Apple planning to ditch Intel chips in Macs for its own custom silicon in 2020

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 176
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,218member
    I've been able to run Macs for work because of the ability to virtualize Windows. Not sure this bodes well for the future of Macs in certain business segments unless emulation performance under these new chips will be acceptable.
    I wonder just how many people run Windows in any form (bootcamp or emulation) on Mac's these days.  I haven't thought about doing it for years now. 

    How long until Adobe get's it's act together; that's the real question
  • Reply 122 of 176
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,630member
    docno42 said:
    I've been able to run Macs for work because of the ability to virtualize Windows. Not sure this bodes well for the future of Macs in certain business segments unless emulation performance under these new chips will be acceptable.
    I wonder just how many people run Windows in any form (bootcamp or emulation) on Mac's these days.  I haven't thought about doing it for years now. 

    How long until Adobe get's it's act together; that's the real question
    They've created plenty of solid apps for iOS so they may be able to use that same code base with Cocoa UI for an ARM-based Mac. That said, I don't expect them to "get their act together" quickly, but I also don't think they'll have to since I think the Intel-based Macs will still be the high-end of the Mac segment for many, many years after ARM-based Macs are introduced into the lower-end.
  • Reply 123 of 176
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,830administrator
    Soli said:
    docno42 said:
    I've been able to run Macs for work because of the ability to virtualize Windows. Not sure this bodes well for the future of Macs in certain business segments unless emulation performance under these new chips will be acceptable.
    I wonder just how many people run Windows in any form (bootcamp or emulation) on Mac's these days.  I haven't thought about doing it for years now. 

    How long until Adobe get's it's act together; that's the real question
    They've created plenty of solid apps for iOS so they may be able to use that same code base with Cocoa UI for an ARM-based Mac. That said, I don't expect them to "get their act together" quickly, but I also don't think they'll have to since I think the Intel-based Macs will still be the high-end of the Mac segment for many, many years after ARM-based Macs are introduced into the lower-end.
    Developers had six whole months before the 68k to PPC shift, and the PPC to Intel shift to "get their act together." As far as Adobe goes, it took them forever to ship an Intel-native set of tools. 18 months after launch, IIRC.

    Does anybody in this thread think that Apple basically making Xcode mandatory was an accident, and NOT with this end goal in mind?
    edited April 3 docno42fastasleepcornchip
  • Reply 124 of 176
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,218member
    StrangeDays said:
    You mean like the entirely brand new iMac Pro released just this past winter?
    That still thermal throttles because for some reason Apple thinks people care about thin on a desktop - even for "Pro" computers?!?

    Ugh.  The Mac as a platform hardware wise is the weakest it's ever been.  I keep hoping my existing Mac's don't crap out on me until some laptops with keyboards that survive a sneeze appear and a real desktop computer appears.  
    williamlondon
  • Reply 125 of 176
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,218member

    Soli said:
    I see no way to rule that out. Ultimately I think it comes to whether Apple feels the platform will be successful with only App Store apps or not. This has worked great for iOS, but can this work for a desktop OS going forward?

    My guess is that it won't be, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they did. 


    The Mac App Store is a complete disaster.  The whole "we don't allow demos" thing is nuts with apps now having "free" versions where extra functionality is unlocked through in app purchases.  Really?  Someone at Apple just needs to grow a pair and get over the whole "no demo" thing.  The market is obviously working around them.  The whole lack of upgrades is also still a fiasco, with crude missing tools to link developers to their customers.  I could see these being issues early in the store's debut but it's been a long time since the stores were launched.  That such basic things haven't been resolved by now are just unbelievable - it makes me wonder what the hell is going on and if anyone is actually tending to the Mac App Store anyway. 

    I have zero interest in any version of macOS where the only way to get applications is through the App Store. 

    The restrictions around the sandbox are noble, but they need to at least allow the option for developers to get out of them.  Many of my favorite apps aren't in the App Store because the way sandboxing works they can't work.  And a few apps I use like 1Password that are now App Store only are annoying with the things like helper apps they have to resort to in order to work with the current limitations of sandboxing.  As a user that really ticks me off.  

