I have a MB 12” and is ok for : email, office, boot camp, surfing, reading, handling my photo/video library and etc. I prefer to use my iMac 2012 for video editing. But the MB just performs. Is Apple. It works (except for the keyboard, I use it mainly with an external kb)
neilm said: A new 12" Retina MacBook would certainly be an easy introductory Apple Silicon model from a performance standpoint, whereas the expectations for a MacBook Pro replacement would be much higher.
Think of it as a clamshell iPad with a keyboard and running MacOS instead of iPadOS. Current iPads already have much better performance than the previous 12" MacBook, so that part wouldn't be a challenge. Apple might even get away with not having Thunderbolt 3, although I'd hope for more than the old MacBook's miserable single USB-C port.
The MacBook "plain" is also a currently vacant slot in Apple's lineup, although it could be argued that a new MacBook might cannibalize iPad sales to some degree. To this day I've never seen the old 12" MacBook in the field, whereas Airs and Pros are everywhere.
I would hope that if they stick to the one-port form factor, they'd at least do a TB3 port as you mention. But of course they don't have to -- clearly two TB3/USB-C ports as seen in the base MBP model has proven more popular/useful. That said, my experience with MBs and chats with people who owned one was that the one port thing wasn't a big issue ... the battery lasted quite a long time, so the one port was generally free at nearly all times. This surprised me, but my observation of students and other MB users in cafes was that they didn't have anything attached to it at all most of the time. You saw more chargers out on them in the evening, after a day of school/work.
Nowadays, I have a 15-inch MBP with four of those ports, and when I bring it out with me, I'm typically not using the charger at all because I don't plan to be out more than the six or so hours I'm expecting to get from the battery, and the other ports are -- as usual -- not in use. I do bring a little USB-C hub in case someone hands me a thumb drive or I need an HDMI port for a presentation, but I have never found myself using more than half of the ports on this 4-port model simultaneously ... ever.
The article notes that the term "MacBook" could be a generic, meaning Apple may not be reviving the line we all know as "MacBook (non-Pro)" at all. I wouldn't mind seeing that model return, particularly if the price can be brought down significantly (and unspoken but inferred part of the whole transition). The MacBook of old was a popular choice in college towns and with travellers, but the price was a big barrier compared to the MBA, which was just a better machine on nearly every level but weight. Give me a (let's say) $799 MB and it would be a real tossup between it and an iPad Pro with a decent keyboard in terms of super-light on-the-go machine.
Might just go back to good old days, where 12/13 for consumers and 14/16 for professionals. Apple could also merge internal designs for both models.
I would imagine that the MacBook would continue to use the SoC style GPU just like the iPad. It will be interesting to see what Apple does for higher end hardware like the MBP or iMac line. Will it still be integrated, or will they do a discrete version of the GPU?
Individual Mac models don’t have the economies of scale to justify taping out huge fully integrated custom SOCs. So I doubt apple does something like the PS5 SOC.
Which is basically the next generation in chiplet glue.
i bet that’s the direction Apple goes. A single Mac cpu chiplet and a single GPU chiplet, but glued together in multiple combinations for different Mac models.
no discrete GPU
These designs are in collaboration, not just TSMC. AMD Zen 4 in 2021 is required to have their patented equivalent and announced for both their CPU/APU and GPUs.
AMD has lots of patents on this going back many years and give a clue to how important these technologies will become to the entire industry, at large.
The secondary comment hints that anything Apple is doing for Silicon AMD has been developing for several years, including FPGAs [Afterburner is a clustered FPGA unit]
neilm said: A new 12" Retina MacBook would certainly be an easy introductory Apple Silicon model from a performance standpoint, whereas the expectations for a MacBook Pro replacement would be much higher.
Think of it as a clamshell iPad with a keyboard and running MacOS instead of iPadOS. Current iPads already have much better performance than the previous 12" MacBook, so that part wouldn't be a challenge. Apple might even get away with not having Thunderbolt 3, although I'd hope for more than the old MacBook's miserable single USB-C port.
The MacBook "plain" is also a currently vacant slot in Apple's lineup, although it could be argued that a new MacBook might cannibalize iPad sales to some degree. To this day I've never seen the old 12" MacBook in the field, whereas Airs and Pros are everywhere.
I would hope that if they stick to the one-port form factor, they'd at least do a TB3 port as you mention. But of course they don't have to -- clearly two TB3/USB-C ports as seen in the base MBP model has proven more popular/useful. That said, my experience with MBs and chats with people who owned one was that the one port thing wasn't a big issue ... the battery lasted quite a long time, so the one port was generally free at nearly all times. This surprised me, but my observation of students and other MB users in cafes was that they didn't have anything attached to it at all most of the time. You saw more chargers out on them in the evening, after a day of school/work.
