ARM Procssors in Mac's and will I Still be Able to Run Windows?

maflynn said:

They are, but I still question the viability of Apple going this route for laptops/desktops.

Click to expand...

As far as that goes, I agree. One of the major reasons why Macs saw a nice upswing from the x86 transition was due directly to Windows compatibility. Not only would switching to ARM kill that entirely, but it'd also kill all compatibility with the current set of OSX apps.

And for what? The MBA lasts a good 12 hours, so it's not like battery life is an issue with Intel chips. Performance? ARM still has a ways to go before it'll match an i5. The biggest advantage would be to Apple itself, not their users. Unless they intend on releasing a cheap half-step MBA/iPad hybrid, there are no compelling reasons to convert even a part of their lineup to ARM.

deluxeshredder said:

Almost every Apple rumor in recent years turned out to be true.

Click to expand...

You mean like the one where Apple goes out of business ?

-t

Of course, they could build hybrid processor arrays that have one or two x86-64 cores and two or three ARMv9 cores, so that runtime emulation would occur natively at the userspace level with the system running ARM. Or they might try some form of code-morphing like the Crusoes of a decade ago. They are not going to flat-out abandon or marginalize their Intel base just because they can make their own CPUs, but if they can tweak away the Hackintosh community, they will do that.

Sydde said:

Of course, they could build hybrid processor arrays that have one or two x86-64 cores and two or three ARMv9 cores, so that runtime emulation would occur natively at the userspace level with the system running ARM.

Click to expand...

What would be the purpose of this option? I don't see how this would help apple or the consumer.

It's been argued that by going with Intel chips, Apple pushed itself above 5% market share. I assume for 2 reasons, robust CPU updates and dual boot, being able to run Windows natevly on Mac hardware. It was one of the smartest choices they have made. I wonder how strongly, how important the Bootcamp option plays in their future decision making? I have certainly been grateful for being able to run Windows on my Mac for the better part of a decade.

maflynn said:

What would be the purpose of this option? I don't see how this would help apple or the consumer.

Click to expand...

Basically the entirety of OS X exists on ARM, so porting a few classes to reach full parity would be almost trivial. Therewith, Apple would only have one codebase to support instead of two. ARM is improving and might actually surpass x86 in the next few years. As long as there is a practical way to run Intel code natively or quasi-natively (perhaps even some form of code-ripping), the user loses very little, and Apple can regain lost revenue from those hackintosh machines, taking full control of the platform with their customized CPUs. They seem to change architecture like they change underwear, it has already been a decade (68K: '84~92, PPC: '92~'05, x86: '05~'15+), this architecture is getting a tad whiffy.

Oh, and did I mention that ARM gives them the ability to customize their CPUs, instead of having to use generic off-the-rack Intel stuff?

No, I'm asking why create a hybred processing array

they could build hybrid processor arrays that have one or two x86-64 cores and two or three ARMv9 cores,

Click to expand...

There's really nothing special from a consumer or enterprise customer that would be beneficial to having a computer (or server) that runs a combination of X86 and Arm processors. What advantage would there be, that would cause a consumer to plunk down money on that hybrid setup as opposed to a Mac or PC. Likewise enterprise customers would be likely be against such a unique setup.

Why spend $$ on such a setup when an intel cpu provides more power then the majority of consumers need.

Sydde said:

Basically the entirety of OS X exists on ARM, so porting a few classes to reach full parity would be almost trivial.

Click to expand...

But what is the point? Is there anything wrong with Intel? Are ARM processors more powerful than what Intel are doing now? Why go through the pain of changing architecture a third time just for the sake of it? I ask this, because in all honesty, I would never buy another Mac again if Apple went to ARM. The transition from PPC to Intel was bad enough.

ARM is currently about around a step, give or take half a step, behind x86-64 in raw performance, but they are even closing that gap. ARMv8 looks really promising in the architecture-agnostic realm of server farms, where x86-64 uses wads more power to do the same work: if you can switch and cut out three-quarters of your A/C bill, why not? Most server software can be recompiled in a trice.

I am not clear on the exact details, but right now, i7 and Xeon have a pretty good edge on ARM, by the clock. But that could change. No one could have imagined Mac-on-ARM ten years ago, but they have made huge progress since then. They could start to move ahead very soon.

The biggest advantage for Apple is that they can map out their own CPUs to make OS X run optimally. And the price-per-mflop for ARM is, so far, much better than for x86. The only places ARM would not be serviceable right now are as a replacement for the Xeons in the Mac Pro, and the i7s in the top-end MacBook Pro, the really low-volume lines. But that could change too.

If Apple makes a transition, they will do it even more seamlessly than the last transition. No ARM Mac will be without some really good form of native x86-64 operation, be it x86 cores within the CPU or an amazing code-morphing coprocessor system, for many years to come. Even Bootcamp will still be possible, though it will be at least a little different.

But this is not going to happen soon. As in 2-years=soon. I suspect when they do this, they will get it right this time.

Sydde said:

ARM is currently about around a step, give or take half a step, behind x86-64 in raw performance, but they are even closing that gap. ARMv8 looks really promising in the architecture-agnostic realm of server farms, where x86-64 uses wads more power to do the same work: if you can switch and cut out three-quarters of your A/C bill, why not? Most server software can be recompiled in a trice.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see some benchmarks to compare that statement. Also does ARM handle multithreaded multicore processing as well as intel's?

maflynn said:

I'd like to see some benchmarks to compare that statement. Also does ARM handle multithreaded multicore processing as well as intel's?

Click to expand...

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1841826/

Here's a thread that shows the GS6 and margin of error from the top end MBA in GB. I'm not lover of GB as I said in the thread but if the results are accurate then it's a contender today for the MBA.

lowendlinux said:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1841826/

Here's a thread that shows the GS6 and margin of error from the top end MBA in GB. I'm not lover of GB as I said in the thread but if the results are accurate then it's a contender today for the MBA.

Click to expand...

Ok, so then the next part my question how does ARM handle multithreaded processing.

maflynn said:

Ok, so then the next part my question how does ARM handle multithreaded processing.

Click to expand...

Dunno? That's an 8 core sammy getting that score. I'm sure we'll read a lot more about them in the coming years.

I did some googling and so far from what I saw the comparisons are between ARM and Atom processors and nothing more on the pros/cons of either CPU

Bay Trail are really good processors!

lowendlinux said:

Bay Trail are really good processors!

Click to expand...

No question, but with all the talk in this thread about Apple transitioning over to ARM, I think an apples to apples discussion of A8 vs. Haswell (or broadwell) makes more sense. The Bay Trail Atom processor is Intel's answer to ARM for tablets, where as (AFAIK) the ULV variants of Haswell and Broadwell are geared towards ultrabooks, and the non ULV version for laptops/desktops. This is were apple will need to compete if the rumor pans out (which I really don't think it will)

I definitely think it's inevitable that Apple are looking to putting their own chips in MacBooks. If Apple had full control over the pipeline of new chips, and optimised OS X to run like butter on their own hardware, it's definitely the next step towards what I believe Apple's core vision is. Plus designing their own chips mean that they're not at the mercy of Intel's pricing, or when Intel release a new chip.

Designing a great chip could potentially be great and offer one of the largest leaps in the Mac's history - Intel performance, with all the charm and stability of the PPC days.

Of course the main problem is the fact Windows doesn't run on an ARM chip (proper Windows, not RT). As some posters have already mentioned, MS are looking to move Windows to natively run on ARM chips. But then you've got the other issue of recompiling OS X to work on ARM chips. And what of existing applications? Will they need an ARM version of Rosetta to work? Who knows.

At any rate, Apple wouldn't make such a plunge unless they were absolutely confident that they could pull it off, and that the benefits outweigh the cons. When Apple previously went from PPC to Intel, their hand was almost forced in the matter due to the waning performance of the PPCs and the issues with update cycles/thermal design/mobile processor performance.

There are none of these problems with Intel chips - they're really fast, run really cool, are updated annually (tick-tock cycle), and are unparalleled in performance. IMHO there's no chance of that happening any time in the next 5 years, though it's something Apple would eventually be looking to do.

maflynn said:

Ok, so then the next part my question how does ARM handle multithreaded processing.

Click to expand...

From comments I have seen on ars, ARM is more efficient at multiprocessing, which is slightly different from multithreading, but for applications that take advantage of GCD, the distinction becomes even blurrier. GCD is very good technology that most developers ought to use, as it definitely reduces the headaches associated with writing good threaded code.

So, maybe ARM has the potential to be much better in this area.

Sydde said:

So, maybe ARM has the potential to be much better in this area.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, its an interesting thought, but like what roadbloc posted, what is the point? Perhaps I'll be the minority but if Apple leaves the intel platform, I'll unfortunately have to leave the Mac platform. One major need I have is to run windows.

roadbloc said:

But what is the point? Is there anything wrong with Intel? Are ARM processors more powerful than what Intel are doing now? Why go through the pain of changing architecture a third time just for the sake of it? I ask this, because in all honesty, I would never buy another Mac again if Apple went to ARM. The transition from PPC to Intel was bad enough.

Click to expand...