Keep in mind Bloomberg's Mark Gurman also said Apple Watch 2 would definately have a camera for FaceTime, and that this was a key, necessary feature for selling watches.
It's not remotely news nor timely reporting that Apple is making its own silicion. Typical recycling of known facts and baseless speculation from an anynomous self-described expert sold as a Bloomberg "report."
Haha...Apple Watch with a camera? LOL! If there's one thing I hope NEVER comes to Apple Watch, its a damn camera. I don't need cameras all around me 24/7/365. Doing FaceTime on a small screen would be such a poor experience. I can't see how Apple would ever even make this a good experience.
I'm with you there. I'm not even sure why my phone needs one, let alone the iPad.
It does seem that an ARM based Mac is the endpoint, but I'm still not convinced we're there yet. x86 compatibility is still desirable, and even throwing more cores at the problem isn't going to get the performance from an ARM processor for real-time emulation. If we were, then we'd most likely be seeing some Proof of Concept boxes cropping up around the place.
So either we need dramatic improvement in ARM performance, or Intel x86 needs to become irrelevant. At this point it doesn't look like x86 is going to become irrelevant, but you never know. More likely, Apple would release low end boxes running on ARM, with the Pro boxes running x86, with a T-series coprocessor, and emulating ARM for compatibility with the low end (including development for the ARM based platform). Apps could be submitted to the App Store as bitcode, which could be compiled on demand to either x86 or ARM. (I've been assured this would be possible - by a source close to Cupertino(1) - with the App Store process as it stands currently.)
Anyway, I don't want to get bogged down in imaginary details for a hypothetical process. I'm not an analyst, or anything. (Although, I am available, if anyone wants to hire me as one.) By the time any of what I've described happens, we could have gone a completely different direction.
(1) Well, he lives in Half Moon Bay, and that's reasonably close to Cupertino.
There's a lot of upside to the T2 coming to Macbook Pros, there is one thing I'd miss however. In the iMac Pro it controls the fans, meaning you can't set them with SMCFanControl or similar anymore. Macbook Pros can err on the side of toasty to stay silent so I'd often set the fans higher before starting a workload, this would prevent that.
Other than that, I'm enthused by a T2 rMBP refresh, with ULV quads expected for the 13 and either Kaby Lake G with the Radeon combo chip/HBM2 for the 15, or else a later in the year release with 6 core Cannon Lake.
Unless Apple Buys AMD - which is cheap - then Apple will not be making Intel compatible CPUs for Macs.
Which makes absolutely no difference to me. A Mac with an Apple CPU will still run Mac OS hopefully and if it runs Linux will be all that I need. After a bit of time with Windows 10 I can honestly say that my interest in an ability to run Windows on my Mac is still near zero. With a few improvements to Mac OS even the desire to run Linux will diminish.
The part of the report that claims Apple will put ARM-based, customized silicon in future portable and desktop Macs is something of a no-brainer. As Daniel points out, the speculative part that Apple will soon drop Intel is (allow me to use the technical term) cuckoo bananas. These ARM chips are secondary and supplemental in nature, not doing the heavy lifting, and that’s a great role for them. I could certainly imagine a MacBook (not Pro) someday running on a “A15” chip in a few years as the primary processor, sure ... it and the MBA are light-duty machines. But not In the pro and desktop line, at least in the foreseeable future.
Apples A series are already in may ways more powerful than the chips in the MacBook with the MBP not far away. Remember this is a chip running on a process designed for low power, is a device that has to be run at very low powers. Take the same Apple designs and build them on a high power process and run them at the power levels seen in many laptops and I doubt you will get many complaints. This especially considering that Apple can throw more cores at any design using an ARM core.
In the end I don't think Apple has a choice but to go its own way with main CPU design. The key here won't be the ARM cores either but rather the GPU and AI acceleration technology they will have to have in chips to keep moving forward. Intel basically has punted with respect to GPU design, they can't manage power levels worth a damn and the world of AI has yet to be locked into one solution path. Right now is an ideal time to put the company on a path to dominate SoC design well into the future. Note ""SoC"" as there will be much more to a computer than the CPU core of choice. In fact focusing on the CPU core is a bit like focusing on SATA interfaces when the world is quickly leaving rotating rust behind.
If Apple is still "Thinking Different" then they have no choice but to leave Intel behind sometime.
