Intel is blowing it, but AMD is making x86 relevant again. AMD might be the next Intel at the pace they’re going.
Intel is preparing to strike back. Right now Intel is stuck on an old process (14nm) and an old core design (Skylake) across many product lines. But they are slowly clawing their way back. Tiger Lake in laptops and Rocket Lake on the desktop could be a turning point in Intel's competition with AMD. Both products use the long-delayed Willow Cove core, which should make Intel much more competitive with AMD. I don't expect AMD to be wiped out the way they were when Intel came out with Core, but AMD is going to find some very still competition. It's not going to be a cakewalk. It is going to be great for consumers, though -- we might see some real, prolonged competition between Intel and AMD.
But I doubt either will be competitive with Apple Silicon. Apple would have known that their first Apple Silicon MacBooks would be competing against Tiger Lake, and so I'll bet Apple know that they can beat Tiger Lake. And really, they should be able to --- Apple Silicon will be on TSMC 5nm (analogous to Intel's non-existent 7nm process) while Tiger Lake will be on Intel's 10nm process (analogous to TSMC 7nm). And we already know from analysis by Anandtech that Apple's core design is far wider than Intel's, with higher IPC.
Apple Silicon plus macOS, Swift, Metal, and the rest of the stack now provides the most solid and technically advanced (relative to the rest of the industry) foundation in the history of the Mac. The last time the Mac, as an integrated hardware-software platform, was this advanced relative to the rest of the industry might have been when the Mac IIci was introduced.
I can't believe that Apple would have spent so much time and money investing in this strong foundation to just punt on the software that runs on this platform. I anticipate that we are going to see a commitment to building out the app ecosystem on the Mac in a way that we haven't seen in decades. I'm very excited by what Apple Silicon means for the Mac!
"Apple Silicon plus macOS, Swift, Metal and the rest of the stack now provides the most solid and technically advanced (relative to the rest of the industry) foundation in the history of the Mac."
Even if that is true, it doesn't matter as much as you think because of the price of Apple hardware and the general unavailability of most of Windows software on a Mac. As I have said before, you guys are looking at this all wrong. You are thinking: "this makes me more excited than ever to be a Mac owner!" As well it should. But that isn't the issue. The real issue is: "why does this make me - as a Windows user - any more likely to buy a Mac than I was before?"
For you, who loves the Apple ecosystem, the Mac being on the same hardware/software platform as the iPad and iPhone is outstanding. But if you don't own an iPhone (15% market share) or iPad (35% market share) in the first place ... or if you own an iPhone/iPad but also have a Windows computer (as most do!) then why do you care? You don't. You only care about how much your device costs and whether it runs what you want it to run as you did before.
As far as punting on the software that runs on the platform ... when has Apple ever been a software company? They aren't. They are a hardware company. They get involved in software only inasmuch as the competition forces them to. You can basically say that software is to Apple what hardware is to Google.
Also, I can answer your question. Apple doesn't care about competing with Wintel as much as you think. (If they did, it would be a crushing loss. At no time have Macs ever had more than 15% market share, and at times it has been less than 3% market share. More Chromebooks sell than Macs.) Apple cares more about platform convergence. Unifying iOS,iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, tvOS and HomeKit. Instead of chasing the people who don't use their products, giving the people who do use their products the best possible experience and performance. People who use Windows (and to a lesser extent Android, ChromeOS and Linux) will be irrelevant. But people who use Apple hardware will be VERY satisfied and much less likely to jump ship.
Apple and Wintel will diverge. The hardware will diverge further. The software will diverge. Apple people will become totally different from Windows people. They may even work in different industries, as you literally may not be able to do the work in an Apple shop on a Wintel machine and vice versa. And Apple is totally fine if that happens.
I think perhaps there is a difference here in where we are placing the goal posts.
I think that for Apple, a 20% worldwide marketshare for the Mac is the upper attainable limit -- I can't see how they could go higher than that without some very substantial changes that go well beyond anything we could predict today. Today, their share is about 7%, so this would be a big sales boost for them, but Wintel would still have 80% o the market. So, it could be that we aren't in huge disagreement -- maybe just talking about it differently.
Absolutely, Yes. Your comments are fairly balanced, from an Apple fan's optimistic point of view, well reasoned as well. And your excitement for Apple's Mac lineup future is very well justified and well articulated. @Linuxplatform is posting comments from a contrarian point of view - windows users who may not even bother about Apple's silicon move. Nice to see you not taking offense to his comments from opposite POV. That will surely happen once the aggressive members of "defend Apple at ANY cost" group start posting comments in this thread.
I believe that Intel's fate will be entirely determined by how Intel itself executes over the next 6-24 months rather than the threat that Apple Silicon poses.
