Apple is the only one that build powerful ARM cores for now (Samsung is catching up though), and Intel haven’t change their microarchitecture since Skylake.
I don’t really trust Geekbench results, but then the cores they build inside an iPhone doesn’t show its full potential.
NVIDIA has also been further developing their own cores. Although, we haven't seen them used outside of their automotive hardware.
Xavier SoC:
Geekbench has its flaws, but a lot of the time it depends on what's being asked. For example, when the A9X was first released, it had similar results in Geekbench to a Core m3-6Y30. However, when it was tested in SPEC benchmark, it turned out to be weaker in almost every regard. One other aspect of Geekbench that needs to be considered, is the fact that there are pauses between workloads to avoid thermal throttling, so it doesn't necessarily represent the real world performance.
Right, thermal throttling. The CPU in A-series have to slow down after a long period, and not to mention the frequency is only around 2.3GHz. personal computers usually can achieve higher frequencies for a long period because of their cooling system.
Apple is the only one that build powerful ARM cores for now (Samsung is catching up though), and Intel haven’t change their microarchitecture since Skylake.
I don’t really trust Geekbench results, but then the cores they build inside an iPhone doesn’t show its full potential.
NVIDIA has also been further developing their own cores. Although, we haven't seen them used outside of their automotive hardware.
Xavier SoC:
Geekbench has its flaws, but a lot of the time it depends on what's being asked. For example, when the A9X was first released, it had similar results in Geekbench to a Core m3-6Y30. However, when it was tested in SPEC benchmark, it turned out to be weaker in almost every regard. One other aspect of Geekbench that needs to be considered, is the fact that there are pauses between workloads to avoid thermal throttling, so it doesn't necessarily represent the real world performance.
Right, thermal throttling. The CPU in A-series have to slow down after a long period, and not to mention the frequency is only around 2.3GHz. personal computers usually can achieve higher frequencies for a long period because of their cooling system.
A couple of things:
Phil Schiller has already said that Apple has no plans for machines powered solely by the kind of ARM processors used in the iPhone and iPad.
AFAICT, all Intel-based Macs already have a cooling system.
You must understand why we want better hardware, though. The software can’t be the best–and continue to be the best–if it’s crippled by half-decade old hardware being sold as new (and being forced to be supported).
You can want better hardware all you want... But, WWDC is about software -- and software/ecosystem is what sets Apple apart.
Hardware wise, they are an also ran (albeit at the higher end). That is particularly true in the Mac line where they simply assemble off-the-shelf components available to most any mom & pop assembler... Actually, if you look at a gamer build, it will often run circles around any Mac on a performance basis. But, it can't do one thing that the Mac does well: Run MacOS and integrate into the Apple ecosystem.
Could this be the year when Apple finally kills off and breaks apart the bloated app known as iTunes? One can dream.
So why do you want four bloated apps to replace it? iBooks already doesn’t get backed up by Time Machine thanks to the retarded location it stores files. Then again, Apple doesn’t really care about people who want to own their own files anymore. They expect us to stream everything and if something we bought stops existing in their stores them’s the breaks.
KITA said: One other aspect of Geekbench that needs to be considered, is the fact that there are pauses between workloads to avoid thermal throttling, so it doesn't necessarily represent the real world performance.
That's what I've heard too. What I'm not sure of, is whether that means if you took the chip out of the mobile application and supplied adequate power and cooling, if you could sustain the performance.
GeorgeBMac said: You can want better hardware all you want... But, WWDC is about software -- and software/ecosystem is what sets Apple apart.
Hardware wise, they are an also ran (albeit at the higher end). That is particularly true in the Mac line where they simply assemble off-the-shelf components available to most any mom & pop assembler... Actually, if you look at a gamer build, it will often run circles around any Mac on a performance basis. But, it can't do one thing that the Mac does well: Run MacOS and integrate into the Apple ecosystem.
That's why dancing emojis have been major focuses of such keynotes... developers just can't get enough of them!!! /s
Yes, the move to Intel kind of ensured Apple wouldn't be hugely faster or slower (if they update) than what you can build yourself or maybe buy from other makers. Gamer builds have been faster at time, especially for gaming graphics (not Apple's focus).
But, that hasn't always been the case. Back before the Intel jump, Power Macs were often faster than anything you could buy/build on the PC side. And, after the Intel jump, Macs often had the latest and greatest of what Intel offered months before we'd see it in the PC world. And, they can do it... look at the iMac Pro, or the '13 Mac Pro when it was first released. They were darn fast, and the breakdowns of them showed it would be hard to self-build something as good for close to the cost.
But, as TallestSkil has been saying, it doesn't matter much how good the software is, or how strong the Apple eco-system, if people have to look to alternatives because the hardware to get the job done doesn't exist. And, while the software is still better in some ways than the competition, it isn't what it once was... and the eco-system is turning to %$*#(. The only reason anyone would subject themselves to Apple's services division, is because they are stuck in the eco-system. The success of that services pie-chart category is driven 120% by the hardware and OSs, no one would use them otherwise.
tallest skil said: So why do you want four bloated apps to replace it? iBooks already doesn’t get backed up by Time Machine thanks to the retarded location it stores files. Then again, Apple doesn’t really care about people who want to own their own files anymore. They expect us to stream everything and if something we bought stops existing in their stores them’s the breaks.
Apple doesn't seem to care of stuff works well anymore, so long as you buy the new shiny thing. It's downright disgusting if you remember where they once were. It was never perfect, but at one time, they cared. (And, I don't understand how so many people don't see that this will eventually catch up with them.)
dick applebaum said: Currently, you can run Windows 10 under a VM like Parallels on an Intel Mac — what would it take to do the same on an ARM Mac?
AFAIK, you'd need x86 hardware to do it efficiently. Emulation always loses a lot of speed, so the CPU would have to be many times faster, not just a bit faster. I'm not sure Apple would want to design x86 into a desktop ARM chip, though it's possible, I suppose.
A while back I did a bit of research on this. As I understand it Intel hardware converts CISC instructions to RISC instructions for execution. If so, could not that be done in advance, efficiently... translation, rather than emulation... honest question.
It doesn't actually matter if it is efficient or not, as such compilers would do that once during compilation time. Runtime will not be affected by that.
dick applebaum said: A while back I did a bit of research on this. As I understand it Intel hardware converts CISC instructions to RISC instructions for execution. If so, could not that be done in advance, efficiently... translation, rather than emulation... honest question.
It doesn't actually matter if it is efficient or not, as such compilers would do that once during compilation time. Runtime will not be affected by that.
This is more in the context of software development, though, correct?
I guess I was more referring to emulation/virtualization to be able to run Windows or Windows apps directly, such as in a VM. A lot of people do that kind of thing, so it isn't just a matter of how many apps might get ported over to Apple or Windows ARM platform... at least for a number of years.
GeorgeBMac said: You can want better hardware all you want... But, WWDC is about software ...
Just as a bit of history here, I looked back and pulled out hardware or hardware related announcements I could find for previous WWDCs (it might not be 100% complete). It's interesting to see the trend, and if you haven't been around Apple for a long time, it might seem only software, I suppose (2014-2016 had none).
Up until 2003, they were pretty much pure developers conference.
KITA said: One other aspect of Geekbench that needs to be considered, is the fact that there are pauses between workloads to avoid thermal throttling, so it doesn't necessarily represent the real world performance.
That's what I've heard too. What I'm not sure of, is whether that means if you took the chip out of the mobile application and supplied adequate power and cooling, if you could sustain the performance.
It may be academic, considering that Schiller said Apple has no plans to use iPhone or iPad chips in Macs or other machines.
The A11 has 6 CPU cores that can all run concurrently -- and the speed of the efficiency cores can be jacked up to match the high-power cores. Also many of the compute-intense processes are handled by special, dedicated chips... And the GPU cores can be used too, if needed.
It may be, for now, Apple feels that they have adequate compute power for the next few releases of iDevices.
I think what's important is that, likely, Apple has the ability to scale this up using multiple chips and/or bigger chips with more, faster cores.
A big consideration is: Will 3rd-party developers take advantage of the concurrent multiprocessing capabilities?
In researching all this stuff I kinda' get the feeling that (without attribution):
Apple has resolved the RAM bandwidth, RAM capacity and cache issues
Swift may ease the programming burden for developers by supplying default concurrent multiprocessing capabilities.
These are my feelings, I have no insider knowledge... But, something's goin' on to raise the hair on the back of my neck...
Dare's a hole lotta' hardware 'nouncin' gon' on out dare...
