Apple Testing ARM Based Mac Prototypes with Large Magic Trackpad?

[0098386]

A big reason I switched to a Apple is because I could dual boot windows (and run it in a VM at basically native speed). As much as I like OSX, most of my work still requires windows, so if they switched to ARM, I'd be switching back to PCs

Same. I buy Macs because I can run the two most important OS's for my type of work. I've been dualbooting since the first Intel mac and if this change makes its way to iMacs too I'll just have to start building my own computers again. I need power in Win, not Mac so I'll stop buying high-end Macs and switch to something portable for email, Logic, etc.

 

[Rogifan]

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple does an ARM based Mac but I didn't see anywhere in this rumor where it said they were planning to abandon Intel processors. Am I missing something?

 

[Mac Heretic]

Does Apple need to accommodate people who are tethered to an increasingly anachronistic method of working? Or should Apple concentrate on the future?

That is true. I so hope that Apple makes an ultimate commenting machine.

I hope that, because we are approaching a future, where the "anachronistic method of working" is replaced with "commenting". On culture side bloggers and on business side managers are more valued and rewarded than artisans, coders, engineers, cooks, bus drivers, policemen, firefighters.

 

[smakdown61]

This can't be coincidence that this gets uncovered right before wwdc where there is rumor of a 12" redesigned retina macbook air. Especially with the rumors that they want to "reinvent" the macbook air.

Will interesting to see how they market this.

 

[xmichaelp]

Let me elaborate on this a little bit.

It is possible to write standard C code that would work on PPC but break on Intel x86. These architectures have different endianness and there are also subtle differences in the size and alignment on some data types. In addition, the PPC->Intel transition would often involve a rewrite of a Carbon app to a Cocoa app, which is a lot of work.

It is also possible (and actually, quite easy) to write standard C code that would work on Intel x86 but break on x64, often in some subtle way. Again, the reason for this are differences in the size and alignment of some data types, as well as function call conventions.

AFAIK, it is not possible to write standard C code that would work on Intel x64 but break on ARMv8, because the basic semantics (datatype sizes, alignment, endianness etc.) between the platforms is exactly the same(*). Basically, what this means is that the code written for Intel x64 will have exactly the same behaviour when compiled to the 64-bit ARMv8.

In the end, the difference between all the previous transitions and a potential ARMv8 transition, is that the developers had to make sure that their code follows a certain set of rules in order to be compatible with a new platform. But a modern OS X application which works under Intel x64, already complies with all the ARM rules. In the end, if your app is not doing anything crazy (like platform-specific assembly), you won't need to do any porting at all. Provided Apple does not mess up the compiler and the frameworks, of course


(*)There might be some subtle differences in how the CPUs handle floating-point operations, not sure about this.

----------



Windows RT is a failure because it a whole different version of Windows. What if an ARM-based Apple laptop would run the same OS X, with all (well, ok, most of) the same apps? Apple has the technology to make different platforms coexist seamlessly. I mean, you could copy an application from your ARM machine to your Intel machine and it will start and work in exactly the same way. And I am not talking about merely the potential of developing such technology — they already have it, today.

This really gets me excited for ARM Macs. And people, they will happen, don't be in denial.

I think they'll start with the new 12 inch MBA and then slowly go over to Mac mini's and iMacs and then MBPs. Maybe Mac Pro's will take a few more years.

 

[leman]

I did read it, and I'm not sold that its a trivial move for developers since the cpu structure is so different. The same thing was said about PPC to Intel early on that developers only needed to cross compile and it would work, but that was not the case.

The CPU structure is not so different at all. The main difference is that ARM instruction set is historically rooted in RISC and Intel instruction set is rooted in CISC, but that is only the 'language' level. Deep inside, the CPUs have a lot of similarities Both are super-scalar CPUs with vector units, the size and alignment of the basic data types in the C compiler are exactly the same. You could copy a binary blob from the data state of the ARM program and inject it into the same program compiled for Intel, and it would work, because all the data structures at the C level are bit-compatible between x86 and ARMv8. The same C code results in exactly the same behaviour on the two platforms (an important exception are tagged pointers which are ok on ARM and disallowed by the x86-64 spec, but this goes into the domain of platform-specific optimisations).

In fact, the difference between Intel and PPC is much bigger. Not only they have different endiannes (the order in which bytes are stored in the memory), but the sizes and alignment of some basic datatypes are different. E.g. the C code that relies on some sort of knowledge about data structures on the PPC platform would break when compiled on the Intel platform, even for 'normal' programs. Same goes for x32 vs. x64 on Intel. So yes, cross-compiling between those can be a hassle if one is not careful. But this is much less the case for Intel x64 and ARMv8. Here, cross-compiling is only problematic if one relies on 'magic' stuff or platform-specific behaviour. Nowadays, these things are quite rare in a 'normal' application — they are domain of interpreters/JIT-compilers/specialised high-performance libraries. Which do need to be ported to a new platform in most cases.

