Apple Silicon: The Complete Guide

[CHA05 R31GN5]

Ya just click this one check box in XCode...

Xcode "It just builds". *Only compatible with Apple provided APIs and libraries. Using our new Buddy Builder interface, all linking is completed automatically using our proprietary algorithm which automatically selects the most appropriate binaries for your application.

 

[DanBig]

To anyone confused or wanting to point out how to spell "Arm" as the name of the company making the chips, the article has it right: Arm (Uppercase A, lowercase rm). It used to be ARM (all uppercase) until August 2017 when they rebranded. Confusingly their logo is all lowercase.

Read about the company trademark here: https://www.arm.com/company/policies/trademarks

While Arm the company changed their name it was to reflect the fact they are also doing other things besides ARM architecture!

So... If you speak about the company it's Arm. If you speak on the architecture of the chip it's ARM.

Yes! Its confusing when a company morphs from a single focus to multiple directions. Apple even did it! It was Apple Computer now its just Apple as it wanted to break away from being thought of a computer company rightfully so!

 

[Stella]

Being able to compile languages to different architectures is nothing new and relatively easy to do. It's a small part to any shift to Arm, in the overall scheme of things. Not all apps are developed using Swift, BTW.

Added: It's been possible to write Swift apps targeted to Arm for a few years now, i.e., Raspberry Pi, iPad

The entire article doesn't mention 'Swift' at all which is really surprising. It is not about 'will they make the transition' but when. They are putting all the little bits and pieces into place to make this transition happening and have been planning it for years. They already have all software vendors programme their software in Swift allowing them to release their software on all platforms at the same time. When the time is right, they just turn on the switch for this transition.

 

[_Refurbished_]

i know this forum is oddly excited about this idea, but i would much rather apple keep the higher tiers with intel processors.

/end thread

I'd rather keep my Bootcamp full-compatibility.

 

[manu chao]

This is incorrect. See their guidelines:

Do not alter the spelling or form of Arm's trademarks by abbreviating them, creating acronyms, translating them, joining them to other words, symbols or numbers (either as one word or with a hyphen - unless otherwise permitted, e.g. Arm® Cortex®-A15), or using improper capitalization. However, permitted capitalization occurs when using an Arm word trademark in headlines, titles or text where all of the surrounding words are shown in uppercase characters. In this situation, you may use the relevant Arm trademark in uppercase characters, provided that such use complies with these guidelines.

Looking at Wikipedia, it seem that when referring to the CPU architecture one would capitalise the term (as it is an abbreviation) but that when referring to the company (and its trademarks) only the first letter should be capitalised.

 

[DNichter]

People are already pissed about the butterfly keyboard, and now you want Apple to make a keyboard with even less key travel? That'll go over well.

Yes, I do. People don't have to buy it if they don't want to.

 

[manu chao]

Once again a reference to the inherently flawed Geekbench tests. That 'test' runs for a couple of minutes. An ARM chip is not going to be able to sustain that performance output for any extended processes.

And the same wouldn't apply to the Turbo Boost of Intel chips?

 

[CarlJ]

This idea is as good as Apple maps

Given that Apple Maps works really well these days, that's a pretty strong statement of support.
[automerge]1573048619[/automerge]

Power chips turned out to a big disaster for Apple as they fell behind. What if Apple falls behind?

So far, in a few short years, Apple has made the best mobile CPUs on the planet. Going into Arm-based Macs, they can have their chip designers scale up all sorts of parameters (clock speed, number of cores, etc), to get the level of performance they want. Now, if only they had some money to throw at the problem.

 

[canonical]

Having lived through the previous transitions, which involved a lot of upheaval for every software producer to start over ... hopefully never.

 

[theluggage]

I inherently agree with your statements, but please also realise that ARM chips can be actively cooled as well, and when they are, they are able to sustain the performance.

...exactly - and if Apple were developing (say) an ARM Mac Pro they'd have a choice between using ARM's smaller size and lower power consumption to (a) cram more cores and acceleration hardware into the same (copious) thermal envelope as a Xeon or (b) make the whole thing smaller and quieter.

