Apple to Move from Intel to ARM Processors in Future Laptops?

[Jon the Heretic]

Rosetta -- out with a Lion

Well thats still a lot more work than what Rosetta does.

Funny how everyone is talking about how little Rosetta has to do, how fast it is, and how portable MacOS X is across processors -- ignoring the fact that Apple has decided (now confirmed) to yank it. What is the justification?

One rumor is that Apple would have to now license Rosetta from IBM, which bought Transitive. We all know that Apple is a very poor company and can't negotiate a good deal with a company like IBM, so no wonder that is out!

Rosetta is conceptually no different than what Apple did for 68K apps under PPC. If Apple rolled their own Rosetta, it may not be fast as what Transitive did, but on today's faster Macs, it might be good enough for those who'd be forced to spend thousands on new software. Good thing we have full employment and lots of extra cash to spend in these boom times! But clearly Apple is incapable of writing something like that or they'd at least make the attempt given they are no doubt facing horrific licensing fees for Rosetta from the Evil Big Blue.

But if you buy all of this "Rosetta has to go to keep progress moving forward" talk, you have to wonder what is so awful in MacOS X that it can't maintain PPC compatibility without some serious side effect we don't know about? I mean, what is it about MacOS Xthat holds back progress? It must be something truly terrible! Otherwise it makes it seem like MacOS X isn't so great with binary translation after all, or supporting universal binaries that all of this chit chat about ARM and Intel binaries make it sound like. Given this horrid flaw, I am not sure why Apple would ever consider changing processors again unless backwards compatibility from day 1 is just out. Well, I am sure the App Store can just sell you your apps back with all of the money you have thanks to our fantastic economy.

Curiously I'll bet it cost Apple more to yank Rosetta out of Lion than the licensing costs for Rosetta, but in typical IT fashion, licensing may be a different bucket than development, so even if Dev costs 10 times more, some exec may still say they are saving money if the bucket for licensing is more precious than the development bucket.

You see this with Help Desk costs at other companies---supporting a Help Desk may cost that company many times more than just fixing a little code that drives calls to the Help Desk, but since Help Desk is a separate bucket from IT, spending even 20x the amount on Help Desk may make sense to an exec, depending on the relative size/constraints of those two budgets. Sure it may cost the company as a whole a lot more, but no one does business that way anymore. If you do a great job with your little bucket, you can get fabulous rewards as an exec even if it hurts the company as a whole (not your problem!) So I can imagine spending more money to yank something that is cheaper to keep makes sense to someone. Must be why I am not a rich exec.

 

[diamond.g]

Do we believe that ARM will be faster than x64 clock for clock to be able to emulate the bits that x64 does pretty well (aka SSE stuff)?

 

[KnightWRX]

Funny how everyone is talking about how little Rosetta has to do, how fast it is, and how portable MacOS X is across processors -- ignoring the fact that Apple has decided (now confirmed) to yank it. What is the justification?

Not having to maintain PPC builds of the entire library collection that OS X ships with (you know, those pesky frameworks like Cocoa, Foundation, OpenAL, OpenGL, etc.. etc..).

Good enough justification for you ? Probably not. But it is for Apple.

Do we believe that ARM will be faster than x64 clock for clock to be able to emulate the bits that x64 does pretty well (aka SSE stuff)?

No, we don't. At least not in the short term.

 

[trapper1204]

Hybrid Macs

Apple has left quite a few bread crumbs to follow that indicate a Hybrid Computer is in the works.
Apple will not dump intel you crazies. That would mean dumping their entire pro line.

My prediction.. and it should be noted that i am alway right, is that Apple will use the same technology they are using to switch between graphics card, to dynamically switch between CPU's.

When the user is surfing the net, playing the stocks, commenting on CNET, or just lurking in Facebook, the Hybrid Mac will be using the ARM processor and lower end graphics card, which will run cleaner and greener, and dramatically increase battery life.
However, when that user fires up Final Cut Pro, the OS will dynamically switch to the higher performing Intel CPU and Higher end graphics card, to get the job done.

