Because everyone else was explaining where the employees had gone. IOW saying the same as you were.
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 Testing ARM Based Mac Prototypes with Large Magic Trackpad?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because everyone else was explaining where the employees had gone. IOW saying the same as you were.
Not entirely correct; JavaScript-based Metro apps use JIT, C# and VB based Metro apps do not, they are one time compiled to be platform neutral. This explains it.
I think Apple will release an ARM-based "Mac". I'd gladly have something in the Mac Mini format, and replace my quad-core Mini Server. Would tie in nicely with the home integration rumour.
In my experience (which admittedly is beyond 14 years old), people who feel the need to insult others usually don't know WTF they're talking about or they'd have a more coherent argument than name calling.
LOL. I've got two degrees in electronic engineering. What do you have? Or should I say what does your 14-year old friend have?
So some KID that was 14 when he started is your expert? He critiques computer hardware? THAT makes him an "expert" on the FUTURE??? I used to review CDs. That doesn't make me a designer of Blu-Ray players.
My 2-year old nephew wears diapers for that matter. That doesn't mean he's an expert on diaper technology. Hey, those are dry! I like those!
So you're telling me that a slower ARM CPU is going to emulate a modern x86 in real time?
I'm sure it would work with a 486, maybe even a Pentium III. But with something like Haswell i7? And what I wrote was crap? LOL.
Your 14-year old friend should even know that the problem with parallel processing is that the applications have to take advantage of the extra threads in order for there to be any improvement over a single core. Most applications don't even make good use of TWO cores, let alone 16. This is why a Mac Pro with 12 cores is no better than an iMac for running a typical application (e.g. most games). It won't make use of the extra cores PERIOD. This is where a number crunching test on some review site doesn't mean much. Having a high test number for 24 threads on a 12-core setup won't actually make Office or Crysis run faster if those programs don't make use of extra cores/threads. You're only as fast as your fastest core, which is why turbo type modes exist to push one core faster because the other three won't do you any good with most software. If you're encoding a movie with Handbrake, yeah 12-cores is nice. If you're ray-tracing, yeah, it's lovely. Most apps won't make very good use of even two cores, though.
You can emulate anything on anything in theory. But doing it in real time is another matter. I made emulated pinball games clear back in 2001 even. The electronics being emulated was from the '80s and early '90s. It still needed at least a Pentium III (most needed more) to do them plus the simulator in real time. There's a big difference between having an x86 emulator in general and having one that is as fast or faster than current Intel CPUs. Of course, if your ONLY goal is to get software to RUN and don't CARE about how fast they run (i.e. dog slow).... But that's the kind of thing that will hurt Apple. No one wants a slower computer. I stayed away from the Intel models for a few years until things settled down. Office 2004 running under Rosetta emulation on a late 2008 model MBP was slower than on an upgraded 1.8GHz G4 machine from 2001! Yes, it ran. But who wanted to use a slower version if they could get a faster one?
Why would anyone EVER buy a newer computer to run things slower? It's why I held off on an Intel Mac for a couple of years. They were very miserable for the first two years until software started catching up. Can Apple afford another two year slosh? They at least GAINED much faster CPUs in the process AND Windows compatibility in the mean time. You'd gain NOTHING here save perhaps some more battery life (which means nothing on a desktop or even a plugged in notebook in a hotel room) and lose just about everything by going to ARM. You want ARM? Buy an iPad. You clearly don't need to do more than email or light browsing anyway as evidence by your claim below that 98% don't need a fast computer for things like gaming anymore.
Ah, there it is. The so-called "Fanboy" argument. How did I just KNOW that one was coming? Youre 98% figure is utterly LAUGHABLE BTW. Apple releases CPU updates to Macbooks constantly for a reason (i.e. current Macs are NOT fast enough for 98%. People will always want better/faster, not even slower).
It's a small wonder that you think an ARM CPU is "good enough" for the masses. It's because you don't expect to do ANYTHING but check your email and shop on Amazon. The future? If the future is in the slow past, then yes, ARM is the "future". I remember when RISC was the future also (i.e. PPC). Look how that turned out. The idea that Windows will switch to ARM is laughable. It would destroy Microsoft (what's left of it anyway). They can't even get 50% of their users to switch from XP, let alone give up compatibility with 100% of their old software.
