Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:30 AM   #26
Skika
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bb426 View Post
Why the hell would an iPad EVER run x86?

Steve Jobs would laugh at the idea.
Actually SJ initially wanted to use an Intel chip in the iPad. After being convinced by some executive (dont know the details) he let it go being ARM.
__________________
MacBook Pro, iPad, iPhone
Skika is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:30 AM   #27
Tiger8
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macist View Post
ARM tech dumps on Intel.
Classy
Tiger8 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:39 AM   #28
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Intel finally have some healthy competition in the form of ARM. They know that if they keep producing chips that are so hot and require so much power that they will kill their own business.

ARM for the win. If they were good enough for Acorn they are good enough for Apple

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skika View Post
Actually SJ initially wanted to use an Intel chip in the iPad. After being convinced by some executive (dont know the details) he let it go being ARM.
Yup - and if the iPad had used an Intel chip, it's be a bulky, hot pile of crap.

Steve was wrong.
rmwebs is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:41 AM   #29
thuchu1
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Auburn Hills, MI
In response, Apple announces an unnecessarily thin MacBook Air with the same battery life of the previous model, says battery life is overrated.
__________________
MacBook Pro 15" 2.2GHz i7, 8 GB RAM, 128 SSD Optibay / 750GB HDD | iPhone 5 16GB | iPad Mini LTE
thuchu1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:44 AM   #30
jrswizzle
macrumors 603
 
jrswizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: McKinney, TX
Anyone have any data on the current power consumption of the A6 or A6X chips?

I would also love to see what the computing power/watt is for both IB and the A6/A6X. Now that Apple is designing their own chips, I find it interesting that Intel would be a possibility for future iPads/iPhones. Are they saying Apple would then design based on the x86 architecture? Would Intel even allow that?
__________________
Nexus 5 | iPhone 6+, 6, 2G | Lumia 635 | iPad Air 2 | Kindle Fire 7" HDX
"Innovation, my ass!" -Phil Schiller
jrswizzle is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:45 AM   #31
Meandmunch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
I love the future. I love how virtually every aspect of all this technology enjoy everyday inches forward. Faster speeds, less power consumption, higher resolutions, brighter screens, smaller form factors, smarter operating systems, faster connections... Love it!

I grew up on Stat Trek and assorted scifi, it's all unfolding right in front of me and I think thats simply wonderful!
__________________
GIBBS
Meandmunch is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:47 AM   #32
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
These ARM discussions are always great at showing who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.

Do you honestly think Intel couldn't whip up a processor as low powered and cool as an ARM processor? It's like saying Bugatti couldn't build a scooter, because they're only good at making big engines for cars.

The only reason they've never done it before is because they've never had to. ARM is a decent processor, great for what they're used for, and I applaud the fact they're finally kicking Intel around enough in the mobile sector that they've finally decided to start focusing on efficiency rather than yet more speed enhancements.

...but ARM chips aren't that much better. As has been pointed out here by people who know even more than me, an ARM chip running as quick as an Intel chip would consume just as much power. There's no real advantage between the two. Once ARM finds a way to eek as much power out of their chips with as low a power usage and heat dissipation as possible, and Intel works in reverse, finding ways to make their fast chips more energy efficient, there will be no real reason to prefer one over the other on a pure spec basis.

It's around that's when things will start getting really interesting.
Renzatic is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:54 AM   #33
williedigital
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Final Merging of OSX and iOS

It won't be x86 or ARM, but rather both within the same machine.

OS 11 will fully integrate the touch features of iOS and the "computer" features of full OSX. All macs sold will feature some sort of touch-based input and all software will be built to utilize this interface to the degree possible--see iTunes 11 and how usable it would be on a touch screen. I'd imagine this OS11 could selectively utilize both CPUs as needed, possibly using the power-sipping ARM for 80% of tasks but offering x86 for "heavy lifting". More deviously, the x86 chip could serve as a rosetta-like bridge to full ARMing of the desktop OS, if they don't merge.
williedigital is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:56 AM   #34
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumors View Post
In a research note issued last week, RBC analyst Doug Freedman claimed that Apple is already in talks with Intel on a deal that could see Intel producing A-series chips for the iPhone while Apple shifts to Intel's x86 platform for the iPad.

Article Link: Intel Looking to Cut Power Consumption on Future Ivy Bridge Chips
Let's say this is not a trial balloon for Intel and may actually happen. I doubt it but . . . This is one possible convergence path for iOS and OSX.

