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 Workforce Growth in Oregon Could Point to Desktop-Class CPU Ambitions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As others have mentioned, for software that is built on Apple's Frameworks, a recompile and perhaps a few tweaks will mostly suffice. It's up to Apple to optimize on the performance sensitive parts then. Affinity and Pixelmator, for example, would have a much, much easier time porting than Adobe who've rolled their own cruft and dragged it along for years.
For those concerned about the viability of dynamic translation, it already exists in at least a couple of forms. You can run x86 binaries, even windows applications with x86 Wine, on something as weak as a raspberry pi with Exagear, which does dynamic binary translation (https://eltechs.com).
For those concerned about the viability of dynamic translation, it already exists in at least a couple of forms. You can run x86 binaries, even windows applications with x86 Wine, on something as weak as a raspberry pi with Exagear, which does dynamic binary translation (https://eltechs.com).
Exactly. And I would hate to be in their position. Ambitiously move forward with smaller process assemblies to fulfill users’ needs, or meticulously refine production, leading to constant delays?
Someone should coin a term for the polar inverse of Moore’s Law. The smaller CPUs get, the less we can expect from them? At least until something like nanotechnology or DNA computing can resolve the performance barriers of course.
as long as it still runs x86 windows (&apps) as well as mainstream linux (both possibly in a vm) abutt roughly the same cpu/gpu speed as comparable x86 hardware, i'm fine with any cpu/gpu form apple.
however i will not buy into the new macs with too shallow butterfly keyboard, haptics nightmare touchbar & tiny 15.6" screens - at least one of those things have to go asap
however i will not buy into the new macs with too shallow butterfly keyboard, haptics nightmare touchbar & tiny 15.6" screens - at least one of those things have to go asap
Actually my thought is a custom intel CPU that integrates some of Apples IP for the GPU, the ML accelerator and probalby the camera processing hardware. So we get a hybrid chip with Intels CPU and aroudn that Apple hardware that is so important to accelerating modern operating system functions.
[doublepost=1527888400][/doublepost]
The laws of Physics mean nothing here if Intel is simply to lazy to implement modern RAM interfaces.
Could be an interesting tie-in with a possible expansion of the Kaby Lake-G line that uses AMD's Radeon RX Vega M dGPU along with the HD Graphics 630 iGPU.
Lol! People actually believe Apple will have faster processors than Intel?! 
Do people not realize the same exact processor in an imac vs pc, will be throttled? Thermals will be a great difference, hence performance dropped for Apple. Especially with them throttling phones, why would they not do the same for cpu's to try and sell more upgrades.
Do people not realize the same exact processor in an imac vs pc, will be throttled? Thermals will be a great difference, hence performance dropped for Apple. Especially with them throttling phones, why would they not do the same for cpu's to try and sell more upgrades.
Lol! People actually believe Apple will have faster processors than Intel?!
Do people not realize the same exact processor in an imac vs pc, will be throttled? Thermals will be a great difference, hence performance dropped for Apple. Especially with them throttling phones, why would they not do the same for cpu's to try and sell more upgrades.
So I guess we’d use benchmarks to test performance, since you mentioned throttling. Now the A11 has comparable benchmarks to a current low power Intel chip, at a much smaller size and power draw. I know there are differences in architecture which obviously play a factor, but for arguments sake we’ll use benchmarks. So if Apple has more space to work with and more power to use, you think it’s impossible for Apple to ever release a chip comparable to Intel? I know Intel have very very powerful chips and Apple has their work cut out for them, but impossible? You simply don’t think they’re capable as a company? If possible, not a long range answer bringing in separate topics.
Last edited:
Because Apple didn’t throttle your phone to try and sell you more phones. Apple did so to make your phones last longer (because a slower phone is still better than an unusable one).Lol! People actually believe Apple will have faster processors than Intel?!
Do people not realize the same exact processor in an imac vs pc, will be throttled? Thermals will be a great difference, hence performance dropped for Apple. Especially with them throttling phones, why would they not do the same for cpu's to try and sell more upgrades.
I believe that given Apple’s control over their hardware and software, they will be able to optimise the performance of their chips to best suit the constraints facing their hardware.
In this context, an Apple-branded desktop processor doesn’t need to be beat an intel chip in terms of raw performance. It just needs to be better at whatever Apple needs it to do. So in your scenario, Apple could focus on maximising performance while generating minimal heat, thereby working around the issue of thermal throttling. The end result is that while such a processor might be slower than intel’s best offering, it’s a moot point if that intel processor is never going to hit max performance in an iMac anyways.
Context matters.
You don't need to be politically correct and continue to skirt around the issue. Call me out if you will, instead of "this individual." Unlike you, I don't have a problem with that. That's great that you are optimistic and enthusiastic. I apologize if you feel that your optimism is hurt by me. However, this is a forum, and it's an open conversation. If you can't handle a question directed at the rationale behind your optimism, then there's nothing more to be said here.
If benchmarks were the only measure of performance, then you would've have benchmarks like Octane become deprecated and removed from standard benchmark suites. It's well known in industry that some companies tune their hardware/software to fit benchmarks and not real life performance.
