That is more of a humor than a rumor. "Gaming iMac" "Threadripper and Navi 21" on slim all-in-one Chassis. Suuuuuure
That says everything.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MP All Models Is Apple ****ing themselves over the ThreadRipper 3 yet?
- Thread starter macjunkie2013
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is more of a humor than a rumor. "Gaming iMac" "Threadripper and Navi 21" on slim all-in-one Chassis. Suuuuuure
That says everything.
Unfortunately its too much of a risk for most. You can't live migrate running workloads easily between ARM and x86, and nobody is going to replace their entire datacentre in one hit.
... maybe because Apple's coming AMD machines aren't out yet.
Either AMD macs are coming, or Apple is going to have to face some pretty embaressing benchmark comparisons over the next 2-3 years - in their markets.
Things are bad enough right now, but the things haven't even truly started yet.
They are used to that. Remember when the G5 came out?
Either way - even if they decide to abandon Intel it will take a long time until we see a AMD powered Macs. All the proprietarization work that would be necessary - MacOS and the T2 chip for example, that will take some effort. We can be grateful for having at least the PCI slots back in the Mac Pro. This cracks the window a bit to the outside world again.
The idea of a 64-core iMac is ridiculous. Kill the iMac Pro already and give us a smaller, affordable tower.
I think you overestimate the work required. And possibly under-estimate what Apple have probably already done. I guarantee you that they are not starting from zero if they were to decide to switch today. They’d be pretty much ready software wise already.
Far bigger was the jump from 68k to PPC, PPC to X86 and X86 to ARM. People are already running macOS on AMD hardware. If some guys can do it in their spare time with no vendor support, i’m sure Apple should be able to manage it inside of 6 months.
And if apple are in ANY way competent (don’t laugh, those in the peanut gallery) they have already been building macOS for AMD internally since 2016 (maybe earlier) when Ryzen 1000 series was new. It just makes good business sense to maintain that agility - both to use as a lever for intel pricing discounts, and as a contingency for when intel just aren’t good enough any more or there is some falling out.
As a hedge. Just like they did with OS X back in the PPC days - they were building it on Pentium 4s for at least a year prior to public release. Even though, at the time, the P4 was a bit of a dog... they knew intel had the Core architecture coming.
It also makes good sense to do so internally (even if you NEVER end up releasing to public) as you discover a lot of otherwise obscure bugs when running against different architectures.
Last edited:
Only Mac they actually care about yearly update is Macbook Pro, and that is the area where AMD still doesn't have much advantage over Intel because they can't use multiple chiplets there. Apple probably going to ride Intel until ARM transition.
Possible. They may well be capable of that. However between 2013 and 2019 we had no updates on the Mac Pro. Simply based on this I would say they are not that interested in being this active in the higher end desktop market. I'd love to be proven wrong.
Current 27" 5K IMac Pro has a 500W tdp, the rumoured 6K 32" iMac Pro only needs 600-650w at full throttle
Threadripper 3990x is 280w tdp, consider AMD Zen eco mode can down this below 200w sacrificing 20% performance.
Navi 21 GPU to be in 275-300W class, so even with current 27" iMac Pro thermal constraints it could handle Better, consider the 32" pro display chassis adds graceful vents with 8x the airflow capabilities, a 64core trx and s full Navi 21 GPU certainly could run all day without throttling. At 600-650W total full tdp without rumbling fans.
The iMac Pro has no upgrade path with it's current tdp design (either Xeon W or Threadripper solution).
A 64 core CPU enable performance levels close to that of GPU accelerated applications, it could bring a path for those applications in opencl to be productive avoiding expensive migration to Metal. The way you see switching to AMD is a game changer
Last edited:
Obviously it would require a "T3" Chip -a t2 tuned, but not that much work given the benefits (pcie4, custom CPU, supply chain stability, "Ryzen Halo").
Actually since 2017 "magically" Hackintosh-ers where capable to stable run macOS on Ryzen hardware due changes in macOS, it was the first clue on Apple doing something with AMD. (Removed the need for some Intel x86 extension what prevented to run macOS on AMD).
Past year, was the first where Mac shipments lowered while all other PC increased again, blame this mostly to this "lack of attention" and the butterfly-gate, the ncg Mac Pro and it's Pro display (plus Jony Ive departure) are sound message about the Mac is back.
You're wrong, read about The new Ryzen 4000 APUs, simple beat rival Intel LP CPU in everything.
Google that.
