Apple Saying Goodbye to Intel Processors

Originally Posted by tcrs_circuit
It's unlikely that they will do away with Intel CPUs in the Pro line for a while due to software. The Air is likely to get a Arm CPU, and they have been gearing up for that for a while now with the new architecture used on the new boards (T2 chip replacing the SMC and PCH). The first couple years of this are likely to be a disaster. We see dead T2 chips all the time so I can't imagine how the first revision or 2 of these CPUs will go.


I think it will depend upon how well they can emulate x86.

It was mentioned above that Microsoft would need to commit to an ARM version of MS Office. Keep the pro stuff on intel, and now multiple versions of ss will need to be maintained in parallel. Doesn't seem like a sustainable thing for an office variant that is the junior partner...

I do think office is important, because kids wanting a Mac and the common applications will want office, as will folks doing higher end use. And I'm sure MS office isn't the only software of interest...
 
Originally Posted by JHZR2


I think it will depend upon how well they can emulate x86.

It was mentioned above that Microsoft would need to commit to an ARM version of MS Office. Keep the pro stuff on intel, and now multiple versions of ss will need to be maintained in parallel. Doesn't seem like a sustainable thing for an office variant that is the junior partner...

I do think office is important, because kids wanting a Mac and the common applications will want office, as will folks doing higher end use. And I'm sure MS office isn't the only software of interest...


Many assume that Apple will automatically include an x86 layer, but even some veteran observers are placing that at 50/50.

If they don't, it might cost them the users who dual boot, or run VMs, as I noted, but Apple has shown no hesitation to deprecate what it considers to be legacy technology, painful as that might be to some, as long as it believes it has given ample warning to developers.

If Apple can convince Microsoft, Adobe, and other developers of the "killer" or "pro" apps to play along, then there will only be a small price to pay. There is little doubt that ARM versions of its own apps, FCPX and Logic, are already well-advanced.

WWDC will only be the start of a new path, and it will take time, but Apple is confident enough, and large enough to be able to chart its own course, even if some may elect not to follow. Just as Moto, and them IBM failed before to keep up, and became impediments to that progress, Intel is now in the same boat.

The company can rightly be criticized for self-inflicted wounds that has cost it users from the pro realm, more typical users, and even loyalists, but the damage hasn't had as much impact as one might expect, especially since most computing is now done from devices, and the cloud.

Those developers are writing in Swift, not Obj-C, and using Metal, not OpenGL, and being able to easily port that work to the Mac, while respecting the desktop paradigm, offers greater future potential than hoping that Intel will finally get its act together.

The true reveal will be how its ARM processors stack up to x86. Desktop performance is already in reach, but if it springs a server-grade chip that's competitive, then all bets will be off.

Apple's silicon design group has really flown under the radar, considering how vital is has been to the company's success, and what it has been able to produce. The lessons learned from the struggles with Moto and IBM were not lost on Jobs after he returned to the company, and the investment made to control its own destiny has paid off handsomely. Now it's looking like it's Intel's turn.

Things should become clearer in about a week.
 
Originally Posted by Carmudgeon

The true reveal will be how its ARM processors stack up to x86. Desktop performance is already in reach, but if it springs a server-grade chip that's competitive, then all bets will be off.


Curious - are you mentioning server-grade chips to use in OS X server facilities, or more as a Xeon alternative for a revised Mac Pro?
 
Originally Posted by JHZR2
Originally Posted by Carmudgeon

The true reveal will be how its ARM processors stack up to x86. Desktop performance is already in reach, but if it springs a server-grade chip that's competitive, then all bets will be off.


Curious - are you mentioning server-grade chips to use in OS X server facilities, or more as a Xeon alternative for a revised Mac Pro?

No, a Xeon alternative.

XServe is long dead and OS X Server went from a separate product to an add-on and has since been neglected; Apple has no interest in that space. It runs Linux in its own data centers, and is also a big AWS customer.

Server-grade ARM chips have been an unfulfilled promise, but Amazon is making progress on that front with its Graviton chips, albeit in a more narrow role.

