MS Flight Simulator (2020): the 2021 PC graphics performance benchmark review
Radeon Series RX 6700 XT preview & analysis
Corsair MM700 & Corsair Katar Pro XT Review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - February 2021
ASUS GeForce RTX 3060 STRIX Gaming OC review
EVGA GeForce RTX 3060 XC Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming X TRIO review
PALIT GeForce RTX 3060 DUAL OC review
ZOTAC GeForce RTX 3060 AMP WHITE review
Fractal Design Meshify 2 Compact chassis review
Apple working on their own processors up-to 32 cores
We've already talked about Apple's plans to manufacture their own CPUs and GPUs. And new Mac processors might be introduced as soon as 2021 with a claim that they might outperform the current fastest processors.
Bloomberg reports that a road map shows Apple’s plan for the next two lines of Apple chips next year. The company said it expects to finish the shift away from Intel and to its own silicon in 2022. The current M1 chip inherits a mobile-centric design built around four high-performance processing cores.
For its next-generation chip targeting MacBook Pro and iMac models, Apple is working on designs with as many as 16 power cores and four efficiency cores. For higher-end desktop computers to be announced later in 2021 and a new half-sized Mac Pro planned to launch by 2022, Apple is testing a chip design with as many as 32 high-performance cores. The company still sells higher-end, Intel-based versions of some of the lines that received M1 updates.
For its forthcoming high-end laptops and mid-range desktops, Apple is testing 16-core and 32-core graphics parts For its future high-end laptops and mid-range desktops, Apple is testing 16-core and 32-core graphics parts. For later in 2021 or potentially 2022, Apple is working on pricier graphics upgrades with 64 and 128 dedicated cores aimed at its highest-end machines
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5862996 Posted on: 12/07/2020 04:25 PM
Modern x86 CPUs aren't really x86 (in terms of architecture) and the decoder that makes that happen isn't really a problem for AMD/Intel. The advantage Apple has is two fold - one it's processor design is tailored specifically for their software and the applications their users use and two, the cost of the processor is essentially hidden in it's vertical monopoly. If they were actually selling these things theyd be far more expensive than Intel/AMD equivalents based on the die size alone.
Either way it's a good thing that they are stepping up, forces AMD/Intel/Qualcomm/etc to compete and Apple is no slouch, they seem really invested in making this work.
If you have got the expertise and budget, I reckon it would be possible to make a far better architecture than the old x86-64, if you start from a clean table. Apple ought to have knowledge and it certainly has unlimited budget works. Furthermore, Apple makes its own OS, so it will automatically be 100% compatible with the CPU and take everything out of it. It will be expensive, no doubt, but it wouldn't be Apple if it wasn't expensive.
Modern x86 CPUs aren't really x86 (in terms of architecture) and the decoder that makes that happen isn't really a problem for AMD/Intel. The advantage Apple has is two fold - one it's processor design is tailored specifically for their software and the applications their users use and two, the cost of the processor is essentially hidden in it's vertical monopoly. If they were actually selling these things theyd be far more expensive than Intel/AMD equivalents based on the die size alone.
Either way it's a good thing that they are stepping up, forces AMD/Intel/Qualcomm/etc to compete and Apple is no slouch, they seem really invested in making this work.
Silva
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 2013-06-04
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 2013-06-04
#5863005 Posted on: 12/07/2020 04:44 PM
Don't know how they'll be faster, or if I believe claims without facts.
That said, more competition is better!
PS: But having poorly designed laptops that can't be serviced is bad, to the point I'd never consider touching them. For the price of a macbook I'd get 1 good laptop to use, and after 2 years I'd get a brand new better one!
Don't know how they'll be faster, or if I believe claims without facts.
That said, more competition is better!
PS: But having poorly designed laptops that can't be serviced is bad, to the point I'd never consider touching them. For the price of a macbook I'd get 1 good laptop to use, and after 2 years I'd get a brand new better one!
isidore
Senior Member
Posts: 6276
Joined: 2006-02-01
Senior Member
Posts: 6276
Joined: 2006-02-01
#5863011 Posted on: 12/07/2020 04:53 PM
Yeah in your own controlled environment with software coded by your laws, i bet it would be faster. Let me see Apple play at the multiplatform table and flex there...
Yeah in your own controlled environment with software coded by your laws, i bet it would be faster. Let me see Apple play at the multiplatform table and flex there...
barbacot
Senior Member
Posts: 519
Joined: 2007-09-24
Senior Member
Posts: 519
Joined: 2007-09-24
#5863064 Posted on: 12/07/2020 07:22 PM
There is an Steve Jobs gremlin at Apple that from time to time gets out and yells: "We have to be a closed system! We have to build our own hardware".
The ambition of Steve Jobs to have apple laptops and computers as closed systems with only Apple hardware is the reason for PC popularity.
I find it strange that a free open minded visionary like Jobs wanted a closed system and failed at gaining popularity for Apple computers (one of the many reasons why he was fired from his own company) while IBM corporate men created an open system - PC...- not their intention but still...
Apple should learn from history and their mistakes - or maybe they are condemned to repeat these mistakes???
They can create their own CPU but is worth it???
If it's not at least 20 - 50% faster than what is now on the market then what's the point??? - and I strongly doubt that...
How to convince software companies to write programs for their new cpu's architecture when the global adoption rate of their systems is less than 10%??? - they will manage to alienate even the ones that write software for them now...
There is an Steve Jobs gremlin at Apple that from time to time gets out and yells: "We have to be a closed system! We have to build our own hardware".
The ambition of Steve Jobs to have apple laptops and computers as closed systems with only Apple hardware is the reason for PC popularity.
I find it strange that a free open minded visionary like Jobs wanted a closed system and failed at gaining popularity for Apple computers (one of the many reasons why he was fired from his own company) while IBM corporate men created an open system - PC...- not their intention but still...
Apple should learn from history and their mistakes - or maybe they are condemned to repeat these mistakes???
They can create their own CPU but is worth it???
If it's not at least 20 - 50% faster than what is now on the market then what's the point??? - and I strongly doubt that...
How to convince software companies to write programs for their new cpu's architecture when the global adoption rate of their systems is less than 10%??? - they will manage to alienate even the ones that write software for them now...
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 2013-03-10
If you have got the expertise and budget, I reckon it would be possible to make a far better architecture than the old x86-64, if you start from a clean table. Apple ought to have knowledge and it certainly has unlimited budget works. Furthermore, Apple makes its own OS, so it will automatically be 100% compatible with the CPU and take everything out of it. It will be expensive, no doubt, but it wouldn't be Apple if it wasn't expensive.