Mac Using AMD??

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

 

 

there's USB4, so i'm not sure if it's worth continuing the concept of PCIe over Type-C through intel, or starting over once again (like the time they've decided to abandon firewire)

usb4 is just thunderbolt 3 re released under a new name with the same back end . (thats how it seems to me at least)

[hishnash]

3 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

yeah i think the USB-IF would be handling certification for USB4 now, instead of intel for thunderbolt 3. either way it's same same but maybe different o_o

For apple USB-IF is better since they are a member of it they can then self certify reducing the risk of leaks

[Guest]

3 hours ago, xtroria said:

Seems like we are going to see the end of apple doing thunderbolt.

 

This might be a good thing, knowing AMD has a tendency of doing thing in an open-platform.

 

Thunderbolt 3 / USB4 still has a pretty big data bandwidth for most users perhaps other than the needed higher power limit

I don't know why this keeps cropping up. Thunderbolt is not proprietary to Intel anymore since a wee while ago. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Everyone appears to be sourcing this Tweet:

I don't know about you, but a screenshot of what appears to be a random text file with code names doesn't seem indicative of anything other than just that. And I can't find anything that would lead this person to be credible about anything.

 

Also poking at what other Tweets they posted that are related, it seems to only point to GPU technologies and related. To me, if this is from something in macOS's code base, this points more to a video driver file that had extra stuff hanging around than any indication that Apple is going to use an APU.

[Master Disaster]

11 hours ago, mr moose said:

We had this discussion a few months ago, I was told there was no way because of contracts and code and some other random reasons.  It makes perfect sense they would be doing this, getting things ready in case they want to make the move.

Hackers have already done all the work for Apple. Hackintosh on Ryzen is actually more functional than on Intel these days due to someone writing a Native Patch script. This script means almost all the included OS applications work with no user intervention (obviously anything tied into the cloud still doesn't work) and that users can update the OS directly from the App Store WITHOUT having to reconfigure the boot loader twice (once before install then again afterwards). Installation is also WAAAAAY easier than it used to be, there's no need to inject a custom kernel half way through installation any more.

 

I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if Apple straight up ripped off the work already done by hackers, cleaned up the code and released it as an official update.

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

 

 

I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if Apple straight up ripped off the work already done by hackers, cleaned up the code and released it as an official update.

I would be more surprised if apple didn't already have it all working and hackers just reinvented the wheel because apple didn't release it.

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

They don’t have to.  They do on thunderbolt though.  I reitterate my idea for a Mac gaming machine: tiger lake Mac mini with two m.2 ports accessible from the back with a custom egpu that snaps on to it.  Run 5(6?) lanes to the gpu and the remaining lanes to an m.2 storage drive in the device.  Boom.  Gaming.  They don’t even have to put a pcie slot on the thing they can control everything.  Including what kind of card it is.  Make it one that can’t do vega stuff and it keeps the art and video people out.

 

The problem really for eGPU's is that you only get a full GPU if you have all 16 lanes, and the most you can get per USB-C TB3 port is 4. So you need not just one USB-C port but 4 of them, just for the eGPU. At that point you may as well have bought another desktop. They're all about $400 without GPU. So there's no point putting a high end GPU in if it's going to be critically bottlenecked. 

 

What would make sense, and I'm basically throwing my hands up here, is for a Mac Mini design to have 4 TB ports on the BOTTOM that connect to the PCIe lanes the 16 lane GPU would normally connect to, and you basically put a 2cm "cable-standoff" on the bottom of the MacMini into the 4 ports and plug it into a eGPU box beneath it that is properly spaced for it. And here's where we make things overcomplicated...

 

That eGPU should have enough power to power the MacMini. So it passes TB3/TB4 to the eGPU, but the eGPU powers the MacMini, allowing you to remove the power cord from the MacMini if you're going to use it that way and maybe stick M2 NVMe drives in that space.

 

But I digress. The MacMini has never been a suitable gaming machine, and has always run laptop-tier parts, so it would still be a poor gaming machine relative to a desktop that a full-size 300w GPU can be put in. Since those GPU's sound like a Jet taking off, I would not expect Apple to use those models in something that is supposed to be dead quiet normally.

