Before that, there were options for installing a board with a Z-80 to run CP/M applications.
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 Rumored to Partner on Mac Chips Again in a New Way
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Windows holds around 71% of the global market share for all computers each year. Of that, 75% are Intel-based machines, while 25% are AMD-based. In comparison, the world market share of Macs is less than 16%.
TSMC holds the lead in the advanced chip market. Intel is on it's deathbed. I am wishing Intel well, as we need competition in the advanced chip market, I don't know why you are going on about.
I think this has to be about M7. Apple doesn’t yet have the final version of Intel 18AP to work with, so whatever designs they are planning, they won’t be complete for months.
Also, keep in mind that 30% of Intel’s own chips are manufactured by TSMC, a partnership that is extending to N2:
Intel, AMD, and MediaTek reportedly among TSMC's 2nm early adopters — company said to have 15 customers lined up for new process tech
An unprecedented number.
So there’s something of a natural progression or convergence here, and Apple using both manufacturers isn’t strange at all.
By making chips for other brands than Apple.
Some people wish for that, but Intel won't just vanish. I'm still using an Intel MacBook, and it's functioning well. You could at least install Windows on your Intel MacBook, albeit with some glitches, but you can't do that on a silicon Mac without a paid emulator.
If anything, it would be Apple that might have to ask Intel for help when things start to go south in a few years.
You think PC gaming (itself just a slice of gaming) is representative of computing?
Well, if you say so...
60% of web traffic is mobile, and basically none of that is x86.
There are over 7 billion smartphones in the world, vs. 2 billion PCs.
So, yes, I do say so.
Indeed it's not.
As Steve said, "we'll have options, and we like to have options".
You are mixing apples and oranges. The heading is about Mac chips, not phone chips. Most of the time, it's best to read the heading of the topic.
Intel has more chips in computers (personal computers such as desktops, laptops, 2-in-1s, etc.) and in professional business computers than Apple does in their Macs, which represent only about 16% of the world market.
54% of the world computer market runs on Intel chips (75% of 71%). That's more than 3.4 times the Apple Mac market. TSMC, being the world's largest computer chip producer, still makes fewer Mac chips than other types of computer chips. So, it's good to give Intel a smile.
They're the exact same cores. An M4 has the same CPU cores as the A18 Pro, just more of them, and at a higher clock.
Most of the time, it's best to read the heading of the topic.
The context was some person saying
Statistically, most did indeed ditch Intel, or more broadly x86. Of course a ton of x86 still exists out there, both running Windows and — especially on servers — Linux. But most computing usage today is on ARM. And increasingly, both Windows and Linux also run ARM.
What you're doing is create an artificial distinction of "Real™ computing takes place on Windows and macOS, not on iOS and Android", and that distinction doesn't exist either at a technical level nor in terms of the market. An iPad is a computer, as is an Android phone. Businesses increasingly just run web apps. The server is some VM or Docker container in a cloud somewhere; the client is a phone, tablet, laptop, or desktop. Even when a business needs a Win32 app, it increasingly just runs on a terminal server somewhere, and is controlled via RDP. Not on an actual physical Windows desktop.
While I agree with you on the above mentioned, the original post was about Apple smiling at Intel again, specifically regarding Macs this time, as rumoured. After practically blackmouthing Intel before the transition to silicon M chips.
I think that's subjective. In my opinion 18A is more akin to advanced TSMC's 3 - i.e. N3P. Intel's 20A will be more comparable to TSMC's 2nm products. But it won't be out until way after TSMC's 2nm stuff is in production.
Once Apple 🍎 ditched Intel for their own custom chip, Intel fell apart. Apple was their biggest customer. Apple helped Intel a little by buying their cellular modem patents for 1 billion. Could Qualcomm fall apart once Apple leaves them too?More likely, Intel begged the US government to have Apple throw them a bone. Welp, bone tossed.
The rumor is that Apple is using Intel as another contractor for Apple's ARM design. That's very different than the previous situation, where
- Intel designed and manufactured the CPU cores,
- Apple was, therefore, beholden to Intel's schedule and design considerations.
Oftentimes in the 15 years the Mac was on x86, that worked out quite well. But especially in the latter years, it frankly did not. Intel stuck on 14nm for too long, Core M didn't work out at all, Apple for the most part wasn't able to choose their own design priorities (the 2020 fanless MacBook Air pretty much wouldn't have been viable with an Intel CPU, unless it's much slower), and Atom wasn't a good option for Apple's rest of the line-up. Tablets, phones, watches, etc.
Now, Apple has a CPU design (plus various satellite chips, such as the GPU, NPU, display controller, etc. — and now even additional core designs such as for Wi-Fi and cellular) where they get to pick design priorities, and by now, Apple has worked that into a strategy where the cores scale all the way down to Apple Watch (e-cores only) and all the way up to the Mac Studio (primarily p-cores). If Intel can help with manufacturing of some of those, great.
Do you have an example of that?
Did Apple help sell Intel chips to Acer, Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and numerous Windows computer makers? That's 51% of all Windows computer manufacturers in the world each year using Intel chips. Apple accounts for only about 16% of all computers globally. You think 16 is bigger than 51?
IIRC, Apple was a small part of Intel's total revenue, under 10% and probably under 5%. However, it did impact Intel's revenue growth; but Intel made a number of bad decisions, such as missing the shift to ARM. Apple's leaving them highlighted the changes coming, but Intel no doubt thought the x86 was too entrenched to be displaced.
It is, for large enough values of 16.
ARM is known for excellent battery life, energy efficiency, and low power consumption—qualities that MacBooks can boast about for their long battery life.
In contrast, x86 is focused on high performance, processing speed, and substantial computational power for demanding tasks. Well, you know who uses them: Windows, Linux, and other platforms.
I imagine if we look at "Intel customers by profit margin", Apple was way up there, possibly number one. But maybe not; Xeon servers have plenty of margin.
In practice, though, Apple's ARM chips handily compete with Intel's x86 chips on performance. That there are AMD and Intel chips with higher overall performance is largely a function of Apple not offering anything at a multi-hundred TDP.