The Intel Chips are currently faster but Apple (if they want to) can bring there chips closer in performance. ARM chips in a Mac or normal desktop is most likely never happen until after 2020 since at that point we will not be able to make transistors any smaller and will be moving to optic based CPU. At that point there will most likely be a creation of a new standard which will be universal the same way RAM manufactures came together.
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 and Intel Have Reportedly Discussed Deal for Production of Future iPhone and iPad Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Intel Chips are currently faster but Apple (if they want to) can bring there chips closer in performance. ARM chips in a Mac or normal desktop is most likely never happen until after 2020 since at that point we will not be able to make transistors any smaller and will be moving to optic based CPU. At that point there will most likely be a creation of a new standard which will be universal the same way RAM manufactures came together.
Intel does one thing well: Pay journalists to plant stories that have no basis in reality from ever happening.
They have a good partnership because Apple has options. They didn't choose AMD, but Apple could pull AMD out as the boogeyman in case Intel starts not to listen.
If Intel ever became the only x86 game in town it is likely they would be a very much less friendly partner. At that point, Apple would probably start looking to move. I don't think AMD is going to completely implode but nothing they've done in the last 2-3 years is promoting confidence they can stop the bleed.
LOL. Everyone and their mother has been asking Intel for faster iGPU units. This didn't solely happen because Apple happened to ask.
This is also the one area where AMD actually has been competitive with Intel moves. They are still a step ahead with respect to graphics in SoC offerings. The trigger to put the foot down on graphics likely was far more triggered by AMD's ATI buy than Apple introducing a concept to Intel they never heard of.
If the HD5200 solution is a RAM+CPU+GPU package solution I can see how it is kind of inspired by Apple's ARM solutions, but that sort of packaging existed before Apple should up with ARMs. Intel has been packaging multiple dies in to a single package long since before iPhone.
Frankly Apple's 13" MBP units need them for mare than "eating into desktops". The Mac Mini ( a desktop ) would be more competitive with it.
It is also the case the OS X needs to be able to do high value things to a broad audicience so that can stay out in front of iOS devices.
Not really. Overall PC growth has largely plateaued in last couple of years. Mac growth continued for a bit by carving into share of other PC vendors but they haven't really be growing the pie much. Mac growth has stall ( in part to a
Intel makes products that keeps Mac products competitive. Not saying that are bad products, but what customers want to buy is changing.
Again overblown. There were several other customers who also wanted it. You are correct it wasn't everyone. Apple wasn't afraid to ask.
Apple took up the case of EFI when other vendors were dragging their heels . Apple has helped with the stagnant in the PC market. Vendor spending most of the effort of race to the bottom boxes and knock-offs with superficial differentiating features. I think Intel needs Apple more so to keep the PC market "fresh" with well thought out ideas than these tactical things like triming a bit off a package size.
Intel can also use Apple as a foil against Microsoft dominating the PC industry. So it went both ways.
They dumped PowerPC because wanted to share processor R&D costs with the overall broader market. Apple could have bought PowerPC designs that did what they wanted. But they would just have to take all the risk. They punted on that.
When Apple helped found PowerPC they brought in Motorola and IBM to the table. It was only when IBM started to become the only option that they punched out. As long as Moto and IBM were competing to provide better options Apple kept going. When that started not to work and Apple was the only desktop variant customer ( there were embedded and big-iron options doing OK) that's when it became too problematical. If Apple had plopped down the money to make it IBM would have built a mobile oriented G5.
Apple has to add differentiation on top of what Intel sells. Windows is on top of the same platform and gets all the same benefits. There is nothing exclusive that Apple gets. ( Well maybe if Intel made a custom boot-rom inside the CPU package so that nothing but custom Apple specific chips could boot OS X .... but hackintoshes aren't that big of a threat yet).
If OS X doesn't stay competitive then it is going to shrink to be a smaller and smaller pie of Apple's revenue mix. Too small and they'll just axe it. That has nothing to do with Intel's manufacturing skills.
Yes. I don't think Apple wants OS X to die off. But it isn't entirely Apple's choice. If customers choose that outcome Apple isn't going to sit there and say "I have to be partner with Intel". Intel is not a major customer. They are a supplier. If the customers are going someplace else Apple will follow them.
I wonder if this could lead to a custom x86 chip with Apple technology that only Apple would have access to. Would kill the hackintosh market and might provide a CPU that would be well tuned for OS X.
I don't think Apple is out to kill the hackintosh market as long as it stays insignificant in size. But yes, if a threat they could commission a custom SoC package with a built in boot-rom that would be only way to boot OS X. Make those CPU packages single sourced and soldered to the board and that would do it.
However, there is much higher value add things Apple could add to the CPU package. The custom trackpad/support chips that they currently add. The perhaps could get the exact set of USB ports they need. If not going to use 10 USB ports why add it to the SoC? Add apple's flash controller to the SoC package. Add Apple's picture processing support logic to the SoC. Stuff like that. Maybe even add an iGPU to an Xeon E5 1600 class derivative so easier to implement Thunderbolt. (although that would be a relatively small run rate so may not qualify).
