It's entirely possible that Apple will switch to RISC-V, not now but by 2030, because Apple always plan years before these switch. And consider how much experience they're on Switching Architecture, it's not a big deal for them for another switch.
All true, but there’s little reason fro them to consider RISC-V, at least not unless they make some pretty massive changes to it. It has some crazy design choices that make it bad for products like computers. Certainly no advantages over Arm. Things can change, but right now the only real RISC-V advantage is no license fees (which does not really matter to Apple, which probably pays very little for its license, if anything). And the lack of license fees isn’t going to help you when you get sued for infringing someone’s CPU patents, and then there’s no Arm or Intel or AMD there to indemnify you.It's entirely possible that Apple will switch to RISC-V, not now but by 2030, because Apple always plan years before these switch. And consider how much experience they're on Switching Architecture, it's not a big deal for them for another switch.
Of course you're waiting. ARMv9 was introduced in the spring of this year and isn't expected to be in devices until early 2022.And here I'm just waiting for Apple Silicon to support ARMv9...
The price of a product is not determined by the cost of materials, but by what a consumer of the product is willing to pay.Once again, these savings won’t get passed on to us customers, prices will continue to go up. 🤦♂️
Apple has used RISC based architectures for most of it's existence before switching to Intel X86.
They actually went back a few steps in the Intel transition as the old IBM-Moto chips were full 64 and the older Intel Chips were not!
RISC has more in common with ARM64 than X86-CISC based architectures so this is simply good forward planning
I stand corrected.No, apple didn’t use RISC for most of its existence. The Apple II and original Mac were not RISC. The first RISC machines they used were PowerPCs. They didn’t start that until 1994. The Intel machines started in 2006. So they used CISC from 1977-1994, RISC from 1994-2006, CISC from 2006-2020 (ish).
And the PowerPCs apple used were not 64-bit other than the G5, I believe?
The last one took ~12 years though. From the acquisition of PA Semi (chip design company) in mid 2008 to the launch of the M1 for laptop & desktop chips in 2020 and corresponding software transition.Also, Apple has an unlimited architecture license agreement with ARM. If they switch architectures again, it won’t be before 10-15 years.
I’d be very interested to hear some more of your thoughts on “crazy design choices that make [the RISC-V] bad for products like computers”. I’ve come to trust your take on much about processor design through your posts over the past year or two.All true, but there’s little reason fro them to consider RISC-V, at least not unless they make some pretty massive changes to it. It has some crazy design choices that make it bad for products like computers. Certainly no advantages over Arm.
There’s a good history lesson there. Had to do with IBM and their design. Ultimately x86 is very inefficient compared to ARM. Do some digging on YouTube you’ll find a good documentary on it.If ARM is so great, why have they been keeping us on x86 all this time since like the 80's.
My understanding is the RISC-V thing is not meant to be a computer main CPU its used more for smaller stuff like an encryption chip or the monitor maybe, stuff like that but not an M1 or Ryzen replacement. Its more or less really a an educational CPU to test and try things on. Nvidia I believe already has it somewhere in their GPU cards...I think...
If you or someone else know more than I do I will gladly listen...
I’d be very interested to hear some more of your thoughts on “crazy design choices that make [the RISC-V] bad for products like computers”. I’ve come to trust your take on much about processor design through your posts over the past year or two.
What do you mean? Apple is heavily invested into open source, their platform is in fact built on open source initiatives. For example, virtually every modern browser today traces its codebase to WebKit, an open source browser engine developed by Apple. LLVM, one of the most used compiler frameworks, was built on Apples money.
Objective-C was originally developed by Brad Cox and Tom Love in the early 1980s, it was selected by NeXT for its NeXTSTEP operating system and popularized as a result. Regardless, who developed it? Not Apple. Certainly not at first, and it wasn't until *much later* that Apple got on board with it.Yes, but Apple is famous for abandoning the technologies they helped to develop. Guess who was one for the strongest supporters of OpenCL? (and I mean OpenCL, not OpenGL). Guess who developed ObjectiveC? Guess who developed the MagSafe?... I could continue for hours...