I agree, a trashcan re-born with Threadripper/Navi would be awesome (with o without 6K display l, but rumors point out to iMac s and no new modular Macs, would be a real surprise if something like The trashcan happens. -and unlikely since it would predate Mac Pro sales bigger than iMac Pro-.
The iMac Pro only has a 370W PSU and with lower efficiency on 110V that leaves only around ~340W at peak maximum.
Not to say that a Threadripper iMac Pro is likely, but the fact that the current iMac Pro has this power supply doesn't really mean that a future iMac Pro can't have a power supply sufficient to drive that CPU.
If you ask me, we're about as likely to never see another iMac Pro ever again as we are to see a Threadripper iMac Pro. I'd love to see it happen, but there are so many reasons why Apple wouldn't want to do it that it seems like a fanciful prediction to me.
16-inch MBP uses H versions. Stop making bold assumptions until actual products are out, especially for laptop parts. Dont be surprised if performance differences ends up being real small.
It is not about total system tdp. Ever wondered why those highest end "desktop replacement laptops" offers 2 2080s in SLI instead of single 2080ti even though they offer plenty of total system power? Because it is lot more feasible to cool two 150w parts instead of single 250w part on a thermally constrained chassis.
Unless Apple decides to make iMac much thicker, there's absolutely no chance those threadrippers will be in iMacs. Stop spreading dumb rumors, what is wrong with you. You used to make reasonable assumptions, now you are spreading BSes that even Wccftech wouldn't bother to pick up.
Last edited:
Considering how thermally limited are Laptops, in general, and how much Intel CPUs decklock under load, Renoir will always be beating in any sustained load Intel CPUs, while running cooler.
The reason for it is TDP rating. AMD's TDP rating is much better, because they rate it at Turbo mode, not base clock. Don't be surprised if Renoir based 8 core laptops, will outperform Intel's latest and greatest in sustained loads, because they are running more efficiently.
About that second, unquoted part of your post: I agree 100% with you.
These aren't bold assumptions. They're pretty safe bets, based on both the performance of currently released parts, announced parts, announced machines from partners, AMD's roadmap (which they have exceeded their guidance on for the past 2 years) and leaked benchmarks.
If we were talking about stuff in the pipe before Ryzen was released, fair enough. But the performance characteristics of Ryzen 4000 series mobile parts is pretty well established at this point. Give or take 5-10%.
And 5-10% difference from what has been leaked is not going to save intel here in terms of performance or performance per watt.
Datacentre get the best silicon intel can produce (in terms of performance per watt) and there intel is nowhere. They're not going to magically be way better in mobile or desktop, where profit margins are much thinner.
I would ask you something, instead I'll pin this answer (as I pinned those from the guys insulting me when I explained there where never be a long range wireless charging, but just another Qi).
Ryzen Macs are coming dude, forget ARM Macs this it's just a poor interpretation of Bloomberg article that just said "Apple to manufacture it's own CPU in 2020", tey never named this Apple-manufactured CPU to be ARM (migrate macOS to ARM besides complicated iits too expensive and leaves Apple constrained to few CPU options), FYI sir AMD license ZEN IP as ARM holdings license ARM v8, a semi-custom CPU tailored for Apple (including whichever IP Apple wants to improve or enforce propriety) is among the options, and what a coincidence, AMD manufactures Ryzen with same glofo 7nm process used by Apple across Axx and Txx CPUs...
Whike I would love an Threadripper tc xMac, rumous points just to iMac and Mac mini as first Zen Macs , and if you have a chance to watch the Pro Display HDR you'll see how many vents holes insanely not needed it has, this is because is the new form factor, the next iMac need to have those backs with lots of holes to provide enough cooling exhaust for higher TDP (and old Mac point of criticism was cooling until the ncg Mac pro)
Maybe Jony Ive won't be happy with the new iMac s, because likely will be thicker and exposed, but no user will complain again about performance being thermal throttled.
What about the thermal issues with the 16" MBP. Ive lives on in bad thermal design.
You are doubling down on your claims based on info from some Chinese guy on social media with basically no evidence whatsoever. If that is what you want to believe in, suit yourself.
iMac Pro uses 165W CPU. Threadripper is way hotter than what iMac Pro has. And yet, iMac Pro still has a throttling and it might not be able to have Threadripper cause they design it just for specific Intel CPU like Mac Pro 2013.
If Apple wishes to use AMD CPU, they need to redesign the entire Mac except for Mac Pro.
I specifically named the new iMac to have an all new chassis with Pro Display HDR aesthetic s but more important with it's vents.