Nowadays, I have a 15-inch MBP with four of those ports, and when I bring it out with me, I'm typically not using the charger at all because I don't plan to be out more than the six or so hours I'm expecting to get from the battery, and the other ports are -- as usual -- not in use. I do bring a little USB-C hub in case someone hands me a thumb drive or I need an HDMI port for a presentation, but I have never found myself using more than half of the ports on this 4-port model simultaneously ... ever.
The article notes that the term "MacBook" could be a generic, meaning Apple may not be reviving the line we all know as "MacBook (non-Pro)" at all. I wouldn't mind seeing that model return, particularly if the price can be brought down significantly (and unspoken but inferred part of the whole transition). The MacBook of old was a popular choice in college towns and with travellers, but the price was a big barrier compared to the MBA, which was just a better machine on nearly every level but weight. Give me a (let's say) $799 MB and it would be a real tossup between it and an iPad Pro with a decent keyboard in terms of super-light on-the-go machine.
I hope it's at least one on each side. I feel like Apple did this wrong with their introduction of the USB-C port interface in the 12" MacBook while Google did it right with Pixelbook with one on each side.
These will be brutally underpowered. And butterfly keyboard? Again?
RE the butterfly keyboard, that's fine if Apple are confident the design is ironed out (forgive the pun). I tell you what though, if they re-release a butterfly keyboard and the problems haven't been fixed, then Apple is going to have an atomic sized PR train wreck to spin their way out of.
I would imagine that the MacBook would continue to use the SoC style GPU just like the iPad. It will be interesting to see what Apple does for higher end hardware like the MBP or iMac line. Will it still be integrated, or will they do a discrete version of the GPU?
Individual Mac models don’t have the economies of scale to justify taping out huge fully integrated custom SOCs. So I doubt apple does something like the PS5 SOC.
Which is basically the next generation in chiplet glue.
i bet that’s the direction Apple goes. A single Mac cpu chiplet and a single GPU chiplet, but glued together in multiple combinations for different Mac models.
no discrete GPU
These designs are in collaboration, not just TSMC. AMD Zen 4 in 2021 is required to have their patented equivalent and announced for both their CPU/APU and GPUs.
AMD has lots of patents on this going back many years and give a clue to how important these technologies will become to the entire industry, at large.
The secondary comment hints that anything Apple is doing for Silicon AMD has been developing for several years, including FPGAs [Afterburner is a clustered FPGA unit]
Apple has already stated for the record that they are going to use their own GPU. Why is this written as speculation?
They have also stated that they are designing Mac specific SoCs. So no, it won’t be an A14X. Though it might use the same core design but the number of CPU and GPU cores are going to be Mac specific.
I was going g to make a separate comment on that too. I keep reminding people that John, in his presentation, which had been given some time in June, stated very definitely that Apple would not be using the iOS series of chips in its Macs, and that a special line of SoCs for the Macs would be used. But I’m amazed at how many people keep saying that the A14x will be used. This is everywhere. It’s all wrong too.
Right!? How hard is it to do a little research? I’ve read countless articles about how Apple will use the A14X.
Apple has said they developed a new family of SoC’s specifically for the Mac. This means two things... 1. They are not using the A-series SoCs 2. They’re developing multiple SoCs to cover the performance/product range.
If I were to guess... It’s going to be dubbed the X-Series SoCs. (and maybe even a second “Pro” Z-series) And there will be 4 distinct designs...
1. Consumer Laptop 2. Pro Laptop 3. Consumer Desktop 4. Pro Desktop
As someone else mentioned, due to the relatively small scale these will be produced, we probably shouldn’t expect significant price drops. However Apple can adopt the same plan they currently use with iOS devices... Where the “Best” Macs will use the latest SoCs and the base Macs will use earlier generations.
I think we’ll see single models first, a Mac with an X1, then next year, the line will expand into two models; a base model with the X1 and a higher end model with an X2. By stretching out the lifespan of an SoC, it will help cut the cost. First models to transition will be the MacBook/Air, iMac 21.5”, and mac mini.
Side note: The scale issue also leaves me to wonder if they don’t move the Mac down the same path as the iPad... where performance is no longer the differentiator... meaning all iMacs will now have the same performance and the only changes will be storage, memory, screen size? With all their money though, I don’t see the scale problem being a big issue for Apple. It was only a huge factor when all they sold were Macs.
Apple has already stated for the record that they are going to use their own GPU. Why is this written as speculation?
They have also stated that they are designing Mac specific SoCs. So no, it won’t be an A14X. Though it might use the same core design but the number of CPU and GPU cores are going to be Mac specific.
I was going g to make a separate comment on that too. I keep reminding people that John, in his presentation, which had been given some time in June, stated very definitely that Apple would not be using the iOS series of chips in its Macs, and that a special line of SoCs for the Macs would be used. But I’m amazed at how many people keep saying that the A14x will be used. This is everywhere. It’s all wrong too.
Right!? How hard is it to do a little research? I’ve read countless articles about how Apple will use the A14X.
