Sure, Intel may tout "competitive fun" right now. The end of the 15-year relationship between Intel-Apple is bittersweet. Honestly, it´s up to Intel to be innovative, Apple´s roadmap is more intersting imho.
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 if the new rumored 14 & 16" Macbook Pro's are Intel and not M1x or M2
- Thread starter Ixon2001
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They aren't. If they were, they would be powered by Tiger-Lake-H, which would be fine, the new core architecture and 10nm node are great. Right now a 10800h is scoring 13k on R23, just 3k short of a 10900k or 11900k. All that at 45-65w. It's a shame rocket lake wasn't on willow cove/10nm, it would have been great.
/thread
/thread
With Intel releasing the attack ads that they’ve been running recently, I doubt that Apple has worked out a deal to order Intel chips for the MacBook Pros.
It would also undermine their message that the M-Series will be a step up from Intel.
In fact if they did, which I do not for a minute believe, it would possibly be the most boneheaded and idiotic move any company has made in recent memory.
It would also undermine their message that the M-Series will be a step up from Intel.
In fact if they did, which I do not for a minute believe, it would possibly be the most boneheaded and idiotic move any company has made in recent memory.
Apple is done with Intel and their inability to advance their architecture to meet Apple's needs, so it is no Intel in the new 14 and 16" MMPs.
Building something proprietary is in Apple's corporate DNA and lets Apple control the process of both hardware and sortware.
Building something proprietary is in Apple's corporate DNA and lets Apple control the process of both hardware and sortware.
I agree, the MBP's will be all Apple, but I do wonder about the Mac Pro, and maybe even whatever replaces the iMac Pro. Apple will probably not sell enough of those to do a truly good job on the processors, and that's one area where intel actually does a decent job and makes enough of them to make it economically feasible. Who knows, I'm just speculating. there's no way I'd buy a Mac Pro or an iMac Pro given their costs, I don't need them, but drop in one or two of the modern Xeon's, and it would be REAL hard for Apple to make something faster.
I think they sell so few of those relative to the other systems they can let them languish longer. In a year or two Apple may have something with an Apple chipset that runs much faster, uses a lot less power, is easier to cool, and runs the Apple Silicon version of products much faster.
In an alternate universe it is probably happening as we speak. Here in the Matrix, I don't see it happening and am glad to see Apple getting rid of Intel.
More importantly, time…that’s something that Apple doesn’t have an insane amount of.
From the OS support perspective, I think it is very unlikely Apple would want to prolong supporting Intel macOS any longer than they have to. Introducing another Intel model Mac now would extend that support for another year and I don't see that happening. The OS software engineering resources would be better used optimising macOS for Apple Silicon.
The "we've got products with Intel chips coming soon" from Tim Cook last year was likely a reference to updated Mac Pros with Intel workstation chips; that machine is the only one in the lineup that you could possibly justify keeping Intel for a little while because real working professionals need the particular feature set of those chips for their work or they need full compatibility with other OS's like Windows or Linux. The other computers in Apple's lineup are consumer devices for ordinary people (yes, even the MacBook Pros) so they'll get nothing but M series chips.
I swear, the theories around here are getting further and further detached from reality.
Apple has patented advanced chip interconnect technology that could potentially allow them to build extremely powerful packages. I think the limit here is only Apple's will. Their microarchitecture is far more scalable than anything Intel or AMD currently have to offer and Apple is rich enough to absorb the R&D costs. Besides, even if they have to spend over $1500 to build a single Mac Pro package, it is still a better deal for them than buying a high-end Xeon + a workstation-level GPU + all the support chips.
I’m almost certain he meant the 2020 iMac.
I would have been skeptical pre-M1, but seeing it punch far, far above its weight class has me very bullish on future M-series. The only potential bottleneck I can think of is being able to schedule tasks to 40 cores. But given that the Mac Pro replacement chip is one or two revisions away, I’m not sure that’s going to be a huge problem.
I just can't agree, the M1 doesn't punch above it's class in multi-core work, and that's what Pro machines need the most. My M1 MBA really isn't fast enough for what I do and I'm not counting myself in that Apple Pro class. (It could be the lack of cooling that is coloring my opinion, but until I try another machine, it is what it is...)
I'm not saying Apple can't do it, I bet they can, but I'm saying it'll cost a lot with not much benefit, and I just think Apple might think twice about it because of that. in other words, what's the ROI for designing/implementing their own chip when there's already chips that can do the job. And it's not like that level of machine needs a hardware update every year, just look at the history of updates for the Mac Pro...
It’s a non-multithreaded 8(ish) core chip with half the cores dedicated to efficiency.
These Apple M1 Cinebench R23 scores are quite impressive for a 10 W processor
Looks like ditching Intel for in-hose ARM-based chips was quite the power play from Apple. The new M1 processors appear to trade blows with AMD's / Intel's 15 W processors. According to the latest Cinebench R23 tests, the M1 can be slightly faster than the AMD Renoir-U APUs in single-core tests...
It’s on the heels of the 8 core, 16 thread 4750u. Half the performance cores, a fourth of the threads. A fraction of the wattage at full tilt. It beats the tiger lake cpus already. You’re right that it’s not faster, but it’s also not slow by any stretch of the imagination.
If this scales up well, then it’s going to be a strong contender.
Also, the Mac Pro update drought didn’t exist in a vacuum. Intel didn’t offer similar class Xeons with significant improvements for a long time. AMD basically clocked the nuts off their performance gpus chasing performance around that time too.
Should Apple have immediately reverted the the cheesegrater design when the trashcan flopped? Yeah, probably, but the lack of updates wasn’t soley due to disintrest.
If Apple wasn’t going to make a chip for the Mac Pro, they would’ve dropped it and not gone through the effort to make the 7,1.
Now that one I really disagree with -- there's a market need for them, and even Apple doesn't throw away markets that easily. Fwiw, just because there wasn't upgraded xeons for awhile, doesn't mean there isn't any now or in the future.
As for the M1, the 10w doesn't impress me, it's not what I'm looking for. I have a desktop that's faster, supports 11 displays, many USB ports of different types, more SSD, and it didn't even cost more than my M1 MBA. That's the kind of comparison I'm looking for. I would hope the next chip is faster than this desktop, but I'll be able to buy an even faster one too...
If I didn't actually like MacOS, I'd never buy a Mac.
