I'd like it thinner. For me, the ideal Mac would be the 12" MacBook with a Touch Bar. The Core M is getting to be pretty good and I prefer the lighter weight and smaller size.Looks like the 2016 MBPs still not thin enough for Apple...
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 Developing ARM-Based Mac Chip to Handle Low-Power Functions Alongside Intel Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like a chaotic plan if Apps need to be dual Intel / ARM I also do not see how a app should transition state without developer interaction from Intel to ARM NAP mode. If developers are supposed to write special NAP code glue on a Mac this will be really error prone.
I also doubt the benefit given how low-energy and deep sleep states the latest Intel CPUs are. Basically the #1 energy consumer is already by far the display, ..?
I also doubt the benefit given how low-energy and deep sleep states the latest Intel CPUs are. Basically the #1 energy consumer is already by far the display, ..?
Exactly. Apple's only interest in conjuring up lower power consumption is so they can thin down the laptops even more, rather than give us better battery life.
The TouchBar already does this to a limited amount along with the OS, when you are working in a given application there are short-cut available and can be customized. It is just an auxiliary function to introduce it to the user-base at present.
Actually, they could let Apps ship LLVM bit code and let the system JIT it on-the-fly for Intel or ARM. Actually I speculated this a decade ago, should have patented it,…
[doublepost=1485991453][/doublepost]
As far as I heard the touch bar thing is pretty disconnected, via USB or whatever it was. It sounds like a raspberry pi attached to the keyboard. Nothing like running background functions.
Anyway, no matter how it is connected it will not be an seamless background transition.
Similar to having an integrated GPU and dedicated GPU, when heavy lifting is required the dedicated GPU goes in a hybrid states with the integrated GPU to provide power, performance and efficiency. I feel this will be the same for the ARM/x86 transition.
For routine built-in applications ARM will be used similar to iOS, for heavy photo/video/coding requirements x86 will take over automatically or in some form of hybrid mode.
What are you losing getting a thinner TV? Nothing.
Getting a thinner iMac means you get to suffer a 5400 rpm laptop hard drive, integrated graphics, and no optical drive.
That is the benefit of having a single company design/develop the hardware and the software. It will hopefully not be a hack implementation.
Read this: "The feature currently uses little battery life while run on the Intel chip, but the move to ARM would conserve even more power, according to one of the people."
I still wonder why Apple isn't using HWP, because that would also conserve more power, but without the need of additional hardware. Not to mention that Kaby Lake and future Intel processors will use even less power and thus I am not buying this story. I'm not saying that Apple wouldn't do it, but the reason why is still a mystery to me.
p.s. To me this whole power nap feature is overrated. Massively.
I still wonder why Apple isn't using HWP, because that would also conserve more power, but without the need of additional hardware. Not to mention that Kaby Lake and future Intel processors will use even less power and thus I am not buying this story. I'm not saying that Apple wouldn't do it, but the reason why is still a mystery to me.
p.s. To me this whole power nap feature is overrated. Massively.
That is the benefit of having a single company design/develop the hardware and the software. It will hopefully not be a hack implementation.
Yeah, ok, even if it is the most awesome implementation, I do not see how this should transition a program to a background service automatically form Intel to ARM. Even if the structural memory layout magically is identically, you can still not simply copy the instruction pointer register and go for it.
Impressed by this idea! Very innovative! Low power ARM chips would work great for web browsing and word processing, and save on battery life. Hopefully Apple never gets rid of Intel altogether though. We need to keep the power of Intel chips for more complex tasks like video editing.
Also give us Harambe back and it's 2011 all over again.
Seriously guys how can you not understand that it's not possible anymore?
I know! This drives me nuts ... the handful of people here who want the macbook PRO thinner, even though there's already a 'thin' line of laptops for them. In the good old days (2011) apple made thin computers for those people and bigger, more powerful, upgradable computers for those who preferred that.
A lot of basic computing functions that people use on a Mac can also be done on an iOS device. Think of it this way
ARM mode = Web Browsing, Pages, Keynote, Numbers, etc
x86 mode = photo/ video editing, etc
Apple has played with something similar for graphics, it used the integrated graphics for routine calls and the dedicated graphics for photo/video editing, etc. Plus switching from integrated graphics <> hybrid mode <> dedicated graphics <> integrated graphics.
[doublepost=1485992163][/doublepost]
I would say it may very well be interesting times ahead as to how this may occur at WWDC when its near release.
