Apple Diversifies Chip Orders for iOS Device and Apple Watch Amid Predictions of ARM Macs

[whooleytoo]

The chips inside an iPhone or iPad are run at slow clock speeds to reduce heat and safe battery life. There is no reason they can't run at much higher speeds inside a Mac.

But presumably at the cost of more heat & power usage. Plus, aren't most mobile chips designed around a race-to-sleep? I'm not sure how that works with a heavily multi-tasking environment like a modern desktop OS.

It sounds to me like the opposite of "horses for courses", the reason the iOS devices work so well is because the A-series chips & OS were pretty much designed for this exact purpose. Taking either and moving them to the desktop seems like a huge backward step to me.

 

[Rocketman]

http://appleinsider.com/articles/15...m-a-series-chips-in-new-macs-within-1-2-years

One rumor from earlier this year claimed that Apple had built a "completely equivalent" OS X operating system in ARM, with several prototype machines already said to have been developed.

Specifically, it was said that Apple has developed an iMac desktop with four or eight 64-bit quad-core CPUs, while a Mac mini is said to have been made with four such cores. In addition, it was claimed that Apple has developed a 13-inch MacBook sporting up to eight 64-bit quad-core ARM chips.

The A9X —*which would power both the iPad and a new low-end Mac —*would be fabbed on TSMC's 16nm line, processor's three-core architecture . . .

A10X 10nmFinFET
the A10X moving to Samsung's 10nm plant.

A8X @1500MHz Geekbench 4477

Next year, they will be able to run on their upcoming A9 or A9X processor and 4GB of RAM, meaning that they will truly run on 64bit architecture.

Hmmm.

Rocketman

Prediction:
January 2016 ARM Mac release. Quad core A10X. Stacked chips ala Apple Watch S1.
June 2015 Xcode Mac ARM compiler release.

 

[SoAnyway]

I'm with everyone who thinks it's a terrible idea for Apple to switch from Intel to ARM in the Mac.

Switching from PowerPC to Intel was a headache. I just can't imagine how much of a headache going from Intel to ARM will be.

 

[NY Guitarist]

ARM chips makes sense for an AppleTV type device but not for more processor intensive duty.

A Mac-iOS system would not be on par with a MacOSX system... at this time.

Is there is a way to get MacOSX to run on iOS type devices?

 

[Quu]

Seems very unlikely to me.

 

[Peace]

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.

Apple won't drop X86 in the iMac and Mac Pro and more than likely the Macbook Pro. Only the "ultra-thin" laptop will see ARM.

I said this a year ago.

If we start to see reports of OS XI then you will know ARM will be in a Macbook Air.

 

[chrmjenkins]

The most interesting predictions are about baseband, actually. I don't see splitting chips across suppliers as anything but a logistics move, though. It's going to create extra designer work and negatively impact performance.

 

[iSee]

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.

Intel CPUs can be used to create a locked-down OS as well as anything Apple might create so there's no logical connection here.

The real issues are app compatibility and the ability to run Windows.

There's a chance Apple would NOT include a binary compatibility layer (e.g. Rosetta in the transition from PPC to x86) which would mean software would have to be recompiled and rerelease to work.

With MS's cooperation Windows could be made to run on an Apple ARM-based CPU but it's hard to see why either company would invest the resources. IDK, maybe Office for Mac and iOS are more important to MS than I think, but otherwise I don't see why MS would support ARM-based Macs... It would cost a lot and benefit mainly Apple. Meanwhile, Apple would have to keep up with Windows drivers which gets costlier the more they diverge from standard hardware.

 

[DotCom2]

Sorry. Did not read all the pages before my post but would this mean that you would no longer be able to run Windows?
Because if so, I would have to dump Apple.

 

[Peace]

Intel CPUs can be used to create a locked-down OS as well as anything Apple might create so there's no logical connection here.

The real issues are app compatibility and the ability to run Windows.

There's a chance Apple would NOT include a binary compatibility layer (e.g. Rosetta in the transition from PPC to x86) which would mean software would have to be recompiled and rerelease to work.

With MS's cooperation Windows could be made to run on an Apple ARM-based CPU but it's hard to see why either company would invest the resources. IDK, maybe Office for Mac and iOS are more important to MS than I think, but otherwise I don't see why MS would support ARM-based Macs... It would cost a lot and benefit mainly Apple. Meanwhile, Apple would have to keep up with Windows drivers which gets costlier the more they diverge from standard hardware.

The next version of Windows is designed to run on multi-platforms including ARM.

 

[Mousse]

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.

Walled garden or Cell Block D.

I wouldn't mind the switching to a different platform, *IF* there was a significant gain in performance. The ARM chip rumored for the rumored Mac is rumored to perform between an Atom and an i3? I'll pass. The rumored iMac/MacBooks will be too wimpy and the Mac Pro too expensive. I guess I'll buy the final last Intel-based MBP they build and use it until the last screw falls out.

 

[MLMcMillion]

There's already an iPad version.....would it really be that much more difficult to enhance it?

