Apple A12 & A12X *** Now A12Z as well *** Now in a Mac mini

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
22,698
301
126
I would love to see the innards of the A12Z Mac mini, but Apple strictly forbids disassembling these units.
 

Doug S

Member
Feb 8, 2020
143
172
76
I would love to see the innards of the A12Z Mac mini, but Apple strictly forbids disassembling these units.
It is probably not all that different than the teardown of the latest iPad just with some more RAM and flash. Apple has no reason to spend any effort on producing a good "product" for something that will be used for porting and the devs won't even be able to keep.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
22,698
301
126
Interestingly, Apple now supports VP9 video decoding in iOS/iPadOS 14, finally allowing for 4K YouTube.

Presumably this is hardware support, and presumably that hardware support has been there in the hardware for 5 years.
 

Doug S

Member
Feb 8, 2020
143
172
76
Interestingly, Apple now supports VP9 video decoding in iOS/iPadOS 14, finally allowing for 4K YouTube.

Presumably this is hardware support, and presumably that hardware support has been there in the hardware for 5 years.
What's the point of supporting 4K YouTube on a device that doesn't have a 4K display?
 

gdansk

Senior member
Feb 8, 2011
475
131
116
Interestingly, Apple now supports VP9 video decoding in iOS/iPadOS 14, finally allowing for 4K YouTube.

Presumably this is hardware support, and presumably that hardware support has been there in the hardware for 5 years.
They also added WebP support in Safari. I guess they gave up that fight.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
22,698
301
126
Aircast it to your 4k TV
AppleTV 4K (A10X) also supports 4K YouTube now (or at least when tvOS 14 is released). It didn't before.

Anyhow, the point is I assume the support is hardware decode, and who knows how long it's been buried there in the SoC. A10 is from 2016, and A10X is from 2017. I'm not sure about the earlier chips.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
22,698
301
126
Now that I think of it, it's not 100% clear that it's actually VP9 support. It could be AV1 I suppose.

Either way though, if true, that means Apple had implemented the hardware support many years ago, and just hadn't bothered to turn it on until they were ready.

The other option is that YouTube is serving up h.265, but I doubt it. The reason I was favouring VP9 is because AV1 wasn't actually out until 2018.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
6,825
1,387
136

Man, I don't think people are going to complain about pitfalls regarding binary translation when that becomes true. If you can run same thing you do on your Mac desktop as you do on a phone. Sure, its perceived in a less excited manner than if Windows could do that but still.

-Say you are moving to your own ARM chip
-Then announce iPad/iPhones that can run Mac OS
-Few years when the developers move to ARM64 binaries then people will run Mac productivity applications on iPads! Consider that lots of graphics machines are on Mac. Then it'll compete against PCs without needing x86.

If this doesn't light a fire under Intel/AMD then they're in real trouble. AMD's doing ok now but Intel needs to get their act together fast. No more Netburst or Bulldozer shenanigans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Doug S

Member
Feb 8, 2020
143
172
76
If this doesn't light a fire under Intel/AMD then they're in real trouble. AMD's doing ok now but Intel needs to get their act together fast. No more Netburst or Bulldozer shenanigans.
If Apple was successful with this what could Intel/AMD do? They couldn't do anything. They'd need to first make an x86 phone SoC for Android (since Windows Phone is toast) then convince Android OEMs to adopt it, then convince Android customers to buy it, then convince Microsoft to produce a Windows "app" for Android that let people run Windows software on it when connected to a big display, keyboard and mouse.

That ship sailed, Intel is out of the phone SoC business, the Android market is all-in on ARM, and Microsoft has no incentive to produce this app for Android - because trading one Windows license for another means they don't make any more money but have a huge new support headache with all the random hardware configs of the Android world.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,493
840
126
What can they do? They can continue to execute so in the PC market it'll not create room for WoA efforts to succeed.
Exactly. The advantage with Apple (vertical integration) will now also become a huge issue of vendor-lock in. Your mac device is now vendor-locked. All you can do is run a Linux ARM VM. boot-camp is probably dead as well as Hackintosh.

On top of that I never really got the idea of having only 1 device being all that cool. Especially now with cloud services isn't unneeded. You can read your mails and calendar on the phone and read documents stored on the cloud (not like I want to edit power point on my phone). Much more efficent to have 2 or more devices best at doing their specific job over a jack of all trades master of none.

Plus let's not forget the more smartphones and other ARM-based devices are out there, the more servers are needed. Servers which mostly run x86 (for now) and have far higher margins. Since the mobile ship has sailed, AMD rightly so bet their cards on server.
And often the real complexity of software is server-side. X86 software which you simply don't want to waste millions or billions to migrate for maybe some minor power usage gains at best. And it's not only the cost but capcity of IT departments. If porting software was easy and cheap, no one would be using and paying for Oracle at this point.
 

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
6,829
126
106
www.teamjuchems.com
Finally - an explanation for why Oracle makes money.
This is true of basically all ERP systems or other big data systems. I left one a few years back and they were still installing "new" Itanium systems to support software maintenance contracts well into this decade. Lot's of Power based clusters as well with full AIX development ongoing as well.

Enterprise software is probably also going to one of the slowest ships to "change course" to anything new, so this a is a hugely profitable, very long term market.

@beginner99 has it really right - eyes on the prize (margins) and with the rise of cloud computing crazy scale as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Gideon

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
22,698
301
126
Despite the dev kit agreement stating benchmarketing is not allowed, Rosetta 2 benchmarks are now up.

VirtualApple A12Z 2.4 GHz

~840 single core
~2950 multi-core

Note that this only utilizes four cores. Also, the clock speed is slightly lower.

iPad Pro A12Z 2.49 GHz

~1125 single core
~4700 multi-core

However, this is utilizing all 8 cores.

If we just compare single core speed, and ignore the 3.75% clock speed discrepancy, then the Rosetta 2 speed is about 75% of native. I would assume this represents translation at install.

BTW, coincidentally, the single core speed here is basically identical to the single core speed of my A10X iPad Pro from 2017, and multi-core of the dev kit under Rosetta is much faster than my iPad Pro. My iPad Pro is my daily mobile driver, and I have no qualms about its speed for general usage. The times when I've noticed it slow down is when doing video editing.
 
Last edited:

gdansk

Senior member
Feb 8, 2011
475
131
116
Despite the dev kit agreement stating benchmarketing is not allowed, Rosetta 2 benchmarks are now up.

VirtualApple A12Z 2.4 GHz

~840 single core
~2950 multi-core

Note that this only utilizes four cores. Also, the clock speed is slightly lower.

iPad Pro A12Z 2.49 GHz

~1125 single core
~4700 multi-core

However, this is utilizing all 8 cores.

If we just compare single core speed, and ignore the 3.75% clock speed discrepancy, then the Rosetta 2 speed is about 75% of native. I would assume this represents translation at install.

BTW, coincidentally, the single core speed here is basically identical to the single core speed of my A10X iPad Pro from 2017, and multi-core of the dev kit under Rosetta is much faster than my iPad Pro. My iPad Pro is my daily mobile driver, and I have no qualms about its speed for general usage. The times when I've noticed it slow down is when doing video editing.
If you look at the JSON for the two tests, the clock speed is actually basically the same:
1593451099272.png1593451120214.png
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY