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 to Move from Intel to ARM Processors in Future Laptops?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Yes, I would. That why I have had an Apple notebook carried with me at all time since I was 8. Plus, the school was nice enough to let me use their Powermac tower in the front. I have NEVER and I mean NEVER in my life touch a machine running the garbage known as Intel, and I am proud to say I never will. Same goes for Windows I have never touch a machine running one, just poisonous. It's like a person with peanut allergy touching peanut butter, bad for their health.
Intel maybe the "big dog", but their that big dog that is slow, and needs to be put down. If Intel really wanted to innovate and didn't let their profits and shortsightedness get in the way we would be at least 4 gens ahead on gpu and Garbagetel would be introducing a consumer cpu using graphene technology. Seriously all this Intel talk needs to be stopped, and Apple really needs do the right thing and move to ARM based processors and APUs, that way we can let the big dog be put out of its misery quicker!
I don't think people are aware of ARM's histroy. The ARM processor was first created for the Acorn Archimedes in the late 80s, which was a personal computer way faster than the IBM clones of the day. The first mass production PC with a true RISC processor.
Even when that minority platform was on its last legs the StrongARM chip of the mid 90s again saw Acorn boast a machine faster than the Intel PCs of the day.
ARM chips are just plain better designs than Intel's hoary old system. But their extremely low power consumption made them perfect for the embedded space and that's where the company headed. They could have targeted the desktop space or the server space but with other chip dominant there what would have been the point? They had success in embedded markets so targeted that space and the rest is history.
With big players like Apple signed up to use desktop and server class ARM chips I have no doubt the company would out-innovate Intel for years. It's just better, slicker, cleverer tech.
Even when that minority platform was on its last legs the StrongARM chip of the mid 90s again saw Acorn boast a machine faster than the Intel PCs of the day.
ARM chips are just plain better designs than Intel's hoary old system. But their extremely low power consumption made them perfect for the embedded space and that's where the company headed. They could have targeted the desktop space or the server space but with other chip dominant there what would have been the point? They had success in embedded markets so targeted that space and the rest is history.
With big players like Apple signed up to use desktop and server class ARM chips I have no doubt the company would out-innovate Intel for years. It's just better, slicker, cleverer tech.
I read the thread about Apple moving from PowerPC to Intel....
It seems plausible for that one back when I heard about the news due to the fact that it will be a great advantage for macs being able to use windows as well, but I think that this is a bit far-fetched.
Sure, ARM is supported in windows 8 but I think Apple's relationship with Intel is really too great at moment. They get early releases if intel's architecture, and custom designed silicon for their MacBook Airs from Intel.... This shows the great relationship that Apple has with Intel.... they already have a great partnership deal!!
Hard to imagine they just "backstab" intel and switch to ARM....
It seems plausible for that one back when I heard about the news due to the fact that it will be a great advantage for macs being able to use windows as well, but I think that this is a bit far-fetched.
Sure, ARM is supported in windows 8 but I think Apple's relationship with Intel is really too great at moment. They get early releases if intel's architecture, and custom designed silicon for their MacBook Airs from Intel.... This shows the great relationship that Apple has with Intel.... they already have a great partnership deal!!
Hard to imagine they just "backstab" intel and switch to ARM....
I went to buy my entry level 13" MBP a few weeks ago. First thing that I noticed, is the almost non-existant differentiator between macbooks and MBP (well right now there is a huge difference due to sandy bridge and C2D) but talking about 2010 models, aside from the aluminum unibody, they were almost the same.
Now let's think about apple lineup
230-400 Ipod Touch
(Iphone atached to contract)
500-830 Ipad
999 Macbook
999-1600 MBA
1200-2500 MBP
So, in all the portable lineup, the only product which doesn't quite fit completely is the Macbook.
Truth is, only people looking into deep of processing power, are us, just a couple of few geeks, and designers who happens to like macs. Truth is, that right now, thanks to the iphone, ipod touch, and ipad, macs are turning into the eyes of mainstream, people whom most times don't even care which processor is behind their machine as long as it looks cute, have a nice battery, and it doesn't lagg.
So what I'm thinking here, is maybe not expecting a powerful ARM processor, but at least an ARM processor powerful enough to power up a Macbook, running an iOS-que OS which smoothly converge with iOS, while at the same time delivering a more powerful experience.
That would be a huge differentiator between MacBooks, and MBP and Airs.
If it works out then Apple can keep up with development, until they have an ARM processor powerful enough for MBPs. If it is a fiasco, then they can simply send it into oblivion.
About parallel support issues.... well... as of right now they have parallel support with iOS and OSX, which doesn't seem like a problem at all. An ARM powered MacBook would simply be an addition to the iOS lineup in the beginning, with some obvious adjustments.
Now let's think about apple lineup
230-400 Ipod Touch
(Iphone atached to contract)
500-830 Ipad
999 Macbook
999-1600 MBA
1200-2500 MBP
So, in all the portable lineup, the only product which doesn't quite fit completely is the Macbook.
Truth is, only people looking into deep of processing power, are us, just a couple of few geeks, and designers who happens to like macs. Truth is, that right now, thanks to the iphone, ipod touch, and ipad, macs are turning into the eyes of mainstream, people whom most times don't even care which processor is behind their machine as long as it looks cute, have a nice battery, and it doesn't lagg.
So what I'm thinking here, is maybe not expecting a powerful ARM processor, but at least an ARM processor powerful enough to power up a Macbook, running an iOS-que OS which smoothly converge with iOS, while at the same time delivering a more powerful experience.
That would be a huge differentiator between MacBooks, and MBP and Airs.
If it works out then Apple can keep up with development, until they have an ARM processor powerful enough for MBPs. If it is a fiasco, then they can simply send it into oblivion.
About parallel support issues.... well... as of right now they have parallel support with iOS and OSX, which doesn't seem like a problem at all. An ARM powered MacBook would simply be an addition to the iOS lineup in the beginning, with some obvious adjustments.
Can't really argue with you there the best deal for consumer but the one that also gives them the highest profit, keeping the core 2 duo for so long on the MBP 13 comes to mind...
But also remember the importance that design and slimness have for Apple... I think they'd rather make a smaller bump than to increase the thickness of a product lol. I already think they are slim enough though... Even the MBP are slim enough... But hey... that's just me...
Last edited:
Innovation starts early very early, and some times it takes decades to see results.
Most rumors are stupid... And a lot of them come a lot sooner than they come true... Verizon iPhone comes to mind... LOL
Last edited:
Greetings, I only have one example from the top of my head.
Remember the time it took for desktop cpus do get to dual core? Now check the time it took for the iPad to get there... I know it is not a fair competition but I do think that desktop/laptop device with double the power the current iPad has would suffice for like 90% of the people.
Not people like you and me, at least not for the main PC.
But hell people are all happy about their netbooks and something like this would beat the crap out of most netbooks that are on the market right now.
And won't the iPad have twice the power in 2 years time?
That's all I'm saying...
BS that Apple will replace Intel with ARM on ALL MBPs. It wasn't too long since the Intel transition was complete.
ARM cannot match the power of the Intel mobile processors. Maybe Apple will use these in Airs or Macbooks. Macbook pro? No a chance, not unless Apple stop catering for power users and "Pros".
ARM cannot match the power of the Intel mobile processors. Maybe Apple will use these in Airs or Macbooks. Macbook pro? No a chance, not unless Apple stop catering for power users and "Pros".
Last edited:
Look at the iPad and iPhone and you have your answer why the future you think is coming isn't. Different formats require different inputs/UIs. Even on iOS, Universal apps offer 2 interfaces : One for the reduced screen iPhone, one for iPad.
Convergence is done as much as it will be. UIkit will stick around, so will Aoppkit. Let's face it, there is no plus value to running iOS apps on OS X asides from games. Everything else is just a big waste (most of the native iOS apps are simply Web sites, applications that are information pages that could just as well been made with HTML/CSS and require an active data connection to fetch updated information anyhow....).
ARM doesn't help "convergence" with Universal binaries. Dual cores, RAM, are not convergence points, they are logical hardware upgrades. Launchpad doesn't come from Springboard, Icon grids were always there in Finder. Launchpad comes from the /Application folder window in Finder, in icon grid mode. It's just being attached to a hot key and made pretty.
So relax, the end of the world isn't coming, Apple isn't dumbing down OS X, Lion is not iOS, at least, not in the sense you think. The convergence will be with the CoreServies and Foundation (it already is) and the underlying system (kernel, Quartz, etc.. ) and all of that is already in place. The Input requirements will always be different, the output requirements will always be different.
Must hurt you then that aside from a few synthetic benchmarks that leveraged some obscure benefit of Altivec, the Intel garbage was always superior to the PowerPC and the m68k before it.
Seriously, there is no logic behind Intel hate. Windows and Microsoft hate I can get, I won't touch the stuff. But Intel made some great CPUs and still do.
BTW, if you want, I have a Ultra 5 workstation (has an UltraSparc II+ CPU) I can see sell you. It's still working very well and can run Solaris 9 like a champ. Solaris 10 with the GUI would probably be a bit heavy on it.
Uh ... by 2013, the Cortex A15 should be equivalent to what we have right now in the 2010 MBA. Why do you feel an ARM MBA would be anything good 3 years down the road ? Screw that. This is really going to be my first and last MBA it seems (with the GPU downgrade its getting on the horizon...).
Apple is not moving to ARM for their laptops. You guys look at the netbook arena recently ? ARM netbooks.... yeah right... they're all based on Intel Atom.
ARM will win and already has in the 1 space where it makes sense : embedded devices. Smartphones, tablets, handheld gaming, PMPs and I'd see it go up to everything including commercial and enterprise grade networking gear, specialised application boxes (WAF type boxes, IDS systems, Internet caching systems). Desktop and servers ? Catch up to Intel first, then we'll talk.
Last edited:
In the end, Apple won't do it.
Here's the rub: it would require heavily re-coding the core of MacOS X itself on a scale far more than what was done with iOS, which is not a cheap process in terms of man-hours needed.
Also, Intel's latest quad-core CPU's in the new iMacs are already extremely capable of the type of high-end computing work running programs like Photoshop, Aperture, and Final Cut Pro. I'm not sure if an ARM-based system could be capable of that type of very CPU-intensive work unless the ARM architecture is heavily redesigned.
Here's the rub: it would require heavily re-coding the core of MacOS X itself on a scale far more than what was done with iOS, which is not a cheap process in terms of man-hours needed.
Also, Intel's latest quad-core CPU's in the new iMacs are already extremely capable of the type of high-end computing work running programs like Photoshop, Aperture, and Final Cut Pro. I'm not sure if an ARM-based system could be capable of that type of very CPU-intensive work unless the ARM architecture is heavily redesigned.
It might not be your last MBA. By 2012/13, AMD might be competitive enough in the Notebook space again for Apple to consider them as a CPU provider? If Intel's APUs overall prove to be pathetic as they are now an AMD Fusion hardware stack doesn't seem unfeasible. Hey, Fusion is more probable than ARM though.
I would disagree, there aren't a lot of core Differences between iOS and Mac OSX. The only real major difference is that iOS doesn't have Carbon and AppKit. Most of the heavy lifting to bring AppKit to ARM is already done anyway through UIKit.
Last edited:
Uh ? No it wouldn't. OS X runs on ARM already. It's called iOS. If Apple's engineers are worth their salt, their stuff is already highly portable and architecture independant.
Just look at things like NetBSD or Linux. Look at how many architectures are supported by those. Look at all the open source software that's a recompile away from running on those obscure architectures, some long lost to the fogs of time...
Some of you guys really have no idea what is out there on this front. Do some research before commenting. The obstacle to ARM on laptops is not software. It's the fact ARM doesn't provide the performance to give the proper user experience compared to other players on the market, at margins Apple wants to sell its stuff at.
I'm not holding my breath.
I'm not particularly either. However if AMD can get reasonable battery life and still have a better iGPU than Intel's offerings I can't see why not. The C-50 gets about 6 hours battery life on a 6-cell battery while the Atom N4X series gets about ~7-8 so it says something about the current gap.
In terms of GPU AMD should be able to to better than intel but batery and CPU power I'm not so sure...
The funniest part is thinking about that other rumor of Apple moving to Intel parts for iToys. Intel has ARM experience in their StrongARM line-up :
Again, I'm pretty sure this rumor is that Intel is going to startup ARM processor manufacturing again. Someone mistook this as Apple moving laptops to ARM instead of what this is really about : Intel is going to manufacture Apple's ARM designs.
That poor guy is going to have an heart attack if Intel does this. It's not like all electronics advertise the manufacturer of every component they use. At some point, his peanut allergic self is going to come into contact with the peanut butter.
Actually it makes all the sense in the world.
Apple's dream (and that of it's fanboys) is iToys for everyone.
ARM is the way and centering on just one OS would thrill them.
Not to mention the cheaper chips ability to help iToys obtain obscene profits.
Dumping OS X frees Apple to make a third name change. And you know what they say: the third times the charm.
1) Apple Computer
2) Apple Inc
3) Apple iToys
Ruler of the Planet
I'd imagine being Steve Job's butler/maid would be pretty easy, even something like laundry would only take half an hour because he apparently only has one outfit
I think we are saying the same thing - ARM cannot match Intel processors.. and to put them in laptops will decrease performance.. this maybe OK for the iToys crowd who just looks at internet and emails, but for anything powerful, ARM laptops will suck.
Only reason I say Apple *may* put them in Macbooks ( not Pros ) is to cater for these users who don't need powerful processors.
- Status