Apple Considering Switch From Intel Chips in Future Macs

[iBug2]

Percentages, what an awesome comparison base.

If ARM is advancing 3 times faster than Intel is, which I'm not claiming gonna happen forever in a linear fashion, it'd catch up to Intel and surpass it quite soon. So while it'll eventually slow down, for now ARM advancing faster than Intel is a valid point. Apple is not saying they are switching to ARM today are they?

 

[iAmRod]

Sooooo ... there was a metaphor used a couple of years ago likening cars and trucks to Macs and PC's. Given this trend towards convergence I guess one might suggest that Apple may be trying to give us its version of a crossover!

WOOHOO!!

 

[sseaton1971]

"Really great" means the usual speed/chipset/processor bump, as I said, minor tweaks. If you think they've sat on it for years and are suddenly pouring resources into it you're mistaken.

If that were the case, then the last minor spec update for the Mac Pro would have been touted as a "really great" update. So, unless Apple has since decided to ambandon the Mac Pro in less than six months (which is possible but not likely), we should see something new... at least in terms of a major spec update and possibly even a new form factor.

 

[ncaissie]

Yep, I bet Crytek will port Crysis 3 on ARM.
----------

Yeah, Just like Lego Batman 2 on the Vita is a full port right?
The Vita blows all tablets away at the moment.

 

[iphoneclassic]

Sooooo ... there was a metaphor used a couple of years ago likening cars and trucks to Macs and PC's. Given this trend towards convergence I guess one might suggest that Apple may be trying to give us its version of a crossover!

WOOHOO!!

It is more like Apple is trying to put Moped engine(s) in Pickup Truck.

 

[orestes1984]

Well with Windows RT, Apple doesn't happen to have a real competitor. Microsoft are doing it, we shall soon see how well the surface goes with full scale apps like Microsoft Office, or etc on the surface ported from x86 to ARM.

If the market is big enough we may see more of OS X ported to ARM, after all Steve Jobs once said it was OS X running on the iPhone. In this case I don't really think Apple has to though, they just have to release a new set of APIs and a dev kit that allows for more OS X like apps on the iPad/iPhone and I could see this as the way Apple would go with this if Windows RT does take off.

It's a noted fact that iOS apps are already getting MUCH bigger than what they used to be and this is just another sign of shifting times.

 

[morespce54]

...
Stop panicking. Microsoft is testing the waters with the ARM based surface right? Are you panicking over that?

Microsoft is testing the waters with a ARM based what? Never heard of that...

 

[KnightWRX]

The Vita blows all tablets away at the moment.

In what way ? The iPad 4th generation has a better GPU/Processor, the iPad 3rd generation the same GPU but a dual core version of the processor used in the Vita.

The Vita ain't that much.

 

[orestes1984]

Microsoft is testing the waters with a ARM based what? Never heard of that...

That's easy, Microsoft reported AGES ago they were testing a new version of Windows specifically for ARM and they went to great lengths to show it would run full scale Windows applications. It's now known as Windows RT and runs on the surface, underpins Windows Phone 8 and runs on a number of other tablets.

It IS a full functional version of Windows 8 that Microsoft could ship if they ever really wanted to, but just as in the case of iOS it's been deliberately handicapped. I guess if a market opens up for more powerful ARM apps down the track Microsoft will have a ready to go full fledged option.

 

[nutjob]

If that were the case, then the last minor spec update for the Mac Pro would have been touted as a "really great" update. So, unless Apple has since decided to ambandon the Mac Pro in less than six months (which is possible but not likely), we should see something new... at least in terms of a major spec update and possibly even a new form factor.

Really, you're kidding yourself. Apple always says that about everything. It also calls everything "magical". If you believe it then that's your problem. More rationally, why would Apple spend money and time it could be spending on phones and tablets on a product it doesn't sell very many of?

