It certainly isn’t to design a chip for a Mac shipping in 12 months...
The truer the 2020 ARM Mac rumors are, the more it means this was a replacement hire.
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 Hires ARM's Lead CPU Architect Amid Rumors of ARM-Based Macs as Early as 2020
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The truer the 2020 ARM Mac rumors are, the more it means this was a replacement hire.
Thing is having worked at NeXT and Apple and seen HP-PA RISC, SUN, Moto, x86, PowerPC we always knew the future was x86. We were Quad-FAT binaries at NeXT but at Apple Steve went PowerPC on the assurances from IBM they would keep up with development and performance of x86. They didn't so he moved to x86.
AMD is ahead of Intel now. Apple can just customize their OEM motherboards around Zen2+ and smile all the way to the bank with higher margins and lower overall system prices.
They are not, I stated that they will have Intel and ARM both build into the MacBook. Thus the 16" MacBook that will be coming out later, the larger MacBook will allow Apple to fit both processors.
It makes sense to have macOS and catalyst apps running on ARM. If the app is not a catalyst app, it will automatically run on the Intel processor. This will make the transition invisible to the end users and will not divide the Mac into 2 platforms.
I'd rather have a MacBook Pro with an in-house M-series Apple-made chip that's four to six times faster than Intel's (and without the $1,500 per chip Intel tax).
You just wrote 133 words about the threat of prosumers switching to PCs. If cost was all that mattered they would've left long ago. And by long ago I mean 2005.
ARM stands for Advanced RISC Machine. RISC never handles more complex code very efficiently because it can't perform every instruction natively. We been through the CISC vs RISC discussions many times through the years and RISC is very good at applications where you limit what you do, but do it very fast. CISC based computer processing is what the business world utilizes. Going to ARM would be a another disaster. Apple at this point is trying to further optimize and expand its computer based solutions (either CISC or RISC (ARM) not migrate to a less efficient RISC solution that costs business their software investment. Thats not to say that you can't use ARM paired with CISC to enhance computers by removing certain processing from CISC for application specific enhancement.
It may be that Apple isn't happy with Intel's progress, but Apple has the same processors as every other manufacturer, so they don't lose out on that basis. They don't win either, but they don't lose, like at end phase of PowerPC. intel is no risk, ARM is a risk.
ARM would have to have some huge advantage compared to Intel processors to come into play here.
Yes if it is 4 or 6 times faster, that would be amazing. But if you look at Apple's CPU performance increase year after year, it is slowing down. From the trajectory, I doubt you will see 4 or 6 times the improvement against Intel in the next 5 years.
Yet at the same time, these chips are the same speed as the Intel mobile chips. Which means that putting ARM and Intel inside the Mac and have the OS and apps from the Mac App Store run on the ARM CPU would reduce the overall power consumption, and the beginning of the transition from Intel to ARM.
Intel will live on for the next MacBook design. If Intel is removed from the Mac, you will create compatibility problems for the end user. The ARM processor will be the main processor and Intel will be the off processor. This transition will take a while.
And Apple will price the Mac according to what the market can handle.
Smartest move Apple did. Whats the point of having business software that is suppose to run the same, yet the developer has to contend with two totally different processors to write code for. Motorola was not able to produce the faster and faster processors that Intel achieved. If Apple hadn't been migrated to Intel from Motorola, Apple likely would have been in a world of hurt and never produced all these lovely iPhones, Retina laptops and other wonderful products.
Yep, especially when the current gen iPad Pro's A12X outperforms the quad core Intel i7 optional in the 13" MacBook Pro with touch bar. Not being able to run some software is my only issue but developers may adapt.
Its does only when you utilize a limited instruction base interface for mobile computing. But as the notion that iPad ever be a real computer, its so far back in the race that simply faster and faster ARMs will not result in a replacement for full UNIX based Mac's. Doesn't some aspects of the multi-tasking in iPadOS 13 remind you of the terribly old Mac Finder from 1987 68xxx days called Multi-finder? Think about it. These iPhones/iPads are very capable at the limited things they can do, but they are no MacOS.
It's perfectly fine for Apple to consider an ARM Mac. Do you realize that tech companies constantly consider, even prototype, all sorts of stuff? I'm pretty sure at some point they've had an early prototype of an ARM Mac.
Sure, we don't want to break all applications, but developers can always just recompile their code, unless they rely on low-level features, such as byte order, and undocumented functions. It will be some effort to port existing code, but it's not impossible.
Sure, VMware will be broken beyond repair, and we won't be able to run x86 Windows anymore. But Microsoft is considering ARM as well.
x86 is a broken architecture that cannot be repaired. It has so much legacy that half the transistors are there just to support backwards compatibility. At some point you have to give it up for a better architecture. Maybe not overnight, but gradually. It's impossible for Intel to make an efficient CPU with that heritage.