Frankly, if Apple is dumb enough to switch to ARM then they deserve what will happen to their stock. Apple needs to start innovating new products, not just playing switch the brand CPU to something in-house so we can control when the next model comes out (assuming it doesn't all go to hell internally and we fall hopelessly behind Intel and wished we thought about it, let alone tried it). Face it. If they can't make ARM faster and better than Intel and STAY THERE more or less permanently, they will do nothing but make the competition that much stronger and make their computers a laughing stock.
Apple has sold more computers since the switch to Intel than during the entire history or PPC. There's a good reason for that. Macs are now mainstream capable machines. Before they were a tiny niche running an incompatible platform relative to Intel and Windows. Now you can run both on one machine even at the same time with no major issues. Giving that up for a slightly more battery life would be crazy.
People who obviously want little more than the iPad experience should stick with an iPad rather than think they need a Mac when it clearly doesn't mean their needs.
Just a little something interesting to me. I've seen people here reference the Cell and PS3. (Usually in the past I've seen people cite this as a processor apple could have used to stick to PowerPC)
But, you know what's conveniently left out? Ask yourself what both Sony and Microsoft ended up going with for their next generation consoles after Xbox 360 and PS3.
Nope, not PowerPC, Cell or even ARM. Why none other than "dusty old, 40 year old spec" AMD branded x86-64! Apparently, despite being old dusty and busted it's good enough for real time application!
OTOH, they didn't just slap on emulation to run all their PowerPC/Cell code from the previous consoles into the XBox One and PS4 because the CPUs there are too damned slow to emulate any software from those systems at anything resembling performance. Often times emulation simply needs raw performance per core... which is not there at ~1.6GHz.. or even 2.6Ghz. I've noticed emulation of a 700MHz G3 class PowerPC needing 4GHz to run a certain game at full speed.
Yes, Rosetta was also dog slow for the longest time for things other than the simplest apps. It even struggled with 10 year old games.
Don't trivialize how demanding CPU emulation is.
Anyway, I can see how easy it is for Apple to troll the community with threads like this. All they have to do is "leak" some info that they might be testing some radical change and watch the crap hit the fan.
But, you know what's conveniently left out? Ask yourself what both Sony and Microsoft ended up going with for their next generation consoles after Xbox 360 and PS3.
Nope, not PowerPC, Cell or even ARM. Why none other than "dusty old, 40 year old spec" AMD branded x86-64!
Apparently, despite being old dusty and busted it's good enough for real time application!OTOH, they didn't just slap on emulation to run all their PowerPC/Cell code from the previous consoles into the XBox One and PS4 because the CPUs there are too damned slow to emulate any software from those systems at anything resembling performance. Often times emulation simply needs raw performance per core... which is not there at ~1.6GHz.. or even 2.6Ghz. I've noticed emulation of a 700MHz G3 class PowerPC needing 4GHz to run a certain game at full speed.
Yes, Rosetta was also dog slow for the longest time for things other than the simplest apps. It even struggled with 10 year old games.
Don't trivialize how demanding CPU emulation is.
Anyway, I can see how easy it is for Apple to troll the community with threads like this. All they have to do is "leak" some info that they might be testing some radical change and watch the crap hit the fan.
Last edited:
Just a little something interesting to me. I've seen people here reference the Cell and PS3. (Usually in the past I've seen people cite this as a processor apple could have used to stick to PowerPC)
But, you know what's conveniently left out? Ask yourself what both Sony and Microsoft ended up going with for their next generation consoles after Xbox 360 and PS3.
Nope, not PowerPC, Cell or even ARM. Why none other than "dusty old, 40 year old spec" AMD branded x86-64!
The reason for that is, volume, price and Moore's law.
What I think could be considered is instruction set simulation. As a side note, there are people who have managed to run WinXP on RaspberryPI with Qemu. It's not a question if it would be as fast and definitely not faster, but fast enough? It's an interesting idea at least IMO.
