Apple Considering Switch From Intel Chips in Future Macs

[AppleMacFinder]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

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.

Well, that is why ported games' performance is inferior - because they run in a wrapper.
So, the introduction of ARM Macs will force gaming companies to work harder and make a native ports,
that work a lot faster.

[RichardI]

You know, back in the 1980's, IBM had a chance to buy Intel and they decided against it......

[threesixty360]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

I said the very same thing in this very same thread. But again, you're missing the point : The users Apple would leave behind with such a move are the ones that are discussing things here and now in this thread, not the masses that don't need the power of x86 chips.[COLOR="#808080"]

And as I said before there will still be high powered Mac machines available. So why worry? No doubt Intel will still have the most powerful processors in the market in the next 10yrs, so we will still see intel macs. Do you seriously think Apple would choose a slower processor for their high end machines on purpose?

Apple will make high end machines because its what they themselves use. Simple.

They only went with Intel because Power PC wasn't bringing them good performance. That was the only reason. If IBM stayed on target their would not be any Intel macs.

The short answer is. Apple will not let you down. If you want the a high powered machine to computing tasks, they will provide it because they need it too.

[AppleMacFinder]

Originally Posted by gotluck

no more bootcamp?

Originally Posted by BSU2006

If Apple did this, without BootCamp functionality, my 2011 MBP would be my last Apple product.

Originally Posted by Tech198

If Apple is going to switch, will this mean no more Bootcamp ?

Originally Posted by AbSoluTc

The big draw for a Mac to me was the x86 architecture. The Intel processors. The ability to bootcamp Windows. The compatibility right now for Mac is excellent. It works.

Originally Posted by robertcoogan

If this is true, unless Apple can ensure Windows (via BootCamp or a VM) can run on any future Apple processor, I would have to move away from Apple at my business.

Originally Posted by itsamacthing

It would mean the end of being an Apple customer for me... I need bootcamp

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

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.

Well, that would reduce the number of people who buy Macs only to use Windows on them.
Heretics!

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder

Well, that is why ported games' performance is inferior - because they run in a wrapper.
So, the introduction of ARM Macs will force gaming companies to work harder and make a native ports,
that work a lot faster.

The gaming companies I know won't work harder. They'll just ignore the Mac like they always have (and still do). That's the point of why they're using the WINE stuff in the first place and not putting in more effort to do a proper port.

I'd rather be able to play the games using WINE then not being to play them at all without booting in Windows.

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

You're mistaken about one thing. Apple's market share won't dry up with iOS like devices completely replacing Macs. It'll just shift to a more consumer market and away from more computing intensive environnements.

IMO that would be corporate suicide. Think about it. It is worth considering why Apple have been able to charge such high prices over the years. It's because they attract professionals to their products, and these professionals have been trend-setters for consumers. In this regard, offering Mac's at cost to university students in the 1980's was a stroke of genius.

Apple can't compete in the low-end consumer market, where MS and Android will dominate. They have to stay in the high end. Do you really think Apple will be able to sustain their presence in the high-end consumer market if they alienate people in academia, healthcare, creative industries, etc. who require flexible, high-power computers in their work?

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by threesixty360

And as I said before there will still be high powered Mac machines available. So why worry? No doubt Intel will still have the most powerful processors in the market in the next 10yrs, so we will still see intel macs. Do you seriously think Apple would choose a slower processor for their high end machines on purpose?

You're assuming Apple won't just ditch their high end machines. Look at their revenues, margins, profits and think of just how Apple operates.

Then you'll understand where this is really going if Apple does indeed switch to an ARM line-up.

[AppleMacFinder]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

I have seen nothing of the sorts. ARM CPUs have a power advantage because they sacrifice sheer number crunching ability.

At the moment Intel's performance (not considering low-end: Atoms and Celerons) is higher,
but the power consumption is a lot more higher - compared to ARM.

Result: Intel's Performance/Power ratio is worse.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by VulchR

IMO that would be corporate suicide. Think about it. I think it is worth considering why Apple has been able to charge such high prices over the years. It's because they attract professionals to their products, and these professionals have been trend-setters for consumers. In this regard, offering Mac's at cost to university students in the 1980's was a stroke of genius.