Apple has said they developed a new family of SoC’s specifically for the Mac. This means two things... 1. They are not using the A-series SoCs 2. They’re developing multiple SoCs to cover the performance/product range.
If I were to guess... It’s going to be dubbed the X-Series SoCs. (and maybe even a second “Pro” Z-series) And there will be 4 distinct designs...
1. Consumer Laptop 2. Pro Laptop 3. Consumer Desktop 4. Pro Desktop
As someone else mentioned, due to the relatively small scale these will be produced, we probably shouldn’t expect significant price drops. However Apple can adopt the same plan they currently use with iOS devices... Where the “Best” Macs will use the latest SoCs and the base Macs will use earlier generations.
I think we’ll see single models first, a Mac with an X1, then next year, the line will expand into two models; a base model with the X1 and a higher end model with an X2. By stretching out the lifespan of an SoC, it will help cut the cost. First models to transition will be the MacBook/Air, iMac 21.5”, and mac mini.
Side note: The scale issue also leaves me to wonder if they don’t move the Mac down the same path as the iPad... where performance is no longer the differentiator... meaning all iMacs will now have the same performance and the only changes will be storage, memory, screen size? With all their money though, I don’t see the scale problem being a big issue for Apple. It was only a huge factor when all they sold were Macs.
Doesn't matter what it's called, I figured that both of them could share similar technology, they should have similar power draw as well.
The current 12" MacBook at 0.917 kg weighs substantiallyless than 1 kilogram. The MacBook Air is friggin' heavy! Apple's official figure was 0.92 kg.
So even if the new ARM MacBook weighs less than 1 kg, it might actually still weigh more than the old 12" MacBook. There is room to increase both the battery and keyboard size - and still be below 1 kg is what I am saying.
... Personally if Apple doesn't implement SMT they will need a 24 core laptop machine by the end of 2021 to remain competitive.
My opinion is that the choice will be thumbs down to SMT. Apple has avoided that up to this point. I'm guessing that the reason is heat generation - SMT concentrates it, more cores spread the heat. Some chips have been built with 54 billion features - the A12X only uses 10 billion. Only! There would seem to be lots of expansion space available. 24 cores sounds really fast!
... Personally if Apple doesn't implement SMT they will need a 24 core laptop machine by the end of 2021 to remain competitive.
My opinion is that the choice will be thumbs down to SMT. Apple has avoided that up to this point. I'm guessing that the reason is heat generation - SMT concentrates it, more cores spread the heat. Some chips have been built with 54 billion features - the A12X only uses 10 billion. Only! There would seem to be lots of expansion space available. 24 cores sounds really fast!
...
Most ARM cores doesn't support SMT, two different architecture. Not every Apple Silicon before A14 and most likely never will.
Apple has already stated for the record that they are going to use their own GPU. Why is this written as speculation?
They have also stated that they are designing Mac specific SoCs. So no, it won’t be an A14X. Though it might use the same core design but the number of CPU and GPU cores are going to be Mac specific.
Because they haven't said that at least in the context of discreet GPU's. Some information was deciphered to suggest that that was the case but it can be seen that the information can be interpreted in more than one way. The discussion is a bit ridiculous anyways as every A series Apple SoC comes with a GPU, so all Macs using an A series chip will have an Apple GPU even if a discreet is included. So the question becomes does Apple use a discreet Apple GPU in addition to its integrated GPU in the initial Macs and frankly we can't say. There are still good reasons to stick with AMD at the high end, mainly because of performance, but even here Apple has options to mix AMD with Apple GPU's.
With respect to the A14X in a Mac Book revival; that is easy to understand and has no impact on the idea that Mac specific SoC's are coming. The very nature of Macs will require very different chips for the various classes of machines. Personally if Apple doesn't implement SMT they will need a 24 core laptop machine by the end of 2021 to remain competitive. On the Mac Pro they are screwed if they can't match what AMD is already offering which means offering at least 64 cores and 128 cores will be needed if they can't get SMT working. AMD has some of the most compelling workstation offerings on the market right now so a Mac Pro is going to really stretch Apples capabilities.
Your assertion that Apple will need 24 cores in the main CPU in 2021 (without SMT, perhaps 12 with) in a laptop to remain competitive in 2021 is laughable. In a Mac Pro it can make sense to need that many main CPU cores, because they’re going to be expensive non-portable machines used for dedicated server/workstation tasks that can reasonably make use of all those cores, but if and only if it isn’t constrained by running off of low power or a battery. Very few applications these days come close to using 4 cores in any meaningful sense short of the special types of applications you run on dedicated workstations and servers: most of the time most of the 24 (or even 8 cores now with Intel) will remain idle. If they weren’t idle most of the time, with that many cores going full-tilt, you’d be lucky to get more than an hour or so of battery life on a 16” MacBook Pro: it’s not rational to expect much different regardless of CPU architecture.