    I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use a new chip as an excuse to go App Store only.  I won't be buying any of those boxes until others verify I can still do what I need to do on my Mac.  
    williamlondon
  • Reply 126 of 176
    asciiascii Posts: 5,685member
    docno42 said:

    Soli said:
    I see no way to rule that out. Ultimately I think it comes to whether Apple feels the platform will be successful with only App Store apps or not. This has worked great for iOS, but can this work for a desktop OS going forward?

    My guess is that it won't be, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they did. 


    The Mac App Store is a complete disaster.  The whole "we don't allow demos" thing is nuts with apps now having "free" versions where extra functionality is unlocked through in app purchases.  Really?  Someone at Apple just needs to grow a pair and get over the whole "no demo" thing.  The market is obviously working around them.  The whole lack of upgrades is also still a fiasco, with crude missing tools to link developers to their customers.  I could see these being issues early in the store's debut but it's been a long time since the stores were launched.  That such basic things haven't been resolved by now are just unbelievable - it makes me wonder what the hell is going on and if anyone is actually tending to the Mac App Store anyway. 
    I think they have started tending to it again. The other day I saw an app available for pre-order, something that never used to be possible on the Mac store.
    docno42
  • Reply 127 of 176
    asciiascii Posts: 5,685member

    Does anybody in this thread think that Apple basically making Xcode mandatory was an accident, and NOT with this end goal in mind?
    All part of the plan I think.
    cornchip
  • Reply 128 of 176
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,630member
    docno42 said:

    Soli said:
    I see no way to rule that out. Ultimately I think it comes to whether Apple feels the platform will be successful with only App Store apps or not. This has worked great for iOS, but can this work for a desktop OS going forward?

    My guess is that it won't be, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they did. 


    The Mac App Store is a complete disaster.  The whole "we don't allow demos" thing is nuts with apps now having "free" versions where extra functionality is unlocked through in app purchases.  Really?  Someone at Apple just needs to grow a pair and get over the whole "no demo" thing.  The market is obviously working around them.  The whole lack of upgrades is also still a fiasco, with crude missing tools to link developers to their customers.  I could see these being issues early in the store's debut but it's been a long time since the stores were launched.  That such basic things haven't been resolved by now are just unbelievable - it makes me wonder what the hell is going on and if anyone is actually tending to the Mac App Store anyway. 

    I have zero interest in any version of macOS where the only way to get applications is through the App Store. 

    The restrictions around the sandbox are noble, but they need to at least allow the option for developers to get out of them.  Many of my favorite apps aren't in the App Store because the way sandboxing works they can't work.  And a few apps I use like 1Password that are now App Store only are annoying with the things like helper apps they have to resort to in order to work with the current limitations of sandboxing.  As a user that really ticks me off.  

    I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use a new chip as an excuse to go App Store only.  I won't be buying any of those boxes until others verify I can still do what I need to do on my Mac.  
    I have plenty of issues with MAS, but I don't think I'd go so far as to call it a disaster.

    As for basic interest in an entry-level, ARM-based Mac that only allowed MAS access, I wouldn't have interest in that machine. For my daily driver I doubt I'd have interest in any ARM-based Macs (at least for awhile). Dropbox, my VPN, and iStat Menus all require an installer and your admin account to install so they aren't on MAS. However, Dropbox and my VPN app are both on the iOS App Store and work fine. Maybe Dropbox's tie-in is different on macOS v iOS because of how it interacts with Finder, but the VPN apps are effectively doing the same thing so I'm not sure what's up with that difference.

    I thought they added timed free trials in the last year or two.

    edited April 3
  • Reply 129 of 176
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,734member
    Just to let you know Apple does not own ARM or has IP for many inventions to rely on. It is owned by SoftBank and Apple has to pay license fees to SoftBank. Read the news because from ignorant posts some people may think that Apple owns many designs. Well, no.

