The Mac’s Apple Silicon processor transition: Everything you need to know
Since then, Apple Silicon Macs — kitted out with the company’s M1 chips — have made a massive splash in the industry, winning rave reviews all round. But why did Apple make this change? And what can you expect from a new Apple Silicon Mac? We have the answers to your questions right here.
Why has Apple moved away from Intel?
According to Apple, moving away from Intel was about creating the next era of products. In its iPad and iPhone chips over the years, Apple claims it has developed the most energy-efficient chips in the world, that consume less power while also providing better performance. It wants to apply this efficiency, along with other advanced features, to a new “family of Mac SoCs” (system on a chip) in these new products.
Beyond what was shared at WWDC, we suspect one of the main thrusts for Apple changing its processor supplier lies with its dissatisfaction with Intel. The rate of innovation and improvement at Intel appears to have slowed in recent years, likely prompting Apple to look elsewhere for a solution. That line of thought was backed up by former Intel engineer François Piednoël, who claimed that the quality assurance of the company’s Skylake chips was “abnormally bad,” creating a tipping point that convinced Apple to end its partnership with Intel.
The second major contributor is control. Apple could simply have switched to AMD for its processors (and this has been rumored in the past), but this would still leave it with the problem of relying on a third-party supplier whose objectives may not match Apple’s. By bringing the processor designs in-house, Apple can coordinate its hardware and software teams, ensuring each takes advantage of the features in the other.
What is ARM?
All of Apple’s A-series chips (and the M1 in newer Macs) use the ARM (standing for Advanced RISC Machine) architecture, designed by Arm Holdings. The designs are licensed out to other companies, including Apple, who can then use these designs in their own processors. Apple has used ARM designs extensively — every iPhone and iPad ever released has used an ARM-based processor, for instance.
ARM chips are known for their low power consumption, making them ideal for phones, tablets, and smart home devices. That efficiency also makes ARM processors attractive to companies like Apple, as it would allow them to build thinner and lighter devices without necessarily sacrificing performance. The incredible efficiency is aptly demonstrated in the M1 MacBook Air, which does not even need an internal fan.
These are the same types of chips Microsoft has attempted to use in some of its Windows on ARM devices, or the more recent Surface Pro X.
Are Apple Silicon chips as powerful as Intel processors?
The answer to this question is a resounding yes. Before the first M1 Mac appeared in the wild, we were unsure how it would fare because there are so few ARM computers to base a judgement on. Once we got Apple’s new silicon in our grip, though, it was obvious it was something special.
Take the M1 MacBook Air. Seeing as it uses the same chip as the M1 MacBook Pro, its performance is on par with Apple’s pro-level laptop. Seen for so long as the puny neighbor of the MacBook Pro, the Air has not so much closed the gap as utterly eliminated it. And it does all that without a fan, meaning it operates completely silently.
Or what about the M1 Mac Mini? Thanks to its slightly thicker shape compared to Apple’s laptops, the tiny desktop is the best performing M1 device of the lot. It posted some of the highest performance benchmarks we have ever tested, all while costing a mere $699.
All this goes to show that Apple Silicon is leaps and bounds ahead of what Intel has previously been able to offer in Apple devices. Sure, there are more powerful Intel chips out there, but none that you can get in an Apple device and certainly none at this sort of price point. Intel has a lot of catching up to do.
Are my apps compatible?
In a word, yes. Microsoft had to warn customers that some of their apps may not be compatible with the Surface Pro X. Apple has not suffered the same fate, however. It had many apps — such as Microsoft Office apps and pro-level apps from Adobe — ready to go from day one, as well as its own in-house apps, from Notes to Final Cut Pro. Since then, more and more apps have been updated to run natively on the new platform.
There are a number of tools Apple is using to convince developers to transition their Intel-based apps over to Apple Silicon. A new version of Xcode allows developers to bring Intel applications over in just a few days, using a new application binary called Universal 2 that works for both Intel and Apple systems.
For apps that don’t make the transition, Apple has updated Rosetta (the framework it used to help developers transition their apps when it moved from PowerPC to Intel). It is now called Rosetta 2 and can translate apps as they are installed, meaning they can launch right away. That means that even apps whose developers have not released Apple Silicon versions should still work seamlessly on the new architecture.
Lastly, Apple is also enabling virtualization for developers looking to run Linux.
Should I buy an Apple Silicon Mac?
Absolutely. Based on performance data alone, Apple has really knocked it out of the park this time. Comparing an M1 Mac to an Intel equivalent is like night and day. Even better, Apple has kept the price of these products the same as they were before the transition, making the choice a real no-brainer.
There are a couple of slight caveats, though. If you are looking to buy an iMac, you should hold off for now. As we will come to shortly, Apple is planning a huge overhaul of this device — the largest in close to a decade — with both the inside and outside coming in for some major changes. You do not want to buy one right now, only to have it made obsolete a few weeks later.
