Apple Considering Switch From Intel Chips in Future Macs

[Jibbajabba]

Originally Posted by xgman

The beginning of the end as we knew it. A mac pro with ipad chips. Can't wait.

Raid 0 of iPad CPUs and there you go - blaaaaaaaaazing fast rig

[Blomkvist]

Originally Posted by Consultant

Of course. Intel's MacBook Air cloning strategy will backfire.

Interesting...is this possibly backlash for the whole Intel pushing of "ultrabooks"?

[Neodym]

Originally Posted by Riemann Zeta

Nothing is going to kill x64 in terms of performance

Nothing is going to kill a (big) tower in terms of versatility...

[prvt.donut]

I don't quite see how the Mac Pro line makes Apple lose money.

They have the OSX development going on inspite of their Mac Pros.

It seems that the amount of dev for the mac pro hardware is minuscule compared to that of the iMac. They don't even need to do much to please the Mac Pro community. Just get Asus or Gigabyte to put together a server class Motherboard based on the latest server based chipset, drop in the newest server CPUs and maybe redesign the back panel to allow for up to 4 dual bay GPUs that can link together. Purhaps also add support for workstation GPUs and not only gaming models. The rest can stay the same.

Even though the case design is pushing 7 odd years, it is still stunning and very well designed for running performance parts. We don't need a completely new design, we just need them to stick in the latest hardware. I think having a full spectrum of hardware is a boon for Apple.

Even better than just refreshing the high end Pros, I would like to see an enthusiast class released. Essentially, a slightly shrunk down Mac Pro that runs standard Core based Motherboards and chipsets and uses standard PCI cards to appease the PC gamers. I am sure it would be very popular. Also, finally it would nice if game companies would release games at the same time as on Windows! After 6 years of Intel support, that had the promise of lots of games, we still have to wait a year or 2 for games.

[slughead]

Originally Posted by Jibbajabba

Raid 0 of iPad CPUs and there you go - blaaaaaaaaazing fast rig

[iphoneclassic]

Originally Posted by iSee

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.

Maps move suggests otherwise. I agree with most of your statement, except MBP on ARM will be a tough nut to crack.

Lets look at the processor cost aspect. Apple is not paying 100s of dollars for the processor. Probably they are paying less than $50 per pop.

They may get a ARM chip for $25. That is only $25 savings on a product starting at $999 .

For me it looks like they got this high horse to make the stock value $1000. So they are pinching every penny. Some analyst have to tell them to get off the high horse and value stock at $200. End of story.

[miniroll32]

Originally Posted by xgman

The beginning of the end as we knew it. A mac pro with ipad chips. Can't wait.

So you actually think that Apple are going to use the same chips as the iPad?

lol.

[adder7712]

Originally Posted by Konrad9

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.

No, we're not talking about AMD. We're talking about the prospects of Apple utilising ARM-based CPUs across their Mac line.

A switch to AMD will be seamless as it's still x86.

[Shaun, UK]

Why is everyone always so negative. None of us know what ARM have up their sleeves re future processors. If there is one area of computing capable of making major leaps forward it's processors.

Imagine the benefits if Apple managed to pull it off. Much longer battery life, Macs that didn't run so hot, run your iPad apps on your Mac, etc. The Intel chip is probably the most expensive component in the Mac so it could also lead to cheaper Macs.

[AppleMacFinder]

Originally Posted by gnasher729

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.

When a single ARM CPU is not enough, multiple will succeed!
The low power consumption of ARM opens the road for multiprocessor personal computers.
Like the previous multicore revolution, there would be a multiprocessor revolution in personal computers world.

And it seems that Apple was preparing to this for a long time: in example,
"Grand Central Dispatch" open-source technology developed by Apple for multicore systems
was designed with future in mind so that it would not be hard to extend this technology
on multiprocessor systems.

[threesixty360]

A few people have said its not right to compare winrt machines with
an ARM version of Mac OS X. That doesnt make sense.

WinRT has been crippled by MS intentionally. Not because it cant
run as a full OS. They removed the ability to install apps because
no x86 compiled apps would run and they couldn't guarantee the
performance of other app. Otherwise it is the full Windows operating
system running on ARM. The fact that it also has Metro on it is a red herring.

