Brace yourselves, the ARMs are coming

Page: 1, 2, 3
Online now: Google [Bot]
Post Reply
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
TOS posted:
silly question: will the switchover lead to a price drop?

that's the only thing that would bring me back to mac

i'm talking huge price drop


I'm hoping there will be a lot of selling of older Intel Macs at deep discounts as well. While this 2009 MBP I fixed is still going strong, it would be nice to upgrade to a newer one for cheap.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
TOS posted:
silly question: will the switchover lead to a price drop?

that's the only thing that would bring me back to mac

i'm talking huge price drop

Image
obvs Social Distancing Grandmaster
Send private message
On the plus side, with Big Sur, it's possible to log in using ADFS instead of AD.

And as far as Enterprise Mac management goes, that's really big.
dv
User avatar
TOS posted:
silly question: will the switchover lead to a price drop?

that's the only thing that would bring me back to mac

i'm talking huge price drop


Unlikely. CPU fab cost is a function of transistor count at a given process and wafer size. And in order to get high end power/performance, a competitive desktop or workstation CPU has to be built on a relatively recent, pretty-close-to-bleeding-edge fabrication process. (10nm or 14nm.)

So something like the A13 (~8 billion transistors) is almost certainly more expensive to fabricate than a quad core Intel x86-64 CPU (~2 billion transistors). And while Intel makes some profit, so will whatever company (Samsung, TMSC, etc.) that Apple subcontracts to fab their chips.

It's not really a silly question - since it's "ARM", comparisons to something the RasPi 4 (and its ~270 million transistor SoC built on an outdated and cheap 28nm process node) are inevitable. But they are also completely different beasts and are not really comparable in any real sense.
macnuke Afar
User avatar
you mean Apple has had price drops in the past?
Lombo Opiofiend
User avatar
I red somewhere that an A13 SOC cost 60$. So much less than intel.
dv
User avatar
macnuke posted:
you mean Apple has had price drops in the past?


Well... yes?

Back in the '90s, Apple would regularly lower prices on older models still in production. For instance, the IIci was $6k at introduction, but was selling (new) for less than $4k towards the end of its lifespan.

The first iMacs were $1299, but a year later they had a superior $999 model. The current entry-level iMac is $1099, which is about $700 in 1998 dollars.

The iPad was $499 at release, but the current basic 10" iPad is $329 to start. First iPhones were $499, but entry level ones now are $399.

And of course there's always open-box pricing.
dv
User avatar
Lombo posted:
I red somewhere that an A13 SOC cost 60$. So much less than intel.


Intel's basic quad cores can be had for pretty close to that, and in retail packaging. (I'd suspect the $60 figure is bulk pricing, since they're not a retail product.)

The higher end chips are similar silicon and cost about the same to make; the difference between that $75 chip and the $220 version of the exact same chip is not based on the fabrication costs, but on other shenanigans. (Some of it, like additional validation for higher-specced CPUs, is a very real cost, but a lot of it is also just charging whatever the market will bear.)
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
macnuke posted:
you mean Apple has had price drops in the past?

I think the macbookpro I bought for $2000 would have cost something like $324,000 in 1989.
macnuke Afar
User avatar
Metacell posted:
macnuke posted:
you mean Apple has had price drops in the past?

I think the macbookpro I bought for $2000 would have cost something like $324,000 in 1989.


1989 was called a portable.. or sometimes luggable.
it sold for $6500;
so yes.. prices have plummeted
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
dv posted:
macnuke posted:
you mean Apple has had price drops in the past?


Well... yes?

Back in the '90s, Apple would regularly lower prices on older models still in production. For instance, the IIci was $6k at introduction, but was selling (new) for less than $4k towards the end of its lifespan.

The first iMacs were $1299, but a year later they had a superior $999 model. The current entry-level iMac is $1099, which is about $700 in 1998 dollars.

The iPad was $499 at release, but the current basic 10" iPad is $329 to start. First iPhones were $499, but entry level ones now are $399.

And of course there's always open-box pricing.

When the original Bondi iMac was released it really was a very good deal relative to the PC side. I was the Mac guy at CompUSA when the Bondi hit and it compared very well to the mid-line Celeron based PCs we were selling for $1000 to $1200 without a KB or mouse or monitor. The monitor was a big deal cuz back in 98 a decent 15in screen would run you near $300.
But as PC prices entered free fall the iMac advantage was short lived and very soon Mac were back to being a fairly bad buy.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Windows on ARM Macs technically possible, but unlikely. It seems that neither Microsoft or Apple care much.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/24/2130 ... -boot-camp
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
ARM is RISC? I didn't know that

Image

:D

https://gizmodo.com/so-just-how-powerfu ... 1844134011

OK, I know, it would take A LOT in both hardware and software for new Macs to match offering from Intel and AMD. But Apple's advantage was always software, right?
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
oh, one more thing, no more boot camp... and what about hackintosh? OS X for Intel will also go away, Apple won't develop it anymore...
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Both Apple and Microsoft want ARM machines to herald gated communities where you can only use their respective app stores. I'm honestly amazed Bootcamp lasted as long as it did. I will not be at all surprised if it gets harder and harder to download and install software outside of an app store in MacOS.