The thing today is that Apple has an entirely different infra structure in place to support an architecture change. Combined with a massive amount of ARM experience in the developer space already, developers would be exploring an ARM based Mac quickly.
So I'm not expecting an Architecture change to ARM to look anything like past changes. Apple will have a massive number of native apps out at the start. id be surprised if they even supported i86 emulation.
..
[doublepost=1527915701][/doublepost]
What are you working on CPU wise at the moment?
[doublepost=1527916713][/doublepost]
There are other things that people don't realize or don't grasp. For one Apple has spent a good part of a decade trying to get developers to stay off the hardware and thus to use Apple or industry standard API's. That goes directly to your point that high quality developers will have an easy time with porting. in many cases a simple recompile will do the trick.
The thing with dynamic translation, CPU emulation and so forth is the variability in the end results. Apple may offer a solution but i wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. they have the big hammer of App Store to hit developer over the head with. We may see dynamic recompiles of LLVM intermediate code to match the native app. I dont see a problem myself, Apple will have plenty of native code at around launch time.
So if you’re a CPU designer, do you think that Apple could design ARM CPUs (and associated silicon) that are capable of running macOS in a way that’s competitive with x86?
Ive been arguing this for a long time, that Apple has the capability to do it, the question has always been when? And the time seems just right for Apple to release its CPU for the next gen of products. The rest of the Industry will go bonkers because this will enable Apple to release products that for the rest of the Industry would seem impossible. No one has powerful enough ARM Processors to take on Intel. And PC market does not have efficient and cheap enough CPU's to be able to supply the ARM/Mobile Market. This would prove to be a big disruptor for the line of products that would require both efficient and powerful CPU's
I wont be repeating other comments but every radical new designs needs mass adoptable technologies for reasonable price. Like one we are waiting to get AR glasses or eye contact lenses that are rummored to appear.
You can get any craze idea but then you need to implemented the way people buy it.
If you go back at look at the old Apple keynotes, they weren’t as radical as we all remember (the iPhone original release and App Store keynotes were exceptions!)
I seem to recall Jobs going on about iTunes interface changes for about 40 minutes each year, talking about the finder getting a brushed metal look in Tiger etc.
This is not to do him down. It’s just that the rate of radical innovation at Apple in the 2000s as far as the Mac was concerned was a lot slower than we might all remember - and it was a way smaller company. Such was Jobs’ genius that he made Apple feel bigger.
I think what was happening is that OS X launched with relatively few features so the first 5 or so years were full of Apple implementing a lot of low hanging fruit.
In fact you could argue that the ‘classic’ first phase of OS X only was really consolidated/fully formed by the time of the much beloved Snow Leopard release (before the Mac App Store was added, which was arguably the beginning of the current era of macOS).
I responded to you. This was in response to an individual that quoted me about you. Again, no issues with questions or conversations. If you approached it as such, it would have been a different story. Anyway, not a huge deal. To your second point, yes I know that benchamarks aren’t everything. Just trying to find a common ground when it comes to potential comparisons. Personally I just found that person to be selling Apple a little short considering the progress they’ve made in mobile chips. We’ll see though.
I don't see this as a disruptor until Apple makes it available outside of their ecosystem as an OEM.
Watching the decreasing emphasis/focus by MS on Windows in favor of VR and non-traditional PC form factors leads me to believe Apple is headed in similar fashion away from Mac desktops and laptops. It's still difficult to speculate how increasing interest in cloud and iOS/mobile software might affect Apple hardware offerings over the next decade. I can see them phasing out Mac hardware within that time - in some respects, they have already begun that process with lack of development of Mac Pros and Minis, as well as in slowing innovation in laptop and iMac offerings. A parallel question to yours: if Microsoft isn't too bothered about Windows anymore, why should Apple be bothered with Macs and MacOS? I should think the time is getting ripe for a major "sea change" with respect to what we've come to call desktop/laptop computers. VR and increasing portability of needed hardware may offer hints for the future, particularly if network bandwidth improves by orders of magnitude.
It is time apples cpu/gpu is separating from Intel. We are in a similar situation to ibm not able to deliver a reasonable mobile G5.
Apple has its own demands (Intel could satisfy with Merom in the first Air and following generations) but lack of lpddr4 controller and slow graphiccores are so un-Apple.
Apple has its own demands (Intel could satisfy with Merom in the first Air and following generations) but lack of lpddr4 controller and slow graphiccores are so un-Apple.
And yet PowerPC eventually hit a wall - the G5 launched strong, but it plateaued very quickly and there were just minor speed and spec bumps (ala what we have now with Intel) and they were never able to make a version that could fit in a laptop form factor, which really hurt the PowerBook line ("Megahertz Myth" not withstanding, by then the G4 was well-behind Intel's mobile products).
If Apple releases their chips as OEM... sure. Aside from bootcamp, wishful thinking?
Seems to be working pretty well, doesn't it? Why would you change? You don't have to buy the newest smartphone ever year. The difference between the iPhone X and the iPhone 6 from 2015 is pretty dramatic.