And you think it makes sense that Apple would bother with the effort and the disruption and the risk for those sorts of marginal incremental improvements?!?
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
Apple play the long game though. Could be larger gains on the lower specs and not so much on the higher specs [for now that is...]. Who knows though and I look forward to seeing what comes out.
The current Apple lineup reflects the CPU and GPU available. An AS based lineup of Macs can be quite different. Fro is at every, with better performance/power ratio, the distinction between a desktop and laptop will mainly go away (except for the high end systems in terms of performance OR battery life).
No dedicated GPU could just mean no GPU from AMD or NVIDIA or any other third party. I believe they invested that high end engineering on the Mac Pro for the next decades. However, it will be filled with AS instead of Intel/AMD. The xeon can be replaced with a AS with lots of cores and graphics power enough to drive the displays. Compute goes elsewhere in the system such as the afterburner and dedicated MPX module for NPU.
All users go where they can get best price performance ratio. Seem that Apple has a chance to do that with AS if they want.
To me, the fascinating thing will be how they market and segment consumer and pro & what the real world difference between the two will be.
Why will you buy a consumer MacBook over a pro MacBook? Will there be a clear unambiguous difference between the two? You’d imagine that there will have to be, likely more than today.
At any rate:
Great post by the OP and agreed. For Apple silicon to get momentum, they need to launch it. with their most popular models ASAP.
And as the OP and you have said, judging by the lack of recent updates, these must be the Air, MBP and iMac.
As the OP has said, the heavy duty Pro machines will likely come later on but the developer friendly MBP 13, the battery life king MBA and the general desktop 21 iMac all seem like great candidates for the first round of Apple silicon products.
Really great point.
If the marketing is:
MBP 13-14 AS: ‘up to’ 12 hours battery life’. Significantly more powerful CPU and graphics performance than their current integrated graphics intel chips. Same price (maybe) $99 cheaper per model SKU (Apple has said that it’s ‘more efficient’ for them to use AS - that means cheaper computers, right?).
And:
MacBook/MacBook Air 13: ‘up to’ 16-18 hours ‘all day’ battery life running standard desktop productivity apps & Safari web, lightweight video and photo editing and Apple Arcade style games. And with a sub $999 US entry model.
... Then there’s a clear difference in the positioning & performance of these machines.
Some of the Intel CPUs run too hot for what Apple wants to build. Thats literally the reason they gave for the transition. Expect at least a few of them to be nicely below the current Intel TDPs.
Metal delivers the goods on one condition: You have to play by its rules and not the rules you like or are familiar with.
In fact, this is true of the entire Apple iGPU system. This is not how GPUs are done on Intel Macs (let alone PowerPC Macs), Windows PCs, consoles, or any traditional system with a traditional GPU. This is why the fourth gen and 4K model Apple TVs have the power to compete with consoles for gaming, but have no titles to show for it. The performance possibility IS there. But only on the condition that you do it Apple's way and a lot of developers won't do it that way. At least not for games.
But to say that the performance won't get there is naive at best.
Go back to MacRumors articles from that era. I'm not saying that Apple kept producing them. I'm saying that Apple still sold them for a spell. Back in 2006, Apple never held onto old models after they got discontinued. Even them selling off old stock in other sales channels was unheard of back then.
Nowadays, there are multiple examples of Apple retaining sale of older model MacBooks and MacBook Pros once a newer generation has been released for those that need specific legacy features (built-in Ethernet, FireWire 800, and an optical media drive in the case of their retention of the 2012 non-retina 13" MacBook Pro; USB-A, SD slots and Thunderbolt 2 in the case their retention of the pre-Touch-Bar 2015 15" MacBook Pro). It's fair to say that outside the 2005 example, they have not done this with any of their desktop models, though with such a profound change, I could totally see them keeping around an Intel Mac Pro in similar fashion (if not being limited to business sales channels as was done in 2006).