Let’s say Apple paid any attention to know-nothings claiming they needed that many cores in a laptop to be competitive: Apple would be pissing away power efficiency to even have all those cores exist even with them not running code most of the time. After all these years, it seems you’ve pointedly ignored Apple’s practical strategy in iOS devices of fewer but faster cores in comparison to Android devices. Sure, Android device makers could claim they had more cores, but that had no practical value beyond advertising copy. Anyone that has enough software development experience knows this.
Will Intel be selling any 12 core with SMT mobile-targeted chips? Perhaps they’d get sales from enthusiasts and those that think having that many cores will improve their game performance, but even that is dubious. It’s really hard to justify that due to what I mentioned above. The way it’d make sense to have that many cores is using the BIG/little strategy purely for power efficiency with (usually) only one half (all same type) being active, but not likely to use both types at the same time. Even then, Windows and typical applications you use in a laptop very rarely, all combined, will saturate that many cores.
However, those sources also specify that the device will have USB Type-C and weigh less than 1kg. It will provide a battery life of between 15 and 20 hours.
That would be phenomenal. And would leave competitors (MS & Google) far behind and scrambling to catch up... Kind of like the original MacBook Air did.
Apple has already stated for the record that they are going to use their own GPU. Why is this written as speculation?
They have also stated that they are designing Mac specific SoCs. So no, it won’t be an A14X. Though it might use the same core design but the number of CPU and GPU cores are going to be Mac specific.
Because they haven't said that at least in the context of discreet GPU's. Some information was deciphered to suggest that that was the case but it can be seen that the information can be interpreted in more than one way. The discussion is a bit ridiculous anyways as every A series Apple SoC comes with a GPU, so all Macs using an A series chip will have an Apple GPU even if a discreet is included. So the question becomes does Apple use a discreet Apple GPU in addition to its integrated GPU in the initial Macs and frankly we can't say. There are still good reasons to stick with AMD at the high end, mainly because of performance, but even here Apple has options to mix AMD with Apple GPU's.
With respect to the A14X in a Mac Book revival; that is easy to understand and has no impact on the idea that Mac specific SoC's are coming. The very nature of Macs will require very different chips for the various classes of machines. Personally if Apple doesn't implement SMT they will need a 24 core laptop machine by the end of 2021 to remain competitive. On the Mac Pro they are screwed if they can't match what AMD is already offering which means offering at least 64 cores and 128 cores will be needed if they can't get SMT working. AMD has some of the most compelling workstation offerings on the market right now so a Mac Pro is going to really stretch Apples capabilities.
Your assertion that Apple will need 24 cores in the main CPU in 2021 (without SMT, perhaps 12 with) in a laptop to remain competitive in 2021 is laughable. In a Mac Pro it can make sense to need that many main CPU cores, because they’re going to be expensive non-portable machines used for dedicated server/workstation tasks that can reasonably make use of all those cores, but if and only if it isn’t constrained by running off of low power or a battery. Very few applications these days come close to using 4 cores in any meaningful sense short of the special types of applications you run on dedicated workstations and servers: most of the time most of the 24 (or even 8 cores now with Intel) will remain idle. If they weren’t idle most of the time, with that many cores going full-tilt, you’d be lucky to get more than an hour or so of battery life on a 16” MacBook Pro: it’s not rational to expect much different regardless of CPU architecture.
Let’s say Apple paid any attention to know-nothings claiming they needed that many cores in a laptop to be competitive: Apple would be pissing away power efficiency to even have all those cores exist even with them not running code most of the time. After all these years, it seems you’ve pointedly ignored Apple’s practical strategy in iOS devices of fewer but faster cores in comparison to Android devices. Sure, Android device makers could claim they had more cores, but that had no practical value beyond advertising copy. Anyone that has enough software development experience knows this.
Will Intel be selling any 12 core with SMT mobile-targeted chips? Perhaps they’d get sales from enthusiasts and those that think having that many cores will improve their game performance, but even that is dubious. It’s really hard to justify that due to what I mentioned above. The way it’d make sense to have that many cores is using the BIG/little strategy purely for power efficiency with (usually) only one half (all same type) being active, but not likely to use both types at the same time. Even then, Windows and typical applications you use in a laptop very rarely, all combined, will saturate that many cores.
You do realize that today's Safari, Chrome, Firefox saturate all cores available and extend hundreds of threads, including accessing the GPGPUs to offload streaming now, right? These browsers are going to demand far more as we reach 2H of 2021, never mind beyond that. Safari on iOS has a very tightly coupled model that freezes back end processes by locking tab states until made key and ordered front to the viewer. That won't fly in macOS and hence why full Safari isn't designed that way.
Apple has already stated for the record that they are going to use their own GPU. Why is this written as speculation?
They have also stated that they are designing Mac specific SoCs. So no, it won’t be an A14X. Though it might use the same core design but the number of CPU and GPU cores are going to be Mac specific.