The thing is, the ONLY thing I am worried about is the loss of ability to boot Linux. I don't care about Windows, or even x86/x64, but I do want the option to boot Linux. Long after the machine is dropped by MacOS, it can still live on as a Linux machine as long as it will boot what the user wants.
macnuke Afar
User avatar
lotsa smarty pants people in the world...
my money is on someone somewhere will say.....
if MS can run Win on ARM.
and Apple Runs MacOS on ARM.....
while they are of different architecture...they are ARM..

and it will happen.
or the Linux crowd will just port your flavor of the month Linux to AppleARM
plenty smart cookies in that crowd as well.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Ex-Intel Engineer Claims Skylake Quality Assurance Was the Reason For Apple's Big CPU Transition

Quote:
Well according to former Intel principal engineer François Piednoël, it seems Intel’s line of Skylake processors is to blame. Marketed at Intel’s line of 6th-gen Core processors, in a recent video posted to YouTube, Piednoël says the quality assurance for Intel’s Skylake processors was “more than a problem, it was abnormally bad.”

Piednoël went on to say “Basically our buddies at Apple became the number one filer of problems in the architecture,” before adding “When your customer starts finding almost as much bugs as you found yourself, you’re not leading into the right place.”

ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Apple promises to support Thunderbolt on its new ARM Macs

Quote:
Apple is moving away from Intel’s chipsets in favor of its new, custom-designed ARM chips — but the company is promising that it’ll still support Intel’s Thunderbolt USB-C connectivity standard on new Apple silicon computers, despite the lack of Intel processors.

“Over a decade ago, Apple partnered with Intel to design and develop Thunderbolt, and today our customers enjoy the speed and flexibility it brings to every Mac. We remain committed to the future of Thunderbolt and will support it in Macs with Apple silicon,” commented an Apple spokesperson, in a statement to The Verge.

obvs Social Distancing Grandmaster
Send private message
Apple's word about what they will support in the future is basically worthless, given what they've said and done in the past, as far as saying they remain committed to anything.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
obvs posted:
Apple's word about what they will support in the future is basically worthless, given what they've said and done in the past, as far as saying they remain committed to anything.


Firewire was the besterest thing ever!

also,

Image
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
True, but in this case, I suspect they will retain the functionality, because it is actually better than any other option right now. Intel sells separate Thunderbolt controllers that are ordinary PCIe devices (though they do hog 32 lanes), which means Apple can very easily bolt them to their SoCs.

What will be interesting is whether or not Intel balks at them claiming Thunderbolt support without the Intel processor on the other end.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
maurvir posted:
True, but in this case, I suspect they will retain the functionality, because it is actually better than any other option right now. Intel sells separate Thunderbolt controllers that are ordinary PCIe devices (though they do hog 32 lanes), which means Apple can very easily bolt them to their SoCs.

What will be interesting is whether or not Intel balks at them claiming Thunderbolt support without the Intel processor on the other end.


But Apple did co-develop Thunderbolt, didn't they? so... they have a say? they can support it?
jkahless Custom Title
User avatar
maurvir posted:
True, but in this case, I suspect they will retain the functionality, because it is actually better than any other option right now. Intel sells separate Thunderbolt controllers that are ordinary PCIe devices (though they do hog 32 lanes), which means Apple can very easily bolt them to their SoCs.

What will be interesting is whether or not Intel balks at them claiming Thunderbolt support without the Intel processor on the other end.


Well, you can get intel certified thunderbolt on an AMD board now, so I expect Apple will be fine.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Kuo: Apple Silicon Macs to Include 13-inch MacBook Pro and MacBook Air This Year, 14.1-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro Models Next Year

Quote:
We predict that Apple will launch new MacBook models including the new 13.3-inch ‌MacBook Pro‌ equipped with the ‌Apple Silicon‌ in 4Q20, the new ‌MacBook Air‌ equipped with the ‌Apple Silicon‌ in 4Q20 or 1Q21, and new 14- and 16-inch ‌MacBook Pro‌ models equipped with the ‌Apple Silicon‌ and all-new form factor design in late 2Q21 or 3Q21.

maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
I would avoid these new Macs unless you are a developer. There are guaranteed to be all kinds of first gen bugs in those things.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
maurvir posted:
I would avoid these new Macs unless you are a developer. There are guaranteed to be all kinds of first gen bugs in those things.