I do agree that the 27" iMac and iMac Pro may merge as part of the transition while the 24" Apple Silicon iMac will be Apple's way of stepping up the 21.5" iMac into something that satisfies the more casual 27" iMac customer use cases. But I don't believe it to be a guarantee. The 27" iMac has such a wide range of customers and use cases, ranging from gamers (yes, we exist on the Mac), content creators, and just people that enjoy using a Mac at a desk.
I disagree. There are a lot of people that needed a tower and the trashcan was not a good alternative and they kept it that way for six years when really, they should've put out something sooner. I'm glad their current tower design is so modular. But holy hell, they could've given professionals the exact same form factor from before and they would've at least been able to get their job done.
Look at MacRumors articles from 2005. They may have stopped producing models, but they absolutely kept selling them in education and business channels. For 2005, that wasn't a common thing for Apple to do. Now they do it CONSTANTLY.
Not for you, maybe. But I'm not you.
I can show you a picture of where the edge of the computer is riding up my hand. Not comfortable at all.
I'd buy your argument here for at least a dollar were it not for the fact that in both recent cases (2012 with the outgoing design of 13" and 2016 with the outgoing design of 15") there were other Macs to meet those price points that were better spec'ed. I do agree that, for iPhones, price points are the primary reason they do this. But there is clear evidence to support that. For the MacBook Pro, there is clear evidence to support that they are, at least, in the three most recent body style transitions (to Unibody, to Retina, and to TouchBar), wanting to give people some transition time.
I'll definitely concede that there's not really a (modern) precedent for them doing that with any of their desktops outside of the brief window at the beginning of the Intel transition where the iSight G5 and Core Duo iMacs were both being sold simultaneously. And how the Mac Pro goes through this transition from a design/marketing standpoint is really anyone's guess at this point.
The Afterburner card ought to not be specific to Intel or Apple Silicon or any other architecture. It's its own card. Unless Apple does away with the tower, I can't imagine they won't support it on an Apple Silicon Mac tower. Nor can I imagine that they won't keep making newer releases of it. Hell, they could easily make a daughter card that has an Intel chip on it if they have people that still need Intel-native performance for things. I don't suspect they will do such a thing, but it's no less able to be done.
You'd really hope so, at any rate. The 13" MacBook Pro being a "MacBook Pro" and not a "MacBook" was cute at first, but it's downright stupid at this point considering it's the second least performant Mac in the lineup today! It was never going to be a 27" iMac or Mac Pro in terms of performance, but it's not even in the same league of performance as its 15" and now 16" brethren.
Thank you kindly!
Selling off old stock is not the same as keeping a model available to service some perceived hardship due to a transition. And Apple has always sold off old stock through the refurbished store. They also have one or two other channels that I suspect they would not admit to. Many 3rd party retailers also used to sell older models off they had too much stock when a new model was announced.
Hmm. No one needed a model to stick around for an optical drive (USB Superdrive), SD Card slot (USB for under $5), Thunderbolt 2 (backwards compatible with adaptor). Pretty sure there are Thunderbolt to Firewire adaptors too without looking. The optical drive model was kept for its price point and so Apple could "justify" charging more for the retina models.
The 20" G5 iSight was kept around an extra 2 months, I suspect they just had a serious excess of stock or something. It had only been in production for 4 months. Maybe they had to sign a 6 month contract or something.
Keeping an old model around for price differentiation is not the same as keeping it because of a feature. Or lack of a new feature. You don't do it with architecture transitions because if you give the developers an inch they will start pushing for a mile. Apple needs software to transition ASAP. They can't give anyone an excuse to delay porting their apps for any longer than necessary. If you don't force them, they don't move.
Anything sold after discontinuation is old stock and they've had channels for that for decades.
Why are you typing from the sides of the machine. You need to get yourself a copy of Mavis Beacon.
The 15" was discontinued November 2019 when the 16" was introduced. The Unibody replaced the 15" wholesale. The 17" wasn't replaced until 4 months later. There was overlap between the polycarbonate and unibody aluminium MacBooks but again, that was a price point thing. I'd say the Touch Bar was the same. Its no different to keeping the previous iPhone available. Again, its not really a big deal when there is no change in architecture. Customers have more choice than they might have otherwise. When you change the instruction set, the software compatibility is critically important. You have to get everyone to switch over.