    Apple licenses the ISA from ARM, which is a set of instructions and how they work, it is not the physical design of the CPU... That's completely Apple's design. So, in fact, Apple does own many designs.

    And although not relevant since Apple gave up all the IP, but Apple did work with Acorn to design and create the original mobile ARM architecture the late 80's.
  • Reply 130 of 176
    thttht Posts: 2,746member
    tht said:
    hmm said:
    tht said:
    My Python 3.6 plotting script execution time:

    2015 rMBP15 w/Intel Core i7-4980HQ (2.8/4.0 GHz): 91.1 sec

    2017 iPad Pro 10.5 w/Apple A10X (2.3 GHz): 91.5 sec

    This is 45 W vs a 10 W envelope or so. Use Pythonista on iPad. Terminal on macOS. Don’t know if the Core i7-4980HQ actually turbo-ed to 4 GHz. Who knows. That’s why you do a lot of testing.
    Typically python is single threaded. With cython you can use the OpenMP backend for multithreading anywhere Python api calls can be optimized out. Now Apple's version of Clang doesn't support OpenMP, so you are running on one core. Turbo varies. If you're using AVX extensions, it typically runs at native clock speeds. 

    Of course it's possible to be bound by something other than cpu. You can be bound by memory/cache bandwidth and other things. The test overall tells you a grand total of nothing without proper context.
    The “test” is my plotting script that I run tens of times per day for work. It tells me that the iPad Pro 10.5 can execute it in about the same time as my 2015 rMBP15. So, for this particular process, Apple’s ARM architecture is doing pretty well, which is basically what the benchmarks say.

    Yes. It is single core. Whether the Python runtime uses SIMD units on either architecture, I don’t know. Since iOS and macOS are basically the same for this type of program: runs on the same Mach w/BSD runtime, uses the same CLANG/LLVM toolchain, etc, it is about as fair as it gets, at least for parts of the architecture it uses.

    Moreover, the vast majority of users are going use the Python run time environments as they are. The whole purpose of the language is to not get into close to the silicon levels of programming. If scripts run faster on one architecture over the other, the ultimate conclusion is that one architecture runs python scripts faster than the other.
    Just out of curiosity, have you considered writing your plotting script in Swift?
    Don’t have the time. Maybe in the future, but Python is basically available everywhere, from our Linux clusters to my iPhone.

    I could run my data interpolation script that takes ten minutes to run though. See if there is throttling. It’s curious as the plotting script can make the fans in the MBP spin up sometimes.
    Rayz2016
  • Reply 131 of 176
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,066member
    Soli said:
    docno42 said:

    Soli said:
    I see no way to rule that out. Ultimately I think it comes to whether Apple feels the platform will be successful with only App Store apps or not. This has worked great for iOS, but can this work for a desktop OS going forward?

    My guess is that it won't be, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they did. 


    The Mac App Store is a complete disaster.  The whole "we don't allow demos" thing is nuts with apps now having "free" versions where extra functionality is unlocked through in app purchases.  Really?  Someone at Apple just needs to grow a pair and get over the whole "no demo" thing.  The market is obviously working around them.  The whole lack of upgrades is also still a fiasco, with crude missing tools to link developers to their customers.  I could see these being issues early in the store's debut but it's been a long time since the stores were launched.  That such basic things haven't been resolved by now are just unbelievable - it makes me wonder what the hell is going on and if anyone is actually tending to the Mac App Store anyway. 

    I have zero interest in any version of macOS where the only way to get applications is through the App Store. 

    The restrictions around the sandbox are noble, but they need to at least allow the option for developers to get out of them.  Many of my favorite apps aren't in the App Store because the way sandboxing works they can't work.  And a few apps I use like 1Password that are now App Store only are annoying with the things like helper apps they have to resort to in order to work with the current limitations of sandboxing.  As a user that really ticks me off.  

    I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use a new chip as an excuse to go App Store only.  I won't be buying any of those boxes until others verify I can still do what I need to do on my Mac.  
    I have plenty of issues with MAS, but I don't think I'd go so far as to call it a disaster.

