• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion Quo vadis Apple Macs - Intel, AMD and/or ARM CPUs? ARM it is!

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,771
3,669
136
Due to popular demand I thought somebody should start a proper thread on this pervasive topic. So why not do it myself? ;)

For nearly a decade now Apple has treated their line of Mac laptops, AIOs and Pro workstations more of a stepchild. Their iOS line of products have surpassed it in market size and profit. Their dedicated Mac hardware group was dissolved. Hardware and software updates has been lackluster.

But for Intel Apple clearly is still a major customer, still offering custom chips not to be had outside of Apple products. Clearly Intel is eager to at all costs keep Apple as a major showcase customer.

On the high end of performance Apple's few efforts to create technological impressive products using Intel parts increasingly fall flat. The 3rd gen of MacPros going up to 28 cores could have wowed the audience in earlier years, but when launched in 2019 it already faced 32 core Threadripper/Epyc parts, with 64 core updates of them already on the horizon. A similar fate appears to be coming for the laptops as well, with Ryzen Mobile 4000 besting comparable Intel solutions across the board, with run of the mill OEMs bound to surpass Apple products in battery life. A switch to AMD shouldn't even be a big step considering Apple already has a close work relationship with them, sourcing custom GPUs from them like they do with CPUs from Intel.

On the low end Apple is pushing iPadOS into becoming a workable mutitasking system, with decent keyboard and, most recently, mouse support. Considering the much bigger audience familiar with the iOS mobile interface and App Store, it may make sense to eventually offer a laptop form factor using the already tweaked iPadOS.

By the look of all things Apple Mac products are due to continue stagnating. But just like for Intel, the status quo for Mac products feels increasingly untenable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vattila

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
9,482
3,950
136
They’re going to do both. They will convert their own apps such as Safari to ARM first. They will make partners like Adobe do the same. The rest will follow if they wish to stay relevant in MacOS.

Macs will also gain access to every IPad app.

Apple is going ARM to unify their apps. It’s going to happen.
They can’t make their partners do anything. Apple would need to make a sales pitch to Adobe and others. The two things that will matter most are sales and profits. The very same things Apple will consider when deciding to make a switch. The switch won’t be made on technical merit. Technical merit merely means that an ARM option is feasible. Bottom line is that this is a complex change for Apple and it supplies and vendors. If they hadn’t made such a change before, I would say the chance is zero (Cook is no Steve Jobs) - but they have been down this road before, so there is a chance. Apple knows the cost of such a transition - and, hence, already has a good sense of w or not it is worth it to them and ISVs as well.

I doubt Apple will bring in an outside ARM chip vendor - if they go this way, they will take their time and build a strong offering in house. It would be difficult to build a chip design that could scale from MacBook Pro and iMacs up to Mac Pros (chiplets maybe?).
 

NeoLuxembourg

Senior member
Oct 10, 2013
763
228
116
IMO,

I don't think that Apple will switch (as in replace everything) to ARM like they did with PowerPC.

There was no real alternative at the time, that's why they had to move to x86, but now with the "new" AMD and a "motivated" Intel, it would be a really bad idea to jump the ship.

Apple will certainly continue to evolve their ARM cores for iPhone/iPad and even try to add them into other products like a Macbook Air.

But an ARM iMac or Mini? I don't think so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Ajay

moinmoin

Platinum Member
Jun 1, 2017
2,771
3,669
136
Apple may be very profitable, just their Airpods business is bigger than many Semi design houses out there.
However, only thing that I hear when people talk about Apple is iPhone or Mac, frankly, that is quite boring for such a massive company.
Apple could have been different under Steve, whom when I think of, I always recollect his Xerox story which is exactly what Apple is these days.

Just from the top of my head...

Behind the industry in AI, ML, HPC initiatives. Difficult to catch up with the likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook, MS etc who in lots of cases are working together, see ONNX
No widely adopted content delivery services, Ad delivery, social networking platform like Twitch, YouTube, Mixer, Twitter etc. FB and MS big winners here.
Behind the industry in digital transformation solutions.
Sitting out of the resurgence in cloud computing. Big gains for Alibaba, Tencent, Azure, AWS. Looking at those guys they made colossal revenues lately.
Sitting out of the Gaming/Cloud gaming industry (This industry is bigger than the movie industry)
Sitting out of the recent growth in Automotive Technology, Google made it big here.
Sitting out of Edge Computing.