There seem to be a lot of arguments here based on the notion that Apple is just going to take an A12 (designed for a passively cooled tablet) and slap it as-is into a full-sized laptop chassis.

(Personally, after the last WWDC, I think the chances of an ARM Mac have receded - looks to me like Apple are concentrating on expanding the iPad line to gradually replace Macs from the low-end up).

Apple isn't in control over ARM what-so-ever. Whatever gave you that idea?
Apple is relying on ARM designs and licenses.

The situation is still very different: with x86, Apple are restricted to using whatever complete chipsets Intel deign to produce. This is particularly true for mobile and laptops that are based on a "system on a chip" where the GPU, USB ports etc. are all part of the CPU. Often, when Apple have been "slow" to adopt the new generation of Intel chips, part of the issue is that they've been waiting for Intel to produce the actual model needed for Apple's products (e.g. a 65W quad i5 with Iris Pro/equivalent graphics). Case in point: the 2018 Mac Mini is a messy compromise because Intel don't make desktop-class CPUs with anything other than the most basic integrated graphics. Likewise with the PPC - the final straw was that Apple needed a mobile-class G5, not technically impossible, but neither IBM nor Motorola fancied making one.

They simply bought the rights to use what ARM already made. Apple just patched the ARM parts they wanted together, and outsourced the manufacturing to TSMC.

...but that in itself is vastly more flexible than waiting for Intel to release (say) a complete 28W i5 with Iris Proplus graphics, X amount of cache, integrated USB4 (or, in the past, waiting for IBM/Motorola to make a mobile-capable PPC G5). ARM will license their designs at any level, from just the instruction set design, individual processor cores and other 'building blocks' to complete system-on-a-chip designs (if that's what you want). Apple can license/build/commission exactly the spec it needs for a particular product.

Silly analogy time: Intel and AMD offer a series of fixed-price meals for 2. ARM/TSMC et. al. offer a full a-la-carte menu and, if you know the chef, they'll probably knock up a custom dish to your taste. Its not about whether you'll have to chop your own onions.

 

[BigBoy2018]

And the same wouldn't apply to the Turbo Boost of Intel chips?

Correct. Turbo boost is a classic tool that 'tricks' Geekbench into higher scores, but doesn't mean squat for any extended period when you're stressing the processor.

That's why I always say go for the processor with the higher base clock speed. A processor with a base of 2.3 that turbo boosts to 4.1 is going to look good on paper (Geekbench), but not in the editing suite.

 

[DanBig]

What is often forgotten when measuring performance is the length of time the process takes. Short benchmark test is like a drag race between two muscle cars on a flat straightaway. But most Pro's are processing long process activities (video rendering as an example). This is more like a race up a mountain! This is not tested with benchmarks effectively!

Long processing sessions can kill the APU/CPU or GPU device. Have we forgotten all of the failed GPU chips in the older MacBook Pro's?? As we pushed them harder than what they where designed to support. I don't blame AMD or NVIDEA here as they where caught by more aggressive game apps (excluding NVIDEAs bad chip)

So is an ARM based MacBook Possible? Yes! But is it going to work at the needed level of performance? Sadly No, for the more process intensive apps Pro's use.

Then there's the OS elements. iPadOS has started to migrate into a more effective OS for tablets (still has a bit more to go). Can it be used as the basis of a clamshell system Yes! And thats what Apple needs to embrace!

What I foresee is a iPad clamshell filling in the MacBook slot. Thats the market Apple needs to enter. They are almost there now with the iPad Pro line with the keyboard covers. Many people just don't like the cover keyboards and the lack of a trackpad also forces people to touch the screen. A MacBook type of keyboard with a touchpad LCD surface with a full display above would be the ticket here!

What I want for a Pro level system is performance! To render hours of video without melting down. This is where Intel or AMD Ryzen or even the coming ThreadRipper chips make more sense.

