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 Today's 27" Intel iMac Refresh Tells Us About the Apple Silicon Mac Release Order
- Thread starter Yebubbleman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're kind of looking at this particular situation(laptops) with old eyes. This is a brand new world for Apple computers! Controlling their own timeline is a big enough reason let alone the other benefits. Plus they'll market the crap outta this and accentuate the positives. Quietest Laptop ever! Best battery life ever! No fans!!! Apple marketing isn't as good as it once was, but it's still world class.
Computers are plenty fast enough now for regular folks and even most advanced users. Sure some heavy users will be unhappy if there isn't a decent jump in speed, but there will still be Intel machines available until Silicon matures. And doesn't the current 16 throttle due to heat issues when running heavy loads??? As for the 13/14 laptops- an absolute non issue if no speed increase. As long as speed doesn't decrease it's all good. Apple even showed a graph stating that desktops would be about speed and laptops about being cooler/more efficient.
I believe that may be *possible* on certain notebook comparable models with roughly equivalent cores. I see it less likely on a desktop models.
You’re saying it *will* happen though, so who am I to be skeptical? I’m wondering if it’s based on a number of linear inferences to 5nm combined with some questionable and some less questionable geekbench leaks?
id definitely welcome something beyond that information so I can obtain the same assurance you have? I am serious even though it’s sort of sarcastic sounding
Unless you follow this stuff closely (which is a small minority of Apple users), you might be thinking that Intel and x86 is the greatest and why on Earth would Apple ditch it after making such a big move (both in marketing and in engineering) to it to begin with. They need to justify that. Especially to those that are hesitant to moving due to the trade-offs. I agree that they don't need to justify it quite as much. But they do need to leave no doubt that the new architecture and new Macs will outperform the old ones and that the benefits (beyond merely being able to run iPadOS and iOS apps).
Apple will change every Mac model to Apple Silicon and within two years (or close to it), new Intel Macs will be a thing of the past. They might keep selling some while stocks run down but after that they will be gone. I do not see any chance they will keep producing an Intel version of a Mac that has already transitioned because "people need one". Apple has never operated this way. They decide its time to change, they give you fair warning, then its time. Letting Intel linger would confuse consumers, complicate their logistics, delay development progress and show a lack of faith in their own hardware. Its not going to happen. When stocks get low they will sell off the last few as refurbs. They will continue to get batches of refurbs by way of returns etc every now and then but they are not going to keep a model around like they did with non-retina MacBook Pros.
If Apple allows other systems to boot, there will be plenty of Linux choices soon enough. If Apple's hardware is really powerful, there will also be Linux choices to run virtualised.
The 12" MacBook was actually really nice as an object. I gather performance, heat and price were issues. If Apple can fix those, I can see it coming back. But it needs to be an entry level machine. I've never been fond of the "Its twice as much for half the performance because its pretty" category.
Chip development is far from a linear process and you cannot extrapolate future gains from past ones.You can hit a stumbling block at any time.
That said, Apple isn't starting right now to design chips for a future Mac Pro. The A series chips are supposedly on a 3 year development cycle, I'll bet the unreleased A1-7 had more time in development than that. They will already have prototypes and sample CPUs running in the labs. Some of these will probably be scaled down versions to test the interconnects between cores, or the memory controller or whatever feature is new and fancy as they refine its performance and reliability but I cannot see a world where they announce the transition without being certain they can release all the Macs they need to release in that time frame. That is going to include a Mac Pro equivalent that can beat the 32-core top end model so I'm confident they have a 32 core prototype running already and probably something bigger.
I can see the MacBook Air adopting a form factor like the 12" MacBook (maybe with the 13" panel squeezed in courtesy of a bezel shrink) and dropping the Air. I can even see this model replacing the 13" MBP too in order to facilitate a 14" MBP later on. It actually makes a lot of sense. Kuo has hedged his bets on a 13" laptop (presumably because he's seen orders for 13" panels), the battery for a new air leaked recently and the thin, light, ultraportable sounds more and more ripe for being the first AS Mac released.
I don't really know what you're on about regarding legacy laptops. The 15" went retina while before the 13", I assume because of availability of suitable LCDs. I don't know what you're referring to in 2016 but I'll say it again, when Apple transitions the 16" MBP, they won't be keeping the Intel version around.