Apple: ARM-Based Macs Are A Fantasy (For Now) http://seekingalpha.com/article/2245723-apple-arm-based-macs-are-a-fantasy-for-now
Apple has Macs that can do descent gaming. They satisfy the vast majority of the computer market. You're an esoteric outlier if you have to have more power to game. Apple is not in the business of making computers for the outliers in a market. You would be an outlier in the iMac market. That's how business works. Take a marketing class.In my experience (which admittedly is beyond 14 years old), people who feel the need to insult others usually don't know WTF they're talking about or they'd have a more coherent argument than name calling.
LOL. I've got two degrees in electronic engineering. What do you have? Or should I say what does your 14-year old friend have?
So some KID that was 14 when he started is your expert? He critiques computer hardware? THAT makes him an "expert" on the FUTURE??? I used to review CDs. That doesn't make me a designer of Blu-Ray players.
My 2-year old nephew wears diapers for that matter. That doesn't mean he's an expert on diaper technology. Hey, those are dry! I like those!
So you're telling me that a slower ARM CPU is going to emulate a modern x86 in real time?
I'm sure it would work with a 486, maybe even a Pentium III. But with something like Haswell i7? And what I wrote was crap? LOL.
Your 14-year old friend should even know that the problem with parallel processing is that the applications have to take advantage of the extra threads in order for there to be any improvement over a single core. Most applications don't even make good use of TWO cores, let alone 16. This is why a Mac Pro with 12 cores is no better than an iMac for running a typical application (e.g. most games). It won't make use of the extra cores PERIOD. This is where a number crunching test on some review site doesn't mean much. Having a high test number for 24 threads on a 12-core setup won't actually make Office or Crysis run faster if those programs don't make use of extra cores/threads. You're only as fast as your fastest core, which is why turbo type modes exist to push one core faster because the other three won't do you any good with most software. If you're encoding a movie with Handbrake, yeah 12-cores is nice. If you're ray-tracing, yeah, it's lovely. Most apps won't make very good use of even two cores, though.
You can emulate anything on anything in theory. But doing it in real time is another matter. I made emulated pinball games clear back in 2001 even. The electronics being emulated was from the '80s and early '90s. It still needed at least a Pentium III (most needed more) to do them plus the simulator in real time. There's a big difference between having an x86 emulator in general and having one that is as fast or faster than current Intel CPUs. Of course, if your ONLY goal is to get software to RUN and don't CARE about how fast they run (i.e. dog slow).... But that's the kind of thing that will hurt Apple. No one wants a slower computer. I stayed away from the Intel models for a few years until things settled down. Office 2004 running under Rosetta emulation on a late 2008 model MBP was slower than on an upgraded 1.8GHz G4 machine from 2001! Yes, it ran. But who wanted to use a slower version if they could get a faster one?
Why would anyone EVER buy a newer computer to run things slower? It's why I held off on an Intel Mac for a couple of years. They were very miserable for the first two years until software started catching up. Can Apple afford another two year slosh? They at least GAINED much faster CPUs in the process AND Windows compatibility in the mean time. You'd gain NOTHING here save perhaps some more battery life (which means nothing on a desktop or even a plugged in notebook in a hotel room) and lose just about everything by going to ARM. You want ARM? Buy an iPad. You clearly don't need to do more than email or light browsing anyway as evidence by your claim below that 98% don't need a fast computer for things like gaming anymore.
Ah, there it is. The so-called "Fanboy" argument. How did I just KNOW that one was coming? Youre 98% figure is utterly LAUGHABLE BTW. Apple releases CPU updates to Macbooks constantly for a reason (i.e. current Macs are NOT fast enough for 98%. People will always want better/faster, not even slower).
It's a small wonder that you think an ARM CPU is "good enough" for the masses. It's because you don't expect to do ANYTHING but check your email and shop on Amazon. The future? If the future is in the slow past, then yes, ARM is the "future". I remember when RISC was the future also (i.e. PPC). Look how that turned out. The idea that Windows will switch to ARM is laughable. It would destroy Microsoft (what's left of it anyway). They can't even get 50% of their users to switch from XP, let alone give up compatibility with 100% of their old software.