The entire Macbook line will change. No more choosing Macbook or Macbook pro. The Hybrid will adapt to you... which is the way it should be.

I also believe the Macbook air will be ARM only.
Mark my words.

When will this happen?
Sooner than anyone expects.

 

[diamond.g]

Not having to maintain PPC builds of the entire library collection that OS X ships with (you know, those pesky frameworks like Cocoa, Foundation, OpenAL, OpenGL, etc.. etc..).

Good enough justification for you ? Probably not. But it is for Apple.



No, we don't. At least not in the short term.

Short term is like in the next 5 years?

 

[KnightWRX]

Short term is like in the next 5 years?

Just look at Intel's and ARM's roadmaps and that should answer your question.

 

[coldmack]

Apple has left quite a few bread crumbs to follow that indicate a Hybrid Computer is in the works.
Apple will not dump intel you crazies. That would mean dumping their entire pro line.

My prediction.. and it should be noted that i am alway right, is that Apple will use the same technology they are using to switch between graphics card, to dynamically switch between CPU's.

When the user is surfing the net, playing the stocks, commenting on CNET, or just lurking in Facebook, the Hybrid Mac will be using the ARM processor and lower end graphics card, which will run cleaner and greener, and dramatically increase battery life.
However, when that user fires up Final Cut Pro, the OS will dynamically switch to the higher performing Intel CPU and Higher end graphics card, to get the job done.

The entire Macbook line will change. No more choosing Macbook or Macbook pro. The Hybrid will adapt to you... which is the way it should be.

I also believe the Macbook air will be ARM only.
Mark my words.

When will this happen?
Sooner than anyone expects.

What Apple is not silly enough to do that. Why? Because that piece of blasphemy will still be stuck with a garbage known as Intel. I also don't think that has been done yet so the tech may not be there yet. Then add that to the fact that could increase the cost and take quality down even further. That is pretty unApple like(then again so was using Intel's garbage).

The straight fact is my Mac-hood pretty much comes first(well actually second to family and friends but you get the idea), like every good Apple user should. (That apple should be red not black as we pump red apples).

 

[TenderBranson]

..Why? Because that piece of blasphemy will still be stuck with a garbage known as Intel.

My 2.2 i7 sandybridge macbookpro doesn't seem to agree with your assessment of intel as garbage.

 

[cmaier]

Apple has left quite a few bread crumbs to follow that indicate a Hybrid Computer is in the works.
Apple will not dump intel you crazies. That would mean dumping their entire pro line.

My prediction.. and it should be noted that i am alway right, is that Apple will use the same technology they are using to switch between graphics card, to dynamically switch between CPU's.

When the user is surfing the net, playing the stocks, commenting on CNET, or just lurking in Facebook, the Hybrid Mac will be using the ARM processor and lower end graphics card, which will run cleaner and greener, and dramatically increase battery life.
However, when that user fires up Final Cut Pro, the OS will dynamically switch to the higher performing Intel CPU and Higher end graphics card, to get the job done.

The entire Macbook line will change. No more choosing Macbook or Macbook pro. The Hybrid will adapt to you... which is the way it should be.

I also believe the Macbook air will be ARM only.
Mark my words.

When will this happen?
Sooner than anyone expects.

None of this will happen. It's technically infeasible.

 

[holmesf]

Apple has left quite a few bread crumbs to follow that indicate a Hybrid Computer is in the works.
Apple will not dump intel you crazies. That would mean dumping their entire pro line.

My prediction.. and it should be noted that i am alway right, is that Apple will use the same technology they are using to switch between graphics card, to dynamically switch between CPU's.

When the user is surfing the net, playing the stocks, commenting on CNET, or just lurking in Facebook, the Hybrid Mac will be using the ARM processor and lower end graphics card, which will run cleaner and greener, and dramatically increase battery life.
However, when that user fires up Final Cut Pro, the OS will dynamically switch to the higher performing Intel CPU and Higher end graphics card, to get the job done.