 

[Master Disaster]

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I would be more surprised if apple didn't already have it all working and hackers just reinvented the wheel because apple didn't release it.

Well if they did it wouldn't be anything like what the hackers have done.

 

Preface, this is my understanding and could be (well probably is) totally wrong. Macs have a custom EFI BIOS module called the SMBIOS. This is used by Apple to flash the Macs identification information directly onto the hardware (so model number, serial number etc, essentially everything in About This Mac) and obviously on a PC this module doesn't exist so the hackers have had to emulate it. The Native Patch makes edits to the SMBIOS file with hardware tweaks that allow the SMBIOS to see the AMD chipset & CPU as a native device rather than the old method of editing the kernel to try and translate the instructions ad hoc. I guess the closest example I could use would be like the difference between Low Level Emulation & High Level Emulation.

 

Still I guess you're correct. The only real difference would be the emulation layer, all the hardware tweaking patches to the SMBIOS would be the same in both cases.

[GDRRiley]

23 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

The problem really for eGPU's is that you only get a full GPU if you have all 16 lanes, and the most you can get per USB-C TB3 port is 4. So you need not just one USB-C port but 4 of them, just for the eGPU. At that point you may as well have bought another desktop. They're all about $400 without GPU. So there's no point putting a high end GPU in if it's going to be critically bottlenecked. 

 

What would make sense, and I'm basically throwing my hands up here, is for a Mac Mini design to have 4 TB ports on the BOTTOM that connect to the PCIe lanes the 16 lane GPU would normally connect to, and you basically put a 2cm "cable-standoff" on the bottom of the MacMini into the 4 ports and plug it into a eGPU box beneath it that is properly spaced for it. And here's where we make things overcomplicated...

 

That eGPU should have enough power to power the MacMini. So it passes TB3/TB4 to the eGPU, but the eGPU powers the MacMini, allowing you to remove the power cord from the MacMini if you're going to use it that way and maybe stick M2 NVMe drives in that space.

 

But I digress. The MacMini has never been a suitable gaming machine, and has always run laptop-tier parts, so it would still be a poor gaming machine relative to a desktop that a full-size 300w GPU can be put in. Since those GPU's sound like a Jet taking off, I would not expect Apple to use those models in something that is supposed to be dead quiet normally.

 

8 lanes is good up till 2080ti. you can often get eGPUs with like a 1070 for like 600-700$

 

[Soppro]

It's more likely they'll be using AMD chips for their desktops, unless they can somehow get Thunderbolt working with AMD APUs.

7 hours ago, hishnash said:

That said apple could be working with AMD to build an Apple/AMD only hybrid IO-die, AMD's IO-die is already an ARM cpu so could benefit from apples team to make it more power efficient.

Could it also be possible that they expand the functionality of the T2 chip and use it as a Thunderbolt controller? 

[Doobeedoo]

Well would be good for both. 

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

 

The problem really for eGPU's is that you only get a full GPU if you have all 16 lanes, and the most you can get per USB-C TB3 port is 4. So you need not just one USB-C port but 4 of them, just for the eGPU. At that point you may as well have bought another desktop. They're all about $400 without GPU. So there's no point putting a high end GPU in if it's going to be critically bottlenecked. 

 

What would make sense, and I'm basically throwing my hands up here, is for a Mac Mini design to have 4 TB ports on the BOTTOM that connect to the PCIe lanes the 16 lane GPU would normally connect to, and you basically put a 2cm "cable-standoff" on the bottom of the MacMini into the 4 ports and plug it into a eGPU box beneath it that is properly spaced for it. And here's where we make things overcomplicated...

 

That eGPU should have enough power to power the MacMini. So it passes TB3/TB4 to the eGPU, but the eGPU powers the MacMini, allowing you to remove the power cord from the MacMini if you're going to use it that way and maybe stick M2 NVMe drives in that space.

 

But I digress. The MacMini has never been a suitable gaming machine, and has always run laptop-tier parts, so it would still be a poor gaming machine relative to a desktop that a full-size 300w GPU can be put in. Since those GPU's sound like a Jet taking off, I would not expect Apple to use those models in something that is supposed to be dead quiet normally.

 

Tiger lake is pcie4 though.  Still 16 lanes when pcie4?  Also the jet effect is due to limited cooling fins due to space requirements imposed by ATX.  With a custom enclosure the space requirement is gone.