Having successfully predicted the timing of the latest Intel iMac and the fact that it would not be redesigned (see this post), I'd like to make another prediction about the first AS iMac. This prediction too is not arbitrary, but leverages the same considerations as in that post, which led me to make a successful prediction.
Here is my prediction for the first iMac. Indeed, it will not be the larger iMac - it would be too soon to follow up the 27" Intel iMac with a 27" AS iMac. Instead it will be the 21" (or 24" as speculated by some), but - and here is my prediction: IT WILL NOT BE ALL THAT!!!
In other words, it will be a relatively underwhelming release. Underwhelming in relation to the expectations.
It will of course have a chassis redesign, because we are dealing with a different heat envelope. But when it comes to performance - chip speed - it will not be extremely dramatically better. Why not? Because as I successfully argued in my other prediction post, Apple has to take into account how their customers will react - if the new "junior" iMac blows the RECENT Intel iMac out of the water, it would make the recent Intel iMac purchasers feel cheated. After all, the new AS iMac will come mere months after they bought this expensive 27" iMac - and what's worse, it completely blows their expensive machine out of the water, and on top of that, it's the "junior" iMac, not even top of the line!
That tells me they won't do it. Apple will not risk alienating their customers that way. That is reason #1.
Now reason #2. Apple needs to convince people of the great merits of the AS transition. But they will NOT pull out all the stops it at the beginning of the transition, when people are still rocking their older Intel iMacs. They will reserve that for the END of the transition, which is supposed to take 2 years. At that point, they have no more Intel iMacs coming out, and can really BLOW INTEL OUT OF THE WATER. In order to do so, they must start from a lower bar. Which implies that the first AS iMac "junior" is more of a gentle transition, and then the 27" AS iMac that's coming out in 2021 - or even 2022, will be the INTEL KILLER. For now, as the old saying goes, Apple will keep their powder dry. They will NOT show their hand with the first "junior" AS iMac. It will be a decent upgrade, but will NOT blow the current Intel 27 iMac out of the water.
Reason #3. These are the early days of the AS chips. They need to work out the bugs and they need to make sure they are not raising expectations too far. This argues for coming out with chips which are faster, but not blazing fast - that makes it less of a technical challenge. They can concentrate on other aspects, such as minimizing heat.
In sum, what to expect from the first smaller AS iMac? A very dramatic chassis re-design. Here they can go to town, because that's a way of showing off their AS transition, without alienating their Intel customers, or raising performance expectations too much. We may also get good upgrades of other components such as screen (including perhaps the speculated 24" size), camera, speakers, mic, connectivity, WiFi and so on. It will be a VERY NICE upgrade, but NOTHING CRAZY performance-wise as so many speculate. Apple will take it SLOW AND EASY, and concentrate on execution, and having it go smoothly. They are not going to gun the engine on this release. They'll drive it slow and work out the bugs and concentrate on reliability.
For incredible performance in the iMac space, you'll have to wait for 2021 at the earliest and probably 2022.
That's my prediction. We won't have to wait too long to see if I'm right, but I'm pretty confident. YMMV.
Here is my prediction for the first iMac. Indeed, it will not be the larger iMac - it would be too soon to follow up the 27" Intel iMac with a 27" AS iMac. Instead it will be the 21" (or 24" as speculated by some), but - and here is my prediction: IT WILL NOT BE ALL THAT!!!
In other words, it will be a relatively underwhelming release. Underwhelming in relation to the expectations.
It will of course have a chassis redesign, because we are dealing with a different heat envelope. But when it comes to performance - chip speed - it will not be extremely dramatically better. Why not? Because as I successfully argued in my other prediction post, Apple has to take into account how their customers will react - if the new "junior" iMac blows the RECENT Intel iMac out of the water, it would make the recent Intel iMac purchasers feel cheated. After all, the new AS iMac will come mere months after they bought this expensive 27" iMac - and what's worse, it completely blows their expensive machine out of the water, and on top of that, it's the "junior" iMac, not even top of the line!