However, what is doubtful is that Intel would allow Apple to tweak their x86 cores. Apple would be allowed to add things to a barebones Intel SoC. Not really tell Intel how to do what they are experts at. That isn't going to fly.
Intel is starting to open up to folks adding stuff around there core intellectual property and products. As customers collapse more of what went onto the motherboard into the SoC, different customers want different stuff. Over the years it is likely that Intel isn't getting out of the motherboard business, but that the motheboard business is partially becoming the SoC business. It is largely collapsing into the "black hole" that is the CPU package. That is just fine with Intel, because that is their wheelhouse expertise. But it is still their "black hole" at the nucleolus of the product.
Last edited:
You are envisioning a nightmare scenario - do you really want your Apples to run OSX on 32-bit ARM CPUs?
Do you want to go through another transition like the PPC -> x86 -> x64 one?
Do you want to kiss any hope for a new Mac Pro goodbye?
Last edited:
What are these "x86" chips that you refer to?
You do know that Apple has shifted to use "x64" chips, right? And that all of the newer Intel CPUs are x64? (Where "newer" means basically "anything released in the last 4 years".)
Last edited:
x64 also know as x86-64. Yeah I know. I'm using x86 as general reference the whole family tree not the precursor subset.
' ... while Mac OS X uses "x86_64" ... '
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86
the 64 bit additions just removed some of the brain damaged limitations on registers and sanity.
True enough, no one is holding a gun to their head, forcing them to sign any such agreement.
I'm more concerned about intellectual property falling into 'competitive hands', with APPLE presumably designing such chips, and those designs being manufactured by essentially, competitors.
Might it be better for APPLE to design and manufacture their own chips?
listen guys, Apple would have there A-series processors fabricated on Intel's best in the world fabrication... just imagine the Apple A7/A8 on 22nm/14nm 3d tri gate transistors... that would be such a incredible advantage for Apple having the best fabrication
only one can wish
only one can wish
That is because they sold off their very good xScale lineup of ARM processors so they could push Atom. 6-8 years ago XScale would have been the platform for hobby uses...
Still, if Intel can't seem to make their own chips work,they can pull an IBM and sell fab time. Intel (and IBM) still have the most advanced chip manufacturing plants in the world. They are still one full generation ahead of anybody else. Selling fab time to Apple makes huge sense (like when IBM was making Xbox, Nintendo, and Sony chips) it's a huge chance to be in the mobile market, without the risk of product development....Apple pays to develop and engineer chips, and intel just runs them.
Using Intel's process Apple's chips would skip,TWO die sizes down overnight.... And have access to the same processes as cutting edge x86 chips. That would put Apple two years ahead in battery performance as well.
----------
No, Apple has no interest in building Fab. It's a money sink. From scratch they would need $3-5 billion just for construction... And then have to navigate another sea of non-software patents and cross licenses with 30 years of history... That's billions in payouts just to get current... And its all USELESS in 3-5 years. That's why people rent silicon fabrication.
I am no expert in this, but ever since Apple switched using Intel in their Macbook Pros, I like this relationship between these two... (e.g. allowing me to boot camp)
If this is 100% true, hope this will fend off Samsung!!!
I like the idea of my iPhone powered by an Intel chip
If this is 100% true, hope this will fend off Samsung!!!
I like the idea of my iPhone powered by an Intel chip
Not really. Intel as a manufacturer f chips was never in doubt, even then. Intel's choice to bet all their cards on the x86 pony, and often blocking other projects from being possible using business tactics is why everybody hated them. But at that time what was Apple going to do? Motorola didn't want to invest in keeping up desktop chips and was happy with two-year old chips for printers, routers and stuff. IBM was keeping its POWER lineup goodies all to itself, and coming from being on IBM POWER for a long time (as400/I series/blade center), it was TERRIBLY suited for home users. IBM POWER servers STILL have Xbox-like heat problems where chips are run so hot solder melts if the fan can't keep up. IBM just sells servers with bigger, noisier fans... That would never work in Apple equipment as much as I'd like to see a POWER 7 server ruN the socks off OSX.
I like the idea of my iPhone powered by an Intel chip
This is about as likely to happen as the Macs going ARM. Even when x86 chips become as power efficient (which has just about happened with this recent rev of Atom processors), the iPhone still has 6 years of apps in its back catalog it'd be giving up just to move to what's more or less a functionally equivalent processor. You wouldn't even have anything like Rosetta to fall back on, since that'd only add extra complexity, be a massive battery hog, and...really...ARM and Atom both aren't strong enough to run a platform emulator without huge performance sacrifices.
Atom chips might be pretty good mobile processors these days, but there's no advantages to tempt Apple to make the switch.
You´re contradicting your own arguments here. First you say they could pull out AMD, in the next paragraph you say that AMD is probably not going to survive. You need to make up your mind about what you are actually trying to say.
I agree with everything else you said in a way, but this one just doesn´t add up.
And Apple would be pretty dumb to suddenly scale back any OS X competitiveness. OS X is an extremely efficient OS and together with efficient SOCs or C/G/PUs they have an extremely good mix to sell in a wide variety of devices and products all over the world.
It´s not completely unthinkable that Apple and AMD form such a partnership, I give you that, but that better come WAY before AMD gets beaten down even more. If it ever comes to that though, regulatory agencies would probably have something to say.
Last edited:
I'm not sure how you can read it that way. What part of "I don't think AMD is going to implode..." implies that AMD is probably not going to survive. There is little outwardly visible results they are having that supports they have turned the corner, but there is nothing to indicate that they can't. That puts the probability toward the middle outcomes not toward the either extreme ( new king of the hill or disappears into history books).
The rest of that sentence is acknowledging that they aren't doing so well now. If AMD had 1.5-2 years ago what they have now they might have gotten a nod to for a MBA CPU+GPU package, but they didn't. They need better access to the best non-Intel process technologies at higher yields. Some of AMD's turning the corner has to due with their partners and their abilities just as much as what AMD has control over.
Apple would be pretty dumb to shutdown iMac production 2 months before they had a new iMac ready to ship in quantity ..... and yet they did.
Apple would be pretty dumb to not finish a new Mac Pro in time to keep from being banned from the EU Markets.
Apple would be pretty dumb ship a version of Migration assistant in 10.6 that wasn't going to work with the one in 10.7
Apple would be pretty dumb not to close without saving for their new "Autosave" methodology and yet they did.
Apple would be pretty dumb not to power protect the mSATA Flash card on the new iMacs but it looks like they may have.
Much of what Apple is doing with OS X that is veneer and facade work. Long term that isn't gong to make it more competitive.
I don't think SoC are going to work for mid-top end desktop performance for a while. There is danger that Apple pushes too hard on with OS X in the wrong direction. There is a chance that in myopically focusing on matching what is happening in the tablet space too much they will miss what needs to happen to enable more high value workloads that require higher performance. Their track record over last 4-5 years and results with Mac Pro are indicate this is one of their weaknesses.
Regulatory agencies? There is no regulatory agency required for partnership with Intel ( or Samsung or Qualcomm or ...... ).
Buy AMD? No. That is more acquisition than partnership.
No, not because of a partnership, but if AMD will go down, Intel is going to have a monopoly in x86 devices.
if the x86 share of the overall personal computer market has shrunk that won't be a regulatory problem.
The most likely path to AMD collapse is that ARM solutions cannibalize a major faction of the PC market (the scope of what a personal computer is moving past the legacy form factors). At that point Intel's potential x86 customer base starts to stagnant. If it does stagnant (or shrinks ) it pragmatically isn't an antitrust issue. Intel's defense is going to be customers are bailing for other options.
Back when almost the only way to get a personal computer was to buy an x86 based one it would be antitrust. With iOS bigger than the Mac ecosystem and incrementally moving to parity size levels to the "windows PC" ecosystem Intel is relatively safe. It is far more AMD that is in the danger zone.
Intel would be one the list like Microsoft. On the "we are watching you list", but not action unless they seriously try beating their customers up. As long as Intel keeps in place the "only the paranoid survive" mindset and has some good competitors to be paranoid about they will probably do the right thing.
So like Microsoft not completely crushing Mac OS there is some upside in Intel not completely crushing AMD. Intel turning down the frequency on the upper end Xeon line up is partially doing that for AMD. Intel could completely crush them at the higher end of they really wanted to right now.
If Intel has no competitors the forces driving them to focus, the bean counters will reach into the organized crime techniques bag to squeeze more money out of customers. Monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing customers with monopoly leverage is.
Yeah they can't switch without dumping the ecosystem. Same goes for PC's switching to ARM. They can't dump x86 without dumping all that useful software too. And like you said, emulators on a low-powered chip are slow to the point of uselessness
I think you also need the chip to run a 4W or less TDP for passive cooling. I don't see Intel getting x86 in a phone until they break that barrier, which is not anytime soon.
How fast can you snap your fingers?
Look, the Mac Pro can be updated to be about 50% faster. Apple is the one holding it back, not Intel. Gulftown chips are really, really obsolete.
When MacOS X boots, it checks for the presence of a 64 bit code in one of the chips on the motherboard which is then used to decrypt important parts of the OS. In other words, DRM. The chip is present on all Macs. It is possible to work around this, otherwise no Hackintoshes would exist, but working around it is a DMCA violation. That makes it absolutely impossible to run a business that produces MacOS X compatibile computers without permission by Apple. Last time someone tried, they were ordered to pay $2,500 per computer for DMCA violation (I don't think they paid, due to bankruptcy).
That's good enough for Apple.