Apple may have one last Intel Mac up its sleeve

AppleInsider

Apple may be getting a Mac ready for release that will use an Intel processor despite the transition to Apple Silicon, after a beta includes references to a 10-core Core i9 chip.

Apple is in the middle of a two-year transition of its entire Mac product line, migrating away from Intel-based Macs in favor of its own Apple Silicon. However, references in the latest macOS Big Sur 11.4 beta point to at least one last Mac update using Intel chips.

The reference to an unreleased 10-core Intel Core i9 processor in the beta, reported by MacRumors seemingly indicates there could be a new chip on the way, though further details about its capabilities were not offered in the report.

There also isn't any sign as to what Mac product it will be included within. Apple currently offers Intel chips in the 21.5-inch and 27-inch iMac, 16-inch MacBook Pro, and the Mac Pro, with the 27-inch iMac being the most likely candidate.

Of the three products, the 27-inch iMac is the only one currently configurable to a 10-core Core i9 chip, a 10th-gen version with a base clock of 3.6GHz and a Turbo Boost of up to 5.0GHz. While the 16-inch MacBook Pro is a good candidate for an update as well, given it uses an 8-core Core i9 at its highest, the iMac is more likely.

The other two models are not great candidates for the chip. The 21.5-inch iMac is offered with the choice of only one Core i5 chip, while the Mac Pro line exclusively uses Xeon processors.

There have been rumors of a compact version of the Mac Pro, shrinking the workstation into a smaller form as shown in renders from February 2021. While a step away from Xeon, this could be another potential venue for the use of such a processor, if the product is genuine.

While Apple could launch updated models of its remaining Macs with Apple Silicon at any time, it is plausible that Apple's potentially last Intel update could be a way to appease those who simply can't or won't move over to the new architecture. This may be the case of some software that is too old or isn't actively being developed to run on Apple Silicon, which could the case for some business tools.

Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.

sdw2001

I'm not sure why Apple would do this now.  It sounds like it may be a beta reference that was overlooked.  

InspiredCode

It may be the 16” MBP. It feels like mini LED production isn’t high enough to refresh the model unless they plan to put in an older display.

lkrupp

sdw2001 said:

I'm not sure why Apple would do this now.  It sounds like it may be a beta reference that was overlooked.  

I would tend to agree. For years now the Intel ‘problem’ has raged in Apple tech blog forums. Many have pressed for Apple to switch to AMD. Then Apple blows the whole thing up with the M1. So another Intel Mac doesn’t make much sense. Sure, the Windows-on-Mac fans are pissed but they are a small minority.

hammeroftruth

Like everyone else here has said, it’s probably an old reference from when the software was being put together. Probably when it was an alpha. 

It wouldn’t make sense to make one last iMac when most consumers are already pleased with the new design. It also wouldn’t make sense to put it in a portable since this was the catalyst to go to Apple silicon. There were many professionals who complained the cooling system in those Macs were insufficient. 

You could put it in a Homepod and sell it as a speaker/cooktop. ߘ⦬t;br>

mike1

sdw2001 said:

I'm not sure why Apple would do this now.  It sounds like it may be a beta reference that was overlooked.  

Probably, but it could wind up as an option in a new, smaller desktop in the Pro range, that is discussed in another post. One last hurrah for those who really need an Intel processor right now.

sdw2001

mike1 said:

sdw2001 said:

I'm not sure why Apple would do this now.  It sounds like it may be a beta reference that was overlooked.  

Probably, but it could wind up as an option in a new, smaller desktop in the Pro range, that is discussed in another post. One last hurrah for those who really need an Intel processor right now.

I just don't see that in any respect.  A smaller desktop with an optional Intel processor?  Why? What is the market for that?  I don't even see them releasing a smaller desktop at all (unless we are talking a resigned Mac Pro).  Such a machine would likely cannibalize iMac sales.  I can't imagine why someone would need a midrange Intel Mac desktop.  Maybe someone wants it, but the market can't be large.  

lkrupp

sdw2001 said:

mike1 said:

sdw2001 said:

I'm not sure why Apple would do this now.  It sounds like it may be a beta reference that was overlooked.  

Probably, but it could wind up as an option in a new, smaller desktop in the Pro range, that is discussed in another post. One last hurrah for those who really need an Intel processor right now.

I just don't see that in any respect.  A smaller desktop with an optional Intel processor?  Why? What is the market for that?  I don't even see them releasing a smaller desktop at all (unless we are talking a resigned Mac Pro).  Such a machine would likely cannibalize iMac sales.  I can't imagine why someone would need a midrange Intel Mac desktop.  Maybe someone wants it, but the market can't be large.  