 

[maflynn]

and then slowly go over to Mac mini's and iMacs and then MBPs. Maybe Mac Pro's will take a few more years.

What advantages does an ARM processor have for Mac Pros, it simply doesn't have the same level of horse power that intel cpus have. The MP is the one computer that apple is selling for our power and performance. You can't get that with an arm processor.

I don't think apple is going to embrace ARM completely but offer a low cost model. Will that translate into giving intel the heave ho? I hope not because I for one will be on a different platform at that point. I'd rather not spend 1,500 for a laptop that will be less powerful then an intel and cannot run windows.

 

[Matt Leaf]

FWIW, Mavericks was a rather incremental update. No major changes really. It felt like more of an update to Mountain Lion. If anything this new Macbook or whatever it is will leverage whatever are some major new breakthroughs of the next OSX, which I bet they've had in the pipeline for a while.

But to me this reeks of a reaction to the Surface, so I'm curious. It must be something more. Like the way OSX has incorporated some iOS features (eg Launchpad), i think it will ultimately be a touch laptop, with the option of either running as Launchpad or Finder/Dock depending on the context.

My bet is it runs OSX, but can also run compatible iOS iPad apps.

 

[wizard]

On the contrary, I really hope that it is true.

I really hope that this isn't true.

This could be seen as a huge advancement for Apple. It will effectively free them from the confines of Intels engineering allowing for highly tailored System on Chip that would give Apple many advantages in the marketplace.

If not handled properly then yes it could cause problems for Apple. Mostly this would be I the area of marketing as consumers need to be well aware that these are not IBM/Windows compatible Macs. In fact I would suspect marketing them under a new brand name would be advisable. That way confusion is reduced and brand differentiate capabilities.

 

[nol2001]

Graphics

What would the graphics performance on these ARM systems be like compared to that of current MacBooks?

 

[zedsdead]

The redesigned Macbook Air isn't coming until the late fall, which happens to be the time that Broadwell will be available which is fanless.

It is without question that Apple has an OS X version on an Arm processor. Go back to the Intel transition...Jobs stated alongside every release they had an intel compatible version in the labs "just in case."

Will it get released is a different story. They would need a reason to go ARM and there doesn't seem to be enough benefits at the current moment.

I don't think it is happening yet. Don't expect the Macbook Air at WWDC, they just updated it.

 

[sna3]

given the high performance of the A7 chip , I wonder ,if a desktop grade 100 watt ARM CPU with say 20 cores is possible ? I am sure it will crush intel ...

The only thing that makes intel survive are the software houses too lazy to use all the cores in their code.

 

[hudson1]

Fine. I used that date since that was when I started at Exponential. PowerPC was well underway by 1997.

In any event, in 2006:

IBM: $91B
Moto: $43B
Intel: $35B

Moto was still one of the biggest semiconductor companies, with revenues higher than Intel and a good percentage of IBM's. Calling Moto a small company in any relevant time frame is inaccurate.

Motorola was not a large semiconductor company, even if their overall sales figures were larger than Intel's.

 

[Internaut]

On the whole, I'd rather Apple didn't. The move fro Power PC was understandable; Intel's pace of development was going to kill Apple, had they not made the move. Can ARM really catch up, then keep up, with Intel, when it comes to delivering workstation class performance?

As we've seen with full fat Windows 8.1 vs Windows RT, Intel is able to give day long battery life, running full fat Windows, with comparable performance characteristics to the best RT based systems. Any wonder ASUS and friends have given RT a miss?

 

[macintoshi]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


French site MacBidouille revives rumors that Apple is actively developing ARM processor based Macs. According to a source that they describe as reliable, Apple has prototypes of several ARM-based machines, including an iMac, Mac mini, and 13" Notebook with 4-8 64-bit ARM Quad-core processors.

Image​

These machines are reportedly far along in development, and come with a new keyboard that incorporates a large-format Magic Trackpad. Apple might even be ready for an announcement but is reportedly hesitant to make the move.

MacBidouille isn't a frequent source of rumors, so its hard to gauge its source's credibility, but rumors of ARM-based Macs have been circulating for years. It seems likely that Apple has prototyped such devices, but many have doubted the feasibility of moving forward with such a plan.