They kept around the Power Mac G5 and iBook G4 for months after the Intel transition was declared complete with the launch of the Intel xServe and Mac Pro. They also kept the 2012 13" non-retina MacBook Pro pretty much until the TouchBar Macs came out and kept the 2015 15" pre-touch-bar Retina MacBook Pros around for almost two years before discontinuing it. Apple has absolutely operated in this way in the past and I'd bet you the cost of one that they'll do so again here with one notebook configuration and one desktop configuration. They'd be foolish not to for the higher-end customers that can't yet move because their plug-ins and obscure but quintessential applications have yet to make the jump because the developer is one guy. I'm not saying they'll keep it around forever. But certainly for a time after the final Mac makes the jump.
I agree that ARM Linux distros will eventually become more common. But the fact of the matter is that they currently aren't as much as x86 versions.
I have a 12" MacBook next to me now. I'm only using it to test Big Sur; it's too cramped to use and the keyboard goes rather uncomfortably to the edge of the machine making it terrible to use if not on a flat surface. Seems overrated, especially with one port that can't even do Thunderbolt.
In 2016, the Mid 2015 Retina model remained for sale up until the 2018 MacBook Pros went on sale. Apple realized that keeping around a version of the 13" made no sense, since most 13" MacBook Pro customers don't need an older model for legacy purposes when, typically, those with the higher-end Macs do. Prior to said 2016 retention of the 2015 15" model, Apple would always keep a 13" model from the previous design or rev. for those that either wanted it for cheap or needed something the old model had for technological continuity purposes. They did that in 2012, also in 2008 and 2009 with the white MacBook (prior to it getting the Unibody treatment). It's Apple's MO to do that nowadays. Again, they did it with the Power Mac G5 and iBook G4 once the Mac Pro came out and Apple deemed that transition over. Those two weren't available in the primary sales channels (but they were in the education and business channels). Nowadays Apple is big enough that they're not restricting said models to those sales channels. But make no mistake; they're absolutely going to do this again. They will get furious high-end pro customers if they don't.
Well, of course I might be wrong, because I’m basing my estimates on leaks and rumors that could turn out to be wrong in the end.
But if the leaks and rumors are correct (and they are very likely to be correct considering the sources and how they seem to converge in a sensible way), then a conservative estimate for the jump in performance would be about 50% faster single-core and 2-3x faster multi-core compared to current Intel Macs.
if you account for a 40% performance drop when emulating x86 with Rosetta (worst case scenario, according to developers who tested the performance of the A12Z-powered DTK), then when you will run x86 apps on Apple Silicon Macs you will still get better performance than running them natively on current Intel Macs.
If you are using Mac for living and not for web browsing, Office typing & whatever you will jump to Windows a lot quicker than you think when ARM comes into play. Software gap will be huge for a very long time. 3D rendering has been Mac's Achilles but with ARM and ditching of OpenGL it will become even more so, Metal is a joke.
People are fantasizing about some Mac Pro running ARM desktop silicone.. my god. That's all I'm gonna say.
People are fantasizing about some Mac Pro running ARM desktop silicone.. my god. That's all I'm gonna say.
I wouldn’t call those estimates conservative, they sound rather optimistic to me. Conservatively, I‘d expect 20% better performance in single-threaded workloads. As to multi core performance, that would depend on the model. We will probably see the biggest jump at lower end as it will most likely move from quad core to octa core setup.
On what Intel Macs exactly? low end i5s? Apple has notoriously bad selection of high end intel chips. As a matter of fact they never offered a high end Intel desktop or mobile CPU because of poor designed thermal chassis that favor form over function. Intel top of the line gaming CPU with super fast single core is perfect for Adobe apps such as Photoshop, Illustrator, Ableton, Cubase and other DAWs yet Apple has never released one inside their iMacs.
I’d be happy if it happens, but I’m not that optimistic. I expect a +20% performance boost in portables, while adding +30% battery life. On high end desktops ( Mac Pro, iMac 27”) I expect even less. About +10% compared to maxed out Intel configs.
Apple has always used fastest available mobile CPUs for the laptops and they are offering top of the line desktop CPUs on their desktop platform (up to i9-10850K). I have no idea what “gaming CPU” you are referring to, but Intel’s single core performance has been mostly unchanged in the last 5 years. Not surprising too, considering they have been trying to milk the last ounce of performance from the same CPU core since 2015.
Fun fact for you: current Apple iPhone single core performance is within 10% of fastest Intel desktop CPUs.
Spot on - I didn't think I'd have to clarify an Apple iGPU solution isn't going to be trading blows with the likes of a Titan RTX or the like! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't think Apple would be making the switch, or at least they wouldn't cut out dGPUs, if it meant stepping back significantly in graphics performance for their high end (dGPU equipped) computers. At this point I'm not sure what will happen with the Mac Pro...
