We've heard for a while that Intel could react to the 7 nm AMD attack with a higher processor count on desktop processors. A new leak suggests that this is exactly what the company will do, with a new chipset supporting up to 10 processors based on its mature 14 nm process. This will supposedly require a new processor connector because Intel is increasing the power supply and capacity of its desktop motherboards to offset the higher power requirements of a 10-core chip.
The new take is supposed LGA 1200 and the high-end chips offer 10C / 20T configurations if we believe the rumors. The TDP is finally rising, up to 125W. The latter is something of an interesting point. The power consumption of the Intel processor currently has little relationship with TDP if you let the CPU grow. The TDP is measured at the base clock and not at the amplification. Intel may need to extend TDP to add more processor cores, but in the past, Intel still has processors in the same TDP media by cutting the base clock.
Our hypothesis is that Intel is raising TDP because it does not want to do it anymore. It is probably possible to further reduce the base clock to stay in the old 95 W TDP support with 10 cores instead of eight, but risk creating negative comparisons with previous generation components or AMD hardware. Intel reduced the base clock speed when it went from Core i7-8700K to Core i9-9900K – the 9900K has a base clock of 3.6 GHz, while the 8700K is 3 , 7 GHz. The old 7700K had a base clock of 4.2 GHz, although the overall performance is significantly lower.
The relatively low base clock may not have been a cause for concern when AMD's Ryzen 7 base clocks were also in the 3.6-3.7 GHz range, but AMD slightly adjusted its own clock ranges on 7 nm. The 3700X has a base clock of 3.7 GHz, while the Ryzen 3800X has a base of 3.9 GHz and the 3900X is a chip at 3.8 GHz. Intel may want to bring clocks up slightly to make sure that it fits on the base, and the only way to do it is to push the TDP higher.
Supposedly, the new 400 series adds 49 extra pins to the LGA1200, with the extra pins used for power supply. There would be some new features, such as integrated 802.11ax support and probably an easier method of integrating Thunderbolt 3, similar to what we saw in mobile. The 65W and 35W processors would still be supported (and released) during this latest 14nm revision. This is simply enthusiastic TDP support that could stretch up to 125W. Intel will probably try to keep the tempo boost as high as possible, but I do not want to speculate on what it will be.
Anyone who has focused his attention on the relative rankings between AMD and Intel has already realized that a 10-core Lake Comet will not live up to AMD in most performance areas. The 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X is on its way and we've already seen what happens when a 10-core Intel HEDT processor adopts a 16-core AMD Threadripper: The 10-core processor loses. Above all, he loses a lot.
But if that sounds absurd, defeating AMD's goal in terms of absolute multicore performance is probably not the goal. The two companies work together on their respective strengths: for AMD, this means favoring the multi-core while seeking to improve the mono-core, where Intel still has a limited advantage in some games in 1080p. For Intel, it means trying to improve a single core while competing more effectively with multi-core. Composing up to 10 cores and raising the basic clock via the increase in TDP probably help the company achieve this goal. It will take more than +2 hearts to put Intel back into the multi-threading game seriously, and the company knows it.
The rumors of a 10-core Comet Lake are strong enough and last long enough for me to think they are strong enough. We believe that this generation will also witness the return of hyper-threading to strengthen Intel's competitiveness against AMD at lower price ranges. Without price information, we obviously can not think of how the two companies will come together, but Intel has always introduced better price / performance ratios when launching major products. This suggests that we will see the company adjust its basic account / dollar strategy at the next major launch.
In the past month, AMD has let fly with two-thirds of its 7-nm product line. Desktop and server spaces have now been refreshed with 7nm processors. Intel's answer? meh
Let's start with the market share data. At the dawn of the second quarter, AMD has a series of pressures on the performance of its market. Positive factors include Intel's current processor shortage (expected to peak in the second quarter of 2019) and Ryzen's strong overall market response for desktops, laptops and servers. . Negative factors include ongoing trade disputes with China and the possibility of a 12/14nm slowdown in sales ahead of the 7nm launch.
AMD's market share data for desktops, servers and laptops was provided by Dean McCarron of Mercury Research via THG. We covered Mercury Research figures before – Staying with a single company allows us to make a comparison between apples on the evolution of AMD's market share over time. There is good news on many fronts for the smallest processor manufacturer:
AMD's desktop market share was stable in the second quarter, at 17.1% of the channel. This is not necessarily surprising. AMD has reduced the prices of its oldest parts of the 2000 series to boost its adoption, but there has been a resurgence of undeniable interest for Ryzen, a third generation company. after these chips launched. We do not know how strong the ramp-up will be, but the European retailer Mindfactory has released sales data for the month of July showing that AMD shipments exploded after July 7. It is generally estimated that the retail market of DIY processors accounts for between 10 and 20% of the space. If AMD continues to benefit from strong demand in retail, this will be reflected in the third quarter figures of 2019 for the overall market share of desktops. As always, when looking at data from only one company or source, keep in mind that this information reflects the information provided by that particular retailer, not the market in general.
The share of laptops is the biggest gainer, both year-over-year and quarter-on-quarter. AMD has gained two percentage points since the beginning of the year and increased its market share by 1.6 times compared to the second quarter of 2018. The challenge for the company will be to maintain this share while the shortage of processors Intel fades. Some analysts have predicted that AMD would lose its gains in this area, with Intel delivering more hearts. we will see what Q3 shows us in this regard.
The server market continues to grow, with AMD now claiming 3.4% of space, up from 1.4% the year before. AMD had not achieved its previous goal of taking 5% of the server market by the fourth quarter of 2018 (the company told us earlier this year that it expected to have at least 5% of the 2S server space / dual-socket). We are not concerned with the relatively slow server ramp: the Epyc processors that AMD has launched is the most impressive leap ever made by the company in this market.
Overall, AMD's market share figures show that a company is doing well and gaining ground. AMD predicted that its computing and graphics revenues would increase 1.2 times compared to 2018 when the impact of slower sales of semi-custom designs is taken into account (sales of Xbox One and the PS4 drop as the new console cycle grows).
As for Intel, the biggest processor provider sticks to its weapons. Intel's processor price list for the month of August shows current expected prices in 1K units for the full range of products. There is no change whatsoever. These official price guides do not necessarily reflect the price at which chips are sold in the retail network, and they certainly do not reflect the price that OEMs pay wholesale, but they represent the officially communicated prices.
The complete document is available for your reading, but it looks like the above throughout the line. Intel can adjust prices discreetly behind the scenes or make larger formal reductions later, but the company is sticking to its weapons at the moment. From Intel's point of view, that makes sense. AMD may have just launched an impressive range of products, but Intel probably wants to see how the market will respond before deciding what to do.
Since 2017, Intel has responded to AMD by avoiding direct price cuts and introducing different products at adjusted prices. This may not work on the server, since Cascade Lake has already been launched and it will not be possible to respond to AMD with a new family deployment in the short term. Intel could reduce its prices later this year or wait to modify its product lines until Cooper Lake or Ice Lake are ready to ship. For now, AMD continues to gain market share, with improvements expected in the second half of 2019 being related to the 7-nm Ryzen refresh.
Wednesday August 7th, AMD launched the 7nm update of his family of Epyc processors. These new hearts are not limited to Intel in one category, they bring huge improvements in each category. AMD has reduced its prices by heart, increased the IPC and promises to provide many more processor cores than an equivalent Intel socket.
It was only another time that AMD nearly defeated Intel so decisively: the introduction of the Opteron dual core and the Athlon 64 X2 in 2005. The launch of Epyc this week seems more important. In 2005, AMD's dual-core processors matched the number of Intel processors, outperformed Intel's core clock and core processors, and were quite expensive. This time, AMD is targeting the trifecta, with higher performance, more cores and lower per-core pricing. This is the most serious attack against the high-end Intel Xeon market, launched by the company.