As I understand it, the main reason Apple abandoned Macworld Expos was that they wanted to release new hardware and software on Apple's schedule -- rather some arbitrary 3rd-party exposition's schedule.
GeorgeBMac said: You can want better hardware all you want... But, WWDC is about software ...
Just as a bit of history here, I looked back and pulled out hardware or hardware related announcements I could find for previous WWDCs (it might not be 100% complete). It's interesting to see the trend, and if you haven't been around Apple for a long time, it might seem only software, I suppose (2014-2016 had none).
Up until 2003, they were pretty much pure developers conference.
GeorgeBMac said: You can want better hardware all you want... But, WWDC is about software -- and software/ecosystem is what sets Apple apart.
Hardware wise, they are an also ran (albeit at the higher end). That is particularly true in the Mac line where they simply assemble off-the-shelf components available to most any mom & pop assembler... Actually, if you look at a gamer build, it will often run circles around any Mac on a performance basis. But, it can't do one thing that the Mac does well: Run MacOS and integrate into the Apple ecosystem.
That's why dancing emojis have been major focuses of such keynotes... developers just can't get enough of them!!! /s
Yes, the move to Intel kind of ensured Apple wouldn't be hugely faster or slower (if they update) than what you can build yourself or maybe buy from other makers. Gamer builds have been faster at time, especially for gaming graphics (not Apple's focus).
But, that hasn't always been the case. Back before the Intel jump, Power Macs were often faster than anything you could buy/build on the PC side. And, after the Intel jump, Macs often had the latest and greatest of what Intel offered months before we'd see it in the PC world. And, they can do it... look at the iMac Pro, or the '13 Mac Pro when it was first released. They were darn fast, and the breakdowns of them showed it would be hard to self-build something as good for close to the cost.
But, as TallestSkil has been saying, it doesn't matter much how good the software is, or how strong the Apple eco-system, if people have to look to alternatives because the hardware to get the job done doesn't exist. And, while the software is still better in some ways than the competition, it isn't what it once was... and the eco-system is turning to %$*#(. The only reason anyone would subject themselves to Apple's services division, is because they are stuck in the eco-system. The success of that services pie-chart category is driven 120% by the hardware and OSs, no one would use them otherwise.
tallest skil said: So why do you want four bloated apps to replace it? iBooks already doesn’t get backed up by Time Machine thanks to the retarded location it stores files. Then again, Apple doesn’t really care about people who want to own their own files anymore. They expect us to stream everything and if something we bought stops existing in their stores them’s the breaks.
Apple doesn't seem to care of stuff works well anymore, so long as you buy the new shiny thing. It's downright disgusting if you remember where they once were. It was never perfect, but at one time, they cared. (And, I don't understand how so many people don't see that this will eventually catch up with them.)
Unfortunately, he either doesn't read well of is intentionally misunderstanding my posts...
I never said that hardware is irrelevant. What I did say is: WWDC is about software & ecosystem -- which is what makes Apple shine. Yet, he and others can only see and focus on hardware....
Basically, with a few exceptions, in the Mac line Apple does enough hardware wise to stay in the top tier. In smart phones they stay barely ahead of Samsung. Actually, most years, they're ahead for 6 months until Samsung releases their latest... (In tablets and watches they blow everybody away in every way possible).
No, WWDC is about software and ecosystem and that's where they should focus their presentation -- even if it doesn't have the bells and glitter of a new hardware rollout.
GeorgeBMac said: You can want better hardware all you want... But, WWDC is about software ...
Just as a bit of history here, I looked back and pulled out hardware or hardware related announcements I could find for previous WWDCs (it might not be 100% complete). It's interesting to see the trend, and if you haven't been around Apple for a long time, it might seem only software, I suppose (2014-2016 had none).
Up until 2003, they were pretty much pure developers conference.
2003
Power Mac G5
iSight camera
2004
Cinema Display
2005
- (transition to x86)
2006
Mac Pro
2007
iPhone
2008
iPhone
2009
MBP
iPhone
2010
iPhone
2011
multi-touch trackpads
2012
MBP (& Retina display)
iMac
iPad
2013
MBA
Mac Pro
2014
-
2015
-
2016
-
2017
iMac
MacBook
MBP
iMac Pro
iPad
HomePod
So, they haven't out a new product that would impact a developer since 2010 or 2011? (And no, Homepod doesn't count)
Unfortunately, he either doesn't read well of is intentionally misunderstanding my posts... I never said that hardware is irrelevant.