Frankly, if Apple is dumb enough to switch to ARM then they deserve what will happen to their stock. Apple needs to start innovating new products, not just playing switch the brand CPU to something in-house so we can control when the next model comes out (assuming it doesn't all go to hell internally and we fall hopelessly behind Intel and wished we thought about it, let alone tried it). Face it. If they can't make ARM faster and better than Intel and STAY THERE more or less permanently, they will do nothing but make the competition that much stronger and make their computers a laughing stock.
Apple has sold more computers since the switch to Intel than during the entire history or PPC. There's a good reason for that. Macs are now mainstream capable machines. Before they were a tiny niche running an incompatible platform relative to Intel and Windows. Now you can run both on one machine even at the same time with no major issues. Giving that up for a slightly more battery life would be crazy.
People who obviously want little more than the iPad experience should stick with an iPad rather than think they need a Mac when it clearly doesn't mean their needs.
Anand Lal Shimpi is not just some guy in a basement writing reviews..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anand_Lal_Shimpi
How do you not know who he is? Or what Anandtech is?
HE WAS CITED IN THIS MACRUMORS ARTICLE....
Or did you not care to read a more credible opinion when they cited the A7 being "Desktop Class"?
You're clearly just trolling.
Last edited:
The argument that Apple has nothing to gain from switching iMacs to the A8 because they don't need to lower power consumption is very narrow-minded. Back when the Pentium 4 was Intel's best desktop chip, the same people would have said "Intel has nothing to gain from switching their desktop processors over to the Pentium M's architecture" (the Pentium M was their mobile chip if you don't remember that far back). But THEY DID. The Pentium 4 was more or less ditched. The Core architecture came from the Pentium M, an architecture deigned for low power use in laptops. Why? Because it was insanely efficient. These same people would say "Why would they use the Pentium M? It's slower than the Pentium 4!" It was only slow because the clock speeds were low and it wasn't designed for higher clocks. But they bumped up the clock speeds and just developed the architecture a little more and they blew AMD out of the water.
This is the same thing that Apple has been testing. They definitely would test their A8 cores for maximum clock speeds. It would not be done to save battery or power, although it could be. In an iMac, they don't have to be concerned about power consumption and they can ramp the clocks up to 2.6GHz. I say 2.6GHz based on the chips Samsung is designing for 2015 and the rumors of the A8 being a quad core at 2.6 GHz. While it's probably not going to be running 2.6GHz in an iPhone or iPad, the chips in these rumors were probably designed for Macs that handle higher TDP processors.
The A7 architecture has a lot of headroom to get it's performance close to the Core architecture. They could definitely get it to comparable or better performance with the A8. I always thought people saying PCs would switch to ARM were nuts. I still don't see it happening right away with the canned ARM designs out there. But when the A6 came out and Apple's custom design almost tripled the single threaded performance of the A5, I thought it might be possible if they kept it up a few years. When the A7 doubled the A6 single threaded performance it was obvious, unless Intel picked up the pace, an A series chip could be competing with Intel at their low end TDPs in the next year or 2. That's why this is possible.
This is the same thing that Apple has been testing. They definitely would test their A8 cores for maximum clock speeds. It would not be done to save battery or power, although it could be. In an iMac, they don't have to be concerned about power consumption and they can ramp the clocks up to 2.6GHz. I say 2.6GHz based on the chips Samsung is designing for 2015 and the rumors of the A8 being a quad core at 2.6 GHz. While it's probably not going to be running 2.6GHz in an iPhone or iPad, the chips in these rumors were probably designed for Macs that handle higher TDP processors.
The A7 architecture has a lot of headroom to get it's performance close to the Core architecture. They could definitely get it to comparable or better performance with the A8. I always thought people saying PCs would switch to ARM were nuts. I still don't see it happening right away with the canned ARM designs out there. But when the A6 came out and Apple's custom design almost tripled the single threaded performance of the A5, I thought it might be possible if they kept it up a few years. When the A7 doubled the A6 single threaded performance it was obvious, unless Intel picked up the pace, an A series chip could be competing with Intel at their low end TDPs in the next year or 2. That's why this is possible.
