Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Possibly, but then we'd lose the ability to virtualize which is (sadly) still a requirement for some of us who use our Macs in the enterprise.
Don't look at it as an all-or-nothing option. Just because they re-introduce the MacBook with an ARM chip and with a much lower MSRP, doesn't mean that the MacBook Pro wouldn't still get Intel chips for the foreseeable future.
Wouldn't that cause the same kind of software compatibility issues Microsoft ran into with RT? "This software works on this Mac but not that one, whereas that title works on that Mac but not this one."
Not at all. What MS did for Surface RT is not unlike their 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows. It was poorly thought out and implemented. Apple, on the other hand, has made the transition from discrete architectures many, many times throughout their history, and today it's even better for them since they have the Mac App Store, many low-level coding elements which will allow developers to build for multiple architectures with relative ease, and since their most popular platform is already ARM there will be the ability to use these advancements to further the App Store for an ARM-based notebook without forcing every device they sell to be shifted to ARM when they are ready to include a low-end option. However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS.
I used to think that perhaps Apple would take this path - introduce an "Apple Book" for the higher-end mass consumer market that would be essentially macOS for ARM (clearly simplifying and slimming it). Target perhaps the $700-$800 level base. It would come with support for all of Apple's own apps, and am sure some key developers could come on-board before launch. Before long, many Mac App Store apps could be there. Such a machine, with Apple custom silicon, could still have advanced features like TouchID, photo editing, h/w based 4K video playback, etc. Perfect for students, general households, education. A true laptop that "just works".
However, based on events and messaging or last year or so, I am not so sure. While Apple could make incremental billions, it may not be in their view "the future of computing", or how they want to focus resources. They may prefer to push the high end (in specific ways) on Mac's, and evolve the iPad, rather than capture that "upper middle tier" of consumer computing. Too bad. I think they could do both.
Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake review: Is the desktop CPU dead?
As it stands, what we have with Kaby Lake desktop is effectively Sandy Bridge polished to within an inch of its life, a once-groundbreaking CPU architecture hacked, and tweaked, and mangled into ever-smaller manufacturing processes and power envelopes. Where the next major leap in desktop computing power comes from is still up for debate—but if Kaby Lake is any indication, it won't be coming from Intel.
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Possibly, but then we'd lose the ability to virtualize which is (sadly) still a requirement for some of us who use our Macs in the enterprise.
Don't look at it as an all-or-nothing option. Just because they re-introduce the MacBook with an ARM chip and with a much lower MSRP, doesn't mean that the MacBook Pro wouldn't still get Intel chips for the foreseeable future.
Wouldn't that cause the same kind of software compatibility issues Microsoft ran into with RT? "This software works on this Mac but not that one, whereas that title works on that Mac but not this one."
Not at all. What MS did for Surface RT is not unlike their 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows. It was poorly thought out and implemented. Apple, on the other hand, has made the transition from discrete architectures many, many times throughout their history, and today it's even better for them since they have the Mac App Store, many low-level coding elements which will allow developers to build for multiple architectures with relative ease, and since their most popular platform is already ARM there will be the ability to use these advancements to further the App Store for an ARM-based notebook without forcing every device they sell to be shifted to ARM when they are ready to include a low-end option. However, I don't expect this to occur until their desktop OS reaches an evolutionary state that makes less instructive and offer a shorter learning curve like iOS.
I used to think that perhaps Apple would take this path - introduce an "Apple Book" for the higher-end mass consumer market that would be essentially macOS for ARM (clearly simplifying and slimming it). Target perhaps the $700-$800 level base. It would come with support for all of Apple's own apps, and am sure some key developers could come on-board before launch. Before long, many Mac App Store apps could be there. Such a machine, with Apple custom silicon, could still have advanced features like TouchID, photo editing, h/w based 4K video playback, etc. Perfect for students, general households, education. A true laptop that "just works".