Industry analysts have already predicted that AMD's server market share could double in the next 12 months, reaching 10% by the second quarter of 2020. A larger share of the data center market is essential objective of AMD. A larger share of the corporate and data center market will not simply increase AMD's revenue, it will help stabilize the company's financial performance. One of AMD's critical weaknesses over the last two decades has been its reliance on low-end PCs and retail channels. Both markets tend to be recession sensitive. The low-end computer market also offers the least revenue per socket and the lowest margins. Business cycles are less affected by slowdowns. AMD briefly achieved its goal of a substantial market share for businesses in 2005-2006, when its market share for servers had broken by 20%.
Fans like to focus on the performance of AMD desktops, but apart from games, overall PC sales are declining. Growth in narrow categories such as 2 in 1 was not enough to offset the overall decline in sales. Although no one expects the personal computer market to fail, it is clear that the 2011 economic downturn was not a shock. AMD still has an interest in fighting to expand its share of the desktop and mobile market, but it makes more So it makes sense to fight for a share of server space, where revenue and unit shipments have increased over the past 8 years. The year 2019 may be a difficult year for server sales, but the general trend of migrating workloads to the cloud shows no signs of slowing down.
In our discussions on Rome, we focused primarily on the Epyc 7742. This graph, derived from ServetheHome, illustrates Epyc's performance against Xeon on more SKUs. Viewing at the bottom of the pile:
A pair of AMD Epyc 7742 costs $ 13,900. A support of 7502 (32C / 64T, base of 2.5 GHz, amplification of 3.35 GHz, $ 2600) is equivalent to $ 5,200. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 processor is a $ 4,700 processor, but there are four in the system with the highest score, for a total cost of $ 18,800. AMD processors worth $ 13,900 earn you 1.19 times more performance than Intel processors worth $ 18,800. The comparison does not improve with the falling of the pile. Four E7-8890v4 would cost nearly $ 30,000 at list price. A pair of Platinum 8280 costs $ 20,000. The 8676L is a $ 16,600 processor at list price.
But it's not just the price, or even the price / performance ratio where AMD has an advantage. Intel heavily subdivides the features of its product and bills much more. Consider, for example, the price difference between the Xeon 8276, 8276M and Xeon Platinum 8276L models. These three processors are identical, with the exception of the maximum amount of RAM supported by each. The price, however, is anything but.
In this case, "Maximum Memory" includes Intel Optane. The 4.5 TB RAM memory assumes that 3 TB of Optane is installed next to 1.5 TB of RAM. For comparison, the Rome 7nm processors offer up to 4TB of RAM support. It is a standard feature built into all processors, simplifying product purchases and future planning. AMD not only offers chips at lower prices, it is also interested in Intel's market segmentation method. Good luck justifying a price increase of $ 8,000 for additional RAM support when AMD is ready to sell you a 4 TB addressable capacity at base price.
One of AMD's talking points with Epyc is how it delivers the benefits of a 2S system in a 1S configuration. This table of ServetheHome shows the differences:
The advantage of AMD here is that it can simultaneously hit several Intel weaknesses. Need a lot of PCIe lanes? AMD is better. You want PCIe 4.0? AMD is better. If your workloads evolve optimally with the hearts, no one sells more cores per socket than AMD. Intel can still claim some benefits – it offers L3 unified caches much larger than those of AMD (each AMD L3 cache actually is 16 MB, with a slice of 4 MB per core). But these benefits will be limited to the specific applications that respond to them. Intel wants suppliers to invest in creating support for its persistent Optane DC memory, but nothing is said. how much do it. The current low prices of NAND and DRAM have made Optane's competition on the market much more difficult.