BTW the non pro iMac 5k with Ryzen 3950 (105W) and rx Navi 21 (280w full) will barely hit 400W at full throttle, but likely won't have the full big Navi likely a cut down faster than Vega 64 but not as fast as a full Navi (rtx2080ti - like performance).
In the answer to Aiden in this post I shown benchmarks of Intel CPUs, how big power hog's those CPUs are. Renoir, even 45W TDP CPUs will use much less power, while clocking higher.
cTDP of 45W Ryzen 7 4800H is 54W, which is second PL state for this APU, which gives it a possibility to boost over 3.5-3.6 GHz on all cores. Zen 2 has higher IPC than Skylake, which will result in better performance and better thermals, for all of CPUs. Especially Renoir advantage will be apparent when you will lock CPUs to certain power targets, like 45W's. We have to remember - Intel CPUs at that power target only run at base clocks. AMD APUs will still boost to over 3 GHz. I'd say Renoir will beat Intel offerings pretty handily.
I wish that MBP 16 will get Renoir APUs, like 4800H and Navi 12, which is Semi-Custom product specifically for Apple. 40 CUs, HBM2, low clocks which make this GPU be possible to fit in 16 inch MBP, in terms of thermal performance.
It has zero to do with Ive's design but Intel being Intel and overproviding their CPUs with too much power.
Core i9-9980HK, the 8 Core BTO CPU from MBP16 - 135W max power draw, average 92.
Those "downspikes" of power draw is when the CPU underclocks itself to 1.9 GHz on all cores, and it still draws over 50W of power. Intel CPUs power draw is defined by their clock speeds.
15W Icelake CPUs are drawing between 49 and 64W of power.
Last edited:
There's something I agree with the angry guy, this year we won't see a Ryzen MBP, maybe a MBA or rMB or at least until year's end as a late 2020 MBP.
Macbook pro customer use to be more conservative, while iMac/ Mac Mini/iMac Pro are where enthusiast and power users (also some pro's believe it or not) go for performance/flexibility/Halo features, an xMac trashcan/NeXT cube like or whatever too but apple loves to profit from displays.
A new form factor Mac Mini (or whatever is named), could also bring more product flexibility, offering same iMac 21/27 internals (as it used before 2014) rather than macbook Pro internals, let's see whats happen but apple has to do something about Intel throubles (not that big as it seems) but for about 2-3 years Intel CPU won't beat AMD either in desktop or servers, and the notebook market it's also being disputing.
Macbook pro customer use to be more conservative, while iMac/ Mac Mini/iMac Pro are where enthusiast and power users (also some pro's believe it or not) go for performance/flexibility/Halo features, an xMac trashcan/NeXT cube like or whatever too but apple loves to profit from displays.
A new form factor Mac Mini (or whatever is named), could also bring more product flexibility, offering same iMac 21/27 internals (as it used before 2014) rather than macbook Pro internals, let's see whats happen but apple has to do something about Intel throubles (not that big as it seems) but for about 2-3 years Intel CPU won't beat AMD either in desktop or servers, and the notebook market it's also being disputing.
To be fair, every CPU's power draw is defined by its clock speed.
It's just that in recent times intel have changed the way they measure TDP (and the way their CPUs can/do boost) several times, and now it is so far away from reality as to be meaningless.
AMD's TDP gets exceeded as well, but their processors run at higher speeds within their rated TDP than intel do, because they both measure TDP differently.
The whole "AMD = FURNACE" thing needs to die, because in 2016 to current, it just isn't true any more. If anyone is building micro-furnaces, it is intel in order to try and keep up. They're playing games with rated TDP numbers, wattage ratings (e.g., rating a CPU at some low wattage as "what it can be configured to" and then benchmarking it at way higher) and base/boost clocks to make it look like they aren't - on paper.
I mean right now for example Ryzen beats pretty much everything on the intel X299 platform, and early X299 motherboards were literally burning up (VRMs on them dying) because the rushed-out, high core count CPUs (14 cores and up) were drawing too much power for the original motherboard design when running real world workloads.
This is why intel did their dodgy "5ghz 28 cores" demo last year with a (hidden under the desk) 1.6kw chiller and a 1.5kw capable motherboard.
This is the state of play in the post-ryzen/pre-intel-proper-response environment.
Last edited:
True, but its not lineal, some processors as ZEN 2 based lower power draw to 30% at bareliu 25% lunderclocking, as AMD enables in Windows this poersaving feature.