User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Speculation and Rumors »

Apple Ax-powered Laptop


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Apple Ax-powered Laptop
Thread Tools
kscherer
Which way is up?
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2015-11-12, 12:49

Well, the results are in (by way of www.daringfireball.com). The iPad Pro has some pretty serious benchmark numbers. And by "pretty serious", I mean !

This has been speculated upon in the past and on this forum, but the time may be approaching much faster than we imagined.

Is the Ax-powered Apple MacBook-x close?

Here are the numbers comparing iPad Pro with 13" MB Pro Retina and 12" MacBook.

Geekbench 3 Single Core (Overall and Memory performance):

12" MacBook
Overall: 2446; Memory: 1839

13" MacBook Pro Retina
Overall: 3295; Memory: 2922

iPad Pro
Overall: 3233; Memory: 3943

Geekbench 3 Multi Core (Overall and Memory performance):

12" MacBook
Overall: 4615; Memory: 1940

13" MacBook Pro Retina
Overall: 7049; Memory: 2859

iPad Pro
Overall: 5498; Memory: 4112

Just taking Geekbench into consideration, the A9x chip is faster than the Intel Core M in the MacBook, and approaching the speed of the Core i5 in the retina models. However, even more telling is GPU performance.

GFXBench GL 1080p:

12" MacBook
54fps

13" MacBook Pro Retina
93.8

iPad Pro
163.4fps

And, just for kicks, the 15" Retina (Iris Pro)
134.9fps

One of the arguments in the past was that, while the Ax CPU may approach the capability of i-series chips, GPU performance was a long ways off. Well, I think not. Of all the systems put up against the A9x, the A9 was faster in GPU performance by a wide margin, even over Apple's Pro systems.

With these numbers in the bag, and with real-world testing beginning to confirm the numbers, it appears the A9x CPU has reached performance levels comparable to Apple's mid-range laptops, while the GPU has eclipsed all but the dedicated GPU option in the 15" Retina ($2499).

Has the time arrived?

I don't know all the engineering hurdles necessary to shoehorn OS X into ARM, but clearly the majority of the core work has already been done (with iOS), leaving just the UI and perhaps some heavy parallel multi-tasking stuff. So, is it time? Do you guys think Apple has reached a tipping point and it's just a matter of time? Are fan-less, solid state laptops with 20 hour batteries on the near horizon? Would the MacBook be better suited with, say, an A10x as opposed to the wimpy Core M?

Hurdles? Ideas? Thoughts?

- AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :)
- Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9)
  quote
Kickaha
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2015-11-12, 19:57

And battery life then goes to 11?
  quote
Brave Ulysses
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope.
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
 
2015-11-12, 20:18

I don't think we are there yet. And I'm not sure OS X and third party apps are there yet. Doesn't seem to be worth the effort right now.

I think Apple releasing the new 12" MacBook with an intel processor is the most telling sign that it isn't a transition happening soon. If there was ever going to be a product that started that transition it would be the 12" MacBook.

It will be interesting to see what happens 2 years from now though. Apple's development pace of the AX chip has been relentless and remarkably without a setback (as far as we know).

I use to be way more knowledgeable about processor design and technology but not so much anymore. I don't understand why Apple has not hit the same ceilings and roadblocks that everyone else has... and why they have been able to make such incredibly performance gains while improving power efficiency and heat..... just doesn't make sense to me.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2015-11-14, 00:45

I wonder how those scores really scale across the different version of OSX (aka desktop and mobile). Does a score of 3000+ on the iOS version mean the same thing as 3000+ on the desktop version? Also does that score mean much considering that the different version are running on different types of processors (in order vs. out of order processors)? Can the Ax chips remain competitive running the desktop version of OSX and it's applications? I think if they could Apple would have switched already, so there must be some reason for keeping Intel chipsets in the low power notebooks running the desktop version of OSX.
  quote
kscherer
Which way is up?
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2015-11-14, 11:50

Certainly Ax is optimized for the OS it's running. I would have to assume that OS X is also optimized for the processors it is running on. I suppose it gets down to two things:

1) Optimizing Ax for OS X and OS X for Ax, and
2) Getting developers on board, because we all know from past transitions that it's harder to get Adobe and Microsoft on board than it is for Apple to do the engineering.

