Another ARM(1) - Apple event introduces new low-end Macs as well as updated OS

[PeterBocan]

3 minutes ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

Did the MacBook Pro with Intel ever have 32GB of RAM outside of the 16"?

 

I just see this as a drop-in replacement. The *actual* successor to the 13" MBP which will be a 14" one I think is rumored to come next year.

Yeah current Intel-based 13". I am not saying it's worth it though.

[GoodBytes]

14 minutes ago, Kisces said:

People don't buy 13-inch macbooks for productivity.....They just need something "macbook" to show off. 

 

I expected Apple to come up with a really cheap air with a weak chip and long battery life that starts at 599

Maybe it's just that they didn't have enough time to make a different chip for the air

 

I think it's actually better to make the airs more "air"--cheaper, weaker, targeted for students

 

and the pros more "pro"--with more power and more thickness to improve cooling instead of just going from 15-inch to 16, or maybe it's because Apple HATES fans, heat-pipes, and fins.

 

Apple's engineering on macbook pros were better, but now compared to the new XPS, and even the ROG, Legion and MSI thin-and-light gaming laptops, the internal design of macbook pro is surely outdated. Other manufacturers have learnt how to put a LOT of cooling inside a thin module while Apple still cannot.

Actually the system should perform fine.

It uses the latest just released from ARM, Cortex CPU architecture, which bring the CPU, not only faster, but also Octo Core.

Already the Surface Pro X demonstrated with Qualcomm chip that the device is very competent and provide a great (performance wise) experience. Of course, its issue is that the CPU lacks performance for any x86 demanding applications. But this new CPU should allow Apple to deliver a good experience, and I expect, the day, Qualcomm decides to use it, that the latest Surface Pro X can deliver more interesting performance on x86 side (and x86-64 translation support should be coming next year)

[PeterBocan]

1 minute ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

why not just build an actual desktop, do you need mac software? 

I really like some of the Mac-only software.  I have a desktop, I am looking for a good macbook pro 2017 replacement.

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

Just now, PeterBocan said:

Yeah current Intel-based 13". I am not saying it's worth it though.

Huh that's really weird.

 

That seems dumb on Apple's part to not atleast match what your previous model had. Speaking of which, why the hell are they selling the Intel models and positioning them as better because of their higher price? What?

[PeterBocan]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

Actually the system should perform fine.

It uses the latest just released from ARM, Cortex CPU architecture, which bring the CPU, not only faster, but also Octo Core.

Already the Surface Pro X demonstrated with Qualcomm chip that the device is very competent and provide a great (performance wise) experience. Of course, its issue is that the CPU lacks performance for any x86 demanding applications. But this new CPU should allow Apple to deliver a good experience, and I expect, the day, Qualcomm decides to use it, that the latest Surface Pro X can deliver more interesting performance on x86 side (and x86-64 translation support should be coming next year)

Octo*-core. It's 4 perf and 4 low-perf cores. It's not comparable to Intel's offering, though it's 14 nm vs 5.

[Commodus]

9 minutes ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

Did the MacBook Pro with Intel ever have 32GB of RAM outside of the 16"?

 

I just see this as a drop-in replacement. The *actual* successor to the 13" MBP which will be a 14" one I think is rumored to come next year.

Yeah, it did. There's still the higher-end 13-inch models and the 16-inch for those who need more than 16GB.

 

This reminds me more than a little of the first Intel Macs — they offered big speed boosts, but outside of a couple of things (such as MagSafe on the MacBook Pro) it took future models for the hardware to really shine. If you want a Mac now, get one now as you'll likely enjoy it... but those who can afford to wait probably should.

[Letgomyleghoe]

Just now, PeterBocan said:

I really like some of the Mac-only software.  I have a desktop, I am looking for a good macbook pro 2017 replacement.

theres usually replacements in either windows or linux, or you could be really fancy and do hackintosh.

 

but when a supplier can no longer fuel your needs its usually time to switch 

[Letgomyleghoe]

Just now, PeterBocan said:

It's not comparable to Intel's offering, though it's 14 nm vs 5.

it is though, it should be outperforming intels chips in just about every way

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

probably since theyre ARM and that means RISC, but youre also comparing apples to oranges

What do you mean?

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

3 minutes ago, PeterBocan said:

Octo*-core. It's 4 perf and 4 low-perf cores. It's not comparable to Intel's offering, though it's 14 nm vs 5.

It should be though...

 

They said that the 4 low-power cores = the same performance of the 2019 i3 MacBook Air. If that's true then ho-lee-shit. But you'd just compare the high power cores, right?

[Letgomyleghoe]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

What do you mean?

how can you compare a consumer x64 chip to a arm based chip, theyre completely different in instructure set and use.

[PeterBocan]

1 minute ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

It should be though...

 

They said that the 4 low-power cores = the same performance of the 2019 i3 MacBook Air. If that's true then ho-lee-shit. But you'd just compare the high power cores, right?

yeah it's not that easy to compare.

[PeterBocan]

5 minutes ago, Letgomyleghoe said:

theres usually replacements in either windows or linux, or you could be really fancy and do hackintosh.

 

but when a supplier can no longer fuel your needs its usually time to switch 

There are replacements for the software but the software is either a clusterfuck or not of a high quality.

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

Just now, PeterBocan said:

yeah it's not that easy to compare.

How would you measure the speed of a CPU? If you measure just instruction speed, the M1 will always be faster, not accounting for the hardware-decoders + the times where multiple instructions are needed to simulate an x86 one.

