Apple Considering Switch From Intel Chips in Future Macs

[SockRolid]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

While Apple is now committed to Intel in computers and is unlikely to switch in the next few years, some engineers say a shift to its own designs is inevitable as the features of mobile devices and PCs become more similar, two people said.

It is inevitable, at least in the consumer Mac lines. Maybe by 2014, maybe later.

Apple could conceivably keep 'Pro' models around that still run Intel chips temporarily.
(They'll be the ones with fans for blowing all that hot air away from said Intel chips.)

[Timoke6]

it's sad, but i think we've seen Apple's best days...

[jan1024188]

ARM has a long way to go. The performance isn't there yet, heck even 64bit architecture isn't out yet. The software is not there yet.

It has 5 years to go before switch would make sense, and that only if:
- ARM magically increases battery life to 20 hours
- ARM provides APU ability similar to Intel HD xxxx (but in 5 years time Intel HD will be as powerful as expensive Nvidia graphics card today), so I doubt this
- ARM generates much less heat (no need for fan to cool, except maybe while gaming) My rmbp15 is pretty silent tho
- There is very large software support, not just kernel and few programs, but at least 80% of active software out there

If that doesn't happen, than **** arm and **** apple.

[Quu]

Well I'm not a fan of this idea. I don't run Windows on my Mac at all but I am concerned that Apple will fall behind Intel's performance lead and then they won't switch back due to pig headedness.

I want them to stay away from developing their own ARM chips for desktop and notebook use. Stick to iPhone, iPod and iPad custom designs in my opinion.

[JohnDoe98]

To everyone making a fuss about this, perhaps you can explain it to me, because I seem to be missing something. As far as I can tell, the current generation of machines scoring above 10,000 in the benchmark tests pretty much do the overwhelming majority of typical consumer tasks instantly. Heck, even Anandtech was recommending people don't waste their money to upgrade the processors in their RMBPs since for the most part the CPUs are idling away at 1% usage.

So, assuming in 5 years or so Apple can get the ARM chips they are designing up to the performances we are currently seeing, perhaps even better, unless there are major changes in the design and demands of our current software, what would the big deal be to move things in house? If you're a gamer or someone whose professional usages demand top of the line performance, then fine I can see the basis for the complaints. But for the majority of consumers? What am I missing here? Or are people just complaining because they like to see bigger numbers on the spec sheets?

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

You know, Coldmack. A processor isn't the "spirit" of a computer, it's the engine. If a better engine is more capable than your old, far preferred engine, why hate it at all? Why replace it with one that's worse simply because it's "different"?

Well, I actually understand his point - with such a switch, Apple would return to being a "niche" computer maker with a near-exclusive processor architecture just like 680x0 and PowerPC were.

Where people would no longer be able to simply perform stupid MHz comparisons, or easily wrap some crap Windows game around Wine and call it a native Mac version...people would have to TRULY DEVELOP for it like it was the case before.

Alas, and having also learned to love Apple since the 80s and 90s, I would have a hard time justifying such an important switch on the basis of nostalgia alone...but I can't deny that it's a thought reminiscent of the good ol' "unique" Apple days.

[gkarris]

Here we go.... again....



My original post when they went from PPC to Intel was something like:

"Apple to go from PPC to Intel in their Macs, Microsoft to go from Intel to PPC in their XBox - what is the world coming to?"

[driceman]

They've made acquisitions of ARM based companies, right? So are they intending for their processors to be ARM based? If that's so, doesn't that mean they're MORE likely to be able to run Windows 8? I thought Windows 8 was ARM based... I guess I don't know enough about these things though.

Plus, we don't know when this could happen or what Apple's plan is, although I doubt we're going to see an A6X trying to run a Mac. Geez guys, quit freaking out. As much as I was disappointed with Forstall's work on iOS recently (and it was getting pretty clear that they were getting behind the curve, hopefully that'll change), Bob Mansfield has a good track record, and he comes across to me as a guy who knows what he's doing. They led the industry with the MacBook Air switching to flash storage, and now you can hardly look through the laptop area of Best Buy without seeing a bunch of copycats. Not to mention their rather popular change in display technology...

