10 ms·
I'm surprised we didn't get any performance numbers. Either raw power or at least power efficiency and projected battery life improvements. Seeing as this is a
by Cu3PO42 6y ago
I'm surprised we didn't get any performance numbers. Either raw power or at least power efficiency and projected battery life improvements. Seeing as this is a major reason for the transition (according to them), it feels very weird.
They're shipping a 'Development Transition Kit' Mac mini with an A12Z this week, so it's not like the numbers are going to stay private for a long time. Even if there's an NDA, someone's bound to break it.
- stephc_int13 6y agoThey are probably still working on ARM specific optimizations and benchmarks, and they prefer to wait to show their results, to maximize the impact.
- marricks 6y agoI wonder if they're holding them for the actual hardware release in Fall? They could still be deciding the tradeoff between battery life and raw power.
- pier25 6y agoThey said the first ARM macs are coming at the end of this year, so even if there's an NDA it won't be long until we'll see the real numbers.
- bredren 6y agoIt wasn't just lack of performance numbers, there were no actual products announced. They would have had to tip their hand on a lot of info that is not helpful to customers or their ability to keep selling Intel stuff. One big question though will be how this devkit benchmarks against the current maxed Intel mac mini. I'm curious if GPU performance beats the current BlackMagic eGPU. (rx 580)
- hn_check 6y agoIt's an integrated GPU so it isn't going to compete against serious dedicated GPUs, and no one should expect that. I imagine much like existing Apple devices (and Windows laptops) with dedicated GPUs it will switch as necessary. But at least the integrated GPU will be better.
- Cu3PO42 6y agoNot divulging their hand may be a thing. But they could at least have said something (rehashed) about the A12Z: "it performs better than the CPUs currently shipping in the Mac mini by X% in Y benchmark". I'm not intrisically excited for a new Apple product, but if they could have told me, we can deliver 50% extra battery life in your new MacBook at comparable performance, that would build up some hype and maybe mindshare. > not helpful to [...] their ability to keep selling Intel stuff. I hope that that's it. If we're going through the pains of a platform transition, I'd like to get something out of it.
- ebg13 6y ago> Not divulging their hand may be a thing. But they could at least have Let's say that the new numbers are mindblowingly good. So then what? Nobody buys anything from them until next year because they're all waiting? Yikes. This way fewer people will be mortified of the idea of buying something right now instead of waiting.
- smacktoward 6y agoAKA the Osborne effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect
- vosper 6y ago> But they could at least have said something (rehashed) about the A12Z: "it performs better than the CPUs currently shipping in the Mac mini by X% in Y benchmark". It's a kit to allow developers to prepare for transitioning their applications to ARM, for future retail MacOS/ARM devices. It's not a new Mac Mini, and it doesn't make sense to compare the retail machines to this dev kit (which is probably running a yet-to-be-fully-optimised OS)
- theshrike79 6y agoThe A12Z is already faster than every tablet and phone in existence. Depending on the benchmark, it smokes about 80% of off the shelf PC hardware. They really don't need to do that much.
- fomine3 6y agoI believe Apple can make processors for laptop and normal desktop in A-series way but I'm curious how they make for Mac Pro. Adopting architecture like chiplet?
- marricks 6y agoThey said they'd be using Intel chips for a while, it could specifically in regards to Mac Pro. Even if apple could make a great server/high performance chip that seems like possibly a lot of additional work for little gain in the market? Keeping intel chips for some computers may make more sense in keeping their toes in the water for intel incase they need to rekindle that relationship for future projects down the road.
- fomine3 6y agoI'm also agree that keep using Intel for Mac Pro is reasonable but I heard that they transition for own chip within two years.
- kshacker 6y agoTransition = all products have an option within 2 years Also means == some products (13" mbp) migrate fully and are Apple only, And some don't (Mac Pro) and have both options. Just reading the tea leaves.
- pier25 6y agoYou think these 2 years is also the number of macOS versions that will keep supporting Intel?
- itchynosedev 6y agoFrom what I understood the transition is of strategic nature. Less dependency on third party suppliers for vital components. The performance and/or battery gains is almost incidental.
- greatpatton 6y agoNo it's not less dependency on 3rd parties, it's more dependency on TSMC. Before they were able to play Intel vs TSMC, it's not the case anymore. Then you add the geopolitical issue of Taiwan vs China and the risks level keep increasing.
- dahauns 6y ago>Before they were able to play Intel vs TSMC How? Did Intel suddenly allow their CPUs to be manufactured by TSMC? Or, vice versa, agree to manufacture Apple's Ax chips?
- jfkebwjsbx 6y agoThe major reason for the transition is higher margins, plain and simple. For customers, both average users and developers it will be a pain with little to be gained.
