Actually SJ initially wanted to use an Intel chip in the iPad. After being convinced by some executive (dont know the details) he let it go being ARM.
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.
Intel Looking to Cut Power Consumption on Future Ivy Bridge Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually SJ initially wanted to use an Intel chip in the iPad. After being convinced by some executive (dont know the details) he let it go being ARM.
Intel finally have some healthy competition in the form of ARM. They know that if they keep producing chips that are so hot and require so much power that they will kill their own business.
ARM for the win. If they were good enough for Acorn they are good enough for Apple
----------
Yup - and if the iPad had used an Intel chip, it's be a bulky, hot pile of crap.
Steve was wrong.
ARM for the win. If they were good enough for Acorn they are good enough for Apple
----------
Yup - and if the iPad had used an Intel chip, it's be a bulky, hot pile of crap.
Steve was wrong.
In response, Apple announces an unnecessarily thin MacBook Air with the same battery life of the previous model, says battery life is overrated.
Anyone have any data on the current power consumption of the A6 or A6X chips?
I would also love to see what the computing power/watt is for both IB and the A6/A6X. Now that Apple is designing their own chips, I find it interesting that Intel would be a possibility for future iPads/iPhones. Are they saying Apple would then design based on the x86 architecture? Would Intel even allow that?
I would also love to see what the computing power/watt is for both IB and the A6/A6X. Now that Apple is designing their own chips, I find it interesting that Intel would be a possibility for future iPads/iPhones. Are they saying Apple would then design based on the x86 architecture? Would Intel even allow that?
I love the future. I love how virtually every aspect of all this technology enjoy everyday inches forward. Faster speeds, less power consumption, higher resolutions, brighter screens, smaller form factors, smarter operating systems, faster connections... Love it!
I grew up on Stat Trek and assorted scifi, it's all unfolding right in front of me and I think thats simply wonderful!
I grew up on Stat Trek and assorted scifi, it's all unfolding right in front of me and I think thats simply wonderful!
These ARM discussions are always great at showing who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.
Do you honestly think Intel couldn't whip up a processor as low powered and cool as an ARM processor? It's like saying Bugatti couldn't build a scooter, because they're only good at making big engines for cars.
The only reason they've never done it before is because they've never had to. ARM is a decent processor, great for what they're used for, and I applaud the fact they're finally kicking Intel around enough in the mobile sector that they've finally decided to start focusing on efficiency rather than yet more speed enhancements.
...but ARM chips aren't that much better. As has been pointed out here by people who know even more than me, an ARM chip running as quick as an Intel chip would consume just as much power. There's no real advantage between the two. Once ARM finds a way to eek as much power out of their chips with as low a power usage and heat dissipation as possible, and Intel works in reverse, finding ways to make their fast chips more energy efficient, there will be no real reason to prefer one over the other on a pure spec basis.
It's around that's when things will start getting really interesting.
Do you honestly think Intel couldn't whip up a processor as low powered and cool as an ARM processor? It's like saying Bugatti couldn't build a scooter, because they're only good at making big engines for cars.
The only reason they've never done it before is because they've never had to. ARM is a decent processor, great for what they're used for, and I applaud the fact they're finally kicking Intel around enough in the mobile sector that they've finally decided to start focusing on efficiency rather than yet more speed enhancements.
...but ARM chips aren't that much better. As has been pointed out here by people who know even more than me, an ARM chip running as quick as an Intel chip would consume just as much power. There's no real advantage between the two. Once ARM finds a way to eek as much power out of their chips with as low a power usage and heat dissipation as possible, and Intel works in reverse, finding ways to make their fast chips more energy efficient, there will be no real reason to prefer one over the other on a pure spec basis.
It's around that's when things will start getting really interesting.
Final Merging of OSX and iOS
It won't be x86 or ARM, but rather both within the same machine.
OS 11 will fully integrate the touch features of iOS and the "computer" features of full OSX. All macs sold will feature some sort of touch-based input and all software will be built to utilize this interface to the degree possible--see iTunes 11 and how usable it would be on a touch screen. I'd imagine this OS11 could selectively utilize both CPUs as needed, possibly using the power-sipping ARM for 80% of tasks but offering x86 for "heavy lifting". More deviously, the x86 chip could serve as a rosetta-like bridge to full ARMing of the desktop OS, if they don't merge.
It won't be x86 or ARM, but rather both within the same machine.
OS 11 will fully integrate the touch features of iOS and the "computer" features of full OSX. All macs sold will feature some sort of touch-based input and all software will be built to utilize this interface to the degree possible--see iTunes 11 and how usable it would be on a touch screen. I'd imagine this OS11 could selectively utilize both CPUs as needed, possibly using the power-sipping ARM for 80% of tasks but offering x86 for "heavy lifting". More deviously, the x86 chip could serve as a rosetta-like bridge to full ARMing of the desktop OS, if they don't merge.
