Apple Interested in Developing ARM-Based Mac Processors and iPhone Modems in House

[raghu8912]

Macs can't move to ARM unless they invent x86 to ARM instruction set translation without performance penalty - Mac doesn't make sense without ability to run x86 virtual machines (Linux, Windows).

Apple should experiment with MacBook before switching MacBook pro to ARM.
[doublepost=1506713506][/doublepost]

...and yet display innovation is beholden to Samsung for at least the next 3-4 years while microLED is sorted out - http://www.ledinside.com/news/2016/11/can_micro_led_challenge_lcd_and_oled_market_position

Foxconn purchased Sharp, so we will have to see, I am sure Foxconn wants to make displays for iPhone as they already manufacture almost everything else.

 

[dippnerd]

Apple should experiment with MacBook before switching MacBook pro to ARM.

This is what I was saying earlier. Seems like a good way to test things out but not set expectations too high. Unless they had something akin to Rosetta to translate x86 apps, I think the only way they could pull it off would be to lock the system down to only accept apps from the App Store though, as you'd get too many confused users not understanding why they can't just run any old app.

 

[raghu8912]

The more likely scenario in the short-to-medium term is that they'll expand upon the x86+ARM approach, such as they did with the Touchbar. Portions of the OS and all application code will largely remain the same and run on the x86 side, while they'll continue to move more functions to their own ARM-based ones. I can imagine them handling Face ID (as they already do Touch ID), ML, networking, bluetooth, and other always-on features on an ARM chip with better performance-per-watt than any x86 chip.

This makes the system expensive though, they should move MacMini & MacBook to ARM now, i was thinking Air replacement would have an ARM i was surprised/disappointed.
[doublepost=1506714171][/doublepost]

Arrghh, No! Not ANOTHER freaking architecture change.

Not to mention, ARM processors don't even come close to the performance of Intel. I would really hate it for Apple to gimp the performance of the Mac just to not depend on Intel anymore.

How about going dual supplier? Maybe go AMD for desktops (iMacs) and Intel for notebooks. You can keep the same architecture and performance and not be tied to one company.

It would be extremely frustrating if Apple went ARM for Macs. It would be a huge negative for the platform.

ARM processors don't even come close to the performance of Intel. I would really hate it for Apple to gimp the performance of the Mac just to not depend on Intel anymore.
ARM would be great for MacMini & MacBook, Apple A series processor can handle MacBook with out any issues. MacBook Pro probably not.
[doublepost=1506714297][/doublepost]I can't work on an iPad, if they give me iPad for work i will quit.
I need a real keyboard & mouse/trackpad.

 

[Elijen]

Mac doesn't make sense without ability to run x86 virtual machines (Linux, Windows).

Most of the users don't run virtual machines. I occasionally do but wouldn't probably care to give it up if ARM brings much better performance than x86.

 

[bsimpsen]

The comparison is a dual Core i5 to a 6 core ARM in a synthetic benchmark.

The A10/A11 do well in single core comparisons.

 

[Elijen]

that sounds like blatant speculation. Apple is probably not going to make a ARM macbook unless they are sure their chip is powerful enough. I wouldn't worry about people leaving apple because they use ARM chips.

Not sure about the Pro line, but MacBooks would probably be a great fit for ARMs.

 

[Derived]

Macs can't move to ARM unless they invent x86 to ARM instruction set translation without performance penalty - Mac doesn't make sense without ability to run x86 virtual machines (Linux, Windows).

You don't think they've been working on this for a decade? I'm certain they already have this part nearly perfected...also...I'm certain they've got a version of OS X that works natively on ARM w/o need for translation. All that's needed is for the hardware to catch up....and then X86 will be gone.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

Macs can't move to ARM unless they invent x86 to ARM instruction set translation without performance penalty - Mac doesn't make sense without ability to run x86 virtual machines (Linux, Windows).