- AppleNova is the best Mac-users forum on the internet. We are smart, educated, capable, and helpful. We are also loaded with smart-alecks! :)
- Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. (Mat 5:9)
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2015-11-14, 14:23

Apple will build a "Rosetta" again to make that the least painful and basically force developers to come along.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2015-11-14, 14:35

I think there may be more to it than that simply optimizing and getting developers on board. Software runs differently on in-order vs out of order processors. Mobile OSX seems fast, because it is handling much smaller, lighter weight applications overall, even if they do similar tasks. Throwing a desktop application and the data it deals with at a ARM processor and expecting the same speed and performance is still a little unrealistic. Then again, people who use ultra portables would likely not care, since they are already giving up performance for mobility.

In some cases applications designed for an x86 processor would simply will not run as fast on ARM (aka Ax) processor, due to the differences. Some applications would run significantly slower on an ARM processor than a x86 processor due to the different natures in making calculations. Video encoding for one, would, but that would likely be unaffected, since that is a task usually off-loaded to the GPU (or should be). Word processing, no problem. A computer from 1981 is more than good enough for that. Games, no problem that's on the GPU. Lets put it this way, a full transition would not be as simple as the move from IBM/Freescale Power PC to Inte/AMD x86, because it's not just an arachteure change, but a processing type change.

It's very much applications from the likes of Adobe and Microsoft that would be a hold up. Not just a matter of getting them on board, but having the system actually being able to handle the tasks of full size applications like Photoshop. Given the right amount of RAM, that could happen, but I do wonder if the current ARM chipsets can use enough RAM to really use those applications affectively. Yes they are 64bit (kind of pointless in systems with less than 8GB of RAM, but alas), but do the embedded chipsets have the ability to use the required amount of RAM (8+GB)?

Do I think Apple will make the move? Most likely not. I suspect that a iPad Pro type product will replace the likes of the Macbook before that ever happens. For high end desktops, x86 processors make way more sense, due to raw processing power per watt.

Supporting article:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/14/ipad-pro-a9x-chip/
An important quote from the article above.
Quote:
Patrick Moorhead, a highly respected analyst with a strong background in chips, urges caution, especially when it comes to comparing GeekBench numbers, as many have. "GeekBench is a synthetic, mobile benchmark," Moorhead tells Engadget. "The benchmark code is more like mobile application code than it is desktop code." Using GeekBench to test A9X versus Intel chips is "like comparing apples and oranges or an SUV with a sedan on the straight-away," he explains.

Last edited by PB PM : 2015-11-14 at 17:13.
  quote
Eugene
careful with axes
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hillsborough, CA
 
2015-11-14, 18:29

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle View Post
Apple will build a "Rosetta" again to make that the least painful and basically force developers to come along.
The conditions are different now that Apple doesn't need Rosetta style binary translation.

- Apple is a healthier, larger company than it was in 2005.
- There are more Apple ARM devices than there are Intel-based ones. Developers have had more than enough time and encouragement to port their apps. In contrast the Intel switch was a surprise even on the day of announcement.
- App distribution is done completely via download at this point.
- Apps are designed so that their assets are modular and only a few binaries need to be recompiled. App thinning can be of minor help.

Last edited by Eugene : 2015-11-14 at 19:05.
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2015-11-26, 20:55

OK. But would not a Rosetta-style translation still be useful for temporary transition? Regardless of Apple's different position and the other factors, I would think that it still will take a while, just as a practical matter, for software developers to get on board with new native versions. No? People will not want to be buying a laptop that can't do very much beyond the basics for the first 6-12 months.

Anyway, I find the prospect for Ax-powered computers to be intriguing and exciting. It could blow through some ceilings in speed and power usage, setting whole new benchmarks.

I wonder what Intel thinks of those prospects. And what is the status of Apple's commitment to Intel, and vice-versa?

When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray.
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2015-11-27, 23:29

Some here may already have read this, but this is some detailed specualtion on AI on why Apple may not - and alternatively why they may - eventually release an Ax- computer.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/...stom-arm-chips

After reading that, my own feeling is that Apple will eventually go for it. Intel's low-powered processors look to have been a continued disappointment. Apple is clearly interested in the idea, however, of building a laptop around such a processor , as indicated by the new MacBook. Even now, the Ax is looking like a better option. Eventually the impetus to take advantage of the Ax will overcome the transition costs. Apple won't do it, though, until they can be sure of the road ahead, and then they will jump in with two feet.

When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teeny, Tiny Apple Laptop kscherer Speculation and Rumors 41 2011-03-27 01:38
Apple laptop speakers cloudlife Apple Products 37 2006-10-19 20:41
Need a powerful apple laptop 03accord03 Purchasing Advice 6 2005-04-19 22:13


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:18.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova