That's a pretty good prediction I think. We'll see how successful it is; I probably won't bite but success certainly doesn't hinge on my adoption
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 Threatened to Abandon Intel Chips over Power Consumption
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's a pretty good prediction I think. We'll see how successful it is; I probably won't bite but success certainly doesn't hinge on my adoption
It also ran on SPARC, but that port was never productized.
They're discrete, not integrated. The GPU chip is on a separate MXM-style video card.
Look at step 12 of the iFixit Imac teardown.
I always get confused when people refer to the word "flexible", I always have to ask the person saying that to elaborate on the details of what that's supposed to mean.
From my POV, an OS that is "flexible" means that it's able to accomodate many configurations to include software and hardware. There's no such thing as a "Windows NT machine" in that it clearly defines what kind of CPU, RAM, chipset, GPU or otherwise is in that machine. NT can be installed on many different configurations, HP, Compaq, DIY system, etc. which can/may use different chipsets from SiS, Intel, AMD, VIA, etc.
Compared to OS X or any Apple OS, you could take the latest 10.7 and I can guarantee that if I installed it on a Toshiba, Compaq, Dell, that not everything will work because OS X was designed to only work on genuine Apple computers, not anyone else's. By comparison I haven't seen many machines that can't take Windows 7 for example.
Not trying to make this a Windows vs Mac debate, just elaborating on what "flexibility" means.
From my POV, an OS that is "flexible" means that it's able to accomodate many configurations to include software and hardware. There's no such thing as a "Windows NT machine" in that it clearly defines what kind of CPU, RAM, chipset, GPU or otherwise is in that machine. NT can be installed on many different configurations, HP, Compaq, DIY system, etc. which can/may use different chipsets from SiS, Intel, AMD, VIA, etc.
Compared to OS X or any Apple OS, you could take the latest 10.7 and I can guarantee that if I installed it on a Toshiba, Compaq, Dell, that not everything will work because OS X was designed to only work on genuine Apple computers, not anyone else's. By comparison I haven't seen many machines that can't take Windows 7 for example.
Not trying to make this a Windows vs Mac debate, just elaborating on what "flexibility" means.
Having purchased one of the final G5 PPC PowerMacs off the Production Line prior to the Intel Gen 1 Macs, AND, after watching my very capable quad core PPC die a painful death due to the death of Universal Binary and Rosetta, AND after having just ordered one of the new i7 Core iMacs, ... I swear to the big Guy above that Apple will lose me as a customer forever after having spent a whopping $90,000 on Apple and Apple Related Products over the years if they make any move soon that would place us back into a processor architecture where I would begin my "death watch" of my new iMac upon its delivery next week.... I'm just say'in.
This.
Apple would be nuts to go through a Mac architecture change to ARM so soon after the PowerPC transition. You can only test the patience of your customers for so long.
I for one would like to have a microprocessor chip that runs instructions as fast as todays processors, but uses a fraction of the power.
I do to see a down side unless you are happy with your PC having a second job as a space heater.
Think about reducing your carbon footprint. Less power (read as heat, not processor execution speed) is a good thing.
I do to see a down side unless you are happy with your PC having a second job as a space heater.
Think about reducing your carbon footprint. Less power (read as heat, not processor execution speed) is a good thing.
That's your argument for flexible ? Really ?
Windows NT ran on PPC, MIPS, Alpha, x86, x864_64 and IA64 and now is getting an ARM port.
Linux has had support for far more architectures over the years.
Portability of the kernel to run over different CPU architectures doesn't make an OS flexible, it makes it portable.
True, but NT software compiled for one architecture never ran on another, afaik. Ditto Linux. If apple were (stupidly) to adopt ARM on the Mac, existing software would run (for three years, until apple dropped support for that trick).
NTVDM ran 16-bit code compiled for the 8086 architecture on both x86 and Alpha machines.
Digital's FX!32 layer ran 32-bit x86 code (Win95 or NT) on Alpha machines. It was similar to Transitive Technologies QuickTransit in function, but a much different implementation.
I was familiar with the alpha stuff - they could also run sparc binaries (i saw it in their lab). But generally speaking you didn't have something like fat binary support - you had translators that only worked on alpha (not on any of the other architectures). You couldn't run an alpha application on x86 or MIPS, etc. PowerPC NT (much faster than macos PPC, btw) couldn't run x86 binaries. Etc..