Apple Silicon is no threat to Intel at all. None. Again:
1. Apple Silicon will only be used in Apple devices. Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. won't be able to buy Apple Silicon to run Windows on it. 2. Apple devices cost twice as much as (roughly) equivalent Windows devices. That won't change. In fact, Apple Silicon may even make low end Macs more expensive because the Ax costs more than the i3 (by a lot) and the i5. 3. Intel Macs don't run A LOT of the software that Windows users need and want. With Apple Silicon Macs, this problem will be worse, not better. And despite Apple's claims, writing apps for both Windows (which will still happen because 93% market share) and Apple will be harder, not easier. 4. Intel's high end chips - the i7, i9 and Xeon - already outperform the A14. Why people believe otherwise amazes me. Especially since Apple essentially acknowledges this by not even trying to build an ARM equivalent to the Mac Pro or anything else that used the i9 or Xeon. 5. Intel finally got to 10nm and based on the work that Jim Keller did for them will get down to 7nm within the next 2 years. Their performance is about to get A LOT BETTER, and as stated above, their best chips already outperform the A14. 6. Apple's ability to increase performance is limited. They are already at 5nm. Next is 3nm, and the first 3nm chips won't come until 2022 (Samsung currently has the only foundry capable of making them). Intel - whose 10 nm chips already outperform Apple's 5nm ones - will be down to 5nm before Apple can get to 3nm. And everything below 3nm is merely theory right now. 7. Intel's low power/low heat chips are basically in their infancy stage. Within 2 years, Intel's low power chips will easily match the Qualcomm chips that are currently being used by ARM-based Windows computers.
Honestly, Apple ARM computers are only going to be competing with Apple Intel computers. All other competition - including benchmarks - is only going to exist in the minds of Apple fans. The reason is that Apple and Wintel are two entirely different software ecosystems. When the switch to ARM happens, they will be two entirely different hardware ecosystems too.
Way too optimistic from the Intel perspective, I think.
Apple Silicon is far more than zero threat to Intel. I'd say Apple Silicon could, over the course of the next 5 years, boost Mac market share from 7% worldwide to about 12% worldwide (with 20% being the absolute maximum attainable). That's hardly a mortal blow to Intel, but it will sting.
Apple Silicon could also conceivably push Intel out of Apple data centers, if Apple were so inclined. Again, not a mortal blow, but it would sting.
Comparing a Xeon to an A14 (which is a phone SOC that has yet to be released) is goofy. Try comparing an i7 to an A14X instead. To replace the 28 core Xeon in the Mac Pro, all Apple needs to do is move to a chiplet (or similar) design. Then it's just a matter of adding chiplets to achieve something competitive with Xeon. This is totally feasible for Apple. Weird to imagine it's not.
Finally, I think it's fundamentally misguided, and profoundly ignorant of history, to say that TSMC's process lead over Intel doesn't matter, or that 3nm is the end fo the road for process improvements. When companies like IBM and DEC lost the ability to compete with Intel in process tech it was a profound setback from which they never recovered. Intel disrupted from below, using the economies of scale from the PC industry to fund process advancements that eventually allowed Intel to take over the high end.
The economies of scale advantage that the smartphone market has over the PC market is also immense, and that has funded TSMC in overtaking Intel. Intel will never regain this lead, and that absolutely matters. You're really kidding yourself if you think 3nm is the end of the road. Maybe it's the end of Intel's road (if Intel even makes it that far), but tit won't be the end of the road for Apple and TSMC.
The thing that I think JLG gets wrong is the idea that Wintel needs to be competitive with the Mac.
We see from the smartphone world that Android doesn't need to be competitive with the iPhone in terms of SOC performance. Similarly, I think the Mac could enjoy persistent, large performance (or performance/watt) advantages over Wintel, and it wouldn't mean the end of Wintel domination. It might mean that Mac marketshare rises from 7% to 10, 15, or maybe even 20% (huge gains for Apple!) but Windows would remain dominant in terms of unit volume (maybe not in terms of profit, though).
I expect Apple to dominate the high-end, but not the whole market.
The real threat to Intel, frankly, is Amazon. If Amazon senior management sees what Apple is doing, they might put even more support behind Graviton. If Amazon were to displace x86 from AWS in large volumes, that would be very painful for Intel.
Agree with this. Don't think Intel is going anywhere soon, but if you have stock I think now is a good time to sell. Intel is vulnerable right now.
There's a lot of laziness and content out there right now. Apple Silicon is going to wake a few business units up at MS and Intel, at least it better for their sake.
This isn't true at all. It doesn't solve the main reason why PC users don't buy Macs.
1. Macs cost twice as much as Windows PCs with comparable specs. This means that ChromeOS - whose devices are cheaper than Windows ones - is a bigger threat, and ChromeOS already runs on both ARM and x86-64, even the Linux and Android apps.