    As for basic interest in an entry-level, ARM-based Mac that only allowed MAS access, I wouldn't have interest in that machine. For my daily driver I doubt I'd have interest in any ARM-based Macs (at least for awhile). Dropbox, my VPN, and iStat Menus all require an installer and your admin account to install so they aren't on MAS. However, Dropbox and my VPN app are both on the iOS App Store and work fine. Maybe Dropbox's tie-in is different on macOS v iOS because of how it interacts with Finder, but the VPN apps are effectively doing the same thing so I'm not sure what's up with that difference.

    I thought they added timed free trials in the last year or two.

    Drop box can’t really work sandboxed. A sandboxed app only has access to a file or folder on your file system if

    1) you allow it through the open panel. That’s not useful for files dragged into a folder. and the permissions don’t survive a relaunch. 
    2) you set a path entitlement at compile time and the Apple reviewers accept that. However in that case you can’t change location. 
    edited April 3
  • Reply 132 of 176
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,068member
    I've been able to run Macs for work because of the ability to virtualize Windows. Not sure this bodes well for the future of Macs in certain business segments unless emulation performance under these new chips will be acceptable.
    I don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
  • Reply 133 of 176
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,066member
    lkrupp said:
    I've been able to run Macs for work because of the ability to virtualize Windows. Not sure this bodes well for the future of Macs in certain business segments unless emulation performance under these new chips will be acceptable.
    I don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
    I believe the dominant Pro users are now developers. This is a fairly extraordinary achievement in little more than a decade. Not all of these, but many, would in fact install boot camp and most would like the option. 

    Developers are not normal consumers. 
  • Reply 134 of 176
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,058member
    ascii said:

    Does anybody in this thread think that Apple basically making Xcode mandatory was an accident, and NOT with this end goal in mind?
    All part of the plan I think.
    Yep. Anyone who follows Apple at all would have seen this coming miles away. Really once they started shipping their A series chips. I mean c’mon! It’s Apple! Of course they’re going to do this! 

    A series, Swift, APFS, graphics chips, not to mention all the aquihires, it’s all dropping in to place. This is simply a matter of when & how. No ifs about it.
  • Reply 135 of 176
    rcomeaurcomeau Posts: 25member
    Lots of us will not be pleased if we can't have good Windows emulation. We still have to go Windows for Solidworks and other industrial software and I have come to really enjoy having all that on one laptop. Going x86 was a good move for Apple and kept the Mac relevant during the tough years If they intend to stay relevant in the desktop/laptop space, they really have to give this careful thought.
    wozwoz
  • Reply 136 of 176
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,058member
    rcomeau said:
    Lots of us will not be pleased if we can't have good Windows emulation. We still have to go Windows for Solidworks and other industrial software and I have come to really enjoy having all that on one laptop. Going x86 was a good move for Apple and kept the Mac relevant during the tough years If they intend to stay relevant in the desktop/laptop space, they really have to give this careful thought.
    Yeah, I get there are a handful of things we can still only get for windows, but that is slowly changing. Rhino has builds for Mac now and there’s fusion360 which I use. It’s not SolidWorks yet but it will be in a couple more years. The more Mac grows the more will be built for it. And if the chips are anything like what A series did for iOS... let’s just say I’m thinking there will be a lot of incentive for developers. I really don’t think Apple is gonna do this unless they think they can really spank Intel in performance. And I have a feeling we’ll be able to run windows on these things. But we’ll see I guess.
  • Reply 137 of 176
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,441member
    wood1208 said:
    Low cost Apple made chips can help create cheaper MACs that can be Chromebook killer in education market.
    Is it really the cost of Intel chips that are keeping Mac prices so high? I suppose Apple can create more margin with their own chips, which might impact prices. But PC makers are selling computers with the same Intel chips for a lot less... so it isn't the Intel chips at fault. If Apple switched to A-chips, I doubt they'd be selling $300 laptops suddenly.

    ascii said:
    Speaking of Intel chips, Intel just officially launched the Coffee Lake notebook CPUs. New Macbook Pros tomorrow? :smile: 

    The current Dell XPS 15 is now showing as "clearance" on their site, so it appears Dell aren't wasting any time getting these new CPUs in to people's hands. High end notebooks will have 6 cores for the first time.
    Yea, those sound nice. I'd be please if Apple released a new MBP that fixes some of the current issues, but don't want to get my hopes up too much. My son has saved up just about enough to buy one, but I hate to seem him buy a '16/17 model.