I doubt you'd be able to run x86 or x86_64 emulated over ARM right now or in the short term. Hence why this makes no sense.
No, you'd have to have fat binaries, like in the old days.
Agreed it makes no sense.
I should have said "onboard". I understand the difference between integrated and discrete - thanks.
The gist of it was to debunk the myth that Apple has superior parts compared to PC when majority of PC/Mac parts come from the same parts companies.
Out of the mouth of MS, on Windows ARM, for those thinking ARM will be displacing Intel 'any day now' for higher end computing:
http://armdevices.net/2011/01/06/microsoft-shows-full-windows-for-arm-powered-devices/
It's all about the mobile market, at least short term.
For those going back to why the move off of PPC, they were some great desktop/workstation and server chips, but there's wasn't much in the way of being able to move the iBooks into G5/970 territory as far as I recall.
Amusingly, the G5 based Apple servers performed pretty lousy under OSX 'Server,' but the same machines were pretty competitive vs current gen Xeons when running Linux. There was one benchmark in particular that was pretty clear on this in useful server situations - running an *AMP stack (it may have been just apache, couldn't quickly find the link, but effectively a real world was night and day difference between OSX and Linux on the same hardware..more than likely OSX's wrapping of BSD threads and mach threads wasn't doing any performance favors, as well as BSD threading being somewhat sub-standard at the time already (vs Linux, Solaris, etc.).
Burned once on 'nowhere to go' to bring updated mobile performance beyond the G4 powerbooks, I don't find it surprising that Apple doesn't want to get put in the same situation again, so 'reminding' Intel about power consumption and mobile-applicable CPUs isn't that big of a deal. And again, it's in Intels interests here, as there may be some future point at which ARMS do become performance competitive at the higher end, or if/when Apple decides they're ok sacrificing some performance on an Air for 15 hour battery life...Intel would prefer to have a viable embeddable CPU as they failed with XScale (ARM based) and Atom (including it's new gen) isn't too competitive with Tegra/ARM either...they don't want to start losing market share 'at the bottom' if they can avoid it.
In the short term, code execution on non-native platforms isn't anything new, really - besides Rosetta - BSD, Solaris and others had the ability to run Linux binaries, going back even to SCO (google 'lxrun') and the late 90s in that case..but I'm not seeing ARM at this time being capable of running x86 OSX code at anywhere approaching native speeds. As tablets move 'upward' meaning they can do more and more laptop/workstation tasks, that's where ARM is potentially going to keep growing...most likely with a future longer battery life Air or next gen 'super tablet', not on our MBPs or Mac Pros.
Some reading on ARM current (I believe not yet shipping) latest CPU architecture, A15:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3905/...-headed-for-smartphones-notebooks-and-servers
The chip is aiming at the same market as Atom - tablets and netbook class, it's not too likely to displace current/next gen Mac Pro or SNB CPUs.
The low power server note is interesting, but I think Intel is doing reasonably well there with boost technologies along with much more lower voltage research - these things do matter in datacenters, and it's not uncommon for hundreds to thousands of servers to be sitting at relatively low CPU loads with occasional bursts, so their ability to scale back on power consumption (and heat, requiring additional cooling load) is certainly important. I can say that prior activities I've been involved in at reducing datacenter power/cooling consumption involved a lot of consolidation of servers and storage to blade chassis, less and less local disk storage vs SAN, virtualization, etc., and power was definitely taken into consideration but there weren't too many options for the performance needed for some applications. If options were available to further significantly reduce power and cooling were available while retaining 'enough performance,' even if it may mean a somewhat larger number of systems - it could be a compelling story at least in some cases.
http://armdevices.net/2011/01/06/microsoft-shows-full-windows-for-arm-powered-devices/
It's all about the mobile market, at least short term.
For those going back to why the move off of PPC, they were some great desktop/workstation and server chips, but there's wasn't much in the way of being able to move the iBooks into G5/970 territory as far as I recall.
Amusingly, the G5 based Apple servers performed pretty lousy under OSX 'Server,' but the same machines were pretty competitive vs current gen Xeons when running Linux. There was one benchmark in particular that was pretty clear on this in useful server situations - running an *AMP stack (it may have been just apache, couldn't quickly find the link, but effectively a real world was night and day difference between OSX and Linux on the same hardware..more than likely OSX's wrapping of BSD threads and mach threads wasn't doing any performance favors, as well as BSD threading being somewhat sub-standard at the time already (vs Linux, Solaris, etc.).