2. Macs can't run a ton of software that Windows can, including a lot of specialty and enterprise software, with gaming being a particular example. When Macs switch to ARM, this is going to get worse, not better.
A lot of people seem to think that Apple's clout in mobile translates to PC. It doesn't. No one is going to run out and buy a MacBook that costs twice as much as a Dell and can't run the software that he needs for work or the video games that he wants to play just because it has the same processor in it that is in the iPhone and iPad (which most likely he may not own anyway because Android has an 65% market share in tablets and 80% market share overall). The people who believe this are Apple fans who own and use Apple products anyway and only deal with Windows and Android devices for review purposes. (Yes, this includes most "tech" writers, who regularly get basic stuff about non-Apple products wrong.)
And it isn't laziness. Real tech problems that Apple doesn't have to deal with because Apple only has to support one platform isn't laziness. Apple doesn't have to worry about backwards compatibility because Apple doesn't have an enterprise software unit. Microsoft does have an enterprise software unit, it is a massive part of its business, and Microsoft can't tell those customers that they aren't going to support business applications that their customers wrote in 1997 that will never be meaningfully updated because it will cost them tons of money without generating them a bit of revenue.
As for Intel, they make a wide range of processors - i3, i5, i7, i9, Xeon - that allows their OEMs to make devices at all price points that they need to update at the same time. It is a completely different challenge from Apple's only needing to work on a single Ax processor a year. That is the same with Qualcomm: they have multiple 2x, 4x, 6x and 7x processors a year as well as their flagship 8x.
The hardware and software companies that support a range of devices, platforms and price points all have a harder job than Apple. They can't do what Apple does, but based on the issues that Apple has at times, Apple can't do what they do either.
I agree that Microsoft is stuck with Intel because they need to provide enterprise support for legacy applications. However, Apple will not be making a single processor going forward. They are going to make chips with a much wider thermal footprint, specific to the needs of a particular Mac model. They would not be making this move if they thought they could not outperform even Xeon Macs at the high end. Also, your current cost comparison is hyperbole, and future cost is conjecture. Additionally, I never see Android tablets in actual use.
Guys, you are going to need to take off the Apple-colored goggles for a second and ask yourselves: "Why do so many people buy Windows PCs instead of Macs and how will Apple adopting ARM change this?" instead of just presuming that 90% of Windows users are cheaper than dirt and not much smarter.
Most people who use computers are not computer literate - anyone who has ever worked in a support capacity (especially for family and friends) understands just how true this is. Most people think a computer is a computer and they don't know the difference between Mac and Windows. Most of those people who buy computers do so on the advice of someone else - that is usually someone who is more than likely a Windows user and as such recommend a Windows based computer. I am a Mac user and have been since I gave up my Apple IIc back in '87. I usually recommend that people buy whatever they are familiar with - 90% of the time, that is a Windows computer. For those that may want to switch, I usually give them an older Mac to play with so they can see if they like it or not. I've even installed Lubuntu and let people decide if they can get by a little longer on their older PCs.
Apple Silicon plus macOS, Swift, Metal, and the rest of the stack now provides the most solid and technically advanced (relative to the rest of the industry) foundation in the history of the Mac. The last time the Mac, as an integrated hardware-software platform, was this advanced relative to the rest of the industry might have been when the Mac IIci was introduced.
I can't believe that Apple would have spent so much time and money investing in this strong foundation to just punt on the software that runs on this platform. I anticipate that we are going to see a commitment to building out the app ecosystem on the Mac in a way that we haven't seen in decades. I'm very excited by what Apple Silicon means for the Mac!
"Apple Silicon plus macOS, Swift, Metal and the rest of the stack now provides the most solid and technically advanced (relative to the rest of the industry) foundation in the history of the Mac."
Even if that is true, it doesn't matter as much as you think because of the price of Apple hardware and the general unavailability of most of Windows software on a Mac. As I have said before, you guys are looking at this all wrong. You are thinking: "this makes me more excited than ever to be a Mac owner!" As well it should. But that isn't the issue. The real issue is: "why does this make me - as a Windows user - any more likely to buy a Mac than I was before?"
For you, who loves the Apple ecosystem, the Mac being on the same hardware/software platform as the iPad and iPhone is outstanding. But if you don't own an iPhone (15% market share) or iPad (35% market share) in the first place ... or if you own an iPhone/iPad but also have a Windows computer (as most do!) then why do you care? You don't. You only care about how much your device costs and whether it runs what you want it to run as you did before.
As far as punting on the software that runs on the platform ... when has Apple ever been a software company? They aren't. They are a hardware company. They get involved in software only inasmuch as the competition forces them to. You can basically say that software is to Apple what hardware is to Google.