This can't be understated enough. Imagine trying to run Adobe CC and do some heavy work with a x86 to ARM conversion going on.
[doublepost=1506715606][/doublepost]

I have said this for years and every one goes no no intel this intel that processor change this processor that. I go look apple is going to start the process of having the entire OS written in a higher level language or a modern level C so that they can combine it and all the built in libraries over to ARM. Then it is a simple re-compile for most not all applications to join the ARM OS X train. This is where apple is going. There is no reason to update the Dock or Finder ETC with a total re-write to a new language otherwise. They are moving the ball slowly and in clear view to ARM. The first mechanical cooled ARM chip is now in the ATV. They are getting ready to see how far they can push the Atv it is a low risk product with low sales currently. They can latter on push it hard and if they fail they have good understanding of thermal loads in the wild. They are going to make a MacBook A series chip. This is going to happen when is the only question I have left. They have several sub-systems left to migrate on the UI side of the house. They also need to start to get developers into the idea that the apps need to be universal again. This push will come with a new heavy push for the App Store. This why the universal binaries are handled on the back end away from the user. The arm user will not know they are using arm unless they look at the specs. This is where they want to go. So you can write it one time and have it run multi thread monster on the Mac Pro or multi thread mini on the ARM in the MacBook scales perfectly and is universal. This is where apple has pointed the ship. Intel has nothing on the road map at the sub 15 watt chip size that punches. I know now I will get the people who go but arm is not intel the benchmarks don't compare etc etc. This is going to happen. So strap in for the next decade cause it will be ARM and it will be universal binaries and it will all feel like a throw back to the early 2k.

Paragraphs. You should try them out

 

[bn-7bc]

As long as it can run Windows and Linux it's all good. Remove that functionality and it's a big downgrade.

Well linux has a chsnce, as for eindows... checked the termrature in hell lately? Still hot, ok my bet is no

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

I'm 33 so I'm a hybrid dinosaur of sorts. I love my iMac when I need FinalCut Pro and Lightroom and Handbrake/MakeMKV for uh, purposes... but the 98% of free/leisure time, iPad on the couch, iPhone in the pocket.

My brother is an attorney, he totes his Lenovo laptop home on weekends and ignores it unless he has to work on a case... otherwise it's just his iPhone 7 for texts, and streaming movies/TV shows/PlayStation on his 70" set... he's not unusual.

Too many people in their 40s+ think the Mac isn't a legacy platform because they love themselves a good keyboard/mouse, it IS legacy computing... just a relevant one, downright critical in many use cases (development especially). No different than Windows in that classification. My daughter is 2, and she's not down with iMacs that don't have touchscreens, doesn't get it, never will.

So what you are saying is Creation = computer, Consumption = mobile device.

 

[LordVic]

They are going to have to get over the small little fact that 90% of the world uses/requires windows.

One of the benefits that moving to x86 had for Apple was they could now be considered a regular computer vendor by a wider audience, even if it's just to run windows, or windows some of the time. The majority of the worlds PC users are using Windows, this includes many mac Computer users.

if Apple decided to move to Arm CPU's for their computers, they would have to either provide a means to still be a "PC", or potentially loose any customer who needs windows even partially.

this is a dangerous situation, as Apple would lose a lot of inroads they have made into the pre-built markets (5th largest prebuilt PC/Laptop vendor right now). if suddenly Apple computers couldn't run anything windows, this business would be damaged.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

History shows otherwise. The Mac operating system has already seen several "disruptive" migrations. Pascal to C, 16 to 32bit, 32 to 64bit, 68K to PPC, PPC to Intel, and at least at the kernel and low-levels Intel to ARM for iOS devices.
Apple made each one look pretty simple. Sure there were some hiccups but the undertakings were far more complex than most users ever conceived.