I worry about a future where the security chip only allows Macs/iPhones/iPads to run Apple supplied operating systems, and the device is old enough that Apple no longer provides security updates.
At least with a current Mac, you have the option of switching to Linux, once your hardware is old enough that Apple no longer provides security updates.
While some will try to dismiss this, the option to run alternative OS'es is important. We can only hope that Apple leaves that window open. Frankly running their own hardware should allow Apple to support OS's longer as they will not have a bunch of errata to deal with that isn't their own. Problems like Meltdown and Spectra put into question the security of all recent Macs and frankly has left the entire industry with a set of kludges to patch kernels. While this problem impacts Apples chips also they are able to directly address the issues in hardware as they appear and potentially minimize the support required.
In other words I see Apple supplied chips being supported longer. There are a variety of reasons but we have entered an era where CPU performance remains viable for a longer time after an OS release. Much of this is due to special processing cores in modern SoC designs. Even iPhones are starting to show this sort of survival potential over successive OS releases.
I worry about a future where the security chip only allows Macs/iPhones/iPads to run Apple supplied operating systems, and the device is old enough that Apple no longer provides security updates.
At least with a current Mac, you have the option of switching to Linux, once your hardware is old enough that Apple no longer provides security updates.
Talk about a niche concern. What percentage of 5 or 10 year old Macs are running Linux do you think? 0.001%?
The part of the report that claims Apple will put ARM-based, customized silicon in future portable and desktop Macs is something of a no-brainer. As Daniel points out, the speculative part that Apple will soon drop Intel is (allow me to use the technical term) cuckoo bananas. These ARM chips are secondary and supplemental in nature, not doing the heavy lifting, and that’s a great role for them. I could certainly imagine a MacBook (not Pro) someday running on a “A15” chip in a few years as the primary processor, sure ... it and the MBA are light-duty machines. But not In the pro and desktop line, at least in the foreseeable future.
Apparently the A11 chip is outperforming my 2016 13" MBP...according to reported benchmarks...which is kind of shocking...so perhaps for lower end MBP machines they have already reached parity...but what's to stop Apple from creating a 12 or 24 core version of the A11 that compares to high end MBP machines?
People are out of touch with just how good Apples cores do with some work loads. They aren't perfect by any means but the other thing people don't understand is that everyone of Apple chips so far has been designed to run on a low power semiconductor process and be leading edge in power usage. Switch to a semiconductor process that supports high performance and we could easily see Apples chips running at very high clock rates. A 4GHz A11 for example would easily power every laptop Apple currently makes and with the enhanced special purpose cores already in the chip have significant capability in excess of what Intel ships. In a nut shell I don't think people understand just how advanced Apples chips are.
Beyond all of that I really doubt Apple would go with exactly the same iPhone or IPad, chip in the desktop or laptop ranges. With modest modifications, allowed for by the high power handling capability, they can add cache, expanded special processors and an I/O bus suitable for future generations of laptops and desktops. There is no reason Apple couldn't do this as fast as Intel, maybe even faster. After all Intel tweaks processes for laptop chips vs desktops and has families of chips designed around a single generation of cores. Morphing A11(X) into a desktop quality chip shouldn't cause any sweating at Apple. Actually the X series of chips kinda prove this point, they are evolutions of the base chip designed to operate in the higher power allotment seen in IPads. Apple can simply do the same thing again for an A11(D) (or whatever Axx) where "D" designates a desktop / laptop chip.
Sometimes I'm not sure people think about what they are saying in these forums, Apple A series are already fast enough for simpler users needs as is demonstrated by iPad. Going beyond iPad performance is not a big deal.
Unless Apple Buys AMD - which is cheap - then Apple will not be making Intel compatible CPUs for Macs.
Would AMD's x86 licensing transfer in the event of a purchase? I don't know.
When Apple moved to Intel years ago, the Intel compatibility (for Windows) was a selling point (for businesses) for Mac hardware, but I doubt it is as big a selling point NOW vs. THEN. I'm sure Apple know their audience, so maybe Apply may shed Intel compatibility when they think the time is right, even if it leaves a few people stranded.
As more applications move to the cloud, the OS becomes less of a feature/differentiator.
Moving everything to the cloud is fine, but it does not change the requirements for software developers, who make the cloud solution possible. And bear in mind that all these cloud servers run Linux.