That tells me they won't do it. Apple will not risk alienating their customers that way. That is reason #1.
Now reason #2. Apple needs to convince people of the great merits of the AS transition. But they will NOT pull out all the stops it at the beginning of the transition, when people are still rocking their older Intel iMacs. They will reserve that for the END of the transition, which is supposed to take 2 years. At that point, they have no more Intel iMacs coming out, and can really BLOW INTEL OUT OF THE WATER. In order to do so, they must start from a lower bar. Which implies that the first AS iMac "junior" is more of a gentle transition, and then the 27" AS iMac that's coming out in 2021 - or even 2022, will be the INTEL KILLER. For now, as the old saying goes, Apple will keep their powder dry. They will NOT show their hand with the first "junior" AS iMac. It will be a decent upgrade, but will NOT blow the current Intel 27 iMac out of the water.
Reason #3. These are the early days of the AS chips. They need to work out the bugs and they need to make sure they are not raising expectations too far. This argues for coming out with chips which are faster, but not blazing fast - that makes it less of a technical challenge. They can concentrate on other aspects, such as minimizing heat.
In sum, what to expect from the first smaller AS iMac? A very dramatic chassis re-design. Here they can go to town, because that's a way of showing off their AS transition, without alienating their Intel customers, or raising performance expectations too much. We may also get good upgrades of other components such as screen (including perhaps the speculated 24" size), camera, speakers, mic, connectivity, WiFi and so on. It will be a VERY NICE upgrade, but NOTHING CRAZY performance-wise as so many speculate. Apple will take it SLOW AND EASY, and concentrate on execution, and having it go smoothly. They are not going to gun the engine on this release. They'll drive it slow and work out the bugs and concentrate on reliability.
For incredible performance in the iMac space, you'll have to wait for 2021 at the earliest and probably 2022.
That's my prediction. We won't have to wait too long to see if I'm right, but I'm pretty confident. YMMV.
I agree with you that AS will not be faster than current intel offerings but my arguments are quite different.
1. Apple want to sell as many AS as possible to put pressure on developers. Large volumes is in the low end not the high end.
2. They want to emphasize power efficiency over performance, that was clear for WWDC. So similar performance but better battery life for the laptops and for instance a fan less iMac 24 inch (24 inch 4K makes good sense to me).
At the same time Apple need to demonstrate that the AS, with a likely development path, can address high end Macs. Hence, Mac AS need to have more performance than the iPad A14 based chip. Given the performance of the old A12Z, the transition to 5 nm and the pressure to demonstrate something more than an iPad, I would not be surprised if the iMac 24 performance hits an i5 ten gen Intel shipping in the new iMac or a year of two old i7. Perfectly fine for a home/office machine and to show the market that AS is, with high likelihood, good for the higher end.
If they ensure cheaper entry point, many will buy them because they are cheap which leads to quick adaption. Nerds and high end user cannot help themself and will buy one also despite not being top of the line. Starting with a Mac Pro based on AS will only shift few tens of thousand compared to millions in the lower end segment.
The fragile toes of Intel Mac buyer has likely very little to do with it in my opinion.
Interesting, iPadified. I think you make some very reasonable points. But the "large volume" argument is not super convincing to me for one very good reasons - do we know for sure that there is a large volume differential between the 21" and 24" iMacs? I thought there was very little. Maybe I'm wrong. In any case, what really moves volume is price. If Apple were hell bent on getting volume (in order to convince developers), then they'd cut prices for the lower end computers substantially. I don't think they'll do that - it's a very serious measure, once you cut prices like that, you set expectations which are very difficult to overcome (in retail that's called the "anchoring effect"). I don't think Apple would want to cut their prices and shrink their margins in the long run just for the sake of a "one-off" event like the 2 year AS transition; not worth it. So prices will stay more or less the same (maybe a $100 cut here or there). That doesn't generate volume (compared to past sales).