"Photoshop" for iOS and actual Photoshop are two terribly different beasts. Short answer: Yes, it would be incredibly difficult.

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.

Because changing up your workflow is wholly inefficient. I've yet to find one work-related task that's easier or more efficient on a tablet than it is on a laptop. Keep in mind, I'm a web developer.

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?

Right, but you're still assuming that these new methods do actually provide better efficiency. For a lot of use cases, especially creating rather than consuming, they simply do not.

The whole POINT of new innovations is to move to NEW, better methods.

Just because it's new doesn't mean it's better.

 

[diamond.g]

Why? What benefit would anyone see . I only see negatives. Lets start with one of the only big name games that runs on a Apple, World or Warcraft.

Apple Computers haven't really ever been known as good gaming machines.

Would lose Steam and Eve Client with transition to ARM.

I would be surprised to see those clients in use in portable machines of the caliber they are referring to anyways.

 

[elvisimprsntr]

Intel chips are too expensive for low end products. Apple can use their own ARM processors in future low end Macs (Air, Mini, convertible tablet, etc.). This is exactly why Apple pushed ahead with 64-bit ARM while the rest of industry got caught with their pants down. By expanding the ARM across more devices increases volume, lowering the price even further. Not to mention Apple can significantly reduce the size and weight of the battery for ARM vs. x86.

And before you get upset over applications, Apple already gives away all it's home grown productivity and creativity apps for free, which can be easily cross complied for ARM if Apple has not already done so. The OS X Kernel already runs on both architectures. I am sure Xcode will include a simple switch for third party developers, just like Apple did for the transition from PPC to X86.

Intel, you have been warned...

 

[ChrisCW11]

Why bother with TSMC

Every time Apple switches to TSMC, they have problems with quality or supply volume and consistency and they end up going back to Samsung. I know Apple hates Samsung, but I mean if you fail with another supplier over and over and over again this is something Apple has to get over eventually.

 

[heeloliver]

I switched to Mac OSX because it was the based GUI for any Unix based OS I had ever seen. And they kept making it better and better. Until 10.7

If they move to all ARM machines except the Pro (which I can't afford), I'm out.

What happened at 10.7?

 

[Arcady]

ARM Macs are a stupid idea.

Surface RT anyone?

 

[heeloliver]

When Yosemite was announced, they said the new naming system would last for the next 10 years. I don't see a ARM based Mac happening until OS X is dropped, and it seems that won't happen for a good long time. In 10 years the world will be a lot different, I don't think we realize that.

 

[MH01]

huh? why?

people probably said the same thing with PPC.

Moving to ARM gives them a whole lot more flexibility and they're not tied to Intel's timeline.

PPC back in the day had a performance advantage over Intel at one stage.

This move is a big issue for people that want performance, ie a computer, having a Macbook Pro with an ARM processor is a joke! might as well call it an over-glorified ipad with a Keyboard, which some will love!

This comes down to the daft obsession with thinnnes!!!

 

[RedCroissant]

I think this is awesome

With the footprint of any of the MBAs or other machines, going to this CPU is a great idea.

With the dual core A8 at least, it's small enough to have maybe an 8-core MBA with even longer battery life! How cool would that be to have an 8 core MBA?

 

[maflynn]

Intel CPUs can be used to create a locked-down OS as well as anything Apple might create so there's no logical connection here.

You're correct the CPU has noting to do with the OS being locked down, but is hard to see apple not doing this if they go the ARM approach.

 

[garbage-barge]

Given the direction of the last couple generations of products, I'm starting to think my 2012 mini will be the last mac I own for a while. I looked at the MPB this spring and couldn't find one that gave me the features I wanted at a fair price. I'm sure superstar DJs and celebs don't mind the expense, but Apple seems to be funneling everyone who's not wealthy into the entry-level tier. To hear that the only Mac I'll be able to afford in the future is essentially just a headless iPad , is very disheartening.

I suppose I'll do hackintosh builds, as long as OS X remains something I want to use. Eventually my only choice will be linux.

 

[luckydcxx]

Who cares about ARM Macs?? The 2016 Apple Watch will have an S2 chip!!!

 

[subsonix]

This move is a big issue for people that want performance, ie a computer, having a Macbook Pro with an ARM processor is a joke! might as well call it an over-glorified ipad with a Keyboard, which some will love!

Just want to point out that you haven't tried this hypothetical CPU, and so know nothing about its performance.

 

[fivetoedbear]

The Intel transition started June 2006, Adobe had a Intel PS beta out December 2006.

I don't think Apple really care about people who need Windows/Boot Camp.

What exactly would create a "walled garden for OS X"?

The Intel transition started in June, 2005, when Apple started shipping Developer Transition Kits for $999, which included an Intel processor and motherboard running OS X. That way, organizations could have Intel code ready for the public launch of machines in June, 2006.

Apple surprised everybody by announcing Intel-based iMac and MacBook Pro on January 10, 2006. Still, that gave six months for developers to have Intel-based code ready. Most did.