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.
Apple Considering Switch From Intel Chips in Future Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow. I see a lot of people crapping their pants about this. I, personally, cannot wait.
It's not about a more powerful CPU anymore - it's about the software and how it uses the hardware. Rewrite rewrite rewrite.
x86/x64 won't last forever. Apple has proven that they can have incredibly powerful software on devices that fit in your pocket and run on a battery. For 10 hours.
Infinity Blade 2? Looks better than most current generation consoles on higher resolutions.
There will have to be some backwards compat like Rosetta for a short time - or does there? If all of the companies rewrite before release (or just port most from iOS) there won't be many gaps.
BRING IT ON!!! I want a dual A6x Macbook air that weighs 1.5lbs and has 30 day battery.
It's not about a more powerful CPU anymore - it's about the software and how it uses the hardware. Rewrite rewrite rewrite.
x86/x64 won't last forever. Apple has proven that they can have incredibly powerful software on devices that fit in your pocket and run on a battery. For 10 hours.
Infinity Blade 2? Looks better than most current generation consoles on higher resolutions.
There will have to be some backwards compat like Rosetta for a short time - or does there? If all of the companies rewrite before release (or just port most from iOS) there won't be many gaps.
BRING IT ON!!! I want a dual A6x Macbook air that weighs 1.5lbs and has 30 day battery.
Source ?
----------
The problem is that Rosetta is not magic. If your processor is 10 times slower, emulating the faster processor will just result in abyssmal performance.
Quite.
I don't think its a bad idea at all, remeber that the inability of IBM to make a portable G5 was a key part of the move to intel.
I wasn't claiming Apple would be the first..
Id just like to see it in Macs too, mostly out of curiosity. It'd be more of a useful feature for many though considering the amount of good iOS software.
Since we don't even know the ARM architecture used in the A6X (it's not Cortex A9 nor Cortex A15), those sources are not valid sorry.
So, again, Source ?
----------
Intel has no such inability.
True but you wrote off Apple's excitement about offering a way to use windows on a Mac. There is a difference between "lead, follow or get out of the way" and blatant sheepism with Apple. Denying that the switch to Intel (though a bit rough) was anything less than profitable for Apple is worse than choosing not to lead, follow or get out of the way.
I'm pretty sure Apple keeps a branch of OS X that is runnable on ARM; they'd be remiss if they didn't. It's just good risk management: it takes a relatively small group to keep the core working but could be hugely important if Intel falters.
But this is all just a contingency plan. Apple will only switch away from Intel or x86 (I guess x64 actually) if they have something better. At the moment and for the foreseeable future, ARM is not better for full OS X.
I could see it happening like this:
1. MBP line continues to merge with the MBA line, to the point there's not much of a meaningful difference (with the rentina MBPs we're pretty close to this now).
2. Apple therefore drops the MBA as it exists now.
3. Apple introduces a new MBA line at about half the weight & performance based on ARM: Hardly more than an iPad with keyboard (probably the screen is more like the 11" size of the MBA, though). The Mac App store phases in a requirement that all apps be compiled/tested for ARM and x64.
4. People buy the ARM MBAs by the ton due to its combination of great battery life, superb styling, relatively cheap price (~ about the cost of a high-end iPad), and performance that is completely adequate for 96% of what laptops are used for (browsing, email, office-type apps, casual gaming, creativity apps, etc.)
But this is all just a contingency plan. Apple will only switch away from Intel or x86 (I guess x64 actually) if they have something better. At the moment and for the foreseeable future, ARM is not better for full OS X.
I could see it happening like this:
1. MBP line continues to merge with the MBA line, to the point there's not much of a meaningful difference (with the rentina MBPs we're pretty close to this now).
2. Apple therefore drops the MBA as it exists now.
3. Apple introduces a new MBA line at about half the weight & performance based on ARM: Hardly more than an iPad with keyboard (probably the screen is more like the 11" size of the MBA, though). The Mac App store phases in a requirement that all apps be compiled/tested for ARM and x64.
4. People buy the ARM MBAs by the ton due to its combination of great battery life, superb styling, relatively cheap price (~ about the cost of a high-end iPad), and performance that is completely adequate for 96% of what laptops are used for (browsing, email, office-type apps, casual gaming, creativity apps, etc.)
That might be impossible. Some would say that they could not care less about the Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro creates practically no profits, even when it incorporates cheap old hardware and sells for stupid-high prices. It just doesn't do enough volume.
Apple has MUCH better (meaning more profitable) products to focus on. Back in the bad old days, they had scads of unprofitable products. Steve returned and cut them out of the lineup, and the rest is history.
If you want Apple to again go to hell, then wish for the Mac Pro to be revived. If you want to see Apple become even more powerful and even more profitable, then wish for the Mac Pro to be put out of its misery. Time for the sh it can for the Mac Pro if you are a true Apple fan, as contrasted with a selfish self-centered leech.
Post PC World
In his last two keynotes, Tim Cook has very explicitly stated "At Apple, we have both feet firmly planted in the post-PC world". Following on the heels of the last two revisions of Mac OSX which have attempted to make it more IOS-like, this appears to be just further confirmation that Apple is indeed seriously heading in this direction.
