Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

everything-i

macrumors 6502a
Jun 20, 2012
827
2
London, UK
I have no problem with a move to custom ARM chips as long as they are competitive performance-wise. Look at the power consumption of something like the iPad compared to your PC -- the iPad consumes roughly 1/15th the power. Beyond applying this to home computers and laptops, think about the implications for a server farm. We are moving more and more to "the cloud", but look at what it takes to power and cool these enormous data centers -- it isn't cheap.

If Apple can make chips that perform near Intel levels and consume a fraction of the power it is a no brainer if you ask me.

If Apple could do this they would be doing it now and putting Intel, AMD and others out of business. It is enormously expensive and time consuming to design and manufacture something as complex as a high end processor and currently Apple is barely off the first rung of that ladder in processor design. The reason they use ARM designs for SOC is that most of the hard work is already done for them. Ask AMD how hard it is to compete with Intel, I'm sure they would say the same thing.
 

blackhand1001

macrumors 68030
Jan 6, 2009
2,599
33
Because they have to keep their options open. Intel's doing great right now but that might not always be the case - the Pentium 4 was an atrocious processor and AMD trumped them in almost every way. These days AMD isn't really much of a contender due to comparatively lacklustre performance. If Intel missteps and spends another 5 years pushing a poor processor, Apple might do well to use a different technology.

Even the fastest arm processors aren't even approaching those horrible pentium 4 levels of performance.
 

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,540
1,653
Redondo Beach, California
Yes Apple or anyone could build a very fast ARM core and then put 8 cores on a chip and have a very powerful ARM based computer but, a fast ARM core would use a lot of power too. One gains speed by pipelining a lot of operations which means a lot more space is used

One the other hand Intel does make low power x86 ships, look at the Atom.
 

theluggage

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2011
7,475
7,313
Apple trying to do everything on its own is going to cause its downfall.

This isn't about Apple developing its own CPU from the transistors up. ARM technology means that Apple can license the building blocks of the processor individually from ARM and others to put together exactly the chip they want, rather than waiting for Intel to come up with a generic chip that fits the bill. (Plus, they may already 'own' bits of it, they've partnered with ARM in the past).

ARM isn't getting any slower - the A50 64-bit processors are on their way.

In order of most to least likely:

1. Apple are just hedging their bets against the day when Intel produces the next Pentium 4 debacle.

2. They're looking at entry level laptops possibly running iOS or a 'OS X RT', as a hedge against things like the Asus Transformer, Chromebooks or Windows RT machines hitting the big time.

3. They're thinking of hybrid ARM/x86 machine - think about a MacBook pro with an iPad built into the lid, using the ARM to keep up with email and 'personal organiser' stuff and only firing up the x86 for serious work.
 

MagnusVonMagnum

macrumors 603
Jun 18, 2007
5,193
1,442
\notes that Russian company Elbrus Technologies has developed a Rosetta-like emulation technology that could allow ARM chips to run software written for Intel processors.

Oh boy! ANOTHER Rosetta! FAIL


How long until THAT Rosetta is dumped and your software no longer works again? One year? Two years? Maybe three? :rolleyes:

What? Did they have a fight with intel now? lol just kidding. But seriously why run the hurdle race when intel has a good product?

One word: GREED
 

Spanky Deluxe

macrumors demi-god
Mar 17, 2005
5,282
1,745
London, UK
Even the fastest arm processors aren't even approaching those horrible pentium 4 levels of performance.

That's not true - the current ARMv8 chips are capable of about probably about 25% the performance of current Intel chips. Now of course integer performance isn't everything but ARM has the potential to rival x86 processors. If it were pushed towards performance rather than efficiency more then it would become even more of a rival.

Any such switch isn't going to be happening right now. In ten year's time though we might have seen the last of mainstream x86 processors though. I can see desktops and laptops switching to ARM processors coupled with GPUs - an intelligent operating system could potentially split tasks between an ARM based CPU and GPU based arithmetic on the fly giving some crazy fast systems.

Both ARM processors and especially GPU chips are increasing in performance year on year at a far greater rate than x86 processors. Any future thinking computing company needs to keep their options open for potential changes in the computing landscape in years to come.
 

Macboy Pro

macrumors 6502a
Feb 16, 2011
730
52
Biggest hurdle will be, that nobody will buy those products.

p.s. If they already have a roadmap for the switch, I hope they used "Google maps" at least.

Would be a mistake to think that because the tablet markets is following your lead that you can do the same in the PC market. If Apple goes down the path of making their Mac products incompatible, Apple will slow their sales dramatically. PC's blow away the market, Macs do not lead yet.

Don't get me wrong, MAC is better product, but PCs are WAY MORE prevalent.
 

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,537
398
Middle Earth
Don't think anyone would enjoy having to rewrite every dingle piece of software ever written for the Mac, or else run it in emulation, 20 times slower than if you didn't switch from Intel. The switch from PPC to Intel only just finished completely, a few years ago, when pretty much PCC is no longer supported by anyone. Are we going to have to start all over again, just to get slightly faster computer?

They don't have to. Xcode can target ARM and Intel processors

very valid point and its at present that things are kind of stable for software developers and users, such moves will only disturb already healthy and flourishing ecosystem.

Most of the major frameworks work across Intel and ARM already. Developers would have an easier time with this transition than PPC >Intel

Not implausible, which roughly translates into highly improbable. The cost and time-frame to implement would make it a pointless exercise, they would only use the processors themselves and volumes would not be anywhere near sufficient to get any economies of scale. Apple have so far only just completed a semi custom ARM design which is a million miles from a fully custom processor. Do these people have any appreciation of how much effort and cost is involved in doing this from scratch. Surely if they did they would realise how pointless it would be given the current direction Intel is taking with its offerings. By 2017 it is likely Intel will have similar performing mobile processors to ARM, the only thing currently lacking would be the ability for 3rd parties to integrate Intel designs into SOC designs and is currently a big advantage for ARM designs, if Intel can overcome this they will be a real across the board option by then. ARM is currently lacking any high performance processor designs for power laptop and desktop plus you have to then transition all software to RISC if you go this route which is another huge undertaking. You would be in the realm of Rosetta again which was hugely painful last time but at least had the huge benefit of getting Apple onto superior x86 processors and able to run windows software using virtual machines or boot camp.

