Apple Hires ARM's Lead CPU Architect Amid Rumors of ARM-Based Macs as Early as 2020

[cmaier]

Your right, should have conveyed it differently. The term natively was the wrong word to utilize. I was trying to show the difference between RISC instruction set requires one to write more efficient software with fewer instructions, versus CISC which is using complex instructions.

RISC doesn’t require that at all. It’s all done by compilers, and so the main difference is whether you think a CPU is capable of doing better optimizations at run time than the compiler can do at compile time.

In the end it’s been proven repeatedly that all else being equal, you can get identical performance from RISC and CISC and burn 20% less power in RISC, or you can get 20% more performance from RISC as compared to CISC at the same power budget. The structures are essentially identical, except for the addition of a much more complicated instruction decoder (with a micro-op sequencer, microcode ROMs, etc.) in CISC.

 

[4487549]

I prefer that Apple sticks to Intel or perhaps expands to AMD. If they work with a common X64 architecture, everything from peripherals, to accessories to virtual every piece of software will be reasonably priced. With the ARM architecture, you may get custom chips with selective performance gains, but you'll ultimately lose out on price, choice and flexibility.

Threadrippers will smoke Xeons for 3D modeling. That's what real pro's in 2019 need. Plus, if Apple is going to limit GPU's to AMD, it would be nice if they'd let users take advantage of AMD CPU's instead of the worst of both worlds.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Until AMD comes up with something in their CPUs to compete against Intel's Quicksync Apple will never use an AMD CPU in a Mac. Intel Macs running FCX blows the doors off any current AMD CPU running Premier.

What the hell do you think the T2 chip does for Apple? It isn't QuickSync doing that work. Oh, and AMD has that covered in spades with Navi, never mind Zen2+.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Video_Decoder

It's called Video Core Next.

 

[ctyrider]

I am sure they have "considered" it, and concluded they are not going to do it.

Apple already has an OS and a product that solves vast majority of ultraportable and casual commuting use cases - they are called iPasOS and iPad.

Developing and maintaining an ARM-based version of MacOS would be an insane waste of time and resources for Apple. Macbooka and Macs will stay Intel based for the foreseeable future. ARM-based Macs is a silly fantasy, perpetuated by forum nerds.

Thing is, why wouldn't Apple, at the very least, be considering an ARM transition? Intel has dropped the ball again and again on offering 7nm chips and it's now looking like they won't have anything suitable until at 2021 at the earliest, based on their leaked roadmap.

Apple would be absolutely insane to not at least consider transitioning away from Intel..

 

[ssgbryan]

The ARM cores in the current iPad pros should be fast enough to emulate x86 instructions well enough to make running basic Windows apps usable. And if it isn't, Windows computers are dirt cheap anyway.

If I have a Windows computer to do real work, why would I need a Mac (of any type)?
[doublepost=1561603228][/doublepost]

It will be interesting to see what direction all of it takes.

I see the ultra high end machines staying x86 for the foreseeable future. But what about emulation and virtual machines as an alternative?

Sure, no more boot camp, but what if (a big IF) Intel continues to stagnate and ARM pulls ahead in computing power enough that users prefer it over x86?

Stranger things have happened.

Why stay with Intel - AMD is right there, more performance for less money.

ARM will mean the death of the Mac.

 

[ssgbryan]

And lost it WHILST being on PowerPC.

But I'm sure the G6 will be a beast when it comes out.

The Power6 CPUs were beasts. We could have had 5.0Ghz back in '07.

 

[Hotshoe]

I wonder the story for customers buying into 2019 Mac Pro, if Arm is genuinely the direction Apple is headed starting near term. Compatibility is a non-negotiable so Apple would have no choice but to support both architectures for the foreseeable future (not to mention the response if they dead ended Intel arch after customers dropping $10-60K on shiny new graters).

But does x86 start to become the red-headed stepchild within Apple relative to where they invest their energy? I wouldn't be happy with that either if I were a new Mac Pro buyer.

 

[ssgbryan]

I wonder the story for customers buying into 2019 Mac Pro, if Arm is genuinely the direction Apple is headed starting near term. Compatibility is a non-negotiable so Apple would have no choice but to support both architectures for the foreseeable future (not to mention the response if they dead ended Intel arch after customers dropping $10-60K on shiny new graters).

But does x86 start to become the red-headed stepchild within Apple relative to where they invest their energy? I wouldn't be happy with that either if I were a new Mac Pro buyer.

If Apple goes ARM, most of the software that does real work won't be ported, because they won't sell all that many Mac Pros (due to price/performance).

In the PPC to Intel transition, it took 4 - 5 years for the software to make the jump (2 development cycles), and a lot of software was abandoned.

If I have to have a PC to do real work, (I don't see Zbrush, Poser, Daz Studio, Vue, 3dsMax, etc. making the jump - not to mention all of the little utilities I depend on). I don't need to waste money on a Mac.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

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.

I have an iMac, and it’s actually pretty decent at playing games at 1080p with the rx580

 

[MacBH928]

I was going to say, Tim should save himself the trouble and just cancel out the Mac lineup and rename iPad to iMac and iPadOS to MacOS.

But given that they still didn't release the Mac Pro which I have hard time will be running ARM chips ever, My guess is that MacOS will be a dual architect OS, Intel will be used on the Pro machines (iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook Pro) and ARM will be running on more mobile machines (Mac Mini, Air , Macbook). Best of both worlds?

I didn't think it was possible, but Windows does run on both ARM and Intel.

 

[BvizioN]

LOL @ ARM based Macs. Why would any professional that requires a fast CPU move from Intel to ARM?

That question should be asked when the time is right. What do you/we know about ARM-based Macs? That.s right. You know **** all.
It all depends on how well they will perform.

 

[ds2000]

That's got to be stone cold's son

 

[Bonte]

More and more ARM chips will be added to macs to add more / better custom functionality. But this is more likely about keeping iPhone / iPad CPU dominance rolling.

I'm expecting this dual chip setup sinds the PowerPC chips but it never came, sounds logical but i guess it's easier to emplement that in the GPU or something.

 

[mixel]

Looking forward to whatever strange magic they use (like Rosetta) to get the apps working cross platform. It’s one thing dropping 32bit support, another thing entirely dropping all legacy software, I don’t think they could do that without a massive lead in.. maybe we’ll get a dual architecture dev platform or something.

I actually miss the ppc days of having unique cpus in some ways. Not most ways, but some! Having an odd cpu that performs differently is fun.

 

[Gudi]

Really, my only question is whether or not Apple's chip will be 64-bit, out of the gate, or 128-bit.

Let me answer that with a little story.

 

[Gudi]

Lack of Intel x86 microprocessors in Mac is a deal breaker for us. We love the Mac and hate Windows interface. But much more important than that is our workflow. And for that we need full Intel x86 compatibility.

Nobody said you won’t have it (through software emulation).

 

[shaunp]

I see this more as keeping the A series chips ahead of the competition than migrating Mac to ARM. The Mac Pro has just been announced with Xeon W and there is nothing on ARM that can compete with that. Even if ARM were introduced at the low-end (MacBook and possibly iMac) it would make no sense to have two CPU architectures across the Mac range.

 

[Marx55]

Nobody said you won’t have it (through software emulation).

No way. Software emulation is not an option for our workflow. We need productivity with native environments. Remember the horrible days with PowerPC in relation to that!

 

[Winni]

End of Hackintosh era is upon us.

Seriously: Who cares? Except for satisfying one's curiosity, it was never worth the effort for actual use or work.

You want Unix or a Unix-like system on a PC? Install a Linux distribution, it's much faster than macOS, much better for software development or scientific use and generally more versatile in every aspect.

And if it's Adobe stuff you're after... Just act like the professional you claim to be and buy the real thing.
[doublepost=1561633568][/doublepost]

That's what I'm wondering. They're going to come out with a $4000+ 16" Intel Mac this fall then quickly follow it up with an ARM based Mac? What about the people who spend $12,000 on the Mac Pro?

Or is ARM only coming to the lower-end Macs?

Remember the good old days of Z80 CPU boards for the Apple ][? There's a chance they will just simpy add an ARM CPU to an existing Intel CPU and mainboard - at least in the first few release cycles instead of just using software emulation. Who knows?

 

[ruka.snow]

Would love to see an upgradable ARM co-processor that seamlessly kicks in when running iOS apps(during development).

 

[Bug-Creator]

Modern "x86" CPUs are really just a RISC core hidden behind a wall a microcode, so why wouldn't it be impossible for Apple to make an "A15" that looks like x86 from the outside?

Heck why couldn't they deliver what Transmeta promised some 20 years ago?

 

[nacholibre]

Counting down the days till Apple computing irrelevancy. Sure you will have iPad, and a iPhone but for computers this will be a nail in the coffin for people who use computers for things other than facebook and MS word.

"Hey prosumer, have a look at our computer that costs at least TWICE AS MUCH as a similarly spec machine anywhere else. Whats that, you want compatibility? Well, we have all the IO you could want if all you want is USB-C. Oh you were talking about software compatibility? Well, we don't run windows anymore so if you have some mission critical software you will have to buy a dedicated windows machine. What about old Apple apps? Well we just retired 32bit apps, and we have a "rosetta 2.0' that we will support intel software long, long, LONG, into the future. Well 2 years at last. So it's compatible if all your stuff is up to date. But anyway. BUY OUR MAC!"

Yeah, no.

Don't buy Mac then.. If you want to run Windows why do you buy Mac when it's twice as expensive? I don't understand you really.

I'm talking from my programmer point of view:
When talking for performance the specs sometimes are irrelevant if the code is bad written, the most important thing is how well and how optimized for the platform the code is written.

I personally will love if I can install some of the iOS apps on my Mac, this will carry huge benefit to the Mac platform, I hope Apple pulls this off, because Microsoft couldn't.

Another ARM benefit is the lower power consumption tied with the lower heat + longer battery life.

 

[andg]

Would love to see an upgradable ARM co-processor that seamlessly kicks in when running iOS apps(during development).

Unnecessary, since the compiler can easily output ARM and x86-64 executables. No need to run apps natively on ARM during development.
[doublepost=1561635956][/doublepost]People here severely underestimates the extreme high end, single core performance advantage Intel and now AMD holds over current ARM CPUs. ARM CPUs just don't reach the same clock speeds. And much of the power advantages of ARM comes from this trade-off.

Sure, Apple might be able to develop their own chips to reach these clock speeds, but now that AMD is on 7nm and overtaking Intel at lower prices, there's less of a reason for Apple to do so. It's just not very likely that Apple can come up with an architecture that is better than Zen on both power consumption and high end performance. So if Apple moves to ARM, they must be doing it for different reasons than those.

 

[nexusrule]

There will be two lines of Macs: one line is ARM-based for the prosumer and the other one is Intel-based for the professionals. The x86_64 Intel-based Macs will start at $3,000 and will be geared to the real pros. The ARM-based Macs will be for the prosumers and students and will cost between $1,000 and $3,000 depending on the specs. They will be able to leverage the hundreds of thousands of apps made for the iOS that can easily be ported to macOS with the help of the Catalyst framework (formerly known as Project Marzipan).

It wouldn’t make any sense

 

[DNichter]

The move to ARM Mac's makes even more sense today than the switch to Intel did at the time. It's all about power per watt. Apple is smart to hire this guy and work to make the switch sooner than later.