Why does Apple act like Intel is always holding them back?

[Kostask]

Qualcom doesn't do "beastie" chips. Unlike Apple, who holds an IS (instuction set) licence, Qualcom went to an architectural license a few years back. That means that the CPUs that Qualcom is selling are the exact same CPUs that anybody who holds an architectural license could build. This means that AMD, Intel, IBM, Cisco, or Microsoft (pretty much anybody so inclined) could have the same chips built by TSMC, or Global Foundries. No need for R&D, or verification testing, or any expenses like that. I think this changed back when the Snapdragon 850 came out. As I recall, the Snapdragon 845 was the last in-house CPU Qualcom designed.

This, to a large extent, is why Apple's SoCs are said to have at least a 2 year lead over all other smartphone SoCs. Its not that Apple is necessarily that much better, its just that the rest of the industry, Qualcom and Samsung, have not improved as quickly as Apple has. Does this sound familiar (see Intel, under the heading, Failure to Improve)? The real innovation in ARM type ICs is coming from the smaller, less visible players (Google, Amazon, Fujitsu, etc.)

 

[the8thark]

Why does Apple act like Intel is always holding them back?

Because Intel is holding them back. Apple have a clear vision of what they want their future Mac to complain. The below image is not even all of this vision.

Intel can't come close to making their CPU's compatible with all of this. Secondly, even if they could, history has shown Intel will keep missing their own deadlines.

Also this post

Why does Apple act like Intel is always holding them back?

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15132/intel-publishers-letter-to-customers-apologizing-for-cpu-shipment-delays https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252474686/Dell-admits-Intel-chip-delay-could-impact-Windows-refresh...

forums.macrumors.com

Intel is holding everyone back, even themselves.

 

[q64ceo]

Apple doesnt update the Mac Mini as often as they do other Macs. Thats the way its been since 2008.

 

[Kostask]

Apple doesn't even update any product as often as they would like, because they are being gated by Intel right now. Apple has to wait on Intel for any product that they would want to update, and even though Intel is running through "generations" faster than they ever have, the real world differences are very, very minor. It isn't worth developing new products around 5% improvements. This is part of the logic behind the AS transition.

 

[Nebrie]

I haven't taken semiconductor classes in 20 years so I can't vouch for this, but the pinned comment on this semiconductor video is interesting, especially in light of the rumors that TSMC is going to be fabbing some Intel x86 CPUs soon.

 

[Alex W.]

Apple did this in increase margins and break the 2 Trillion mark in value.

 

[dmccloud]

Neither does AMD. Only Intel and TSMC make those x86 chips.. Qualcomm designs their own chips and they make the most orders at TSMC... It means they have weight and power to control the market. AMD and Intel will have to compete with them and Apple for fab capacity

Intel has its own fabs, so they don't even factor into the equation now. Approximately 55% of TSMCs business is for Apple at the moment, and AMD quickly jumped all-in with TSMC after dumping their stake in Global Foundries back in 2012. Apple didn't switch from Samsung to TSMC for its A-series processors until 2014. Also, Qualcomm has jumped into an agreement with Samsung to produce a good chunk of their processors going forward instead of TSMC, most likely because Apple and AMD have already taken the bulk of the production capacity.

 

[Kostask]

Intel has its own fabs, so they don't even factor into the equation now. Approximately 55% of TSMCs business is for Apple at the moment, and AMD quickly jumped all-in with TSMC after dumping their stake in Global Foundries back in 2012. Apple didn't switch from Samsung to TSMC for its A-series processors until 2014. Also, Qualcomm has jumped into an agreement with Samsung to produce a good chunk of their processors going forward instead of TSMC, most likely because Apple and AMD have already taken the bulk of the production capacity.

The Intel CEO in the last quarter end/earnings meeting stated that Intel may be looking to outside sources for manufacturing capacity. That could mean anybody, Samsung, Global Foundries, or TSMC. Intel has its own fabs, but that hasn't done anything to provide the volumes their customers are looking for, not just Apple, but Dell and HP as well. And don't even get started on their inability to move to smaller processes.

Intel, as of this week, very much factors into the equation. Maybe not directly with TSMC, but in the global IC fab capacity.

 

[bousozoku]

8th gen was major gain because AMD forced them to increase core count. Other than that, it's literally 3-5% boost YoY, sometimes not even that. They literally boost clocks by 100-200MHz.

That reminds me of when Motorola and IBM couldn't push PowerPC any further. Everyone cheered 1 GHz processors but 1.33 GHz and beyond became a slower progression.