A headless, affordable (define affordable) desktop Mac with slots has long been the hope of a certain market segment. Like you I don’y think it’s worth it to Apple for such a small segment. Of course the PC market has a myriad of options to satisfy just about anybody who doesn’t mind running Windows. With Apple it’s a take it or leave it kind of situation. You’re either all in or not in at all. The hackintosh market is doomed with Apple Silicon, especially when support for X86 eventually ends in a few years.

Marvin

sdw2001 said:

mike1 said:

sdw2001 said:

I'm not sure why Apple would do this now.  It sounds like it may be a beta reference that was overlooked.  

Probably, but it could wind up as an option in a new, smaller desktop in the Pro range, that is discussed in another post. One last hurrah for those who really need an Intel processor right now.

I just don't see that in any respect.  A smaller desktop with an optional Intel processor?  Why? What is the market for that?  I don't even see them releasing a smaller desktop at all (unless we are talking a resigned Mac Pro).  Such a machine would likely cannibalize iMac sales.  I can't imagine why someone would need a midrange Intel Mac desktop.  Maybe someone wants it, but the market can't be large.  

They still sell 13" Intel MBPs at a higher price point than M1 models:

https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/macbook-pro/13-inch

They could do the same with the 27" iMac and have a high priced Intel model. The Apple Silicon models would be bought by most people but I could see some businesses wanting Intel models if the software they use isn't native on Apple Silicon yet:

https://isapplesiliconready.com/for/unsupported

Oracle Database, VMs, emulators, VPN, Citrix. Corporate software can take a while to get ported, tested and ready for deployment.

For the 16" Intel MBP, if they wanted to do the same, they could continue selling the highest end 5600M model. Then just EOL all the Intel models at the end of the transition period in 2022.

flydog

lkrupp said:

sdw2001 said:

I'm not sure why Apple would do this now.  It sounds like it may be a beta reference that was overlooked.  

I would tend to agree. For years now the Intel ‘problem’ has raged in Apple tech blog forums. Many have pressed for Apple to switch to AMD. Then Apple blows the whole thing up with the M1. So another Intel Mac doesn’t make much sense. Sure, the Windows-on-Mac fans are pissed but they are a small minority.

Makes perfect sense. MacOS still supports Intel, and likely will for years to come. And with chip shortages, Apple can only build so many M1 Macs.  And finally, some people may prefer Intel.  

eriamjh

An upgraded 27” iMac before the Apple Silicon 29-32” iMac comes out is not out of the question.   

Beats

I could see it as something that was planned a year ago but now that Apple Silicon is taking off it may be cancelled. 

tenthousandthings

FWIW, the list here of Macs still sold with Intel is missing the space grey Mac mini, which Apple still offers in multiple configurations. 

Not completely crazy to imagine the mini being the last Intel Mac to be discontinued in the end. 

randy hill

As everyone says its probably a beta reference that wasn't removed, but...

If it's real it means they don't think they will have a high end Apple Silicon iMac any time soon. 

Or it might be because the high end AS iMacs will use the MBP M1x silicon and be limited to 64 Gb, so Apple wants one last Intel iMac that can support more RAM to hold over power users for a year or two. But...

There is no way a 10 core Intel CPU is going to keep up with an 8 Firestorm core M1x, so that extra ram would be a waste. So...

It's just a beta reference that wasn't removed.

MacQuadra840av

The M1 does have a faster single-core score (by only 450 points), but that's it.  As Marvin (the board moderator) pointed out, Apple still sells the higher end and more powerful Intel models.  I can't figure out why people are excited about a 16GB memory cap, when not long ago they were complaining about Apple having MacBooks with only 16GB.  Less ports, less storage, less memory, less features.  That is what the M1 gives you.  But somehow people are all hung up on the single-core score.  What good is the speed when all the features are gone?  My 2012 MacBook Pro can drive two external 4K monitors.  The M1 MacBooks can't even do that.  And somehow people are all excited about it.  So the next Apple Silicon might offer up to 64GB of RAM?  That is half of what the current iMac 27" model supports.  And be ready to pay Apple's high price for that non-upgradable RAM.  Apple charges $1,000 for 64GB (third party is about $325).