Let's say this is not a trial balloon for Intel and may actually happen. I doubt it but . . . This is one possible convergence path for iOS and OSX.
I think the more likely one is convergence from OSX to iOS for the vast majority of devices using A series chips designed inside Apple and manufactured using any available foundry.
I consider it a trial balloon. I posted to an Intel forum several years ago (I have posted the link in prior messages) where they were first discussing power reduction are a key feature. I stated then the key metric they should target immediately is all-day use on a typical battery charge. The A series chips have gotten there. The typical laptop system using Intel lasts 4-8 hours.
Some of that is an obsession with thinness but the power consumption of a CPU board as a whole has reduced by a factor of 2 about every 3 years or so.
Rocketman
Means more to tablet computing in general. Apple is moving away from Intel b/c of their decent chips' power requirements. Chips are already way faster than what the average consumer can use. Battery life is where the action is now, not Ghz.
But Surface Pro will live or dies well before Intel has decent power consumption chips out. Personally I don't think the Surface Pro will last. In 2012 consumers want a tablet OS on their tablet, not a computer OS on a tablet, not a hybrid OS on a table. The Surface RT is already dying on the vine with poor sales.
Just like with the first iteration of the Windows tablet in the 00s, Microsoft is too ahead of the game. Apple, OTOH, is using the "boil a frog slowly" method, implementing a few iOS features into Mac OS with each new version. At some point Mac OS and iOS will look the same, but no one will notice by then because they'll be use to it.
The most important iOS and iDevices selling point at this point is the app ecosystem and the non fragmentation. Moving to intel would mean asking to developers to rewrote their apps, having devices with subar emulated app and so on. It's also very different from the ppc>intel transition from years ago,apps on iOS are way more and lot of little ones probably wouldn't be rewritten.
I figured most chips were as good as needed for the public....
Then I saw they are doing 4x HD TV soon and the whole cycle starts again. We'll be catching up through computing. It will be fine on the pads and notebooks, but the desktops will be struggling to digest and portray 4x HD in 4 or 5 years when those TVs and video become mainstream.
Then I saw they are doing 4x HD TV soon and the whole cycle starts again. We'll be catching up through computing. It will be fine on the pads and notebooks, but the desktops will be struggling to digest and portray 4x HD in 4 or 5 years when those TVs and video become mainstream.
If you are right with your 10% number, then this new processor would result in slightly more than a 4% increase in battery life. Combine this with a few efficiencies elsewhere and you are looking at a pretty nice bump in battery life! Or, as has been already mentioned, the retina Macbook Air.
It'll probably be closer to 8-10 years before 4K is mainstream (like 1080p today)
I think the Apple TV consumes under 5 watts, so the a6 should be way under that for just a chip
I wonder if Apple would bother going to Intel for its iDevices. After all, the synergy between the hardware and software is what Apple always claims gives them an edge against the competition. Apple can custom design their chips for exactly the product performance they want. I'm not so sure they could do that if they were dependent on Intel's chips.
I'd like to see Samsung create a high-res display that consumes 20% less power than the current displays on the market. Then see if Apple runs back to them.
----------
if they are buying 10's of millions of chips from Intel, I'm pretty sure Intel will do what they want to a point.
Apple did push Intel quite a lot on the Core Duo's and Core 2 Duo's when they switched away from PPC.
----------
if they are buying 10's of millions of chips from Intel, I'm pretty sure Intel will do what they want to a point.
Apple did push Intel quite a lot on the Core Duo's and Core 2 Duo's when they switched away from PPC.
This is great news, Ivy has been great. The latest MBA,barely gets hot. Also it keeps ARM on there toes, competition is always good. I want the future of ARM to succeed, but I also want Intel to be around and be more than just a chip fabricator.
This is the biggest BS I have ever read. Apple can fab their own A6x for like $20USD while buying ivy bridge from intel cost $200+, why would they even consider putting that cpu into the ipad? A6x also have TDP of 2-3W while even if ivy bridge cut power into half, it'll still be 9W.
Trust me, ivy bridge is ivybridge, it'll not cut voltage. All your hope will be with Haswell.
Trust me, ivy bridge is ivybridge, it'll not cut voltage. All your hope will be with Haswell.
I was about to mention this as well, the question is also if intel's performance advantage is needed in a tablet. I have not come across a situation where I felt that the iPad for example, was lacking in performance.
It's more of, "How do we get Intel to fab our ARM Designs if we don't put an i5 in the Large iPad".
Samsung is done fabbing for Apple 6-30-14. Big issue for iOS.
