Apple is going to release 27 inch Apple Silicon Imac that outperform the 27 inch intel IMac. To prove to the doubters that Apple Silicon processors are capable of doing equal to/or more than Intel Processors.
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.
Why Apple will release a 27 inch Apple Silicon processor Mac as it’s first MAC With apple Silicon.
- Thread starter TDTOMW
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That’s not only not going to happen, but that’s not how you prove that Apple silicon is capable of doing more than Intel processors.
I believe that if Apple comes out of the gate with a processor that competes with Intel processor for the top end of iMac product line, then there’s no doubt that they have processors that will outperform intel in their laptops. as we have seen a two year old iPad processor can outperform most of their own laptops now. Then They will have time to to deliver a Mac Pro processor over the next two years, and there will be no need to continue to produce intel Mac, as Tim said they will continue to support macOS operating system for intel systems for years to come.
Agreed.
They will go for a new MacBook (no Air or Pro moniker) with almost twice the battery life in a no fan enclosure.
The only real question: will it come with ONE or TWO USBC ports ???
Haha. I like the OP's enthusiasm, but it ain't gonna happen! There is no way there is only going to be a 27 released.
There was that report that said there were possibly 5 new macs registered, so that is something of interest. There is also the report that no new screen with minLED or whatever it's called this year and no body change. So at the best we're going to see same body, but with Apple Silicon internals. I'll take that for now. I'm hoping for FaceID built in as well as TouchID but not sure we'll see that.
I'm hoping for an AS 16 but know that won't happen. Then I'm hoping for an AS 14 and doubtful that will happen. Then I'm hoping for an AS 13 and expecting that to happen. I'll probably pick it up as an interim machine until next year's 16.
There was that report that said there were possibly 5 new macs registered, so that is something of interest. There is also the report that no new screen with minLED or whatever it's called this year and no body change. So at the best we're going to see same body, but with Apple Silicon internals. I'll take that for now. I'm hoping for FaceID built in as well as TouchID but not sure we'll see that.
I'm hoping for an AS 16 but know that won't happen. Then I'm hoping for an AS 14 and doubtful that will happen. Then I'm hoping for an AS 13 and expecting that to happen. I'll probably pick it up as an interim machine until next year's 16.
I thank you for liking my enthusiasm but I didn’t say the 27 iMac would be the only AS mac released you have to think Apple is trying to change the world, don’t think like a old PC window clone Head, Apple have to come out with a “WOW” punch in order to make naysayers believe in there Apple silicon product line as you know for years everyone always doubt Apple.
Apple will not undercut the 27" Intel iMac with a 27" Apple silicon variant so soon...
First Apple silicon Macs will (most likely) be a 24" iMac, a 13" MacBook, & the Mac mini...
MacBook Pros (14" & 16") & 27" iMacs would follow sometime in 2021, with the iMac Pro (30") & Mac Pro sometime in 2022...
And who knows, maybe we see a return of the Cube...! ;^p
Will they? Analysts think (or have info that suggests) that 24" will be the 1st one. And it just being more powerful than the 27 should be enough to show how powerful are the A14M SoCs.
The 27" iMacs have:
- i5-8500
- i5-8600
- i5-9600K
- i9-9900KF
Their respective benchmark scores [single core/multicore] and cores [core/threads]:
- 997/5022 = 6C/6T
- 1094/5198 = 6C/6T
- 1133/4979 = 6C/6T
- 1208/9286 = 8C/16T
These are processors that have a TDP from 65W to 95W respectively, and active cooling.
The iPad Air with the A14, having 6 cores (2 performance + 4 efficient cores) scores [single core/multicore] :
- 1583/4198
This processor has a TDP of 5-7W and no active cooling in a very small thermal design. What's more, Geekbench is probably not using all cores to do the multicore but the 4 efficient ones, otherwise we would see similar results where: single core * num cores = multicore benchmark (aprox). That also fits with the calculus of having efficient cores scoring about 1000-1100 (less than perf cores) * 4 cores = around 4000 points.
So counting the 2 big cores we could be around 7000 in multicore. That's 31% faster for single core performance, and 20-23% slower in multicore than the best 27" iMac, by having only 2 less cores.
