pro and Macs are completely different systems. So, no.
Really nothing unless we get some concrete confirmation that the cores will be shared across the Mac chips like they are between the A and AX chips currently. It seems likely that Apple will want to share the Firestorm and Icestorm core designs with at least the lower end consumer macs for economy of scale, but they might have a different design to use better optimised for the demands MacOS places on the SoC.
Well, I'm no expert hence "the unscientific speculation", but A12Z has also more CPUs and GPUs than A12 but the same number of transistors so that's why I wrote the same number. Also there is no other information about the transistor count of the Mac Soc so I didn't know what else to write.
Well, I'm no expert hence "the unscientific speculation", but A12Z has also more CPUs and GPUs than A12 but the same number of transistors so that's why I wrote the same number. Also there is no other information about the transistor count of the Mac Soc so I didn't know what else to write.
According to Apple, A12 has 6.9b transistors while A12X/A12Z (its the same chip) has around 10b transistors.
Strange! The Wiki page I used as source said 6.9 billion. In that case A14Z should have 17.1 billion transistors and Mac SoC many more.
The best result I find on Geekbench's site for A13 is 1327 single core, 3370 multi-core, 6516 Metal. So the Metal score is higher but I used Apple's statement about A14 having 30% better GPU performance than A12. If A14 GPU performs more than 30% than A12 in Metal it's great news.