But regardless, I think you make some excellent points.
But regardless, I think you make some excellent points.
I agree with what you are saying here. However that does not relate at all to what I said. The whole point the trash can exists, is not a middle finger to the cheese grater fans. It's Apple trying to make something better than the cheese grater and failing.
Giving people exactly what they want today leads to zero long term innovation. You need to be thinking today about what the people want tomorrow. Of cause this is part logical thought but also part guessing and predictions. When you get it right, that new thing becomes the new normal that everyone wants. When you get it wrong people just move on back to the last thing that worked, which is what happened and the people as well as Apple moved back to the cheese grater.
But reason 2 contradicts reason 1.
If they release an “underpowered” AS for then to make a big leap forward a few months later then they would alienate the AS early adopters rather than Intel buyers, who were told such architecture was legacy. I would expect more to buy AS than just Intels now.
I'm seeing some good points but I don't agree with all the conclusions being drawn. Apple do want to attract developers, and ultimately numbers will attract them, but devs won't mind waiting for a while to see what numbers Apple can get before investing. On the other hand, if Apple stuns the industry out of the gate, devs will assume lots of sales as well as being excited about all that performance they can have to play with.
Disappointing peoples expectations could have the opposite affect on sales with people assuming the new tech to be underwhelming and not worth bothering. There will be hype and attention around these first gen machines. People who don't normally will be watching. If they hear that they suck, they won't look again for some time. If they hear they are even more awesome than the hype suggested, they'll buy and they'll talk about it with all their friends.
Disappointing peoples expectations could have the opposite affect on sales with people assuming the new tech to be underwhelming and not worth bothering. There will be hype and attention around these first gen machines. People who don't normally will be watching. If they hear that they suck, they won't look again for some time. If they hear they are even more awesome than the hype suggested, they'll buy and they'll talk about it with all their friends.
That does not make sense at all. The A13 core in the iphone 11 is already at i7 levels. Why would an A14 core be a step backwards in performance and revert to i5 levels, especially when they are putting in a chassis with a much more cooling.
You're arguing semantics at this point. Apple made it a point to keep much more of a supply in those channels for the reasons I stated than is usually done. They didn't ordinarily do that (I think you agree with me on that, at least). And they did it because those channels serving those institutions likely needed more time to transition. It's not the "let's keep a 2012 13" machine in the lineup for four years" or the "let's keep a 2015 15" machine in the lineup for two years" kind of move, but Apple had a much smaller user base back then and was, effectively a much different company back then.
That's your opinion. Not fact.
Also, the justification for charging more for retina models argument only works when there aren't other machines at that price point. Which there are. If you made that argument for why there still exists a non-retina 21.5" iMac, I'd buy it. Because Apple has no other desktop at that price point. That was never true for the 2012 13" non-retina MacBook Pro, nor was it true of the 2015 15" Retina MacBook Pro.
That's speculative at best. It's still something that happened before and could just as easily happen again.
That's a very black and white way of looking at it. Replacing your entire lineup with the new architecture and leaving a model of the old architecture is not going to give developers an excuse to not port for Apple Silicon unless they're already ditching the Mac platform altogether.
Leaving an Intel 16" MacBook Pro for sale does nothing for users of desktops or smaller Macs and figuring that developers would think otherwise is not really logical.
Right. But this wasn't your typical "hey, we've discontinued our last model, go here to buy remaining stock" kind of situation. It was done for educational and pro markets who needed more time to make the jump. Apple is quick to move on. On this, I will agree. However, they're not so egocentric to not accommodate for slower-moving customers, especially nowadays when more people have already switched back to Windows due to the massive Butterfly notebook disaster.
You forget that the 16" MacBook Pro is effectively the flagship of a massive apology tour. Apple is needing to win back many lost customers. People still haven't entirely recovered from the dropping of 32-bit support either (and Apple was even uncharacteristic in giving people a two year warning of that coming).
Why are you typing from the sides of the machine. You need to get yourself a copy of Mavis Beacon.
