Categories
Apple Computers Software

How to tell if an application is Apple Silicon native

If you are using one of the new M1 Apple Silicon Macs, you may be wondering how to tell if an app you have is optimized for Apple Silicon. There are a couple of ways to deduce this.

  1. Get Info: The first option is to use the “Get Info” option in the Finder. Navigate to the app’s location (usually in /Applications), click on the app, and the use Command-I. Under the “General” heading will be listing for “Kind:”, with three possible options – Application(Universal), Application(Intel), Application (Apple Silicon). The Intel and Apple Silicon options should be self explanatory. The “Universal” option means that the app is a “fat binary”, containing the code for both Intel and Apple Silicon versions. “Fat Binaries” have more coverage than an app compiled for either architectures, but they are also nearly twice the size of a standard binary.
  2. Activity Monitor: If the app is already running, you can open the Activity Monitor (located in /Applications/Utilities). Here you will see a list of all running applications. In the column labeled ‘Architecture’, you will see either Intel or Apple Silicon listed. Activity Monitor shows you the code that is being executed, so even if the application is a fat binary, it will only show the platform code that is currently being run.
Categories
3D Apple Computers

More benchmarks: Blender – MacBook Air M1 vs. MacBook Pro 16″ i9

A few other comparative benchmarks on the new MacBook Air M1 (16GB/512GB configuration), pitted against a MacBook Pro 16” (i9/64GB/4TB/Radeon 5500M-8GB).

Blender (running in Rosetta 2 on the M1). Demo files can be found here.

Fishy Cat (1 frame):

  • MacBook Air M1: 1 min 35 sec
  • MacBook Pro i9: 37 sec

Mr. Elephant (1 frame):

  • MacBook Air M1: 2 min 18 sec
  • MacBook Pro i9: 1 min 13 sec

Racing Car (1 frame):

  • MacBook Air M1: 13 min 22 sec
  • MacBook Pro i9: 8 min 52 sec

Now, of course this is hardly a fair fight. The i9 MacBook Pro has a discrete GPU (in this case, a Radeon Pro 5500M with 8GB). And Blender is being run via Rosetta. But in the wake of the ridiculous walloping all the Intel Macs are receiving by these entry level M1 machines, I thought it’d be nice to share an area where the Intel Macs are still (at least for the moment) worth their money.

Categories
Apple Computers

Apple Silicon Macs are here, and wow.

Ok, I’ll admit my previous post about the release of Apple Silicon powered Macs gave the impression that there wasn’t much exciting about the CPU switch, but boy, was I wrong.

I’ve had my hands on the M1 powered MacBook Air (with 16GB RAM/512GB SSD) for just a few hours now, and after putting it thru it’s paces, I’m floored.

I’ve run two benchmarks – XcodeBenchmark and Bruce X. These are more akin to real world benchmarks. I’m not knocking Geekbench of Cinebench, but these benchmarks involve actual applications that people will use, and actual projects that simulate what real world performance will look like. And after running each of these, and comparing it against my $4400 MacBook Pro 16″ i9/64GB RAM/4TB SSD machine, I’m floored.

Bruce X Benchmark

  • MacBook Pro i9 2.4ghz/64GB/4TB SSD: 16.03 seconds
  • MacBook Air (M1) – 16GB/512GB SSD: 11.69 seconds

XcodeBenchmark

  • MacBook Pro i9 2.4ghz/64GB/4TB SSD: 223.016 seconds
  • MacBook Air (M1) – 16GB/512GB SSD: 127.713 seconds

Again, these are real world benchmarks using real projects for Xcode and Final Cut Pro. And the MacBook Air doesn’t even have a fan. During the Xcode benchmark, the MacBook Pro’s fans spun up and were quite loud. The MacBook Air was dead silent. Of course, during sustained CPU usage the fan will be a benefit, as it will keep the CPU cooler, whereas with the MacBook Air M1, the CPU will throttle down to prevent the computer from overheating.

Here’s another comparison: I have a Logic Pro X project I’m working on that contains about a twenty tracks – 16 of which are audio tracks, the other 4 are software instruments, and of course, there are various effects applied to all the tracks. This project couldn’t play smoothly without stuttering on my MacBook Air 2020 i5 16/512GB machine. On the M1 MacBook Air, it plays as smooth as butter.

App performance isn’t the whole story though. The entire OS feels much faster. Apps (those that are Apple Silicon enabled) open incredibly fast. I’ve only tried a few apps that weren’t optimized for Apple Silicon, and the results have been great. For example, the original Pixelmator, which I still use for day to day graphics tasks, isn’t optimized for Apple Silicon. It opens quickly, and using it feels just as fast and performant as it does on my i9 MacBook Pro. Every app is different, of course, but Rosetta 2 looks like another incredible feat of engineering from Apple.

On the software development front outside of Xcode, things are a different story. There isn’t much of my everyday work toolchain that is ready for Apple Silicon yet. Stuff like HomeBrew, NodeJS, Docker and other web technologies are not quite ready for Apple’s new chip, and anyone who works with these technologies would be advised to wait before upgrading to the new machines.

But for everyone else – come on in, the water is fine.

The short of this is: If you are using your Mac for Xcode, Final Cut Pro or Logic Pro X, you are going to be blown away at what these Macs with the M1 chip are capable of.

Amazon is currently dropping $50 off the price of the M1 powered MacBook Air and Pro.

Categories
Apple Computers

Apple Silicon Macs are here, and meh.

Some quick takeaways from the Apple event today that heralded the release of the first Apple Silicon Macs.

  • Apple is still including 720p cameras in the Air and the 13″ Pro. In the age of COVID where everyone is doing virtual meetings, this is disappointing. I’m not entirely faulting Apple here, as a 1080p camera that can fit in a thin laptop LCD doesn’t exist yet (as far as I can tell, I haven’t seen one in a laptop display). Apple is claiming that the M1 chip can improve the quality of the picture in sharpness and shadows.
  • Apple is using the M1 chip in the Air, 13″ Pro, and the mini. The low end Air is using a 7-core GPU vs. an 8-core GPU in the higher end air. But apart from that, there’s no differentiation given between the models. This falls in line with Apple trying to keep the specs of it’s hardware as vague as possible. But it makes you wonder if the performance of the higher end Air and the 13″ Pro are going to be comparable. The Air doesn’t have a fan, so it will be constrained thermally compared with the Pro, but for workloads that are not sustained, it should be just as powerful as the Pro. We will see once the real world benchmarks start appearing.
  • All three of these machines max out at 16GB of RAM. The RAM is built in to the CPU itself, which should mean RAM throughput should be quite fast. But it also means no user upgradeable RAM (which allowed people buying a Mac mini to save a good bit of money handling the RAM upgrade themselves). For the Air, topping out at 16GB is fine. For the 13″ Pro, it’s acceptable – this is the low end 13″ Pro, after all, the one with only 2 Thunderbolt ports… the real 13″ Pro (with 4 ports and better RAM upgrade options should come later). For the Mac mini, it’s a letdown. You can configure the last Intel Mac mini with up to 64GB RAM. 16GB just isn’t enough to handle things like opening 100GB Photoshop files, or opening Final Cut Pro projects that are several gigabytes in size. Now, maybe Apple has optimized the architecture of these news to more efficiently page out to the SSD, but for real pros, there is no substitute for having ample RAM. I’m anxiously awaiting to see how well these RAM constrained Macs can perform with large files. We will see.
  • None of these Macs can utilize an external GPU. That’s a bummer.
  • The Mac mini is once again available in Silver, and not Space Gray like the last version. I suspect this might be because Apple is going to have a ‘Mac mini Pro’ available at some point in the future, which would (theoretically) have higher RAM options.
  • With Apple utilizing RAM on the chip, they have buyers over a barrel. Apple can charge whatever they want for a RAM upgrade (and at present they are charing a $200 differential between 8 and 16GB). This isn’t going to sit well with many users (myself included). This makes me very nervous for an Apple Silicon Mac Pro or iMac. These machines are geared towards people who usually demand gobs of RAM, and don’t want to pay Apple exorbitant fees. If these machines don’t have user upgradeable RAM, there’s going to a lot of disgruntled Pro users.
  • All three M1 Macs can drive Apple’s 6K display.
  • The M1 Mac mini features two Thunderbolt 3/USB-4 ports, and 2 USB-A ports. This is a downgrade from the last Intel Mac mini’s 4 Thunderbolt and 2 USB-3 ports. No Thunderbolt 4.
  • All the new Macs feature Wifi 6.
  • I’m surprised the Touch Bar survives on the 13″ Pro. I was convinced Apple would drop it. But it seems it does serve a purpose in differentiating the Air from the 13″ Pro. Even with powering the Touch Bar, the 13″ Pro gets significantly better battery life than the Air. A slightly chunkier chassis goes a long way towards more battery capacity.