However, based on events and messaging or last year or so, I am not so sure. While Apple could make incremental billions, it may not be in their view "the future of computing", or how they want to focus resources. They may prefer to push the high end (in specific ways) on Mac's, and evolve the iPad, rather than capture that "upper middle tier" of consumer computing. Too bad. I think they could do both.
Honest question: Where do they get the chips to push the high end (in specific ways) on Mac's?
Back in the days of IBM PPC Macs, Intel ruled in chips. Today, thanks to the prescience of Steve, Apple rules. IMO, the time for ARM Macs and a corresponding OS is NOW!
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Multiple chips do not always make software run faster. Multiple processors will only speed up software which can be parallelized. Software with serial computations (i.e x must be done before y) will only benefit from fast single core performance. 'Serial' software is pretty much most everyday software.
That explains why I've been mostly underwhelmed by this new MacBook Pro. One app that I use a lot for a specific transcoding task takes exactly the same length of time to process a given file on this machine as it did on my 2009 MBP. I thought more cores and improved architecture would speed things up, but they didn't. So apparently for some things, higher clock speeds WOULD be better.
I guess Moores law or whatever it is is dead as a doornail as far as raw speed is concerned. Been stuck around 4gz for some years now.
Technically, Moore's Law said the density of transistors in an integrated circuit would double every two years, not that processor speed would increase.
That would seriously mess people up - shifting back to Power (PowerPC was based on, and in some uses replaced, the Power line) after going with Intel.
Given the reasons for moving to Intel were price and availability, I don't know that Power at this point is a good option. I mean, *I'd* love it, but I don't think it's the best option for Apple.
I guess Moores law or whatever it is is dead as a doornail as far as raw speed is concerned. Been stuck around 4gz for some years now.
Technically, Moore's Law said the density of transistors in an integrated circuit would double every two years, not that processor speed would increase.
Technically, it's more of a guideline than a law, and it's about time people stopped treating it as if it's some kind of force of nature, rather than an observation made about the rate of development in micro-processors back in the 60s.
For the most part this is a crap processor upgrade. Arstechnica has the scoop (not that I have much respect for Ars) but if people are looking for huge performance increases out of the CPU it won't be happening with this processor. Depending upon the model there are some other benefits in some cases the GPU is a much better performer but if you want faster hardware to accelerate processor intensive software you are out of luck.
Yep but Intel gets a free pass every time. Hopefully AMD's Zen processors actually give these guys a little competition.
It really doesn't look good at all for the desktop to be honest, Intel has refocused on the Internet of Things and Automobile automation. The demand simply isn't there anymore for high performance desktops. Sad really but we need a new generation of software people actually want, that needs significant performance increases, to drive processor development. Nothing has cropped up lately except AI type machine learning which really needs specialized hardware anyways.
That will be awesome for Apple to roll out new models 4 months after I invested in their below average iteration of the MacBookPro.
I wouldn't count on Apple updating the MacBook Pro anytime soon...what you see is what they'll offer for at least the next 6-8 months.
It also looks like the CPUs that could go in a MacBook Pro still do not support LPDDR4 RAM. They do appear to support DDR4 RAM, just not LPDDR4 RAM. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, no? If true, then Apple would absolutely not be updating the MacBook Pro, but instead waiting on a chipset that supports what they need unless they want to continue maxing the RAM out at 16GB total.
It will be interesting to see what Apple does with these new chips. I hope they've had some prototypes in their hands so they could be developing new/updated Macs around them.
"It also looks like the CPUs that could go in a MacBook Pro still do not support LPDDR4 RAM"
Correct. They don't. Not till Cannon Lake or Coffee Lake, which is next year.
Yep! No Apple suitable processors in this lackluster release.
I guess Moores law or whatever it is is dead as a doornail as far as raw speed is concerned. Been stuck around 4gz for some years now.
Intel is focuses on everything except processor performance. Some of these chips (not all) do have better GPUs and video decode units but people looking for a faster CPU are out of luck. Of course some will try to blame Apple again but sooner or later the facts will boil to the top of the heap.
