OT Apple will make its own chips on Macs (not Intel based)

I can think some scenarios for that move

  • integration with iOS
  • security flaws in Intel chips
  • Small improvement from gen to gen
  • Hackintosh become popular (even with AMD chips)
  • More power efficiency

In my personal opinion , it’s a difficult decision since there will be a compatibility transition (like the days with IBM chips on ppc macs) , it will also affect current sales since in few years the hardware will not be able running future OSX versions, plus not all software developers will make the transition.

But then Apple can have total control of the hardware ($$$$$$$), and maybe will justify the *3 pricing on their macs compared to windows PC&Laptops that currently have same specs .

Comments

  • The sad part is this will probably make cross platform apps even harder to develop. This combined with the abandonment of opengl will basically mean crossplatform opensource apps like VCVRack will cease to exist on Mac.

  • @gonekrazy3000 said:
    The sad part is this will probably make cross platform apps even harder to develop. This combined with the abandonment of opengl will basically mean crossplatform opensource apps like VCVRack will cease to exist on Mac.

    Or else, they all gravitate towards using web app technologies.

  • I depend on being able to run Windows and *nix VMs on the Macbook.
    Let's see if one day I have to say goodbye to Mac.

  • I guess the pile of cash allows them to attempt these sorts of risky strategies. They better allocate some of that cash to support devs.

  • What is the source of this 'will make its own chips on Macs?' Probably not Apple I think?

  • edited June 2018

    Ahhh Apple Bashing, never gets old! :)

    PCs and Macs do not "have the same specs". They may have the same clock frequency or amount of RAM, however, the build and component quality is light years apart.

    Also remember that Macs come with a free operating system with lifetime free upgrades, including "real" applications (like GarageBand), while Windows comes with Minesweeper. ;)

  • edited June 2018

    apple is running away with the low energy chips,
    intel seems to have hit the wall of we can't make it smaller/quicker/can't get more cpu/gpu cycles.
    why not.
    what makes iOS so banging is that apple has control over everything, and doesn't have to wait for intel ...

  • @bert said:
    What is the source of this 'will make its own chips on Macs?' Probably not Apple I think?

    yes, not Apple officially... but not unreasonable/phantasy either
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-02/apple-is-said-to-plan-move-from-intel-to-own-mac-chips-from-2020

  • @SevenSystems said:
    ... while Windows comes with Minesweeper. ;)

    And lots of annoying ads, even in the Start menu :p

  • @Telefunky said:

    @bert said:
    What is the source of this 'will make its own chips on Macs?' Probably not Apple I think?

    yes, not Apple officially... but not unreasonable/phantasy either
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-02/apple-is-said-to-plan-move-from-intel-to-own-mac-chips-from-2020

    Tim Cook lately told the press Apple will not merge iOS and OSX because they both serve a different goal. What Apple is doing, as far as I know, is making developing the same apps for both iOS and OSX easier.

  • yes, there's few sense in merging IOS and OSX...
    but Mr. Cook's statement doesn't exclude an entirely new system that might be introduced as '... one more thing' all of a sudden o:)

  • @SevenSystems said:
    PCs and Macs do not "have the same specs". They may have the same clock frequency or amount of RAM, however, the build and component quality is light years apart.

    There's nothing special about the about the internal components of a Mac, they're exactly the same processors and GPUs and memory that are available on PC. Arguably it's actually really easy to outspec a Mac on the hardware side since most of their line is at least a generation behind. The Mac Pro is several generations behind.

    For some industries the Mac is slowly becoming unviable, and I don't see this as a good thing. In 3D applications Nvidia GPUs are a necessity, because all the best GPU renderers use CUDA and not OpenCL (or if they use both CUDA is much faster). This alone puts the Mac out of contention. That and the lack of any significant updates to the Pro line, apart from the laughable iMac Pro (that is really not suitable to high intensity computing due to its thermal design limitations) is hurting the Mac among graphics professionals.

    For music though the Mac is still a better platform, due to the much better user experience (Core Audio and MIDI), noise levels and Logic.

    Software-wise the argument for the Mac is perfectly reasonable, but to claim that there is anything special about the hardware is blind fanboism.