Apple can't compete in the low-end consumer market, where MS and Android will dominate. They have to stay in the high end. Do you really think Apple will be able to sustain their presence in the high-end consumer market if they alienate people in academia, healthcare, creative industries, etc. who require flexible, high-power computers in their work?

Yes. The Mac hasn't been a gateway products for years. If anything, it's now the other way around. Consumers are what drive Apple these days, and consumers don't need dinky scientists or movie editors to tell them what to buy.

The new reality is that Apple doesn't need the high-end computing segment anymore, and they don't need to compete in the low-end consumer segment either. They've effectively built themselves up in the mid to high end consumer segment and now that is their primary market and motivator for sales and revenue.

It's a sad reality, but Apple probably wouldn't be commiting corporate suicide at all.

----------

Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder

At the moment Intel's performance (not considering low-end: Atoms and Celerons) is higher,
but the power consumption is a lot more higher - compared to ARM.

Result: Intel's Performance/Power ratio is worse.

You're not understanding ratios. Power consumption is higher, but processing power also is.

If I perform 4 instructions in 4 watts, sure my power consumption is higher than that 1 watt CPU that performs 1 instruction, but my ratio is the same 1 instruction per 1 watt of power.

Intel's Power to watt ratio isn't any different than the different ARM SoCs out there. Medfield proves x86 can also be made into a power efficient, low performance SoC. It's not about instruction sets, it's about chip design.

Intel just doesn't really cater to power efficient applications right now, outside of Medfield and ATOMs.

[M-O]

Originally Posted by gotluck

no more bootcamp?

didn't Microsoft announce that new versions of windows will run on ARM?

[slughead]

Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder

Well, that would reduce the number of people who buy Macs only to use Windows on them. Heretics!

Or people who buy macs and want to get decent performance out of their games. Or want to test their websites in Internet Explorer. Or want to run PC builds of linux. Or want to run X11 apps without worrying about porting problems.

Hopefully Apple is not this stupid.

[Rogifan]

733 comments on a story all based on rumors from someone named "anonymous". Wow.

[AppleMacFinder]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

You're not understanding ratios. Power consumption is higher, but processing power also is.

In example, if power consumption is higher in 20 times, while performance is higher in 5 times,
the Performance/Power ratio is worse - 75% worse.
Something like that in the Intel's case.

[fredoviola]

Ugh, please no.............

[Elbon]

...that Apple would move their entire lineup to ARM. What's more likely is that they would move systems that might benefit from it (such as the MacBook Air) to ARM, while continuing to use Intel CPUs in other systems. This is essentially what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8.

[jessica.]

This seems like a very bad idea. Wasn't the whole switch to Intel how they gained more market share? At least one of the reasons that is.

[miniroll32]

I think those who are whining about this topic should reserve judgment until Apple actually does release these CPU's. Then we can see for ourselves the differences in performance, because using the current ARM chips in iOS products as a guide is totally the wrong way to go about this.

Besides, it's years away, and the they're not going to release this sort of hardware unless it actually benefits them.

[Skika]

Apple should buy ARM.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder

In example, if power consumption is higher in 20 times, while performance is higher in 5 times,
the Performance/Power ratio is worse - 75% worse.
Something like that in the Intel's case.

Sorry, but that's not the case at all. Quite the contrary. In a sheer processing ratio to power conversion, Intel is ahead of ARM SoCs. Compare the power draw and integer or floating point performance of a ULV MacBook Air chip to a A6X. You'll be surprised to learn that the Intel design is more efficient.

----------

Originally Posted by Elbon

This is essentially what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8.

No, that's not what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8. People need to stop spreading this FUD.

ARM Windows 8, aka, Windows RT, is iOS basically.

You're saying Apple would benefit from selling iOS based MacBook Airs. Wouldn't those just then be iPads with attached keyboards ?

[AppleMacFinder]

Originally Posted by slughead

Or people who buy macs and want to get decent performance out of their games.

In case of ARM switch, Macs would get a native game versions, not just a miserable ports in a WINE wrapper, which performance is of course lower.

