techconc

The move to ARM and SoCs in particular seems inevitable at this point.  Apple has a huge lead and I doubt Microsoft will ever catch up.  Realistically, all they have to produce is something better than the Qualcomm offerings they are using today.

TeslaDomination said:

Designing chips is easy. Child’s play. Mostly irrelevant.

What matters is the fabrication process and what yield-cost trade-off Microsoft goes with.

I hope that was meant as sarcasm because you have that exactly backwards.  The value of Apple’s chips comes from their custom design far more than the manufacturing process they are on.  With enough money, anyone can contract and negotiate to manufacture on the best process.

blastdoor said:

It's such a huge indictment of multiple Intel management failures over the past 10-20 years that MS has to do this at all. 

For reasons of national security, I think it's necessary to try and save Intel. But I think "we" (meaning, I guess, American citizens and policy makers) need to think long and hard about how to try and reduce the chances of something like this from happening again. Intel was a national treasure and these a-holes absolutely plundered it and put their country at risk. I know there are some financial institutions that have been designated as being too important to the financial system to fail, meaning they both get extra protection but also extra oversight/regulation. Maybe we need a similar national security designation for companies that are vitally important to our long term national security to also receive some extra protection but also oversight. 

It’s really unbelievable that Intel hasn’t pursued the SoC route at least for business laptop customers that prioritize battery life, etc.  They really blew that opportunity.

As for national security, the US needs domestic manufacturing capabilities far more than they need any IP from Intel’s instruction set or even chip designs.

I think people would be less concerned if the scene optimization were to be applied after the image was taken and presented as what the camera itself was capable of.  Also, as others mentioned, there is a difference between enhancing an image with filters and replacing the content of an image.  Again, if the system retained both versions and the enhanced version was done in post processing, I don't think this would be an issue.  As it stands, it really misrepresents what the camera system in the Samsung phones is actually capable of. 

Serqetry said:

What I am getting from the quotes in the article is that Mark Gurman pulled his usual "rumors" out of his ass and that we should be expecting an M2 Ultra Mac Studio, not a Mac Pro.  And I'd be quite happy with that.

Maybe Apple will make an ASi Mac Pro down the road when they figure out a way to make something significantly more powerful than a Mac Studio Ultra, or maybe they won't.

Nobody gets them right all of the time.  Usually, they get bits and pieces of information and where they fail is when they try to tie it all together to form a narrative of an actual product.  That said, you have to admit that he completely nailed the details of the M1 series of chips months before they ever saw the light of day. 

AppleInsider said:

While Borchers did not discuss this directly, integrating certain core technologies right into the Apple Silicon processors also had a downside. It ultimately meant that Apple abandoned the ability to address GPUs that aren't in the Apple Silicon die -- though it's possible that may change in the new Mac Pro.

I don't think Apple sees this as a downside.  Rather this is Apple's direction by design.  Realistically, all that matter is that Apple provides a scalable solution.  The Mac Pro product is for people that need all the processing power that money can buy.  It's not for common users.  I also think Apple is going to have to redefine what we expect from such a machine in terms of expandability, etc.

blastdoor said:

mfryd said:

I think the author of this article is reading too much into Bob Borchers' statement. While Apple may very well be working on an Apple Silicon based Mac Pro.  I don't think Bob Borchers' statement speaks to that issue.

"Taking the entire product line to Apple Silicon" might mean that any Mac model with an Intel processor will be discontinued.  This doesn't seem to be a statement that every Mac model will survive the transition.

Consider that taking the iMac to Apple Silicon involved dropping the 27" model.   

I think it's true that what he said is consistent with multiple interpretations, including yours. 

BUT -- it's also true that at the introduction of the Mac Studio last year they specifically said the Mac Pro would come later. Of course they can change their mind and cancel it, but I think the cumulation of statements suggests an Apple Silicon Mac Pro is more likely than not. 

Rather than the Mac Pro, the thing that I find interesting is his reference to the Mac Studio. I've been wondering if the Mac Studio might be a one-and-done model that would disappear when the Mac Pro arrives (kind of like the iMac Pro was). But his name-checking the Mac Studio makes me think it might survive. 

Exactly.  Except for the Mac Studio part...

According to the rumors, Apple has ditched their plans (at least for this generation) of a double Mx Ultra chip... something like M2 Extreme.  Who knows why... maybe technical limitations, maybe yield issues, etc.  Anyway, according to early rumors that perfectly nailed the M1 series of chips, that was their original plan.  Now, rumors suggest the Mac Pro will top off with an M2 Ultra chip.  If that's true, it leaves the Mac Studio in question.   I have an M1 Max Mac Studio.  It's a great machine and I can definitely see a need for a device like this that sits above the Mac mini.  However, an M2 Ultra Mac Studio and Mac Pro would seem to be awkward.  

My guess is that future Mac Studio machines will just get the Mx Max chips.  The Ultra chips will likely be for the Mac Pro series.  I don't think Apple wants to update the Mac Studio before the Mac Pro comes out.  They don't want to steal the thunder from that release.  I just hope Apple somehow has plans to scale the Mac Pro beyond an M2 Ultra level of performance.  There is no reason a machine like that has to be focused on efficiency over performance. 

cpsro said:

I suggest reading this thoughtful article by Michael Simon posted at Macworld today.
https://www.macworld.com/article/1528303/mac-pro-apple-silicon-transition-release.html

Why... nothing particularly useful in that article. 

dewme said:

cpsro said:

I suggest reading this thoughtful article by Michael Simon posted at Macworld today.
https://www.macworld.com/article/1528303/mac-pro-apple-silicon-transition-release.html

I guess I’m not the only one who didn’t see anything in Bob Borcher’s statements that qualifies as a “Confirmation” that this article boldly proclaims. Thanks for the link. 

I'm not sure what people are really expecting an Apple exec to say about a future product that hasn't been announced yet.  The very fact that Apple is still acknowledging that the Apple Silicon transition isn't yet complete should tell you everything you need to know.  The Mac Pro now the only device that hasn't made the transition.  At the M1 Ultra release Apple stated that was it for the M1 line and that the "Mac Pro" was "for another day".   It's coming.  Rumors say this month.  Realistically, WWDC would be the latest.  Sit back, relax, grab some popcorn...  

lkrupp said:

Well, it had better be as good as or better than Qualcomm’s or the peanut gallery will be up in arms and throwing popcorn and beer cans all over the place.

I'm sure Apple knows the target they have to hit and they have the luxury of not coming to market until they have it right.  Also, I expect we'll see it integrated in to the SoC eventually for additional performance and efficiency.