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 Considering Switch From Intel Chips in Future Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is a lot of utter nonsense on this thread. "ARMs are slow", "ARM processors are toy processors", "why bring a mobile processor onto the desktop" ... on and on.
Many seem completely clueless to the fact that ARMs were originally very much a desktop processor. Not only that but they were extremely fast ones too. Faster than almost all other processors to be found in a home computing environment, and certainly faster than Intel.
They have ended up where they are due to the difficult situation on the market at the time. Whereas things were still in flux during the 80s, the 90s really lead to a full on PC onslaught which just about killed every other architecture out there (with only really Apple surviving, and even they eventually moved across to PC-derived setups). The reasons were not technical, as the x86 architecture as even Intel knows is not optimal for pushing performance. ARM found a niche where x86 did not dominate and where they could utilise the benefits of their own architecture: mobile.
Today the market is changing very rapidly. The PC market has stagnated while the mobile market is growing rapidly. It's questionable if we can even talk of two separate things anymore (desktop/mobile). Everything is mobile, and there are probably more ARMs than x86s out there. Due to compiler technologies and better frameworks, the architecture of a CPU is becoming less important as recompiling applications is relatively straightforward work. Besides, there are more and more applications which are already compiled for ARM...
ARM has now an excellent opportunity to climb back to delivering at all levels of performance. A better opportunity than at any previous point in time.
Many seem completely clueless to the fact that ARMs were originally very much a desktop processor. Not only that but they were extremely fast ones too. Faster than almost all other processors to be found in a home computing environment, and certainly faster than Intel.
They have ended up where they are due to the difficult situation on the market at the time. Whereas things were still in flux during the 80s, the 90s really lead to a full on PC onslaught which just about killed every other architecture out there (with only really Apple surviving, and even they eventually moved across to PC-derived setups). The reasons were not technical, as the x86 architecture as even Intel knows is not optimal for pushing performance. ARM found a niche where x86 did not dominate and where they could utilise the benefits of their own architecture: mobile.
Today the market is changing very rapidly. The PC market has stagnated while the mobile market is growing rapidly. It's questionable if we can even talk of two separate things anymore (desktop/mobile). Everything is mobile, and there are probably more ARMs than x86s out there. Due to compiler technologies and better frameworks, the architecture of a CPU is becoming less important as recompiling applications is relatively straightforward work. Besides, there are more and more applications which are already compiled for ARM...
ARM has now an excellent opportunity to climb back to delivering at all levels of performance. A better opportunity than at any previous point in time.
Actually, that could be good! x86 architecture has so much flaws and unnecessary legacy stuff...
ARM CPUs are also very energy efficient. In example, Nufront 2GHz CPU, which uses JUST 2 Watts !
While Intel CPUs could eat up to 100 Watts.
ARM CPUs are also very energy efficient. In example, Nufront 2GHz CPU, which uses JUST 2 Watts !
While Intel CPUs could eat up to 100 Watts.
Maybe, if they created a hybrid system, using the arm chip for lower power stuff and to extend battery life like working on pages numbers etc then you fire up a clu intensive app like a game or photoshop and the os fires up the intel chip. Kind of like dynamic gpu switching for CPUs. Maybe it could all be done in the os so that developers don't have to encode for arm if they don't have to. Just don't take the intel away. Or go the amd rout and design their own x86/x64 compatible processors
This has been talked about for a while now, so why all the surprise? Furthermore, even though legacy Windows apps won't run on ARM, it would appear that MS has been working for a long while now on getting a new version of Windows ready on ARM (which is what Windows RT is right now). But MS is wanting a full 64-bit version of Windows on ARM, and they are working full speed to do it:
http://techland.time.com/2012/07/16/arm-vs-intel-how-the-processor-wars-will-benefit-consumers-most/
http://www.techcentral.ie/20228/arm-working-with-microsoft-on-64-bit-windows-os
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/...ndows-for-the-arm-processor-architecture.aspx
And since Apple's custom chips are built on an ARM architecture, it is highly likely Microsoft's new 64-bit Windows for ARM would run on those chips. What that means is, we could still run Windows-for-ARM in virtualization or Boot Camp, but we simply would not be able to run x86 Intel Windows and associated software. For that, we'd need to keep an old PC or Intel Mac around.
All said, it doesn't look like Apple would really lose much if Windows eventually is compatible with Apple's ARM-based chips. And so long as they are just as fast or faster than Intel's DESKTOP chips (such as those in current iMacs, like the i7 QuadCore's), I will be largely satisfied.
http://techland.time.com/2012/07/16/arm-vs-intel-how-the-processor-wars-will-benefit-consumers-most/
http://www.techcentral.ie/20228/arm-working-with-microsoft-on-64-bit-windows-os
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/...ndows-for-the-arm-processor-architecture.aspx
And since Apple's custom chips are built on an ARM architecture, it is highly likely Microsoft's new 64-bit Windows for ARM would run on those chips. What that means is, we could still run Windows-for-ARM in virtualization or Boot Camp, but we simply would not be able to run x86 Intel Windows and associated software. For that, we'd need to keep an old PC or Intel Mac around.