- objclxt 6y agoUnlikely - being able to have full control of your roadmap is a huge strategic advantage. Profits and revenue are nice, but if Apple was interested in that they could dual source x86 from AMD and drive cost down. You don’t think companies like Oculus are envious of Apple’s flexibility from not having to rely on Qualcomm for their mobile SoCs? It’s not just about profit margin.
- jfkebwjsbx 6y ago> Profits and revenue are nice, but if Apple was interested in that they could dual source x86 from AMD and drive cost down. If Apple could do that and play it to their advantage, they would have done so a long time ago. Higher margins and profits are the drivers in the end. Strategic control or not is just a way they use to achieve that. It is a publicly traded company, after all. > You don’t think companies like Oculus are envious of Apple’s flexibility from not having to rely on Qualcomm for their mobile SoCs? I doubt Oculus cares given their goal. There are pros and cons of vertically integrating an entire company into one.
- JohnBooty 6y agoNo doubt profit margins are a big factor in their thinking. However, performance/watt matters too.
- asjw 6y agoGenuine question: unless you run a datacenter with thousands of CPUs, does it really matter? Apple has zero presence in data centers. I read people here writing "double the battery life" without any source, but even if that was the case I own a laptop that does 2 hours on battery, I use it to run models on a discrete GPU so power efficiency goes out of the window anyway, it's really not achievable. The other one can handle average workloads for 12 hours and weights a bit more then a kilo, if it was smaller or lighter it would be a much worse laptop than it is (if it's too light it has no stability and you fight constantly to keep it steady on your desk) Who needs more?
- hn_check 6y agoIt doesn't seem weird at all, and the fact that they're sending out devices on the A12Z seems to be intentional sandbagging: they know that people are going to benchmark and the results will likely be simply comparable to current hardware (from a performance perspective...energy efficiency will clearly be much better). When they release the actual devices, where their power and thermal profile is dramatically higher than an iPad Pro, it will actually wow.
- bredren 6y agoI would also expect this hw to be nerfed compared to what actually goes out to customers. That way no matter what is achieved on this it is better for real users.
- ianai 6y agoThat’s my takeaway too. But imagine the impact of the speed is as good or faster? They’re shipping with 16 gigs ram too so it’s at least not the typical 8 gig minimum.
- moduspol 6y agoI don't think they even used the term "ARM" at any point. They're calling it "Apple's silicon," and they acknowledged it's the same as what iPhone and iPad use. But I thought it was interesting how they seemed to avoid the term. It's probably just a matter of avoiding getting too "techy" and marketing.
- ogre_codes 6y agoI don't know that Apple ever really talks the fact that their chips are based on ARM during this kind of event.
- hanche 6y agoIt's funny how that works. This story may be only tangentially related, but here goes: A few years back, I was visiting the local ARM offices in Trondheim, Norway. I happened to mention something about the iPhones using their processors, and my host immediately said, “I am not allowed to comment on that”. But everybody knows it, I said. In response, he said yes, but he still can't talk about it. Possibly, he broke the rule by admitting even that much.
- spideymans 6y agoEveryone and their dog has known that Apple uses Gorilla glass on their devices since the original iPhone. I believe it was only until recently (this year) that Apple executives acknowledged the relationship in any capacity (one of their SVP visited the Gorilla Glass factory with press)
- 0x0 6y agoHow strange. I mean, Xcode shows which architectures you build for. They even mention "armv6", "armv7", "arm64" etc in their own tech notes. https://developer.apple.com/support/required-device-capabilities/ https://developer.apple.com/support/required-device-capabili...
- ogre_codes 6y ago
- stefan_ 6y agoHave they ever given performance numbers that weren't like "up to 400% faster" in selected tasks?
- modzu 6y agomaybe it's about profits not performance?
- oliveshell 6y agoWhy not both?
- modzu 6y agoi was replying to the parent thread that observed no performance data was shared. if performance were say, the same or slightly worse, then it would explain why apple wouldn't release performance data. but they might still want their own chips, if they increased profitability
- tpmx 6y agoDing-ding-ding. We have a winner.
- wiremine 6y ago> I'm surprised we didn't get any performance numbers. It makes sense that they wouldn't: 1. Its dev hardware, not final production hardware. They'll want to compare the A13 or A14 (or whatever SoC they finally use) for benchmarks. 2. Until the apps are optimized, it doesn't make sense for Apple to put itself in the position of bad press with premature figures.
- r00fus 6y ago3. Osbourne effect avoided by not crowing about specs - those who are cautious or dependent on x86 will continue buying Intel kit. Once the new product is available and it kicks the daylight out of the legacy, they will already have their pareto-split of interest in their new offerings.