The entire Macbook line will change. No more choosing Macbook or Macbook pro. The Hybrid will adapt to you... which is the way it should be.

I also believe the Macbook air will be ARM only.
Mark my words.

When will this happen?
Sooner than anyone expects.

Dynamic CPU switching cannot happen until the instruction set architecture is abandoned as the primary interface between hardware and software. Until we have a more abstracted runtime environment where program state is abstract enough that an entirely different architecture can be "passed the torch" to continue where another left off it will not be possible. And emulation doesn't fit the bill, because the goal to begin with was power efficiency. If programs were written in a common byte code that was executed with JIT compilation to machine code this would be possible. But this common runtime doesn't even exist today (unless you wanted to use Java, lol) and no one in the industry is even talking about it.

This development is probably 10 years away.

 

[diamond.g]

Just look at Intel's and ARM's roadmaps and that should answer your question.

To be honest, I do understand that while ARM is going to get faster, Intel isn't in a vacuum. They will improve as well. I am still trying to understand, aside from $, what are the advantages of switching from Intel to ARM. Performance doesn't appear to be one.

 

[LarryC]

To be honest, I do understand that while ARM is going to get faster, Intel isn't in a vacuum. They will improve as well. I am still trying to understand, aside from $, what are the advantages of switching from Intel to ARM. Performance doesn't appear to be one.

The only thing that I could think of would be more energy efficiency. In other words, a longer battery life for laptops. I agree with you that Intel will also be improving their chips. This three dimensional thing that they have come up with looks very exciting to me. I am certainly no type of expert like some of the folks here are, but to me, the 3D thing seems revolutionary instead of evolutionary. I think they need to stay with Intel, at least for now.

 

[faroZ06]

Even if ARM DID get ahead, it wouldn't take Intel long to catch up... Then what?

Another transition like Motorola -> Intel processors...

But WHY switch to ARM? There must be some technical reason that I don't know about.

Or this rumor is false. I haven't heard anything about it after this article.

 

[coldmack]

My 2.2 i7 sandybridge macbookpro doesn't seem to agree with your assessment of intel as garbage.

And if we were using a non-Intel architecture you would be even happier as your machine would be A) more reliable and better built; B) faster, cooler, better, and more efficient; C) a more awesome machine all around that wouldn't be garbaged up with blasphemous junk. You could called Intel the Bose of the cpu/semi-conductor world, i.e. over-hyped and not worth the cost.

It is really a shame Apple isn't messing around with graphene technology, that way could see some real breakthrough in processing power and efficiency. Plus, it would make Intel look like 10 year old garbage instead of 2 it is now.

 

[cirus]

And if we were using a non-Intel architecture you would be even happier as your machine would be A) more reliable and better built; B) faster, cooler, better, and more efficient; C) a more awesome machine all around that wouldn't be garbaged up with blasphemous junk. You could called Intel the Bose of the cpu/semi-conductor world, i.e. over-hyped and not worth the cost.

It is really a shame Apple isn't messing around with graphene technology, that way could see some real breakthrough in processing power and efficiency. Plus, it would make Intel look like 10 year old garbage instead of 2 it is now.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Nothing currently exists that can match all three criteria better than Intel.

For computers the main choice is intel or AMD. Intel sells better cpus now than AMD. Therefore apple uses intel.

Two year old junk? Their top of the leader board.

 

[viperGTS]

one step closer to putting iOS into Macs....

 

[Sol]

To be honest, I do understand that while ARM is going to get faster, Intel isn't in a vacuum. They will improve as well. I am still trying to understand, aside from $, what are the advantages of switching from Intel to ARM. Performance doesn't appear to be one.

I am just as perplexed by this rumour. If Intel processors make the Macbook Air possible today then why move to a different architecture? It's not like the Macbook Air has problems keeping a charge compared to other notebooks and it can run the same OS and applications as all other Macs.