But lets look at this a bit differently. What is holding us back in processor design? We are still dependent on single threaded processes. While many apps are multi-threaded they are limited by the scaler architecture of the CPU and then if you push for massively multi-threaded (SMT) across multiple CPU's the collective cores need to run at slower clocks because the chip can't handle running too many cores concurrently on the same die as the thermals would over stress the silicon! So dense dies need to scatterplot the running cores to balance the thermal load across the die this also slows the running process. Neither CISC or RISC architectures are able to get us to this next level of performance!

 

[maflynn]

Having lived through the previous transitions, which involved a lot of upheaval for every software producer to start over ... hopefully never.

This may be why macOS now has the ability to run iOS apps. Apple may be looking at ways to smooth over the bumps in the road.

 

[fokmik]

As an user of the surface pro X...i hope Apple will not go to arm soon
The emulation of pro apps...is hard...or like someone else said an heartbreak
I guess if apple will offer final cut pro for arm...people who use that app alone with some other light apps like office etc...could go with arm and have a better battery life
On surface pro x i have around 2 battery lifes...when i use web, mail, office i get around 8 hours...or when i use Lightroom or an app that its emulated i get 3-4 hours max...so ARM based device to have 3 hours for work isnt much

 

[BigBoy2018]

...exactly - and if Apple were developing (say) an ARM Mac Pro they'd have a choice between using ARM's smaller size and lower power consumption to (a) cram more cores and acceleration hardware into the same (copious) thermal envelope as a Xeon or (b) make the whole thing smaller and quieter.

There seem to be a lot of arguments here based on the notion that Apple is just going to take an A12 (designed for a passively cooled tablet) and slap it as-is into a full-sized laptop chassis.

Well given apple's history of going with thinness over cooling, I would say you might be being a little too optimistic
[automerge]1573050154[/automerge]

As an user of the surface pro X...i hope Apple will not go to arm soon
The emulation of pro apps...is hard...or like someone else said an heartbreak
I guess if apple will offer final cut pro for arm...people who use that app alone with some other light apps like office etc...could go with arm and have a better battery life
On surface pro x i have around 2 battery lifes...when i use web, mail, office i get around 8 hours...or when i use Lightroom or an app that its emulated i get 3-4 hours max...so ARM based device to have 3 hours for work isnt much

If there's a transition, anyone with any interest in being productive will probably want to wait a couple years before getting their first ARM mac. Not only the software transition pains that you eluded to, but the fact that the first laptops/desktops out of the gate that use ARM will probably have a few 'glitches'.

 

[Hrududu]

Watch how quickly Apple will be able to EOL the Macs once they own the chip inside too. Like the iPhones and iPad, they’ll only be usable as long as Apple sees it fit. No more workarounds to extend the life of your older system. No doubt Intel Macs will see a hard boot once the ARM machines take flight.

 

[BigBoy2018]

Long processing sessions can kill the APU/CPU or GPU device. Have we forgotten all of the failed GPU chips in the older MacBook Pro's??

To be fair, those GPU's were killed because apple insisted on squeezing them in thin cases that didn't have the proper cooling.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Intel sells dozens of chip models. If Apple had, say, just two, what would they be? One for Mac Pro and another for everything else?

Two could work, much the same way it does now, with the A12 and A12X. One would be for devices that need to fit into a strict thermal envelope, and the other would be for devices with a less restrictive thermal envelope. Right now, the primary difference between them are the number of cores, A12 has 6 CPU and 4 GPU cores, A12X has 8 CPU and 7 GPU cores.

If you look at Apple’s mac lineup now, out of ALL the processors Intel makes, Apple generally uses 3, the high performance variants of their mobile and desktop lines (unless Intel has difficulty producing those, like they have for the last 6 years or so) and the Xeon line. There’s really no reason for Apple to have features in their Mac Pro processor equivalent that’s not in their desktop equivalent, they would likely make OTHER things the differentiator. For example, one of the systems would have slotted RAM/HD and one would have soldered, one would have more Thunderbolt ports, etc.