The second word of caution concerns the MacBook Pro. Like the iMac, this is set for a major redesign this year. On the grocery list are thinner bezels (allowing for a larger screen with an amazing Mini-LED panel), greater port variety, the return of the MagSafe charging slot, and a faster Apple Silicon chip. The design will feature a more squared-off look (think iPad Pro in laptop form), and the Touch Bar is also set to go. In short, this update is a big one, and it is another where you should wait if at all possible.
Otherwise, we would absolutely recommend taking the plunge on an Apple Silicon Mac. It is one of the biggest leaps forward Apple devices have made in recent memory.
What is on the Apple Silicon roadmap?
After the flying start of the Apple Silicon-equipped MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, and Mac Mini, you are probably wondering what is next for Apple’s custom chips. Well, there is a lot to be excited about.
Reliable reporter Mark Gurman has claimed Apple is developing chips with as many as 32 cores, which would offer power the likes of which has never been seen in a Mac. That chip is almost certainly reserved for future Mac Pro models, but Gurman has also said Apple is working on chips with 16, 12, or eight high-performance cores alongside for high-efficiency cores. Even the last of those would offer double the high-performance cores of the already-powerful M1.
These chips are likely destined for consumer devices like the MacBook Pro and iMac. Speaking of the latter, the iconic all-in-one looks set to join the Apple Silicon party later in 2021, with an external redesign making the do-over complete.
Not every Mac is going to move across to Apple Silicon straight away, though. Apple said in 2020 that the transition period would take a couple years, and the next update of the Mac Pro is expected to stick to Intel for now. That would make it the only Mac not yet running on Apple Silicon, though, and it is only a matter of time until it too makes the switch.
In his keynote address on June 6, 2005 at WWDC, Steve Jobs officially stated that the reason for switching from PowerPC-based to Intel-based systems was:
Because we want to make the best computers for our customers looking forward. Now, I stood up here two years ago in front of you and I promised you [a 3 GHz Power Macintosh G5], and we haven't been able to deliver that to you yet. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook and we haven't been able to deliver that to you yet. But these aren't even the most important reasons. The most important reasons are that as we look ahead, though we may have great products right now, and we've got some great PowerPC product[s] still yet to come, as we look ahead we can envision some amazing products we want to build for you and we don't know how to build them with the future PowerPC road map. And that's why we're going to do this. When we look at Intel, they've got great performance, yes, but they've got something else that's very important to us. Just as important as performance, is power consumption. And the way we look at it is performance per watt. For one watt of power how much performance do you get? And when we look at the future road maps projected out in mid-2006 and beyond, what we see is the PowerPC gives us sort of 15 units of performance per watt, but the Intel road map in the future gives us 70, and so this tells us what we have to do.
So, in a nutshell the official reason as provided by Apple is that the PowerPC G5 processor generates too much heat and uses too much energy to be used in the thin, light systems expected to be increasingly used in the coming years. Jobs is quoted saying as much in a MacWorld article, "[The PowerPC G5] simply doesn't lend itself to PC designs that require low power consumption, such as notebooks and small form factor desktops."
Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller has previously stated that more than half of Apple's system sales are from laptops, and according to a BusinessWeek report, 53% of all computers sold in the US are laptops. A C|Net report also noted that in the US, notebooks have surpassed desktops in the number of systems sold via retail outlets.
This trend is growing rapidly. It is not unreasonable to think that Apple has become aware that the PowerPC 970fx (G5), while most agree is technologically superior, the inability to use this processor in portable systems in the foreseeable future is a serious problem. If you took a look at Apple's current offerings in June 2005, you would have noticed that the majority of systems were either thin, small, or both -- PowerBook G4, iBook, Mac mini, iMac G5, and Xserve -- with only the traditional Power Macintosh G5 and eMac as the exceptions.
By the end of 2007, when the transition was originally expected to be complete, at the time the decision was made, it was not outrageous to project that 80% or more of Apple's computer hardware sales could be made up of laptops, ultracompact desktops, and ultrathin "blade" servers, and could even include an oft-rumoured, and patented, tablet or handheld computer.
It is a safe assumption that Apple won't sell any systems with CRT-based displays by the end of 2007 [Apple subsequently discontinued the last CRT-based system, the eMac, on October 12, 2005], and might even be planning to discontinue the traditional tower design as well. Perhaps Apple even eventually has plans to replace the tower case used by the "professional" models with a compact cube design that Jobs seems to favour connected to an Apple-branded or third-party expansion chassis and/or networked storage for those users who need the expansion capabilities.
However, on January 10, 2006, Steve Jobs stated that the transition to Intel processors will be complete by the end of 2006, a full year earlier than originally announced, so projecting 80% or more of Apple's computer hardware sales from laptops, ultracompact desktops, and ultrathin "blade" servers by that time is more aggressive.
Some other interesting theories include that IBM was unwilling to meet Jobs' aggressive price demands, from EETimes, that Jobs botched negotiations with IBM, from ArsTechnica, and that Apple otherwise would have been unable to keep the Mac compatible with the Trusted Network Connect protocol, from eWeek [source no longer available].