Remember the whole Classic <> Carbon <> Coco days.
I do not appreciate the loss of sound quality with thinner and thinner TVs.
But life is about trade offs. Is Apple on the right side of history with their current list of trade offs? The average tech pleb seems impressed with Apple's innovations (thinness, Touch Bar, Touch ID, 3D Touch, Taptic Engine, Hand Off) whereas superior humans are not. I make no rush to judgment. But I will quietly wait until they put in Blu-ray drives.
A lot of basic computing functions that people use on a Mac can also be done on an iOS device. Think of it this way
ARM mode = Web Browsing, Pages, Keynote, Numbers, etc
x86 mode = photo/ video editing, etc
Apple has played with something similar for graphics, it used the integrated graphics for routine calls and the dedicated graphics for photo/video editing, etc. Plus switching from integrated graphics <> hybrid mode <> dedicated graphics <> integrated graphics.
[doublepost=1485992163][/doublepost]
I would say it may very well be interesting times ahead as to how this may occur at WWDC when its near release.
Remember the whole Classic <> Carbon <> Coco days.
Sure, I also remember PowerPC, and Rosetta. But this was one process running as either Intel or PowerPC. Not migrating one from Intel to PowerPC and back again.
PS: And again, given how low-power, and many low-power states latest Intel CPUs are I question the effectiveness of adding an ARM core.
PPS: Unless you never transition and have the ARM core and this lower power apps always running on it. But then: where is the innovation in that? ;-)
I am as curious as you and we just have to wait and see how Apple will implement this if true during a future WWDC.
Maybe MacOS will use some form of emulation. An app will be written either for ARM or x86 and MacOS will call upon the specific processor and shut the other down. Again speculating, it is not like Apple is open about its plans.
Sorry for editing :-/ See my last PPS: ;-) Maybe not as innovative as I was first expecting (from Apple).
My first thought was, "Gee, I hope this doesn't sideline the Hackintosh community."
Exciting news..
what I really like is a full ARM powered Macbook,not fully ditching intel but maybe 12 Inch Macbooks?
what I really like is a full ARM powered Macbook,not fully ditching intel but maybe 12 Inch Macbooks?
Abandoning Intel has very little to do with intent and everything to do with function. I did notice that Sierra now shows the iOS style full screen battery when the screen is dark and you plug in a charger. I imagine the T2 (?) would take care of those things, if the T1 isn't doing that already.
Despite Apple's plans to offload some tasks to a new ARM chip, Apple is said to have no intention of abandoning Intel chips in its laptop and desktop computers.
At least until
gets a license to make their own thunderbolt™ controllers.https://ark.intel.com/products/94031/Intel-JHL6540-Thunderbolt-3-Controller
https://ark.intel.com/products/94032/Intel-JHL6340-Thunderbolt-3-Controller
https://ark.intel.com/products/94030/Intel-JHL6240-Thunderbolt-3-Controller
Last edited:
I foresee Apple basically compiling an ARM MacOS that runs on an ARM-Intel Combo machine. In other words, macOS will run natively on ARM along with web, email, etc. It will be super efficient. Like an iPad. But it will be macOS.
Photoshop and any power-hungry apps will run inside macOS in an intel wrapper. Totally transparent to the user. No recompiling needed. Like running PPC on intel was, except it fires up the (now secondary) Intel rocessor only when needed and saves power giving the best battery life.
The only question is if Apple would ever build an ARM-only MacBook that either could not run intel (like Microsoft tried) or emulated it fast enough to use.
Does the average consumer need an Intel processor? Probably not if an iPad can do what they need, but they just don't like iOS and the touch interface.
Does Apple really need Intel to succeed? If they're letting the Mac pro die, how long before the iMac follows?
Just thinking out loud....
Photoshop and any power-hungry apps will run inside macOS in an intel wrapper. Totally transparent to the user. No recompiling needed. Like running PPC on intel was, except it fires up the (now secondary) Intel rocessor only when needed and saves power giving the best battery life.
The only question is if Apple would ever build an ARM-only MacBook that either could not run intel (like Microsoft tried) or emulated it fast enough to use.
Does the average consumer need an Intel processor? Probably not if an iPad can do what they need, but they just don't like iOS and the touch interface.
Does Apple really need Intel to succeed? If they're letting the Mac pro die, how long before the iMac follows?
Just thinking out loud....