Now give it some more cores, maybe bigger caches, increase the TDP and a "good" active cooling like iMacs have and Apple will just destroy their previous iMac gen. And we ain't even speaking about the ASICs the Apple Silicon includes like the NPU, Machine learning accelerators, HDR and depth processors for video editing, etc.
The 27" iMacs have:
- i5-8500
- i5-8600
- i5-9600K
- i9-9900KF
Their respective benchmark scores [single core/multicore] and cores [core/threads]:
- 997/5022 = 6C/6T
- 1094/5198 = 6C/6T
- 1133/4979 = 6C/6T
- 1208/9286 = 8C/16T
These are processors that have a TDP from 65W to 95W respectively, and active cooling.
The iPad Air with the A14, having 6 cores (2 performance + 4 efficient cores) scores [single core/multicore] :
- 1583/4198
This processor has a TDP of 5-7W and no active cooling in a very small thermal design. What's more, Geekbench is probably not using all cores to do the multicore but the 4 efficient ones, otherwise we would see similar results where: single core * num cores = multicore benchmark (aprox). That also fits with the calculus of having efficient cores scoring about 1000-1100 (less than perf cores) * 4 cores = around 4000 points.
So counting the 2 big cores we could be around 7000 in multicore. That's 31% faster for single core performance, and 20-23% slower in multicore than the best 27" iMac, by having only 2 less cores.
Now give it some more cores, maybe bigger caches, increase the TDP and a "good" active cooling like iMacs have and Apple will just destroy their previous iMac gen. And we ain't even speaking about the ASICs the Apple Silicon includes like the NPU, Machine learning accelerators, HDR and depth processors for video editing, etc.
Geekbench runs multithreaded tests on all cores simultaneously, both performance and efficiency.
I think a better explanation for this is thermal limitations: in an iPad or iPhone, when all cores are active, the performance controller probably reduces clocks to keep power under control.
It won't happen. The only reason an Intel model got released is that Apple needs more time to get the performance of their SoCs up to HANDILY outperform 9th and 10th Gen Intel on the high-end. The 8th Gen Intel based Macs still being sold (21.5" iMac, 2-port 13" MacBook Pro, and Mac mini) all make better first targets. Same with the Y-series 10th Gen based 2020 MacBook Air. Apple Silicon can already stomp all four of those Macs with no trouble.
You'll see a 24" iMac replace the 21.5" iMac and either a MacBook Air and/or 4-port 13" MacBook Pro replace the current Intel versions of those machines plus the 2-port 13" MacBook Pro, which won't exist on the other side of the transition. That's what you'll see THIS YEAR.
Next year is when you see your 27" iMac and the 16" MacBook Pro both make the jump. Because by then, there will be A15 SoCs that leave no doubt as to superiority over 10th Gen Intel.
Also, Apple is following the processor architecture transition playbook that they ran with in 2005-06, which is to say that Apple doesn't need to prove naysayers that an Apple Silicon Mac is faster than ALL Intel Macs. Just the Intel Mac it is replacing.
You do realize that:
- Apple tried to get rid of the Air moniker and it failed which is why both the MacBook Air and iPad Air got new life breathed back into them in 2018 and 2019 after almost disappearing entirely in 2017.
- The 12" MacBook design was deeply flawed for reasons that go beyond the Y-series Intel chips and the keyboard
right?
Also, you can't revive that same 12" form factor and put two USB-C ports without killing the headphone jack. Getting rid of the headphone jack on the phone is one thing. People won't go for it on the Mac, especially people who actually do work on their Mac and not use it as an over-glorified Facebook/e-mail machine.
Geekbench is using all the cores. The efficiency core is about 3 times slower, so everything fits when you also take into account that multi-core clocks are slightly lower.
I would just like to remind everybody that the DTK Is based off of the iPad A12Z chip Apple has stated that they are building a family of SOC’s pacifically for the Mac so please stop comparing benchmark of an iPad chip to a unknown SOC’s designed especially for the Macintosh and his larger enclosure much better thermals.
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it hard to believe that Apple will release a high-end computer at this time, they do not have to show “hey, I’m faster than xyz”, not yet. They will have to instill confidence in all of us that their path is the right one, with the Intel transition it was a different case.
High-end cpus/gpus take time, if they were to release them now, they would have needed prototypes a year ago, and there was no 5nm in production...