 

But I think it's still a net gain of speed, and native ARM code is going to fly with it. That's just me though I'd like someone to explain it indepth.

[PeterBocan]

2 minutes ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

How would you measure the speed of a CPU? If you measure just instruction speed, the M1 will always be faster, not accounting for the hardware-decoders + the times where multiple instructions are needed to simulate an x86 one.

 

But I think it's still a net gain of speed, and native ARM code is going to fly with it. That's just me though I'd like someone to explain it indepth.

in general you have IPC and you have clock. But then you have caches, you have software optimizations, you have SIMD, you have branch predictors. It all plays a big role in performance. It's all very relative so you need to fix some variables down, i.e. software and software optimizations.

[iEimis]

1 hour ago, Camoxide said:

£898 with Eduction discount in the UK. 

It might be £830 from EDUStore with 4 year warranty if people are not in a hurry to get it day one  At least last gen was.

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

1 minute ago, PeterBocan said:

branch predictors

My response:

I'm just gonna assume you're right. But at least it's not like the iPhones, by this time next week we'll know.

[PeterBocan]

Just now, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

My response:

I'm just gonna assume you're right. But at least it's not like the iPhones, by this time next week we'll know.

yes those.

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

I think M1 doesn't have nearly as many PCI-e lanes as the Ice Lake chips. Why would they only include 2 USB-4 ports on the Mac mini? That's half the amount. Either they're using those PCI-e lanes for super-fast storage, or they're just absent...

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Actually the system should perform fine.

It uses the latest just released from ARM, Cortex CPU architecture, which bring the CPU, not only faster, but also Octo Core.

Apple does not use Cortex CPU cores. The cores Apple uses are waaaay faster than anything ARM or Qualcomm has released so far.

The M1 isn't really an "octa core" either. It's two quad cores. One with good performance and one for power saving features. Think of it as a quad core instead.

 

 

8 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Already the Surface Pro X demonstrated with Qualcomm chip that the device is very competent and provide a great (performance wise) experience. Of course, its issue is that the CPU lacks performance for any x86 demanding applications. But this new CPU should allow Apple to deliver a good experience, and I expect, the day, Qualcomm decides to use it, that the latest Surface Pro X can deliver more interesting performance on x86 side (and x86-64 translation support should be coming next year)

Performance on the Surface Pro X is shit. It's not competitive and performance is far from "great".

Luckily for Apple, they use their own core designs (which Qualcomm does not have access to) which performs way better.

 

 

SPECint:

A13 (2.65GHz)- 52.82

Snapdragon 865 (2.84GHz) - 34.41

Difference: Apple ahead by 54% at lower clock rate.

 

SPECfp:

A13 (2.65GHz)- 65.27

Snapdragon 865 (2.84GHz) - 48.13

Difference: Apple ahead by 36% at lower clock rate.

 

Projections for the Cortex-X1 will put it at around A13 levels if manufacturers manage to make it hit 3GHz. But that basically means that next year's ARM reference core design will match what Apple offered last year, if it gets clocked ~13% higher than what Apple's SoC runs at.

 

Apple is essentially 1-2 generations ahead of anything ARM, Microsoft, Qualcomm or Samsung has to offer. And when it comes to chips for laptops and desktops, Apple is in a completely different league. Microsoft and Qualcomm are basically repurposing SoCs for phones to use in laptops, while Apple are going all out with their designs.

[PeterBocan]

Just now, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

I think M1 doesn't have nearly as many PCI-e lanes as the Ice Lake chips. Why would they only include 2 USB-4 ports on the Mac mini? That's half the amount. Either they're using those PCI-e lanes for super-fast storage, or they're just absent...

I think they use that bandwidth to swap stuff from memory.

[Kisces]

25 minutes ago, NotTheFirstDaniel said:

That's the reason why they switched, right? Apple is a big ego company, it's their way or the highway. Intel wasn't designing CPUs that would fit in the "vision" of Apple's laptops, so they said screw it and made their own.

Apple's entire line up has become a huge mess--iPad Pro and the new iPad Air; macbook air and 13-inch madbook pro; iphone 12 mini and 12 ...etc

[NotTheFirstDaniel]

Just now, Kisces said:

Apple's entire line up has become a huge mess--iPad Pro and the new iPad Air; macbook air and 13-inch madbook pro; iphone 12 mini and 12 ...etc

 

There's already not much difference between iPadOS and MacOS now, then why a macbook air instead of an iPad that can basically do the same thing? 

I feel like that's the point.

 

Give the consumer as many options as they can have. I think Phil Schiller said something like "the iPad line needs to push on the MacBook line and the MacBook line needs to push back" or something random like that, basically saying that they need to be competitive with each other to make better products, but there are still distinctive reasons to buy one over the other.

[BuckGup]

2 hours ago, jollander said:

 

Gamers when Xbox loads immediately: OMG

Gamers when an Apple laptop loads immediately: Who asked for this?

 

Be fair  

I'm not talking about games and Apple wasn't either. They mentioned gaming but they were more focused on UI response time 

[Commodus]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Apple does not use Cortex CPU cores. The cores Apple uses are waaaay faster than anything ARM or Qualcomm has released so far.

The M1 isn't really an "octa core" either. It's two quad cores. One with good performance and one for power saving features. Think of it as a quad core instead.

What fascinated me: that Apple claimed the low-power cores by themselves are as powerful as the Core i3 from the earlier MacBook Air. That suggests you might be dealing with at least Core i5-level power even in the $999 Air, and that's not including the much faster graphics.