Also, I can answer your question. Apple doesn't care about competing with Wintel as much as you think. (If they did, it would be a crushing loss. At no time have Macs ever had more than 15% market share, and at times it has been less than 3% market share. More Chromebooks sell than Macs.) Apple cares more about platform convergence. Unifying iOS,iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, tvOS and HomeKit. Instead of chasing the people who don't use their products, giving the people who do use their products the best possible experience and performance. People who use Windows (and to a lesser extent Android, ChromeOS and Linux) will be irrelevant. But people who use Apple hardware will be VERY satisfied and much less likely to jump ship.
Apple and Wintel will diverge. The hardware will diverge further. The software will diverge. Apple people will become totally different from Windows people. They may even work in different industries, as you literally may not be able to do the work in an Apple shop on a Wintel machine and vice versa. And Apple is totally fine if that happens.
I think perhaps there is a difference here in where we are placing the goal posts.
I think that for Apple, a 20% worldwide marketshare for the Mac is the upper attainable limit -- I can't see how they could go higher than that without some very substantial changes that go well beyond anything we could predict today. Today, their share is about 7%, so this would be a big sales boost for them, but Wintel would still have 80% o the market. So, it could be that we aren't in huge disagreement -- maybe just talking about it differently.
Absolutely, Yes. Your comments are fairly balanced, from an Apple fan's optimistic point of view, well reasoned as well. And your excitement for Apple's Mac lineup future is very well justified and well articulated. @Linuxplatform is posting comments from a contrarian point of view - windows users who may not even bother about Apple's silicon move. Nice to see you not taking offense to his comments from opposite POV. That will surely happen once the aggressive members of "defend Apple at ANY cost" group start posting comments in this thread.
Thank you, yes -- there is a group of rabid Apple fanatics here who are prone to hyperbole disconnected from reality. I like to think that I am not one of them! :-)
Having said that, though, I do really like Apple's products and the company. I root for them. But I can also be very critical when I think it's warranted.
4. Intel's high end chips - the i7, i9 and Xeon - already outperform the A14. Why people believe otherwise amazes me. Especially since Apple essentially acknowledges this by not even trying to build an ARM equivalent to the Mac Pro or anything else that used the i9 or Xeon.
What you smoking bro? The A14 doesn't exist yet. And when it does it will probably be a phone and tablet chip, very thermally limited and low power draw, and not at all intended to compete with the i7, i9 and Xeon. The Intel Atom chip line wasn't as fast as the G5 either, doesn't mean that x86 was worse than PowerPC.
Apple only just announced the transition, they haven't acknowledged anything by "not even trying" to build any of their Mac products with an Apple Silicon chip yet, because they haven't built any of their Mac products with an Applicon chip yet. You don't know what they're building, or trying to build, and you'll only know when they announce it. That'll come with time, and will bring Applicon that's probably significantly more powerful that what we've seen before because laptops and desktops have a lot more cooling options than iPhone and iPads. Apple will not be sticking the same chips that are in iPads into their Pro-grade Macs.
They are going to deliver the first batch of MacBooks by the end of this year/early next year meaning that the A14 chip will be used.
Umm, no. The A14 will most certainly not be used in any new Mac. Neither will any other A-series SoC - those are made specifically for mobile devices that need to be highly efficient. As they mentioned at WWDC2020, they have designed a new family of SoCs specifically for the Mac. Not a single SoC as they do every year for the iPhone and iPad, but a handful SoCs that can meet the performance levels expected across all their Macs; from the MacBook Air all the way up to the Mac Pro. Also mentioned was this is going to be a 2 year transition, and more the likely the last Macs to make the switch will be the Pro models; iMac Pro and then finally the Mac Pro. The SoC's in those systems will be expected to be as performant as the Intel Xeon CPUs they will replace.
And by the way, none of these Apple Silicon CPU designs have to be faster than Intel. they just need to be as good, or almost as good. Real world performance will come from macOS finally being able to make use all the other coprocessors that will come with those new SoCs.
Maybe Apple should consider taking over the CPU business and sell to PC manufacturers...
This would decrease their unique market advantage of highly profitable sectors they currently dominate (profit share), in return for a new line of...commodity component sales. Don't hold your breath.
Maybe Apple should consider taking over the CPU business and sell to PC manufacturers...
I really hope that you are being facetious. The reason is that most Windows won't run on the Ax and neither will most Windows applications.
Second, PC manufacturers need a range of CPUs with different specs and prices so they can make devices at all price points, from $200-$15,000. Is Apple going to come out with a $5 CPU to compete with the dual core Celerons that goes in the very low end Windows PCs and Chromebooks? Are they even going to come out with a $50 CPU to compete with the i3 that goes into $400-$500 Windows and ChromeOS laptops?
