The A8X blows both of those chips out of the water.....please.
If you're going to complain, at least be somewhat factual in your complaint.
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 Diversifies Chip Orders for iOS Device and Apple Watch Amid Predictions of ARM Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The A8X blows both of those chips out of the water.....please.
If you're going to complain, at least be somewhat factual in your complaint.
Exactly!!!! The only 'Mac' that it would make sense to run on an ARM chip would be the 12 inch Macbook Air if it runs some sort of iOS thing.
I often think these are controlled leaks to convince Intel to get a hurry on
I've said this before, but I think we'll see this first in an iPad Pro/MacBook Air hybrid device. Or at the very least the MacBook Air if there needs to be more time for the two OS to converge and properly be able to switch between the two modes depending on the input being used/docking.
This will allow them to slowly ramp up ARM across the board. It will give companies time to make software for the new platform but allow professionals to keep using higher-end Macs with software that works well. Then when those platforms switch, the software will be ready and the ARM chips will be precisely tuned for high-end performance. It's fairly clear that GHz numbers aren't increasing and the main way to increase performance in the future is more cores (well, that and better architecture). When comparing my 2012 rMBP against the current model, they really haven't come very far in the last 2.5 years. ARM's low power architecture allows adding many cores without maxing out your thermal profile inside the device. This could help bridge the gap until quantum computing is feasible.
If Apple makes the switch all at once then I don't think that would be a good move. It's best if they just announce a MacBook Air type device and then say that this is the future of their platform moving forward, so developers need to get on board. If they switch all at once then I'm buying a used high-end version of whatever Intel platform were on before the switch, and riding that out for years until the whole ARM thing settles down. I got my first Mac not long after the Intel switch, and even I felt the pain from that as many apps were using legacy code or weird compatibility modes that sometimes conflicted. I can't remember all the details but it wasn't very fun. However, I think the benefits of having a 128 core ARM Mac Pro for quickly rendering 4K video using Grand Central Dispatch could outweigh the cons…eventually!
This will allow them to slowly ramp up ARM across the board. It will give companies time to make software for the new platform but allow professionals to keep using higher-end Macs with software that works well. Then when those platforms switch, the software will be ready and the ARM chips will be precisely tuned for high-end performance. It's fairly clear that GHz numbers aren't increasing and the main way to increase performance in the future is more cores (well, that and better architecture). When comparing my 2012 rMBP against the current model, they really haven't come very far in the last 2.5 years. ARM's low power architecture allows adding many cores without maxing out your thermal profile inside the device. This could help bridge the gap until quantum computing is feasible.
If Apple makes the switch all at once then I don't think that would be a good move. It's best if they just announce a MacBook Air type device and then say that this is the future of their platform moving forward, so developers need to get on board. If they switch all at once then I'm buying a used high-end version of whatever Intel platform were on before the switch, and riding that out for years until the whole ARM thing settles down. I got my first Mac not long after the Intel switch, and even I felt the pain from that as many apps were using legacy code or weird compatibility modes that sometimes conflicted. I can't remember all the details but it wasn't very fun. However, I think the benefits of having a 128 core ARM Mac Pro for quickly rendering 4K video using Grand Central Dispatch could outweigh the cons…eventually!
There's already an iPad version.....would it really be that much more difficult to enhance it?
I really don't think people understand the number of powerful apps that exist for the iPad - especially for the new Air 2 (which is quite a bit more powerful than the Lenovo running Intel's new Core M chips).
I don't understand why people, especially people who are supposedly technologically-savvy, aren't willing to change up their work flows a bit for enhanced efficiency and portability.
If the new stuff accomplishes the same tasks as the old stuff, isn't it worth it to learn a little different way for the increased efficiency and portability?
----------
I always laugh when people apply what they've known in the past to new technologies/ways of doing things that haven't been done yet.
As if we have to apply the same methods to new innovations.
The whole POINT of new innovations is to move to NEW, better methods.
OSX already did have binaries which worked on both Intel and PowerPC processors for years, the support was dropped on Snow Leopard (although Rosetta still worked on it). So Apple does have much experience on how to do the transition and even how to sustain it if needed.