Because they haven't said that at least in the context of discreet GPU's. Some information was deciphered to suggest that that was the case but it can be seen that the information can be interpreted in more than one way. The discussion is a bit ridiculous anyways as every A series Apple SoC comes with a GPU, so all Macs using an A series chip will have an Apple GPU even if a discreet is included. So the question becomes does Apple use a discreet Apple GPU in addition to its integrated GPU in the initial Macs and frankly we can't say. There are still good reasons to stick with AMD at the high end, mainly because of performance, but even here Apple has options to mix AMD with Apple GPU's.
With respect to the A14X in a Mac Book revival; that is easy to understand and has no impact on the idea that Mac specific SoC's are coming. The very nature of Macs will require very different chips for the various classes of machines. Personally if Apple doesn't implement SMT they will need a 24 core laptop machine by the end of 2021 to remain competitive. On the Mac Pro they are screwed if they can't match what AMD is already offering which means offering at least 64 cores and 128 cores will be needed if they can't get SMT working. AMD has some of the most compelling workstation offerings on the market right now so a Mac Pro is going to really stretch Apples capabilities.
Your assertion that Apple will need 24 cores in the main CPU in 2021 (without SMT, perhaps 12 with) in a laptop to remain competitive in 2021 is laughable. In a Mac Pro it can make sense to need that many main CPU cores, because they’re going to be expensive non-portable machines used for dedicated server/workstation tasks that can reasonably make use of all those cores, but if and only if it isn’t constrained by running off of low power or a battery. Very few applications these days come close to using 4 cores in any meaningful sense short of the special types of applications you run on dedicated workstations and servers: most of the time most of the 24 (or even 8 cores now with Intel) will remain idle. If they weren’t idle most of the time, with that many cores going full-tilt, you’d be lucky to get more than an hour or so of battery life on a 16” MacBook Pro: it’s not rational to expect much different regardless of CPU architecture.
Let’s say Apple paid any attention to know-nothings claiming they needed that many cores in a laptop to be competitive: Apple would be pissing away power efficiency to even have all those cores exist even with them not running code most of the time. After all these years, it seems you’ve pointedly ignored Apple’s practical strategy in iOS devices of fewer but faster cores in comparison to Android devices. Sure, Android device makers could claim they had more cores, but that had no practical value beyond advertising copy. Anyone that has enough software development experience knows this.
Will Intel be selling any 12 core with SMT mobile-targeted chips? Perhaps they’d get sales from enthusiasts and those that think having that many cores will improve their game performance, but even that is dubious. It’s really hard to justify that due to what I mentioned above. The way it’d make sense to have that many cores is using the BIG/little strategy purely for power efficiency with (usually) only one half (all same type) being active, but not likely to use both types at the same time. Even then, Windows and typical applications you use in a laptop very rarely, all combined, will saturate that many cores.
You do realize that today's Safari, Chrome, Firefox saturate all cores available and extend hundreds of threads, including accessing the GPGPUs to offload streaming now, right? These browsers are going to demand far more as we reach 2H of 2021, never mind beyond that. Safari on iOS has a very tightly coupled model that freezes back end processes by locking tab states until made key and ordered front to the viewer. That won't fly in macOS and hence why full Safari isn't designed that way.
Also noteworthy for people who expect the Mac chips to be only (or even mostly) the high-performance cores: libdispatch is already asymmetric multiprocessing aware. Right now, you can configure a queue with one of five QoS classes: userInteractive, userInitiated, default, utility, and background. This tells the scheduler what kind of cores to prefer for the blocks in the queue.
I wouldn't be at all surprised by 48-core (16 high-performance, 32 low-power) chips in the high-end Mini and low-end iMac. When they finally get around to the Mac Pro, I expect it will be more like 64 high-performance and 32 low-power per chip with 4-6 chips. We'll see.
... Personally if Apple doesn't implement SMT they will need a 24 core laptop machine by the end of 2021 to remain competitive.
My opinion is that the choice will be thumbs down to SMT. Apple has avoided that up to this point. I'm guessing that the reason is heat generation - SMT concentrates it, more cores spread the heat. Some chips have been built with 54 billion features - the A12X only uses 10 billion. Only! There would seem to be lots of expansion space available. 24 cores sounds really fast!
I think the heat comment from SMT is a very astute observation. For Apple Silicon, I think Apple will make whatever decision that improves perf/Watt. SMT yields not much performance benefit for Apple's workloads, and it keeps high power consumption cores active. On the other hand, the efficiency cores likely yield about the same performance benefit as SMT, but uses much less power. Not sure if really true. If so, heterogenous CPU cores it is. And they have already said Apple Silicon will be a heterogenous CPU architecture. So moot point.
I bet the A14, for the phone, will have about 12b transistors. The A14X for the iPad Pros, and probably low end Macs, will have 15b transistors. The Mac silicon could be 20b to 30b transistors!
I'm betting on 32 performance cores as the top end for pro desktops. Who knows about the efficiency cores. The CPUs will only take about 20% of the transistors. The vast majority of the transistors will be for GPU and dedicated hardware units (neural engine, etc).