Last edited:
I remember the game Descent. I remember it making me feel all motion sick due to how it rendered the 3D motion.... Oh did you mean DECENT? Oh my bad.
You don't do yourself any favors saying outlandish things like Macs satisfy the vast majority of the (gaming) computer market when that's just plain nonsense. Maybe you should try reading some of these reviews you keep harping on about and you'd realize the Mac is a joke for gaming. Half of it is Apple's lack of high quality GPUs, the other half is a lack of decent drivers combined with not having the latest OpenGL and a lot of half-arse ports from DirectX. In any case, most Mac games are 15-60% slower than the same game run in Windows on the same machine.
See above. Your statement it outlandish. And the problem isn't the CPU, but it might be if they went to ARM.
Yeah, we all know the gaming market out there is pitiful. That's why Microsoft and Sony have dedicated gaming consoles because gamers are some esoteric breed.
Again, what does writing REVIEWS have to do with predicting hardware trends? Analyzing speed test data and predicting CPU design are two entirely different things. That guy was born about the same time I was attending kindergarten. And no, I don't read his site. Why would I?
What makes him credible? One of my two degrees is very similar to his. How is his opinion more credible? Because he's a glorified tech journalist and I work on actual multi-million dollar hardware every day? Please. Desktops existed in the 1980s. Calling something "desktop class" means very little to me. No A7 is REMOTELY in the same league as an i7. Besides, even if it were, the losses incurred to OSX in its ability to run Windows (virtualized or direct) combined with the swamp that would be the next two years or so running SLLOOOOOOWWW emulation of current software until developers could get their software moved over to ARM would be the death knell of the desktop Mac market. Maybe that's exactly what certain people would like to see (as they would prefer mobile computing to be the new "normal"), but I guarantee Microsoft wouldn't be sitting on their laurels in the mean time.
Remember the old Mac Vs. PC commercials? That came out of the move to Intel and the ability of the Mac to do most things better than the PC even on its own software platform. I'm sure Microsoft would LOVE to do a reverse shot at the Mac in return after it does something as stupid as changing architectures on a whim.
Your inability to deal with an educated argument should not lead to name calling (anyone can plainly see from my history of posts I'm no troll), but then that's how your first response started by calling my post an "unintelligible piece of crap". I'd call your posts immature and illogical at this point. If I had to guess your age, let's just say it would be under 18.
There's a HUGE difference between switching core compatible architectures (i.e. Pentium 4 to Pentium M, which are code-compatible) and switching your entire lineup over to an incompatible CPU core (x86 to ARM). Switching from PPC to Intel was no picnic, but there was little choice at the time because PPC appeared to be dead in the water and there was a lot to gain with Windows compatibility as a selling point to bring converts over who were fed up with Windows (namely Vista which was a total turd at the time). Apple's timing to switch couldn't have been any better and the Mac survived as a result. Switching a successful platform over to a different architecture just to control release dates or lower power levels is ridiculous. How long before Apple botches it all up and the ARM is so much slower and behind than Windows machines that Apple ends up in the 1-3% bracket again and eventually capitulates to Samsung (like Microsoft in the OS Wars) in the mobile market by sheer volume?
Apple should be working on NEW products and innovations, not screwing up things that are already working. Apple already has plenty of influence on Intel, being one of their largest customers and Intel has vastly more experience making CPUs than Apple does. Macbook battery life is already as long as iPads doing more serious work. Who is going to spend more than 8 hours a day on their computer without plugging in anyway? Someone on a holiday in the Arizona desert? Some of us use desktops and there is ZERO benefit there to just lower power consumption without gains elsewhere (which are non-existent right now as ARM is still much slower than X86).
Honestly, given Apple's recent moves (the Beats one in particular makes zero sense for the Apple brand, IMO and Johnny Ives monstrosity of an iOS make-over with many tech flaws and vulnerabilities that just shouldn't have happened), I wouldn't put it past them. Apple seems to be losing its touch in several areas, lately. It has become painfully apparent that Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs.
Actually, people from inside Apple said the future shift to Apple-designed processors was decided before Jobs died. Probably barring an incredible speed increase from Intel, which hasn't happened. And yes Anand Lal Shimpi definitely has over a million dollars of server hardware at his company, which he uses in his reviews... which are cited all over the web and by a large fraction of the press articles about this matter when they cite that the A7 is a desktop class architecture.