Current Netmarketshare numbers show a 35% decline in Mac market share since April of 2016 (9.5% to 5.94%). Switching to ARM now could be a very bad move. You would need to have some form of emulation until apps are re-written to support ARM. Why would say Adobe re-write Adobe CC apps for 5.94% market? In fact it would be a much smaller market really, new Mac's on ARM. It would kill off the Mac IMHO.

 

[M5RahuL]

Can’t wait to see’em kick Qualcomm to the curb!

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

Nah it would just run iPad apps first, and then adopt an Apple provided mouse driver, theoretically.

"Nah it would just run iPad apps first"

Ok so if you do any kind of real creation on a Mac today just move to Windows where you can continue or greatly limit your ability by using iPad apps? Let me go tell our marketing department we will be taking their Mac's and giving them iPad's to do all their ad work on.

 

[LordVic]

History shows otherwise. The Mac operating system has already seen several "disruptive" migrations. Pascal to C, 16 to 32bit, 32 to 64bit, 68K to PPC, PPC to Intel, and at least at the kernel and low-levels Intel to ARM for iOS devices.
Apple made each one look pretty simple. Sure there were some hiccups but the undertakings were far more complex than most users ever conceived.

Simple to you as the user maybe, But simple to the community? far from it.

there was a lot of considerations regarding compatibility and support that happened on each change. Especially considering legacy application.

to most users the change to x86 was seamless because of Rosetta. Rosetta was able to work because at the time, PPC CPU's werepretty inneficient and could easily be emulated on intel's x86, providing an almost perfectly seemless transition.

this doesn't hold true today. ARM cpu's, even Apple's A series is not powerful enough to provide it's own power and emulate x86. Heck, even the fastest A series CPU's just now keeps up with the ultra low end low voltage intel CPU's. Emulating them alone would be near impossible. Emulating higher end Intel/AMD performance on ARM right now is absolutely impossible.

Apple would have to provide a full blown cut-over from old x86 to new ARM. everything would need to be rebuilt/recompiled. there would a significant loss of portability of programs, compatibility issues, to the point where those who are makign the change will have to do a proper accounting of their used applications and ensure that there's equal arm based options or risk completely losing that functionality.

And Microsoft already tried doing that sort of x86 to ARM cutover, and it failed miserably because of the above reasons.

 

[TheMacDaddy1]

Exactly! It's easy to think there's no market for this type of device, but on the contrary, I know plenty of people who could do just fine with an iPad but still believe they need a traditional laptop. Some even avoid Macs because they're still too expensive, so this could be a sweet-spot for that market to win over potential Windows users. Just because many of us couldn't get by with an ARM laptop doesn't mean there's no room for one.

Do you really think Apple would sell device at a low enough price point compete with say $500 Windows laptops???? Apple has done nothing but raise prices in the last 2 years. BTW a $500 Windows laptop is usually a decent device.

 

[bsimpsen]

Actually Apple, Qualcomm and Samsung have the most expensive ARM license.
It gives the access to the architecture and allows them to modify it at long as they pass compatibility tests.

There is plenty stopping them from extending. They must pass *ALL* compatibility suites.
They also can't extend in a direction that would make other incompatible.
No extensions in the instruction set.

The up front cost of an Architecture license is the highest, yes. (And there are 15 architecture licensees). But the amortized cost over production is the lowest, both directly and indirectly. As you move down the ARM license chain, you are forced to accept more "baggage". I use that term to highlight the fact that Apple has better implementations of the ARM architecture than ARM does, as witnessed by benchmark data. Were Apple to license routed cores, they'd have to pay the unnecessary price for area and power inefficiency and inappropriate tradeoffs in system subsections.

 

[techwhiz]

Well linux has a chsnce, as for eindows... checked the termrature in hell lately? Still hot, ok my bet is no

There is no issue running Linux.
ARM processors already run Linux.