Burned once on 'nowhere to go' to bring updated mobile performance beyond the G4 powerbooks, I don't find it surprising that Apple doesn't want to get put in the same situation again, so 'reminding' Intel about power consumption and mobile-applicable CPUs isn't that big of a deal. And again, it's in Intels interests here, as there may be some future point at which ARMS do become performance competitive at the higher end, or if/when Apple decides they're ok sacrificing some performance on an Air for 15 hour battery life...Intel would prefer to have a viable embeddable CPU as they failed with XScale (ARM based) and Atom (including it's new gen) isn't too competitive with Tegra/ARM either...they don't want to start losing market share 'at the bottom' if they can avoid it.
In the short term, code execution on non-native platforms isn't anything new, really - besides Rosetta - BSD, Solaris and others had the ability to run Linux binaries, going back even to SCO (google 'lxrun') and the late 90s in that case..but I'm not seeing ARM at this time being capable of running x86 OSX code at anywhere approaching native speeds. As tablets move 'upward' meaning they can do more and more laptop/workstation tasks, that's where ARM is potentially going to keep growing...most likely with a future longer battery life Air or next gen 'super tablet', not on our MBPs or Mac Pros.
Some reading on ARM current (I believe not yet shipping) latest CPU architecture, A15:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3905/...-headed-for-smartphones-notebooks-and-servers
The chip is aiming at the same market as Atom - tablets and netbook class, it's not too likely to displace current/next gen Mac Pro or SNB CPUs.
The low power server note is interesting, but I think Intel is doing reasonably well there with boost technologies along with much more lower voltage research - these things do matter in datacenters, and it's not uncommon for hundreds to thousands of servers to be sitting at relatively low CPU loads with occasional bursts, so their ability to scale back on power consumption (and heat, requiring additional cooling load) is certainly important. I can say that prior activities I've been involved in at reducing datacenter power/cooling consumption involved a lot of consolidation of servers and storage to blade chassis, less and less local disk storage vs SAN, virtualization, etc., and power was definitely taken into consideration but there weren't too many options for the performance needed for some applications. If options were available to further significantly reduce power and cooling were available while retaining 'enough performance,' even if it may mean a somewhat larger number of systems - it could be a compelling story at least in some cases.
Microsoft doesn't purchase processors from Intel for sale with Windows.
Care to revise your 5% figure?
If OS X has a 5% worldwide market share, then it stands to reason Apple ships 5% of the worldwide PCs, no matter who else is shipping the other Windows boxes. What would there be revise ? He made no claim for Microsoft according to your quote...
(disclaimer : I have not checked the latest world wide PC shares and do not find amusing the analysts who mix up the iPad into PC market share).
Maria Rendich
So being the most valuable company, they can now feel free to threaten others, huh. I dont think it's a real loss on Intel's side.
Fisher Capital Management
So being the most valuable company, they can now feel free to threaten others, huh. I dont think it's a real loss on Intel's side.Fisher Capital Management
Last edited:
PPC does have some very strange aspects, for sure. I'm addressing the general foresightedness of the architecture to 64-bit that x86 didn't have, and that it doesn't have backwards compatibility baggage going back to the 16-bit days.
Feh. x86-64 ditches most of the baggage that actually mattered, and PPC has its baggage as well (owing largely to the frankensteinian effort to merge IBM's risc with partner arch's).
I'm sure Apple won't miss you.
Sure you're sure? Are you sure he's the only one that feels that way? I can tell you with 100% certainty, he is not.
I know this is a quote from the first page (And I'm new here - Hi all!) but I wanted to comment upon this aspect so much I had to register.
To the point - 7 hours is not legitimate battery life. Yes, I could make my MBA 13" last that long, but not when doing anything intensive. When running anything at CPU intensity it takes hours off.
I really wish that it would get 7 hours regardless of what I was doing. I'm not just talking gaming, which would be sweet (but let's take baby steps.. full GPU/CPU is not what I mean..) But at least 60% CPU with some apps running that aren't easy on the CPU, and bam, that 7 hours turns into 2.
Just my $0.02.
Did you check the date of this thread before posting?
ARM in its current state is not the future - it's not a general purpose CPU.