The move to 7nm has given AMD an edge in terms of power consumption, especially when you plan to end the server's life. STH indicates a single-threaded power consumption on a Platinum Xeon 8180 at ~ 430W (wall power), compared to around 340W at the wall for the AMD Epyc 7742 system. They note however that the high number of cores on the latter AMD processors will allow them to remove between 6 and 8 Intel Xeons 2017 sockets (60 to 80 cores) to consolidate workloads into a single AMD Epyc system. The energy savings from removing 3-4 dual-socket servers are well above the difference of about 90 W between the two processors.
Features like DL Boost can give Intel a performance advantage in AI and machine learning, but the company will fight hard. Until now, the data we have seen suggests that these factors can help Intel. match AMD as opposed to beating him.
The catalog prices we quoted for this story are the official prices that Intel publishes for Xeon processors in 1K units. It is also notorious that they are inaccurate, at least as far as major OEMs are concerned. We do not know what Dell, HPE and other vendors actually pay for Xeon processors, but we know that it is often well below the list price, which is usually only paid for by the retail network.
The gap between Intel's list prices and actual prices may explain why Threadripper did not have a lot of market penetration. Despite the fact that Threadripper processors have offered a lot more cores per dollar and better performance per dollar for two years, OEMs sharing sales information, like MindFactory, report very weak sales of Threadripper and Skylake-X. However, Intel has not shown any particular interest in lowering the price of Core X. It continues to position a 10-core Core i9-9820X as a suitable competitor for chips such as the Threadripper 2950X, despite AMD's superior performance in this game. This strongly implies that Intel has no particular problem the sale The 10-core processors to OEM partners who want it, despite Threadripper's superior price / quality ratio and AMD's share of the workstation market, is quite limited.
While Intel has cut its HEDT prices (the Core i7-6950X at 10 cores was worth $ 1723 in 2016, compared to $ 900 for a Core i9-9820X today), it has never tried to make a price / performance comparison against Threadripper. If this bulwark is to collapse, Rome will be the processor that will do it. Ryzen and Threadripper will be considered more credible workstation processors if Epyc begins to penetrate the server market.
Intel can reduce its prices to meet AMD in the short term. In the long term, we will have to challenge AMD directly. This means that more cores will need to be delivered at lower prices, with larger amounts of memory supported by socket. Cooper Lake, which is built on 14nm and includes additional support for new AVX-512 instructions focused on AI, will arrive in the first half of next year. This chip will allow Intel to focus on some of the markets it wants to compete with, but will not change the base count differential between the two companies. Similarly, Intel may have difficulty setting up a $ 3,000 to $ 7,000 premium for the support of 2TB to 4.5TB of RAM, since AMD is willing to take over up to 4TB of memory on each processor socket.
We do not know yet if Intel will increase the number of central servers with Ice Lake servers or what types of designs it will market, but ICL in the servers is in at least a year. By the time the ICL servers are ready for delivery, AMD's EUV 7 nm designs are also ready. After launching the mother of all refreshment cycles with Rome, AMD's challenge over the next 12 to 24 months will be to demonstrate the continued pace of updates and continuous performance improvement. If so, it is truly able to create the kind of stable business market that has been desired for decades.
When AMD launched the dual-core Opteron and its consumer counterpart, the Athlon 64 X2, the company finally felt that come. A little over a year later, Intel launched the Core 2 Duo. AMD spent the next eleven years roaming the wilderness. Later, the leaders would admit that the company had gone out of sight and was distracted by the acquisition of ATI. A series of problems followed.
The simplistic assumption that P4 Prescott was a disaster for which Intel could not recover had proved inaccurate. In the past, attacking Intel has often been likened to hitting a rubber wall with a Sledgehammer (pun intended). Distorting the wall is relatively easy. To destroy it completely is a much more difficult task. AMD may have the best opportunity to take market share in the company it has always had with Epyc 7 nm, but server sharing construction is a slow and cautious process, not a wind sprint. If AMD wants to keep what it builds this time, it has to play its cards differently from 2005-2006.