The first inklings of such a plan might have come when Apple threatened to abandon Intel's chips if they didn't work to slash power consumption. While AMD might have been one way to go for Apple, the first rumors of an Apple migration from Intel to ARM processors appeared earlier that year. Later, a report claimed that Apple already had an ARM (A5) powered MacBook Air in their labs back in 2011.

An analysis in 2012 suggested that Apple shifting from Intel to ARM wasn't implausible but it faced several hurdles. The most significant one was Apple's own ARM chips being able to keep a pace with Intel's future roadmap.

Apple, however, has been making great strides in performance in their ARM processors. The A7 is described as desktop class even in an independent analysis. In fact, the A7 chip is currently being underutilized in Apple's iPhone and iPad devices, leaving some of its power untapped.

Article Link: Apple Testing ARM Based Mac Prototypes with Large Magic Trackpad?

Certainly if macbook pro retina become arm i will switch to pc and change it to linux.

 

[Hurda]

given the high performance of the A7 chip , I wonder ,if a desktop grade 100 watt ARM CPU with say 20 cores is possible ? I am sure it will crush intel ...

The only thing that makes intel survive are the software houses too lazy to use all the cores in their code.

So much for being green.

 

[Skylitfly]

What advantages does an ARM processor have for Mac Pros, it simply doesn't have the same level of horse power that intel cpus have. The MP is the one computer that apple is selling for our power and performance. You can't get that with an arm processor.

I don't think apple is going to embrace ARM completely but offer a low cost model. Will that translate into giving intel the heave ho? I hope not because I for one will be on a different platform at that point. I'd rather not spend 1,500 for a laptop that will be less powerful then an intel and cannot run windows.

Don't be so narrow minded. Just because something isn't just how you want it now doesn't mean it couldn't be it in the future.

Just because they're testing it now doesn't mean it will arrive... let's say in 10 years. It will arrive when it's ready and I'm pretty sure it will have some kind of edge over Intel processors. I'm pretty sure Apple will make decisions to improve their products not the other way around. They aren't stupid.

Even thought I love my Intel based rMBP I'm really excited about the fact that there could be ARM based Mac/Mac's in the future. I don't know if it'll be better or worse. I'm excited because of pure curiosity.

If world would be full of doubtful people like you we would never take leaps forward.

 

[iolinux333]

A big reason I switched to a Apple is because I could dual boot windows (and run it in a VM at basically native speed). As much as I like OSX, most of my work still requires windows, so if they switched to ARM, I'd be switching back to PCs

Same here!!!! I would have written exactly word for word what you wrote. Thank you for saving me from all that peck peck pecking on iOS keyboard. I also run Linux off a USB stick on my Intel Mac.

 

[EmaDaCuz]

Bring it on Apple! ARM MBA (or MBARM) running iOSX for a fully consistent OS throughout desktop and mobile lines!

 

[wizard]

LOL. Apple tests lots of things. Even if that were true that doesn't mean that any such product will be shipping any time soon, if ever. It never hurts for Apple to have an alternative to Intel available if required.

I wouldn't be surprised to find Mac OS running on new IBM Power hardware in Apples labs. If nothing else building for multiple architectures can lead to a more stable OS.

Switching to ARM would be problematic for Apple as it would carry the chance of falling behind Intel in performance.

It doesn't matter, there is a massive market out there that doesn't care about getting the last pico seconds worth of performance out of the latest Intel hardware. Beyond that AMD ships plenty of hardware that has slower CPU's but give an overall better user experience due to much better GPUs.

Beyond that Apples hottest selling laptop, the Air, is in effect behind the curve. The performance of the Air lags Intels better mobile chips significantly! In the end discussions about performance are non starters because you wouldn't be targeting these machines at the performance market in the first place. One consideration here though is that more cores can have a huge impact on performance.

Don't get me wrong, Apple has done great things with ARM, but that's different from saying they can take on Intel's strongest offerings and win in the long term.

You are thinking small here, Apple isn't a garage startup anymore, they can take on the likes of Intel much faster than you may think. They have already managed to hire a large number of AMD GPU engineers last year combined with other teams recently acquired they have a rather large in house silicon design capability.

Furthermore, switching to ARM would require a recompile of all apps for max performance.

Yep. Again though this isn't a big deal.

Judging by the people who still whine about Rosetta being removed, there's a lot of people who use obsolete apps that aren't updated.

If you look around you can find people that whine about the lack of Amiga or Apple 2 software support. Just as the iPad isn't the computer for everybody neither would be an Arm based Mac from Apple. You can't keep a company like Apple moving forward without a willingness to depart from the past. Without such willingness we wouldn't have gotten the Mac, iPods, iPhone and even the iPad.