  • edited June 2018

    @richardyot said:

    There's nothing special about the about the internal components of a Mac, they're exactly the same processors and GPUs and memory that are available on PC. Arguably it's actually really easy to outspec a Mac on the hardware side since most of their line is at least a generation behind. The Mac Pro is several generations behind.

    For some industries the Mac is slowly becoming unviable, and I don't see this as a good thing. In 3D applications Nvidia GPUs are a necessity, because all the best GPU renderers use CUDA and not OpenCL (or if they use both CUDA is much faster). This alone puts the Mac out of contention. That and the lack of any significant updates to the Pro line, apart from the laughable iMac Pro (that is really not suitable to high intensity computing due to its thermal design limitations) is hurting the Mac among graphics professionals.

    For music though the Mac is still a better platform, due to the much better user experience (Core Audio and MIDI), noise levels and Logic.

    Software-wise the argument for the Mac is perfectly reasonable, but to claim that there is anything special about the hardware is blind fanboism.

    Not contesting any of what you said Richard - genuine question - are the iMac’s not great for graphics work? I thought with the 5k screens and newer hardware they’d be pretty good?

    I bought one a few years back (one of the first 5k’s), and it was great apart from a couple of things - juddering screen redraw in places, and the deal-breaker for me - issues when viewing .pdf’s, so I had to send it back. Frustrating because apart from those things it was lovely. Apple support and forum feedback seemed to suggest an underpowered graphics card.

    Aren’t the current models any good? I’d planned getting one when my Win7 desktop finally expires, for web and graphic work, and the odd sneaky music thing.

  • @MonzoPro said:

    @richardyot said:

    There's nothing special about the about the internal components of a Mac, they're exactly the same processors and GPUs and memory that are available on PC. Arguably it's actually really easy to outspec a Mac on the hardware side since most of their line is at least a generation behind. The Mac Pro is several generations behind.

    For some industries the Mac is slowly becoming unviable, and I don't see this as a good thing. In 3D applications Nvidia GPUs are a necessity, because all the best GPU renderers use CUDA and not OpenCL (or if they use both CUDA is much faster). This alone puts the Mac out of contention. That and the lack of any significant updates to the Pro line, apart from the laughable iMac Pro (that is really not suitable to high intensity computing due to its thermal design limitations) is hurting the Mac among graphics professionals.

    For music though the Mac is still a better platform, due to the much better user experience (Core Audio and MIDI), noise levels and Logic.

    Software-wise the argument for the Mac is perfectly reasonable, but to claim that there is anything special about the hardware is blind fanboism.

    Not contesting any of what you said Richard - genuine question - are the iMac’s not great for graphics work? I thought with the 5k screens and newer hardware they’d be pretty good?

    I bought one a few years back (one of the first 5k’s), and it was great apart from a couple of things - juddering screen redraw in places, and the deal-breaker for me - issues when viewing .pdf’s, so I had to send it back. Frustrating because apart from those things it was lovely. Apple support and forum feedback seemed to suggest an underpowered graphics card.

    Aren’t the current models any good? I’d planned getting one when my Win7 desktop finally expires, for web and graphic work, and the odd sneaky music thing.

    iMacs are great for Photoshop and inDesign but they're really problematic for intensive computing, so anything that is going to peg your CPU at 100% for prolonged periods of time: 3D rendering, video rendering etc... 3D in particular though because renders can easily take 12 hours or more. The problem is that iMacs simply can't handle that amount of heat for that amount of time, so they have to throttle the CPU in order to keep the temperature under control. Even so I've seen iMacs that were routinely used for 3D literally fall apart as the glue holding the chassis together melted.

    That is aside from the lack of availability of Nvidia GPUs, which means no access to GPU rendering with CUDA, which is also a really big deal these days.

  • I just have 2 main reasons to use a macbook pro.
    Logic and P900.
    That‘s it so far. But at the end i don‘t care what will be in some years.
    I might still use a mac, or a windows 2 in 1 or maybe iOS again....or hardware.
    The great thing is all the knowledge you have learned about music creation tools can mostly be used elsewhere.
    Intel chips are still needed yet and having 8 virtual cores is important for my workflow.

  • @richardyot said:

    There's nothing special about the about the internal components of a Mac, they're exactly the same processors and GPUs and memory that are available on PC.