    But, this seems just about perfect for a stock price dip/surge kind of thing, which is getting all too common (in terms of media induced stock manipulation), so can't rule that out.

    wozwoz said:
    The New Apple chip will need to be not only faster, but tens of times faster for anyone to care. For most users, this will just mean disruption, confusion and yet another Apple hardware/software platform change. Even if it were faster (and don't expect Intel to stand still), one of the reasons Apple has been successful with the Mac in recent years is because of the Intel compatibility, and the ease of transition for Windows users to still run their apps, should they wish to do so. If Apple is throwing away that Intel compatibility, then I think they are also throwing away their growth path into the mass market. None of which sounds sensible to me. I don't want to run iOS apps on my Mac thanks, and I have lived through previous Apple hardware/OS transitions (remember PowerPC!?), and they just involve a lot of work for developers to make programs that already work ... keep on working. 
    Yea, good point, though I've not been the only one thinking Apple and sensible don't belong in the same sentence. It depends on if they really care about the Mac being the Mac anymore. If they are thinking of it more like Mac people just needing keyboards and trackpads, it might be a whole different crowd then we old Mac folks (that we're being told again and again don't matter to Apple).

    And, my fear about the whole iOS apps on Mac thing, is what was discussed on an episode of ATP a while back... that iOS developers typically make horrible Mac developers. Most are new-comers that don't have the whole UI, look & feel, etc. history that makes Mac what it has been. The more that gets diluted and broken down, the more quickly the Mac *simply* becomes a slightly-higher quality PC alternative that stands a bit better chance against Internet hazards. Apple, unfortunately, is already doing a good enough job at pushing it there, but at least there are still some good App developers that help make the platform better. Adding iOS devs to the mix comes with downsides!

    jbdragon said:
    I see no reason why you couldn't continue to Virtualize Windows on the Mac. Maybe it takes a bit of a speed hit.
    Emulation ≠ virtualization. Generally, there isn't a 'bit' of a speed hit, but a massive one. Instead of talking like x of native (maybe in the 80s-90s), it's more like how many x times slower (3-5, etc.).
  • Reply 138 of 176
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,734member
    rcomeau said:
    Lots of us will not be pleased if we can't have good Windows emulation. We still have to go Windows for Solidworks and other industrial software and I have come to really enjoy having all that on one laptop. Going x86 was a good move for Apple and kept the Mac relevant during the tough years If they intend to stay relevant in the desktop/laptop space, they really have to give this careful thought.

    Even if Apple switched architectures today, it would be years before support for x64 is completely dropped. The timeline for Apple's switch according to the article is 2020, which means x64 would be supported until at least 2023 or even 2025 at the latest.

    Apple started switching to Intel in 2006. Support for PowerPC code was dropped in 2011 with the release of Mac OS X Lion - that was five years.
    mattinozdocno42
  • Reply 139 of 176
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,441member
    Mike Wuerthele said:
    Developers had six whole months before the 68k to PPC shift, and the PPC to Intel shift to "get their act together." As far as Adobe goes, it took them forever to ship an Intel-native set of tools. 18 months after launch, IIRC.