Last edited:
Because Anand Lal Shimpi is one of the most knowledgable and respected reviewers of all things computers and servers. He is universally well-regarded. Your dismissal of him speaks volumes. http://www.anandtech.com
I hope they keep the Intel cpu, i want to use my MB for gaming like playing Diablo 3 and other games and changing to arm would pretty much kul it for me. I love the macbook series and i'm considering an air later this year and hope apple fint do any silly changes, battery isn't everything I need to be able to use my apps and existing games
It isn't just about control, it's about Apple removing all opposing options to their desktop, like Steam. Nobody can buy apps anywhere except on OSX for ARM, and Apple will get their 30% software cut no matter what.
Don't whorry, seems apple just tested some competitor to MS Windows RT platform (which runs on arm), just in case (as the mega iPad 12") such thin becomes succeful... (will never happen)
I see no reason this has to be an either/or proposition. There is no reason that Apple cannot create an ARM version of the MBA and still keep their Intel chip machines. I use an iPad with a Logitech keyboard/cover, somewhat like having a laptop with an ARM processor.
----------
I'm sure Apple will consult with you before making any decisions.
----------
I'm sure Apple will consult with you before making any decisions.
Not to really take anything away or get involved in this little scuffle, but Anandtech is one of the most highly regarded above average in technical literacy sites out there. I was thoroughly impressed by his insights as to the A7 chip, it's a really good read. He was one of the first to substantiate that Apple really is moving incredibly quickly into desktop class architecture for their mobile chips: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7910/apples-cyclone-microarchitecture-detailed
That is just a short and sweet piece but he goes far further into the nitty gritty when doing reviews than any mainstream site I've seen. He makes the glorified advertising tech consumer ad sites like gizmodo and engadget look like the corporate shills they are.
So he's a respected reviewer. That does not automatically make him a soothsayer as the previous poster seems to imply nor an engineer that designs chips or an economic forecaster. Declaring a chip "desktop class" does not make ANY of the other problems go away, even if it matched Intel performance some day. I'm surprised you don't comprehend that. I'm not saying he's not good at analyzing and reviewing performance factors. But this isn't about measuring equipment. This is about an ECOSYSTEM. If Apple were to announce they were suddenly switching ALL Macs over to ARM, it would be like GM declaring they're switching ALL of their cars over to electric. It would hurt their immediate sales and change who buys their cars. They would no longer be mainstream. I doubt the company could survive. While Apple might still have strong sales in iOS for now, it would still have a major impact.
If GM only converts say half their fleet to electric, their gas vehicles would still function normally as would all existing cars. It would only hurt their future sales. You could say the same about the Mac, except that it would start to hurt existing sales as all software starts to dry up for Intel Macs and many developers abandon the Mac market as being a tiny niche (like with PPC) once again. The Mac has benefited greatly from Intel compatibility with a LOT more software appearing (due to ease of conversion compared to PPC code) as a result. ARM would destroy that advantage, turn it on its side and ultimately put the Mac's existence in jeopardy.
For Mac fans, this could be BEYOND devastating because the entire Mac platform and its history of being an open system would then be at risk. Apple could then easily use this as their excuse to fully merge iOS with the Mac and instead of the power computers many of us existing Mac users love, you would have little more than glorified smart phone/tablets as Apple's ONLY computer line. And by that I mean "computers" that are 100% controlled by Apple, their App store and a great loss of developers. "Apps" would become the main stay of the Mac instead of full blown software. If all you do is surf the web and don't mind using ONLY Safari and ONLY Apple email and ONLY whatever Apple APPROVES of you using on your computer (blocking ALL material at a whim they don't agree with and taking away ALL of your freedom to do what YOU want with YOUR computer), then I guess it won't matter.
Who needs choice, freedom or large libraries of software when you can have Angry Birds, Candy Crush Saga and Fart Apps as your software mainstay?
I think sadly we will have to go through another processor change, with metal I'm pretty certain theres going to be a7 processors on future macs.