No. They aren't. And even if they did - again - those Windows laptops wouldn't be able to run 75% of the software that they can now, including even cheap Steam video games.
But again, you were kidding. Because obviously you know more about technology and economics than that.
You don’t think Apple can enter mature markets and still destroy their competitors? Where have you been for the last 20 years?
Apple *could* destroy lots of competitors in lots of new markets. But there has to be a reason to enter them. they've explained many, many times that they don't wish to spread too thin -- "A 1000 No's for every Yes", etc. This is not new.
I believe that Intel's fate will be entirely determined by how Intel itself executes over the next 6-24 months rather than the threat that Apple Silicon poses.
Apple Silicon is no threat to Intel at all. None. Again:
4. Intel's high end chips - the i7, i9 and Xeon - already outperform the A14. Why people believe otherwise amazes me. Especially since Apple essentially acknowledges this by not even trying to build an ARM equivalent to the Mac Pro or anything else that used the i9 or Xeon.
LOL. Of course Intel's high-end chips out-perform Apple's existing iPad chips. But if you don't think they're cooking up new chips, and you haven't been watching the trend line of Apple's performance per watt gain, what can I say, you're analyzing it wrong. I'm not worried about Apple being able to compete with Intel on desktop offerings. At all.
Whether this will have a detrimental effect on Intel remains to be seen. Remember, Intel had a shot at powering the iPhone during early development. That is a serious lost opportunity, which has a cost.
there will never be a MASS market for their products.
100+ million Mac user base is not mass market? 250+ million iPad user base is not mass market? Almost 1 billion iPhone user base is not mass market?
I agree that Apple may never have the lion's share of any market (iPod had over 70%), but you really need to reconsider the worth of quarterly marketshare statistics, when there's a much, much larger installed base of users supporting the platform. Even more so, when the user base continues to grow regardless of marketshare. I mean seriously Apple has over a billion people using their devices and while it's not as large as some other platforms, it's also not insignificant either, especially since Apple only sells on the higher end of the market.
there will never be a MASS market for their products.
100+ million Mac user base is not mass market? 250+ million iPad user base is not mass market? Almost 1 billion iPhone user base is not mass market?
I agree that Apple may never have the lion's share of any market (iPod had over 70%), but you really need to reconsider the worth of quarterly marketshare statistics, when there's a much, much larger installed base of users supporting the platform. Even more so, when the user base continues to grow regardless of marketshare. I mean seriously Apple has over a billion people using their devices and while it's not as large as some other platforms, it's also not insignificant either, especially since Apple only sells on the higher end of the market.
This dude is just trolling y'all. Anybody who claims Apple's products aren't mass market has no fucking idea what they're talking about.
I believe that Intel's fate will be entirely determined by how Intel itself executes over the next 6-24 months rather than the threat that Apple Silicon poses.
Apple Silicon is no threat to Intel at all. None. Again:
4. Intel's high end chips - the i7, i9 and Xeon - already outperform the A14. Why people believe otherwise amazes me. Especially since Apple essentially acknowledges this by not even trying to build an ARM equivalent to the Mac Pro or anything else that used the i9 or Xeon.
This is complete nonsense. As someone already pointed out the A14 is not out yet and there is no version of A13 for the iPad yet either. The OLDER A12z (iPad Pro with thermal and power constraints) already performs on par with the 10th Gen i7 (13" MBP) and i9 in single core and the i7 in multicore.
You're really underestimating Apple. That A12z was running non-native apps on the dev boxes with ease and can run them faster than my brand new 13" 10th Gen i7 MBP with native software. That Tomb Raider demo was telling since my 13" MBP could never pull that frame rate in 1080p. The iPad Pro can pull almost 120fps in Fortnight at almost the exact same resolution as the 16 MBP.
It's pretty much a given at this point that the A14z or whatever its called will blaze right past the i7 and i9. The iGPU will easily do the same into dGPU territory. As for the Xeon it's just a matter of time before Apple replaces it.
10th GEN MBP Scores for the i5 but the i7 isn't all that much faster, maybe 10%.
I believe that Intel's fate will be entirely determined by how Intel itself executes over the next 6-24 months rather than the threat that Apple Silicon poses.
Apple Silicon is no threat to Intel at all. None. Again:
2. Apple devices cost twice as much as (roughly) equivalent Windows devices. That won't change. In fact, Apple Silicon may even make low end Macs more expensive because the Ax costs more than the i3 (by a lot) and the i5.
This is simply false. Apple's computers do not cost twice as much as PCs with the same specs nor will the Ax chips cost as much as you think, $50-$60 are the current estimates and that price won't change much for higher-end chips since unlike INTEL there will not be huge margins attached. Apple will have efficiencies in production that INTEL could only dream of because they will only need to design maybe an extra 2-3 chips a year and they'll be able to tier them was they do with the iOS devices to insure they speak out the maximum value.