 

[ncaissie]

In what way ? The iPad 4th generation has a better GPU/Processor, the iPad 3rd generation the same GPU but a dual core version of the processor used in the Vita.

The Vita ain't that much.

There is more to any device than cpu/gpu. Ram for one.
I haven't verified your figures yet but feel free to name one game (On a phone or Tab) that even comes to Uncharted. That game with the exception of the touch screen crap is a AAA game that you can't play without buttons and sticks.

 

[eltaurus]

That is rather interesting. Are you using FCP X or FCP 7 ?

FCP is for video Editing (which is really simple thing to do Cut /copy / paste / tirm )... I am 3d animator VFX compositor (digital content Creation from scratch) .. using more complex Softwares .. & require much more power

Check Software like Cinema4d from Maxon

Houdini From sidefx

Maya From Autodesk

Don't think Photo/Video is only Pro using MACs .. 3D Pros also use mac which is much more complex & need Mac Pro's ...


Scene ONE
Mac Pro



rMBP


------------------------------
Scene TWO
Mac Pro

See the time on Bottom left side of the image

rMBP

 

[aggri1]

As for Rosetta (OS 10.4 to 10.6) running slowly, rubbish. It was faster than Classic Mac OS, and removing PPC code with third-party software did not make a huge speed jump.

That wasn't my experience. The Classic programs I had which I wanted to run on my new iMac but didn't have new versions for were old games, like Caesar III. Classic-only games always ran poorly in Mac OS X even on PPC hardware in my experience, and the MUCH faster Intel CPU in the iMac didn't help them either.

I also noticed that games which were Classic + OS X native PPC apps (like Age of Empires II) ran faster in native Classic on PPC hardware. (I bought Mac OS X 10.2 and it was such a disappointment all around. Compared to 9.2, it was SO MUCH SLOWER at everything I did, except for file copies (hurrah!)).

I realise that there are several factors there, and I think the main reason I had poor experiences was that the programs were full-screen programs with major graphical components (being games). While they loaded faster and so forth on the iMac, the graphics always stuttered horribly. I still have the MDD G4 but sound doesn't work under native Mac OS 9 anymore so it's not much use... Ah well, have other things to do now anyway.

 

[UpOver]

Apple would be foolish not to have options up its sleeve. But that said, gee I hope they don't do anything like this - at least not while Windows is predominantly running on Intel architecture. One of the big benefits of Macs for me is being able to run both OSX and Windows. If I could only run OSX I'd have to get a separate Windows option, which would mean a cheaper option on both sides - that would be bad news all round

 

[entatlrg]

Of course. Intel's MacBook Air cloning strategy will backfire.

Something I've wondered about for quite a while ... In my recollection, Apple first came out the original MacBook Air in 2008 and called it an 'ultrabook'.

Wasn't it a few years later that Intel came out with ulv processors then used the ultrabook term as their own? Even in their TV ad's they claim to have invented ultrabooks.

Didn't Apple pioneer the whole project and then have Intel come out a few years later and call it their own?

 

[Sincci]

Something I've wondered about for quite a while ... In my recollection, Apple first came out the original MacBook Air in 2008 and called it an 'ultrabook'.

Wasn't it a few years later that Intel came out with ulv processors then used the ultrabook term as their own? Even in their TV ad's they claim to have invented ultrabooks.

Didn't Apple pioneer the whole project and then have Intel come out a few years later and call it their own?

The first Macbook Air had the Intel Core 2 Duo L7500 (or L7700 on the higher end machine) processor in it which was released on May 2007. However Intel did release a ulv processor called Core 2 Duo U7500 in April 2007, so no, they didn't come out with the ulv processors few years later. Also it's kinda absurd to say that Apple pioneered the whole project when they wouldn't have been able to do it without Intel's engineering skills.

 

[KnightWRX]

Something I've wondered about for quite a while ... In my recollection, Apple first came out the original MacBook Air in 2008 and called it an 'ultrabook'.