Apple has already stated for the record that they are going to use their own GPU. Why is this written as speculation?
They have also stated that they are designing Mac specific SoCs. So no, it won’t be an A14X. Though it might use the same core design but the number of CPU and GPU cores are going to be Mac specific.
Because they haven't said that at least in the context of discreet GPU's. Some information was deciphered to suggest that that was the case but it can be seen that the information can be interpreted in more than one way. The discussion is a bit ridiculous anyways as every A series Apple SoC comes with a GPU, so all Macs using an A series chip will have an Apple GPU even if a discreet is included. So the question becomes does Apple use a discreet Apple GPU in addition to its integrated GPU in the initial Macs and frankly we can't say. There are still good reasons to stick with AMD at the high end, mainly because of performance, but even here Apple has options to mix AMD with Apple GPU's.
With respect to the A14X in a Mac Book revival; that is easy to understand and has no impact on the idea that Mac specific SoC's are coming. The very nature of Macs will require very different chips for the various classes of machines. Personally if Apple doesn't implement SMT they will need a 24 core laptop machine by the end of 2021 to remain competitive. On the Mac Pro they are screwed if they can't match what AMD is already offering which means offering at least 64 cores and 128 cores will be needed if they can't get SMT working. AMD has some of the most compelling workstation offerings on the market right now so a Mac Pro is going to really stretch Apples capabilities.
If AMD really makes the most compelling workstation CPU, they won’t release their Threadripper Pro just right now.
I would imagine that the MacBook would continue to use the SoC style GPU just like the iPad. It will be interesting to see what Apple does for higher end hardware like the MBP or iMac line. Will it still be integrated, or will they do a discrete version of the GPU?
Individual Mac models don’t have the economies of scale to justify taping out huge fully integrated custom SOCs. So I doubt apple does something like the PS5 SOC.
Which is basically the next generation in chiplet glue.
i bet that’s the direction Apple goes. A single Mac cpu chiplet and a single GPU chiplet, but glued together in multiple combinations for different Mac models.
no discrete GPU
These designs are in collaboration, not just TSMC. AMD Zen 4 in 2021 is required to have their patented equivalent and announced for both their CPU/APU and GPUs.
AMD has lots of patents on this going back many years and give a clue to how important these technologies will become to the entire industry, at large.
The secondary comment hints that anything Apple is doing for Silicon AMD has been developing for several years, including FPGAs [Afterburner is a clustered FPGA unit]
Intel has also been doing something similar for ages. It first began way back with putting a floating point chip in the same package with the CPU. Shows how far back that goes. Yes, not nearly as sophisticated. But time moves on.
Apple has already stated for the record that they are going to use their own GPU. Why is this written as speculation?
They have also stated that they are designing Mac specific SoCs. So no, it won’t be an A14X. Though it might use the same core design but the number of CPU and GPU cores are going to be Mac specific.
I was going g to make a separate comment on that too. I keep reminding people that John, in his presentation, which had been given some time in June, stated very definitely that Apple would not be using the iOS series of chips in its Macs, and that a special line of SoCs for the Macs would be used. But I’m amazed at how many people keep saying that the A14x will be used. This is everywhere. It’s all wrong too.
Right!? How hard is it to do a little research? I’ve read countless articles about how Apple will use the A14X.
Apple has said they developed a new family of SoC’s specifically for the Mac. This means two things... 1. They are not using the A-series SoCs 2. They’re developing multiple SoCs to cover the performance/product range.
If I were to guess... It’s going to be dubbed the X-Series SoCs. (and maybe even a second “Pro” Z-series) And there will be 4 distinct designs...
1. Consumer Laptop 2. Pro Laptop 3. Consumer Desktop 4. Pro Desktop
As someone else mentioned, due to the relatively small scale these will be produced, we probably shouldn’t expect significant price drops. However Apple can adopt the same plan they currently use with iOS devices... Where the “Best” Macs will use the latest SoCs and the base Macs will use earlier generations.
I think we’ll see single models first, a Mac with an X1, then next year, the line will expand into two models; a base model with the X1 and a higher end model with an X2. By stretching out the lifespan of an SoC, it will help cut the cost. First models to transition will be the MacBook/Air, iMac 21.5”, and mac mini.
Side note: The scale issue also leaves me to wonder if they don’t move the Mac down the same path as the iPad... where performance is no longer the differentiator... meaning all iMacs will now have the same performance and the only changes will be storage, memory, screen size? With all their money though, I don’t see the scale problem being a big issue for Apple. It was only a huge factor when all they sold were Macs.
Doesn't matter what it's called, I figured that both of them could share similar technology, they should have similar power draw as well.
It does matter. If it’s called an A14x, then it will be an A14x. But Apple said it wouldn’t be, so it can’t be called that, nor would Apple want people to think it was. So yes, what something is called does matter.
Apple has already stated for the record that they are going to use their own GPU. Why is this written as speculation?
