Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 6, 2012, 02:55 AM   #651
mrxak
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Drifting through space in a broken escape pod
This rumor gets posted several times a year, I don't know why everyone's freaking out.

Even if it's true, Apple is "considering" a switch in the "future", it can easily be a purposeful leak trying to kick Intel in the ass while they're dragging their feet on some chip or another Apple wants to buy.
__________________
Phones Will Kill You
mrxak is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:07 AM   #652
Death-T
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Send a message via MSN to Death-T
Jeez, I jumped on the Mac bandwagon four years ago. Didn't get my first one until last year. I love OS X, and my 2011 iMac and rMBP are the best computers I've ever had. But the future of Apple computers is just scary. If they keep moving in this direction I'll be going Linux full-time.
__________________
Macbook Pro with Retina Display|2.6 Ghz|8 GB RAM|512 GB SSD::21.5" Aluminum iMac|2.5 GHz |12 GB RAM|500 GB HD::16 GB iPad 2::16 GB iPhone 4S [Jailbroken]::Apple TV 3
Death-T is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:09 AM   #653
JasonElise1983
macrumors 6502a
 
JasonElise1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Between a rock and a midget
Quote:
Originally Posted by troop231 View Post
Maybe we'll get an ARM powered PowerBook G5
With blu-ray, touch screen, and ZFS... Along side an updated MacPros...

#VaporWare
JasonElise1983 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:11 AM   #654
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
Actually, that could be good! x86 architecture has so much flaws and unnecessary legacy stuff...

ARM CPUs are also very energy efficient. In example, Nufront 2GHz CPU, which uses JUST 2 Watts !
While Intel CPUs could eat up to 100 Watts.
I kind of hope you're trolling here, as this doesn't even resemble accurate, and it doesn't sound like sarcasm, given that you cited a brand in there. Ghz are a poor measure of overall performance without further context, regardless of architecture. The only area where they're still used is in differentiating between two very similar cpus. Intel's 17W cpus would still blow away the 2W ones you mentioned. While the ARM versions could sacrifice performance in favor of that 16W, they don't represent the entire power budget for the machine. If you aren't trolling, you should catch up on your reading. You're making a nonsense comparison when Intel designs cpus anywhere from sub 10W with Atom to 130+ for servers and workstations.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:15 AM   #655
MagicBoy
macrumors 65816
 
MagicBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
The fools. Yet more proof the current computer range are heading for iToy status.
__________________
Late 2013 15" MacBook Pro with retina display 2.3GHz; Mac mini (2009) 2GHz ;
iPhone 4 32GB ; iPad 16GB Wi-Fi

RIP : Late 2011 15" MacBook Pro 2.2GHz HR-AG with dead GPU
MagicBoy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:15 AM   #656
Neodym
macrumors 6502a
 
Neodym's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Purant View Post
I can't see any pros for going ARM.

In other words: The transition to intel was painful, but I understood it was necessary. Now after all these years, all the software has proper intel support and now that it's stable again Apple might change to ARM because.... because what?
For starters...
  • Become independent from another company's roadmap for crucial components
  • Have full control over the whole hardware to make optimizations or allow for individual solutions
  • Distinguish from others being "just another Intel box, just with higher prices"
  • Reduce the hardware (and related software) platforms the company has to support and develop for
  • Leverage economies of scale with millions of ARM CPU's already produced for iOS devices (--> lower product prices and/or higher profit)
  • Overcome limitations the current hardware platform is implying (e.g. no multi-CPU except with expensive Xeons)
  • Be prepared for a possibly upcoming market transition to another major hardware platform (Windows is going ARM, too)
  • Be (one of) the first in the new market (ARM on desktop) to set the standards and reap the benefits
Neodym is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:21 AM   #657
Purant
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neodym View Post
For starters...
  • Become independent from another company's roadmap for crucial components
  • Have full control over the whole hardware to make optimizations or allow for individual solutions
  • Distinguish from others being "just another Intel box, just with higher prices"
  • Reduce the hardware (and related software) platforms the company has to support and develop for
  • Leverage economies of scale with millions of ARM CPU's already produced for iOS devices (--> lower product prices and/or higher profit)
  • Overcome limitations the current hardware platform is implying (e.g. no multi-CPU except with expensive Xeons)
  • Be prepared for a possibly upcoming market transition to another major hardware platform (Windows is going ARM, too)
  • Be (one of) the first in the new market (ARM on desktop) to set the standards and reap the benefits
That's pros for Apple, not for consumers. I am a consumer, why would I care about that? What would *I* gain from Apple going Arm?
Purant is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:43 AM   #658
Jibbajabba
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
No more virtual machines then I guess ...
Jibbajabba is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:47 AM   #659
roxxette
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
I think whe should get a grip, i cant stress these enough theres no way these is going to be a radical overnight change after a event ! Theres no frecking way.
roxxette is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:50 AM   #660
TauCeti808
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
It really depends what People are doing with their gear. I can not really imagine that I will ever develop any software on an ARM machine or playing a performance hungry game.