I don't think Apple ever coined the "ultrabook" term, and they ripped off the idea for the MacBook Air from Sony and their Vaio X505 anyhow, shipped in 2005.

So in actuality, Intel took the concept from Sony, not Apple.

 

[entatlrg]

I don't think Apple ever coined the "ultrabook" term, and they ripped off the idea for the MacBook Air from Sony and their Vaio X505 anyhow, shipped in 2005.

So in actuality, Intel took the concept from Sony, not Apple.

No, not at all. Where did Sony's X505 go? Where did the MacBook Air go other than to become huge success and the envy and inspiration of numerous PC Manufacturers, (and they still can't get it right).

No need to discredit Apple here. People often forget that it is Apple who takes a concept or product and perfects it, and often it becomes a huge success, music, phones, tablets, imacs, time capsule, mini there's no shortage of examples.

Apple brought a shockingly cool notebook to market ... it fit in an envelope! They spent years perfecting it and once it looked like the ultrabook concept was catching on Intel took credit for it, 'ultrabooks inspired by intel', I think is the tag line they use. Is that true? ... They and PC notebook manufacturers raced to catch up after Apple established a viable market and for Intel to take credit for the inspiration or concept seems wrong.

----------

The first Macbook Air had the Intel Core 2 Duo L7500 (or L7700 on the higher end machine) processor in it which was released on May 2007. However Intel did release a ulv processor called Core 2 Duo U7500 in April 2007, so no, they didn't come out with the ulv processors few years later. Also it's kinda absurd to say that Apple pioneered the whole project when they wouldn't have been able to do it without Intel's engineering skills.

Who's concept was the Air, who commissioned Intel to do the work?

Was Apple working on a thin and light notebook and Intel said 'hey we're working on a ULV processor that will be perfect for your project', or was Apple working on a thin and light notebook and asked Intel to create components necessary to fit and conserve power?

 

[Sincci]

Who's concept was the Air, who commissioned Intel to do the work?

Was Apple working on a thin and light notebook and Intel said 'hey we're working on a ULV processor that will be perfect for your project', or was Apple working on a thin and light notebook and asked Intel to create components necessary to fit and conserve power?

The ULV processors were originally created for the subnotebooks and embedded systems. One of the first ULV processors was the Mobile Celeron ULV 500 which was released on January 2001. So again, no, Apple didn't really ask Intel to design them a chip that would be small enough and be very power efficent at the same time since they already had those chips.

Are you trying to suggest that Apple asked Intel before 2001 to design them a chip for their thin Macbook Air that would be released on 2008?

 

[KnightWRX]

No, not at all. Where did Sony's X505 go?

Apple brought a shockingly cool notebook to market ... it fit in an envelope!

Buy the hype all you want, the reality is that the genre of notebooks the Air belongs to is not an Apple invention. Apple rarely invents.

The Sony Vaio X505 is a precursor to the Air. Deny it all you want.

 

[Renzatic]

No, not at all. Where did Sony's X505 go? Where did the MacBook Air go other than to become huge success and the envy and inspiration of numerous PC Manufacturers, (and they still can't get it right).

At $3000, the X505 was never meant to be a huge consumer product. You could argue the Air was the first affordable ultrathin laptop, but it wasn't anywhere near the first.

No need to discredit Apple here. People often forget that it is Apple who takes a concept or product and perfects it, and often it becomes a huge success, music, phones, tablets, imacs, time capsule, mini there's no shortage of examples.

No should you have any reason to discredit everyone else. You are right, Apple does take nice concepts and perfects them. They rarely ever are first to come up with a truly cutting edge, experimental design. They look at a good ideas done elsewhere, take note of their shortcomings, and build upon them from there.

It works for Apple because they give the impression of only releasing quality products that work, but they're not an experimental company. They weren't the first to release an MP3 player, weren't the first to make a smartphone, weren't the first to make a tablet, weren't the first to make a backup NAS, nor the first to come up with a mini PC. You can't argue they didn't make a huge impact in these markets, but they didn't invent them. Apple is more about taking good ideas and polishing them than pushing the technological envelope themselves.

To abuse an already well abused cliche, they stand upon the shoulder of giants. Don't think for a second the entire industry moves upon their whims.

 

[sasasule]

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.

If they do move to ARM CPU in future i think this will be main reason why...So they can controll there production and not depend from trd party vendors...In this case Intel.

To give Apple the benefit of the doubt, they already have experience dealing with this sort of transition so they probably have some infrastructure in place within XCode to switch from compiling apps from one chip to another.

In terms of hardware, ARM has been steadily catching up in terms of performance with x86 processors and blows x86 away in terms of power utilization. Maybe in a few years the differences between the two will be negligible.

ARM is pretty powerful even now...I am in server business and more and more OEM's are ARM related. Thing is price of ARM CPU and combination that you can do is crazy. Not to talk about power consumption...Check what Boston, Calxeda are doing with ARM and what type of OEM servers they have. 192cores in 2U systems. 4-ARM CPU on each backplane. Best part it doesn’t require some massive heat sinks and power consumption is really low.

Dell is also one of company who already have server with 64bit ARM CPU who will be close to x86 but with much less power consumption.

Thing is ARM is coming more than people are aware and I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple make this switch.

And for those people who are freeking out about how to run their old software...If you read complete topic you will see that Russian people already have emulator for running Software based on x86 technology on ARM CPU's

 

[Macist]

I'm one of those select few that used an ARM chip long before the rest of the world as I had an Acorn Archimedes as a kid. The original ARM was an all in-house project of the small UK-based Acorn, which is the late 80s and early 90s was producing all this incredible stuff that shamed the American giants... sadly, British investors only favour banksterism and property speculation so globally one one got to hear much about it.

Luckily ARM was spun off into a separate entity and started gaining traction in the mobile space as simply a design house, offering power with ridiculously low power consumption. Even when Acorn had become virtually irrelevant the Intel (the irony) StrongARM RISC PC was a very fast desktop for a time, even though it was running a 'mobile' chip.

What's my point? Well, ARM started life as a desktop-class CPU and is a stunningly efficient RISC architecture. It's only a 'mobile' CPU because that's where the company's market is. There would be no point making desktop or workstation-class designs as who would be the customer? Give them the customer and they'd knock up a CPU to trash Intel in no time at all.

Add in all-custom Apple-tweaked design and this makes a massive amount of sense. Apple could provide incredible power on small, low-power computers killing off the old motherboard, graphics card, RAM, HD paradigm.

For the messed-around pro users though it'd mean another PowerPC-Intel style transition. And that was a pain in the bum.

 

[kcamfork]

Why? AMD's top of the line may not compete with Intel's top of the line, but their (significantly) cheaper processors beat Intel's much more expensive chips.

I'm sorry. I must have missed the article saying they were considering switching to AMD (which would STILL make me never buy a Mac again-- I've put up with AMD's garbage more than enough).

 

[entatlrg]

Buy the hype all you want, the reality is that the genre of notebooks the Air belongs to is not an Apple invention. Apple rarely invents.

The Sony Vaio X505 is a precursor to the Air. Deny it all you want.

Dont put words in my mouth I'm not denying anything. Apple defined the ultrabook class machine three years before anyone else. How did this Vaio X505 do, where did Sony end up with their ultrabooks, did they turn it into the high demand market it became? No, it faded away.

Apple stepped in and did it right, not the first time, but they kept going until it became a great product. Competitors, the non innovators they often are, where caught off guard in this new market and continue to try and catch up.

In reality i guess the trademark 'Ultrabook' was created specifically to compete with the Apple MacBook Air. Only now are there any real competitors and they still can't get it right.

That's not hype, it's the truth.