wizard69

keithw said:

I'm finding it extraordinary difficult to believe that Apple could replace the existing Xeon-based Mac Pro (or even iMac Pro) with comparable performance & expandability in only two years.  Low end, no problem at all. 

It isn't that hard to believe, Fujitsu is already shipping a much faster ARM based chip.   Expand ability is becoming a bit of a joke though, in the end I don't see a rush of users putting cards into their Mac Pro.   The number of the people actually using those PCI-Express slots is extremely thin right now.

In any event you make a fundamental mistake here, Apple has been working on these chips for years now.   I would imagine that they have already taped out more that a few models already.

Mike Wuerthele said:

melgross said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

JinTech said:

Or you could read it as that this is what the Apple Silicon processor is directly compatible with. It doesn't say they will not support third-party. I could see Apple using their own GPU for primary tasks but third-party for more beefy tasks. Do we really think that Apple could compete with a GPU like the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II for professionals?

FTA: "There is no indication in support documentation that Apple will discontinue support for AMD GPUs for Intel Macs in future versions of macOS, but the statement above may also suggest that there may yet be an avenue for third-party PCI-E GPU support going forward."

You have to admit though, that the chart is provocative. It could have showed an Apple GPU or a theirs party GPU, but it didn’t.

It is, yes.

Maybe!   What I've been noticing is that there are a lot of people that read into Apple's documentation things that Apple has never said.   The common one I've sen across the net is that people are quoting a statement by Apple that there will be i86 Macs for a long time to come.   the problem is the sentence clearly says that Apple intends to support MACOS on i86 for a long time to come.

In this case we have people seemingly taking a statement that says nothing about discreet GPU's as a statement that Apple has no intention to use AMD GPU's in the future.   It doesn't matter what Apple is doing in this case because it is a stretch to imply that AMD is out of the picture.   In fact I just spent some time listening to a WWDC blurb on ray tracing support in Metal, this implies to me that they have plans that will likely require external hardware to achieve max performance.   I say that because I don't see Apple having enough die space to be able to offer up a high performance ray tracing support.   Now Apple could offer an external GPU or even a MCM but even the MCM could be supporting a third party chip.   There are all sorts of options here.

I still think that if apple wants to offer a high performance Mac Pro, a third party GPU (or external compute chip) is a must for the next few years.   I just see them needing a couple of years to offer up an ARM based chip that is similar in performance to Fijitsu's chip.   Even then an accelerator chip can still make sense no matter how fast your CPU is.   So instead of  dropping AMD, I rather see them increasing their partnership with AMD.   In this case that might mean new technology in Mac compute accelerations.   Think a fabric connection to an external CDNA chip.

kkqd1337 said:

It is a good thing the EU are pushing hard on this. Global tax laws are kept in tight control by/for the benefit of the super wealthy. They need modernising. EU will push hard, people will negotiate, reasonable outcome will be achieved. 

This is a horrible attempt to apply EU policies world wide.   There is absolutely nothing good about this drive to extend control over thought and to grab "taxes" form companies that are not even in your country.   Given the tools, government will use them in the most hideous ways possible.

fastasleep said:

sdw2001 said:

The opinion pages have now utterly infected the news room. They are 100% propaganda and fake news at this point.  Anyone who has researched it knows they played an integral part in the “spygate“ scandal.  

Citing a debunked conspiracy theory to back up your claim the NYT is “fake news”? Yeah, no. Wonder where you got that idea. 🤔 

It is pretty clear that the NYT creates stories out of thin air.   Spygate, the Russian connection and many others got far more coverage than the fact deserved.    This is the problem with the NYT's, they often print total crap that they know is crap hoping that it sticks.

palmlag said:

Readership down because they are ultra left mouth piece press

Ultra left is a huge problem but I'd not call them ethical anymore either.    In the end they are not really what would be called a trusted news source.