Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Possibly, but then we'd lose the ability to virtualize which is (sadly) still a requirement for some of us who use our Macs in the enterprise.
Don't look at it as an all-or-nothing option. Just because they re-introduce the MacBook with an ARM chip and with a much lower MSRP, doesn't mean that the MacBook Pro wouldn't still get Intel chips for the foreseeable future.
Wouldn't that cause the same kind of software compatibility issues Microsoft ran into with RT? "This software works on this Mac but not that one, whereas that title works on that Mac but not this one."
That will be awesome for Apple to roll out new models 4 months after I invested in their below average iteration of the MacBookPro.
If they do (I don't think they will) and the update offers some compelling advantage over the current one, I'm sure I can get a good price for my current one to offset the cost of upgrading.
That will be awesome for Apple to roll out new models 4 months after I invested in their below average iteration of the MacBookPro.
If you were so unhappy with it then why didn't you return it? Obviously something made you keep it. If you thought it was "below average" then why did you buy it in the first place? What are you using it for that makes it "below average"?
I find it funny that any time a negative comment is made there are alway a group that has a little hissy about it. I have been running MacBooks for years. The new one is not that impressive to me. I kept my other one for 4 years which is way too long in my world so that is why I am keeping this one. I don't have to like it. It really isn't any better than my 2012. Has a little more zip and the screen is a bit better also. It is below average because the touch bar is a gimmick. It is below average because it and maybe Sierra is buggy as hell. Let me guess yours works just fine and you have no issues...Save your lecturing for your kids.
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Possibly, but then we'd lose the ability to virtualize which is (sadly) still a requirement for some of us who use our Macs in the enterprise.
Don't look at it as an all-or-nothing option. Just because they re-introduce the MacBook with an ARM chip and with a much lower MSRP, doesn't mean that the MacBook Pro wouldn't still get Intel chips for the foreseeable future.
Wouldn't that cause the same kind of software compatibility issues Microsoft ran into with RT? "This software works on this Mac but not that one, whereas that title works on that Mac but not this one."
Not at all. What MS did for Surface RT is not unlike their 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows. It was poorly thought out and implemented. Apple, on the other hand, has made the transition from discrete architectures many, many times throughout their history, and today it's even better for them since they have the Mac App Store, many low-level coding elements which will allow developers to build for multiple architectures with relative ease, and since their most popular platform is already ARM there will be the ability to use these advancements to further the App Store for an ARM-based notebook without forcing every device they sell to be shifted to ARM when they are ready to include a low-end option. However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS.
That will be awesome for Apple to roll out new models 4 months after I invested in their below average iteration of the MacBookPro.
If you were so unhappy with it then why didn't you return it? Obviously something made you keep it. If you thought it was "below average" then why did you buy it in the first place? What are you using it for that makes it "below average"?
I find it funny that any time a negative comment is made there are alway a group that has a little hissy about it. I have been running MacBooks for years. The new one is not that impressive to me. I kept my other one for 4 years which is way too long in my world so that is why I am keeping this one. I don't have to like it. It really isn't any better than my 2012. Has a little more zip and the screen is a bit better also. It is below average because the touch bar is a gimmick. It is below average because it and maybe Sierra is buggy as hell. Let me guess yours works just fine and you have no issues...Save your lecturing for your kids.
Again, then why didn't you return it if you feel that the defining feature of the T1-chip with the Touch Bar, Touch ID, and Apple Pay are but a mere gimmick. You also made no comment about the display, so we should assume that this means nothing to you—which is perfectly fine, but makes one wonder why you would jump at the chance to buy the newest MBP at the highest possible price when the demand is high and then return it when you found that your 2012 is the same as the 2016 model (or purchase a 2015 model for much less money if your 2012 happened to die).
You blame the 2016 MBP HW for Sierra's bugginess, not to mention that Sierra is available on Macs going back about a half a decade, but that's somehow the 2016 MBP's fault? That makes no sense.
And what does power consumption have to do in a desktop processor?
One thing at a time, why do you believe that power consumption isn't an issue with desktop-class processors?
It's not an issue because you're not running on a battery. It does have some benefits like allowing slimmer packaging, but these are minimal.