    But then why did I experience broken RAM several times with PCs (I still have nightmares of the yellow pixels suddenly appearing all over the textures in DOOM 2! :)), broken bearings in fans that suddenly sound like chainsaws too many times to count (the MTBF of a PC CPU fan bearing seems to be 2 weeks), and why did my Mac Mini endure 2 years of motorhome installation in a tiny battery compartment at 60 C with constant vibration while driving, while the PC I mounted next to it, which cost $1000 with only slightly better specs, being far bigger and less elegant, was fried after a few months?

    See, the point I'm making is: yes, the same components might be available / used for both platforms. But it seems like Apple hardware IN GENERAL uses higher-quality components than the AVERAGE PC sold, and that's probably part of the reason they're more expensive for the same "specs" (MHz, RAM). And the other part is the software, customer support, etc.

    It's even more pronounced with iOS devices. I got a few Android devices for app development and the only other use they have for me is as a flashlight. Seriously, I tried to love Android and the devices, but they're just so inferior in almost every way while being similarly priced to a "similarly specced" iPhone :) ...

    You're probably right about the graphics stuff, the last time I had a reasonable 3D card (for the time) was when I was still a Blender3D developer (shortly after it went open-source), so yeah, I need to catch up there! :)

  • @SevenSystems
    Hardware quality on PCs varies , still top quality pc parts , form a MAC for half the price.

    PS. I have years of experience on this subject . On Macs you pay for very good (not top) quality , OS , customer service .

  • @richardyot said:

    @MonzoPro said:

    @richardyot said:

    There's nothing special about the about the internal components of a Mac, they're exactly the same processors and GPUs and memory that are available on PC. Arguably it's actually really easy to outspec a Mac on the hardware side since most of their line is at least a generation behind. The Mac Pro is several generations behind.

    For some industries the Mac is slowly becoming unviable, and I don't see this as a good thing. In 3D applications Nvidia GPUs are a necessity, because all the best GPU renderers use CUDA and not OpenCL (or if they use both CUDA is much faster). This alone puts the Mac out of contention. That and the lack of any significant updates to the Pro line, apart from the laughable iMac Pro (that is really not suitable to high intensity computing due to its thermal design limitations) is hurting the Mac among graphics professionals.

    For music though the Mac is still a better platform, due to the much better user experience (Core Audio and MIDI), noise levels and Logic.

    Software-wise the argument for the Mac is perfectly reasonable, but to claim that there is anything special about the hardware is blind fanboism.

    Not contesting any of what you said Richard - genuine question - are the iMac’s not great for graphics work? I thought with the 5k screens and newer hardware they’d be pretty good?

    I bought one a few years back (one of the first 5k’s), and it was great apart from a couple of things - juddering screen redraw in places, and the deal-breaker for me - issues when viewing .pdf’s, so I had to send it back. Frustrating because apart from those things it was lovely. Apple support and forum feedback seemed to suggest an underpowered graphics card.

    Aren’t the current models any good? I’d planned getting one when my Win7 desktop finally expires, for web and graphic work, and the odd sneaky music thing.

    iMacs are great for Photoshop and inDesign but they're really problematic for intensive computing, so anything that is going to peg your CPU at 100% for prolonged periods of time: 3D rendering, video rendering etc... 3D in particular though because renders can easily take 12 hours or more. The problem is that iMacs simply can't handle that amount of heat for that amount of time, so they have to throttle the CPU in order to keep the temperature under control. Even so I've seen iMacs that were routinely used for 3D literally fall apart as the glue holding the chassis together melted.

    Blimey, that sounds very worrying. I'm not a 3d-er or gamer, so there wouldn't be any of that going on. Would they cope running music software with lots of tracks and VST's? I'm thinking about my overheating iPad Air...don't want to repeat all that with a two grand desktop!

  • @Korakios said:
    @SevenSystems
    Hardware quality on PCs varies , still top quality pc parts , form a MAC for half the price.

    Hardware quality varies even in specific models. It's pot-luck sometimes as to what screen etc. you end up with.

  • @richardyot, CUDA outperforms OpenCL on apps that suport both (Adobe CC, Redcine-X). But it’s a rather slight edge across platforms. You said CUDA is much faster than OpenCL, but this is only true for a nVidia card, and for obvious reasons.