My guess it’s going to be a mainstream data consumable vs data creation/ manipulation computer, some MacBook and maybe iMac or mini
High-end cpus/gpus take time, if they were to release them now, they would have needed prototypes a year ago, and there was no 5nm in production...
My guess it’s going to be a mainstream data consumable vs data creation/ manipulation computer, some MacBook and maybe iMac or mini
We were talking about the A14 chip. It is very likely that Mac chips will be based on a variant of an A14. It wouldn't make much sense for Apple to develop something completely different for the Mac.
If variant you mean more cores yes. But it definitely won’t be an A14 or A14x or z. It will likely be a new family.
They can go all in with 8 powerful cores and another 8 low power ones given a 15-20W TDP.
An iMac will be one of, if not the, first ASi desktop Mac, but it will be a 24" model with a new industrial design.
I do think the "big brother" might very well be 27 inches and may very well be called the "iMac Pro". I believe it will have a MiniLED 5K panel, possibly with ProMotion. It will also have an Apple dGPU and the ASi SoC will likely have more cores (maybe 12 Big / 6 Little) than the one going into the first portables and 24" iMac (which will likely be 8 Large / 4 Little or 6/6).
I do think the "big brother" might very well be 27 inches and may very well be called the "iMac Pro". I believe it will have a MiniLED 5K panel, possibly with ProMotion. It will also have an Apple dGPU and the ASi SoC will likely have more cores (maybe 12 Big / 6 Little) than the one going into the first portables and 24" iMac (which will likely be 8 Large / 4 Little or 6/6).
We've had rumors for months of a 24" model following the "iPad Pro industrial design", which implies small bezels and square sides.
You don't want a new system design and a new architecture at the same time as it's too difficult to debug for initial releases. They will do what they did for the PowerPC->Intel transition.
Apple recently updated the 27" iMac to include a 10th gen Intel CPU and SSD storage (https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac/27-inch). I don't see Apple in its current form releasing a machine with a sub-6 month shelf life, which is what your scenario would require. I know people point to the PowerPC - Intel transition as an example of Apple doing just that, but Apple as a company is in a significantly different place in 2020 than it was in 2005-6. That's not thinking like an "old PC window clone head", that's looking at how the company and the market has changed in the last 15 years. In fact, replacing a model so soon after release as you "predict" is more representative of the PC model, as PC manufacturers usually refresh their lineups three times a year. As far as the DTK is concerned, the benchmarks are meaningless, since that is a unit meant for development of AS applications rather than actual production hardware of the AS lineup of Macs.
Where Apple needs to compete head to head with Intel and AMD up front is not in the high end - they need to go head to head with the Core i3/i5 notebooks and provide at a minimum equivalent performance with significantly increased battery life. If the new AS Macs get improved performance and battery life from the jump, that positions Apple better going forward. I will seriously consider replacing my i3 MBA with an AS Mac if the performance is equal to or greater to this machine with better battery life. That is the combination that is going to hit Intel and AMD the hardest. Look at Intel's 11th gen presentation, where the only processors they are actually replacing are the Y and U mobile SKUs - not even the slightest mention of desktop parts. That's because mobility is the driving force in the computer industry, so performance per watt (although the average user doesn't use that term) and battery life are driving the purchasing decisions of many businesses and individuals.
Intel is scrambling right now because AMD just formally announced their 5th gen Ryzen parts, in which they were able to get big boosts in performance without increasing the CPU power draw (still 105W). There are two reasons for this: AMDs move to the 7nm process (which puts them approximately 2 years ahead of Intel in that regard), and the adoption of "Big Navi" and the Zen 3 core for their processors. Meanwhile, Intel is releasing spec bumps as new processor generations while misleading their audience by only comparing their new iGPU to 3-year old AMD iGPUs and workstation class nVidia cards (MX250, not even the current MX350). In order to regain some of their clout, Intel would have to either take massive risks (which its risk-adverse business model doesn't allow) or bite the bullet and outsource fabrication to TSMC or a similar company who has already solved the yield issues that have bottlenecked Intel for the last few years. Microsoft pledging to improve Windows on ARM is another shot across Intel's brow, as moving away from x86 would by necessity further shrink Intel's market share and revenue streams.