But it will be difficult to replace Xeons, and the current Mac Pro is barely six-months old, after a two year+ wait dating from the mea culpa acknowledgment that they needed to redeem themselves after the Trash Can Pro.

However, Apple could spring another surprise like the A7, which was publicly mocked for being the first 64-bit SoC, but caused some uncomfortable moments inside Qualcomm when they were caught flat-footed, and realized that they were two years behind.

PPC to Intel was first announced as a two-year hardware transition, but they remade the whole line in a year. This one will probably take longer, but would be made simpler by dumping x86. If companies like MS, Adobe, and the like buy in, and to a certain extent they already have, with their iOS apps, then a big hurdle is cleared. That's why this is taking place at WWDC, and needs to happen now if the hardware transition is to unfold over the new few years.

The ultimate goal of making the whole widget (even if contract manufacturers are the ones who actually do that), and controlling their own desitny will bring lots of benefits, as iOS has proven.

It will be interesting, and not without risk.
 
It figures, I buy my first ever Mac Desktop last fall (Mac mini) and love it, now I feel like it will be outdated already ...
frown.gif
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy
It figures, I buy my first ever Mac Desktop last fall (Mac mini) and love it, now I feel like it will be outdated already ...
frown.gif


That is part of being an Apple (tm) customer. Replace "Mac Desktop" with $ANY_APPLE_PRODUCT and you'll hear that from everyone, everywhere. :^)
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy
It figures, I buy my first ever Mac Desktop last fall (Mac mini) and love it, now I feel like it will be outdated already ...
frown.gif



Don't let it bug you, my Mac Pro is from 2010 and up until the current OS release, it was still supported.
 
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by alarmguy
It figures, I buy my first ever Mac Desktop last fall (Mac mini) and love it, now I feel like it will be outdated already ...
frown.gif



Don't let it bug you, my Mac Pro is from 2010 and up until the current OS release, it was still supported.


Until the new MP came out(7,1), a max upgraded 5,1 could still beat anything else Apple made.

Just about two weeks ago, I dropped X5690s in mine(3.46ghz hex) and upped it to 96gb RAM. It's overkill for anything I do, but I was part of the way there with the X5690s anyway and had another project where I wanted some of the parts that were previously in my Mac Pro.
 
Originally Posted by bunnspecial
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by alarmguy
It figures, I buy my first ever Mac Desktop last fall (Mac mini) and love it, now I feel like it will be outdated already ...
frown.gif



Don't let it bug you, my Mac Pro is from 2010 and up until the current OS release, it was still supported.


Until the new MP came out(7,1), a max upgraded 5,1 could still beat anything else Apple made.

Just about two weeks ago, I dropped X5690s in mine(3.46ghz hex) and upped it to 96gb RAM. It's overkill for anything I do, but I was part of the way there with the X5690s anyway and had another project where I wanted some of the parts that were previously in my Mac Pro.

Originally Posted by bunnspecial
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by alarmguy
It figures, I buy my first ever Mac Desktop last fall (Mac mini) and love it, now I feel like it will be outdated already ...
frown.gif



Don't let it bug you, my Mac Pro is from 2010 and up until the current OS release, it was still supported.


Until the new MP came out(7,1), a max upgraded 5,1 could still beat anything else Apple made.

Just about two weeks ago, I dropped X5690s in mine(3.46ghz hex) and upped it to 96gb RAM. It's overkill for anything I do, but I was part of the way there with the X5690s anyway and had another project where I wanted some of the parts that were previously in my Mac Pro.


Thanks to both of you for your response. I kinda of assumed the above, was more the shock of reading it and one thing for sure, it will still be a while and once the new chips and system is widely available ... well I certainly do not want to be the first in the block with it, couple years down the road for me for them to perfect their new chips by then the timing will be just right.

One thing for sure, the 2019 Mac mini (and my new iPhone XR)has surpassed all my expectations and I am firmly now an apple believer after using Windows for the last 25 years. Love apples ecosystem.
We still have 2 windows desktops that wife uses and 2 laptops but for me I have no desire for Win.
 