 

[TheFluffyDuck]

Because macs don't bring in the profit that iPhone does for the market share. But that's only because Apple abandon macs. Not updating the MacPro or mac mine in several years just costs them, customers. Apple is not consistent. The pricing just keeps going up and up. And they keep putting garbage Intel Iris integrated graphics in everything and slapping a 'pro' label on it. Sorry but that's fraud. Then they soldered all the SSDs even in the new iMac for pitty sake, knowing full well SSDs are consumable, and you will have to replace the whole motherboard out of warranty.

Apple are doing everything in their power to piss off their mac customer base in recent years.

 

[Tech198]

This is a genuine question. Why does Apple act like Intel is always holding them back from releasing current machines every year? Does Intel not release new chips every single year? We are on to 10th gen. right now.

Let’s take the Mac mini for instance. It is running 8th gen. Why couldn’t have Apple updated it every single year with 9th gen. and now 10th gen. to keep it current? The same goes for their entire lineup? Why couldn’t the iMac line be updated every single year with 7th gen., 8th gen., 9th gen. and now 10th gen. Intel processors? I just don’t get it.

Apple has always played it off as though it is Intels fault. I could be totally wrong, but it sure looks like Apple is just lazy to me. I mean if I built a PC tomorrow it would have 10th gen. Intel silicon in it. Then next year I would update it again to 11th.

Just trying to make sense of it all. It sure does feel like Apple plays the victim a bit and throws shade when it seems like they could get off their hind end and update their Intel machines with what Intel releases each year.

This is not a debate about the benefits of Apple using its own silicon, but rather simple a question as to why they have never kept current with what Intel has available.

Are you suggesting the lack of Mac mini updates is what drove Apple to switch to Apple silicon?

If so, i'd probably agree as one fact. Apple updated the Macbooks/Pro's even iOS too... so, Mac mini could of been "the final straw"

Apple are doing everything in their power to piss off their mac customer base in recent years.

Changes doesn't amount to ** off... Its only users refuse to adapt. I'd even say it was either moving from PowerPC to Intel re-coding, as you have the bullet surprise of Windows there to fall back on beig popularity..

But Apple silicon? No-one can do that, only Apple, so it would have limited experience.. While for others... many apps would just die and/or not be reinvested because"they'd rather go somewhere else"

Like anything the free apps would likely go

 

[dmccloud]

Because macs don't bring in the profit that iPhone does for the market share. But that's only because Apple abandon macs. Not updating the MacPro or mac mine in several years just costs them, customers. Apple is not consistent. The pricing just keeps going up and up. And they keep putting garbage Intel Iris integrated graphics in everything and slapping a 'pro' label on it. Sorry but that's fraud. Then they soldered all the SSDs even in the new iMac for pitty sake, knowing full well SSDs are consumable, and you will have to replace the whole motherboard out of warranty.

Apple are doing everything in their power to piss off their mac customer base in recent years.

Just how exactly did Apple "abandon" the Mac? As far as your fraud claim goes, show me where exactly the term "pro" implies a dedicated graphics card. On the Iris front, those graphics are better than the Intel HD graphics they have been putting into most Windows-based laptops for years now - Intel just recently started switching to Iris Pro with their 10th generation CPUs because they finally realized that non Iris graphics were gonna suck indefinitely.

 

[CWallace]

Apple doesnt update the Mac Mini as often as they do other Macs. Thats the way its been since 2008.

A major reason for that is Intel does not update the CPUs the Mini uses as often as they do the CPUs for other Macs.

Intel skipped the 7th and 9th Generation and have yet to announce a 10th Generation CPU. Hence why the Mini is still stuck on the 8th Generation at the moment.

 

[Shivetya]

because it is always good to have someone to blame for your lack of action. Yes Intel has missed their road map a few times but Apple has completely abandoned systems until the internet clamor was so loud they felt compelled to act.

I still see the new Mac Pro as a middle finger at the fan base that wanted a new Mac Pro, as in Apple said here it is, its not for you, its for people we like, people who have REAL money.

 

[Andropov]

because it is always good to have someone to blame for your lack of action. Yes Intel has missed their road map a few times but Apple has completely abandoned systems until the internet clamor was so loud they felt compelled to act.

Quite a bit more than a few times. Off the top of my head, just on the MacBook Pro line:

The option of a MacBook Pro with more than 32GB was delayed for years waiting for Intel to support it on LPDDR4 RAM (only supported >32GB on regular DDR4). Finally Apple had to switch all of the MacBook Pro line to DDR4 instead of LPDDR4 in order to support it, since Intel processors with support for >32GB on LPDDR4 still haven't launched (AFAIK). This affected battery life on sleep mode since DDR4 uses a lot more power on standby.