All said, it doesn't look like Apple would really lose much if Windows eventually is compatible with Apple's ARM-based chips. And so long as they are just as fast or faster than Intel's DESKTOP chips (such as those in current iMacs, like the i7 QuadCore's), I will be largely satisfied.
Awesome idea about CPU switching!
ARM CPUs are quite cheap, so the price in this case would stay the same.
Even with current Intel Chips Mac are slightly behind other Windows based ones. If they are coming with custom Chips (rather going back) then I am not sure about their integration with Windows, MS Office etc...iWork is really not institutionalized in enterprise considering its limitations and nowhere near MS Office by any stretch.
Apple resurrected itself only when they changed themselves to Intel and if they are going back to PowerPC era, then good luck!
Why not have an ARM cpu together with an intel? This would be ideal I think as ios software would then run natively on the mac without any performance tradeoffs. Of course Apple would probably never do that...
"But isn't the switch from custom chips to intel one of the main reasons Apple started gaining a foothold in consumer/developer interest?"
That's the way I see it and was my reason for switching. If they go back to custom chips, I am not buying another MAC.
That's the way I see it and was my reason for switching. If they go back to custom chips, I am not buying another MAC.
Using their proprietary CPU's in their iCrap is ok... they are not meant to do any serious computing. But thinking about doing this on computers is a joke, I hope.
The only benefit would be for Apple in terms of more control, cost cutting and profits. It would be a nightmare to users and developers. And no matter how much money Apple pours into these CPUs, they wont be able to really compete against Intel: the global knowhow, R&D and resources Intel has accumulated cant be matched, no matter how much money Apple has.
So, listen, and listen well, Apple: stop dicking around with this arrogant idea that you can do it all, or the sick narcissist notion that you should control everything no matter what, and concentrate in developing good products at competitive prices, while taking good care for your current customers. Don't forget that, while you enjoy the favor of many consumers today, and have the privilege of a wide fan base, these can and will erode to pre-jobs era levels in a blink of an eye with such dickish move.
The only benefit would be for Apple in terms of more control, cost cutting and profits. It would be a nightmare to users and developers. And no matter how much money Apple pours into these CPUs, they wont be able to really compete against Intel: the global knowhow, R&D and resources Intel has accumulated cant be matched, no matter how much money Apple has.
So, listen, and listen well, Apple: stop dicking around with this arrogant idea that you can do it all, or the sick narcissist notion that you should control everything no matter what, and concentrate in developing good products at competitive prices, while taking good care for your current customers. Don't forget that, while you enjoy the favor of many consumers today, and have the privilege of a wide fan base, these can and will erode to pre-jobs era levels in a blink of an eye with such dickish move.
Unfortunately, ARM 64-bit is not available yet.
But that will change in the future: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#ARMv8_and_64-bit
No. But it doesn't make the process less painful. And back then we had a reason. There were a lot of pros for going to x86.
I can't see any pros for going ARM.
In other words: The transition to intel was painful, but I understood it was necessary. Now after all these years, all the software has proper intel support and now that it's stable again Apple might change to ARM because.... because what?
You seriously want that?
Performance will be abysmal. A 2 GHz ARM processor is nothing compared to a desktop or mobile x86 processor. I'd take a real computer over a glorified tablet.
Right move?
Is that the right move? Intel is working great, the processors are awesome and it's kind of a standard and I'm all for standards. Of course Apple's stuff works on all iOS devices and it might work nicely on macs. Still I like Intel.
Is that the right move? Intel is working great, the processors are awesome and it's kind of a standard and I'm all for standards. Of course Apple's stuff works on all iOS devices and it might work nicely on macs. Still I like Intel.
Haswell will likely come pretty close to ~12 run time on the MBA, with rumored 10W TDP mobile processors.
ARM is going to get squished from the top end down by x86 before it can expand its performance upward. In 5 years? Who knows, but for the foreseeable future, ARM just isn't going to stand a chance next to x86 in real computers.
Actually, if you took time to read through the links I posted above for you, you will see the estimate is 2014 for the 64-bit ARM cpu. So yes, it's coming. And they are working with Microsoft on it too.
Ain't buying it
This is a ridiculous rumor. It would be the same as if Microsoft said windows will be as stable as Mac OS, emmm~, twenty years later.
No one knows what would happens at that time. If Apple has its own reason to do that, it will be a decision made by a billion-dollar company, not a teenager.
This is a ridiculous rumor. It would be the same as if Microsoft said windows will be as stable as Mac OS, emmm~, twenty years later.
No one knows what would happens at that time. If Apple has its own reason to do that, it will be a decision made by a billion-dollar company, not a teenager.