But for a lot of other stuff like mail, communication, media consumption, project management, office tasks, web surfing a quad core with 16+x GB looks extremly uber powered.

At the end it probably just means that their will be some kind of pro market (small) and a huge consumer market.

However my persistent impression is, that Apple under serves the pro market since 2 or 3 years. They really have changed their strategy, but that also is happening with Microsoft because their is this huge vibrant market. And nobody can ignore this market without risking to be driven out of business (look at Nokia).

So the question remains which platform is best for developing software, producing content, etc - does question really matter!?

Will we go back to cross-compilers like in the 80ties?
TauCeti808 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:51 AM   #661
hoon2999
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
so.. apple wants people to think that they'll change to some ridiculous chipset and forcing them to think that this is only chance to buy macs with intel chip. with their shares declining, i guess they need to try everything.
maybe not
__________________
iPhone 5, iPad 1-3, 2010 15" Macbook Pro, i7-2600K @ 5.2GHz self-built PC with hacKintosh
hoon2999 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:58 AM   #662
drorpheus
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
It will be fine. If you have to have the latest Intel everything go buy a Dell or a HP or Build your own from Newegg or Frys or TigerDirect. Intel is the most UNinnovative chip company on the planet. Everything they offer is dated and technology of the past. Chips still running on the most bloated architecture and while its not as slow as it was, its still slow. Its all the most unsecure. Still offering dual and quad core chips, barely breached 3Ghz chips, that's 7 years of Intel Innovation for ya. IBM had 3.2Ghz 3 core and 8 core single socket chips (so power was never an issue) in Fall 05/06, had Apple chose the 8 and went halves with Sony you'd have had 16 core cpus in early 2007 running on air.

For all the doubters, the answer is sitting right in front of your face, like it or not most of your self fulfilled dreams of why Apple left IBM for Intel is wrong, its real simple, Steve Jobs wanted to sell laptops, he wanted that more than anything, IBM couldn't cool down they're chips (they are masters of high power computing, not mobile consumer use) Apple approached PA Semi to fill this void with low power RISC POWER chips licensed from IBM, but it wouldn't be shippable until Spring 07, Apple didn't want to wait another year so they chose Intel, Intel's could be stuffed in laptops. Apple bought PA Semi 2 years later, has all the talent and technologies and patents PA Semi owned. 3 yrs Later you have the iPad, running on an Apple RISC chip design by Apple to be made by whoever they choose, shipped in mass volume with near flawless fail rate.


With all the money Apple has they can do a number of things, staying with Intel only holds them back. Look the MacPro hasn't been touched for almost 3 years now, and that's not because Intel's chips are so fast that they need dry Ice to cool it. Intel doesn't need Apple they're in the other 99% of every other consumer computer, that's why there's never much innovation, there's no need because they have no competition. Both companies will be fine without each other, they both survived without each other before, they can do it again. Apple's basically at where Snow Leopard started with OSX and RISC, if they stopped all R&D they day they switched to Intel, clearly they haven't since you have iOS.

I personally can not wait, maybe we can finally get over the bump in the road Apple's currently stuck at with Intel.
drorpheus is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 03:59 AM   #663
Jibbajabba
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by gotluck View Post
yea, but its the x86 pro version that people are more excited about
Some are excited about the RT version because they have no clue it is locked down and relies solely on the app store.
Jibbajabba is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:00 AM   #664
gpat
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by unobtainium View Post
Jump ship to where? It's conceivable that all or most PCs will become ARM-based in the next decade. This is the tech battle of a generation coming up (intel vs. Arm). Intel is reaching down, ARM is reaching up, becoming more and more powerful.
I can say with confidence that you have no idea what you're talking about. The most powerful ARM chip you can get now is 1/12 as powerful as an high-end Intel chip, even an aging one, such as the Xeon in the 2010 Mac Pro. There is no way that the "Pro" machines will feature those chips in the near future, unless they only keep the "Pro" name and become oversized toys for people having more money than sense. Which is completely possible.
__________________
13" MBA 2013, Nexus 7 2013, LG G2 (oh noes i automatically become an apple hater)
(Sorry for bad english, not my mother tongue!)
gpat is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:01 AM   #665
KnightWRX
macrumors Pentium
 