The MacBook Pro 2016-2019 design was too thin and thermally constrained due to being designed for the 10nm Intel chips which were said to use 30% less power and were initially on the roadmap for 2016, but in the end had to use the 14nm+ or 14nm+++ chips since Intel never delivered on the 10nm promises (not even today, 4 years later).

The MacBook Pro 16" has no WiFi 6 since 9th gen Intel CPUs didn't support it and required an external IC (which Apple could have designed, though). Built-in WiFi 6 support only appeared on 10th gen Intel chips, not available on the MBP 16" launch date.

 

[TrevorR90]

Quite a bit more than a few times. Off the top of my head, just on the MacBook Pro line:

The option of a MacBook Pro with more than 32GB was delayed for years waiting for Intel to support it on LPDDR4 RAM (only supported >32GB on regular DDR4). Finally Apple had to switch all of the MacBook Pro line to DDR4 instead of LPDDR4 in order to support it, since Intel processors with support for >32GB on LPDDR4 still haven't launched (AFAIK). This affected battery life on sleep mode since DDR4 uses a lot more power on standby.

The MacBook Pro 2016-2019 design was too thin and thermally constrained due to being designed for the 10nm Intel chips which were said to use 30% less and initially on the roadmap for 2016, but in the end had to use the 14nm+ or 14nm+++ chips since Intel never delivered on the 10nm promises (not even today, 4 years later).

The MacBook Pro 16" has no WiFi 6 since 9th gen Intel CPUs didn't support it and required an external IC (which Apple could have designed, though). Built-in WiFi 6 support only appeared on 10th gen Intel chips, not available on the MBP 16" launch date.

This makes sense when you think about the MacBook pros of recent throttling under loads due to heat.

 

[Hexley]

This is a genuine question. Why does Apple act like Intel is always holding them back from releasing current machines every year? Does Intel not release new chips every single year? We are on to 10th gen. right now.

Let’s take the Mac mini for instance. It is running 8th gen. Why couldn’t have Apple updated it every single year with 9th gen. and now 10th gen. to keep it current? The same goes for their entire lineup? Why couldn’t the iMac line be updated every single year with 7th gen., 8th gen., 9th gen. and now 10th gen. Intel processors? I just don’t get it.

Apple has always played it off as though it is Intels fault. I could be totally wrong, but it sure looks like Apple is just lazy to me. I mean if I built a PC tomorrow it would have 10th gen. Intel silicon in it. Then next year I would update it again to 11th.

Just trying to make sense of it all. It sure does feel like Apple plays the victim a bit and throws shade when it seems like they could get off their hind end and update their Intel machines with what Intel releases each year.

This is not a debate about the benefits of Apple using its own silicon, but rather simple a question as to why they have never kept current with what Intel has available.

Intel still sells 14nm and 10nm process chips.

Apple offers products around 5nm process chips.

Frequency of Apple product updates are largely down to consumer demand.

Notebooks like the MBA and MBP make up ~80% of all shipped Macs. They generally receive updates 1-2x/year.

Desktops like the iMac, Mac mini, Mac Pro and iMac Pro that make up ~20% of all shhipped Macs. They generally receive updates every 1yr, 2yrs and 4yrs.

Apple has design targets and presents it to Intel to comply with. Intel tries but fails. That's why users complain about battery life and heat. PC users will then blame Apple for using substandard cooling solutions or tiny batteries and insisting Apple make bulkier and heavier notebooks that other PC brands do.

M1 Macs have shown that 5nm process chips are possible and doing so doubles battery life, and improves single core score beyond any Intel Mac and multi-core score to that of a Xeon chip.

Let us remove Intel or Apple in the equation. Why can AMD produce chips superior to Intel's?

 

[steve1960]

Any company whether it be Apple or someone else has to get into bed with a foundry. The cost and technology overheads are so high it is a no brainer. If you had to get into bed with a foundry today or last year or the last 20 years who would it be?

It's TSMC every day of the week and twice on Sunday's. Way ahead of the competition by far and with a huge infrastructure behind them. Forget Intel or AMD they are junior players to TSMC and sadly lacking.

More than 20 years go the company I worked for had a vision of a single chip CMOS Bluetooth device when Erricson had a slow clunky 3 chip solution. Where did we go? TSMC. The rest was history.

 

[steve1960]

Cambridge Silicon Radio, took single CMOS chip Bluetooth to market when they said it could not be done in partnership with TSMC and ASE. It was a rocky road but we made it and for a while blitzed the competition. Imagine we had approached Intel? History would have been a lot different trust me!