Here is what people conveniently ignore.  The multi-core scores of the Intel processors are significantly faster than the M1.  The iMac 2020 with the 10-core i9 and 64GB RAM is over 2,000 more points on multi-core than the M1 (even more with 128GB).  Even the base model iMac 27" 2020 with the i7 CPU is faster than the M1's multi-core.  But here is where the M1 really falls short.  Graphics.  The iMac 27" 2020 with the AMD Radeon Pro 5700XT scores over 60,000 on Metal.  The M1 barely breaks 20,000 on Metal.  And people are all excited about this.  The M1 is faster than integrated graphics, but can't compare to dedicated graphics.  Even the 21.5" iMac with the Radeon Vega 20 scores 6,000 more points on Metal than the M1.  But the reviews conveniently left out the fact that the prior model iMacs with dedicated graphics had better graphics performance.  Only one article here at AppleInsider mentioned it, when they compared all the iMac models.  Even Apple cleverly states that the 24" iMac is faster than the 'standard' iMac, the one without dedicated graphics.

The Intel Macs, especially the iMac 2020 with the 10-core i9 and Radeon Pro 5700XT is a blazing fast Mac.  It is faster than the 8 and 10-core discontinued iMac Pro and 8-core Mac Pro, and faster than the M1 in most operations.  Most people ignore the first generation product, especially with a processor transition.  They have a lot of software invested and can wait 5+ years for that transition to be well over and all the bugs ironed out before switching.  That is why Apple is still selling Intel models.

MacQuadra840av

randy hill said:

There is no way a 10 core Intel CPU is going to keep up with an 8 Firestorm core M1x, so that extra ram would be a waste. So...

The 10-core Intel CPU already smokes the M1 in multi-core scores, and most other operations, so don't know why you think it won't be able to keep up when it is already faster.  And what does speed have to do with the amount of RAM?  So you want limited RAM so there is constant page swapping with the SSD when you are working with large files?

hammeroftruth

MacQuadra840av said:

randy hill said:

There is no way a 10 core Intel CPU is going to keep up with an 8 Firestorm core M1x, so that extra ram would be a waste. So...

The 10-core Intel CPU already smokes the M1 in multi-core scores, and most other operations, so don't know why you think it won't be able to keep up when it is already faster.  And what does speed have to do with the amount of RAM?  So you want limited RAM so there is constant page swapping with the SSD when you are working with large files?

I think with all of Apple’s fanfare about Apple silicon, and the fact that Intel was taking out ads telling people not to buy Macs kinda cemented the fact that Apple was done with Intel processors inside the Mac. 

Intel got desperate and told Apple it would make the silicon processors for them. Sounds like an ex who just won’t go away. 

While CURRENTLY Intel chips are faster, Apple has some other tricks up their sleeve which hopefully we will see soon. I don’t know when since the whole world is short on chips. 

Let’s just see how Friday goes when people want to go the Apple store and buy a new iMac or iPad Pro. Hopefully they’ll have inventory. 

swat671

I really do hope that they do have one more Intel versions of all the computers (at least the 16" MacBook, iMac, and MacPro), because I still do use Windows on my 15" MBP, and I'm not willing to give up duel boot yet, at least not until we can use the ARM version of Windows. At least with the Mac Pro, something I could see them doing would be maybe including an Intel chip, AND an Apple Silicon chip, so that pros can run both Intel and ARM apps at the same time with no performance hit. But, that's probably just a pipe dream. I know that I'm not willing to give up my intel Mac yet, not until the ARM chips have a few more generations under their belt. And my 2017 model is not going to last forever. But, it will probably still last a while. My 2009 MBP lasted until 2017, so that was a really good run. 

tenthousandthings

PSA: The original tweets by Steve Moser and the original MacRumors post based on them have all been deleted, with no public explanation that I can see. 

Seems to have been a brain fart with regard to the 10-core i9 that Apple currently sells. You can still find the original MacRumors piece preserved here, at least for now:

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/05/18/intel-mac-pro-refresh-hinted-by-mac-os-update/amp/

OutdoorAppDeveloper

I bet this has more to do with the RAM expandability and the GPU than the CPU. I guess we will finally see a real desktop CPU with discrete GPU and separate RAM next near when the Mac Pro gets its Apple Silicon update.

tenthousandthings

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

I bet this has more to do with the RAM expandability and the GPU than the CPU. I guess we will finally see a real desktop CPU with discrete GPU and separate RAM next near when the Mac Pro gets its Apple Silicon update.

More likely it has to do with chip shortages, and Apple has to make do with a slightly different variant of the same chip for the i9 10910 configurations of the existing iMac. 

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/195735/10th-generation-intel-core-i9-processors.html