Apple is breaking a 15-year partnership with Intel on its Macs — here’s why
Apple announced three new Mac computers on Tuesday: a MacBook Air, a 13-inch MacBook Pro, and a Mac Mini. They essentially look the same as their predecessors.
What’s new this time is the chip that runs them. Now they’re powered by Apple’s M1 chip instead of Intel processors. Tuesday’s announcement marks the end of a 15-year run where Intel processors powered Apple’s laptops and desktops, and a big shift for the semiconductor industry.
Apple is the fourth-largest PC maker measured by shipments, according to a Gartner estimate, so its plan to use its own chips in its entire lineup of laptops and desktops, first announced in June, is a blow for Intel.
“We believe Intel-powered PCs—like those based on 11th Gen Intel Core mobile processors—provide global customers the best experience in the areas they value most, as well as the most open platform for developers,” Intel said in a statement.
Apple’s chips are based on ARM technology, as opposed to the x86 architecture that Intel’s chips use. ARM was originally designed for mobile devices, and chips built with ARM designs are consistently more efficient, leading to longer battery life. On a laptop, that could mean several extra hours away from the plug.
But that’s only one reason why Apple is switching out the brains of its laptops. Here’s a rundown of why Apple made the move:
Apple’s strategy of owning core technologies. Apple CEO Tim Cook has frequently said that the company has a “long-term strategy of owning and controlling the primary technologies behind the products we make.”
For a computer hardware company, there are few technologies less essential than the silicon processors that the machines run on.
Apple has invested heavily in its silicon department, including major purchases, starting with a $278 million purchase of P. A. Semi in 2008, which started the department, and most recently, $1 billion for part of Intel’s modem business in 2019. It’s been building its own A-series chips for iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches since 2010. Now it’s essentially bringing the same technology to laptops and desktops, meaning that all Apple computers basically run on the same framework.
“Apple Silicon is totally in keeping with the strategic goal of Apple to really control an entire stack,” CCS Insight research director Wayne Lam said. “Now in computing, they own everything from silicon to the software to how the user moves the mouse around, so it’s tremendously integrated.”
Controlling its own technologies helps Apple integrate its products more deeply. It also means that it runs its own schedule — chips take 3 years to develop, Apple senior vice president Johny Srouji said last year — and has more control over costs.
“Apple thinks they can innovate faster than the standard business model of Intel or Qualcomm doing the development on chips and then they build on top of it,” Lam said.
Intel is falling behind in manufacturing. Apple proudly said on Tuesday that the M1 chip in the new Macs uses 5-nanometer transistors.
“Five-nanometer is the leading edge of process technology right now and there are only a few products out at this point,” Gartner research director Jon Erensen said. Currently, Intel is shipping chips with 10-nanometer transistors.
In general, the more transistors a chipmaker can fit into the same space, the more efficient the chip is. Currently, Intel ships chips only with 10-nanometer transistors.
Intel famously controls its own factories, called “fabs,” around the world, compared to Apple, which contracts with companies in Asia to manufacture chips to its own specifications. But Apple’s chip manufacturing partner, TSMC, can make 5-nanometer chips while Intel can’t.
“Intel’s had some challenges over the last couple of years on the manufacturing side. And I think those challenges have opened a window or opportunity for ARM-based designs for come in. Apple is one of the the best ARM-based processor designers out there,” Erensen said.
Earlier this year, Intel CEO Bob Swan said that it was considering outsourcing its manufacturing, like what Apple does.
“With the challenges that Intel has had moving to 10-nanometer and 7-nanometer while foundries like TSMC and Samsung have pushed more aggressively, it’s taken one of Intel’s key advantages and leveled the playing field a bit,” Erensen said.
More battery life, potentially better performance, and laptops that work like phones. Apple says that the M1 Macs are better products than the older models, mainly because Apple claims its chips enbable better performance and longer battery life than it could achieve using Intel’s chips.
It’s clear that the new Macs will have improved battery life. Apple’s previous chips have been used in smartphones and tablets, which have significantly smaller batteries.
During Apple’s launch event on Tuesday, the company emphasized how it mainly evaluates chips on performance per watt, not raw performance.
On the entry-level MacBook Air, Apple says that it can manage 15 hours of web browsing on one charge, nearly 30% more than the advertised 10 to 11 hour battery life of the previous Intel-based model.
The new Macs also work more like phones or tablets, Apple said, with features like the ability to wake up from sleep instantly. The new M1 Macs can even run iPhone apps, if the developer takes a few steps to make them available on Apple’s App Store.
However, analysts warn that Apple’s performance claims, like that it is faster than comparable PCs, will need to be tested once the computers hit shelves next week.
“Performance of the new M1 chip is nearly impossible to gauge as the company didn’t provide any detailed substantiation around any of the performance claims made,” Moor Insights founder Patrick Moorhead said.
Apple did not stop selling Intel laptops on Tuesday, and its highest-end laptops are still Intel-based, suggesting that there are still performance advantages to some Intel chips.
0 Comments