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Sure. However Apple doesn't need to do much to get the IPC up a bit to effectively compete with Intel. IPC improvements bringing Apple close to Intel performance could be seen in A11 though Apple needs to be careful here not to blow out thermals. In any event ARM would win anyways because Apple can easily put more cores on a chip. With more cores though the big issue becomes cache and RAM architecture which has to be adjusted to support those cores.
In any event we aren't talking chips here but rather cores on a single piece of silicon. The days of multiple chips in PC's is quickly going away, with ARM you would have single chip SoC assemblies similar to the iPhone implementations.
Garbage processor upgrade from Intel. Anandtech already has a review up and they are literally the same performance as Skylake. The only advantages they bring are support for Optane and DRM on 4K video. Oh, and 4 extra PCI lanes for accessories. Big deal.
Might be time for Apple to consider a switch to the new AMD Ryzen desktop chips. Eagerly waiting for the first reviews on those processors.
How is better power efficiency and a lower TDP for a given clockrate garbage? I don't think you're understanding the optimization part of the 3-step cycle. I thought AnandTech has been clear on this:
"But this is what we kind of expected from an ‘Optimization’ step in the ‘Process, Architecture, Optimization’ way of doing things: we weren’t expecting to be amazed with the product, but nodding and approving of better efficiency."
The problem with better power efficiency and lower TDP is that it comes with no improvements to the performance of the CPU. For many this just sucks as the one thing they want is better performance out of the CPU. What is worst this is now 4 years of basically zero performance increases (real world), hardware is starting to feel slow again.
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Possibly, but then we'd lose the ability to virtualize which is (sadly) still a requirement for some of us who use our Macs in the enterprise.
Don't look at it as an all-or-nothing option. Just because they re-introduce the MacBook with an ARM chip and with a much lower MSRP, doesn't mean that the MacBook Pro wouldn't still get Intel chips for the foreseeable future.
Wouldn't that cause the same kind of software compatibility issues Microsoft ran into with RT? "This software works on this Mac but not that one, whereas that title works on that Mac but not this one."
RT hasn't had a success due to the stupidity of MS implementation. Look at iPad, very successful yet doesn't run Mac software nor Windows. Apple could and apparently has done things with app distribution that would make the hardware in the machine a non consideration. Basically the right machine code gets installed at purchase time. With the LLVM code base they can take an intermediate representation and compile it to any hardware architecture.
Apple already has provision for iOS installs to load processor specific software. This is a bit different than having the app store compile an app for a specific architecture as the developer has to include the right code but this is a third avenue.
Beyond all of that one can always resort to emulation. Emulation of course sucks but it can get you through a transition period and Apple has a lot of experience here. So with tailored software and the option of emulation not much concern should be had with respect to architecture.
Garbage processor upgrade from Intel. Anandtech already has a review up and they are literally the same performance as Skylake. The only advantages they bring are support for Optane and DRM on 4K video. Oh, and 4 extra PCI lanes for accessories. Big deal.
Might be time for Apple to consider a switch to the new AMD Ryzen desktop chips. Eagerly waiting for the first reviews on those processors.
So your basically saying Apple should drop Thunderbolt from their desktop line.... sorry, I don't see that happening.
Going AMD doesn't mean dropping TB. Apple would have to implement a TB interface chip for AMD chips but that isn't a big deal. Beyond that we really don't know how much of the IP in TB Apple owns already. Given Apples use of ARM chips, it is hard to not believe that they foresaw a need to be able to implement TB on alternative hardware. So I'm reasonably sure Apple has either licensed TB or in facts owns some of the IP that implants TB and thus could have TB supported AMD based computer.
And what does power consumption have to do in a desktop processor?
One thing at a time, why do you believe that power consumption isn't an issue with desktop-class processors?
It's not an issue because you're not running on a battery. It does have some benefits like allowing slimmer packaging, but these are minimal.
Just because you don't see it as a concern because you've never had to be concerned about it—which is a result of the engineers being concerned abbot it—doesn't mean it's not a concern. Battery or not, the amount of energy used will always be an ever present issue. Do you all your electronics and lights on in your house because you believe that energy is free and unlimited? I sure hope not.
