> Considering the continued decline of classical PCs, I don’t think Apple can go all the way and design an Ax processor for high-end Macs. I think this is wron

> Considering the continued decline of classical PCs, I don’t think Apple can go all the way and design an Ax processor for high-end Macs. I think this is wrong. This is what the benchmarks say: - Apple A10 Fusion @ 2.35 GHz [1] / Geekbench 4 single-core: 3500 (typically) - that's 1489 points per GHz - Intel Core i7 7700 @ 4.20 GHz turbo / Geekbench 4 single-core: 5400 (typically) [2] - that's 1286 points per GHz - Intel Core i3 7100U @ 2.40 GHz (no turbo) / Geekbench 4 single-core: 3150 (typically) - that's 1312 points per GHz In clock-for-clock performance, Apple already is competitive with the highest end Intel performance. It's just a question on whether they can scale this up to a desktop chip with an appropriate amount of cores, clockspeed and I/O. Before you protest, Geekbench 4 is one of the few benchmarks that tests individual core speed while being fairly independent of I/O performance. Of course any desktop processor will easily outclass a mobile chip when it comes to I/O. It's not a perfect comparison for sure, but I think it shows that it's quite conceivable Apple will use their own chips in their next Mac Pro. [1]: This fails to take into account any potential 'turbo' functionality the A10 Fusion has - there is so little known about it that we don't if that exists or how much it boosts. [2]: I chose the non-K variety because the 7700K results on Geekbench typically seem to vary wildly due to its overclockability.