Apple Silicon looks like it’s going to be extremely competitive with Intel chips on the low end. Hopefully they can outshine Intel on the high end end as well.

Categories
Apple Computers Software

Thoughts on Apple Silicon

WWDC has come and gone, and the rumors were largely true: Apple will begin a migration to its own CPUs (which Apple is currently just calling ‘Apple Silicon‘) sometime later this year. This move had been rumored for a few years now, so it came as a surprise to absolutely no one. Apple has long strived to control the entire widget, and with this move, it will remove Intel from the product matrix, giving Apple near total control over it’s Mac’s technological composition.

Now, Apple didn’t say anything about future Macs, apart from telling us they will use Apple Silicon. But if you watched enough technical presentations from WWDC, and paid attention to some of the details, there are some pretty obvious tells.

One of the biggest tells was Apple declaring in their keynote video that future Apple Silicon based Macs will be able to run iPhone and iPad apps directly. These apps will be available in the Mac App Store automatically, unless Developers check a box that will restrict them from appearing there. Now, many iPad apps have been gaining mouse/trackpad input support, so these apps running on an Apple Silicon Mac will probably perform as good on a Mac as they will on an iPad. But what about iPhone apps? These apps generally do not have input device support beyond touch. How will these apps function on a Mac?

Touchscreen Macs.

Apple has been saying for a decade that adding touch input to a Mac was a bad idea. But during that same time, Apple has brought mouse/trackpad/keyboard/pen input to the iPad, something it said was best controlled with touch. So all the while Apple has been claiming that the Mac with a touchscreen would be a terrible compromise, they were bringing the Mac-ness of using a keyboard/mouse/pen to the iPad. So it clearly thinks that an iPad with expanded input support beyond touch is now a good idea.

If you’ve used the macOS Big Sur beta, you’ve no doubt noticed some of the big changes to the user interface/experience. Much of the UI looks more like iPad OS now. Apple is pushing for the Macs icons to use the same ‘squircle’ shape that the iPad/iOS use. It’s made the menu bar’s top items more spaced out, as if to allow for a larger touch target. They’ve applied the same spacing to the menu bar icons as well. The modal save/don’t save/cancel dialogs now feature larger buttons, as if to accommodate fingers instead of mouse cursors.

Control Center in macOS Big Sur. It sure does look like a lot of these UI elements are optimized for touch, doesn’t it?

So basically, Apple has made numerous UI enhancements that all seem to drive towards one goal – better input with something as imprecise as a finger.

Now, maybe we won’t get touch support when the first Macs with Apple Silicon ship later this year. Nobody knows which Macs will go first, but if it is a Mac with a built in screen, there’s a strong likelihood that it will feature a touchscreen.

There’s one other observation I’d like to make. Just a few years ago, Craig Federighi said during a keynote that Apple was not merging iOS and macOS. Well, they may both remain distinct OSes particular to their own hardware, but Apple has definitely gone just about as far as merging them as you can go without actually merging them.

The Proof:

  • iPadOS 14 and macOS Big Sur share a common design language.
  • With Apple Silicon, you can now develop for both platforms in one app codebase, using SwiftUI.
  • You can easily bring your UIKit iPad app over to the Mac, thanks to the work of project Catalyst.

And if the above two scenarios don’t work for your iPad app scenario, you can just run the iPad app as-is on your Apple Silicon based Mac.

Now, there are still some major distinctions between the two platforms. For instance, the iPad still lacks a window manager. It is reliant on the App Store for installing new apps. The iPad security model is more restricted than the Macs. It doesn’t have legacy hardware support for the devices like the Mac does. There is still a feature chasm between the two platforms. But that chasm has grown considerably smaller. It’s small enough now that comparing the high end of the iPad (the iPad Pro), and the low end of the Mac (Macbook Air), can make choosing one of these devices for a particular task difficult. Once the Macbook Air/Pro can run all of the same software that you can run on an iPad, along with software that’s not restricted to the App Store, the chasm will be even smaller between the two platforms.

That sure does sound like the two products have merged to me.

Oh, and one final thought. The TouchBar is a goner. There was no mention of any improvements to the TouchBar API during WWDC. With touchscreen capability coming to future screen enabled Macs, the TouchBar becomes relegated to the long list of Apple technologies that never quite made sense.

Now, if we could just get Apple to add the AppleTV remote to that list.