Not to be a fanboy (although I'm sure I deserve to be called that sometimes :P ) but I'm interested with where this is headed. Is Intel really driving innovation right now anyway? Isn't this a forum filled with Apple users, which presumably means we trust the brand when Forstall isn't blowing it on Maps? Yes, they could completely screw themselves over with this, but it's not as though they're planning to commit suicide or something. We barely know anything about this.

[SnowLeopard2008]

Originally Posted by AlvinNguyen

They need to stop moving everything into their own hands - look at how MAPS turned out. Please for the love of God just stop already.

Maps turned out great. People need to stop bashing Maps and use it for themselves. The problems are few and localized and aesthetic and have since been fixed. And even when they existed, it didn't interfere with the functionality of Maps. It was just some 3D glitches in Flyover and some errors in the streets/roads database. Google Maps was also like this and still is today. But Maps as a whole is great. I use it every day and I have zero problems. I had one error where it would tell me to turn left when the road is one way (only turn right) but that has been fixed.

[MadeTheSwitch]

I don't like this idea at all. I don't want software compatibility issues again.

[OllyW]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Please tell me a single occasion where I haven't been right in the last five years.

I seem to remember you saying "MICROSOFT IS DEAD" a lot and they are still around.

[FrenchKheldar]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

And what proof do you have of that? Good feelings?

Apple producing it's own components would be like some little old lady who makes wicker baskets buying a lumber company to get her raw materials cheaper, and buys a trucking company to get things delivered to her quicker.

I mean sure, she probably saves $30 per order on materials, but that's offset by the fact that she now has to run a ****ing lumber and trucking company just to make wicker baskets.

----------



If the rumors are true...

Check how much Apple spend on CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) every quarter. That's right, already more than Intel. If you think Apple is not running a handful of fabs and assemblies all over the world to crank out the 10's of million of iOS devices they sell every quarter, you're delusional. Just because the Apple logo is not on the factory does not mean they don't have capital and human resources involved at levels comparable to what Intel already does. It only makes sense that they get ready for the next evolution in personal computing: will ARM be successful in scaling up or will Intel beat them by scaling down? Nobody knows yet and it sure doesn't hurt to have eggs in both baskets...

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by OllyW

I seem to remember you saying "MICROSOFT IS DEAD" a lot and they are still around.

Oh that???!!!

[truettray]

I imagine it will still be an x64 compatible architecture. I mean, the A6 is still ARM..

[SandboxGeneral]

Originally Posted by OllyW

I seem to remember you saying "MICROSOFT IS DEAD" a lot and they are still around.

Along with Google and HP.

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by SnowLeopard2008

Maps turned out great. People need to stop bashing Maps and use it for themselves. The problems are few and localized and aesthetic and have since been fixed. And even when they existed, it didn't interfere with the functionality of Maps. It was just some 3D glitches in Flyover and some errors in the streets/roads database. Google Maps was also like this and still is today. But Maps as a whole is great. I use it every day and I have zero problems. I had one error where it would tell me to turn left when the road is one way (only turn right) but that has been fixed.

Same here, buster - I have no idea why people bash the Apple Maps so much - just a month old and already perfectly useful.

[funkboy]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

ARM ? What's the value there ? Performance per watt is no better than Intel.

Do you have any numbers that contradict the huge performance/watt advantage of ARM vs. x86 shown in this article? I a gree that 15x might be overoptimistic, but I think at least 4x is probably a reasonable all-round figure...

[FluJunkie]

Originally Posted by The Bulge

Let's say this is true, do you think they are idiots to ship something that doesn't perform like for example QC i5?