I have just checked at everymac.com:
The iBook G4 was discontinued in May 2006 and the Power Mac G5 on August 7th 2006. And in August 2006 the transition had been declared complete. So it looks like Apple didn’t keep them around longer but made a clear cut instead.
And anything we saw in other channels were leftovers. Because when Apple discontinues a product, they stop producing this product on said date latest. Will we see intel macs sold weeks or months after they will have been discontinued? Yes of course, Amazon and Co. will want to clear their inventory.
Last edited:
See https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ServerFaq - the only real differences are a text-mode installer and a different selection of packages on the CD (which is irrelevant these days if you have a decent network connection - they share the same online repository). It's one-line command to install the desktop environment - if you're worried about bloat, the server is the place to start, since it doesn't install any huge server packages by default and the desktop stuff is an order of magnitude more bloaty than the server packages anyway. What isn't clear is whether you'll get hardware accelerated graphics. Currently, though, if you're running under a vm, Parallels supply the driver - and since Apple have shown Debian running in Parallels on Apple Silicon it looks like that is in hand.
However, Apple have said that they're not going to support direct booting other OSs and what with T2 and all that, that probably means it won't happen. Frankly, with good virtualization support, I'm not sure that's an issue.
I think the iMac Pro is a dead duck, Apple Silicon or not. From the timing of its launch I suspect that the iMac Pro was going to be the new Mac Pro before the mea culpa press conference when the Mac Pro was promised - which might even have been the result of sharing the iMP plans with a few key customers. Otherwise, the timing doesn't make sense: it's harder to squeeze a hot, sweaty Xeon into a slim all-in-one than it is to design a bog standard Xeon tower (and, sorry folks, the Mac Pro is a bog-standard Xeon tower with a few added gimmicks).
With the shift to Apple Silicon, the existing Core-i/Xeon divide will change. What there may be is an "Apple Silicon" (coming this year in the 13" MB Air/Pro and 21" iMac replacements) and an "Apple Silicon Pro" (ignore my made-up names) which I'd speculate would be for the 16" MBP and 5k iMac - which will either have a souped-up integrated GPU or enough PCIe to support discrete GPUs and other "workstation" features.
Thinking about the Mac Pro, since it only launched (effectively) this year and was a new line rather than an update, I think it will have to hang around (in its Intel form) for another 4 years or so if Apple want to keep any credibility. And I don't just mean "supported" - if you're a Real Professional using it in a Real Business then you'll need to be able to replace broken machines and buy new machines when you take on new employees etc. until you're ready to change workflow again.
That could be an opportunity for Apple to have another go at weaning pro users off the "Big Box o' slots" format: the trashcan failed for 3 main reasons:
1. People need PCIe slots and extendable internal storage
2. Apple had let the "classic" Mac Pro get horribly out of date (and discontinued in Europe) so people were forced to change
3. No suitable upgrades (that would fit in the trashcan's thermal design) came forth from Intel and AMD.
Now, the Intel Mac Pro sorts out (2) for the next several years and, with Apple rolling their own CPUs and GPUs (3) is also fixed. If Apple really aren't supporting discrete GPUs any more, half the reason for (1) is gone - although that leaves people who need PCIe for audio/video/networking/storage etc. Now, to be clear, IMHO Apple should stop messing around and make a straightforward tower system but I'm speculating on what they might do given past behaviour - also, if keeping the Mac Pro going kicks the can a few years down the road, things may have changed on the PCIe front by then.
To me, this fun fact is the important one. Apple's been able to increase it's performance year on year (though an alleged 3 year development cycle) whereas intel has really slowed down in this regard. This suggests there's still headroom for Apple to keep getting great gains every time they release a new model. Whereas that headroom for Intel is small or non existant.
Add in the fact Intel is not willing or able to quicken it's trasition to smaller process whereas Apple is. Apple allegedly is looking towards the 5nm processes. Intel isn't even close to using 5nm anything at the moment.
Also in terms of power per watt used and per heat generated, Apple is king of those hills. This in my opinion will become even more important in the future than it is now, especially for desktop computers. This is where Intel can't compete. Intel leaves a lot of that to the PC manufacturers who buy Intel chips. Since only Apple buy the Apple SoC they can design in such a way that everything takes consideration of everything else.
It's a case of - "How can I best use the stuff Intel puts out to minise the total power used heat generated" vs "how can I innovate the total package (SoC included) to use less power and generate less heat"
I agree but I feel Apple silicon has a huge part to play in this. The Apple Soc could be good enough that the iMac Pro so to speak will just be a higher specced (at checkout) version of the standard Apple silicon iMac. One could argue the whole line is becoming iMac Pro and what we know as a non pro iMac is going away. At that point they will just all be called iMac. No need for the pro label when they are all pro.