    Does anybody in this thread think that Apple basically making Xcode mandatory was an accident, and NOT with this end goal in mind?
    But, there was huge incentive to switch to Intel, for everyone, not just Apple. I don't think that is so much the case this time.

    docno42 said:
    The Mac App Store is a complete disaster.  The whole "we don't allow demos" thing is nuts with apps now having "free" versions where extra functionality is unlocked through in app purchases.  Really?  Someone at Apple just needs to grow a pair and get over the whole "no demo" thing.  The market is obviously working around them.  The whole lack of upgrades is also still a fiasco, with crude missing tools to link developers to their customers.  I could see these being issues early in the store's debut but it's been a long time since the stores were launched.  That such basic things haven't been resolved by now are just unbelievable - it makes me wonder what the hell is going on and if anyone is actually tending to the Mac App Store anyway. 

    I have zero interest in any version of macOS where the only way to get applications is through the App Store. 

    The restrictions around the sandbox are noble, but they need to at least allow the option for developers to get out of them.  Many of my favorite apps aren't in the App Store because the way sandboxing works they can't work.  And a few apps I use like 1Password that are now App Store only are annoying with the things like helper apps they have to resort to in order to work with the current limitations of sandboxing.  As a user that really ticks me off.  

    I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to use a new chip as an excuse to go App Store only.  I won't be buying any of those boxes until others verify I can still do what I need to do on my Mac.  
    I agree here. I liked the idea at first and bought lots of stuff through the App Store. But, I've actually been re-buying things not in the App Store for the last few years. It was a good idea, but poorly executed (with little excuse).

    lkrupp said:
    I don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
    Strongly disagree here. They certainly cared about it in the past, as they advertised it... it was part of the whole 'Switch' thing.

    You might be right about Boot Camp, as it's mostly gamers, I'd guess. But, virtualization with stuff like Parallels is super common for developers, tech people, web designers, etc.

    And, just for the record, the Fortune 100 I used to work at bought MBPs for all the executives and loaded them up with Windows (not even dual-boot). I'm not sure how common that is, but it isn't the only time I've heard of it. It wasn't about cost, but reliability and somewhat image. But, that was several years ago and I think Apple has some reasonable PC laptop competitors now.

    rcomeau said:
    Lots of us will not be pleased if we can't have good Windows emulation. We still have to go Windows for Solidworks and other industrial software and I have come to really enjoy having all that on one laptop. Going x86 was a good move for Apple and kept the Mac relevant during the tough years If they intend to stay relevant in the desktop/laptop space, they really have to give this careful thought.
    Virtualization, not emulation. Not only that, but a virtualization is often better than the 'real thing' because you take snapshots of it and if anything goes wrong, you just quickly restore.

    cornchip said:
    rcomeau said:
    Lots of us will not be pleased if we can't have good Windows emulation. We still have to go Windows for Solidworks and other industrial software and I have come to really enjoy having all that on one laptop. Going x86 was a good move for Apple and kept the Mac relevant during the tough years If they intend to stay relevant in the desktop/laptop space, they really have to give this careful thought.
    Yeah, I get there are a handful of things we can still only get for windows, but that is slowly changing. Rhino has builds for Mac now and there’s fusion360 which I use. It’s not SolidWorks yet but it will be in a couple more years. ...
    I'm not a developer, but it was my understanding that a lot of these cross-platform bigger-name software development moves were enabled by Macs being Intel based. Would these companies continue to make these ports if the Mac were on A-chips?
  • Reply 140 of 176
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,512member
    1983 said:
    The A11 already nearly as powerful as a 2016/17 Intel i7...wow! How’s the A12 later this year going to do? Impressive, I didn’t realize it was that close! So bring it on Apple! Looking forward to this. I misread...multi-core similar to ‘original’ 15” MBPr, not the recent redesign. So not bad, but still no match for the needs of power users. So it will be offered only on the low-end Macs then.
    Ahh, that’s not quite true. Intel has several lines of chips. The have Desktop chips, low power chips, and ultra low power chips. The A10x can surpass the M series easily. They equal, in some ways, but not in all, some of the ultra low power i series. They even equal the bottom of the line low power i series. But they don’t come close to the full power Desktop series.

    people, let’s not get carried away!
    SpamSandwichdocno42
Sign In or Register to comment.