Do I think they're idiots? No. I mean, the folks at Apple have built a struggling computer manufacturer into a massive consumer electronics giant. I don't think they're idiots.

I think however it will be a huge departure from even their current-generation Mac's spirit, and a firm statement that Macs are meant for content consumption, rather than content creation.

And it does mean I'll leave, having spent most of my life using Macs. I use way too much that's optimized for Intel chips to tolerate a switch to ARM because most people don't need the power. I do.

Originally Posted by gotluck

meh, I don't care about power consumption in my desktop... I want computing power.

Intel gives computing power... not ARM

Exactly. I bought a tablet for long-battery media consumption. I bought my computer to get **** done.

[turtlez]

Originally Posted by Quu

Well I'm not a fan of this idea. I don't run Windows on my Mac at all but I am concerned that Apple will fall behind Intel's performance lead and then they won't switch back due to pig headedness.

I want them to stay away from developing their own ARM chips for desktop and notebook use. Stick to iPhone, iPod and iPad custom designs in my opinion.

You can't tell the future and if you have anything to go by look at the iPhone 5 doubling in performance over the S3. Obviously Apple knows what they are doing when they can get a dual core to double a quad core with the A6.

----------

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Same here, buster - I have no idea why people bash the Apple Maps so much - just a month old and already perfectly useful.

because it is fun to knock the top company to make yourself feel higher

----------

Originally Posted by OllyW

I seem to remember you saying "MICROSOFT IS DEAD" a lot and they are still around.

Most of the Windows campers are yelling at version 8 more than macs lately.

[TSE]

Would be a very risky move.

If Apple had an X86-64 emulator as good as Rosetta was a PPC Emulator for X86-64, then I would consider an ARM based full-time computer. Especially if it has epic battery life, a fanless (or near silent) design, and not too much power is lost.

[nuckinfutz]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Exactly. And even assuming Apple can run a bunch of fab plants well, they wouldn't be the Apple we currently know them as. They'd be Samsung.

They don't have to run them. They contract out to Samsung now and it appears they're getting cozy with TSMC.

Originally Posted by Pentad

I can't stress this enough...IT WOULD BE MONUMENTALLY STUPID.

Moving to Intel was the smartest move Apple could have made for the Mac line. The advantages far out weighted the conversion.

I don't think the public truly understands how important the CPU is when it comes to your applications. Sure Windows runs on ARM but it will fail because your favorite app has to be recompiled to run on ARM.

Windows RT flaunts Office but the apps people really use will have to be recompiled and I'm sure purchased again.

Rosetta worked (sorta) because the Intel CPU was pretty fast to emulate the PPC (though slowly). ARM could not handle Rosetta because it is ARM. It sacrifices number crunching for battery life.

You want to kill the Macs growth? Kill the Intel CPUs and go ARM.

I would never buy another MBP if this happened.


-P

It doesn't matter if you'd never buy another Mac. That's not were a majority of Apple revenue/profit. You guys are getting caught up in your own needs to realize that you're a niche (Mac users that need Intel hardware).

Originally Posted by jan1024188

ARM has a long way to go. The performance isn't there yet, heck even 64bit architecture isn't out yet. The software is not there yet.

It has 5 years to go before switch would make sense, and that only if:
- ARM magically increases battery life to 20 hours
- ARM provides APU ability similar to Intel HD xxxx (but in 5 years time Intel HD will be as powerful as expensive Nvidia graphics card today), so I doubt this
- ARM generates much less heat (no need for fan to cool, except maybe while gaming) My rmbp15 is pretty silent tho
- There is very large software support, not just kernel and few programs, but at least 80% of active software out there

If that doesn't happen, than **** arm and **** apple.