I think they may have developed a bridge api between win32 and winrt
at the core level and thats about it. I dont see what the difference
between winrt and mac os x rt would be. In fact Apple may be
better prepared for the change by making app store apps compile under
ARM and make them sandboxed. (Maybe thats one of the reasons for the
new sandbox regulations).


Secondly, as someone else has pointed out, the raw processing speed of
the processor is only half the story. Apple are spending lots of money
making sure that alot of processor intensive jobs are done on custom
chips like the graphics and video. For example, when the retina macbook
pro came out users found that the Twitter app was doing its own rendering
of fonts to make scrolling smoother. This showed up when Apple went
to retina and we could see the lower resolution graphics. This kind
of thing should be done in hardware and accelrated with the gpu but
because x86 has raw power, people use it to do lots of stuff they dont need to.
Some of that is to keep cross platform compatiblity between systems (like for games)
or apps like photoshop which have huge cross platform libraries.

In reality there is a lot of bloat and un optimized code in x86 apps simplu
because they can get away with it.I would think a well written ARM app utilizing
the custom processors available could run apps just as well as a top
end x86 app.

[adder7712]

Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder

When a single ARM CPU is not enough, multiple will succeed!
The low power consumption of ARM opens the road for multiprocessor personal computers.
Like the previous multicore revolution, there would be a multiprocessor revolution in personal computers world.

And it seems that Apple was preparing to this for a long time: in example,
"Grand Central Dispatch" open-source technology developed by Apple for multicore systems
was designed with future in mind so that it would not be hard to extend this technology
on multiprocessor systems.

Why would you have 8x quad core ARM CPUs (for example) when a single quad core x86 processor can accomplish the same level or performance?

[nexusrule]

Really can't see why many people think Apple will switch to ARM tomorrow. Obviously a day can come that make sense, like switching to intel did. Obviously the day is not today or tomorrow, neither the article try to imply that.

[iphoneclassic]

Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder

Since ARM CPUs have such a low power consumption, it is possible to put several of them to one machine. So, it's still valid.

Not really, if you put too many cores on same dei you get into L3 cache contention.

Even IBM with their $10,000-$25,000 Power7+ processors, have to turn off cores is some scenarios to get better performance. Difference IBM has the hardware and OS to support such complex architecture. Not viable for cheapo ARM/iOS combo. I am not trying to insult Apple by calling cheap, but they are compared to IBM in chip design industry.

[aliensporebomb]

Originally Posted by gto55

What about bootcamp (which egged many people on moving to mac), professionals sector (which is increasingly neglected) ?


Intel continuously improves its cpu consumption, the firm offers a finer engraving at each generation (14nm is on the way), while their superiority in term of power over ARM architecture cannot be denied.
For example, here are some Geekbench results:
A6X: 1700
Mac Mini 2011 CPU : 8500
Mac Pro 2012 CPU: 25000
...
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks


In addition, to compete with Intel and Samsung, Apple may have to produce his own CPUs, so is a purchase of TSMC possible?

Or my 2+ year old iMac Corei7: 10179. Sorry little iPhone5 - you have a heck of a long way to go before you beat that.

The biggest problem for me is that I'm still feeling the pain from having to pay for upgrades from the LAST switch from PPC to Intel.

This honestly offers me no tangible benefit.

Battery life is not a problem (nor is the energy consumption) in a desktop computer (if you think the iMac's previously quoted 100 watt consumption is a big deal just look at my old G5 tower, that was north of 250 watts under heavy load).

[unplugme71]

I'm confused. Last I checked Apple execs are male. I thought women were more indecisive.

I don't mind Apple making changes, but if they are going to change their Mac line up every few years, it can actually be a bad thing as people won't know what to expect next and might be scared buying into Apple.

If ARM is the way to go, being just as quick with same or battery life, and can still run the apps I need, then go for it. Just make sure that developers have time to re-code apps in time for release because I'm not waiting 2+ years.

[DesterWallaboo]

Originally Posted by Konrad9

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.

If this is true, the Macs at currently own at our home will be our last. And our studio will dump Mac as our platform.

[Skika]

Originally Posted by nexusrule

Really can't see why many people think Apple will switch to ARM tomorrow. Obviously a day can come that make sense, like switching to intel did. Obviously the day is not today or tomorrow, neither the article try to imply that.

