Apple developing ARM chip for Mac to handle low-power functionality

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 87
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Soli said:
    Marvin said:
    Soli said:
    1) Why use the iPad Pro's display, which uses an expensive digitizer and is the top of the line iPad?

    2) Consider the cost of that Intel chip compared to what it would cost Apple to produce their own chip.
    They'd use a display similar to the MB. The iPad and MB displays probably aren't that much different in price overall:
    Not even close. Again, the digitizer is not a cheap component in the iPad Pro display. And I'm not even getting into about other touchscreen components to the iPad Pro display that also increase its cost, although not nearly as much as the digitizer.

    Without an IHS subscription there isn't a good source for iPad Pro or MacBook component pricing but based on retail price of replacement parts Marvin provided they are close.  Here are some more: a replacement MacBook 12" display is $396.  The replacement MacBook Pro 13" screen is $240. The replacement for the 12" iPad Pro screen is $299. 

    So at most $50 retail price difference between the iPad Pro and MacBook Pro screen.  At the BOM level the difference is likely very very minor.

    Given you posted that the A10X was in last year's iPad I'm going to say "citation needed".  Which is the polite form of saying Marvin is likely right and you are likely engaging in "alternative facts" aka bullshit.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00NI8L31G

    https://www.reddit.com/r/applehelp/comments/3ryury/2015_macbook_12_inch_retina_screen_cracked_due_to/

    https://www.fixez.com/store/ipad/ipad-pro-12-9-inch/ipad-pro-12-9-lcd-screen-and-digitizer-front-panel-black
    edited February 2017
  • Reply 82 of 87
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:

    I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
    Again, this is the market segment addressed by the iPad.
    And yet the MacBook and MacBook Air exist after the iPad came out, again proving you wrong.
    “The iPad is the clearest expression of our vision of the future of personal computing.” — Tim Cook
  • Reply 83 of 87
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,326moderator
    Soli said:
    Marvin said:
    Soli said:
    1) Why use the iPad Pro's display, which uses an expensive digitizer and is the top of the line iPad?

    2) Consider the cost of that Intel chip compared to what it would cost Apple to produce their own chip.
    They'd use a display similar to the MB. The iPad and MB displays probably aren't that much different in price overall:
    Not even close. Again, the digitizer is not a cheap component in the iPad Pro display. And I'm not even getting into about other touchscreen components to the iPad Pro display that also increase its cost, although not nearly as much as the digitizer.
    I'm guessing this point is about an ARM Macbook being cheaper than what's been suggested (around $200-300 less than a 12" MB) due to cutting the touchscreen components? What retail price, spec and unit volume would you expect in an ARM Macbook?

    Another thing to be aware of is that if price is the driving factor here, Intel makes very cheap processors too. The Atom processor is weak but costs less than $30:

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+x5-Z8500+@+1.44GHz
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+m3-6Y30+@+0.90GHz

    https://ark.intel.com/products/85474/Intel-Atom-x5-Z8500-Processor-2M-Cache-up-to-2_24-GHz
    https://ark.intel.com/products/88198/Intel-Core-m3-6Y30-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_20-GHz

    That's an older Atom against the latest Macbook and is half the performance. Price difference in components is $250, performance level is around a 2009 Macbook Pro. If they really wanted to, they could make a 12" Macbook with 128GB storage, 8GB RAM and an x86 Atom for $799.

    Apple will have people working the numbers on these options to see if the potential sales makes it worthwhile. The problem is that an Atom machine probably would suffice for most average computer buyers so offering that option would just drop their revenue way down and the extra unit volume might not make up for it. It would boost education sales, that would make for a great student laptop. Maybe they just wouldn't drop the price so low and keep the extra margins and if it's only 128GB, the 256GB option would push buyers back to the more expensive Intel chips. This lets them drop the Air from the lineup.
    hmm
  • Reply 84 of 87
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Marvin said:
    Soli said:
    Marvin said:
    Soli said:
    1) Why use the iPad Pro's display, which uses an expensive digitizer and is the top of the line iPad?

    2) Consider the cost of that Intel chip compared to what it would cost Apple to produce their own chip.
    They'd use a display similar to the MB. The iPad and MB displays probably aren't that much different in price overall:
    Not even close. Again, the digitizer is not a cheap component in the iPad Pro display. And I'm not even getting into about other touchscreen components to the iPad Pro display that also increase its cost, although not nearly as much as the digitizer.
    I'm guessing this point is about an ARM Macbook being cheaper than what's been suggested (around $200-300 less than a 12" MB) due to cutting the touchscreen components? What retail price, spec and unit volume would you expect in an ARM Macbook?

    Another thing to be aware of is that if price is the driving factor here, Intel makes very cheap processors too. The Atom processor is weak but costs less than $30:

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+x5-Z8500+@+1.44GHz
    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+m3-6Y30+@+0.90GHz

    https://ark.intel.com/products/85474/Intel-Atom-x5-Z8500-Processor-2M-Cache-up-to-2_24-GHz
    https://ark.intel.com/products/88198/Intel-Core-m3-6Y30-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_20-GHz

    That's an older Atom against the latest Macbook and is half the performance. Price difference in components is $250, performance level is around a 2009 Macbook Pro. If they really wanted to, they could make a 12" Macbook with 128GB storage, 8GB RAM and an x86 Atom for $799.