ARM has the Cortex A57 and A53 coming in 2014. 64-bit with the ability to have up to 16 cores share a L2 cache. Give it another couple of years and the performance gains and flexibility could be even better.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe98

To everyone making a fuss about this, perhaps you can explain it to me, because I seem to be missing something. As far as I can tell, the current generation of machines scoring above 10,000 in the benchmark tests pretty much do the overwhelming majority of typical consumer tasks instantly. Heck, even Anandtech was recommending people don't waste their money to upgrade the processors in their RMBPs since for the most part the CPUs are idling away at 1% usage.

So, assuming in 5 years or so Apple can get the ARM chips they are designing up to the performances we are currently seeing, perhaps even better, unless there are major changes in the design and demands of our current software, what would the big deal be to move things in house? If you're a gamer or someone whose professional usages demand top of the line performance, then fine I can see the basis for the complaints. But for the majority of consumers? What am I missing here? Or are people just complaining because they like to see bigger numbers on the spec sheets?

They like bigger numbers. In 4 years the fastest ARM cores will be enough for a majority of consumers.

Originally Posted by FrenchKheldar

Check how much Apple spend on CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) every quarter. That's right, already more than Intel. If you think Apple is not running a handful of fabs and assemblies all over the world to crank out the 10's of million of iOS devices they sell every quarter, you're delusional. Just because the Apple logo is not on the factory does not mean they don't have capital and human resources involved at levels comparable to what Intel already does. It only makes sense that they get ready for the next evolution in personal computing: will ARM be successful in scaling up or will Intel beat them by scaling down? Nobody knows yet and it sure doesn't hurt to have eggs in both baskets...

The truth is sitting there smacking people in the face and they still don't see it.

[OllyW]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Same here, buster - I have no idea why people bash the Apple Maps so much - just a month old and already perfectly useful.

It works in some places, in others not so good.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Well, I actually understand his point - with such a switch, Apple would return to being a "niche" computer maker with a near-exclusive processor architecture just like 680x0 and PowerPC were.

Where people would no longer be able to simply perform stupid MHz comparisons, or easily wrap some crap Windows game around Wine and call it a native Mac version...people would have to TRULY DEVELOP for it like it was the case before.

Alas, and having also learned to love Apple since the 80s and 90s, I would have a hard time justifying such an important switch on the basis of nostalgia alone...but I can't deny that it's a thought reminiscent of the good ol' "unique" Apple days.

I could see the appeal, specially to long time Mac fans who have been around since the "Think Different" days. Ultimately, a computer is a computer, and should be judged on its capabilities rather than whatever's inside of it. In other words, if it can't do the job you bought it for, then it's not a good computer. The brand name of parts used to make it should be secondary to this one fact.

ARM is great for what its designed for, and it's likely to get better in the future. But if you need power, your best (and only choice at the moment) is Intel.

[turtlez]

Originally Posted by JohnDoe98

To everyone making a fuss about this, perhaps you can explain it to me, because I seem to be missing something. As far as I can tell, the current generation of machines scoring above 10,000 in the benchmark tests pretty much do the overwhelming majority of typical consumer tasks instantly. Heck, even Anandtech was recommending people don't waste their money to upgrade the processors in their RMBPs since for the most part the CPUs are idling away at 1% usage.

So, assuming in 5 years or so Apple can get the ARM chips they are designing up to the performances we are currently seeing, perhaps even better, unless there are major changes in the design and demands of our current software, what would the big deal be to move things in house? If you're a gamer or someone whose professional usages demand top of the line performance, then fine I can see the basis for the complaints. But for the majority of consumers? What am I missing here? Or are people just complaining because they like to see bigger numbers on the spec sheets?

people are crying because they want sympathy. They assume Apple will put an iPhone processor in a mac next year and decrease its performance. Some people actually believe themselves if they say it more than twice, scary huh

[gotluck]

Originally Posted by coldmack

If X86 really was great the retina display would be running more smoothly on the 13in MBP, but it's not. It's the mickey fickey x86 architecture holding that laptop back.

Are you serious? It's the GPU that's holding that laptop back. (and the 15")
There are PC's (namely gpus) capable of pushing that resolution effectively.