Apple is an existential threat to the PC

[MfA]

Not to mention the FPGA Afterburner card to playback multiple 8K streams simultaneously while color grading and adding effects.

Even the standard Pro 580X in the new Mac Pro has 2500 FLOPs per pixel at 8K 60 Hz ... I can see a FPGA being useful for constant bitrate visually lossless 8k codecs, but for a bunch of piecewise polynomial mappings and local sharpening filters, the GPU can handle it.

 

[Alexko]

Yup. The only weird thing was why Apple thought devs at WWDC would be keen to know about this bonkers hardware than none of them could afford.

The display is $5000 and the stand is $1000, right?

Had Apple offered the display for $6000 and the stand for $100, no one would have batted an eyelid, and the total would have been $100 higher. It just seems like bad marketing, which is unusual from Apple.

 

[Pressure]

Yup. The only weird thing was why Apple thought devs at WWDC would be keen to know about this bonkers hardware than none of them could afford.

Par for course. Since the switch to Intel all Mac Pro's have been revealed at WWDC. I would be happier if it started at $3,995.00 but at least we finally got a valid update. The prosumers sure got squeezed out.

I'll probably still ditch the real Mac hardware for a custom AMD setup (16-core matisse) and just use hypervisor to emulate MacOS (at the expense of a passthrough graphic card and 1 processor core).

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The display is $5000 and the stand is $1000, right?

Had Apple offered the display for $6000 and the stand for $100, no one would have batted an eyelid, and the total would have been $100 higher. It just seems like bad marketing, which is unusual from Apple.

You can bet Apple have priced it as they have for profitability. They likely anticipate higher number of stands and VESA adaptors than actual monitors and they can't price lower than it costs because that is price dumping.

Par for course. Since the switch to Intel all Mac Pro's have been revealed at WWDC. I would be happier if it started at $3,995.00 but at least we finally got a valid update. The prosumers sure got squeezed out.

Prior to this new model, there was never such a large relative cost difference between the baseline consumer Macs and the 'Pro' Macs. Admittedly there is the middle ground iMac Pro.

 

[Pressure]

Prior to this new model, there was never such a large relative cost difference between the baseline consumer Macs and the 'Pro' Macs. Admittedly there is the middle ground iMac Pro.

The $4,999.00 middle ground heh.

 

[iMacmatician]

Bloomberg expects Apple to release ARM Macs from next year, and has a detailed rumor about the chips and software.

The Cupertino, California-based technology giant is working on three of its own Mac processors, known as systems-on-a-chip, based on the A14 processor in the next iPhone.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Apple’s partner for iPhone and iPad processors, will build the new Mac chips […] The components will be based on a 5-nanometer production technique

The first Mac processors will have eight high-performance cores, codenamed Firestorm, and at least four energy-efficient cores, known internally as Icestorm. Apple is exploring Mac processors with more than 12 cores for further in the future, the people said.

In some Macs, Apple’s designs will double or quadruple the number of cores that Intel provides. The current entry-level MacBook Air has two cores, for example.

The transition to in-house Apple processor designs would likely begin with a new laptop because the company’s first custom Mac chips won’t be able to rival the performance Intel provides for high-end MacBook Pros, iMacs and the Mac Pro desktop computer.

Apple’s Mac processors will include several components, including the main processor, known as a Central Processing Unit or CPU, and the GPU, the graphics chip.

Apple has already started designing a second generation of Mac processors that follows the architecture of chips planned for the 2021 iPhone. That indicates Apple wants to put its Macs, iPhones and iPads on the same processor development cycle.

The last quote is surprising to me. I assumed that ARM Mac-only processors would be on no shorter than a 2 year cycle (especially after the A12Z iPad refresh). But apparently at least some Macs could have SoC architecture updates more often.

I'm guessing that the 12-core Mac SoC could be used in the 2021 versions of these products:

• MacBook Air
• 14" MacBook Pro (doesn't exist yet—currently rumored for later this year)
• 13" MacBook Pro (if it hasn't been replaced by the 14")
• Low end 23" iMac (doesn't exist yet—a 23" iMac is currently rumored for H2 2020)
• Low end 21.5" iMac (if it hasn't been replaced by the 23")
• Mac mini

 

[MfA]

If they are going for more efficient but smaller cores, software will have to catch up too.

 

[AlNom]

I figured the iPad Pros were part of the strategy for leading any software support endeavours. Things are falling into place, finally, as it was only a matter of time.

Wonder if they'll be thinking of dedicated GPUs.

 

[Pressure]

There is also rumours of Xcode working on iOS.

 

[zed]

Bloomberg expects Apple to release ARM Macs from next year

brilliant, its been obvious for years this is their ultimate goal. And I applaud them
Not that I really want to jump back to the mac ecosystem & all their bad design choices, but this should hasten its eventual adoption at microsoft, A silent ARM device running windows is my dream PC

 

[Silent_Buddha]

but this should hasten its eventual adoption at microsoft, A silent ARM device running windows is my dream PC

MS already has a Windows device running on ARM that's capable of running x86 code through translation/emulation (unlike the Surface RT from a few years back) as well as native ARM code. Surface Pro X (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-pro-x/8vdnrp2m6hhc?activetab=overview ). It can run all 32-bit x86 Windows applications, but not all 64-bit Windows applications will run. I haven't kept up on this so things may have improved since last I looked.