Bro, the thing ain't that big. If I'm to type from it in any way from that kind of an angle, my arms would have to be close together in an even MORE ergonomically uncomfortable fashion. I get that people liked the 11" MacBook Air too; but a comfortable machine to use in the long term, that wasn't either.
Your main thesis here seems to be that keeping old architecture machines around for any length of time will hamper the move of software to that new architecture. If they kept Intel equivalents of all of the Macs after the switch, then yes, that would be one thing. I can agree, they will not do that for many reasons, including said thesis of yours.
However, work in any kind of massive digital media production house and you're going to be dealing with several plug-ins and specialty apps that are not made by the Adobes and Microsofts of the world, but rather one or two man software shops. Maybe even by people for whom developing software is merely their side hustle. Those people are going to need way more time, depending on how obscure their apps are (again, Apple is only promising a quick recompile time here, as they did back in 2005, for those that have been playing along all this time; if you have an app that only gets new versions every six to ten years, that developer may need more than two years to update their code). This is why people in professional industries often switch to Windows and why macOS is often (fairly) attacked for not being supportive of high-end use cases that demand that kind of stability.
You're not going to agree with me on that and nothing I say will convince you otherwise. So, why don't we agree to disagree here and then we'll see who's right after the last Intel Mac leaves the shelves, eh?
I'm lost on why you think that Apple Silicon Macs won't be faster than current Intel offerings...especially when their two-year old A12X can already best every Mac that isn't a 16" MacBook Pro, a 27" iMac or iMac Pro, or Mac Pro.
Switching away from the most common desktop architecture (and sacrificing things like x86 virtualization and Boot Camp in the process) has to come with incentives to do so. Performance definitely HAS to be one of them, ESPECIALLY for those higher-end Macs that I've just mentioned.
I will agree with you to a point. With things like the Mac mini, and 13" Mac notebooks (and, in many respects, the iMacs as well), Apple has the freedom to play around with new design innovations. Case in point: every Apple notebook innovation of the past decade started on the lower-end Macs first. This allowed them to make sure they really got it right by the time it moved to the 15" (and now 16") MacBook Pros. That's because most people using high-end Macs need stability and they need the core of what they do to not change so substantially.
That's why the trash can flopped. It was bold and innovative, but it took a gamble that did not pay off and it cost Apple and Mac Pro customers dearly. I'm pretty sure many of them are staying in Windows land and not coming back (certainly I would if I was them).
If you're going to innovate on the high-end, you need to (a) test your ideas on the low-end first (as most customers of low-end Macs don't have anywhere near as much of an attachment to designs or conventions) and (b) not stop people from using what they buy that machine to use. It's just that simple. All that to say that a plain jane tower was all that Mac Pro customers wanted and Apple was wrong to mix that up (and the history proves it).
Last edited:
But reason 2 contradicts reason 1.
If they release an “underpowered” AS for then to make a big leap forward a few months later then they would alienate the AS early adopters rather than Intel buyers, who were told such architecture was legacy. I would expect more to buy AS than just Intels now.
Hardly. Remember, there will be a full year between the first 24" AS iMac and the second 24" AS iMac. And of course, releasing the 27" (or 30", or 32") AS iMac nobody is going to compare the big boy to the junior 24" - you expect differences there... no comparison, apples to oranges. Not to mention, the 27" AS iMac too will be a year or almost a year after the 24" AS iMac is released. A full year is long enough for generational changes, and nobody begrudges a BIG change from one year to another, which would happen under any circumstances.
If they release an “underpowered” AS for then to make a big leap forward a few months later then they would alienate the AS early adopters rather than Intel buyers, who were told such architecture was legacy. I would expect more to buy AS than just Intels now.
Hardly. Remember, there will be a full year between the first 24" AS iMac and the second 24" AS iMac. And of course, releasing the 27" (or 30", or 32") AS iMac nobody is going to compare the big boy to the junior 24" - you expect differences there... no comparison, apples to oranges. Not to mention, the 27" AS iMac too will be a year or almost a year after the 24" AS iMac is released. A full year is long enough for generational changes, and nobody begrudges a BIG change from one year to another, which would happen under any circumstances.