 

[Coheebuzz]

Aside from processing performance, Intel chips produce a lot of heat which clashes with Apple's design goals as they don't seem willing to compromise on form factor to keep the MBP's and Air's from toasting.

 

[mode11]

PC users will then blame Apple for using substandard cooling solutions or tiny batteries and insisting Apple make bulkier and heavier notebooks that other PC brands do.

It's not just PC users, it's Apple users as well. Ultimately, until Apple started making the CPUs themselves, they needed to design their chassis around the thermals of available components. It's no use speccing heatsinks etc. for components that don't exist, then shrugging your shoulders and blaming Intel. If Apple needed to redesign their cases a bit and make them thicker, well boo hoo - they could afford it. Unfortunately, for marketing reasons, making something thicker is a line Apple won't cross, so their customers just had to put up with throttling instead.

As far as AMD goes, my impression is that their laptop CPUs / APUs have only recently overtaken Intel's. In any case, it was hardly worth Apple switching their supplier / partner when the transition to AS was just around the corner.

 

[mode11]

It isn't worth developing new products around 5% improvements.

It isn't when you are the sole supplier of hardware to a platform, and your customers' only other options are to build a hackintosh or f*ck off. Funny how Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. somehow found the time to do so. I can understand Apple not bothering for the Mac mini, favouring the higher profit margins of older but similarly-performing processors, but not updating the Mac Pro for 6 years was a disgrace.

 

[leman]

It isn't when you are the sole supplier of hardware to a platform, and your customers' only other options are to build a hackintosh or f*ck off. Funny how Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. somehow found the time to do so.

Except they didn’t. I mean, it’s very popular these days to blame Apple for having “bad thermals”, until you start looking at other laptops and find out that their thermals are not any better.

Here are the facts:

- Apple laptop chassis are more than adequate to run Intel CPUs according to their advertised spec
- Other manufacturers tend to use the cheapest and simplest direct heat exhausts, literally having large cutouts in laptop bottom/sides to remove the hot air. This “solution” burns your legs abs your desk, reducing the laptop ergonomy. Apple is directing the hot air behind the laptop using guided exhausts. It’s obviously not as efficient as literally blowing the hot air into your crotch, but it’s a more though-out abs advanced cooling system.

 

[mode11]

I still see the new Mac Pro as a middle finger at the fan base that wanted a new Mac Pro

Yeah, it's a funny one. As an expandable box, the Mac Pro is a (low-selling) outlier to the whole Mac platform. The design of the 2013 Mac Pro was likely mostly about reducing costs / inventory space, and partly hubris / post-Jobs insecurity over their design skills. When that didn't sell, they clearly intended a souped-up iMac would do as their high-end pro machine. For some reason they got cold feet about that as well and decided they would make a tower Mac Pro, but then spent two years slaving over every aspect of the design and priced it to the stratosphere.

Apple does have a kind of passive-aggressive attitude towards Mac Pro customers. They know most of them just want a powerful box for a reasonable price, and cheesegrater with modern internals would sell (comparatively) like hotcakes. It feels like Apple would really rather not make the Mac Pro, and if they 'have' to, will only do so on their terms.

 

[mode11]

Except they didn’t. I mean, it’s very popular these days to blame Apple for having “bad thermals”, until you start looking at other laptops and find out that their thermals are not any better.

Here are the facts:

- Apple laptop chassis are more than adequate to run Intel CPUs according to their advertised spec
- Other manufacturers tend to use the cheapest and simplest direct heat exhausts, literally having large cutouts in laptop bottom/sides to remove the hot air. This “solution” burns your legs abs your desk, reducing the laptop ergonomy. Apple is directing the hot air behind the laptop using guided exhausts. It’s obviously not as efficient as literally blowing the hot air into your crotch, but it’s a more though-out abs advanced cooling system.

The quote you're replying to concerned updating CPUs to the latest current Intel generations, which they did. I wasn't talking about thermals in that post.

If you want to talk thermals though, it obviously depends on the PC laptop. Sure, an i9 in a thin-and-light will likely do no better than in a MacBook Pro. In an Alienware or Precision, it probably would.

Here are some other facts:

- Apple's laptop chassis were totally inadequate to run Intel CPUs without throttling: https://www.cultofmac.com/563617/macbook-pro-serious-thermal-throttling/

- I agree that Apple's rear-ducted exhaust has ergonomic benefits, but that's not the point. The cooling system's primary purpose is allow the CPU / GPU to perform as intended; if it can't do that it's not fit for purpose, regardless of other traits (e.g. quietness). If it can't properly cool e.g. an i9, they should have just been sold with i7s.