Windows on ARM has been a long going initiative for them. The biggest hurdles have been getting x86 code to run in it at acceptable speeds.

It'll be interesting to see how Apple handles compatibility with existing Mac applications or if they'll just require native ARM version for the ARM based Macs and not support x86 based Mac applications on the ARM based Macs.

Regards,
SB

 

[Pressure]

MS already has a Windows device running on ARM that's capable of running x86 code through translation/emulation (unlike the Surface RT from a few years back) as well as native ARM code. Surface Pro X (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-pro-x/8vdnrp2m6hhc?activetab=overview ). It can run all 32-bit x86 Windows applications, but not all 64-bit Windows applications will run. I haven't kept up on this so things may have improved since last I looked.

Windows on ARM has been a long going initiative for them. The biggest hurdles have been getting x86 code to run in it at acceptable speeds.

It'll be interesting to see how Apple handles compatibility with existing Mac applications or if they'll just require native ARM version for the ARM based Macs and not support x86 based Mac applications on the ARM based Macs.

Regards,
SB

All iOS apps should work. There is a reason Adobe have been busy working on iOS versions of Photoshop etc.

 

[Laurent06]

I have been hearing this rumor from many sources and in many forms for almost 10 years, so I'll wait until Apple announces devices.

For instance in 2011: https://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/27/apple-testing-an-arm-a5-powered-macbook-air/

 

[Silent_Buddha]

All iOS apps should work. There is a reason Adobe have been busy working on iOS versions of Photoshop etc.

I know that, I was talking about Mac apps. The iOS versions are still very limited compared to the Mac versions of those apps and usually requires using the iOS app in conjunction with either the Mac or Windows version of that application in order to get full use out of them. For most professional users, the iOS version isn't a replacement for the Mac version.

That's likely another reason that Apple will focus on the more casual Mac devices. Not only will the ARM SOC be less powerful, the apps (iOS versions) will be less capable than what many professionals would need.

Regards,
SB

 

[MfA]

I think they aren't going to launch it if it's not more performant and responsive for their own professional software (ie. Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro).

Apple drags third party developers forward kicking and screaming (but inaudible outside of the distortion field). ARM compatible versions of all software being actively updated won't take long.

 

[Pressure]

I know that, I was talking about Mac apps. The iOS versions are still very limited compared to the Mac versions of those apps and usually requires using the iOS app in conjunction with either the Mac or Windows version of that application in order to get full use out of them. For most professional users, the iOS version isn't a replacement for the Mac version.

That's likely another reason that Apple will focus on the more casual Mac devices. Not only will the ARM SOC be less powerful, the apps (iOS versions) will be less capable than what many professionals would need.

Regards,
SB

People somehow forget we have been able to use Photoshop and Illustrator on machines for decades now. I'm sure any SoC based on ARM from Apple will be faster than most systems out there right now if (re-)build from the ground up. I still remember the time we could turn a computer on, brew coffee and then return to the computer finally booted and ready to use.

I still have my Macintosh SE (model number M5011) with 20MB SCSI harddrive. It was running on the good ol' 8 MHz 68000.

 

[BRiT]

People somehow forget we have been able to use Photoshop and Illustrator on machines for decades now. I'm sure any SoC based on ARM from Apple will be faster than most systems out there right now if (re-)build from the ground up. I still remember the time we could turn a computer on, brew coffee and then return to the computer finally booted and ready to use.

Even in the 90's things were nearly as bad, but with more the complicated things. You'd start to sync SCS/RCS then start a 10-15 minute watercooler discussion with coworkers before being able to kick off a compile that took nearly 30 minutes. Heaven forbid you had breaking changes locally. You'd run a compile for ~10 minutes before you get to the first error, spend some time trying to sort out what's what, make some changes, then run a compile again. Just to hit the next error slightly later. Now it's time for lunch and you haven't even gotten into real development.

 

[zed]

I'm sure any SoC based on ARM from Apple will be faster than most systems out there right now i

yes if you look at geekbench 5.0 (which allows an apples to apples comparison between different architectures)
A single core of Apple A13 Bionic @ 2.7 GHz is FASTER than any single core of any ryzen CPU, and nearly faster than any intel single core CPU
where the apple arm chips fall down is they dont have as many cores

stick more cores, a fan and intel & amd will be seriously shitting themselves. I can see apple wanting to get the bragging rights in the future, like they did in the past, oh you want the fastest PC? Well your only choice is apple

 

[AlNom]

Gotta wonder how far they can push things without the mobile power restrictions.

 

[Laurent06]

yes if you look at geekbench 5.0 (which allows an apples to apples comparison between different architectures)
A single core of Apple A13 Bionic @ 2.7 GHz is FASTER than any single core of any ryzen CPU, and nearly faster than any intel single core CPU
where the apple arm chips fall down is they dont have as many cores

I think even more impressive is how well Apple Axx is doing on SPEC CPU 2016.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1560...xynos-snapdragon-review-megalomania-devices/6

On SPECint a single thread A13 is less than 5% slower than a 9900K Skylake and about 5% faster than a 3950X Zen2.

I have no concern about single thread performance of native applications. As you say we'll have to see how it scales with more cores, and how long it takes to have applications ported, because dynamic translation can only be a short term solution.