Agree with this. Don't think Intel is going anywhere soon, but if you have stock I think now is a good time to sell. Intel is vulnerable right now.
There's a lot of laziness and content out there right now. Apple Silicon is going to wake a few business units up at MS and Intel, at least it better for their sake.
This isn't true at all. It doesn't solve the main reason why PC users don't buy Macs.
I think you missed the point here. This really has nothing to do with Apple gaining sales or users, it has more to do with Apple awakening OEMs from their x86-64 induced comas. The writer opines that Apple Silicon will demonstrate just how powerful and efficient ARM-based computers can be while running a real traditional operating system.
This, if anything, will cause a lot of OEMs to take note and wonder why Microsoft hasn't been able to do the same with Windows as Apple has done with macOS... and should light a fire under Microsoft's ass to get ARM-based Windows up to par. Apple's DTK, which runs the iPad Pro SoC (A12Z), is completely capable of translating and executing applications compiled for Intel-based Macs with a slight performance hit. That's a "mobile" ARM-based SoC running native x68-64 code!!! With very usable real world performance. "Why hasn't Microsoft been able to do the same with WindARM? Why is it such a clunky incompatible mess?", they'll ask.
Also, Apple Silicon will essentially allow them to make Mac form factors and have specs that other OEMs will not be able to reproduce with WIntel-based systems.
4. Intel's high end chips - the i7, i9 and Xeon - already outperform the A14. Why people believe otherwise amazes me. Especially since Apple essentially acknowledges this by not even trying to build an ARM equivalent to the Mac Pro or anything else that used the i9 or Xeon.
What you smoking bro? The A14 doesn't exist yet. And when it does it will probably be a phone and tablet chip, very thermally limited and low power draw, and not at all intended to compete with the i7, i9 and Xeon. The Intel Atom chip line wasn't as fast as the G5 either, doesn't mean that x86 was worse than PowerPC.
Apple only just announced the transition, they haven't acknowledged anything by "not even trying" to build any of their Mac products with an Apple Silicon chip yet, because they haven't built any of their Mac products with an Applicon chip yet. You don't know what they're building, or trying to build, and you'll only know when they announce it. That'll come with time, and will bring Applicon that's probably significantly more powerful that what we've seen before because laptops and desktops have a lot more cooling options than iPhone and iPads. Apple will not be sticking the same chips that are in iPads into their Pro-grade Macs.
They are going to deliver the first batch of MacBooks by the end of this year/early next year meaning that the A14 chip will be used.
Yup, this from the guy who said that Apple would never release their own chip because no one would rewrite their apps from x86 to ARM.
Apple has already said that the hardware released to developers after the WWDC is not the hardware that will run the new Macs. No one has seen the chips that will power the new Macs, so you have no idea what they’ll be capable of. You really should watch the keynotes instead of posting what you hope is true.
Just saying I really enjoyed the back and forth between linuxplatform And blastdoor. Both have made Really good points. Except maybe the brain fart about the as yet mythical A14 and whatever desktop variants emerge in a few months’ time.
Anyway, I think jLGs pint was about what MS might do. They might try too revitalise the surface line with arm variants. If they can get Qualcomm to deliver, all well and good. But why not go down the Apple path too? Buy a chip design company and build their own kit? Lots of risks particularly as to how it may be received by their OEMs, but lots of opportunity too. MS isn’t run by Ballmer anymore.
heck MS could even just buy Arm. Apparently SoftBank is considering selling it, or at least part of it.
Agree with this. Don't think Intel is going anywhere soon, but if you have stock I think now is a good time to sell. Intel is vulnerable right now.
There's a lot of laziness and content out there right now. Apple Silicon is going to wake a few business units up at MS and Intel, at least it better for their sake.
This isn't true at all. It doesn't solve the main reason why PC users don't buy Macs.
I think you missed the point here. This really has nothing to do with Apple gaining sales or users, it has more to do with Apple awakening OEMs from their x84-64 induced comas. The writer opines that Apple Silicon will demonstrate just how powerful and efficient ARM-based computers can be while running a real traditional operating system.
This, if anything, will cause a lot of OEMs to take note and wonder why Microsoft hasn't been able to do the same with Windows as Apple has done with macOS... and should light a fire under Microsoft's ass to get ARM-based Windows up to par. Apple's DTK, which runs the iPad Pro SoC (A12Z), is completely capable of translating and executing applications compiled for Intel-based Macs with a slight performance hit. That's a "mobile" ARM-based SoC running native x68-64 code!!! With very usable real world performance. "Why hasn't Microsoft been able to do the same with WindARM? Why is it such a clunky incompatible mess?", they'll ask.