Any ASi Mac needs to outperform its predecessor to be seen as a tangible replacement...
Any ASi Mac needs to outperform its predecessor to be seen as a tangible replacement...
Agreed. The question is by how much. The first AS iMac will be the 21"/24" and it should outperform the current 21" Intel iMac, but not by so much that it outperforms the current 27" Intel iMac that was just released! Now, a year from now, when the next iteration of 21"/24" comes out (which should be after the first 27"/30"/32" AS iMac, they can go to town with the improvement, at that point it can be as dramatic as all get out.
Agreed. The question is by how much. The first AS iMac will be the 21"/24" and it should outperform the current 21" Intel iMac, but not by so much that it outperforms the current 27" Intel iMac that was just released! Now, a year from now, when the next iteration of 21"/24" comes out (which should be after the first 27"/30"/32" AS iMac, they can go to town with the improvement, at that point it can be as dramatic as all get out.
24 inch may lure some of those looking into low end 27 inch but at this point let's call it the small iMac. That will save maybe $100 not buying from intel that likely will be passed onto the customers. I do not expect massive drop in prices. The odd $100 is also sufficient to signal to the market that "hey they actually did not get more expensive". Lowering the prices too much will signal poor quality or performance.
Firstly, I am a bit sceptic on A12Z outperforming most Macs until I see one of the new AS Mac with benchmarks not running under Rosetta2. Secondly, Apple can outperform intel at the moment, if they want. I like to think of multiples of A12Z and with some simple math, it is clear that a 30W AS should outperform the 10 core comet lake chip. The question is if Apple will do that this autumn. All rumours point of Apple going for volume products rather than the high end. I argue that the first line of Macs will have comparable performance to the corresponding counterparts but completely different advantages that are related to efficiency of the chips.
These are:
1. Fan less design, you know complete silence. At least I would be very impressed if the small new iMac would perform as a low end new 27 inch Intel iMac and be completely silent. Same goes for laptops although they may need active cooling but less aggressive than todays jet engines.
2. Increased sustained load performance. No throttling! Actually you get what you pay for.
3. Long battery life. How long battery life do you have today. 10-11 hours. Yeah, put on a render and the battery life is 2h. Heavy usage and full day battery life, then we are talking.
Performance what is that?
Higher benchmarks scores for a given TDP?
Longer battery life?
Fan less computer that are completely silent?
No throttling due to poor thermal design?
Please continue the list...
Ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers because their demands differ,
I think Apple made it perfectly clear that they are going for efficacy of the chips, which after all is the dominating performance parameter that addresses all the questions above.
What does the "i" stand for in ASi?
No - Apple has made it clear that they are going for higher performance AND much higher efficiency.
Apple's slide clearly shows this - greater than desktop performance while using less than current laptop systems. We will see when they release end of the year.
In any case, what is the use of switching if they don't get higher performance? The A13 core with no active cooling in a phone already matches the top Intel processor - It isn't a great leap to imagine an improved A14 core and giving it much more cooling would exceed the best Intel has to offer.
There are numerous benchmarks of the A12X (which is basically the A12Z with one less GPU core enabled) benchmarked on iPadOS (so not running emulated in Rosetta 2) and it wiping the floor with every contemporary 2018 Mac excluding the 8th Gen Hexa-core Core i9 15" MacBook Pro, and iMac Pro. Figure that, from today's standpoint, that mostly translates to the A12Z wiping the floor with anything that isn't a 16" MacBook Pro, 27" iMac (from either 2019 or 2020), iMac Pro, or 2019 Mac Pro. Pretty sure that the quad-core 10th Gen Intel chips in the 2020 4-port 13" MacBook Pro aren't THAT much faster that they beat the native performance of either the A12X or A12Z and certainly no CPU that has ever graced a MacBook Air can beat it.
So, yeah, we're there already! And Apple has all but said that we're not getting the A12Z in a Mac, but rather something newer and faster.