"RISC-V still does not have core components like SIMD or virtualization approved"People were commenting on lack of high-performance ARM chips and voicing their skepticism regarding Apple‘s ability to design such a chip. Here I am talking about something different. RISC-V still does not have core components like SIMD or virtualization approved. And of course Apple could develop their own proprietary extensions to fill in the gaps, but what would be the point? It won’t be RISC-V, but rather Apple‘s ISA based on the reduced RISC-V core, requiring them to develop tools and frameworks to work with it. Sounds like a lot of hassle to replicate what they already have with ARM.
Technologies are transient, and I think it makes perfect sence to move on when’s technology has outlived its usefulness. Yes, Apple was the original author of OpenCL, but that initiative has successfully dies thanks to Nvidia and flawed committee politics. ObjectiveC is almost 40 years old now and is in a dire need for a revamp. It was not fulfilling the needs of the ecosystem anymore
ARM64 instead is a new technology that is probably as close to an optimal ISA a register-based architecture can get. It’s only now reaching its critical momentum, and Apple is spearheading the efforts. Why would they abandon it now? There always has to be a reason, some benefit from choosing a different route. I don’t see any in this case.
Ant to add to that. Apple have an advantage over the rest. Then can tie the OS to the chip, right down to the design schematics of the chip and build the os on top of that.Of course it will happen. If Apple sees, that they can save money, they sure will switch in a heartbeat.
And after that they can have even more control over the chip, instructions and other things. From open-source to closed-source.
If ARM is so great, why have they been keeping us on x86 all this time since like the 80's - 68k AND PPC which is a cousin to ARM.. both are RISC and sadly, PowerPC did not do its job.. and now M1 is the new PowerPC like processor with a kick to it. CISC is bad.If ARM is so great, why have they been keeping us on x86 all this time since like the 80's.
My understanding is the RISC-V thing is not meant to be a computer main CPU its used more for smaller stuff like an encryption chip or the monitor maybe, stuff like that but not an M1 or Ryzen replacement. Its more or less really a an educational CPU to test and try things on. Nvidia I believe already has it somewhere in their GPU cards...I think...
If you or someone else know more than I do I will gladly listen...
Might as well have stayed with Intel then..
If ARM is so great, why have they been keeping us on x86 all this time since like the 80's - 68k AND PPC which is a cousin to ARM.. both are RISC and sadly, PowerPC did not do its job.. and now M1 is the new PowerPC like processor with a kick to it. CISC is bad.
Helping make RISC-V a viable alternative to ARM would allow them a position of strength at the negotiating table with Nvidia, or whoever winds up controlling ARM, when it comes to determining licensing fees,
True but, I don't believe it's just that simple.Apple was one of the three companies that formed Arm as a joint venture - they provided all the financing. They have a perpetual license. They are not worried about licensing fees, and there’s no chance Nvidia or anyone else could interfere with the rights they surely locked up from the beginning.
Why would this be an issue? The ISA and u-arch are two different IP and are mutually exclusive, as far as I know.If they owned ARM they'd not be able to keep A-series and M-series chip designs to themselves without serious blowback.
You're thinking about it on a technical level. You're not wrong that they absolutely could technologically segment the businesses but from a public and regulatory perception mindset it would be considered an anti-competitive conflict of interests and it would be extremely easy to make an argument that Apple would be keeping the best for themselves and holding back their competitors even if they didn't do exactly that. It would be a huge liability for them.Why would this be an issue? The ISA and u-arch are two different IP and are mutually exclusive, as far as I know.
Apple acquiring ARM would mean investing in two separate u-arch design or letting the world enjoy what they have achieved with their A series SoC by rolling the ARM core design team into their existing Apple Silicon team. Not likely for that to happen since Apple Silicon is Apple secret sauce.