Originally Posted by slughead

Or want to test their websites in Internet Explorer. Or want to run PC builds of linux. Or want to run X11 apps without worrying about porting problems.

Hopefully Apple is not this stupid.

Most educated people don't use Internet Explorer.
If the website doesn't work good in Internet Explorer, that is the problem of Microsoft.

Originally Posted by slughead

Or want to run PC builds of linux. Or want to run X11 apps without worrying about porting problems.

Since Mac OS X is 100% UNIX certified, everything that works in linux works in Mac OS X as well -
in most cases, without any changes. I have compiled and used lots of Linux libraries (from src,
without any macports), and they all are working fine. That means, linux is not that needed.

[VulchR]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

It's a sad reality, but Apple probably wouldn't be commiting corporate suicide at all....

Well, at least we agree it would be sad. Interesting times.

[AppleMacFinder]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

Sorry, but that's not the case at all. Quite the contrary. In a sheer processing ratio to power conversion, Intel is ahead of ARM SoCs. Compare the power draw and integer or floating point performance of a ULV MacBook Air chip to a A6X. You'll be surprised to learn that the Intel design is more efficient.

If that is not the case, nobody would use ARM at all.

[patent10021]

All the "No Bootcamp, I'm not buying a Mac" guys make me crack up.

That's why you should buy a Windows machine. Apple won't miss you.

Not dissing you, just sayin'. You didn't buy a Mac to run Windows. The fact that you were able to means nothing to AAPL.

This is going to be exciting. Changes don't mean slower!

[albusseverus]

I have no problems what processor Apple uses, as long as it does the job. Apple's always chosen the best CPU for the job. Changed to Intel when the chips they were co-developing weren't up to it, so we'll see how they go this time, with more control over the development process.

That said, ARM chips are not the stuff of actual computing. Being able to design ARM chips and thinking you can build a computer, is like building a petrol mower (do you have those in the US?) and deciding you can build a motor car.

There is no relation between the two, except internal combustion. Ditto for ARM and computing. While it's true, millions of people who would never buy a computer have bought iOS - that's not computing!

Call them trucks, if you like, but for that market, the (former) traditional computing market, ARM or anything like it, just won't do.

Now for what bothers me. The Retina 13" MacBook "Pro" ships with barely more GPU grunt than the 13" Air, and less grunt than the Non-Retina model. This is a disturbing trend in the 13" so-called Pro line. Both of these models are really MacBooks, nothing Pro about them. [Oh, that's right they have FireWire, wasn't that the first definition of a Pro? FireWire who?]

One of them has a fancy screen, which in real-world use will probably be the downfall of this year/model, making it notorious for all the wrong reasons. The 15" Retina should have taught Apple that GPU is everything, and you don't want people describing your flagship Pro notebook as having a screen that's a bit laggy (no matter how much of a technological marvel it is). Apple don't don't seem to have learnt that lesson. We await the next model, to see if it's a deliberate direction for Apple or just a misstep.

When did Apple become the company you never buy the first year/model of anything?

So, can ARM power Air models?, for example, where customers want light and functional, but don't expect grunt with at capital G? Not in ARM's wildest dream, unless Apple is prepared to do to the Airs what it's already done to the 13" Pros. This year dual core i7, next (year?)… just like the first Air, an iPod with a keyboard and screen. And a dog to boot!

Despite my first sentence, this "news" disturbs me, deeply. This is not the same Apple that changed to Intel because it had a new architecture that just worked better. This is an Apple unfettered by a humbling defeat like Power PC. This is the company that coined the expression "Post PC" and we should all be very worried indeed.

[jessica.]

Originally Posted by patent10021

All the "No Bootcamp, I'm not buying a Mac" guys make me crack up.

That's why you should buy a Windows machine. Apple won't miss you.

Not dissing you, just sayin'. You didn't buy a Mac to run Windows. The fact that you were able to means nothing to AAPL.

This is going to be exciting. Changes don't mean slower!

Uh Apple did once care that you could run windows on a Mac. Do you not recall that it was actually something that they marketed? It seems as though you weren't around for the PPC to Intel shift and all the hype and excitement about being able to run windows on a Mac.