Start by making MacBook Air ARM as a first step, but keep MacBook Pros and iMacs Intel for the time being. That's the only way Apple can achieve good performance and battery life, great cooling in a portable package. We have to sacrifice the old technology.
This will also force Adobe to rewrite their bloated Lightroom and Premier. They've already started doing it in Lightroom CC, and Photoshop/Premier for iPad. Initially it'll be a lightweight version that can improve over time.
Not everyone who buys a Mac needs VMware or Premier. Only a small portion of people use these. I'm one of the Windows developers who need VMware, but it's not like Apple is going to kill Intel Macs overnight. I don't think that's going to happen. And ARM Macs are not going to be iPadOS, they'll stay macOS for a long time.
Sure, we don't want to break all applications, but developers can always just recompile their code, unless they rely on low-level features, such as byte order, and undocumented functions. It will be some effort to port existing code, but it's not impossible.
Sure, VMware will be broken beyond repair, and we won't be able to run x86 Windows anymore. But Microsoft is considering ARM as well.
x86 is a broken architecture that cannot be repaired. It has so much legacy that half the transistors are there just to support backwards compatibility. At some point you have to give it up for a better architecture. Maybe not overnight, but gradually. It's impossible for Intel to make an efficient CPU with that heritage.
Start by making MacBook Air ARM as a first step, but keep MacBook Pros and iMacs Intel for the time being. That's the only way Apple can achieve good performance and battery life, great cooling in a portable package. We have to sacrifice the old technology.
This will also force Adobe to rewrite their bloated Lightroom and Premier. They've already started doing it in Lightroom CC, and Photoshop/Premier for iPad. Initially it'll be a lightweight version that can improve over time.
Not everyone who buys a Mac needs VMware or Premier. Only a small portion of people use these. I'm one of the Windows developers who need VMware, but it's not like Apple is going to kill Intel Macs overnight. I don't think that's going to happen. And ARM Macs are not going to be iPadOS, they'll stay macOS for a long time.
The biggest problem with the ARM transition will be if Bootcamp goes away. But Windows does actually support ARM architecture so who knows but I could never see Apple developing Windows drivers for their custom ARM chips.
No. More software in the world currently runs on ARM processors than on x86. More new software is being written for ARM (and GPUs, TPUs, and other DNN-engines) than for x86. x86-only-pro-apps/games barely make up 1% of the worldwide software dev industry.
ARM may only be for the regular MacBook at first or for a while. Intel really hasn’t done anything new on the ULV front. The retina MacBook is about the same it was back in 2015. I would bet we’re going to see an ARM MacBook sooner than we think. On the high-end that won’t be happening any time soon if ever. Intel has gotten stuck in a ditch but they won’t stay there forever. Pressure from AMD and the threat of ARM are enough motivation to deliver.
In fact it’s more likely for Apple to switch to AMD than ARM. The reason they haven’t already is probably due to brand perception. Intel has done a great job over the past 30 years at positioning themselves as the premium CPU. AMD is still trying to shake off the “cheaper option” image. On HEDT they’ve managed to do that but HEDT is a small fraction of consumer PC sales. AMD doesn’t have as robust a mobile lineup as Intel. They only have a sole high power Ryzen 7 H, a sole Ryzen 7 U and a couple of Ryzen 5s. They’re simply not better than Intel’s i7 and i9 offerings. The Vega 10 is even weaker than the Iris 655 and Intel’s integrated GPUs are about to get much much better.
In fact it’s more likely for Apple to switch to AMD than ARM. The reason they haven’t already is probably due to brand perception. Intel has done a great job over the past 30 years at positioning themselves as the premium CPU. AMD is still trying to shake off the “cheaper option” image. On HEDT they’ve managed to do that but HEDT is a small fraction of consumer PC sales. AMD doesn’t have as robust a mobile lineup as Intel. They only have a sole high power Ryzen 7 H, a sole Ryzen 7 U and a couple of Ryzen 5s. They’re simply not better than Intel’s i7 and i9 offerings. The Vega 10 is even weaker than the Iris 655 and Intel’s integrated GPUs are about to get much much better.
Sure they did, depends on your perspective, for me, I turned to apple products when they went intel for Windows access. without that, its a fringe product.
The last guy leaving and the new guy coming have everything to do with the new plan. Didn't consider that did you?
A few things have changed since the old days of RISC vs. CISC:
What this means is that processor architecture matters a lot more than it used to.
- Intel is no longer always a transistor node ahead of everybody. In fact, it’s currently behind.
- Dennard scaling ended around 2006. Slow and wide wins.
- Moore’s Law is stuck in the mud, probably for another decade.
What this means is that processor architecture matters a lot more than it used to.
By using a less expensive CPU, Apple will be able to justify charging more for their computers.
If you rely on Bootcamp, you're already in big trouble. The MacBook Pro is optimized for macOS only, the Bootcamp drivers seriously overheat the hardware.