1. True and I feel that'll be a need for the foreseeable future. However if SSD tech improves and gets cheaper that could change. Eventually it'll be cheap enough to buy 100TB of SSD. Surely not anytime soon, but it's gonig to happen one day.
2. That is true. I feel the trashcan is much more suited to an Apple silicon Mac. Where Apple can better control the power usage and thermals.
3. This is one reason why Apple is moving to their own silicon. Having to wait for Intel and AMD to release upgrades that might never even eventuate is never fun.
I'm very glad Apple doesn't work like this. Apple should never shoehorn themselves into making this or that. Making a better computer that better suits the needs of the pros using them is what Apple's focus should always be. Is a straightforward tower, as you put it, what would best suit the pros of today? Probably yes. However they should never stop considering the next bing innovation to this. What's better than a straightforward tower? I don't know. But I'm glad Apple is always asking that question so eventually that answer is discovered. Yes the trashcan failed, mostly. A few mistakes on the road to find the answer is expected and is not a bad thing.
Thats not my recollection and a quick check as mentioned already confirms its not actually accurate. Apple made a clean break from PPC, any PPC Macs sold after the Intel model was released were old stock floating about.
I'm not really sure why having the edge of the keyboard close to the edge of the case makes much of a difference but if you say so.
I think you misjudge their reasons for keeping these older units around. I suspect its mostly about keeping to their desired price points, much as they have tended to keep older iPhone models around to serve customers who don't want to spend £1000 on a phone.
Apple has a storied history of ruthlessness when it comes to dropping old tech. When they decide its time, its time. There is little sentimentality for people who aren't willing to move with the times.
Are you seriously claiming a 9900K isn't a top of the line gaming CPU? Because they did offer those.
yep, did this the minute I saw the ’new’ iMac and have a pc on order for all 3D rendering. It is just too much of a risk for my business to keep using bootcamp and hoping AS gets pro app support.
Apple Silicone gets me very exicted for Apple prospects but it will take sometime to see how it goes for pros.
I will also chime in with my predictions on how it will go :
1st release [consumer release]
24” iMac, Mac mini, 14” MBP, 13” MBA
2nd release [pro release]
30” iMac, 16” MBP
3rd release
mac pro
This will allow a nice breakdown of ranges, allow them to release the computers in targeted events and also allow more time for development.
But I am 100% sure they know exactly what is going to go in each of these computers right now, the specs will be sorted and it is a matter of doing what needs to be done to release them.
There is no way they would announce the change otherwise and it is also very clear that massive amounts of work has gone into this transition.
It is my impression the intel machines have not been innovated as much as they could have over the last few years, and all leads to their focus on AS.
1st release [consumer release]
24” iMac, Mac mini, 14” MBP, 13” MBA
2nd release [pro release]
30” iMac, 16” MBP
3rd release
mac pro
This will allow a nice breakdown of ranges, allow them to release the computers in targeted events and also allow more time for development.
But I am 100% sure they know exactly what is going to go in each of these computers right now, the specs will be sorted and it is a matter of doing what needs to be done to release them.
There is no way they would announce the change otherwise and it is also very clear that massive amounts of work has gone into this transition.
It is my impression the intel machines have not been innovated as much as they could have over the last few years, and all leads to their focus on AS.
This sounds exactly like the sort of dismissive, defensive thing the folks at BlackBerry, Palm, Nokia, Microsoft, etc, were saying about the iPhone when it was first announced. So good luck with that.
Apple has asserted, publicly and confidently, that the Mac is moving to Apple Silicon and they expect that transition to take about two years. So I think we can infer from that that they already know how to solve for the Mac Pro use case - or “already have something up their sleeves” if you prefer.
I think Apple saw a need and great potential to make faster, cheaper, lower powered “low end” machines. So they will have tested those waters first, and we can expect those to get a great jump in many ways. And that’s where most Apple sales are.
But for their higher-end machines the new architecture may have less potential and be of less interest.
It’s likely they considered (and rejected) keeping Intel on the high end - and that’s good because it means they can make something close enough in performance for their highest end products that Apple wants to keep.
So it’s possible we won’t see any performance jumps in the higher end Macs. AND because of that they’ll hold their release a year to make sure both that enough software is native (avoid emulation), and the latest architecture is ready.
yes I think if their graphics performance wasn’t going to be good enough they’d keep discrete GPUs, i think they do have it in hand. But that can mean “close enough” rather than “much better”.
Hey, where does an evolution of their AfterBurner card fit in the new regime?