Just because you don't see it as a concern because you've never had to be concerned about it—which is a result of the engineers being concerned abbot it—doesn't mean it's not a concern. Battery or not, the amount of energy used will always be an ever present issue. Do you all your electronics and lights on in your house because you believe that energy is free and unlimited? I sure hope not.
I guess Moores law or whatever it is is dead as a doornail as far as raw speed is concerned. Been stuck around 4gz for some years now.
Moore's Law is about transistor count and not clock speed. Moore observed that transistor count was doubling about every 18 months. I don't know if it still is but I don't think so. I think the industry figured out a while ago that increases in clock speed don't necessarily correlate with increases in output and so they started focusing on more useful measures. Apple may have been the first to push back on clock speeds in the 90's as they used PowerPC chips that were typically clocked lower (and they argued were more powerful.)
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Possibly, but then we'd lose the ability to virtualize which is (sadly) still a requirement for some of us who use our Macs in the enterprise.
Why would you [necessarily] lose the ability to virtualize? As I understand it, the latest Intel chips execute a RISC instruction set to emulate the CISC instruction set of earlier Intel chips. Wouldn't it be possible for a different RISC chip to do the same?
And Apple certainly has creds emulating one CPU with another!
Garbage processor upgrade from Intel. Anandtech already has a review up and they are literally the same performance as Skylake. The only advantages they bring are support for Optane and DRM on 4K video. Oh, and 4 extra PCI lanes for accessories. Big deal.
Might be time for Apple to consider a switch to the new AMD Ryzen desktop chips. Eagerly waiting for the first reviews on those processors.
How is better power efficiency and a lower TDP for a given clockrate garbage? I don't think you're understanding the optimization part of the 3-step cycle. I thought AnandTech has been clear on this:
"But this is what we kind of expected from an ‘Optimization’ step in the ‘Process, Architecture, Optimization’ way of doing things: we weren’t expecting to be amazed with the product, but nodding and approving of better efficiency."
TDP isn't power draw, but what the package can dissipate. And what does power consumption have to do in a desktop processor? You think people buying new iMacs will care if they consume marginally less energy (overall) but have no gain in performance?
They might have done some optimization on the power, but have done literally 0 on the CPU. Aside from the very small clock increases, the new CPU cores have the exact same IPC as the old Skylake cores.
And this is what Intel passes off as innovation these days? A whole year for no processor performance increase and a slight reduction in power?
The average punter does not care about TLDP and all that. All they care about is can they view Pron/Football quicker? IMHO Intel have dropped the ball big time. Most users won't notice the difference between Skylake and Kaby Lake.
Apple need to take Intel outside and give them a big talking too. No nice words now. They are beyond that. Apple just need to say, hey, look at this protoype MacBook. It runs a couple of our Arm Chips. you know the ones that we put in iPads.
Intel get to see a Macbook Pro running MacOs but powered by the Apple designed ASX10 CPU's.
This is next years Macbook unless....? 4 to 5 million CPU's/quarter from a company like Apple is not something that Intel will want to lose.
Garbage processor upgrade from Intel. Anandtech already has a review up and they are literally the same performance as Skylake. The only advantages they bring are support for Optane and DRM on 4K video. Oh, and 4 extra PCI lanes for accessories. Big deal.
Might be time for Apple to consider a switch to the new AMD Ryzen desktop chips. Eagerly waiting for the first reviews on those processors.
So your basically saying Apple should drop Thunderbolt from their desktop line.... sorry, I don't see that happening.
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Why not one chip? It's foolish to assume that the chip in the iPad Pro is the fastest chip Apple can design, but even it was, it already bests many of Intel's current offerings in many areas while being considerably less expensive for a given power envelope.
The question you should be asking is when will it be the right time to introduce an ARM-based Mac or Mac-like traditional PC to the lower-end of their market.
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Possibly, but then we'd lose the ability to virtualize which is (sadly) still a requirement for some of us who use our Macs in the enterprise.
Don't look at it as an all-or-nothing option. Just because they re-introduce the MacBook with an ARM chip and with a much lower MSRP, doesn't mean that the MacBook Pro wouldn't still get Intel chips for the foreseeable future.