As for virtualization, it would still be possible to virtualize Linux like most developers these days do, including me.
The Intel macs would still be as expensive as they are today, but the ARM models would be cheaper. Intel chips are usually the most expensive part of a computer...
Also, Apple could use this as a tool in price/availability negotiations with Intel.
What I'm not sure of is how they will handle apps. If they switch to ARM then every single app made for macs will have to be rewritten (or run poorly in emulation). Also, if they are only going to do this on low end portable macs then when a developer wants to make an app for macs they will have to write two versions, one for arm and another for x86. I just see this as over complicating things without a clear benefit to the end user except possibly better battery life.
There is almost zero point in making a crazed transition. PPC to Intel yes there was a point and the pain turned out to be worth it. ARM chips are a long way behind intel for one, for two the loss of Windows and Bootcamp would be a significant downside (And you do know when Apple went to Intel their Mac sales picked up, partially though the security of being able to use bootcamp for PC switches), software issues, as it took a while to get good intel software that matched everything on the PPC, then there is software that doesn't get rewritten and that causes nightmares when apple drops virtualisation aka Rosetta.
The ARM chips are so underpowered compared to intel that OSX would probably have to become far more limited to cope with the lower processing power. In fact a move to ARM would probably mean a move to many iOS conventions, including being locked into the App store, lack of customisation etc.
Maybe the 12" Macbook is the Apple version of the Chromebook. An Arm processor makes sense for a device like that.
My track record on Rumours isn't great - but I was almost the first to predict the magic trackpad!
My track record on Rumours isn't great - but I was almost the first to predict the magic trackpad!
And Leopard ran pretty poorly on both Intel and PPC, probably due to the universal binaries. It wasn't till Snow Leopard came out that performance returned. Emulation of PPC apps on Intel was alright, but not for games or anything too intensive.
People also forget that there was a much smaller user base back in 2006 when the transition to PPC happened, and there were much fewer Apps. There was also a good reason to move, which there doesn't seem to be here.
If Intel Chips are so damn expensive than why do so many low end PCs have intel chips??
Hopefully if they do move to ARM, its ONLY on this 12 inch Macbook thing which will not run a full blown version of OSX.
This would be a really bad move with a lot of underestimated backfire. Even Windows for ARM showed that is total nonsense right now. People are confused and angry when they can only install store apps. There won't be a big rewrite of code in the next years. And ARM Emulation is light years away from X86 emulation on Atom/i3 level. Hopefully this is not true.
I'm sorry but once they stop making Intel mac, is the day I stop buying them
I think its a really bad idea to drop x86 platform, I can only see bad things from this shift including a more locking down of OS X. Think walled garden for OS X as well.
Precisely. 8.1 + Lightroom is fine and I can live without the custom indy apps for OS X that I very much like...This may actually spur some side-projects to develop for Windows.
This is so not gunna happen. At least not anytime soon. Intel is not going anywhere. They are huge leaps and bounds ahead of arm in terms of performance for many tasks, it's not even in the same league.
Remember, Microsoft dabbled in the arm market a little while ago too. How did that work out for them?
Remember, Microsoft dabbled in the arm market a little while ago too. How did that work out for them?
This is how I see it. Although there are a lot of cons to switching and I think Apple knows that. The truth is that they sell mostly portable computers where Intel, despite some recent catchup, has been stumbling. If Apple switches it will be because they have a better idea than most of us where Intel will be in 3-5 years (in portable chips) and where they can take their own systemsjust like when they left PowerPC.
This sounds and feels a LOT like the Intel transition which was not pretty but made a lot of sense in the long run. Heck Apple might snap up a cheap X86 license from AMD or another almost defunct clone maker and incorporate an X86 core or two. They'll have the thermal window to do it I think and their chip design works are pretty good at keeping secrets. We'd never know until it went into production.
Two competing platforms in the same segment of the market.....what could possibly go wrong?