I think the more likely one is convergence from OSX to iOS for the vast majority of devices using A series chips designed inside Apple and manufactured using any available foundry.

I consider it a trial balloon. I posted to an Intel forum several years ago (I have posted the link in prior messages) where they were first discussing power reduction are a key feature. I stated then the key metric they should target immediately is all-day use on a typical battery charge. The A series chips have gotten there. The typical laptop system using Intel lasts 4-8 hours.

Some of that is an obsession with thinness but the power consumption of a CPU board as a whole has reduced by a factor of 2 about every 3 years or so.

Rocketman
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All 357 R or D House jobs bills over 4 years died in the D Senate, ordered by the D President. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.
Rocketman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 09:58 AM   #35
diamond.g
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Does Intel produce chips for anyone else? I would find it interesting that Apple would have gone to Samsung in the beginning considering Intel is a whole process node smaller than everyone else (at the moment).
diamond.g is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:02 AM   #36
Chupa Chupa
macrumors G3
 
Chupa Chupa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by rusty2192 View Post
This means a lot more for the Surface Pro than the iPad. It certainly seems more likely that macs will be shifting towards Arm, not iPads towards X86.
Means more to tablet computing in general. Apple is moving away from Intel b/c of their decent chips' power requirements. Chips are already way faster than what the average consumer can use. Battery life is where the action is now, not Ghz.

But Surface Pro will live or dies well before Intel has decent power consumption chips out. Personally I don't think the Surface Pro will last. In 2012 consumers want a tablet OS on their tablet, not a computer OS on a tablet, not a hybrid OS on a table. The Surface RT is already dying on the vine with poor sales.

Just like with the first iteration of the Windows tablet in the 00s, Microsoft is too ahead of the game. Apple, OTOH, is using the "boil a frog slowly" method, implementing a few iOS features into Mac OS with each new version. At some point Mac OS and iOS will look the same, but no one will notice by then because they'll be use to it.
__________________
Walled Garden ≠ Prison:
"People who use Apple products considered their options, and chose Apple. If they regret their decision, they can dump it at any time." -- Harry McCracken, Technologizer.com
Chupa Chupa is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:10 AM   #37
nexusrule
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
The most important iOS and iDevices selling point at this point is the app ecosystem and the non fragmentation. Moving to intel would mean asking to developers to rewrote their apps, having devices with subar emulated app and so on. It's also very different from the ppc>intel transition from years ago,apps on iOS are way more and lot of little ones probably wouldn't be rewritten.
nexusrule is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:11 AM   #38
Lesser Evets
macrumors 68030
 
Lesser Evets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
I figured most chips were as good as needed for the public....

Then I saw they are doing 4x HD TV soon and the whole cycle starts again. We'll be catching up through computing. It will be fine on the pads and notebooks, but the desktops will be struggling to digest and portray 4x HD in 4 or 5 years when those TVs and video become mainstream.
__________________
2x1.86 BSEL Pro 1,1; 5770; 16GB RAM
Lesser Evets is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:14 AM   #39
izyreal
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkso View Post
what's the point? the main power wasting part is the display, the processor takes up like just 10% of the whole device's power usage anyway.
If you are right with your 10% number, then this new processor would result in slightly more than a 4% increase in battery life. Combine this with a few efficiencies elsewhere and you are looking at a pretty nice bump in battery life! Or, as has been already mentioned, the retina Macbook Air.
izyreal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:14 AM   #40
jrswizzle
macrumors 603
 
jrswizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: McKinney, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lesser Evets View Post
I figured most chips were as good as needed for the public....

Then I saw they are doing 4x HD TV soon and the whole cycle starts again. We'll be catching up through computing. It will be fine on the pads and notebooks, but the desktops will be struggling to digest and portray 4x HD in 4 or 5 years when those TVs and video become mainstream.
It'll probably be closer to 8-10 years before 4K is mainstream (like 1080p today)
__________________
Nexus 5 | iPhone 6+, 6, 2G | Lumia 635 | iPad Air 2 | Kindle Fire 7" HDX
"Innovation, my ass!" -Phil Schiller
jrswizzle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:16 AM   #41
attila
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London / Stockholm / Under your bed
 
I predict future computers will be more powerful than current computers.
__________________
attila is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:17 AM   #42
cfedu
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Montreal
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamean View Post
I can't find the specs for the current A6 or A6x wattage... It has to be much lower than 10watts....
I think the Apple TV consumes under 5 watts, so the a6 should be way under that for just a chip
cfedu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:18 AM   #43
jayducharme
macrumors 68020
 
jayducharme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The thick of it
I wonder if Apple would bother going to Intel for its iDevices. After all, the synergy between the hardware and software is what Apple always claims gives them an edge against the competition. Apple can custom design their chips for exactly the product performance they want. I'm not so sure they could do that if they were dependent on Intel's chips.
jayducharme is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:20 AM   #44
unplugme71
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2011
I'd like to see Samsung create a high-res display that consumes 20% less power than the current displays on the market. Then see if Apple runs back to them.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayducharme View Post
I wonder if Apple would bother going to Intel for its iDevices. After all, the synergy between the hardware and software is what Apple always claims gives them an edge against the competition. Apple can custom design their chips for exactly the product performance they want. I'm not so sure they could do that if they were dependent on Intel's chips.
if they are buying 10's of millions of chips from Intel, I'm pretty sure Intel will do what they want to a point.

Apple did push Intel quite a lot on the Core Duo's and Core 2 Duo's when they switched away from PPC.
unplugme71 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:20 AM   #45
D-a-a-n
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macman45 View Post
An ipad5 with an IB CPU? Sounds good on paper, but do we really need that much power in an iPad? The 4 has proved to be just about the perfect balance of battery life and performance. Be interesting to see if Apple do produce an iPad with the new lower wattage IB on board though.
No, the only thing we need is 640 kb of ram
__________________
Zed's dead..
D-a-a-n is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:20 AM   #46
jamesnajera
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
This is great news, Ivy has been great. The latest MBA,barely gets hot. Also it keeps ARM on there toes, competition is always good. I want the future of ARM to succeed, but I also want Intel to be around and be more than just a chip fabricator.
__________________
MacBook Air i7 2.0Ghz 13.3"
iPhone 5S
iPad 2
jamesnajera is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:31 AM   #47
TypeEE
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
This is the biggest BS I have ever read. Apple can fab their own A6x for like $20USD while buying ivy bridge from intel cost $200+, why would they even consider putting that cpu into the ipad? A6x also have TDP of 2-3W while even if ivy bridge cut power into half, it'll still be 9W.

Trust me, ivy bridge is ivybridge, it'll not cut voltage. All your hope will be with Haswell.
TypeEE is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:36 AM   #48
subsonix
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by TypeEE View Post
Apple can fab their own A6x for like $20USD while buying ivy bridge from intel cost $200+, why would they even consider putting that cpu into the ipad? A6x also have TDP of 2-3W while even if ivy bridge cut power into half, it'll still be 9W.
I was about to mention this as well, the question is also if intel's performance advantage is needed in a tablet. I have not come across a situation where I felt that the iPad for example, was lacking in performance.
subsonix is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:41 AM   #49
atMac
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
In theory what would a 10w CPU extend the current battery life for the 13in Air to?
__________________
13in 2012 rMBP: Core i5, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD; Nexus 7 3G; Nexus 4 16GB
atMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2012, 10:46 AM   #50
Glideslope
macrumors 68030
 
Glideslope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macman45 View Post
An ipad5 with an IB CPU? Sounds good on paper, but do we really need that much power in an iPad? The 4 has proved to be just about the perfect balance of battery life and performance. Be interesting to see if Apple do produce an iPad with the new lower wattage IB on board though.
It's more of, "How do we get Intel to fab our ARM Designs if we don't put an i5 in the Large iPad".
Samsung is done fabbing for Apple 6-30-14. Big issue for iOS.
__________________
" A leader leads by example. Not by force." Sun Tzu
Glideslope 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
Intel caught using cheap thermal paste in Ivy Bridge? srkmish Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 1 Aug 20, 2013 01:11 PM
Intel roadmap reveals 10-core Xeon E5-2600 V2 Ivy Bridge CPU vander Mac Pro 30 Mar 25, 2013 05:10 PM
Ivy Bridge v/s Sandy Bridge & why Apple might skip Ivy for iMac ? mjoshi123 iMac 6 Sep 15, 2012 11:27 AM
Intel Launches Dual-Core and Ultra-Low Voltage Ivy Bridge Processors MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 124 Jun 7, 2012 03:13 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:09 PM.

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

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