They have also stated that they are designing Mac specific SoCs. So no, it won’t be an A14X. Though it might use the same core design but the number of CPU and GPU cores are going to be Mac specific.
Because they haven't said that at least in the context of discreet GPU's. Some information was deciphered to suggest that that was the case but it can be seen that the information can be interpreted in more than one way. The discussion is a bit ridiculous anyways as every A series Apple SoC comes with a GPU, so all Macs using an A series chip will have an Apple GPU even if a discreet is included. So the question becomes does Apple use a discreet Apple GPU in addition to its integrated GPU in the initial Macs and frankly we can't say. There are still good reasons to stick with AMD at the high end, mainly because of performance, but even here Apple has options to mix AMD with Apple GPU's.
With respect to the A14X in a Mac Book revival; that is easy to understand and has no impact on the idea that Mac specific SoC's are coming. The very nature of Macs will require very different chips for the various classes of machines. Personally if Apple doesn't implement SMT they will need a 24 core laptop machine by the end of 2021 to remain competitive. On the Mac Pro they are screwed if they can't match what AMD is already offering which means offering at least 64 cores and 128 cores will be needed if they can't get SMT working. AMD has some of the most compelling workstation offerings on the market right now so a Mac Pro is going to really stretch Apples capabilities.
Your assertion that Apple will need 24 cores in the main CPU in 2021 (without SMT, perhaps 12 with) in a laptop to remain competitive in 2021 is laughable. In a Mac Pro it can make sense to need that many main CPU cores, because they’re going to be expensive non-portable machines used for dedicated server/workstation tasks that can reasonably make use of all those cores, but if and only if it isn’t constrained by running off of low power or a battery. Very few applications these days come close to using 4 cores in any meaningful sense short of the special types of applications you run on dedicated workstations and servers: most of the time most of the 24 (or even 8 cores now with Intel) will remain idle. If they weren’t idle most of the time, with that many cores going full-tilt, you’d be lucky to get more than an hour or so of battery life on a 16” MacBook Pro: it’s not rational to expect much different regardless of CPU architecture.
Let’s say Apple paid any attention to know-nothings claiming they needed that many cores in a laptop to be competitive: Apple would be pissing away power efficiency to even have all those cores exist even with them not running code most of the time. After all these years, it seems you’ve pointedly ignored Apple’s practical strategy in iOS devices of fewer but faster cores in comparison to Android devices. Sure, Android device makers could claim they had more cores, but that had no practical value beyond advertising copy. Anyone that has enough software development experience knows this.
Will Intel be selling any 12 core with SMT mobile-targeted chips? Perhaps they’d get sales from enthusiasts and those that think having that many cores will improve their game performance, but even that is dubious. It’s really hard to justify that due to what I mentioned above. The way it’d make sense to have that many cores is using the BIG/little strategy purely for power efficiency with (usually) only one half (all same type) being active, but not likely to use both types at the same time. Even then, Windows and typical applications you use in a laptop very rarely, all combined, will saturate that many cores.
I was watching Twit, the tech blog. And it was said by one of thev guests, and the others agreed, that most people don’t need more than 4 cores, and that 8 was the most almost anyone did need. I agree. Apple got away with just two cores for years, and very successfully. I’m not even counting the Efficiency cores, because all of those put together just barely equal one Performance core.
I can see 8 cores, maybe even the twelve we’ve been hearing about. But more than that for most computers is a laughable waste of real estate and power. Those extra cores will likely never be used properly.
I assume everyone here knows how to use Apple’s Activity Monitor? Open it up and strip out the core indicator. Then run software and do a lot of different things while that’s on the screen. You’ll notice that even when a lot of cores are being used, they’re just blips most of the time. Multitasking, encryption, unpacking, all of them just use cores for a fraction of the time, and usually only at a low usage. Read the CPU numbers for “user”. You’ll see what I mean. My Mac has 8 hardware cores, and 8 virtual cores. It’s amazing how rare it is for software to take advantage of it. Video rendering is where it matters most. even Fusion 360 doesn’t use all the cores most of the time.
my old Mac Pro from 2012 had two CPUs, each with 12 hardware cores and 12 virtual cores. It was even worse then. What mattered most was how fast an individual core is.
the problem is that we see synthetic tests that show multi core use, and give numbers. But that’s not the way the computer works normally.
Comments
AMD has lots of patents on this going back many years and give a clue to how important these technologies will become to the entire industry, at large.
Source ref from USPTO via Anandtech Forums: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/speculation-zen-4-epyc-4-genoa-ryzen-5000.2571425/post-40121255
The secondary comment hints that anything Apple is doing for Silicon AMD has been developing for several years, including FPGAs [Afterburner is a clustered FPGA unit]
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/speculation-zen-4-epyc-4-genoa-ryzen-5000.2571425/post-40146010
But yeah you people believe only 65W for a 16-core. Whatever makes you happy😊
Right!? How hard is it to do a little research? I’ve read countless articles about how Apple will use the A14X.