I'm sure they want to not be reliant on Intel for their chips, but this seems like a horrible way solve that problem.
This is an interesting point.
As I see it, the biggest problem with Apple switching to ARM would be the possible lack of ability to run Windows.
Although I haven't run Windows on my iMac in ~4 years now, I don't like the idea of spending so much on a computer that may not be able to run software that I need.
But if Microsoft is making Windows compatible with ARM (which I think they are - isn't Windows 8 and Office able to run on ARM?) then this may not be a problem after all.
Obviously the huge advantage of switching away from Intel is it gives Apple the ability to release Macs whenever they want. The reason Macs are updated so infrequently is because Intel is always delaying updates to their CPUs. And why wouldn't Intel? Intel has no competition whatsoever - they're the only producer of personal computer quality CPUs. But if Apple is making their own CPUs, this lights a fire under Intel for them to go faster, so whether Apple sticks with Intel or just makes their own, they get to accelerate the Mac update cycle.
While I don't doubt they are testing ARM based Macs (Apple are probably testing tons of different things that we won't hear about) I can't see why Apple would release one soon.
No Windows x86 support, nothing as powerful as what Intel currently provide, no existing OS X apps will work. For what benefit? Better battery life?
The MacBook Air already has incredible battery life.
No Windows x86 support, nothing as powerful as what Intel currently provide, no existing OS X apps will work. For what benefit? Better battery life?
The MacBook Air already has incredible battery life.
Exactly, this is just speculation from some supply chain analyst. Unfortunately rumor sites take what he says as gospel as if Apple had announced it themselves.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Bye-bye bootcamp and virtualization. Hello Mac plus separate Windows machine for those that need both. Arm yourselves for the future spin...
"Who needs to run that Windows garbage anyway?"
"I don't need Windows at all" (so you don't either)
"99% of Mac users don't use Windows"
"Why would someone buy a Mac if they want to run Windows"
"Windows burns my battery much faster than OS X"
"Wanted to free up that bootcamp space anyway"
Etc.
"But more than 90% of the world choose to run that "garbage" instead of OS X."
"But I can't import (Windows) Word into Pages and then back to Word and retain all of the formatting" (substitute PowerPoint & Keynote, Excel & Numbers)
"But some crucial software is only available on Windows"
"Troll"
"If you're such a Windows lover, why are you here?"
"I am thrilled with the switch" (so you should be thrilled too)
And then resume the spin wars similar to G4 and G5 vs. Intel where the former was always far superior to the latter in every way... until Apple adopted the latter and then all those superiority arguments just ceased. Funny how that works. Here we go again???
Personally, IMO, one of the very best things about Macs is their ready flexibility & versatility to run either OS at full speed. With ONE computer, I can use any great software available to either platform and/or choose the superior version of software available for both. Stuff like Quicken & Quickbooks is a relative joke as coded for OS X but it's great to be able to use the Windows versions. When I need completely compatible MS Office files shared among people with Windows machines, I can use the Windows version of Office to ensure that complete compatibility. Certain corporate environments security setup is such that only Windows machines can be connected. Etc. With Macs "as is", we have no limitations unlike those locked into just Windows machines.
The best thing I can see about such a switch for Apple is for the Corporation's profitability, secrecy/surprise and greater control of their product development timeline... all of which is much more about corporation benefit than consumer benefit. For consumers, I suppose an A processor Mac could readily have a mode that would let it also run iOS apps which might be desirable to some. But then again, there's already an iOS emulator for OS X running on Intel (it's just not offered within OS X "as is").
"Who needs to run that Windows garbage anyway?"
"I don't need Windows at all" (so you don't either)
"99% of Mac users don't use Windows"
"Why would someone buy a Mac if they want to run Windows"
"Windows burns my battery much faster than OS X"
"Wanted to free up that bootcamp space anyway"
Etc.
"But more than 90% of the world choose to run that "garbage" instead of OS X."
"But I can't import (Windows) Word into Pages and then back to Word and retain all of the formatting" (substitute PowerPoint & Keynote, Excel & Numbers)
"But some crucial software is only available on Windows"
"Troll"
"If you're such a Windows lover, why are you here?"