But that being said, I do not take lightly phrases like "golden age". I use it now. Although I do not make any predictions as to its duration, the 7nm Epyc's debut officially formalized it: welcome to the second golden age of AMD.
Intel may have launched Cascade Lake relatively recently, but another refresh of the 14-nm server is already on the horizon. Intel has lifted the veil on Cooper Lake today, giving new details on how the processor integrates into its product line with the 10-nm Ice Lake server chips supposed to be queuing for the deployment in 2020.
Cooper Lake features include support for Google's bfloat16 format. It will also support up to 56 processor cores in a snap-in format, unlike Cascade Lake-AP, which can scale up to 56 cores but only in a welded BGA configuration. The new take would be known as LGA4189. There is reports that these chips could offer up to 16 channels of memory (since Cascade Lake-AP and Cooper Lake use multiple chips on the same chip, Intel could run up to 16 channels of memory per socket with version double chip).
Bfloat16 support is a major addition to Intel's artificial intelligence efforts. While 16-bit semi-precision floating point numbers have been defined in the IEEE 754 standard for over 30 years, bfloat16 changes the balance between the format used for significant digits and that used for exponents. The original IEEE 754 standard is designed to give priority to precision, with only five bits of exponent. The new format allows a much larger range of values but with less precision. This is particularly useful for artificial intelligence and deep learning calculations, and is a major step on Intel's path to improving the performance of artificial intelligence and deep processor learning computations. Intel has released a White Book on bfloat16 if you are looking for more information on the subject. Google says that using bfloat16 instead of the conventional semi-precision floating point can generate significant performance benefits. The society written"Some operations are related to the memory bandwidth, which means that the memory bandwidth determines the time spent in such operations. Storing the inputs and outputs of memory bandwidth-related operations in bfloat16 format reduces the amount of data to be transferred, improving the speed of operations. "
The other benefit of Cooper Lake is that the CPU would share a socket with the upcoming Ice Lake servers in 2020. A theoretically important distinction between the two families is that Ice Lake servers at 10 nm can not support bfloat16, while 14nm Cooper Lake servers will. This could be the result of increased differentiation of Intel's product lines, although it is also possible that this reflects the difficult development of 10 nm.
The introduction of 56 cores as a base indicates that Intel expects Cooper Lake to expand to more customers than the Cascade Lake / Cascade Lake-AP target number. It also raises questions about the type of Ice Lake servers that Intel is going to market and the possibility of seeing 56-core versions of these chips as well. To date, all of Intel's 10-nm Ice Lake messaging has focused on servers or mobile devices. This may reflect the strategy used by Intel for Broadwell, where desktop versions of the processor were scarce, and where server and server components dominated this family – but Intel says later the fact of not publishing Broadwell desktop was a mistake and that the company had gaffed by skipping the market. Does this mean that Intel keeps launching an Ice Lake desktop or if the company has decided to no longer use its desktop computer? made understand that this time is not yet clear.
Cooper Lake's attention to AI treatment means that it is not necessarily meant to go with AMD's next 7 nm Epyc. AMD has not talked much about AI or machine learning on its processors and, although its 7nm chips add support for 256-bit AVX2 operations, the company's CPU division does not tell us has not yet hinted that a particular goal is the AI market. AMD's efforts in this area are still based on a graphics processor and, although its processors will certainly work with AI code, it does not seem that the market is at the same level as that of Intel. Between the addition of a new support for AI to existing Xeons, its products Movidius and Nervana, projects like Loihiand plans the data center market with Xe, Intel is trying to build a market to protect its high-performance computing and high-end server operations, and to address Nvidia's current dominance of the industry.
AMD has kept details of his next family of Epyc products remarkably close to his chest. A recent leak (now removed) of the publicly accessible Open Benchmarking database shows fierce competition between AMD's upcoming Epyc 7nm processors and Intel's equivalent Xeon products. Intel CEO Bob Swan said that AMD offered increased competition in the last half of 2019, especially in data centers. So these numbers are not automatically surprising – unless, of course, you remember when the AMD market went into the servers was essentially zero.