If the Mac would no longer run Windows and Linux at (almost) native speed, a Mac would become a 2nd class developing machine for cloud solutions. I would have to drastically reduce the number of Macs in my software company. Only the graphical designers who use Sketch and the iOS app developers who use Xcode would still get Macs. The rest will have Dell XPS with Linux.
This is largely baloney, you can easily write could solutions on a Mac an transfer them to the machines running the cloud. If that doens't work develop remotely.
As for running Linux at native speeds that really depends upon Linux running natively on the Mac hardware. Since we don't know what the ARM based Macs look like at the moment we can't say if this is a problem. Apple could easily publish the information required to get Linux to run on the platform or they could go the opposite way and lock out everything but Mac OS. We simply don't know which avenue Apple will take here so it does little good to speculate.
As for Windows, who really cares. The vast majority of Windows based machines out there can barely run the Windows they ship with. So frankly you would be at an advantage if Windows emulation was somewhat slow as you would get performance that is more in line with what most users will see. Frankly there isn't anything that pisses me off more than visiting a web site that assumes that the user has a high performance computer capable of viewing the site. this is especially the cae with business oriented sites where the computer of choice is dictated to you and not an option. I'm really hoping that you are not one of those people offering business to business solutions that demand that the user have a high performance workstation.
Frankly I have to question your post here because there is ample indication that even Microsoft is embracing ARM. Given that, it makes no sense to dismiss Mac simply because they have a processor you haven't taken the time to consider thoughtfully.
One could argue it is the Intel x86 that is the co processor, not Apple's T Series. Since Apple is basically have the whole boot process themselves, and likely more basic, under the hood OS function will move to have the T2 doing it.
One of the great thing about T2 is how it has integrated SSD Controller, so Apple could standardize parts across all Mac. And it is likely WiFi and Bluetooth will be integrated as well. That is $40 - $50 BOM cost saved.... likely being spent in other parts of the Mac.
I dont think it make sense for Apple to build its own x86 chip across the range of TDP in Macs, scaling from 10W to 150W. It makes much more sense for Apple to have their GPU used on the Desktop as well. Since scaling GPU across TDP is much much easier. But then it is hard to imagine Apple writing their Windows drivers for GPU. One possible way is that the GPU is only usable on macOS. On Windows you are stuck with Intel's iGPU.
Yes one could easily say that the x86 is being relegated to co-processor duties.
The interesting thing to me is how Apple expands the use of the T processors in the future. Apple specific software such as mail could run there all the time, always on and completely out of the way of the x86. Mail becomes an always on, always there, service just like on iOS. There are actually several such programs I could see Apple moving quickly to this processor to enable a more dynamic Mac OS. Siri and the AI heart of the new Macs could lie there also, it is really a matter of how much RAM they allocate to the processor and of course cores. In any event we could see an interim set of Macs, for maybe as much as five years where the primary user interaction with the Mac happens on the ARM based chip with the x86 relegated to legacy apps. Lets face it Apple would need a period of time before the could completely drop x86.
As for 150 watt processors I think the days of such processors is long gone at Apple. They can't even sell Mac designed specifically for such processors. All Apple really needs is processors that hit the 45 to 55 watt range at the top end to cover the vast majority of their hardware needs. Done right on a very power efficient design performance could easily match 75 watt units from AMD or Intel. At that point it would make more sense to have a processor that easily integrates in to a many chip design. Imagine a Mac Pro replacement that integrates 4, 45 watt chips instead of one high power chip. Even better make the machine modular so that you can add X number of 45 watt chips as you need them.
Your comments about the GPU are interesting because that could be a bigger hurdle to alternative OS'es than the processor itself. But like my other comments we really can't judge a machine on what we don't know and we don't know what Apples attitude will be with respect to third party OS's. In the desktop sphere Apple seems to be taking a beating right now with pretty terrible sales, the response to the Mac Pro (a bit unwarranted) likely has also shaken them up some; so maybe, just maybe we will see an Apple with a focus on giving users what they want as far as hardware support goes. I know that seems to be impossible at the moment but it seems like they know that they blew the Mac Pro design from the stand point of some very vocal users. So we can only hope that they see support of Apple GPU and even the AI hardware as critical to the long term success of the Mac line.
Unless Apple Buys AMD - which is cheap - then Apple will not be making Intel compatible CPUs for Macs.