It's possible.

But now I want to ask, anybody remembers experiences with the first PowerPC Macs? and the first Intels?
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
maurvir posted:
I would avoid these new Macs unless you are a developer. There are guaranteed to be all kinds of first gen bugs in those things.


It's possible.

But now I want to ask, anybody remembers experiences with the first PowerPC Macs? and the first Intels?


Yes, and there were bugs in both. They did get fixed, but you really did not want the rev 1 of either.
obvs Social Distancing Grandmaster
Send private message
I remember the first generation of Intel Macs had really important features missing, like being Core Duo instead of Core 2 Duo.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
obvs posted:
I remember the first generation of Intel Macs had really important features missing, like being Core Duo instead of Core 2 Duo.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_M ... #Intel_x86

Yup,though, in fairness, the list of differences between the first Core Duo and Core 2 Duo processors wasn't that big. Both were single CPU designs with two "Cores", and both series used the same DDR2-667 FSB (with some Core 2 parts going to 800MHz); but the Core 2 parts generally had twice the L2 cache, featured newer versions of the SSEx extensions, and ran at higher internal clock rates.

As far as Intel Macs go, the only significant dumpster fire was the first Mini, which had a Core Solo processor. (Arguably a part that should have never existed)

The problem wasn't the processors so much as the early EFI firmware. I remember hearing about lots of issues with that first batch.
obvs Social Distancing Grandmaster
Send private message
maurvir posted:
The problem wasn't the processors so much as the early EFI firmware.
:brow:

The Core Duo was a 32-bit processor.

All subsequent Intel Macs have used 64-bit processors.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
obvs posted:
maurvir posted:
The problem wasn't the processors so much as the early EFI firmware.
:brow:

The Core Duo was a 32-bit processor.

All subsequent Intel Macs have used 64-bit processors.


Long term that might have been an issue. Short term, no one was running 64-bit operating systems on desktops or laptops. WindowsXP was available in a 64-bit version that almost no one used, because there were almost no drivers. MacOS was 32-bit as well, and stayed that way for a while.

So yeah, long term those were a bad bet. However, if you were using MacOS, you still got a fair bit of life out of them - officially up to Lion. By the time that became a limitation, these machines were far too RAM limited for the architecture to make much of a difference.

The transition to 64-bit was pushed by the need for more RAM. If you never bumped up against the 32-bit limit (4GB), then a 64-bit processor didn't really help much.
obvs Social Distancing Grandmaster
Send private message
The term didn't matter. A Core Duo Mac was a dead man walking the day it was shipped.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Every computer is.
Lombo Opiofiend
User avatar
Not very long term. I remember buying the first MacBook Pro intel 2.13 ghz in 2006. I sold it for 1/3 of its value in 2009 because of the 32 bitness which limited the Max ram and other things that I don’t remember now.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
obvs posted:
The term didn't matter. A Core Duo Mac was a dead man walking the day it was shipped.

Minis were dog slow always. The early ones were the worst. The Mini C2D@1.8ghz was not faster than my ageing G4/933, for instance. No doubt due to Apple equipping them with the slowest HDD they could lay their hand on.
obvs Social Distancing Grandmaster
Send private message
Apple has always unacceptably hobbled their low-end machines. There's always been some horribly unacceptable thing about each and every one of them.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Rumor Claims We Could See a 12-Inch MacBook With Apple Silicon This Year, iMac in Late 2021

Quote:
a report from the China Times hints that the first Apple Silicon computer might arrive later this year—and it’d be an extremely lightweight 12-inch MacBook that supposedly has 15-20 hours of battery life. Also on deck for late 2021 is an Apple Silicon iMac with a custom, Apple-developed GPU.

Quote:
The China Times report says the 12-inch MacBook would be powered by the A14X processor, citing industry sources as saying the chip has been finalized and that mass production would begin before the end of the year using Taiwan-based supplier TSMC’s 5nm process. The 12-inch MacBook, supposedly nicknamed “Tonga” will have USB-C, weigh less than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds), and get up to 15-20 hours on a single charge because of the “low-power consumption advantage” afforded by the A14X chip.

Quote:
As for the iMac, China Times says on top of being powered by another TSMC-produced 5nm process chip—as well as a custom Apple-made GPU codenamed “Lifuka.” Supposedly, the new Apple GPU will deliver better performance per watt and uses a different technique for rendering than what AMD, Nvidia, and Intel typically use. That all just means it should be more power-efficient and potentially more powerful than its competitors. This iMac will reportedly be available in the second half of 2021, which makes sense given that Apple just launched its last Intel-powered iMac.


Now the picture on the article...

Image

Maybe Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field could have made a laptop levitate, but Tim Apple? nah... :p
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

Brace yourselves, the ARMs are coming

Page: 1, 2, 3