- rahkiin 6y agoIf A12Z is based on the A12 they will never make consumer products with it but instead take a new A14
- Xixi 6y agoThe A12Z is already shipping in the latest iPad Pro, so it's not like its performance is some unknown quantity: benchmarks are aplenty... Although I guess this dev kit could run at a different frequency, and have more/less memory bandwidth. Performance should still roughly be that of the iPad Pro. The A12Z is itself only a small update on the A12X from 2018, so it's basically two years behind whatever will ship in actual ARM Macs this fall...
- fomine3 6y agoI expect DTK performs better than iPad Pro because it can supply more power and has more thermal budget (maybe still has active cooling fan).
- Xixi 6y agoIt might be running at a somewhat higher frequency, because why not. But the DTK is not a production model, so I don't expect Apple to spend significant resources on it. After all the A12Z should be good enough as-is. You have to consider that Apple engineers are busy designing new SoCs for the entire Mac line-up: optimizing the A12Z for the DTK is probably not their top priority at the moment. They will want to wow people with a new MacBook (Air? Pro? <blank>?) this fall: that SoC should be their priority...
- floatboth 6y agoThe devkit has 16GB of RAM; no way it's not at least dual-channel memory.
- rock_artist 6y agoDon’t expect performance. The Intel DTK was Prescott based (while AMD had great dual cores and Intel were lagging). Then they’ve released their Core series that started from mobile and had great performance. I guess they did some homework before ditching Intel. The big question Is if they have enough headroom for manufacturing reliable chips with sustained high power.
- gjsman-1000 6y agoI found in the Press release the cost of the Transition Kit: $500. Not bad at all.
- macintux 6y agoProbably a rental, based on the last transition.
- gjsman-1000 6y agoIt is indeed a rental, but on the upside, it's only half the cost of the Intel Transition Kit, which was $999.
- senthilnayagam 6y agothere is no intel chip to pay for, so they can make it cheaper
- satai 6y agoAnd only a tiny case and no huge cooler ;-)
- pilsetnieks 6y agoWhen the Intel Transition Kit was returned, they gave the devs a first gen Intel iMac for free.
- m12k 6y agoThere's no indication that the A12Z will be the chip that ships to consumers at the end of the year. So honestly it'd be a bit out of character to boast about the specific performance numbers of a pre-release dev kit chip - especially when that chip has already had Geekbench run on it for a while: https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/ipad-pro-12-9-inch-4th-generation https://browser.geekbench.com/ios_devices/ipad-pro-12-9-inch...
- newacct583 6y ago> So honestly it'd be a bit out of character This is Apple we're talking about. They boast about unverifiable performance claims in pretty much every product they announce...
- tomaskafka 6y agoBut not before they announce it.
- wtallis 6y agoLast time around, the dev kits had Pentium 4 processors but the Intel Macs that launched used Core and Core 2 processors— a totally different microarchitecture with drastically different performance and power characteristics. It's a pretty safe bet that the first ARM Macs will be using SoCs that are at least a generational improvement over the A12Z. The higher-power Macs that will probably be released toward the end of the transition will likely use chips that are more drastically different from what's in an iPad Pro.
- m12k 6y agoI'm honestly pretty excited to see what Apple can deliver. The A12Z is passively cooled, yet is on par with the 10th gen i5 in the new 13 inch MBP: https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-pro-13-inch-mid-2020-intel-core-i5-1038ng7-2-0-ghz-4-cores https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/macbook-pro-13-inch-mid-2... Just imagine what they can do with active cooling!
- ogre_codes 6y ago> I'm surprised we didn't get any performance numbers. It's the CPU in the iPad Pro, performance numbers are out there in the wild. The only big change is the RAM. This isn't a retail product, it's a developer kit. When they release retail Macs I'm sure there will be some performance numbers.
- minhazm 6y agoThere's still a huge difference in TDP. The iPad probably has a TDP of maybe 10 watts? The Mac Mini Intel CPU's have 65 watt TDP's. They can deliver more power and cooling to the 12Z than in an iPad and it should result in much higher performance.
- monocasa 6y agoLess throttling is probably the big one here.
- fabiospampinato 6y agoThey said they are planning on making a family of SoC for the Mac though, I doubt we are going to see iPad-level processors in the actual ARM-based Macs they will sell.
- taylodl 6y agoIt's not a product release - it's an announcement of direction for the Mac product line and the Mac OS platform. Once they have hardware with ARM processors for purchase they'll be speaking to the processor specs and how much better they are at power management.