Apple has said they developed a new family of SoC’s specifically for the Mac. This means two things...
1. They are not using the A-series SoCs
2. They’re developing multiple SoCs to cover the performance/product range.
If I were to guess... It’s going to be dubbed the X-Series SoCs. (and maybe even a second “Pro” Z-series) And there will be 4 distinct designs...
1. Consumer Laptop
2. Pro Laptop
3. Consumer Desktop
4. Pro Desktop
As someone else mentioned, due to the relatively small scale these will be produced, we probably shouldn’t expect significant price drops. However Apple can adopt the same plan they currently use with iOS devices... Where the “Best” Macs will use the latest SoCs and the base Macs will use earlier generations.
I think we’ll see single models first, a Mac with an X1, then next year, the line will expand into two models; a base model with the X1 and a higher end model with an X2. By stretching out the lifespan of an SoC, it will help cut the cost. First models to transition will be the MacBook/Air, iMac 21.5”, and mac mini.
Side note: The scale issue also leaves me to wonder if they don’t move the Mac down the same path as the iPad... where performance is no longer the differentiator... meaning all iMacs will now have the same performance and the only changes will be storage, memory, screen size? With all their money though, I don’t see the scale problem being a big issue for Apple. It was only a huge factor when all they sold were Macs.
Apple's official figure was 0.92 kg.
There is room to increase both the battery and keyboard size - and still be below 1 kg is what I am saying.
Most ARM cores doesn't support SMT, two different architecture. Not every Apple Silicon before A14 and most likely never will.
AMD fanfare goes beyond reality.
Let’s say Apple paid any attention to know-nothings claiming they needed that many cores in a laptop to be competitive: Apple would be pissing away power efficiency to even have all those cores exist even with them not running code most of the time. After all these years, it seems you’ve pointedly ignored Apple’s practical strategy in iOS devices of fewer but faster cores in comparison to Android devices. Sure, Android device makers could claim they had more cores, but that had no practical value beyond advertising copy. Anyone that has enough software development experience knows this.
Will Intel be selling any 12 core with SMT mobile-targeted chips? Perhaps they’d get sales from enthusiasts and those that think having that many cores will improve their game performance, but even that is dubious. It’s really hard to justify that due to what I mentioned above. The way it’d make sense to have that many cores is using the BIG/little strategy purely for power efficiency with (usually) only one half (all same type) being active, but not likely to use both types at the same time. Even then, Windows and typical applications you use in a laptop very rarely, all combined, will saturate that many cores.
You do realize that today's Safari, Chrome, Firefox saturate all cores available and extend hundreds of threads, including accessing the GPGPUs to offload streaming now, right? These browsers are going to demand far more as we reach 2H of 2021, never mind beyond that. Safari on iOS has a very tightly coupled model that freezes back end processes by locking tab states until made key and ordered front to the viewer. That won't fly in macOS and hence why full Safari isn't designed that way.
I wouldn't be at all surprised by 48-core (16 high-performance, 32 low-power) chips in the high-end Mini and low-end iMac. When they finally get around to the Mac Pro, I expect it will be more like 64 high-performance and 32 low-power per chip with 4-6 chips. We'll see.
I bet the A14, for the phone, will have about 12b transistors. The A14X for the iPad Pros, and probably low end Macs, will have 15b transistors. The Mac silicon could be 20b to 30b transistors!
I'm betting on 32 performance cores as the top end for pro desktops. Who knows about the efficiency cores. The CPUs will only take about 20% of the transistors. The vast majority of the transistors will be for GPU and dedicated hardware units (neural engine, etc).
It does matter. If it’s called an A14x, then it will be an A14x. But Apple said it wouldn’t be, so it can’t be called that, nor would Apple want people to think it was. So yes, what something is called does matter.
I was watching Twit, the tech blog. And it was said by one of thev guests, and the others agreed, that most people don’t need more than 4 cores, and that 8 was the most almost anyone did need. I agree. Apple got away with just two cores for years, and very successfully. I’m not even counting the Efficiency cores, because all of those put together just barely equal one Performance core.
I assume everyone here knows how to use Apple’s Activity Monitor? Open it up and strip out the core indicator. Then run software and do a lot of different things while that’s on the screen. You’ll notice that even when a lot of cores are being used, they’re just blips most of the time. Multitasking, encryption, unpacking, all of them just use cores for a fraction of the time, and usually only at a low usage. Read the CPU numbers for “user”. You’ll see what I mean. My Mac has 8 hardware cores, and 8 virtual cores. It’s amazing how rare it is for software to take advantage of it. Video rendering is where it matters most. even Fusion 360 doesn’t use all the cores most of the time.
my old Mac Pro from 2012 had two CPUs, each with 12 hardware cores and 12 virtual cores. It was even worse then. What mattered most was how fast an individual core is.
the problem is that we see synthetic tests that show multi core use, and give numbers. But that’s not the way the computer works normally.