I will mourn the extinction of OSX and the Mac Pro but the demise of both appears inevitable.
In his last two keynotes, Tim Cook has very explicitly stated "At Apple, we have both feet firmly planted in the post-PC world". Following on the heels of the last two revisions of Mac OSX which have attempted to make it more IOS-like, this appears to be just further confirmation that Apple is indeed seriously heading in this direction.
I will mourn the extinction of OSX and the Mac Pro but the demise of both appears inevitable.
A6X is based on ARMv7s architecture,
with a custom core that has a power consumption not higher than Cortex-A9 (2 Watts)
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_system_on_chips#Apple_A6X
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6292/iphone-5-a6-not-a15-custom-core
http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a9.php
A post that makes sense... That can't be right!
Hypothetically: Some journalist asked Apple "if AMD created x86-64 processors that were twice as fast, used half the power, and cost a quarter of equivalent Intel processors, would you consider switching to AMD"? Obviously, the answer is "Yes". Under these circumstances, not switching to AMD would be stupid.
And then the question is asked "If there was an ARM processor that is twice as fast, used half the power and cost a quarter of equivalent Intel chips, would you consider switching to ARM"? Again, the obvious correct answer would be "Yes".
That doesn't mean there are any plans for switching. "Considering" an alternative also means that you examine the value and cost of that alternative, and if you feel the value is too low and/or the cost too high, you reject that alternative. Not considering alternatives would be stupid, because you will sometimes miss out. But considering alternatives doesn't mean you actually do it. It most definitely doesn't mean you do it if it is not actually a good idea.
----------
Apple _can_ reboot MacOS X and restart all user space applications. Whether you reboot to the same or a different kernel, and whether you restart the same or different binaries, shouldn't make a difference.
(It would still be quite disruptive).
If this is true this reeks of enormous hubris and could be the beginning of the end for Apple's enormously profitable run in the last few years.
An ARM chip is all fine and nice for a smartphone, tablet or at most netbook level "notebook", but for devices called iMac or having "Pro" in the name and/or pricing of Apple desktop and Notebook devices, a move to ARM would not go over well at all for most customers.
Having IBM/Intel based internals was one of the main reasons for why the Mac could sell better and better over the last few years (no, it is not only about exterior case design for all users, many actually do like to be able to run all apps/ games available for PCs on the computer they buy in one way or the other) )
An ARM chip is all fine and nice for a smartphone, tablet or at most netbook level "notebook", but for devices called iMac or having "Pro" in the name and/or pricing of Apple desktop and Notebook devices, a move to ARM would not go over well at all for most customers.
Having IBM/Intel based internals was one of the main reasons for why the Mac could sell better and better over the last few years (no, it is not only about exterior case design for all users, many actually do like to be able to run all apps/ games available for PCs on the computer they buy in one way or the other) )
What a stupid comment. How about this: Remember when they released their first truly custom ARM design and it was one of the fastest AND most efficient mobile chips on the market?
Problem is that CPU power consumption isn't all. Especially on something like the retina iPads, the screen is actually the biggest consumer of power. So an ARM processor may use only 5% of the power of an Intel processor, but that doesn't help that much if the computer with ARM processor still uses 80% of the power of a computer with Intel processor.
Tell that to those of us that own production/post-production studios. We are ALWAYS seeking for more power. Gutting power would mean the entire design and animation industry would be leaving Apple en masse.
Also, you state that it's about software. You're right! But the moment you move off of Intel processors, major companies like Adobe, Lightwave, Maxon, Maya, etc. will suddenly have to stop and reconsider their business with Apple products. As of now it is pretty easy for PC software companies to bring their applications to the Mac. Because the hardware is the same it makes it pretty simple. But if Apple moves to a proprietary hardware platform that is used by 10% of users.... where's the motivation for these companies to write for this platform?
I'd call this move the guarantee that Apple becomes strictly a peanut consumer company.
I've been a Mac-user for over 20 years. Our entire studio is Mac. I can tell you right now that if Apple moves off of Intel.... we will move off of Apple. We're already pretty pissed at Apple for their last Mac Pro "upgrade". We've already built several Hackintoshes for our render farm simply because Apple has sat on their thumbs when it comes to their pro customers.
Nothing is going to kill x64 in terms of performance--ARM is at least 10 years behind in that respect (in many ways, the ARM silicon arms race is advancing performance at the same geometric rate x86 saw in the late 1990s, but it has a while to go). I can see why Apple wants to ditch Intel: they want their machines to be thinner, thinner, thinner...the designers at Apple are more obsessed with thinness than a coked-up anorexic teenager. And if Apple can switch from a 45W x64 chip to a 2W ARM chip, they will, performance notwithstanding--especially considering that it would be completely blackbox and they would never have to share any hardware or design specs. They would also no longer have to use any cooling or even any discrete silicon, as everything (even RAM) would be on-package. However, a switch from Intel ends the usefulness of the Mac as a computer, it would simply be another appliance with a proprietary App Store.
Last edited:
Why? AMD's top of the line may not compete with Intel's top of the line, but their (significantly) cheaper processors beat Intel's much more expensive chips.