    Apple will have people working the numbers on these options to see if the potential sales makes it worthwhile. The problem is that an Atom machine probably would suffice for most average computer buyers so offering that option would just drop their revenue way down and the extra unit volume might not make up for it. It would boost education sales, that would make for a great student laptop. Maybe they just wouldn't drop the price so low and keep the extra margins and if it's only 128GB, the 256GB option would push buyers back to the more expensive Intel chips. This lets them drop the Air from the lineup.
    Why pick the Z8500 when the Z8750 is available for $37?  It's a little bit faster.

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Atom+x7-Z8700+@+1.60GHz

    You can get a 6W 4 core Celeron N3450 for $107 which is designed for laptops with S0ix sleep states (unlike their desktop 10W counterparts) and has VP9 support.

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Celeron+N3450+@+1.10GHz

    http://ark.intel.com/compare/93362,95596

    If you don't need the PCI lanes the Atom is the better deal.

    Still performance would be a bit anemic.  The thing about pricing is that when ARM really threatens Intel can lower pricing to match like they did with Atom. 
    edited February 2017 hmm
  • Reply 85 of 87
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,693member
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:

    I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
    Again, this is the market segment addressed by the iPad.
    And yet the MacBook and MacBook Air exist after the iPad came out, again proving you wrong.
    “The iPad is the clearest expression of our vision of the future of personal computing.” — Tim Cook
    And let's hope it's a distant, distant future. At least when they release the 27 inch iPad I will be able to close a tab in Safari in one action and on the first attempt.

    Currently, if I want to close a tab on my iPad Mini in one action,  I have to to try a hit a button that measures just 4mm in diameter.

    I'm not King Kong. I have normal fingers but that is just one of the hundreds of design faults that have plagued iOS.

    The iPad serves a purpose but that purpose is not the future of personal computing, it is simply a part of it.


  • Reply 86 of 87
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:

    I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
    Again, this is the market segment addressed by the iPad.
    And yet the MacBook and MacBook Air exist after the iPad came out, again proving you wrong.
    “The iPad is the clearest expression of our vision of the future of personal computing.” — Tim Cook
    And let's hope it's a distant, distant future. At least when they release the 27 inch iPad I will be able to close a tab in Safari in one action and on the first attempt.

    Currently, if I want to close a tab on my iPad Mini in one action,  I have to to try a hit a button that measures just 4mm in diameter.

    I'm not King Kong. I have normal fingers but that is just one of the hundreds of design faults that have plagued iOS.

    The iPad serves a purpose but that purpose is not the future of personal computing, it is simply a part of it.
    The iPad is clearly positioned for casual users and the reality is that it is Apple's consumer computing platform along with the iPhone.

    The Apple HIG specifies the smallest target must be 44 pts x 44 pts at a minimum.  For everything but the mini this is 1/4" to 1/3" (6.35 mm+) in size for the smallest touchable UI element.

    If the UI elements on the mini is too small for you then either get an iPad Air or iPhone 7+.

    Or given that you feel that iOS is plagued by hundreds of design faults (which is absolute bullshit) feel free to move to Android.  

    In fact please move to Android and Windows and stop trolling this forum since in your opinion Apple can't do anything right given you hate the new MBP and think iOS sucks.
  • Reply 87 of 87
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,693member
    nht said:
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:

    I don't think either of these are likely since we're not talking about the Mac Pro going ARM, but a new low-end Mac notebook where the users don't need to run multiple OSes and will be marketed toward the typical "PC" user, not the so-called "Pro."
    Again, this is the market segment addressed by the iPad.
    And yet the MacBook and MacBook Air exist after the iPad came out, again proving you wrong.
    “The iPad is the clearest expression of our vision of the future of personal computing.” — Tim Cook
    And let's hope it's a distant, distant future. At least when they release the 27 inch iPad I will be able to close a tab in Safari in one action and on the first attempt.

    Currently, if I want to close a tab on my iPad Mini in one action,  I have to to try a hit a button that measures just 4mm in diameter.

    I'm not King Kong. I have normal fingers but that is just one of the hundreds of design faults that have plagued iOS.

    The iPad serves a purpose but that purpose is not the future of personal computing, it is simply a part of it.
    The iPad is clearly positioned for casual users and the reality is that it is Apple's consumer computing platform along with the iPhone.

    The Apple HIG specifies the smallest target must be 44 pts x 44 pts at a minimum.  For everything but the mini this is 1/4" to 1/3" (6.35 mm+) in size for the smallest touchable UI element.

    If the UI elements on the mini is too small for you then either get an iPad Air or iPhone 7+.

    Or given that you feel that iOS is plagued by hundreds of design faults (which is absolute bullshit) feel free to move to Android.  

    In fact please move to Android and Windows and stop trolling this forum since in your opinion Apple can't do anything right given you hate the new MBP and think iOS sucks.
    I use both and am perfectly acquainted with what I need to know. Ever tried opening a draft email in mail? Loading a desktop version of a web page in Safari? Undo? Intuitive? What good are guidelines if you don't follow them?

    It's a well-known article but tell me you use iOS and don't run into problems that shouldn't even exist.

    https://www.fastcodesign.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name

    My point wasn't so much iOS as you quoting TC on it. Do you really think he meant it? Because if he did, we are in for a lot of pain.

    I love my Mini and agree with you on its best use, but iOS is light years away from the 'future of personal computing'.
    edited February 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.