Some people have built in tendency to complain. Its their way of life.

[AppleMacFinder]

Originally Posted by adder7712

Why would you have 8x quad core ARM CPUs (for example) when a single quad core x86 processor can accomplish the same level or performance?

8x4 = 32 physical cores ==> a much higher level of multithreading in this example

[Krazy Bill]

I don't know why this rumor surprises so many. Apple is a general consumer company now. Their mac line is turning into underpowered, overpriced crap - all at the expense of shaving off a few mm and ounces in design for some kind of twisted bragging rights. (Soon our macbooks will need kickstands lest they fall over when the lid is angled too far back).

Work on better battery technology and heat dissipation. Forget this ARM nonsense.

[roxxette]

Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder

8x4 = 32 physical cores ==> a much higher level of multithreading in this example

Starting at 10k usd ?

[MacinDoc]

Originally Posted by AcesHigh87

I can see why people are freaking out here. After all to most this likely sounds like "Here, have a mac with the processor from an iPhone" but I think people need to consider a few things

1. This is a rumour: nothing else. Apple dabbles in a bunch of stuff they never end up using AND

2. Even if they do use it, it'll be DOWN THE ROAD.

People are reacting as if the next generation macs will have ARM processors in them which is ridiculous. The technology simply isn't there yet, it's not even close. This might become a feasible option by 2015 at the earliest (I'm no tech expert but just given where things are now) so I wouldn't freak out about it.

With that said, if apple does cripple itself in order to turn macs even more into iPad's then it will be the sad day where I give in and build a PC. I hate windows as much as anyone basically can but I need a computer with power; not mobile connectivity. If building my own and suffering through windows is the only way to get that I'll have no real choice.

That isn't a choice I expect I'll have to make though. Chances are if this ever does happen (big if) it will be down the road when the technology is strong enough to handle the load. Apple may not care about the mac as much as they used to but I don't believe they'll completely cripple their computers so that they work a bit better with their mobile devices.

Nice to see someone posting a thoughtful response on this thread to counter all of the knee-jerk reactions. Seriously, people, do you not know that MS is also working at porting the full version of Windows to ARM? The best strategy in this business is to keep your options open, because things can change quickly. At some point, something will surpass Core technology, just as Core tech surpassed Netburst. If ARM surpasses Core, then it makes sense to have the capability to switch to ARM. That is not to say that Apple or MS must make the transition to ARM, or even that it will happen in the next 5 years, but if it is advantageous to do so, both OS makers want to have the ability to do it. And I suspect that ARM is not the only alternative processor technology that Apple and MS are working to port their systems to.

[nutjob]

Originally Posted by prvt.donut

Just get Asus or Gigabyte to put together a server class Motherboard based on the latest server based chipset, drop in the newest server CPUs

No need to wait for Apple, anyone can do that now. Apple are basically tacitly supporting hackintoshes by abandoning the MacPro.

Given that Apple makes a lot more money on laptops, and it's killed the 17" laptop, the chance of the MacPro being killed off is basically 100%. The best people can expect is that the existing MacPro will be left in the lineup with minor tweaks but otherwise ignored.

[Carlanga]

The reason I moved to Mac in '07 was due to Intel. I guess this means the fall of non-iOS apple devices looms ahead.

[sseaton1971]

People should really read the full article before proclaiming: "The sky is falling!"

The article states the following:

1) Apple is exploring ways to replace Intel processors...

2) Apple engineers have grown confident that the chip designs used for its mobile devices will one day be powerful enough...

3) Quote: "To be sure, no final decision has been made and Apple may opt to continue working with Intel for years to come."

4) Quote: "...the company has a few years before it would need to make any change, if it makes a switch at all..."

So, if these two or three insiders are to be believed, it appears that there has been no final decision. Apple is simply exploring their options, and I am glad they are. I am sure Apple has been exploring the use of AMD chips in their laptops and desktops as well. There are also a lot of patents that we see from Apple, but many of those technologies have not shown up in products yet... and some never will.

I don't think Apple is considering dumping their more powerful computing devices in the foreseeable future, and any switch to another processor or a whole host of other technologies will likely only be done if it is a step up in terms of specs.

It is time for some of you to step back from the ledge and relax!