Originally Posted by Carmudgeon
Originally Posted by JHZR2
Originally Posted by Carmudgeon

The true reveal will be how its ARM processors stack up to x86. Desktop performance is already in reach, but if it springs a server-grade chip that's competitive, then all bets will be off.


Curious - are you mentioning server-grade chips to use in OS X server facilities, or more as a Xeon alternative for a revised Mac Pro?

No, a Xeon alternative.

XServe is long dead and OS X Server went from a separate product to an add-on and has since been neglected; Apple has no interest in that space. It runs Linux in its own data centers, and is also a big AWS customer.

Server-grade ARM chips have been an unfulfilled promise, but Amazon is making progress on that front with its Graviton chips, albeit in a more narrow role.

But it will be difficult to replace Xeons, and the current Mac Pro is barely six-months old, after a two year+ wait dating from the mea culpa acknowledgment that they needed to redeem themselves after the Trash Can Pro.

However, Apple could spring another surprise like the A7, which was publicly mocked for being the first 64-bit SoC, but caused some uncomfortable moments inside Qualcomm when they were caught flat-footed, and realized that they were two years behind.

PPC to Intel was first announced as a two-year hardware transition, but they remade the whole line in a year. This one will probably take longer, but would be made simpler by dumping x86. If companies like MS, Adobe, and the like buy in, and to a certain extent they already have, with their iOS apps, then a big hurdle is cleared. That's why this is taking place at WWDC, and needs to happen now if the hardware transition is to unfold over the new few years.

The ultimate goal of making the whole widget (even if contract manufacturers are the ones who actually do that), and controlling their own desitny will bring lots of benefits, as iOS has proven.

It will be interesting, and not without risk.


So again, I guess it comes back to if/how they decide to emulate x86.

Notionally for a Mac Pro they could have a whole additional processor and core set to facilitate that. Perhaps there's a reason why that is just fantasy, but Id have to think that they would want to be reasonably thoughtful of their consumer base.

Unless they think that those who have mac pros can leave the "important" x86 software (MS office, who knows what else) to a secondary computer, and get their critical software over to ARM... time will tell.

I just cant see Adobe, MS, etc. keeping a latest and greatest for ARM and X86 concurrently. Seems like a lot of potential for confusion, and a configuration management hassle...
 
They announced it today https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/22/macs-custom-apple-silicon/ They showed off Office, Adobe, etc running. For those on 100% Xcode it's as simple as check this box to compile for ARM. The iOS apps running natively is also huge news.

It will probably work out well for them - the PPC -> Intel transition was relatively simple for those that were all in on modern Apple tools.

I'm in the Windows camp for now but this is interesting news and they could have a winner if they don't price their stuff out there. That's what had me back in Windows.
 
But how/why did office run?

Maybe it's easy for mIcrosoft and others to just check a box and provide software for many different Mac OSs. Also seems like a configuration nightmare, and worse for those folks who aren't tech savvy and now won't know why their download won't install.

But I'm sure they have lots of people thinking about interoperability.
 
I didn't watch the video but from what I read, Office ran well. I'm sure there will be some tweaks that may be needed but from what I remember about the PPC->Intel transition it wasn't that bad on the developers that were in the Xcode camp. It was those that were still using legacy compilers and development tools and old OSX and OS9 stuff that had the most issues. I don't think that is much of an issue now.

There are caveats that some stuff won't work: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/23/rosetta-wont-support-x86-virtualization-windows/ but I expect that will get sorted out in due time.

From a developer's POV it should be as simple as checking the "make ARM" on the compiler. That's assuming you don't use a lot of Intel specific functions.
 
Originally Posted by itguy08
They announced it today https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/22/macs-custom-apple-silicon/ They showed off Office, Adobe, etc running. For those on 100% Xcode it's as simple as check this box to compile for ARM. The iOS apps running natively is also huge news.

It will probably work out well for them - the PPC -> Intel transition was relatively simple for those that were all in on modern Apple tools.

I'm in the Windows camp for now but this is interesting news and they could have a winner if they don't price their stuff out there. That's what had me back in Windows.


I didn't watch the keynote, but with Office, Photoshop, Lightroom and Maya already running in some fashion, it seems that the big developers are on board with the plan. Apple's own pro apps, will not be a problem, of course.