Can someone help me list some things outside of iPhone/Mac which Apple have a major impact on the industry?
Services already is Apple's second biggest category for net sales after iPhone, with strong growth projected. I think you're mistaken Apple's focus on consumer products with not having a hand in those areas, they don't sell servers anymore so of course they are neither involved in any development that builds on that. Consumer oriented AI and ML is part of their iPhone development (I don't care for this stuff at all, but Apple was instrumental in popularizing the use of fingerprint sensors, voice as well as face recognition in consumer products). Their iCloud service is one of the bigger customers of AWS and Azure, and Apple's effort to build its own datacenters doesn't appear to bear many fruits so far. Apple Arcade is together with Xbox Game Pass one of only two big Netflix like subscription based game services. Regarding Automotive Technology, how did Google in any way made it big there? Apple had its own car research efforts going nowhere for years so it appears it was recently shuttered. Edge Computing imo is just a fancy name for the regular wave back and forth between centralization (Cloud Computing) and localization (Client Computing).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glo.

NostaSeronx

Diamond Member
Sep 18, 2011
3,280
824
136
From my perspective, I do not like them, since you compare a phone CPU to a desktop. They have different purposes and are engineered for that, but you can't see it.
Intel will never use mobile-derivatives of Banias/Dothan/Yonah to replace an actual desktop-derived CPU like Tejas/Jayhawk. Completely yugely unfeasible!!!

GHz desktop will always be faster than IPC mobile. Always, always, always!!! Making such a comparison is completely absurd, what drugs are these people on?! Don't they realize NETBURST1999 @ 4 GHz is better than CORE2003 @ 1.8 GHZ?!!?!?!

I can 100% guarantee that nothing derived from this https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27244/intel-core-solo-processor-t1400-2m-cache-1-83-ghz-667-mhz-fsb.html

will ever beat something derived from this https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/27510/intel-pentium-4-processor-supporting-ht-technology-4-00-ghz-2m-cache-1066-mhz-fsb.html

You have to really question these people on drugs huh?
 
Last edited:

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
3,654
4,102
136
Sketch is x86 program requiring Mojave, to port it over to iOS / ARM or whatever new macOS / ARM they're creating may go smoothly, may go poorly. We all remember Rosetta, right?

It may be the case that you're stuck on an x86 version of macOS for a while unless the transition goes smoothly.

I certainly hope that's not the case - the last thing we need in this arms race is for one side to falter.

Apple's success in laptops and desktops is all of our success, IMO, because it'll push AMD, Intel even harder.

Apple have the money to make this work, but I don't know that they have the multi-threaded experience at this point.

Have we heard about many hires or transfers of AMD / Intel people into Apple who could be helping out with such development?
Apple has hired a lot of really good talent from multiple teams over the years. From what I hear, Apple's CPU design team is top notch.
 

ThatBuzzkiller

Golden Member
Nov 14, 2014
1,080
205
106
Apple will move to whatever ISA/manufacturer they believe will allow them to build the products they want to build. If someone else is consistently delivering impressive performance at the TDP(s) they’re looking for a decade from now, they’ll switch again.
What's the point of performance if it's not going towards where it truly counts which is lower-level code ? Some programmers actually put real effort into optimizing their code for a specific architecture so if it's anyone who cares about performance metrics then it's specifically those groups that Apple needs to impress.

If Apple has no intention for programmers to truly discover how powerful their hardware can be like you imply then how can they possibly hope to keep up with either AMD or Intel where programmers will just happily optimize away any potential performance deficits on their architecture ?

AMD and Intel are committed to taking on the burden of maintaining x86 so that they can take off the programmer's burden of maintaining low level code but where is Apple's commitment for doing the same with their ARM implementation ? Do you realize just how much of a nightmare it is to develop on Apple platforms when programmers have to constantly refactor low level parts of their codebase because of a lack of guarantee from an insane platform vendor that your newly released software won't break in under a decade ?
 

uzzi38

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,817
3,654
116
I'm just going to preface by just saying I can't say I know everything for certain.

What I can say is this:
- ARM based Macs are not only a possibility, they're incredibly likely.
- There is no evidence of Apple using AMD CPUs at all. (Damned shame too).
 

senttoschool

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,536
212
106
My opinion on most likely to least likely scenarios:

Scenario 1: Apple does not use AMD CPUs at all. Apple's laptop arm chips should almost be ready. They will move all of their laptops to ARM by the end of next year. Moving them to AMD is wasted engineering and marketing effort even though they'll be uncompetitive for up to a year until the entire lineup gets moved to ARM. Their Mac Pro lineups are low volume so they won't bother. Intel will also lower prices to help the Mac Pro compete. Apple will take its time building a giant ARM chip for Mac Pros and migrate them over within the next 5 years.

