This article has ZERO to do with Intel as a company, with Intel's processors, or with desktop CPUs whatsoever.
If you read the article, you understood it not at all.
If you didn't read it, & only posted... shame on you.
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's Custom Mobile Chip Designs Gradually Expanding to Include Graphics Hardware
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This article has ZERO to do with Intel as a company, with Intel's processors, or with desktop CPUs whatsoever.
If you read the article, you understood it not at all.
If you didn't read it, & only posted... shame on you.
That's true. But another great reason, one that's even better, is they won't be relying on commodity CPU/GPU devices (Intel, AMD) that their competitors also have access to for their devices/computers. That can pay huge dividends with respect to performance as well as keeping their secret sauce, secret. It's a great place to be!
To be fair, we've known about this since the A8X where Apple used more GPU cores than the PowerVR designs.
Video starts at around 1:30, it is pretty funny because iOS use to be pretty bad on RAM management and couldn't compare to Android but now it is a lot better then the Pixel on 7.1 with 4GB of RAM vs 3GB of RAM on the 7 Plus
They are going to have to do SOMETHING in the not too distant future, as Intel is slowing down their iGPU improvements.
Many speculate about them using ARM in Macs eventually. But then I wonder if they eventually design their own x86 CPUs for Macs. Control and design the silicon, yet still keep compatibility. Though not sure how feasible that is.
Maybe this explains the delay on the Mac Pro. Moving Mac Pro from Xeon to ARM very soon? 
Last edited:
I'm sure they could, assuming there's not a rights/licensing issue. OTOH, compatibility issues aside, I imagine they could design their own custom tailored CPU, which could have huge advantages - again, assuming they can navigate around IP/patent issues. I remember Rosetta from the PPC-Intel transition working really well.
Not likely.
The processor in an iPhone/Pad is not a desktop/laptop processor.
It is missing a huge about of features. One of which is a PCIe root complex, which is required for NVMe, Thunderbolt and external graphics. Apple has a long way to go to even try to compete with Intel or AMD on this front.
Intel has it's own FAB and can tweak fab and process parameters.
Apple is at the mercy of Samsung and TSMC for fab capacity.
The GPU is not in the same league as an ATI(AMD) on nVidia GPU.
Those GPUs have more memory than the iPhone has. The top end nVidia GPU can be clustered together in various ways for a number crunching platform that cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Last edited:
Hiring engineers with experience in key technologies is a very good use of "dormant capital" and is one of the better tax dodges too.
True, but as a person involved in chip design, I don't see Apple going into the desktop/laptop processor business.
If Apple was making 50% of PC's worldwide similar to cell phones I'd have a differing opinion.
But the desktop/laptop processor business has crippled companies like Sun and HP. Even AMD dropped off the map foe a while because their architecture didn't scale well.
Others are talking about iOS and MacOS merging and have no clue that iOS is not a fundamentally different OS than MacOS. AppleTV started as a crippled MacOS that could be hacked for full features. People should think of iOS as an embedded variant of MacOS with a different GUI. Just like Android is an embedded version of Linux with a different GUI.
Maybe this explains the delay on the Mac Pro. Moving Mac Pro from Xeon to ARM very soon?
Not going to happen.
This. People seem to forget the first iPhone announcement, where Steve Jobs said iPhone uses OS X.
Only 2 problems with that acquisition for the reasons you're stating.
1 - AMD loses its x86 license if it ever gets acquired. That's not to say the purchaser couldn't re-negotiate a license but the license itself is voided upon sale. At least that's what most people with any knowledge of the terms have gone on record stating.
2 - AMD no longer owns any fabs. They spun off all of their fabs to raise cash. The new company that owns those fabs is Global Foundaries. They do have a almost 35% ownership of that company but it would not be a part of a sale of itself.
There may be plenty of value in their IP, engineers, patents and experience with CPU's and GPU's to justify a 7Bil+ acquisition. Just that fabs and x86 doesn't come with it at that price.
Running games is not the main use for many Mac purchasers. For some? Sure but IMHO, not the majority.
I was going to say that Apple will not be able to do their own chips in house but then I realized the company is worth like 5x what intel is worth.
I am surprised since Intel basically makes the only CPU for all PCs in the world, and AMD license their architecture AFAIK.
I am surprised since Intel basically makes the only CPU for all PCs in the world, and AMD license their architecture AFAIK.
You never know but here's the thing, I think Intel will be fabbing these future macbook chips for Apple. If Apple have a suite of custom chips the one thing they still don't have (to my knowledge) is a chip foundry. I am certain Apple and Intel are working very closely in the background. I've stated this before on the forum right around the Intel / ARM announcement. Intel are clearly positioning themselves for what's up ahead.