Would AMD's x86 licensing transfer in the event of a purchase? I don't know.
When Apple moved to Intel years ago, the Intel compatibility (for Windows) was a selling point (for businesses) for Mac hardware, but I doubt it is as big a selling point NOW vs. THEN. I'm sure Apple know their audience, so maybe Apply may shed Intel compatibility when they think the time is right, even if it leaves a few people stranded.
As more applications move to the cloud, the OS becomes less of a feature/differentiator.
Moving everything to the cloud is fine, but it does not change the requirements for software developers, who make the cloud solution possible. And bear in mind that all these cloud servers run Linux.
If the Mac would no longer run Windows and Linux at (almost) native speed, a Mac would become a 2nd class developing machine for cloud solutions. I would have to drastically reduce the number of Macs in my software company. Only the graphical designers who use Sketch and the iOS app developers who use Xcode would still get Macs. The rest will have Dell XPS with Linux.
What runs on Linux that doesnt on MacOS? Fucking nothing. You slap it in docker like every other shop or run it on a EC2 instance.
So yes, if they want, they can build a chip as powerful as Xeons.
But then it’s all about compatibility, level of complexity, cost effectiveness...all that good stuff. x86 has come a long way, with numerous softwares that’s designed for personal computers. That’s probably not something an ARM can make up for a short period of time.
also, I don’t really trust GeekBench stuff, or any benchmarks alone.
They could also just build the lower cost MacBooks with A series designed to only run a macOS version natively while offering lower prices for the machines, then reserving the Pro moniker for the Intel processors capable of running other OSes. Eventually they could optimize the A series microcode for ARM and/or x86 ISAs to build the Pros.
I am a hardware tech layperson but these T chips and whatever might unfold in the future would seem to eliminate the possibility of a Hackentosh running MacOS at some point. It’s not hard to imagine that is part of Apple’s plan.
The gist is that the T2 chip is not specifically targeting Hackintoshes at all, although they will be a casualty. Hackintoshes are a rounding error to Apple (to quote Ballmer).
See Ksec's post above (second paragraph).
Not in foreseeable future, but as soon as the last Mac without T-series becoming obsolete, it probably will.
Comments
I'm with you there. I'm not even sure why my phone needs one, let alone the iPad.
It does seem that an ARM based Mac is the endpoint, but I'm still not convinced we're there yet. x86 compatibility is still desirable, and even throwing more cores at the problem isn't going to get the performance from an ARM processor for real-time emulation. If we were, then we'd most likely be seeing some Proof of Concept boxes cropping up around the place.
So either we need dramatic improvement in ARM performance, or Intel x86 needs to become irrelevant. At this point it doesn't look like x86 is going to become irrelevant, but you never know. More likely, Apple would release low end boxes running on ARM, with the Pro boxes running x86, with a T-series coprocessor, and emulating ARM for compatibility with the low end (including development for the ARM based platform). Apps could be submitted to the App Store as bitcode, which could be compiled on demand to either x86 or ARM. (I've been assured this would be possible - by a source close to Cupertino(1) - with the App Store process as it stands currently.)
Anyway, I don't want to get bogged down in imaginary details for a hypothetical process. I'm not an analyst, or anything. (Although, I am available, if anyone wants to hire me as one.) By the time any of what I've described happens, we could have gone a completely different direction.
(1) Well, he lives in Half Moon Bay, and that's reasonably close to Cupertino.
In the end I don't think Apple has a choice but to go its own way with main CPU design. The key here won't be the ARM cores either but rather the GPU and AI acceleration technology they will have to have in chips to keep moving forward. Intel basically has punted with respect to GPU design, they can't manage power levels worth a damn and the world of AI has yet to be locked into one solution path. Right now is an ideal time to put the company on a path to dominate SoC design well into the future. Note ""SoC"" as there will be much more to a computer than the CPU core of choice. In fact focusing on the CPU core is a bit like focusing on SATA interfaces when the world is quickly leaving rotating rust behind.
If Apple is still "Thinking Different" then they have no choice but to leave Intel behind sometime.
In other words I see Apple supplied chips being supported longer. There are a variety of reasons but we have entered an era where CPU performance remains viable for a longer time after an OS release. Much of this is due to special processing cores in modern SoC designs. Even iPhones are starting to show this sort of survival potential over successive OS releases.