[Crunchy Dragon]

13 hours ago, hishnash said:

Apple can still support THundberbolt, they just need to get certification from intel. Also apple have been one of the key members of the USB groups since it started. (they were the first major produces to use USB)

AMD would stop Apple from using Thunderbolt, that technology is exclusive to Intel chips.

 

Apple co-developed Thunderbolt with Intel, which is likely a large reason for them having it in the first place.

[Fasauceome]

4 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

AMD would stop Apple from using Thunderbolt, that technology is exclusive to Intel chips.

If this AM4 motherboard can have thunderbolt, I'm sure MacBooks could too

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pcgamer.com/amp/at-long-last-intel-has-finally-certified-an-amd-motherboard-for-thunderbolt/

[Crunchy Dragon]

8 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

If this AM4 motherboard can have thunderbolt, I'm sure MacBooks could too

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pcgamer.com/amp/at-long-last-intel-has-finally-certified-an-amd-motherboard-for-thunderbolt/

I stand corrected, had no idea that was a thing.

[Commodus]

I'll admit: although I'm not expecting it, I do hope the next iMac has a Ryzen 9 model.  It'd be good to jump to 12 or 16 cores in a 'home' Mac desktop.  (Also: 6K please)

[leadeater]

34 minutes ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

I stand corrected, had no idea that was a thing.

Intel opened it up and it's now part of the next USB spec, so it's no longer proprietary. Just have to have a TB chip or wait out next USB standard adoption. 

[BigDamn]

What about the rumors that Apple was switching to ARM based CPU's? Had it not been for that I would've expected Apple to begin the process of supporting AMD a long time ago. I despise most of everything that Apple does, but even I know that when Apple makes changes the market notices. Apple switching to AMD for their workstations could be a pretty big deal.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, BigDamn said:

What about the rumors that Apple was switching to ARM based CPU's? Had it not been for that I would've expected Apple to begin the process of supporting AMD a long time ago. I despise most of everything that Apple does, but even I know that when Apple makes changes the market notices. Apple switching to AMD for their workstations could be a pretty big deal.

Those rumors show up because investment news cycle people haven't the slightest idea why computers aren't profitable.

 

You switch to ARM for the CPU, and the Mac Desktop market goes extinct.

 

It was not market forces that made Apple switch from 68K to PPC, nor PPC to Intel x86. It was the fact that the CPU's were actually available. If they stayed on the PPC platform they would be under IBM's thumb and competing with three generations of game consoles for them (Game Cube, Wii, WiiU, Xbox 360 and PS3.) The Intel mac came out in 2006, that was at the tail end of the GameCube, and the beginning of the Wii/Xbox360/PS3 cycle.

 

Now look at today. Two of the game consoles are running AMD parts for two generations (Xbox One, PS4, Xbox Series X, PS5), and Intel hasn't been in a console since the original Xbox. Nintendo is using the Tegra X1 (ARM), Nintendo has been using ARM parts for the GBA, DS, 3DS before, and that's really where the Switch slots in. So to reduce the amount of development overhead they opted for ONE codebase, and the PPC was the one to drop.

 

So if you apply this logic to Apple, if they were to suddenly decide to converge on an ARM chip, they would need an ARM chip to run Xeon speeds to cover all bases, and that just will not happen. 

 

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/11/apple-walks-ars-through-the-ipad-pros-a12x-system-on-a-chip/

 

Quote

Apple made some big claims about the A12X during its presentation announcing the product: that it has twice the graphics performance of the A10X; that it has 90 percent faster multi-core performance than its predecessor; that it matches the GPU power of the Xbox One S game console with no fan and at a fraction of the size; that it has 1,000 times faster graphics performance than the original iPad released eight years ago; that it's faster than 92 percent of all portable PCs.

 

But here we are comparing apples and banana's.

 

Take note of what's actually being compared in the corner, this is the CPU only, and against laptops and desktops with mobile parts.

 

Now compare (GB5)'s scores to the Mac Pro:

iPad Pro:

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/1175793

Single Core 664, Multi-core: 1227

 

Mac Pro 2019:

https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/460

Single Core 1149, Multi-core, 17475

 

Read it and weep Investment Bros.