Rosetta 2 will support most x86 apps, but not virtualization apps, and dual booting is out the window, but on the flip side, iOS apps will run natively, and those developers will be able to offer their products across the whole spectrum of Apple's products -- iPhone, iPad, Watch, TV, and now Mac, all based on the same foundation. That has more upside potential, even if it may cost them the users who are tied to Windows-only tools somehow.

Three for three is looking pretty good.

Originally Posted by JHZR2
But how/why did office run?

Maybe it's easy for mIcrosoft and others to just check a box and provide software for many different Mac OSs. Also seems like a configuration nightmare, and worse for those folks who aren't tech savvy and now won't know why their download won't install.

But I'm sure they have lots of people thinking about interoperability.


This will be the third time Apple has made a transition from one hardware architecture to another, and it couldn't have happened if the company didn't make it a smooth process for developers, and users alike.

I'm not sure what the concern is over providing support for multiple architectures, when MS already does so for its products. There are three different versions of its OS, Windows (x86-64, x86, and yes, Arm, even if the last isn't quite as well advanced). There are different versions of Office for Windows, Mac, and Mobile.

It's the job of any software company to develop specific products for any market it wishes to be in, same as it is for the automotive OEMs to design and build products for each market, or even just simply LHD/RHD.

From the developer standpoint, simply checking a box may be oversimplifying things, and there will be some additional work needed, but beyond that, a lot of the heavy lifting will already have been done, if the developer has used the relevant IDE (CodeWarrior, for 68k to PPC, Xcode for Intel, and now ARM), and written clean code that calls upon supported APIs, and isn't encumbered by deprecated APIs, or legacy code. Dumping 68k wouldn't have been possible without CodeWarrior, and tools like it and Xcode relieve much of the pressure on the developer to worry about the low level architecture.

From a business standpoint, there are still unreleased Intel-based Macs in the pipeline, relatively new ones in the Mac Pro and Macbook Pro, as well as the current installed based, which will not disappear overnight, with some dating back ~12 years still in use. The just announced Mac OS 11/Big Sur supports machines up to 7 years old. It's not Windows in that respect, but it's also not the albatross that MS has had to bear, in supporting XP, and then 7 users, having to look back, as well as forward.

From the user standpoint, programs will be distributed in fat binaries that will run on both architectures, or in app slices through Apple's app store, so that will be transparent to the user.

And for the vast majority of them, ever since the smartphone became mainstream, the biggest question about the hottest new essential apps isn't whether they'll run on the desktop, it's whether it's available on both iOS and Android. By switching to ARM, Apple is making that hurdle easier to clear, at least for Macs.

Apple has done this twice before, and providing it executes according to plan, and makes it smooth enough for others to do so, then it will probably succeed again.
 
Last edited:
Good info.

Thoughts on a chance that x86 programs might be able to be run somehow without windows?

Would be nice to be able to run some sw without dual boot, parallels, or a windows install..
 
Originally Posted by JHZR2
Good info.

Thoughts on a chance that x86 programs might be able to be run somehow without windows?

Would be nice to be able to run some sw without dual boot, parallels, or a windows install..


None. Rosetta is to only intended to buy time and allow x86 Mac apps to run on the new platform.

Originally Posted by BearZDefect
If only Apple, Google, and Microsoft would cooperate on a new OS so the world of computing could converge.


I don't that's any more desirable than having GM, Ford and FCA merge, so there's only one monolithic U.S. car company.

The competition between Windows, Mac, and Linux (as well as iOS and Android) keeps everyone honest, and pushes technology forward. They all serve their markets.
 
The first Mac Mini ARM-based DTKs are starting to arrive in developer's hands.

We'll see how it plays out in the real world. Given how good the A12X in the iPad Pro already is, I think there's a whole lot of potential to take that same basic CPU and give it the thermal envelope of a laptop, much less a desktop.
 
The benchmarks for the DTKs (so much for the NDAs) are promising, and that's running a non-native benchmarking app through the Rosetta translator, on a two-year old tablet chip design.
 
Back
Top