KnightWRX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Quebec, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by brdeveloper View Post
What about a 32-core ARM processors in a Macbook Air? Same performance per watt, big redundancy... you can turn on-off as many CPUs you need on a certain time. If you need doing something faster, you can basically split a task into various parallel threads. Also, you can place two separated 16-core ARMs in the case for better heat dissipation or other design constraints.
Because most software is not written in a way to run in such a parallele execution environnement, just putting in more cores does not give you the equivalent of an Intel solution.

And a 32 core ARM processor, on top of being less able to perform, wouldn't be more power efficient than an x86 quad-core or even dual-core machine.

There is nothing to gain here except being different. Which is dumb. Change just to be different brings nothing good, especially when it hurts with compatibility.

Many gaming titles on Macs these days exist just because the Mac is x86 and software porting houses use the Windows code base wrapped around with a specific WINE build (Guild Wars 2, Batman: Arkham stuff, etc..). Forget that with ARM Macs. Same for all the virtualization stuff (VMWare, Parallele, Virtual Box). Forget Bootcamp and running Windows 8, you'll be stuck with Windows RT which is not compatible with the full suite of Windows software out there.

Older titles not actively developped ? Forget getting the vendor to rebuild them for ARM, heck tons of it wasn't even rebuilt for Intel!
__________________
"What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others."
-- Pericles
KnightWRX is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:06 AM   #666
roxxette
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by drorpheus View Post
It will be fine. If you have to have the latest Intel everything go buy a Dell or a HP or Build your own from Newegg or Frys or TigerDirect. Intel is the most UNinnovative chip company on the planet. Everything they offer is dated and technology of the past. Chips still running on the most bloated architecture and while its not as slow as it was, its still slow. Its all the most unsecure. Still offering dual and quad core chips, barely breached 3Ghz chips, that's 7 years of Intel Innovation for ya. IBM had 3.2Ghz 3 core and 8 core single socket chips (so power was never an issue) in Fall 05/06, had Apple chose the 8 and went halves with Sony you'd have had 16 core cpus in early 2007 running on air.

For all the doubters, the answer is sitting right in front of your face, like it or not most of your self fulfilled dreams of why Apple left IBM for Intel is wrong, its real simple, Steve Jobs wanted to sell laptops, he wanted that more than anything, IBM couldn't cool down they're chips (they are masters of high power computing, not mobile consumer use) Apple approached PA Semi to fill this void with low power RISC POWER chips licensed from IBM, but it wouldn't be shippable until Spring 07, Apple didn't want to wait another year so they chose Intel, Intel's could be stuffed in laptops. Apple bought PA Semi 2 years later, has all the talent and technologies and patents PA Semi owned. 3 yrs Later you have the iPad, running on an Apple RISC chip design by Apple to be made by whoever they choose, shipped in mass volume with near flawless fail rate.


With all the money Apple has they can do a number of things, staying with Intel only holds them back. Look the MacPro hasn't been touched for almost 3 years now, and that's not because Intel's chips are so fast that they need dry Ice to cool it. Intel doesn't need Apple they're in the other 99% of every other consumer computer, that's why there's never much innovation, there's no need because they have no competition. Both companies will be fine without each other, they both survived without each other before, they can do it again. Apple's basically at where Snow Leopard started with OSX and RISC, if they stopped all R&D they day they switched to Intel, clearly they haven't since you have iOS.

I personally can not wait, maybe we can finally get over the bump in the road Apple's currently stuck at with Intel.
Yeah everyone else is to blame for apple fail in the laptop/desktop side....
roxxette is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:14 AM   #667
Abazigal
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Singapore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overg View Post
This will be mega disaster far worse then the maps.
The only reason people from windows buy Mac is the ability to run both.
Apple takin it out is dearh blow to Mac line.
Not true for me. When I switched over to the iMac, it was because I was getting increasingly fed up with windows and wanted a change. That I could install windows in boot camp wasn't even a consideration.

Aside from office, I was okay using apple's own custom software. That I can load windows to play my games is a nice feature, but one I can live without.

Still, it won't be an easy transition, so apple had better have a better move than 'take it or leave it' attitude with maps.
Abazigal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:15 AM   #668
Firen
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria
If they do this I'm gone as well... I got a Mac because I knew I could run Windows on it as well on the side for programs I need for university.

