[Frank777]

Originally Posted by dglow So in conclusion: a 23" diagonal screen, running at 264 ppi, in a 16:10 aspect ratio... adds up to a 5120x3200 native resolution. This would be more pixels than the 5K iMac squeezed into a 23" form factor!

Great post. So given the 264 ppi and 16:10 ratio, what would the resolution of, say, a 30" screen look like?

[dglow]

Originally Posted by Frank777 Great post. So given the 264 ppi and 16:10 ratio, what would the resolution of, say, a 30" screen look like?

Thanks, and thank you for the question.

A 30” 16:10 display would run at 6720x4200. For reference, the 32” Pro Display XDR is only 6016x3384 at 218 ppi.

Curiously, at 264 ppi a 16:10 version of the XDR – 6016x3760 – would measure 27”.

A few more:

32” 16:10 @264 ppi: 7136x4460 ‘7K’
33” 16:9 @264 ppi: 7680x4320 ‘8K UHD’
34” 16:10 @264 ppi: 7680x4800 ‘8K+’

[PB PM]

Now all Apple needs is some manufacture to make odd ball displays for them...

[chucker]

Basically all of their iPhone, iPad, Watch, Touch Bar, etc. displays already have unusual resolutions. The Mac is the odd one out by using mostly standard panels.

[dglow]

Over the past several years the item most holding back Mac resolution has been GPU support; with Apple Silicon, no longer.

Externally the new version of DisplayPort, which can run over USB4, will drive up to 10K resolution with 30-bit color depth.

[PB PM]

Apple put themselves in that position by sticking with low end AMD and Nvidia graphics at every turn.Even the high end stuff in Macs now are mid-range products. Apple silicon might be good, but it’s one thing to make an good iGP, it’s another to make a powerful discrete GPU for high resolution desktop accelerated graphics. Just ask AMD about that one, they make great APUs, but when it comes to discrete, they’re still trying and always failing to match Nvidia.

[dglow]

That's one way to look at it. Another take: no GPU vendor was willing to make a low-watt GPU with the features Apple desired. We know they pleaded with Intel over and over for exactly this.

The area where Nvidia pulls away is PC gaming. Apple makes different tradeoffs with its GPUs: prioritizing things like power efficient compute processing over geometry throughput and shading features. Apple wants a balanced design that isn't driven by lopsided gaming benchmarks.

[PB PM]

It's not just gaming that Nvidia pulled away. Cuda is a widely adopted compute platform, outside of the Mac OS anyway. Apple dumped NVIDIA because NVIDIA wanted to support the Cuda platform, while Apple was pushing OpenCL technology. The irony is Apple dumped OpenCL because it wasn't widely supported. Not the first time Apple shot themsleves in the foot with this kind of stuff.

If Apple was worried about power consumption, they would not have gone with AMD graphics, which have worse performance per/watt than NVIDIA cards.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM Apple dumped NVIDIA because NVIDIA wanted to support the Cuda platform, while Apple was pushing OpenCL technology. The irony is Apple dumped OpenCL because it wasn't widely supported.

I think there's a lot more to that, such as:

• Nvidia messed up on their laptop chips. There's probably some backstory here where Apple expected Nvidia to assume more of the cost in the MacBook Pro recall programs.
• When Apple started pushing OpenCL (in the Snow Leopard era), I think Apple had a significantly different focus still. The iPhone hadn't quite taken off yet, Bertrand Serlet was SVP of software engineering, features like Xgrid and Xsan and hardware like the Xserve (including in massive clusters) were pushed. There was probably a change in direction after Serlet's departure (perhaps also one of the causes of why Serlet left) towards fewer scientific applications. Kind of a "actually, this isn't NeXT any more" push.

[PB PM]

Yes the 2008 MBP GPU fiasco (industry wide, not just Apple) didn’t help the situation one bit. Apple likely made a mistake by dumping compute support like that, they may have been able to be farther down the road with AI stuff like Siri if they hadn’t.

[dglow]

Nonsense. Apple would never have adopted nor promoted a vendor-specific technology like CUDA. They strive to maintain multiple sources for key components, and doing so with GPUs meant a cross-compatible API like OpenCL.

[kscherer]

And still the game goes on. "Apple cannot compete with [insert random vendor here] and their [insert technology here]!"

Apple's SOCs are blowing away the competition in both CPU and GPU performance in the markets in which they are competing. Why? Because they are tightly focused on Apple's core mission, i.e., making better products as a whole. They are accomplishing this by not getting focused on whatever the competition is doing. They are focused solely on their own goal. Again, making better products.

Apple's GPU tech is absolutely crushing it in the iPhone and iPad. What makes anyone think that just because X vendor cannot do something that Apple cannot?

Nothing makes me believe that. The entire pipeline (including the Mac Pro and its high-end GPU's) are making the transition and either Apple is building in support for 3rd-party GPU's, or they have a competitive pipeline that render's 3rd-party GPU's useless on the Mac platform. I'm going with the latter. I firmly believe that Apple's silicon pipeline includes GPU's that are on par with, or superior to, the competitive options currently available, and they will accomplish this with seamless software and hardware support.

It's going to be better!

I mean, how could Apple possibly just walk in and make a better phone?

[dglow]

It is going to be better, agreed.

I have to believe that Apple Silicon Macs will support 3rd-party GPUs in some way. They wouldn't have introduced external GPU enclosures or even the Mac Pro only only to revert shortly thereafter.

In past architecture transitions Apple have kept their largest, prior-architecture machine around for a number of years, largely out-of-sight but still available, presumably to support high-end pro customers. We may see something similar with the Intel Mac Pro.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by dglow We may see something similar with the Intel Mac Pro.

Apple has stated that they are working to complete their transition within 2 years. That suggests the Mac Pro will go last, but is still going to be replaced. Apple have no plans to drag those things along any longer than they have to. And, yes, they are happy to abandon legacy things when the time is right.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by dglow Nonsense.

You can keep your Apple shaded fanboy glasses on, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think Apple will do okay with their own stuff, just like they do now. The move to Apple silicon is not going to be some kind of revolution that gets everyone switching to the Mac platform for their desktops and notebooks.

[dglow]

Originally Posted by PB PM You can keep your Apple shaded fanboy glasses on, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think Apple will do okay with their own stuff, just like they do now. The move to Apple silicon is not going to be some kind of revolution that gets everyone switching to the Mac platform for their desktops and notebooks.

What are we disagreeing on, exactly? I lost context when you snipped away all but one word of the post.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM The move to Apple silicon is not going to be some kind of revolution that gets everyone switching to the Mac platform for their desktops and notebooks.

I'm worried about these extremes.

There are those who expect extreme performance gains ("it'll be twice as fast! at least!!"), and then there are those who expect Intel to reign supreme. I don't think either will play out. It looks like A14M (or whatever) will be fairly impressive, but I'd rather be positively surprised. We also know next to nothing about the GPUs.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by chucker I'm worried about these extremes. There are those who expect extreme performance gains ("it'll be twice as fast! at least!!"), and then there are those who expect Intel to reign supreme. I don't think either will play out. It looks like A14M (or whatever) will be fairly impressive, but I'd rather be positively surprised. We also know next to nothing about the GPUs.

Indeed. Apple will ship some good chips, that give moderate performance bumps across the board CPU wise, shouldn’t be hard to do with Intel stuck on 14&10nm vs 7nm TSMC silicon. That is what is giving AMD an edge over Intel, and will help Apple too. Like AMD, Apple will likely focus on more cores with good performance and excellent power management that Mac OS is known for rather than trying to beat high end Intel stuff, since no A series stuff hitting 5.1Ghz last time I checked.

As for the IGP, they cannot do any worse than the junk Intel 630HD is shipping now, it too should be easy to beat. Beating the AMD 5000 series might be a hill to high to climb first time out.

[kscherer]

All of that is correct. Apple has to start somewhere, but remember that they have already done the lion's share of work to get to this point. While I do not suspect their chips are going to be "twice as fast" as Intel, I do suspect they are going to be very highly optimized just for the Mac, and that is going to yield some very impressive results.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM no A series stuff hitting 5.1Ghz last time I checked.

Well, no, but those are ~7W CPUs. Now picture the one in an iMac. They can easily clock it a lot higher if they'd like.

Originally Posted by PB PM As for the IGP, they cannot do any worse than the junk Intel 630HD is shipping now, it too should be easy to beat. Beating the AMD 5000 series might be a hill to high to climb first time out.

Well, beating Xe might be a bit harder.

[PB PM]

I think Apple really needs to focus on balancing performance, optimization, and power draw. If Apple. can get close enough to Intels 65-95W chips with a 45W chip that would show they are going in the right direction. Intel has been throwing more and more power at things, with little gain for two years now. The high end consumer 10nm stuff is hitting 150-200W to get those 5Ghz+ numbers. If Apple can boost into the 4.5Ghz range at 45W that would be huge for a first round.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM The high end consumer 10nm stuff is hitting 150-200W to get those 5Ghz+ numbers.

I think you mean 14nm? The publicly available 10nm stuff only goes to 15W TDP; the Apple-specific parts go to 28W, but even that probably reaches nowhere near 150W.

Comet Lake is still 14nm. Rocket Lake will also be (but it will gain microarchitecture enhancements from the 10nm Tiger Lake). It won't be until Alder Lake that we'll see desktop 10nm CPUs. A year and a half or so.