    The superior performance of CUDA is not because on an inherent technical superiority, but because nVidia works with developers to secure a tight integration, which is a great thing actually: hats off to nVidia. But equal or even better results can be achieved with OpenCL if a developer work to integrate it properly to the render engine. Lets not forget that Apple’s Final Cut Pro X (Open CL only) outperforms both Adobe Premiere and Avid Media Composer at rendering.

    Hope Apple don’t move its pro line to Arm though: they left behind an important niche, the prosumer/enthusiast, and that niche is already filled by hackintoshes, which outperforms any iMac while costing a fraction of it, while not really reaching Mac Pro performance. It seems unlikely that Apple care for this niche, so if hackintoshes are gone, these users will only have Windows as a serious alternative.

  • @SevenSystems said:
    See, the point I'm making is: yes, the same components might be available / used for both platforms. But it seems like Apple hardware IN GENERAL uses higher-quality components than the AVERAGE PC sold, and that's probably part of the reason they're more expensive for the same "specs" (MHz, RAM). And the other part is the software, customer support, etc.

    Well sure, that's a more reasonable point. I would imagine that to compare Apples to Oranges (ha ha) you would have to compare a high-end PC to a comparable Apple machine, because Apple are definitely a premium product. So you might compare a Macbook Pro to a Microsoft Surface Book, for example.

    But an average PC is likely to be considerably cheaper than a Mac, so there is that. A high end PC from an-off-the shelf manufacturer (say Alienware) is going to be a lot closer to the price of a Mac and likely be equally reliable. And for people who build their own, there is a requirement to do some serious research into the parts, but that time will pay off in a better performance-to-price ratio.

  • edited June 2018

    @theconnactic said:
    You said CUDA is much faster than OpenCL, but this is only true for a nVidia card, and for obvious reasons.

    It is though for 3D rendering (in engines such as Redshift and Octane), there are no OpenCL renderers that can compete. Might not be the case for video, fair enough. Of course OpenCL is being deprecated now so that's another issue altogether.

  • Well , Blender keeps pushing OpenCL and now it competes straight to Cuda .

  • Meanwhile in the real world of Apple.

    My brand new MacBook Pro 15 inch is malfunctioning now with it's second set of boards put in the machine.

    I assume I will need to again drive an hour to an Apple store and send it out again.

    So as usual, the basics are falling short and new "advances" make new shiny items and bright buttons look great.

  • lol I wonder wtf they thought with the keyboard with the little touch display
    if it had a real virtual keyboard, ok
    but this thing just leaves me puzzled,
    overengineered expensive crap and seems to fail for everybody who eats near his computer :o

  • @richardyot said:

    @SevenSystems said:
    PCs and Macs do not "have the same specs". They may have the same clock frequency or amount of RAM, however, the build and component quality is light years apart.

    There's nothing special about the about the internal components of a Mac, they're exactly the same processors and GPUs and memory that are available on PC. Arguably it's actually really easy to outspec a Mac on the hardware side since most of their line is at least a generation behind. The Mac Pro is several generations behind.

    For some industries the Mac is slowly becoming unviable, and I don't see this as a good thing. In 3D applications Nvidia GPUs are a necessity, because all the best GPU renderers use CUDA and not OpenCL (or if they use both CUDA is much faster). This alone puts the Mac out of contention. That and the lack of any significant updates to the Pro line, apart from the laughable iMac Pro (that is really not suitable to high intensity computing due to its thermal design limitations) is hurting the Mac among graphics professionals.

    For music though the Mac is still a better platform, due to the much better user experience (Core Audio and MIDI), noise levels and Logic.

    Software-wise the argument for the Mac is perfectly reasonable, but to claim that there is anything special about the hardware is blind fanboism.

    I think you are taking too much steps at once. Thunderbolt 3 with its 40Gbps speed and Apple's decision to support external graphics cards natively in High Sierra provide new possibilities: https://egpu.io/macos-external-gpu-review/ You can see the laptops with High Sierra and Thunderbolt 3 interfaces more and more as modular systems.

    I will not make any objections when Apple is putting Thunderbolt 3 at all their hardware devices, be it desktops, laptops or iPads.

    When you really need lots of graphical power at certain times, you could also look if cloud computing services are not more interesting. Boeing for example has saved lots of money by using the services of Rescale ($80,000,000.-).

Sign In or Register to comment.