- nojito 6y agoA12Z isn't a consumer chip for macOS. That's why you aren't going to get benchmarks from Apple. They are also being very very coy with what they have under their sleeves because of small of an upgrade A13 was over A12. Same thing happened during the intel transition. The first consumer chips were dual cores, but the DTK was Pentium 4s
- joakleaf 6y agoIt was pretty much the same with PowerPC to Intel... Steve Jobs demoed OSX first. Then surprised everybody by saying, OSX had lived a double life in a secret building for many years (with photo), and that he had been running on an Intel Pentium 4 during the demo all morning. Nothing about performance. There was also a developer system back then; an Intel Pentium 4 in a PowerMac case. In a lot of ways, this is far more ambitious, and could mean a lot more for Apple long term, but... ... The one thing that hit me the most was, how impressed I was with Apple back then, and how excited I was that a company could do this. Steve Jobs presented it really well, but this time it felt quite flat. ... I really, wish they worked a bit on their showman-ship. They rushed through so many small things, and the presentation felt unnatural. Like they have all over-rehearsed it, but are still reading while presenting (you could even see eye-movements). It is just too smooth, too generic, and a bit too polished. Please slow down, focus on only the most interesting bits, and give us time to digest it...
- cestith 6y agoThat wasn't their first processor change, either. Not even was it first in the Mac line. The Apple I and II were MOS 6502 machines except for the Apple IIgs which was a 65c816. Then the early Macs were 680x0 machines. Then PowerPC. Then Intel. They looked at Intel chips for the iPhone and settled on Arm before launch. I wouldn't be surprised if some very brittle, early development version of iOS was running on an Intel mobile platform at some point.
- jedberg 6y agoI think some of that stems from the fact that Steve Jobs was saying his own words, but everyone else is saying marketing's words. The best marketing could do to Steve was tell him that he's using a competing's brand name incorrectly. Everything else was his. So he could speak passionately in his own words. Everyone else is acting, but they aren't actors.
- lowmemcpu 6y ago> I'm surprised we didn't get any performance numbers. The fact that all the demoes were on their top-of-line most-expensive machines fell very weird to me. "Look at this amazing performance" would be great if the demo was on a Macbook Air.
- hn_check 6y agoIt's was a Pro monitor, but they explicitly said that the demos actually ran on the developer transition kit powered by an A12Z...
- snazz 6y agoThey did have a Mac Pro there as a prop, which was interesting and potentially confusing. There was a brief moment where you could see that it was connected to something in a Mac mini case.
- 00deadbeef 6y agoYeah it was done so they could pull the switcheroo later and reveal that everything seen so far was on an ARM Mac
- snazz 6y agoYep. I don’t think they needed the Mac Pro as a prop though.
- pwthornton 6y agoApple will almost assuredly have a dedicated event later this year where they will announce new hardware. Apple has development kits running in modified Apple TV's. This is a chip that has essentially been out for a few years in iPad Pros. Why would Apple announce numbers based on this? It also assumes Apple will ship future laptops without fans or ports, which is how the development kit is coming out. Apple will most likely have an A14X out later this year in at least one laptop. That's going to be significantly newer and more advanced than the A12Z in development kits.
- TetOn 6y agoThe developer kit is in a Mac Mini. It has a full complement of the usual Mac Mini ports and, unless they've made major internal changes, a fan.
- hendersoon 6y agoWe pretty much know it'll perform fine in native programs, the only real question is how well the x86 translation layer performs.
- totalZero 6y agoThose numbers would be meaningless without knowing what the actual geometry of the internals will be, because cooling is a major limiting factor for laptop processor performance.
- e40 6y agoHow do I get into the DTK program? We produce a compiler for macOS and obviously will need access to this. I looked all over developer.apple.com and didn't find anything.
- mdouglass 6y agoYou can find links at https://developer.apple.com/programs/universal/ https://developer.apple.com/programs/universal/
- madeofpalk 6y ago> I'm surprised we didn't get any performance numbers That's not this presentation - when they actually ship hardware (transition kit not included) - then they'll talk performance.
- arrrg 6y agoThey had to announce this early to allow developers to get ready. If they could have gotten away with not announcing early they would have. Obviously (if all apps would automatically run natively on ARM without any developer involvement) they would have first announced this with an actual new Mac. That, however, was not an option. So they have to tread carefully in what they say and they also have to be a bit careful about showing off too much. They only had to tout the benefits of ARM insofar as to placate the fears of consumers (their Rosetta story plus virtualization story helped there) and to provide some reasonable justification to actually make devs at least a bit excited, even though they have to do additional work. Plus: No ARM Mac (except the transition kit) currently exists. It’s not even clear if the first Mac they will announce is even finished yet, if only internally. And even if it is finished: Do you think going on stage now and talking about a new MacBook Air that has twice the performance and 50% more battery life as the current MacBook Air – oh, and you can get one in December – would be a good idea? This is Apple’s tightrope walk to avoid too much of an Osborne effect. I think they are ok with some Osborne effect (if only because they know that even if no one buys an Intel Mac ever again during the next two years transition time they will not go bankrupt, so far from it) but you don’t have to provoke one, right? I expect plenty of numbers and comparisons when they introduce the actual first ARM Mac.
- modmans2nd 6y agoWhy show performance numbers on a machine that will not be going to production?