The installed base base of Intel machines is orders of magnitude larger than PPC was at that time. And people would rightfully angry if Apple stopped supporting Intel hardware less than the time on an extended Applecare warranty. I'd say 5 tears would be more likely.
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 Transitioning Macs to Custom Chips With 'Incredible' Performance Starting Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The installed base base of Intel machines is orders of magnitude larger than PPC was at that time. And people would rightfully angry if Apple stopped supporting Intel hardware less than the time on an extended Applecare warranty. I'd say 5 tears would be more likely.
They could, but where is the connection to the ARM transition?
This will be a nightmare for devs, right now they are suffering having to develop soft for 2 companies, and lot of plugins for mac are GPU powered dropped because the lack of apple’s nvidia support
Think again. I think Apple can release a 100 core Mac Pro with this transition and beat the 28 Core intel by miles. A12 is a 6 core chip. In a Mac Pro, it should be possible to stuff 15 of these.
Yes, for a much smaller market and to a more compatible CPU. This is the opposite. Why would app makers drop support for a hug Intel installed base. The ARM installed base will take years to exceed the Intel installed base.
Should be 15+. The current apple laptops already offer 10+.
I did just go back and looked at the 2005 keynote (which I was at) and found something on anandtech. Apple did provide a chart on performance per watt. Was hoping they would provide something similar today.
It maybe a nightmare but surely having an Apple based CPU & GPU will make the whole process simpler. We won’t see Nvidia support on any future version and why would we see AMD support for future ARM versions if Apple can match the specs of a dGPU in its silicon? With what they have managed to do with an A12X chip, this is very much a possibility for a customer chip
And sacrificing all backwards compatibility again. Making a ton of software obsolete again. Sacrificing boot camp. Sacrificing ALL Hypervisor comparability (virtual machines).
Lots of developers are for sure gonna dump their Macs going forward. The majority of developers using Macs are NOT iOS developers, after all. Most
Developers chose a Mac simply because it offered the unique ability to test in macOS, Windows (VM, BootCamp), etc.
While on Windows I can still run old DOS games if I want to. And thanks to WSL2 I have a native Linux kernel to test on. And I’ve stopped iOS development due to the hostile nature of the AppStore and the way Apple abuses iOS developers. No need for a Mac any more.
/Jailbreak
AMD is the King of chips at the moment.
You obviously have zero technical engineering experience of cpu design. 100 core cpu my arse. Perhaps 25 years later and a whopping $100k min. buy-in price. Apple does not over engineer anything. They give you drops of water when you are parched unless you fork over the big bucks, you get that glass of water.
“AArch64” is just a fancy name for “arm 64bit” like “amd64”.
Apples a series are 64bit cpus implementing the arm architecture.
AArch64 - Wikipedia
True some people would be upset, but moving up the transition timeline as far as software goes could really help increase Mac sales and profits. Just because they no longer have updated software for them (other then some possible security patches) doesn't mean that Applecare still wouldn't cover the hardware. I'm guessing they will push this transition as fast as they can. We'll see.
What precisely is a "more compatible" CPU? I mean ARM CPUs are ARM compatible, and x86 CPUs are x86 compatible - none of them is "more comaptible". In fact i do think that A14x is fully ARMv8.6A compatible - they are possibly AArch64 only though.
Indeed. The only reason Rosetta worked as well as it did, for the most part anyway, was that PPC had fallen so far behind Intel in 2005 that even the first Intel Macs left the last generation PPC Macs for dead, so could easily afford the overhead of emulating PPC code. I just don't see that big a gap between what can be done on ARM with what Intel can put out. You also have to judge against what AMD is doing. Right now, there is a lot buzz about AMD with its Threadripper line.
The interesting thing is that Apple could just keep using Intel chips for high end computers if they needed to. But - they’re so confident that they won’t need to, that they’re telling us right up front it will be a complete transition away from Intel over the course of about 2 years.
They know what they’ve got, and we don’t yet.
AMD, INTEL, same s***, different toilet. Apple wants complete control of their hardware. The heart of the system is the cpu so they want to control that without having to deal with AMD or INTEL.
But yes, AMD is so much bang for your buck; but apple is apple they will only want to rape your wallet as hard as possible.
It certainly will run CentOS. CentOS has been available for ARM for sometime.
All it will need is a few kernel driver additions if that.
Why not? An A12 costs 40$ to Apple, give or take. Even 15 of them disregarding the design for the MB costs much less than a single 28 Core Intel CPU.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say the only non-proprietary “chip” of any note in 2020 is made out of potato and deep fried for about 10 minutes.