[dglow]

Intel sells 10th Gen mobile processors on 10nm at 9W, 15W, and 28W for general availability.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by chucker I think you mean 14nm? The publicly available 10nm stuff only goes to 15W TDP; the Apple-specific parts go to 28W, but even that probably reaches nowhere near 150W. Comet Lake is still 14nm. Rocket Lake will also be (but it will gain microarchitecture enhancements from the 10nm Tiger Lake). It won't be until Alder Lake that we'll see desktop 10nm CPUs. A year and a half or so.

Right, forgot they bumped everything back again.

Don’t mix up the TDP on the box for what the chips really pull from the wall, Intel has been fudging the numbers since Skylake (first gen 14nm) for the desktop chips anyway.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by dglow Intel sells 10th Gen mobile processors on 10nm at 9W, 15W, and 28W for general availability.

By the original Ice Lake roadmap, yes, but the 1068G7 was canceled, and the 1068NG7 in its stead appears to be exclusive to Apple. If it's not, there's got to be at least some kind of weird asterisk to it, or they wouldn't have given it a weird name. Plus, it shipped about half a year late.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM Right, forgot they bumped everything back again. Don’t mix up the TDP on the box for what the chips really pull from the wall, Intel has been fudging the numbers since Skylake (first gen 14nm) for the desktop chips anyway.

Right. They can't optimize their 14nm stuff much any more, and they also don't want to improve the microarchitecture, because they figured Palm Cove would have replaced it long ago. But that was mostly stillborn, so then they had to wait for Sunny Cove, which still can't scale to desktops, so now they have to wait for Willow Cove, which might finally offer some microarchitecture improvements in desktop CPUs later this year. So, put all that together, and Intel loses about half a decade against the competition.

So instead, they need to resort to stuff like Turbo Boost. Which isn't bad per se, but couple it with increasingly disingenuous marketing, and it's no longer great. You can't both say "it's a 45W CPU! and it boosts to 5 GHz!" — yeah, you can run it at 45W, but then it won't do 5 GHz for more than a fraction of a second. Or you say it can in fact run 5 GHz, but now you're really at a wattage of more like 70, and suddenly, your laptop looks like a gaming one.

We'll see how Willow Cove does.

[kscherer]

All of that crap tells me that Apple is on the right path.

[chucker]

I think so, mostly. But also, it's not like they don't have competition.

[kscherer]

They do and they don't.

They compete with Windows in many regards, and they are constantly trying to lure more switchers over. On that front, they must definitely offer a superior product, and those folks are always worrying over spec this and spec that. Apple has done a wonderful job of leaving specs out of the Ax processor line, and just calling it out by name. RAM? Who knows. Clock speed? Who knows. Cache? Who knows. Bus speed? Who knows. They care—a lot!—but they don't want their customers to care. When it comes to power, instead of speaking in spec-ese, they speak in app-ability. They demonstrate speed by showing results, rather than the specs that lead to results. This is more relatable to the common guy, and it sells a lot of devices. Thus, the way they will compete in Macs going forward will likely mirror what they have done with iOS. Less spec-focused and more results-focused.

For the other camp, the die-hard Mac users like myself and many members of this forum, Apple does not have to compete (at least not in the same way). When shopping for a new computer, PC's don't even come into the discussion. Therefor, there is no "competition". For me, the only competition is, "which iMac am I going to get, and how much am I going to spend?" Since I am waiting for the Apple Silicon variant, the competition (current Intel iMacs) don't have a chance.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by kscherer All of that crap tells me that Apple is on the right path.

All modern CPU's use boost modes (yes even the A series from Apple), like Intel does. It is more power efficient for simple tasks that only need one or two cores to get those types of things done quickly. I remember people here getting hyped when the first Intel chips introduced turbo boost. The weakness and high power draw is more noticeable on a desktop Windows machine since motherboard manufactures generally have a all Core turbo boost on by default, that only stops if your chip isn't well cooled. Now that really sucks power from the wall when you are running a 6+ core chip at 5Ghz! Most Mac's thermal throttle too fast to support such all core turbos, since other than the Mac Pro, the cooling solutions suck across the board. Not saying Asus/Gigabyte etc systems that are similar are better, because they an't. Mac's tend to be held back performance wise by the cooling, compared to a custom desktop PC anyway. I've had the same CPU in a Mac and PC, when running cross platform apps, and it was no contest which was faster (it wasn't the Mac).

For me Apple doesn't compete with Mac's vs Windows. I just have both. Long gone are my days of being a "Mac guy", and Windows is easily my daily driver. When I just have light work or no work at all, to do a Mac is good enough. If you'd asked me that 15 years ago, the story was different, I don't think I even used a Windows PC until the late 1990's.