"I am thrilled with the switch" (so you should be thrilled too)
And then resume the spin wars similar to G4 and G5 vs. Intel where the former was always far superior to the latter in every way... until Apple adopted the latter and then all those superiority arguments just ceased. Funny how that works. Here we go again???
Personally, IMO, one of the very best things about Macs is their ready flexibility & versatility to run either OS at full speed. With ONE computer, I can use any great software available to either platform and/or choose the superior version of software available for both. Stuff like Quicken & Quickbooks is a relative joke as coded for OS X but it's great to be able to use the Windows versions. When I need completely compatible MS Office files shared among people with Windows machines, I can use the Windows version of Office to ensure that complete compatibility. Certain corporate environments security setup is such that only Windows machines can be connected. Etc. With Macs "as is", we have no limitations unlike those locked into just Windows machines.
The best thing I can see about such a switch for Apple is for the Corporation's profitability, secrecy/surprise and greater control of their product development timeline... all of which is much more about corporation benefit than consumer benefit. For consumers, I suppose an A processor Mac could readily have a mode that would let it also run iOS apps which might be desirable to some. But then again, there's already an iOS emulator for OS X running on Intel (it's just not offered within OS X "as is").
Last edited:
I don't get why people get so bent out of shape at this idea. We have absolutely no idea what the landscape will be more than a couple years down the road. To refuse to consider anything aside from Intel, when we can't possibly know how their chips will compare to competitors, makes no sense. It's a good thing Apple doesn't think this way, or we would not have Arm based iPhones and iPads today.
A8X isn't sooo underpowered compared to normal intel chips, especially when you consider that most laptops sold use lower end i3s.
A8X is powerful enough for a "typical" PC user, and here we're talking about chips that'll be at least 2x as fast.
I've always believed this will eventually happen....at least in low end consumer machines. Ever since they started saying that the iDevice processors have "desktop power", which I believe happened with the iPhone 5S and the switch to 64bit.
What I'd really like to see is the day when you can pop an iPhone or iPad in a cradle and have it become a "desktop" machine running OSX (or a limited subset of it) so that I can have just 1 computer that I carry most of the time in my pocket, but can turn into a "real computer" when I want to work with a bigger screen.
What I'd really like to see is the day when you can pop an iPhone or iPad in a cradle and have it become a "desktop" machine running OSX (or a limited subset of it) so that I can have just 1 computer that I carry most of the time in my pocket, but can turn into a "real computer" when I want to work with a bigger screen.
Well apples move to sealed, non user maintainable throwaway units in the last 4-5 years has sadly driven me back to PCs, I cannot and will not replace a functional system "just because the manufacturer has decided its obsolete to drive sales"
So when my iMac (old 2011 build) finally dies, be it PSU or Screen failure, ill sadly say goodbye to my last Mac, my 2008 MBP logic board finally gave out late last year, and i wont touch one of the new MBPs because i am not having a laptop i cannot replace the battery with a backup one "in the field".
So a move to ARM would prevent me running Parallels (XP runs along side Windows 8.1 and Mac OSx giving me a very powerful productivity platform on the iMac,)
I sometimes wonder why apple even bother with "computers" at all, and now it looks like they are moving away from them into the realm of pure "disposable" tech
So when my iMac (old 2011 build) finally dies, be it PSU or Screen failure, ill sadly say goodbye to my last Mac, my 2008 MBP logic board finally gave out late last year, and i wont touch one of the new MBPs because i am not having a laptop i cannot replace the battery with a backup one "in the field".
So a move to ARM would prevent me running Parallels (XP runs along side Windows 8.1 and Mac OSx giving me a very powerful productivity platform on the iMac,)
I sometimes wonder why apple even bother with "computers" at all, and now it looks like they are moving away from them into the realm of pure "disposable" tech
Certainly we can agree that there is a massive difference between asking software vendors to re-build their apps for a new platform (again) for an existing market versus creating a new platform for a new market.