According to the text of the leak now removed (picked up by THG Before breaking down, the AMD Epyc 7742 is a 64-core processor with 128 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, a 225-Watt TDP, and a 2.25 GHz / 3.4 GHz base / boost clock , respectively. The Epyc 7601, already launched, is a TDP 180C processor, 32C / 64T, with 64 MB of L3 and an almost identical boost clock of 2.2 GHz / 3.4GHz. The Xeon Platinum 8280 measures 28C / 56T, 2.7GHz, 4GHz and 205W, while the Xeon Gold 6138 (included for reference) measures 20C / 40T, 2GHz / 3.7GHz and 125W.
If these rumors are correct, AMD managed to double the number of cores and increase the clock very slightly in a larger TDP envelope of 1.25. I'm not sure what the "RDY1001C" refers to at the bottom of the results, although this configuration is still the fastest in the list. Googling the term has given no results.
There are more tests at THG than what we have reproduced here; check their article for complete results. And, as always, treat all results with great caution. These are disclosed results. Even though they are accurate, they may reflect engineering samples that are not representative of the final performance.
SVT is a highly optimized video encoder for Intel processors, but optimizations for Intel chips also work well for AMD processors, and we certainly see it here. None of the codes seems to evolve particularly well when adding new cores, so we will not attempt to make sense of the dual figures. A simple 7742 is significantly faster than the Xeon Platinum 8280 and the 7742 is more than twice as fast as the 7601.
In HEVC, the performance figures change. Here, Intel and AMD are globally at par, but the 7742 represents a huge increase over the Epyc 7601.
POV-Ray 3.7 is evolving with an increased number of threads, but the gain of a dual processor is much smaller than that of the 7742 compared to the 7601. AMD averages only 24% more performance adding 64 additional cores, compared with 42 percent scaling for the 8280 Xeon Platinum. This difference in scaling means that a pair of Xeon 8280 doubles is roughly equivalent to a Epyc 7742 pair, although an Epyc 7742 is significantly faster than a Platinum Xeon 8280.
Blender, and more generally rendering, are tests for which AMD processors are generally excellent. AMD resolutely wins this test, although it is interesting to note that we are also seeing signs of significantly improved scalability for Intel processors. This may simply reflect the fact that Intel processors have far fewer cores. The Xeon Platinum 8280 is only a 28-core chip compared to the performance of a 64-core chip. This is a pretty important benefit for AMD. Of course, there is also the question of pricing and positioning – Intel has generally charged its Xeons well above AMD's Epyc processors, and we tend to prioritize price comparison over other factors. .
However, readers should be aware that there are sizing issues with AMD processors due to the large number of 128C / 256T cores, while Xeon Platinum processors only have 56 cores in a 2S configuration. Applications themselves may not adapt to these types of thread counting.
If these numbers are accurate, they suggest that AMD's Epyc 7nm processor will be a major challenge for Intel in more markets – which is exactly what we expected from previous third generation Ryzen claims and from AMD on Epyc 2. Factor in Bob Swan's recognition of increased competition in the market, and we plan a scenario in which Intel will reduce its Xeon prices either by reducing them directly or by launching Cooper Lake (currently the first half of 2020). Intel processor prices have always been much higher than those of AMD, but it's hard to know exactly how much, because the company's list prices (the best indicator to follow) do not reflect the volume actually paid by customers.
If AMD's Rome is as good as it looks, we should see an increased adoption of this piece by OEMs over first-generation Epyc, as well as some reaction from # 39; Intel. It may take several generations of products for server clients to switch to new providers, but they take this into consideration.
The question of when Apple will decide to create its own customized ARM processor cores for its software ecosystem rather than using Intel and x86 arises regularly. As far as ET is concerned, we first touched on it in 2011 and have addressed it several times over the past years. My answer has generally been an idea of "theoretically yes, but practically (and in terms of near future), no".