 

[AidenShaw]

I am just as perplexed by this rumour. If Intel processors make the Macbook Air possible today then why move to a different architecture? It's not like the Macbook Air has problems keeping a charge compared to other notebooks and it can run the same OS and applications as all other Macs.

This really is key - whatever tool you choose has to run the apps that you need.

Today, that means an x64 Apple.

An ARM Apple would be an EPIC FAIL. It wouldn't run any of your applidations.

 

[coldmack]

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Nothing currently exists that can match all three criteria better than Intel.

For computers the main choice is intel or AMD. Intel sells better cpus now than AMD. Therefore apple uses intel.

Two year old junk? Their top of the leader board.

There is something better than that, it was the powerPC cpu and this rumored ARM based cpu(pending its not made by Intel). Think about it we could have had this so called power Intel is making 2-4 years ago if Apple went with graphene cpu tech or something not Intel.

This really is key - whatever tool you choose has to run the apps that you need.

Today, that means an x64 Apple.

An ARM Apple would be an EPIC FAIL. It wouldn't run any of your applidations.

That because you are not thinking big picture. ARM would actually make OSX soar farther than Intel could ever make it. We were on the right track with the powerPC architecture, but Apple became lazy and didn't push them far enough and had to take the easy and wrong way out with Intel. Think about it right now could have had some sweet power 7 cpu in our Mac Pros, and some crazy Mac Mini and ibook with a high power 6 cpus(if apple really pushed IBM and stuff) all stuff that would have blown Intel out the water and into a garbage barge.

 

[ciTiger]

one step closer to putting iOS into Macs....

They could have done this already if they really wanted...

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

That because you are not thinking big picture. ARM would actually make OSX soar farther than Intel could ever make it. We were on the right track with the powerPC architecture, but Apple became lazy and didn't push them far enough and had to take the easy and wrong way out with Intel. Think about it right now could have had some sweet power 7 cpu in our Mac Pros, and some crazy Mac Mini and ibook with a high power 6 cpus(if apple really pushed IBM and stuff) all stuff that would have blown Intel out the water and into a garbage barge.

What ARM processor can rival the power of the latest Intel processors?

 

[showstep]

The Best !!

 

[JAT]

What ARM processor can rival the power of the latest Intel processors?

The magical one in 2015. Duh.

 

[holmesf]

What ARM processor can rival the power of the latest Intel processors?

The iPad 2 scores 750 on Geekbench, which is roughly the same as the Intel Atom N270. But the Apple A5 has a TDP of 0.5 watts while the N270 has a TDP of 2.5 watts. In other words it provides the same performance at 5x the energy efficiency.

Now keep in mind that the ARM cortex A9 may operate at up to 2.0GHz (at 1.9 watts) while Apple is clocking the A5 at 1GHz. Such a configuration would beat any Intel Atom chip currently available in both performance and power consumption. The only problem is that no systems are using such a configuration at the moment (unless you want to buy a development board).

Ok, so when you said latest you probably weren't referring to Intel Atom. But ARM simply isn't targeting higher performance markets than this right now. We'll see what the future holds.

 

[diamond.g]

The iPad 2 scores 750 on Geekbench, which is roughly the same as the Intel Atom N270. But the Apple A5 has a TDP of 0.5 watts while the N270 has a TDP of 2.5 watts. In other words it provides the same performance at 5x the energy efficiency.

Now keep in mind that the ARM cortex A9 may operate at up to 2.0GHz (at 1.9 watts) while Apple is clocking the A5 at 1GHz. Such a configuration would beat any Intel Atom chip currently available in both performance and power consumption. The only problem is that no systems are using such a configuration at the moment (unless you want to buy a development board).

Ok, so when you said latest you probably weren't referring to Intel Atom. But ARM simply isn't targeting higher performance markets than this right now. We'll see what the future holds.

As far as I know Intel Atom is basically a lower power Pentium 3 derivative. So that isn't saying a whole lot for ARM Cortex A9. Wiki seems to believe that the Atom has about half the performance of a similarly clocked Pentium M.