I understand exactly what you’re saying; I just reject the premise. The Dub Dub Deece has been as much about hardware as about software.
WWDC is about software & ecosystem -- which is what makes Apple shine.
They ought to discontinue the event, then. No displays, no networking… what ecosystem?
Yet, he and others can only see and focus on hardware....
Okay, now I’m smirking. Please explain how hardware is not part of a technology ecosystem.
Basically, with a few exceptions, in the Mac line Apple does enough hardware wise to stay in the top tier.
What aren’t the exceptions? Apple does more to excel with SECONDARY hardware than with primary hardware. They were first with high-res displays, first with quality cameras, first with whatever battery tech (which, yes, is mostly software) lets them get such good battery life… but their primary hardware is woefully out of date or simply crippled due to the shape/style of their products.
In smart phones they stay barely ahead of Samsung. Actually, most years, they're ahead for 6 months until Samsung releases their latest...
That’s barely? 6 months in the phone field is like having a car that does 50 MPG 5 years before anyone else does it–and cheaper.
dick applebaum said: It may be academic, considering that Schiller said Apple has no plans to use iPhone or iPad chips in Macs or other machines.
I don't necessarily trust what Schiller says, though, or how it is meant. Maybe that just means they won't be directly dropping an A10x into a 'Mini' case and calling it the new Mac Mini. Even Steve was a bit tricky with his 'Apple won't' kind of statements. They usually could have been appended with: 'yet', 'or in that way'.
GeorgeBMac said: No, WWDC is about software and ecosystem and that's where they should focus their presentation -- even if it doesn't have the bells and glitter of a new hardware rollout.
If that were the case, then it probably wouldn't be a worldwide keynote address, as 99% of people wouldn't care. The keynote aspect of the conference is more a show & tell than specifically developer focused... hence my comment about dancing emojis. They've shown many things over the years that aren't that big of a thing for developers, just because they are software. And, as noted, there has been a lot of hardware introduced too.
GeorgeBMac said: So, they haven't out a new product that would impact a developer since 2010 or 2011? (And no, Homepod doesn't count)
Sorry, I'm not following what you mean here.
dick applebaum said: As I understand it, the main reason Apple abandoned Macworld Expos was that they wanted to release new hardware and software on Apple's schedule -- rather some arbitrary 3rd-party exposition's schedule.
Yeah, I think that is kind of what happened. There was also discontent around where it was located and some other political stuff, I think. I used to work a couple blocks from MacWorld SF though, so really enjoyed going to those and meeting all the other vendors. Losing that aspect was rather sad, IMO.
What about newer hardware able to support things like Metal, AR, AI, etc.
Yeah, there is that too. On the one hand, I'm excited as the computing and GPU power to pull it off drives other advancement. On the other, I really don't care much about most of it right now... maybe Metal a bit.
Basically, with a few exceptions, in the Mac line Apple does enough hardware wise to stay in the top tier.
What aren’t the exceptions? Apple does more to excel with SECONDARY hardware than with primary hardware. They were first with high-res displays, first with quality cameras, first with whatever battery tech (which, yes, is mostly software) lets them get such good battery life… but their primary hardware is woefully out of date or simply crippled due to the shape/style of their products.
Yeah, I'd flip that one around, too. They have a couple cutting edge products now, whereas they used to be mostly cutting edge. But, what is so sad about it, is there is no good reason for it. They could easily keep the products up-to-date... which was one of the points of switching to Intel in the first place.
Do they need a full innovative re-design every 5-10 years? Maybe. But, that shouldn't be stopping them from simply catching up. They are using Intel's slip to tick-tock-tock... and the feel for 'innovation' to keep them from doing the basic product line maintenance.
Also, if you keep the product lines up-to-date, you get better data when you do a major change on whether it was a move in the right direction. If you have a ton of people desperate to get anything, they will more likely buy a poorly designed and thought out product, leading you to believe everything is OK with the product line.
Comments
Yes, the move to Intel kind of ensured Apple wouldn't be hugely faster or slower (if they update) than what you can build yourself or maybe buy from other makers. Gamer builds have been faster at time, especially for gaming graphics (not Apple's focus).