Also, Apple Silicon will essentially allow them to make Mac form factors and have specs that other OEMs will not be able to reproduce with WIntel-based systems.
This is precisely what Gassee was driving at. Cupertino’s move to ASi (that’s what we’re calling it apparently) will force Microsoft to redouble its efforts to get its ARM house in order. This will lead to other developers portIng their apps to Windows ARM (for @LinuxPlatform’s benefit: no, this does not mean rewriting millions of lines of machine code), and in order to stop itself sliding into irrelevance Intel will be forced to pick up an ARM license and join the likes of Qualcomm.
I don’t think he’s right though. The industry knows that in order to compete with Apple they’d need a system integrated from the ground up: architecture, operating systems and development frameworks optimised to work together.
Interesting discussions and yes, I believe PC market will continue to be Windows market, with Intel or a minimum part of ARM Win.
Apple doubling market share on PCs? I do not believe it can happen, even if they go to 2005-2008 price levels against competitors their total earnings will probably be less than current and usually Apple is not your “price war company”. They compete on quality and there is no way (as far as I can see it now) that they can sell a “better windows experience than windows itself”.
Comments
Intel is preparing to strike back. Right now Intel is stuck on an old process (14nm) and an old core design (Skylake) across many product lines. But they are slowly clawing their way back. Tiger Lake in laptops and Rocket Lake on the desktop could be a turning point in Intel's competition with AMD. Both products use the long-delayed Willow Cove core, which should make Intel much more competitive with AMD. I don't expect AMD to be wiped out the way they were when Intel came out with Core, but AMD is going to find some very still competition. It's not going to be a cakewalk. It is going to be great for consumers, though -- we might see some real, prolonged competition between Intel and AMD.
But I doubt either will be competitive with Apple Silicon. Apple would have known that their first Apple Silicon MacBooks would be competing against Tiger Lake, and so I'll bet Apple know that they can beat Tiger Lake. And really, they should be able to --- Apple Silicon will be on TSMC 5nm (analogous to Intel's non-existent 7nm process) while Tiger Lake will be on Intel's 10nm process (analogous to TSMC 7nm). And we already know from analysis by Anandtech that Apple's core design is far wider than Intel's, with higher IPC.
Absolutely, Yes. Your comments are fairly balanced, from an Apple fan's optimistic point of view, well reasoned as well. And your excitement for Apple's Mac lineup future is very well justified and well articulated. @Linuxplatform is posting comments from a contrarian point of view - windows users who may not even bother about Apple's silicon move. Nice to see you not taking offense to his comments from opposite POV. That will surely happen once the aggressive members of "defend Apple at ANY cost" group start posting comments in this thread.
Way too optimistic from the Intel perspective, I think.
Apple Silicon is far more than zero threat to Intel. I'd say Apple Silicon could, over the course of the next 5 years, boost Mac market share from 7% worldwide to about 12% worldwide (with 20% being the absolute maximum attainable). That's hardly a mortal blow to Intel, but it will sting.
Apple Silicon could also conceivably push Intel out of Apple data centers, if Apple were so inclined. Again, not a mortal blow, but it would sting.
Comparing a Xeon to an A14 (which is a phone SOC that has yet to be released) is goofy. Try comparing an i7 to an A14X instead. To replace the 28 core Xeon in the Mac Pro, all Apple needs to do is move to a chiplet (or similar) design. Then it's just a matter of adding chiplets to achieve something competitive with Xeon. This is totally feasible for Apple. Weird to imagine it's not.
Finally, I think it's fundamentally misguided, and profoundly ignorant of history, to say that TSMC's process lead over Intel doesn't matter, or that 3nm is the end fo the road for process improvements. When companies like IBM and DEC lost the ability to compete with Intel in process tech it was a profound setback from which they never recovered. Intel disrupted from below, using the economies of scale from the PC industry to fund process advancements that eventually allowed Intel to take over the high end.
The economies of scale advantage that the smartphone market has over the PC market is also immense, and that has funded TSMC in overtaking Intel. Intel will never regain this lead, and that absolutely matters. You're really kidding yourself if you think 3nm is the end of the road. Maybe it's the end of Intel's road (if Intel even makes it that far), but tit won't be the end of the road for Apple and TSMC.
We see from the smartphone world that Android doesn't need to be competitive with the iPhone in terms of SOC performance. Similarly, I think the Mac could enjoy persistent, large performance (or performance/watt) advantages over Wintel, and it wouldn't mean the end of Wintel domination. It might mean that Mac marketshare rises from 7% to 10, 15, or maybe even 20% (huge gains for Apple!) but Windows would remain dominant in terms of unit volume (maybe not in terms of profit, though).
I expect Apple to dominate the high-end, but not the whole market.