Apple is putting a mountain of money and research into ARM devices. I don't know why anyone still thinks Intel x86 chips have a long-term future in Apple products. The Mac range is out of sync with the phones, tablets, TVs, watches, earphones, etc, and Apple is bound to pull the Macs into the ARM realm at some point, perhaps even today.
With Intel, you get the kind of 1996-style abominations that Microsoft announced yesterday.
Apple is moving on. Even Intel is moving away from its reliance on x86: it has already announced the start of a switch to ARM fabrication.
The future is ARM.
With Intel, you get the kind of 1996-style abominations that Microsoft announced yesterday.
Apple is moving on. Even Intel is moving away from its reliance on x86: it has already announced the start of a switch to ARM fabrication.
The future is ARM.
That's a valid point but but I don't think anyone is making that comparison so linearly because obviously the larger form factor of a macbook or mac mini even a Apple TV leaves open more space for more chips / bigger chips and this is what is exciting. I'm confident they have a new class of A chip based on the iDevices A chip, one that will have more space and battery behind it. Also if I am not mistaken the iPP 12.9" has a beefier GPU.
Maybe someone can do the calculations but a quick estimate based on the mAh battery numbers below my iPhone 6s should las over 4 times longer which i real world terms for my typical use would be 96 hours, that's not standby, standby could be as long as 41 days!
MBA 13" battery (7150 mAh)
iPhone 6s battery (1715 mAh)
My next point might be too simplistic but it's illustrative of the point. If Apple decided to ARM a macbook but double the A-Chip capacity/ability (new bigger chip more transistors etc. etc.) to give it a more robust performance which might equate to a straight halving of active/standby performance, would a typical laptop user feel hard done by with a laptop that might run for a potential possibly for 48 hours continuous usage?
iDevice power efficiency and usage times coupled with laptop hardware norms would, in my opinion be too hard to ignore to bring to the market.
Imagine overnight all the App store games for iOS become playable on your mac. Also not forgetting the resolution of a iPad is higher typically than the iPhone so it seems it's able to handle that.
[doublepost=1477559495][/doublepost]
Yea but you can't put a ATI/nVidia into a phone that I am aware of... while the points are valid but in a different topic or thread because this is not the case under discussion. It's about the ascendancy of ARM architecture in our everyday devices and maybe the potential to get to a point in power that works for Apple and the market it sells into (as big as possible!). You have to understand there are people playing games on phone who will never fall into the high powered gamer/pro-render category who need a small power station to fire up their rig. I know them. I've been in that industry. They are not broadly aware of the common market the way say a Steve Jobs was.
Remember it wasn't power that introduced or hooked the majority, it was making something beautiful. They learned form the fashion industry very well IMHO. Look were that has taken them. Maybe cracking open another area to broaden out the potential. ... I digress.
Finally, I see no reason why Intel or AMD might not solve those technical issues in partnership with Apple, especially in a context were Apple begin to use Intel to fab their iDevices A chips series. Money is a motivator.
[doublepost=1477559681][/doublepost]
It might give them more price point options with entry devices and maybe help buffer with currency variance to offer a better price in no U$D markets.
And that's exactly why Apple would consider designing their own CPUs. Using CPUs from a manufacturer that also supplies your competitors means you will never achieve performance substantially better than your competitors.
Most people think Apple going solo designing custom CPUs is just about not being beholden to Intel's roadmap, release schedule and delays. That's certainly a factor. But, there are much better reasons. Performance differentiation over other computer vendors and being able to keep your IP secret embedded in custom silicon is golden.
[doublepost=1477567142][/doublepost]
Today, captive silicon foundries (fabs) are boat anchors. Even semiconductor vendors are shedding them. Expensive to build ($10B+) and expensive going forward once you're online with ongoing process development and other costs. Unless you are cranking out huge volumes of wafers 24/7 (which would not be the case with Apple) you'll be losing loads of money, quickly. There are plenty of contract fabs available, such as TSMC.
Last edited:
I would be interested in seeing an Architecture comparison between Apples GPU and Nvidia Pascal. Recently Nvidia has been moving away from sheer GPU performance and more towards CUDA (OpenCL) style performance. It is an area that Apple has been doing badly in. If it is true they are doing FP16 instead of FP32 I wonder if that is why.
I am still sketpical of TBDR's over IMR in general as the TBDR's typically require teaking to get the same performance versus the brute forcing that IMR offers.
I am still sketpical of TBDR's over IMR in general as the TBDR's typically require teaking to get the same performance versus the brute forcing that IMR offers.
I've worked at Intel, when they were having the AMD blues, and one thing that happens with that company is the arrogance of their position. AMD had 25% share of the CPU market at the time, and then they came out with the Core chips and started thumping AMD. Intel is one of those companies that has a lot of talent, but lets their MBA's throttle their innovations to make sure they keep people coming back.
It was that fear of AMD was starting to overtake them that rattled the cage, and unleashed the last 10 years of innovation from them, but with their position now, I fear they're getting complacent again.