Beyond all of that I really doubt Apple would go with exactly the same iPhone or IPad, chip in the desktop or laptop ranges. With modest modifications, allowed for by the high power handling capability, they can add cache, expanded special processors and an I/O bus suitable for future generations of laptops and desktops. There is no reason Apple couldn't do this as fast as Intel, maybe even faster. After all Intel tweaks processes for laptop chips vs desktops and has families of chips designed around a single generation of cores. Morphing A11(X) into a desktop quality chip shouldn't cause any sweating at Apple. Actually the X series of chips kinda prove this point, they are evolutions of the base chip designed to operate in the higher power allotment seen in IPads. Apple can simply do the same thing again for an A11(D) (or whatever Axx) where "D" designates a desktop / laptop chip.
Sometimes I'm not sure people think about what they are saying in these forums, Apple A series are already fast enough for simpler users needs as is demonstrated by iPad. Going beyond iPad performance is not a big deal.
As for running Linux at native speeds that really depends upon Linux running natively on the Mac hardware. Since we don't know what the ARM based Macs look like at the moment we can't say if this is a problem. Apple could easily publish the information required to get Linux to run on the platform or they could go the opposite way and lock out everything but Mac OS. We simply don't know which avenue Apple will take here so it does little good to speculate.
As for Windows, who really cares. The vast majority of Windows based machines out there can barely run the Windows they ship with. So frankly you would be at an advantage if Windows emulation was somewhat slow as you would get performance that is more in line with what most users will see. Frankly there isn't anything that pisses me off more than visiting a web site that assumes that the user has a high performance computer capable of viewing the site. this is especially the cae with business oriented sites where the computer of choice is dictated to you and not an option. I'm really hoping that you are not one of those people offering business to business solutions that demand that the user have a high performance workstation.
Frankly I have to question your post here because there is ample indication that even Microsoft is embracing ARM. Given that, it makes no sense to dismiss Mac simply because they have a processor you haven't taken the time to consider thoughtfully.
The interesting thing to me is how Apple expands the use of the T processors in the future. Apple specific software such as mail could run there all the time, always on and completely out of the way of the x86. Mail becomes an always on, always there, service just like on iOS. There are actually several such programs I could see Apple moving quickly to this processor to enable a more dynamic Mac OS. Siri and the AI heart of the new Macs could lie there also, it is really a matter of how much RAM they allocate to the processor and of course cores. In any event we could see an interim set of Macs, for maybe as much as five years where the primary user interaction with the Mac happens on the ARM based chip with the x86 relegated to legacy apps. Lets face it Apple would need a period of time before the could completely drop x86.
As for 150 watt processors I think the days of such processors is long gone at Apple. They can't even sell Mac designed specifically for such processors. All Apple really needs is processors that hit the 45 to 55 watt range at the top end to cover the vast majority of their hardware needs. Done right on a very power efficient design performance could easily match 75 watt units from AMD or Intel. At that point it would make more sense to have a processor that easily integrates in to a many chip design. Imagine a Mac Pro replacement that integrates 4, 45 watt chips instead of one high power chip. Even better make the machine modular so that you can add X number of 45 watt chips as you need them.
Your comments about the GPU are interesting because that could be a bigger hurdle to alternative OS'es than the processor itself. But like my other comments we really can't judge a machine on what we don't know and we don't know what Apples attitude will be with respect to third party OS's. In the desktop sphere Apple seems to be taking a beating right now with pretty terrible sales, the response to the Mac Pro (a bit unwarranted) likely has also shaken them up some; so maybe, just maybe we will see an Apple with a focus on giving users what they want as far as hardware support goes. I know that seems to be impossible at the moment but it seems like they know that they blew the Mac Pro design from the stand point of some very vocal users. So we can only hope that they see support of Apple GPU and even the AI hardware as critical to the long term success of the Mac line.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188396-the-final-isa-showdown-is-arm-x86-or-mips-intrinsically-more-power-efficient
So yes, if they want, they can build a chip as powerful as Xeons.
But then it’s all about compatibility, level of complexity, cost effectiveness...all that good stuff. x86 has come a long way, with numerous softwares that’s designed for personal computers. That’s probably not something an ARM can make up for a short period of time.
also, I don’t really trust GeekBench stuff, or any benchmarks alone.