For the amount of electricity I consume in a month my computers are a small portion of it. So it would provide an extremely small benefit to me. Hell, my clothes dryer consumes almost 3000W of electricity. One load of laundry can power both my iMacs for several days of normal use.
The real issue for me is that Kaby Lake CPU cores are no faster than Skylake cores. After one year of optimizations they couldn't do a damn thing to make them any faster. Nor could they add LPDDR4 support to their mobile processors.
Pretty sad isn't it!!!! LPDDR support would have made them a rational upgrade for some of Apples hardware even if the performance increases suck. Oh and by the way it is more like 4 years now that we have seen CPU performance increases that are and embarrassment. At least in real world performance the CPU's have gained very little often all you get is a very minor clock rate boost.
That will be awesome for Apple to roll out new models 4 months after I invested in their below average iteration of the MacBookPro.
I wouldn't count on Apple updating the MacBook Pro anytime soon...what you see is what they'll offer for at least the next 6-8 months.
It also looks like the CPUs that could go in a MacBook Pro still do not support LPDDR4 RAM. They do appear to support DDR4 RAM, just not LPDDR4 RAM. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, no? If true, then Apple would absolutely not be updating the MacBook Pro, but instead waiting on a chipset that supports what they need unless they want to continue maxing the RAM out at 16GB total.
It will be interesting to see what Apple does with these new chips. I hope they've had some prototypes in their hands so they could be developing new/updated Macs around them.
"It also looks like the CPUs that could go in a MacBook Pro still do not support LPDDR4 RAM"
Correct. They don't. Not till Cannon Lake or Coffee Lake, which is next year.
Yep! No Apple suitable processors in this lackluster release.
It is interesting that the iPhone 7 uses LPDDR4 RAM -- I wonder why the new Intel processors can't/won't support it.
Couldn't multiple Apple ARM chips be used to outperform a single Intel chip?
Sure. However Apple doesn't need to do much to get the IPC up a bit to effectively compete with Intel. IPC improvements bringing Apple close to Intel performance could be seen in A11 though Apple needs to be careful here not to blow out thermals. In any event ARM would win anyways because Apple can easily put more cores on a chip. With more cores though the big issue becomes cache and RAM architecture which has to be adjusted to support those cores.
In any event we aren't talking chips here but rather cores on a single piece of silicon. The days of multiple chips in PC's is quickly going away, with ARM you would have single chip SoC assemblies similar to the iPhone implementations.
There have been discussions that the A11X chip could be released before the A11 -- because of a much lower manufacturing volume needed .. It could be used in new iPad Pro this spring.
From what you suggest, the A11X could be configured to be robust enough to be used in some Macs.
Comments
However, based on events and messaging or last year or so, I am not so sure. While Apple could make incremental billions, it may not be in their view "the future of computing", or how they want to focus resources. They may prefer to push the high end (in specific ways) on Mac's, and evolve the iPad, rather than capture that "upper middle tier" of consumer computing. Too bad. I think they could do both.
Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake review: Is the desktop CPU dead?
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/intel-core-i7-7700k-kaby-lake-review/Honest question: Where do they get the chips to push the high end (in specific ways) on Mac's?
Back in the days of IBM PPC Macs, Intel ruled in chips. Today, thanks to the prescience of Steve, Apple rules. IMO, the time for ARM Macs and a corresponding OS is NOW!
Given the reasons for moving to Intel were price and availability, I don't know that Power at this point is a good option. I mean, *I'd* love it, but I don't think it's the best option for Apple.
In any event we aren't talking chips here but rather cores on a single piece of silicon. The days of multiple chips in PC's is quickly going away, with ARM you would have single chip SoC assemblies similar to the iPhone implementations.
http://evertiq.com/news/40311
There have been discussions that the A11X chip could be released before the A11 -- because of a much lower manufacturing volume needed .. It could be used in new iPad Pro this spring.
From what you suggest, the A11X could be configured to be robust enough to be used in some Macs.