A recent AppleInsider article sums up the reasons why Apple could really take this step soon. We have already heard rumors that the company could launch such a product in 2020. Although the rumors do not correspond to a definitive launch date, the piece is solid. This reasonably explains why Apple could take this step and refers to various real-world events, including the difficulties faced by Intel to exceed 14 nm, Apple's design efforts around GPUs. and processors, the increasing complexity and capacity of its SoC, and the fact that Apple has built its own secondary chips, like the T2 controller.
All these points are true and that's why I think the Rumor 2020 deserves to be taken more seriously than the dates and ideas we used to hear. But there is still a major piece of this puzzle that we do not talk about often enough. Apple can introduce an ARM kernel running full macOS, but if it wants to replace x86 in its high-end products, iMac Pro and Mac Pro, it will face significant design challenges, which have never been identified before.
Apple built processors, yes. But he never tried to build, for example, a 28-32-core ARM processor in a multi-socket system. As far as I know, Apple has never built a server-class chipset nor designed processor socket for its own product families. During E3, I attended an AMD session on the evolution of its AM4 socket and on the care with which AMD had to work in order to design a 7nm product with chiplets that could In a socket that initially deployed four identical processor cores in a 28-nm process node. Even though Apple intends to create a platform without scalable processors, it will have to design its own motherboards. Socket design decisions made will affect how quickly it can iterate on the platform and what work to do later. Feasible? Absolutely But not something that we did overnight.
The use of chiplets facilitates some aspects of processor design, especially on advanced nodes, but does not simplify everything. Chiplets require interconnections, such as AMD's Infinity Fabric. Apple would need to design its own solution (there are still no formal standards for circuit interconnection). There is a lot of custom IP work to do here if Apple wants to market a piece to replace what Intel offers in the Mac Pro.
A simple solution is for Apple to launch new ARM chips in laptops while maintaining desktop systems on Intel for the moment. In theory, it works well, provided that the ecosystem is ready and that Apple can provide appropriate binaries for applications. Software application support and user expectations can be tricky to manage here, but it's feasible. Apple's problems in this case are to ensure that its consumers understand all potential compatibility issues and that new ARM-based products are clearly differentiated from older x86 products.
There is actually a reason for Apple not create your own processor cores for Mac You have to do a lot of work to launch a processor line for your laptop / desktop. It is more difficult and expensive to do all the work of developing interconnects, chips, chips and motherboards from the ground up, than to work with the predefined product standard and manufacture of somebody else. else. Intel does a lot of work on the Core that Apple is not have to do.
The question of whether it makes sense for Apple to move away from Intel processors is therefore partly based on the kind of money that Apple thinks it can earn through this. Obviously, capturing the value of the microprocessor can soften the cost structure, but capturing the value also means capturing the cost. When Apple was not an x86 store, its market share was significantly lower than it is today, and the company gained market share immediately after switching to the x86. It's impossible to tell if he won this share because his software compatibility was now much improved or because a lot of his systems, especially laptops, were now much more competitive than their Windows counterparts. .
Apple must consider that it will lose at least some customers if it drops off x86 compatibility again, either because of software compatibility, or because its new chips might not improve the performance of specific workloads compared to Intel. The most valuable processors – those that power the Mac Pro – are also the most expensive to design and build. If Apple does not think it can impose price increases offered by Xeon, it could delay the introduction of processors in these segments until it knows it. Unlike 2005, when IBM could not produce the right G5 for a laptop, Apple is not quite it pinched as far as the market segments.
I think Apple's processors have evolved enough to leapfrog to ARM and move away from the x86 in a plausible way, which was not the case in 2014, but there are still some important issues to be resolved to find out where Apple would sell the coin and if it would. attempt to replace x86 in all products or specific mobile references. And honestly, I think there is a version of this story in which Apple continues to work with Intel or AMD long after, deciding to deploy its own IP ARM strategically on the Mac line or to secondary positions similar to those of the T2. the chip is used.