Scenario 2: Apple only uses Threadripper/Epyc chips for Mac Pros. Laptops and iMacs will still be ARM only. For this to happen, Apple might think that building a chip that can compete with Threadripper/Epyc is going to take another 5+ years and Intel won't catch AMD in the meantime. They'd rather have their engineers focus on improving their mobile and laptop SoCs in the for now which are much higher volume. They'll eventually move Mac Pros over to ARM but not for a while.

Scenario 3 (my wish): Apple moves to Zen2/Zen3 for 1-2 years before ARM. This could happen if their ARM chips aren't ready and Intel just can't come close to Renoir and Zen3+Navi2. MacBook Pros will move to AMD APUs. iMacs will use Ryzen. Mac Pros will piggyback on the effort and move to Epyc. Maybe they'll experiment with ARM for the Air first.

Scenario 4: Apple stays with Intel for 2 more years before ARM. In this scenario, Apple's ARM chips aren't ready yet but Intel's 10nm is able to compete somewhat and/or gives Apple a major discount. Apple deems the effort to move over to AMD as not worth it in the mean time.

Keep in mind that Apple envisions apps working seamlessly between iOS, iPadOS, and MacOS. This is not a secret. The best way to achieve this is to have all of their platforms run the same CPU architecture. Apple will move to ARM no matter what to make this a reality. It's only a matter of when.

I wish for scenario 3 to happen. I own a 2015 Macbook Pro 15" and every Macbook Pro since has been complete garbage. I need an upgrade but I will refuse to upgrade if I have to buy a 14nm Intel CPU in 2020. And I highly doubt Apple will upgrade their 16" Macbook Pro to ARM before late 2021.

I also think that if Apple calls AMD and says they'll use an AMD APU for the next 2 years, AMD will bend over backward to release Zen3+Navi2 APU asap. AMD would see it as an opportunity to put their best products in the most premium computers on the market. It's the fastest way to shed their "budget" image forever.
 
Last edited:

uzzi38

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,817
3,654
116
My opinion on most likely to least likely scenarios:

Scenario 1: Apple does not use AMD CPUs at all. Apple's laptop arm chips should almost be ready. They will move all of their laptops to ARM by the end of next year. Moving them to AMD is wasted effort even though they'll be uncompetitive for up to a year until the entire lineup gets moved to ARM. Their Mac Pro lineups are low volume so they won't bother. Intel will also lower prices to help the Mac Pro compete. Apple will then focus on building an ARM chip for their Mac Pros and migrate them over within the next 5 years.

Scenario 2: Apple only uses Threadripper/Epyc chips for Mac Pros. Laptops will still be ARM only. For this to happen, Apple might think that building a chip that can compete with Threadripper/Epyc is going to take another 5+ years. They'd rather have their engineers focus on their mobile SoCs and laptop SoCs in the meantime which are much higher volume.

Scenario 3: Apple moves to Zen2/Zen3 for 1-2 years before ARM. This could happen if their ARM chips can't emulate x86 apps fast enough or just can't compete with Zen2/Zen3. MacBook Pros will definitely move to AMD. Maybe they'll experiment with ARM for the Air. Mac Pros will piggyback on the effort and move to Epyc.

Scenario 4: Apple stays with Intel for 1-2 more years before ARM. In this scenario, Intel's 10nm is able to compete somewhat and/or gives Apple a major discount. Apple deems the effort to move over to AMD as not worth it in the mean time.

Keep in mind that Apple envisions apps working seamlessly between iOS, iPadOS, and MacOS. This is not a secret. The best way to achieve this is to have all of their platforms run the same CPU architecture. Apple will move to ARM no matter what to make this a reality.
(Unfortunately) I have to agree with this. I'm leaning towards scenario 2, but even that might not happen.

Just one thing though - if they don't have a certain segment ready, I think they'll just stick with what they have already.
 

NTMBK

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2011
9,405
2,888
136
Why do Apple have to build their own chip for the Mac Pro? Plenty of people are building powerful server ARM CPUs. Slap one of those into a tower and you're done. Mac Pro just doesn't have the volume to justify a custom Apple chip.

In my opinion they only need to build one additional chip- a higher TDP, higher performance part to cover the MBP, Mac Mini and iMac. The Air and Macbook can take the iPad Pro chip.
 

senttoschool

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,536
212
106
Why do Apple have to build their own chip for the Mac Pro? Plenty of people are building powerful server ARM CPUs. Slap one of those into a tower and you're done. Mac Pro just doesn't have the volume to justify a custom Apple chip.

