The iPad Pro with the A12X already includes (at least) 8 ARM CPU cores. 4 of those ARM CPU cores already rival the single thread performance of x86 CPU cores included in the majority of Windows laptops. That's without Apple having (yet publicly?) optimized an ARM core and chip package for the thermal envelope of a laptop, desktop, or compute server. There's lots of headroom for Apple's chip designers to exploit.
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 Plans to Ditch Intel and Use Custom Mac Chips Starting in 2020
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The iPad Pro with the A12X already includes (at least) 8 ARM CPU cores. 4 of those ARM CPU cores already rival the single thread performance of x86 CPU cores included in the majority of Windows laptops. That's without Apple having (yet publicly?) optimized an ARM core and chip package for the thermal envelope of a laptop, desktop, or compute server. There's lots of headroom for Apple's chip designers to exploit.
Uhhh... You do realize that Microsoft is ALSO trying to move to ARM, not just for clients, but also servers. So you will have no issues running Windows.
Win 10 is absolutely effortless and nice. I prefer OSX for my music and work computers, but my little gaming addiction is being well fed on an Win 10 PC that has had almost zero issues so far.
So, you use Windows for the games. As I said. The point being, nobody runs Windows for the sake of running Windows; you can't really do much with just the OS. Therefore, running ARM Windows is not particularly interesting or useful, at least until there are ARM Windows apps. (Or good x86 emulation, with fast enough ARM chips to make up the difference, which seems unlikely.)
--Eric
--Eric
Lol. Win 10 is a **** show. Preferences are divided into like five different places, with three different window styles.
I disagree. It's an extremely stable OS that runs the stuff I want in a very nice and solid way. Preferences/System Settings are still easy enough to find, if it's one step more than it takes for OSX on my Mac's, whatever, it just does not matter as I don't touch those settings anywhere frequently enough to care - that goes for both, my macs and my PC.
This part was hilarious. Apple was still selling MBPs with Haswell chips (2014) until late 2016 at a time when Skylake chips were at least 6 months old.
Did Tim Cook write this article?
What makes it even more hilarious, a switch to Intel now, 4 years later as a sole modem supplier, after the Qualcomm debacle. Cookette learning curve !
Last edited:
What, why? This is as much effort to do as it already is to make MacOS versions of their software. Fire up Xcode and compile to run on Mac as usual.
The only bumpiness would be in running older apps on the new platform, which Apple has solved in the past with software like Rosetta during the PowerPC to Intel transition.
I'm also a bit surprised that the lack of ability to run Windows is a deal breaker for many people here. You could still use parallels, or get a secondary x86 machine like I do. With the Mac marketshare today Microsoft may even produce a version of Windows for the new architecture. They already make Windows 10 for ARM.
No you couldn't. Parallels requires x86.
If people running Windows on Macs wanted to buy another computer, they would have done it already. The whole entire point is that you don't have to.
Which doesn't run any Windows x86 software. Again, "running Windows" for its own sake is not anything that anyone does. The point is to run Windows apps.
--Eric
It would only be so easy if the developers used nothing but Apple's own APIs and libraries, and no CPU specific optimisations at all.
In theory, the transition from PPC to Intel would have required just a recompilation as well. In practice, it almost never did.
The switch from PPC to Intel was a transition to a significantly more powerful platform, and even then, performance of the emulation was often worse than on PPC native machines. ARM CPUs don't have that performance advantage. Just look at the abysmal performance of the x86 emulation in Windows on ARM.
No, you couldn't. Parallels and all other virtualisations only work because both the host and the guest OS are using the same CPU architecture. No x86 CPU in a Mac, no virtualisation of an x86 compatible guest OS.
Everything else is emulation. For that: see above.
And besides: everything I said here has been pointed out multiple times already in this thread.
(Ninja'd by Eric5h5.)
No, the transition was to a slightly more powerful platform. But PPC object code is very clean; emulating ia86-64 is complicated by the fact that the object code is a mess. It works well enough for the CPU, but emulating it requires significantly more effort than does RISC format object code. Really, I think the only realistic option would be to do some kind of static conversion, if you want decent performance.
And... What about it? Apple’s Exclusive MacBook Pro Hardware Confirmed
Maybe they are planning and hybrid CPU or ARM + x86_64 architecture?
Interesting...
Maybe they are planning and hybrid CPU or ARM + x86_64 architecture?
Interesting...
I used to run VirtualPC on a PowerPC Mac and I think you could also do it on a 68K Mac in the 1990s.
You could, but it was very slow since it had to emulate an x86 processor and run a virtual environment on top of that.
Yup. I ran it on. Performa in the late 90's. It was an emulator and not virtualization; a distinction the OP made.
Windows 10 ARM runs 32-bit x86 Windows programs but not 64-bit programs. That is supposed to come later, though.
Why not use the Atom processor? (Is it still even out there?)
Because when the going gets tough, the Atom folds. I made a system with the Atom processor, and it seemed capable. But run anything needing anything close to muscles, and the Atom system slowed down to nearly becoming inert. Just saying...
A way to kill your market, and company? Shove under powered junk into your customers hands. Guaranteed...
Because when the going gets tough, the Atom folds. I made a system with the Atom processor, and it seemed capable. But run anything needing anything close to muscles, and the Atom system slowed down to nearly becoming inert. Just saying...
A way to kill your market, and company? Shove under powered junk into your customers hands. Guaranteed...
Nothing exiting here - that chip is used in the new four port 13" MacBook Pro. The lower spec i5-1038NG7 is the base CPU option in that MBP.
The 2020 Airs also use chips from the same generation: i3-1000NG4, i5-1030NG7, and i7-1060NG7.
Which make the Air's kinda 'Meh'... (Who buys them anyway? The only person I know that had one constantly complained about the speed, but liked the price. 'You get what you pay for'? He gave it to his kid, and bought a real MacBook Pro. Top of the line BTO as I remember)
Oh, you don't suppose that was Apple's idea all along? Devilishly clever...
nope. N just means minor tweaks for an OEM. Like clock speed. Or packaging/socket type.