Also, remember that Apple doesn’t have to make a processor that’s anywhere near as close to Intel for general purpose computing... their Xeon class solution could even benchmark lower than Intel’s. They only have to make a processor and subsystem that runs macOS, and ARM compiled macOS applications better than any comparable Intel chip. If I sit a consumer in front of an armacOS system and they’re able to use Safari, Mail, Photos, and iMovie AND these versions of the Apps perform the same or better, that’s 80% of the Mac using world right there. Now, I sit a FCPX or Logic Pro user in front of an armacOS system, they have more simultaneous tracks, or more 4k streams and blindingly faster performance, that’s the majority of the remaining 20%.

 

[DanBig]

And the same wouldn't apply to the Turbo Boost of Intel chips?

Don't forget the Apple ARM chips don't have a deep cooling solution so it will plateau sooner than the Intel chip. Currently Intel's i7/i9 chips running hot due to the limits of the chip (die shrink). Intel is struggling with 10nm they are still stuck at the 14nm Node. Apple also under sized the needed cooling to get the chip to leverage TurboBoost very long.

So basically, you got a double whammy!
[automerge]1573051103[/automerge]

To be fair, those GPU's were killed because apple insisted on squeezing them in thin cases that didn't have the proper cooling.

Yes, Apple under sized the needed cooling as well! But the root issue is the speed of application development outpaced the GPU's. If you didn't play games or vids the system wouldn't have over stressed the GPU (per what the system was expected to run at the time of development).

 

[ghanwani]

Not sure the RISC CISC argument is correct.

Intel x86 Processors – CISC or RISC? Or both??

The argument between CISC architecture and RISC architecture is longstanding. For compiler designers, RISC is a little burden since the same...

sunnyeves.blogspot.com

 

[realtuner]

Apple isn't in control over ARM what-so-ever. Whatever gave you that idea?
Apple is relying on ARM designs and licenses. If ARM stops licensing or stops developing, this will directly affect Apple. Apple merely designs its chips based on ARM's technologies. Apple hasn't invented anything of the ARM technology stack. They simply bought the rights to use what ARM already made. Apple just patched the ARM parts they wanted together, and outsourced the manufacturing to TSMC.

So in that sense, Apple is once again relying on two technology providers. ARM for the core technology and TSMC for manufacturing.

So much wrong here it’s not even funny

Apple doesn’t rely on ARM designs. That would be Qualcomm, Huawei and now Samsung (who laid off a bunch of engineers and are no longer making custom cores). They’re the ones who “patch together ARM parts” to make processors.

Apple designs 100% custom cores that are compatible with the ARMv8 instruction set. The same way that AMD designs 100% custom cores that can run x86. Do you think AMD simply uses Intel “parts” and slaps them together? Ridiculous.

I don’t know why people keep perpetuating this myth that Apple just “slaps together” ARM designs to make a processor.

 

[ph001bi]

God, I hope not. I use a fair amount of Windows apps via bootcamp/wine/vmware. This would force me to maintain two computers.

You'll just bootcamp/wine/vmware these apps with Windows on Arm on the Mac. Are these Apps available in 32 bits?

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Not really. The Surface Neo will use Intel's new "Lakefield" processor.

I think the Surface Pro X exists because Microsoft wants to cultivate this potential future without Intel, and Lakefield exists because Intel knows Microsoft’s future roadmap and they will either have a product that fits into it OR Qualcomm will. If Intel can hit their targets, Microsoft could keep ARM and Intel going side by side indefinitely. If, as has happened in the past, Intel misses their release windows year after year, then Microsoft has an ARM loaded future, just ready to pull the trigger on it.
[automerge]1573052413[/automerge]

Apple designs 100% custom cores that are compatible with the ARMv8 instruction set.

Not only that, in recent releases, ARM has announced that certain licensee types (of which Apple is one) are free to EXTEND their instruction sets with customer only instructions. It’s rumored that Apple has taken advantage of this in the A13.

 

[yakapo]

After this happens, I hope they release full OS X for the latest IPad pro.

 

[Dovydas]

After this happens, I hope they release full OS X for the latest IPad pro.

Of course not.