In my opinion they only need to build one additional chip- a higher TDP, higher performance part to cover the MBP, Mac Mini and iMac. The Air and Macbook can take the iPad Pro chip.
I think you're right. Apple might just license from or outright buy a company who is making powerful server-grade ARM chips for their Mac Pros.

I was under the assumption that ARM chip makers will have a hard time competing with a 128 core/512 thread Zen4 CPU and many professional software companies will refuse the effort to make an ARM version just for the Mac Pro, especially if they've spent years optimizing for x86 instructions. No company wants to create two drastically different versions of their software.
 
Last edited:

NTMBK

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2011
9,405
2,888
136
I was under the assumption that ARM chip makers will have a hard time competing with a 128 core/512 thread Zen4 CPU and many professional software companies will refuse the effort to make an ARM version just for the Mac Pro, especially if they've spent years optimizing for x86 instructions. No company wants to create two drastically different versions of their software.
That's a good point! I think it depends just how much Apple are willing to piss off their developers. They already shunned industry standards like Vulkan in favour of their own proprietary nonsense.

Bear in mind that a lot of pro apps will get run on the MBP. If that goes ARM and the Mac Pro doesn't, I'd argue that it would annoy developers even more- because they would need to maintain both an ARM and an x86 codepath.

There's also the added benefit that more effort in ARM codepaths will also benefit the iPad Pro. The UI is entirely different, but a lot of the backend and libraries will be shared across apps.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
4,546
6,258
136
My take on this hot topic is we're still looking at it from the wrong perspective: Apple isn't about to change the CPU inside their Mac, they're about to change the iPad into the Mac successor.

Let's take a small trip down the memory lane:
It doesn't matter how meaningful the benchmarks are, year over year we're seeing significant jumps in performance from the A chips, and they are doing it with headroom to spare (frequency wise). Meantime Intel keeps peeling away from the power consumption of their strongest cores, dropping watts every year. It's a collision course.

We keep imagining a clash of the titans, Apple's big arm core vs Intel's mighty quad, when the real fight will be fought for the tablet, or to be more precise the device that will enable laptop like productivity with tablet like portability. The winner takes it all.
This post was from 2015. We had no Zen back then, and consumer desktop computing meant quads.

It's not the ad that matters, it's the change of course Apple made with regard to whom it markets the product. This marks an important turning point and shows they're getting more and more serious about what this forum discussed for years: moving away from Intel in their productivity oriented devices (and ecosystem).
This post was from 2017, after Apple aired their "What's a computer" commercial.

Apple has a new category in their product portfolio - the iPad Pro, which they improve continuously with better input options at hardware level and better multitasking at OS level.

They are building the ARM Mac in plain sight. The iPad Pro is their (expensive) early access program. Your next computer is not a computer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and moinmoin

ksec

Senior member
Mar 5, 2010
420
117
116
My opinion on most likely to least likely scenarios:

Scenario 1: Apple does not use AMD CPUs at all. Apple's laptop arm chips should almost be ready. They will move all of their laptops to ARM by the end of next year. Moving them to AMD is wasted engineering and marketing effort even though they'll be uncompetitive for up to a year until the entire lineup gets moved to ARM. Their Mac Pro lineups are low volume so they won't bother. Intel will also lower prices to help the Mac Pro compete. Apple will take its time building a giant ARM chip for Mac Pros and migrate them over within the next 5 years.

Scenario 2: Apple only uses Threadripper/Epyc chips for Mac Pros. Laptops and iMacs will still be ARM only. For this to happen, Apple might think that building a chip that can compete with Threadripper/Epyc is going to take another 5+ years and Intel won't catch AMD in the meantime. They'd rather have their engineers focus on improving their mobile and laptop SoCs in the for now which are much higher volume. They'll eventually move Mac Pros over to ARM but not for a while.

Scenario 3 (my wish): Apple moves to Zen2/Zen3 for 1-2 years before ARM. This could happen if their ARM chips aren't ready and Intel just can't come close to Renoir and Zen3+Navi2. MacBook Pros will move to AMD APUs. iMacs will use Ryzen. Mac Pros will piggyback on the effort and move to Epyc. Maybe they'll experiment with ARM for the Air first.

Scenario 4: Apple stays with Intel for 2 more years before ARM. In this scenario, Apple's ARM chips aren't ready yet but Intel's 10nm is able to compete somewhat and/or gives Apple a major discount. Apple deems the effort to move over to AMD as not worth it in the mean time.