And now many programs (and games!) are available for Mac as well and mainly because they now use an intel processor...

Pleeeease Apple, don't be so stupid!
Firen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:17 AM   #669
subsonix
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by roxxette View Post
Yeah everyone else is to blame for apple fail in the laptop/desktop side....
Perhaps you where not around to wait for the mythical Powerbook G5. It was quite a wait.
subsonix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:22 AM   #670
roxxette
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by subsonix View Post
Perhaps you where not around to wait for the mythical Powerbook G5. It was quite a wait.
Im joking mate....
roxxette is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:26 AM   #671
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by drorpheus View Post
It will be fine. If you have to have the latest Intel everything go buy a Dell or a HP or Build your own from Newegg or Frys or TigerDirect. Intel is the most UNinnovative chip company on the planet. Everything they offer is dated and technology of the past. Chips still running on the most bloated architecture and while its not as slow as it was, its still slow. Its all the most unsecure. Still offering dual and quad core chips, barely breached 3Ghz chips, that's 7 years of Intel Innovation for ya. IBM had 3.2Ghz 3 core and 8 core single socket chips (so power was never an issue) in Fall 05/06, had Apple chose the 8 and went halves with Sony you'd have had 16 core cpus in early 2007 running on air.
One of the weird things about posting on Macrumors is that there are so many uninformed people around here, it's sometimes kinda hard to tell if someone's trolling, or if they're being sincere.

And what does a CPU have to do with security anyway? I've seen that mentioned a couple of times now. It's like saying rotary engines are are less secure than V8s because someone stole your car after you got one.
Renzatic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:27 AM   #672
The Bulge
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Up your ass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWRX View Post
Because most software is not written in a way to run in such a parallele execution environnement, just putting in more cores does not give you the equivalent of an Intel solution.

And a 32 core ARM processor, on top of being less able to perform, wouldn't be more power efficient than an x86 quad-core or even dual-core machine.

There is nothing to gain here except being different. Which is dumb. Change just to be different brings nothing good, especially when it hurts with compatibility.

Many gaming titles on Macs these days exist just because the Mac is x86 and software porting houses use the Windows code base wrapped around with a specific WINE build (Guild Wars 2, Batman: Arkham stuff, etc..). Forget that with ARM Macs. Same for all the virtualization stuff (VMWare, Parallele, Virtual Box). Forget Bootcamp and running Windows 8, you'll be stuck with Windows RT which is not compatible with the full suite of Windows software out there.

Older titles not actively developped ? Forget getting the vendor to rebuild them for ARM, heck tons of it wasn't even rebuilt for Intel!
Apple must know something you don't.
The Bulge is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:28 AM   #673
eslu
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
This can be pretty cool! Seriously, ARM got real potential beating x86. (With 64bit ARM)
Imagine several ARM processors on a motherboard, this is cheaper and runs cooler than several Intel processors. NVIDIA and AMD have already said they will use ARM on their graphics cards.
eslu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:28 AM   #674
Setok
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Helsinki
To read up on the desktop machines that ARM really was originally built for, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Archimedes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RiscPC

Those were really powerful machines for the time with an amazing OS that did anti-aliased fonts and had loadable kernel modules and stuff like ZIP files as folders (which we still don't really see).

The fact that Intel is #1 today on desktops is really one of those Betamax vs VHS things. Ie. it wasn't technology that did it. In fact in those days x86 was laughably bad. Intel has had to put serious work into engineering around the limitations of the x86 architecture.
Setok is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 04:28 AM   #675
richman555
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Reading, PA
So ARM processors are equivalent in terms of performance to Intel?

Maybe I should bag my laptop in favor of an iPad.
__________________
Macbook Pro 2.66 GHz Intel Core i7 , 2 ATV3s, iPhone 5 32GB
richman555 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tim Cook: Apple 'Spending an Enormous Amount' on 'Macs of the Future' MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 212 Apr 23, 2014 11:04 AM
TSMC Confirms Deal with Apple to Produce A-Series Chips for Future iOS Devices MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 92 Jul 5, 2013 12:27 PM
Xbox One: It is the 'Apple Intel Switch' all over again rjcalifornia Console Games 28 May 22, 2013 11:19 AM
Apple and Intel Have Reportedly Discussed Deal for Production of Future iPhone and iPad Chips MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 128 Mar 20, 2013 07:12 PM
Intel Looking to Cut Power Consumption on Future Ivy Bridge Chips MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 125 Dec 18, 2012 10:18 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC