[ogre_codes]

> A13X cost $30, compared to cheapest Intel used in MacBook Air cost $200+.

You aren't comparing costs fairly here. A13X costs $30 each + $XXX million to develop. With Intel the development costs are part of the SKU. If Apple launches a series of desktop CPUs, the cost to develop those chips is going to be substantial. Some of that cost will be in common with the iPad/ iPhone, but a good chunk will be unique to their new CPUs. Since Apple ships far fewer Macs than iPhones, the development cost/ unit will be significantly higher.

[philwelch]

iPad Pro is already beating some MacBooks in CPU benchmarks. Apple might just reuse the same CPU’s.

[ogre_codes]

> iPad Pro is already beating some MacBooks in CPU benchmarks. Apple might just reuse the same CPU’s.

Maybe some. Just considering the size of the devices, I'd expect the 16" MacBook Pro would have beefier CPU options than the iPad Pro.

[philwelch]

Sure, but I don't think the design cost is going to be that high--maybe even less than the design cost of having separate iPad and iPhone CPU's.

[ogre_codes]

Maybe. But they will likely have at least 3-4 different CPUs for the various Macs and different clock speeds for those different designs (though clock speeds and core count will likely be handled primarily through binning). Development cost for each additional CPU will be spread over fewer and fewer units.

- MacBook Air

- High performance MacBook

- iMac / Mac Mini

- iMac Pro/ Mac Pro

If next gen Macs are going to support some kind of x86 emulation/ compatibility layer, performance isn't going to have to be comparable with Intel, it's going to have to be 2-3 times faster so I'm expecting something quite a bit beefier than what the iPad Pro ships with.

[ksec]

Yes that is why I also wrote in another reply [1] it doesn't make much sense financially. And I dont quite see how it make any sense technically either. Even if Apple refuse to use AMD CPU for whatever reason Intel's investor roadmap ( Which tends to be more accurate then what they shared to consumers ) shows they are finally back on track. ( It will still take a year or two to catch up though )

Software is expensive, writing, testing , QA.

On the hand, they are spending billions on stupid Apple TV Dramas, I guess they might as well make their own CPU for high end Mac.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23465728

[ogre_codes]

> it doesn't make much sense financially.

This I disagree with. The Intel premium here is likely somewhere in the ballpark of $100-200 per CPU. Spread across 16-20 million Macs sold per year, we're looking at conservatively $2 billion/ year they can invest in CPU design.

More important, Apple will control what features get added to their CPUs and can integrate other functionality into the CPU the way they have with the A-series chips.