Or an IBM Power chip?
It would be ironic if Apple ended up using IBM chips for its computers and Intel chips for its modems.
And what does power consumption have to do in a desktop processor?
One thing at a time, why do you believe that power consumption isn't an issue with desktop-class processors?
It's not an issue because you're not running on a battery. It does have some benefits like allowing slimmer packaging, but these are minimal.
Just because you don't see it as a concern because you've never had to be concerned about it—which is a result of the engineers being concerned abbot it—doesn't mean it's not a concern. Battery or not, the amount of energy used will always be an ever present issue. Do you all your electronics and lights on in your house because you believe that energy is free and unlimited? I sure hope not.
For the amount of electricity I consume in a month my computers are a small portion of it. So it would provide an extremely small benefit to me. Hell, my clothes dryer consumes almost 3000W of electricity. One load of laundry can power both my iMacs for several days of normal use.
The real issue for me is that Kaby Lake CPU cores are no faster than Skylake cores. After one year of optimizations they couldn't do a damn thing to make them any faster. Nor could they add LPDDR4 support to their mobile processors.
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Possibly, but then we'd lose the ability to virtualize which is (sadly) still a requirement for some of us who use our Macs in the enterprise.
Don't look at it as an all-or-nothing option. Just because they re-introduce the MacBook with an ARM chip and with a much lower MSRP, doesn't mean that the MacBook Pro wouldn't still get Intel chips for the foreseeable future.
Wouldn't that cause the same kind of software compatibility issues Microsoft ran into with RT? "This software works on this Mac but not that one, whereas that title works on that Mac but not this one."
Not at all. What MS did for Surface RT is not unlike their 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows. It was poorly thought out and implemented. Apple, on the other hand, has made the transition from discrete architectures many, many times throughout their history, and today it's even better for them since they have the Mac App Store, many low-level coding elements which will allow developers to build for multiple architectures with relative ease, and since their most popular platform is already ARM there will be the ability to use these advancements to further the App Store for an ARM-based notebook without forcing every device they sell to be shifted to ARM when they are ready to include a low-end option. However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS.
"However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS."
I've been going on about a proOS in several threads -- specifically something in between iOS and macOS -- to exploit the iPad Pro hardware.
Implemented correctly, proOS could subsume macOS over time.
Comments
But just so so you know the graphics issue is fixed in the current beta were testing.
You blame the 2016 MBP HW for Sierra's bugginess, not to mention that Sierra is available on Macs going back about a half a decade, but that's somehow the 2016 MBP's fault? That makes no sense.
It's not an issue because you're not running on a battery. It does have some benefits like allowing slimmer packaging, but these are minimal.
And Apple certainly has creds emulating one CPU with another!
IMHO Intel have dropped the ball big time. Most users won't notice the difference between Skylake and Kaby Lake.
Apple need to take Intel outside and give them a big talking too. No nice words now. They are beyond that.
Apple just need to say, hey, look at this protoype MacBook. It runs a couple of our Arm Chips. you know the ones that we put in iPads.
Intel get to see a Macbook Pro running MacOs but powered by the Apple designed ASX10 CPU's.
This is next years Macbook unless....?
4 to 5 million CPU's/quarter from a company like Apple is not something that Intel will want to lose.
Or an IBM Power chip?
It would be ironic if Apple ended up using IBM chips for its computers and Intel chips for its modems.
For the amount of electricity I consume in a month my computers are a small portion of it. So it would provide an extremely small benefit to me. Hell, my clothes dryer consumes almost 3000W of electricity. One load of laundry can power both my iMacs for several days of normal use.
The real issue for me is that Kaby Lake CPU cores are no faster than Skylake cores. After one year of optimizations they couldn't do a damn thing to make them any faster. Nor could they add LPDDR4 support to their mobile processors.
Not going to 'upgrade' my recent iMac 5K for that.
I've been going on about a proOS in several threads -- specifically something in between iOS and macOS -- to exploit the iPad Pro hardware.
Implemented correctly, proOS could subsume macOS over time.