 

Apple should not, and likely will not ever use their own ARM parts in their desktops or laptops until their ARM parts reach performance parity for everything they sell, otherwise they will be doubling their software development costs by having to maintain Intel and ARM versions of OS X, and all the Apple software that runs on them, PLUS screwing over the existing install base for no particular reason.

 

ARM has one distinct advantage in the market, and that's the low-power design that makes it ideal for portable devices. Pretty much everyone can tell you that the battery life absolutely tanks when you play games on these devices. The iPhone barely scrapes by with 8 hours without playing games. As soon as you start playing games on it, that battery life is reduced to 3 or 4 hours. The iPad Pro has a much larger battery and thus 12 hours is not an unreasonable battery life. Heck leaving an iPad around the house for small activities will last a month without being recharged.

 

Yet, what's the problem? It does not scale up. Just looking at the single core number, you can easily see that it's well short of the 2.7Ghz Intel Xeon CPU. Even with all 8 cores running on the A12X it just barely gets past the Single Core number on the Xeon. So that would quite literately mean to match the performance of the Intel Xeon, you would need software to be much more thread-aware, and to hit the 24 cores on the Intel you would need an ARM core with 15 times the number of cores. A 120 core ARM chip, probably not happening any time, so Apple would have to make a much smaller run of ARM chips with 120 cores JUST for the Mac Pro.

 

Now let's dial it back and compare to the iMac 2019. The iMac has an 8 core processor at 3.6Ghz.

GB5:

Single Core:1247, Multicore 8215

 

So that i9-9900K single core speed is pretty much double the A12X. So you would still need 7 times the number of cores to beat the Intel CPU. A 56 Core A12X would still be a special run of CPU's. So that's not happening.

 

The A12X does not beat any 2019 Apple laptops or desktops, it only beats desktops from 2011 and laptops/imac's from 2015 in single core performance, and even then, it's still well short of the multicore performance of the 2010 Mac Pro (Intel Xeon W3680 (6 core),641 single thread, 3361 multi-thread) , 17" 2011 MacBook Pro (i7-2760QM (4 core),642 single thread, 2319 multi-thread), and 2015 iMac (i5-5250U (2 core), 639 single thread, 1320 multi-thread)

 

So those investment people who keep floating this idea, are not engineers or software developers. They are people who just go "hey Apple makes their own CPU's, it's only a matter of time before they put their own CPU's into everything and give Intel the boot."

 

Yeah, because vertical integration has worked so well for other massive corporations who then turn and outsource the labor intensive parts back out.

[Donut417]

3 hours ago, Crunchy Dragon said:

stop Apple from using Thunderbolt, that technology is exclusive to Intel chips.

Maybe or maybe not. According to a qucik search I did, Intel AND Apple are resposible for creating Thunderbolt. So its hard to say. ALSO Intel and AMD have been known to share technologies. Also Wendel over at Lvl1techs did get Thunderbolt working on a Threadripper machine. Thunderbolt 3 is royalty free. So if anything AMD might just end up being a generation or two behind Intel. Or Intel will just open up the standard for all to use. 

[BuckGup]

Threadripper makes so much more sense in the mac pros honestly. It would bring the cost down significantly and actually be faster

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, BuckGup said:

It would bring the cost down significantly

For Apple, maybe.

[hishnash]

37 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Threadripper makes so much more sense in the mac pros honestly. It would bring the cost down significantly and actually be faster

most of the cost of the macPro is not in the cpu but in the motherboard that would end up costly about the same. Through maybe due to having more PCIe lanes from the chip apple could drop the costly PLX PCIe switching pool chip they have on the board ( and the related traces)

[DrMacintosh]

The 13" MBP would benefit a lot from a Ryzen Mobile APU. Though I don't think Apple would be too thrilled with having AMD chips for the 13" models and Intel chips for the 16" models. 

[hishnash]

1 minute ago, DrMacintosh said:

The 13" MBP would benefit a lot from a Ryzen Mobile APU. Though I don't think Apple would be too thrilled with having AMD chips for the 13" models and Intel chips for the 16" models. 

Im not sure apple would be to bothered about mixing them. They would not want to mix within a product (based on config) (as that would require diffrent chipsets etc) but between distinct products why not.