Would this stop a switch?

Don't think of it as a switch but rather an addition. I don't see them giving up completely on Intel in the near term. What I see them being able to do is to offer very high quality hardware at far more reasonable prices. Apple might be able to shave off $300 in parts cost through cheaper SoC and a reduction in parts needed on the motherboard. We could see complete motherboards coming in at 2-3x the size of the board in the iPad.

No, but it would give Apple pause, and it would make it impossible to switch back and forth depending on who's ahead.

All they need is respectable performance relative to the PC hardware that is available in the same price range. With ARM and their engineering capabilities that would be a snap. When you look at the performance of the A7 today and compare it to Intels Atom, even some of the i3 it isn't bad at all. Given that a laptop design would employ higher performance chips than the current A7 and that cores can be easily added, performance really won't be an issue.

Frankly these days who is ahead CPU core performance wise isn't a big deal anymore. The big factor is does the machine deliver the performance users want. Further performance these days is often measured in vastly different ways than in the past. For example lifetime on batteries is often a huge factor, WiFi performance is another huge factor.

All in all I'm optimistic. Will they hit one out of the ball park with an ARM based laptop, probably not. However it does allow Apple to engineer a laptop in a way they see fit.

----------

I see ARM-based MacBooks facing some of the very same hurdles as Surface RT products. Mainly, what apps would run on one, besides Apple applications? Unless an emulator was provided, but that would be inefficient as hell in terms of battery consumption.

Apparently you have never heard of iPhone, iPad or similar devices? The era of mandatory Windows compatibility has passed.

 

[Crosscreek]

I think a lot of people are panicked for no reason.

For me it would restore my faith in Apple innovation.

The ARM chip PC if true is being built for the Asian market that can't afford a Apple pc. It will bring one hell of a lot of people into the Apple eco system.

Also this will be matured over time and when developers start developing apps that use all the cores available , then we may see a shift away from X86 to Arm.

This move may push Intel to work a little harder.

ARM is the future. Maybe 5-10 years but it's coming.

Intel Apples will still be built for those who need them.

 

[wizard]

It may happen in the future, but we aren't close to have similar performance between Apple's A series iOS chips and Intel's mainline i3-i7 chips - it'd be too big a gulf to bridge at this point.

Give it another 5 - 10 years though…at this point I think it'd be way too much of a sacrifice in performance to work for the Mac brand. JMHO..

Baloney. You make an assumption here that the A7 is maxed out in current products when every indication is that it is barely being stressed. At this point wee don't know what the maximum clock rate even is on the A7. You can be certain that it is effectively underclocked in the iPhone and iPad to manage power usage. Just jumping to 2.6GHz would do wonders for performance in this sort of device. So would wider memory channels, larger caches and other improvements.

The assumption people make is that you would get iPhone performance from such a machine. That is silly on many levels but the reality is Apple can tailor the chip to the devices they want to put the chip in. They did this with some of the "A" series chips already to give the iPad better performance.

----------

The article mentioned 4-8 quadcore ARM chips. I have no idea if that makes up the difference or not. But would be nice to have a laptop that doesn't get so hot and noisy.

Actually I think that is a mistake. Even with the small size of ARM chips where would you put them in a laptops motherboard. I suspect what was meant was a chip with 4-8 cores.

 

[S.B.G]

This, obviously, would be a major transitional period for everyone, including Apple developers, third-party developers and customers alike.

Aside from the cumbersome software development transition, and other potential headaches, what would be some advantages of going with ARM over Intel?

What I can think of is,

• Tighter control of chip development
• Better integration between chip and OS X
• Potential cost savings for Apple and maybe customer
• Perhaps potential for some new innovative features

 

[IscariotJ]

A difference is that Windows does not support fat binaries.

For Metro apps, it does....

For a large percentage of people ( not including the edge cases on here that need to run virtualised OS's or edit video ), an ARM based Air, for example, would be more than sufficient; a look at the popularity of Chromebooks provides some evidence of that. Give it the capability to run iPad apps, and most use cases are covered.

This thing will be an addition ( iPad Pro? ), or a new line entirely. To think otherwise is just pure hysteria.

 

[JosephAW]

We all know this day is coming. We just don't know when apple will drop the x386 chip for their A series chip.
We've been through this before. My G5 are still happily plugging along even now. The same will be for your intel imac. You'll get a good five or six years out of it and another OS bump before support is dropped and no more updates and software companies bail out.
Hopefully you'll have your version of Firefox like tenfourfox when browser support is dropped for Intel.
Mac ports is also a handy tool you should familiarize yourself with as well.