But, that hasn't always been the case. Back before the Intel jump, Power Macs were often faster than anything you could buy/build on the PC side. And, after the Intel jump, Macs often had the latest and greatest of what Intel offered months before we'd see it in the PC world. And, they can do it... look at the iMac Pro, or the '13 Mac Pro when it was first released. They were darn fast, and the breakdowns of them showed it would be hard to self-build something as good for close to the cost.
But, as TallestSkil has been saying, it doesn't matter much how good the software is, or how strong the Apple eco-system, if people have to look to alternatives because the hardware to get the job done doesn't exist. And, while the software is still better in some ways than the competition, it isn't what it once was... and the eco-system is turning to %$*#(. The only reason anyone would subject themselves to Apple's services division, is because they are stuck in the eco-system. The success of that services pie-chart category is driven 120% by the hardware and OSs, no one would use them otherwise.
Apple doesn't seem to care of stuff works well anymore, so long as you buy the new shiny thing. It's downright disgusting if you remember where they once were. It was never perfect, but at one time, they cared. (And, I don't understand how so many people don't see that this will eventually catch up with them.)
I guess I was more referring to emulation/virtualization to be able to run Windows or Windows apps directly, such as in a VM. A lot of people do that kind of thing, so it isn't just a matter of how many apps might get ported over to Apple or Windows ARM platform... at least for a number of years.
Just as a bit of history here, I looked back and pulled out hardware or hardware related announcements I could find for previous WWDCs (it might not be 100% complete). It's interesting to see the trend, and if you haven't been around Apple for a long time, it might seem only software, I suppose (2014-2016 had none).
The A11 has 6 CPU cores that can all run concurrently -- and the speed of the efficiency cores can be jacked up to match the high-power cores. Also many of the compute-intense processes are handled by special, dedicated chips... And the GPU cores can be used too, if needed.
It may be, for now, Apple feels that they have adequate compute power for the next few releases of iDevices.
I think what's important is that, likely, Apple has the ability to scale this up using multiple chips and/or bigger chips with more, faster cores.
A big consideration is: Will 3rd-party developers take advantage of the concurrent multiprocessing capabilities?
In researching all this stuff I kinda' get the feeling that (without attribution):
These are my feelings, I have no insider knowledge... But, something's goin' on to raise the hair on the back of my neck...
Or, I'm just way out in left field!
Dare's a hole lotta' hardware 'nouncin' gon' on out dare...
As I understand it, the main reason Apple abandoned Macworld Expos was that they wanted to release new hardware and software on Apple's schedule -- rather some arbitrary 3rd-party exposition's schedule.
They ought to discontinue the event, then. No displays, no networking… what ecosystem?
Okay, now I’m smirking. Please explain how hardware is not part of a technology ecosystem.
What aren’t the exceptions? Apple does more to excel with SECONDARY hardware than with primary hardware. They were first with high-res displays, first with quality cameras, first with whatever battery tech (which, yes, is mostly software) lets them get such good battery life… but their primary hardware is woefully out of date or simply crippled due to the shape/style of their products.
That’s barely? 6 months in the phone field is like having a car that does 50 MPG 5 years before anyone else does it–and cheaper.
If that were the case, then it probably wouldn't be a worldwide keynote address, as 99% of people wouldn't care. The keynote aspect of the conference is more a show & tell than specifically developer focused... hence my comment about dancing emojis. They've shown many things over the years that aren't that big of a thing for developers, just because they are software. And, as noted, there has been a lot of hardware introduced too.
Sorry, I'm not following what you mean here.
Yeah, I think that is kind of what happened. There was also discontent around where it was located and some other political stuff, I think.
I used to work a couple blocks from MacWorld SF though, so really enjoyed going to those and meeting all the other vendors. Losing that aspect was rather sad, IMO.
Yeah, there is that too. On the one hand, I'm excited as the computing and GPU power to pull it off drives other advancement. On the other, I really don't care much about most of it right now... maybe Metal a bit.
But, what is so sad about it, is there is no good reason for it. They could easily keep the products up-to-date... which was one of the points of switching to Intel in the first place.
Do they need a full innovative re-design every 5-10 years? Maybe. But, that shouldn't be stopping them from simply catching up. They are using Intel's slip to tick-tock-tock... and the feel for 'innovation' to keep them from doing the basic product line maintenance.
Also, if you keep the product lines up-to-date, you get better data when you do a major change on whether it was a move in the right direction. If you have a ton of people desperate to get anything, they will more likely buy a poorly designed and thought out product, leading you to believe everything is OK with the product line.