The real threat to Intel, frankly, is Amazon. If Amazon senior management sees what Apple is doing, they might put even more support behind Graviton. If Amazon were to displace x86 from AWS in large volumes, that would be very painful for Intel.
Most people who use computers are not computer literate - anyone who has ever worked in a support capacity (especially for family and friends) understands just how true this is. Most people think a computer is a computer and they don't know the difference between Mac and Windows. Most of those people who buy computers do so on the advice of someone else - that is usually someone who is more than likely a Windows user and as such recommend a Windows based computer. I am a Mac user and have been since I gave up my Apple IIc back in '87. I usually recommend that people buy whatever they are familiar with - 90% of the time, that is a Windows computer. For those that may want to switch, I usually give them an older Mac to play with so they can see if they like it or not. I've even installed Lubuntu and let people decide if they can get by a little longer on their older PCs.
Having said that, though, I do really like Apple's products and the company. I root for them. But I can also be very critical when I think it's warranted.
Umm, no. The A14 will most certainly not be used in any new Mac. Neither will any other A-series SoC - those are made specifically for mobile devices that need to be highly efficient. As they mentioned at WWDC2020, they have designed a new family of SoCs specifically for the Mac. Not a single SoC as they do every year for the iPhone and iPad, but a handful SoCs that can meet the performance levels expected across all their Macs; from the MacBook Air all the way up to the Mac Pro. Also mentioned was this is going to be a 2 year transition, and more the likely the last Macs to make the switch will be the Pro models; iMac Pro and then finally the Mac Pro. The SoC's in those systems will be expected to be as performant as the Intel Xeon CPUs they will replace.
And by the way, none of these Apple Silicon CPU designs have to be faster than Intel. they just need to be as good, or almost as good. Real world performance will come from macOS finally being able to make use all the other coprocessors that will come with those new SoCs.
Apple *could* destroy lots of competitors in lots of new markets. But there has to be a reason to enter them. they've explained many, many times that they don't wish to spread too thin -- "A 1000 No's for every Yes", etc. This is not new.
LOL. Of course Intel's high-end chips out-perform Apple's existing iPad chips. But if you don't think they're cooking up new chips, and you haven't been watching the trend line of Apple's performance per watt gain, what can I say, you're analyzing it wrong. I'm not worried about Apple being able to compete with Intel on desktop offerings. At all.
Whether this will have a detrimental effect on Intel remains to be seen. Remember, Intel had a shot at powering the iPhone during early development. That is a serious lost opportunity, which has a cost.
250+ million iPad user base is not mass market?
Almost 1 billion iPhone user base is not mass market?
I agree that Apple may never have the lion's share of any market (iPod had over 70%), but you really need to reconsider the worth of quarterly marketshare statistics, when there's a much, much larger installed base of users supporting the platform. Even more so, when the user base continues to grow regardless of marketshare. I mean seriously Apple has over a billion people using their devices and while it's not as large as some other platforms, it's also not insignificant either, especially since Apple only sells on the higher end of the market.
You're really underestimating Apple. That A12z was running non-native apps on the dev boxes with ease and can run them faster than my brand new 13" 10th Gen i7 MBP with native software. That Tomb Raider demo was telling since my 13" MBP could never pull that frame rate in 1080p. The iPad Pro can pull almost 120fps in Fortnight at almost the exact same resolution as the 16 MBP.
It's pretty much a given at this point that the A14z or whatever its called will blaze right past the i7 and i9. The iGPU will easily do the same into dGPU territory. As for the Xeon it's just a matter of time before Apple replaces it.
10th GEN MBP Scores for the i5 but the i7 isn't all that much faster, maybe 10%.
This, if anything, will cause a lot of OEMs to take note and wonder why Microsoft hasn't been able to do the same with Windows as Apple has done with macOS... and should light a fire under Microsoft's ass to get ARM-based Windows up to par. Apple's DTK, which runs the iPad Pro SoC (A12Z), is completely capable of translating and executing applications compiled for Intel-based Macs with a slight performance hit. That's a "mobile" ARM-based SoC running native x68-64 code!!! With very usable real world performance. "Why hasn't Microsoft been able to do the same with WindARM? Why is it such a clunky incompatible mess?", they'll ask.
Also, Apple Silicon will essentially allow them to make Mac form factors and have specs that other OEMs will not be able to reproduce with WIntel-based systems.
heck MS could even just buy Arm. Apparently SoftBank is considering selling it, or at least part of it.
Apple doubling market share on PCs? I do not believe it can happen, even if they go to 2005-2008 price levels against competitors their total earnings will probably be less than current and usually Apple is not your “price war company”. They compete on quality and there is no way (as far as I can see it now) that they can sell a “better windows experience than windows itself”.