Keep in mind that Apple envisions apps working seamlessly between iOS, iPadOS, and MacOS. This is not a secret. The best way to achieve this is to have all of their platforms run the same CPU architecture. Apple will move to ARM no matter what to make this a reality. It's only a matter of when.

I wish for scenario 3 to happen. I own a 2015 Macbook Pro 15" and every Macbook Pro since has been complete garbage. I need an upgrade but I will refuse to upgrade if I have to buy a 14nm Intel CPU in 2020. And I highly doubt Apple will upgrade their 16" Macbook Pro to ARM before late 2021.

I also think that if Apple calls AMD and says they'll use an AMD APU for the next 2 years, AMD will bend over backward to release Zen3+Navi2 APU asap. AMD would see it as an opportunity to put their best products in the most premium computers on the market. It's the fastest way to shed their "budget" image forever.
Scenario 5, Intel pays Apple enough money to keep them on Intel's platform. Remember there is also the GPU play, where Intel could have gave Apple their GPU for free as part of the package.

I mean seriously, there are far too many factor at play, but I still think Apple is unlikely moving to ARM. They will just play the Intel discount card for as long as they possibly could.

At least until thunderbolt is completely off the hands of Intel.
 

senttoschool

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,536
212
106
Scenario 5, Intel pays Apple enough money to keep them on Intel's platform. Remember there is also the GPU play, where Intel could have gave Apple their GPU for free as part of the package.
I think this is unlikely for these reasons:

1. Apple wants to be competitive.
2. Apple doesn't want its brand associated with anti-competition lawsuits.
 

chrisjames61

Senior member
Dec 31, 2013
721
445
136
ARM would get me interested in getting a Mac again. After the switch from PowerPC they lost me as a Mac user from 1991 till my G5 stopped being a viable daily driver around 2010.
 

senttoschool

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,536
212
106
ARM would get me interested in getting a Mac again. After the switch from PowerPC they lost me as a Mac user from 1991 till my G5 stopped being a viable daily driver around 2010.
Interesting because their Macbook Airs and pre-2016 Retina Macbook Pros with Intel chips were amazing.
 

ksec

Senior member
Mar 5, 2010
420
117
116
I think this is unlikely for these reasons:

1. Apple wants to be competitive.
2. Apple doesn't want its brand associated with anti-competition lawsuits.
1. There is nothing that is not competitive about Intel CPU. Especially if you look at the whole range of SKUs on offer from 5w to 250W. They are expensive and that is possibly the only downside to it. Hence the lowering price to Apple as incentive.

2. Bundling of CPU and GPU as packages isn't Anti-Competitive at all, although I know EU will find a way to it. Giving heavy discount to customers isn't illegal either, and is currently the industry norm. Especially when AMD is showing to be extremely competitive, And Apple could also switch to ARM when they *want* to, that is itself is much more of a threat to Intel than anything else. I seriously doubt any commission will challenge such a threat with lowering price as anti competitive.

To be fair I dont see any of these happening either. I just dont felt Apple actually cares about the Mac enough to do all these. I felt they are just milking the platform for as long as they could with minimum resources, all while working on iPad and iPhone.
 

uzzi38

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2019
1,817
3,654
116
If driver entries work in the Intel speculation threads, they can work here too.

. . .

(heh)
Haha, well fair enough I guess.

Though I do want to point out driver entires don't tell us much sadly in the case of Apple. There's also references to Brstol Ridge, Picasso, Raven Ridge and various other APUs from AMD there, which make me think they just copy-pasted key portions of either the Windows or Linux drivers.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
17,842
6,816
136
Haha, well fair enough I guess.

Though I do want to point out driver entires don't tell us much sadly in the case of Apple. There's also references to Brstol Ridge, Picasso, Raven Ridge and various other APUs from AMD there, which make me think they just copy-pasted key portions of either the Windows or Linux drivers.
They do use AMD GPUs, so. You may be right.
 

lobz

Golden Member
Feb 10, 2017
1,818
2,352
136
Why do Apple have to build their own chip for the Mac Pro? Plenty of people are building powerful server ARM CPUs. Slap one of those into a tower and you're done. Mac Pro just doesn't have the volume to justify a custom Apple chip.

In my opinion they only need to build one additional chip- a higher TDP, higher performance part to cover the MBP, Mac Mini and iMac. The Air and Macbook can take the iPad Pro chip.
Powerful in what? Serious question, not mockery or such.
 

NTMBK

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2011
9,405
2,888
136
Powerful in what? Serious question, not mockery or such.
High multithreaded performance, with single thread performance in at least the ballpark of Intel. Give them another generation and they'll be an acceptable thing to transition to from the current Mac Pro CPU.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY