Apple Considering Switch From Intel Chips in Future Macs

[KnightWRX]

If that is not the case, nobody would use ARM at all.

You're mistaking availability with capability. People use ARM because ARM designs have centered around lower powered SoCs for more than a decade, a segment Intel happily ignored.

It's not that x86 SoCs can't be made to rival ARM SoCs on power consumption with very similar performance to watt ratios, it's that Intel just didn't bother with it until recently.

You seem to not really understand the history of ARM, it's claim to fame in the embedded device world, or the reason it's in use now.

 

[ScholarsInk]

I'm surprised by so many people using Windows RT as an example when it is an iOS equivalent, not a full version of Windows. The only thing is that it shares the UI of its big brother.

 

[KnightWRX]

Changes don't mean slower!

Except when it does.

There is just no advantage to going ARM. Sorry, I don't see it.

 

[haravikk]

Interesting, and I can absolutely see the Air becoming the first of such a new wave. We've seen that Apple is capable of handling a changeover like this without too many problems. I'll be curious to know if there's an Intel for ARM Rosetta layer under development at Apple somewhere.


I do think that the performance gap is a fair thing to look at; as much of the performance for consumers is tied up in graphics chips now, with anything requiring serious power dumping work into OpenCL. I could even see Mac Pros eventually being a bunch of server-oriented ARMs backed by integrated OpenCL focused GPUs for the real horsepower.

 

[AppleMacFinder]

Sorry, but that's not the case at all. Quite the contrary.

Please check what this guy posted:

For example, here are some Geekbench results:
A6X: 1700
Mac Mini 2011 CPU : 8500
...
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

The difference in performance: 8500/1700 = (around) 5 times
The difference in power consumption: around 20 times (even with low-end i5-2410M)

Result: ARM wins.

 

[slughead]

In case of ARM switch, Macs would get a native game versions, not just a miserable ports in a WINE wrapper, which performance is of course lower.

Or they would get NO GAMES AT ALL, as was the case with PPC.

Most educated people don't use Internet Explorer.
If the website doesn't work good in Internet Explorer, that is the problem of Microsoft.

Yeah, some of us prefer to live in the real world where you don't make friends by being arrogant elitists. IE is still an extremely common browser, if your website is not IE compatible, you are losing viewers, period. You can whine about how IE is bad all you want, that does not change this fact.

Since Mac OS X is 100% UNIX certified, everything that works in linux works in Mac OS X as well -
in most cases, without any changes. I have compiled and used lots of Linux libraries (from src,
without any macports), and they all are working fine. That means, linux is not that needed.

I didn't know UNIX was a certification organization. The fact is: yes, 85%+ of the time, building on a different instruction set or even a different *NIX OS will result in a working program. However, the less variation, the better. This is especially true with driver support... Though if Apple were switching to ARM, we can probably assume that they're trying to lock their users into the 5-10 choices Apple has already made for them, so they need not concern themselves with "power users" who want to use 3rd party hardware.

 

[KnightWRX]

Please check what this guy posted:



The difference in performance: 8500/1700 = (around) 5 times
The difference in power consumption: around 20 times (even with low-end i5-2410M)

Result: ARM wins.

Intel makes more than 1 chip...

Are you saying Intel has only 1 Power to Watt ratio and uses it accross it's entire line-up ?

Obviously, no point in replying to you anymore.

 

[rmwebs]

Now this one's going to need a bit of explaining.

Whilst the performance of them is great, the cost, heat and power consumption is nowhere near as efficient as ARM, not to mention the licensing issues.

 

[inlinevolvo]

Worst. Idea. Ever. I have the 15 retina mbp and while I truly enjoy using it, it is hardly leaps and bounds ahead of win 7 from a software perspective. If I can't have the option of windows on my Mac, there is no point in me using apple computers in the future.

 

[nia820]

Well if it is anything like apple making their own maps. Expect it to piss off a whole lot of people.

 

[inlinevolvo]

Please check what this guy posted:



The difference in performance: 8500/1700 = (around) 5 times
The difference in power consumption: around 20 times (even with low-end i5-2410M)

Result: ARM wins.

You are assuming a linear relationship between power and output...

 

[Nightarchaon]

Laptops/Desktops are dying. 10 years from now, virtually nobody will have one. Only question left is when, and how fast, the transition occurs.

My guess is within 4 years.

I dont see me ever NOT having both a laptop (or full spec Surface, which is a laptop with a touchscreen and detachable keyboard IMO, not a tablet) and a desktop, iOS, limited devices will never replace the need i have for a flexible, "run anything, Do Anything" device.

As much as apple and other companies would love to see the death of the PC and the total adoption of the walled garden device its not going to happen in my lifetime, let alone as quickly as 4 years.

Computers are here to stay, Apple is blinkered by the HUGE profits its currently making from the iPhone and iPad, but the fact is, they are turning them over too quickly, and the public is starting to feel upgrade fatigue, sure the fanboys will continue to buy every product on a 8 month or less upgrade cycle, but the man on the street is starting to be over apples "change it for changing its sake" approach to upgrades and forced obsolescence of older devices.

i would say in 4 years time its more likely to see apple slipping back into a "Niche" market as other firms continue to innovate and add new features , and apple just keeps chanting "Smaller, Lighter", without Steve Jobs, apple is no longer innovating, its just following a path to a device that is just an un-upgradable unusable piece of glass

 

[slughead]

The difference in performance: 8500/1700 = (around) 5 times
The difference in power consumption: around 20 times (even with low-end i5-2410M)

Result: ARM wins.

I love that logic. I have a wrist watch that might have an even better ratio.

Result: TIMEX WINS

 

[KnightWRX]

Or they would get NO GAMES AT ALL, as was the case with PPC.

This is exactly what would happen actually. The reason game get ported these days is the availability of WINE wrappers that companies can use to make the porting process easy.

I didn't know UNIX was a certification organization.

UNIX is 3 things :

- A copyrighted code base originally developed by Bell Labs (AT&T) and owned by Novell currently
- A trademark, licensed and managed by the Open Group
- A specification used for a certification program to access a trademark license, also managed by the Open Group

----------

Whilst the performance of them is great, the cost, heat and power consumption is nowhere near as efficient as ARM,

ARM or x86 makes no differrence in cost, heat and power consumptions. Instructions sets are not chip designs!

 

[0098386]

All the "No Bootcamp, I'm not buying a Mac" guys make me crack up.

That's why you should buy a Windows machine. Apple won't miss you.

Not dissing you, just sayin'. You didn't buy a Mac to run Windows. The fact that you were able to means nothing to AAPL.

This is going to be exciting. Changes don't mean slower!

I buy Apple computers because for one fixed price I can get a powerful, well designed machine that runs the two main operating systems.

I was at university when the first intel Macs were released, switched to Mac so I could run OSX and Win apps. Now I guest lecture at colleges and universities - every student I've met with a Macbook has it dualbooting to Windows. It's economic to do so, "One machine to rule them all".

How would dropping Intel benefit you?
Where you present for the Intel switch, a switch that took around 3 years to get all major apps ported over? If so - why do you want that again?
Is it just because you don't want people to install Windows on a Mac?

 

[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.

 

[FlatlinerG]

I just posted speculation about this in the Mac Pro forum yesterday. It's been an obvious step for the past year or two.

If Apple can gear up serious processors, and why not, they can switch to designing their own and then being able to engineer their own timetables as the hardware needs instead of waiting for Intel to come up with a McProcesssor they can use.

This is just it. Everyone is assuming they will be only as powerful as iOS devices. If they can do it and make it more powerful and desktop ready, then why not.

 

[AppleMacFinder]

Intel makes more than 1 chip...

Are you saying Intel has only 1 Power to Watt ratio and uses it accross it's entire line-up ?

In case of i5-2410M, it is 212.5 GeekBench Points per Watt.
In case of ARM, it is 850 GeekBench Points per Watt - four times better.

If we talk about the entire Intel lineup, the results won't be different much: where the perfomance is higher, there the power consumption is higher. So, the overall ratio will not be significantly different.

 

[Macdick]

Intel

What I reading is!-
Mac You buy now WIL BE NOT SUPPORTED IN 2-3 YEARS FROM NOW!!

 

[AppleMacFinder]

I love that logic. I have a wrist watch that might have an even better ratio.

Result: TIMEX WINS

No, your wrist watch is not a general-purpose computer.

 

[SPUY767]

I am quite certain Apple has had OS X running on ARM for some time now.

iOS?

 

[ad1815]

Everyone is assuming either x86 or ARM. But why cannot Apple use both? There are certainly issues in using both, but that is where innovation comes in

 

[AppleMacFinder]

You are assuming a linear relationship between power and output...

Not a linear relationship: probably, ARM result would be better 3x-5x times, compared to Intel,
depend of which processors we compare. In this specific case, it was 4x.

 

[frayne182]

To bad the OS can't just be on any Intel machine right now. I'd love to just build a Custom Mac PC haha.


To bad they are considering leaving Intel. Hopefully not AMD

 

[AcesHigh87]

This is just it. Everyone is assuming they will be only as powerful as iOS devices. If they can do it and make it more powerful and desktop ready, then why not.

Exactly my thoughts.

If apple can manage to give us the power intel can with lower power consumption or some other benefit than why not? Will the transition be hell? Probably, but I'm sure they learned from the PPC - Intel transition and would make sure it's smoother this time.

At this point I take no side but I do agree. I don't think apple is stupid enough to make a desktop computer run on an iOS device processor but using the same framework to create a desktop processor might not be out of the question.