Unless Apple buys a FAB and starts with their own process technology along with memory cell design, etc. it's not going to happen. Apple uses Samsung and TSMC as foundry partners. Intel uses, uh... Intel.
Apple is using TSMC/Samsung design rules. They are not designing memory cells for their caches on chip.
People also forget an ARM processor does not have the peripheral interfaces and external interfaces that an Intel CPU has.
Intel now supports native RAID in their processors along with multiple PCIe interfaces.

ARM != Intel in functionality or performance.
A synthetic benchmark is only one measure.
Transactions Per Second to your I/O subsystem.
Maximum burst read/write. How fast is the cache and line fill from main memory.
How many banks of LPDDR?

The A11 lacks most of the interfaces that are required for a desktop processor.

Once again AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) tried and failed to compete with Intel.
Sun Microsystems, MIPS Computer and HP tried to compete with Intel.
AMD now uses Global Foundries as a FAB partner after selling off FAB assets.

Companies go broke trying to keep up with Intel in the processor space.
Intel *IS* a silicon company. Apple is not.
Intel holds a significant portfolio of IP containing SERDES and interface components and process technology.
Apple does not.

 

[Rob_2811]

They are going to have to get over the small little fact that 90% of the world uses/requires windows.

One of the benefits that moving to x86 had for Apple was they could now be considered a regular computer vendor by a wider audience, even if it's just to run windows, or windows some of the time. The majority of the worlds PC users are using Windows, this includes many mac Computer users.

if Apple decided to move to Arm CPU's for their computers, they would have to either provide a means to still be a "PC", or potentially loose any customer who needs windows even partially.

this is a dangerous situation, as Apple would lose a lot of inroads they have made into the pre-built markets (5th largest prebuilt PC/Laptop vendor right now). if suddenly Apple computers couldn't run anything windows, this business would be damaged.

Agree with you but I think the more important issue is actually being able to run the x86 apps people use now in macOS at similar or improved performance levels.

Take Adobe, I doubt they would be willing to rewrite all of their CC apps which means they would probably have to run in emulation. Remains to be seen if that can be done without performance taking a hit. If it can't then the Mac effectively becomes a joke platform for pro users.

 

[LordVic]

This can't be understated enough. Imagine trying to run Adobe CC and do some heavy work with a x86 to ARM conversion going on.

I haven't done much testing of emulation lately (used to way back). I remember at one point for shiggsandgiggles emulated PPC to run MacOS9, and then inside the Emulated MacOS9 I ran an emulation to run Windows.... so I had a Windows box emulating Mac, emulating windows.... the things we do as geeks for fun.

ultimately, after doing a bunch of different emulations over the years, expect, that if your CPUd oesn't have native instruction sets that are compatible to lose anywhere from 20-50% performance due to emulation layer
[doublepost=1506716853][/doublepost]

Agree with you but I think the more important issue is actually being able to run the x86 apps people use now in macOS at similar or improved performance levels.

Take Adobe, I doubt they would be willing to rewrite all of their CC apps which means they would probably have to run in emulation. Remains to be seen if that can be done without performance taking a hit. If it can't then the Mac effectively becomes a joke platform for pro users.

Doubtful. Adobe hasn't even written their apps for iPad Pros'. the versions that are on the iOS today are already "cripppled" compared to their desktop counterparts. if Adobe can't be bothered to program an iOS app fully, why would that suddenly change for Apple laptops, which have lower volumes than iPads.


and I already feel enough lag/slowdown using photoshop on an i5-4670... Imagine how slow it would be on an Arm CPU.even an Ax CPU is going to be extremely slow compared to the high watt intel CPU's.

although. I've just upgrade to RyZEN 7, need to reinstall lightroom and see how it performs now

 

[Rob_2811]

I haven't done much testing of emulation lately (used to way back). I remember at one point for shiggsandgiggles emulated PPC to run MacOS9, and then inside the Emulated MacOS9 I ran an emulation to run Windows.... so I had a Windows box emulating Mac, emulating windows.... the things we do as geeks for fun.

ultimately, after doing a bunch of different emulations over the years, expect, that if your CPUd oesn't have native instruction sets that are compatible to lose anywhere from 20-50% performance due to emulation layer
[doublepost=1506716853][/doublepost]

Doubtful. Adobe hasn't even written their apps for iPad Pros'. the versions that are on the iOS today are already "cripppled" compared to their desktop counterparts. if Adobe can't be bothered to program an iOS app fully, why would that suddenly change for Apple laptops, which have lower volumes than iPads.


and I already feel enough lag/slowdown using photoshop on an i5-4670... Imagine how slow it would be on an Arm CPU.even an Ax CPU is going to be extremely slow compared to the high watt intel CPU's.

although. I've just upgrade to RyZEN 7, need to reinstall lightroom and see how it performs now

Yep.

For what its worth I don't see Apple going this route, I think we will see them continue to build in ARM chips alongside the Intel processors as they did in the new MacBook Pros and as I believe they are going to do with the iMac Pro.

This will allow them to keep full compatibility for desktop apps and virtualisation and still be able to add their own functionality like the touch bar which leverages the ARM chips and the secure enclave from the A series. Its a best of both worlds situation for them. Going fully ARM based for macOS would be shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Falhófnir]

This can't be understated enough. Imagine trying to run Adobe CC and do some heavy work with a x86 to ARM conversion going on.

Did you see microsoft’s demo of windows on ARM? Pretty snappy even on a ‘mere’ snapdragon 820 chip - if Apple actually put the effort into creating a dedicated laptop/ desktop chip it would be a monster, and they could probably find a way of optimising the chip to do emulation work etc. The SD 820 is about on a par with the A9 chip. Not the X just the regular iPhone A9...

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

For years we knew this was coming.

 

[JamesPDX]

They are going to have to get over the small little fact that 90% of the world uses/requires windows.

One of the benefits that moving to x86 had for Apple was they could now be considered a regular computer vendor by a wider audience, even if it's just to run windows, or windows some of the time. The majority of the worlds PC users are using Windows, this includes many mac Computer users.

if Apple decided to move to Arm CPU's for their computers, they would have to either provide a means to still be a "PC", or potentially loose any customer who needs windows even partially.

this is a dangerous situation, as Apple would lose a lot of inroads they have made into the pre-built markets (5th largest prebuilt PC/Laptop vendor right now). if suddenly Apple computers couldn't run anything windows, this business would be damaged.

ARM-based computers? It's to maximize profits over functionality. These machines won't be sold for less than the i5 or i7 machines. An ARM "computer" will be a high-cost social networking/shopping device. Unless you can develop an ARM to beat the latest i7 multi-core or a Xeon, I really don't see why they'd go to the trouble unless they're just bored with making computers. I'm now wondering if we're in a the Scully,v2.1 era. This is going to be interesting.
[doublepost=1506724698][/doublepost]

the last time a company dictated what chips apple could use , look what happened

motorola anyone ? the g4 screwup...

sj would want tc to go 100% apple

it's all about control..
[doublepost=1506703462][/doublepost]apple don't need intel

intel need apple

Every serious computer manufacturer needs Intel, unless they're only building AMD.
Apple needs Intel unless they are going to just sell iPhones, iPads, and iWatches and totally dump their already mostly-dumped workstation market.

 

[MichaelDT]

Chip design belongs with a chip company. If Apple were to switch to ARM for high power applications especiall on desktops it will end up like PPC. It will be neglected by the design owners who primarily optimize for mobile just like how PPC low power for laptops was neglect because it’s mainline was optimized for high power servers. Intel and AMD are the only companies who have perfected designs that provide high power and scale from laptop to desktop.

If apple does this, they will either gimp their desktops even more or if they just migrate laptops they’ll fracture the platform. They may try some JIT compiling nonsense but that will just gimp all the applications by shutting them out of bare hardware.