It doesn't really matter if Intel is close to ARM in 2017 or not. The value here is having and ARM Architectural license. Which means that if you need high memory bandwidth and GPU performance (a la the A6) you can design it in. Intel isn't offering that..they are offering prefabbed generic processors which means you cannot differentiate your product line.

Apple trying to do everything on its own is going to cause its downfall. There are somethings that you just leave it to others. Maps fiasco is a good example. Sure over time, Apple Maps will get better, but Google isn't going to be taking a nap either.

They want 50 - 60% markup on everything.

I knew bootcamp was a switch and bait kind of deal to sucker users in.

"Hey look you can run Windows on our machines too.. but your machine might end up like a heater as we don't supply the necessary drivers and software to cool the macs. And we dont entertain any support calls if windows is concerned"

Great! And Apple is pissed at Google that they didn't give all the features to Apple? What goes around, comes around, Apple !

Apple's job isn't to prop up windows.

That's not true - the current ARMv8 chips are capable of about probably about 25% the performance of current Intel chips. Now of course integer performance isn't everything but ARM has the potential to rival x86 processors. If it were pushed towards performance rather than efficiency more then it would become even more of a rival.

Any such switch isn't going to be happening right now. In ten year's time though we might have seen the last of mainstream x86 processors though. I can see desktops and laptops switching to ARM processors coupled with GPUs - an intelligent operating system could potentially split tasks between an ARM based CPU and GPU based arithmetic on the fly giving some crazy fast systems.

Both ARM processors and especially GPU chips are increasing in performance year on year at a far greater rate than x86 processors. Any future thinking computing company needs to keep their options open for potential changes in the computing landscape in years to come.

They key with the ARM chips is going to be scaling them with a CoreLink. So while one Cortex A50 series chip is likely to be only 30-40% the speed of an Intel chip it should be a smaller chip meaning you can place multiple in a computer and scale the chips as needed.
 

Marx55

macrumors 68000
Jan 1, 2005
1,913
753
No way. A full x86 compatibility is a must. Besides power. Intel power. No toy-like ARM power.
 

divinox

macrumors 68000
Jul 17, 2011
1,979
0
Apple isn't this retarded people - this is all stemmed from the quarrels that Apple has with Intel.

If ANYTHING happens, Apple will design their own in-house x86/64 CPUs.. Much like AMD is to Intel.

To further build a case, I bet Apple is interested in a hybrid CPU that has a mobile-core for lightweight tasks that switches to full-power x86/64 CPU for more demanding tasks. This will improve battery life in notebooks tremendously.

-Div

Why would Apple dive into a market where chances are slim that they will do well (i.e., high risk, low chance of being better), and that is capital intensive (billions in R&D). Division of labor, and specialization, works for a reason. No RDF will change that. Especially not with Jobs gone.
 

DesterWallaboo

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2003
520
726
Western USA
"The new ARM-based Mac Pro. For the pro in all of us"...

LOL.... best comment on here.

Somehow I don't think we'll be seeing any ARM processors matching Xeon speeds anytime soon. Couple that with the fact that you would have to get major software developers to move over to the new architecture... and it's a recipe for sudden death in the pro arena.

My studio is already getting skittish about Apple after their Final Cut Pro X debacle.
 

deydadu

macrumors newbie
Sep 14, 2007
2
0
It would be great if they announce it in advance, so I can start slowly moving back to Windows and Android...
 

turtlez

macrumors 6502a
Jun 17, 2012
977
0
wow i can't believe how many people are going berserk with tears over this. Obviously Apple isn't stupid enough to put crappy processors in their machines so grow the hell up and have a little faith in a company that is the best in their league. They are famous and you are a cry baby, that doesn't say much for your crying comments.
 

nuckinfutz

macrumors 603
Jul 3, 2002
5,537
398
Middle Earth
Why would Apple dive into a market where chances are slim that they will do well (i.e., high risk, low chance of being better), and that is capital intensive (billions in R&D). Division of labor, and specialization, works for a reason. No RDF will change that. Especially not with Jobs gone.

You mean the same Jobs that acquired Intrinsity and PaSemi? Jobs set this in motion with acquisitions that lead to exactly what we're seeing here the potential for custom ARM designs.

wow i can't believe how many people are going berserk with tears over this. Obviously Apple isn't stupid enough to put crappy processors in their machines so grow the hell up and have a little faith in a company that is the best in their league. They are famous and you are a cry baby, that doesn't say much for your crying comments.

Most of the Apple Engineers working on these projects have forgotten more than most of us know about these things. The level of ignorance here is breathtaking. Do people wake up and say "let me get snarky on subjects that I don't have the faintest clue about"?

:apple:
 

mikeoc

macrumors member
Dec 3, 2009
34
0
London
Personally I can't see any real advantage in walking away from intel. It was different with the PPC as it was becoming rather limited at the time. They were great Macs though - one of my main workhorse's is a Dual G5 Tower, still does the job.

I'm of the mindset that Apple would do well releasing the Mac OS for all computers though, which probably makes me something of a minority, if they did this it would allow people to configure their PC's just the way they want. It would most likely see the Mac's market share rise incredibly.

Perhaps there could be a performance advantage with having an Apple chip along with the intel processor?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.