x86 ecosystem is much broader than the processors though. Intel leads/promotes tons of industry wide programs related to x86 architecture (memory, bus architectures etc.). AMD contributes too. ARM has its own ecosystem but so far it has been focused on mobile.
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.
Bloomberg: Apple's First Arm Mac to Launch by 2021 With 12-Core Processor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Technically Power is a descendant of the old joint IBM-Apple chips, that Apple moved off of for x86. IBM still ships it, still puts it in server class and rack boxes (and some of the Qualcomm stuff is from ex-Power folks, really).
Granted, you do raise some good points, still the PC/Mac market is really dominated by laptops, Windows based PCs outsell Apple Macs by quite a bit, and the Intel/AMD battle is driving the performance higher and the costs lower there. Apple could of course save some money if it can converge or at least make apps compatible across iPhone/iPad/Mac, so that may be driving their looking into Apple CPUs on Macs. But I do not see Apple as having enough market share in the PC segment so as to be able to control it. You can make a reasonable play for iPhones and iPads being worth the extra money, up against Android. Macs, particularly if Apple decides to charge more to support its own chipset, that is going to be a tough play. Microsoft might be able to dictate a move off of x86 in that segment, but not Apple. And Apple benefits, as things stand now, from all the Linux x86 based software, since it can run a lot of it with a tweak or two and a recompile. Very tough to move platforms, as Apple knows from having done it before. As a developer, it would be nice to see convergence, but probably will never happen.
Nor is "it's not available, so it is impossible".
We're talking about the feasibility of a rumour here. Do you really expect developers to be announcing ARM versions of Mac software or emulation solutions for ARM Macs before Apple have even announced the move - let alone released a development platform?
No, Bootcamp for x86 Windows won't be possible on an ARM Mac. Bootcamp for ARM Windows will happen if MS and Apple allow it to happen - and, at worst, would be more effective at running x86 Win32 apps using its built-in emulation than running the whole OS under emulation.
Apart from that, if Apple announce ARM Macs, the majority of Mac applications that are still actively supported and viable will likely get native versions, because in most cases the work needed will be no worse than the annual testing and possible tweaking for the latest Mac OS release - and probably less work than the 64 bit transition (which has already killed off most of the likely casualties). Big "pro media" packages will take longer, if only because of all the third party plugins, but unless Apple is insane they'll already be talking to Adobe et. al. under strict NDA.
But nobody credible will be announcing MacOS for ARM products before Apple announces MacOS for ARM.
Also, remember, the Mac is still the #4 biggest selling personal computer system from the people who pretty much invented (or, at least, rescued from oblivion at Xerox) the modern personal computer - if Apple does announce a switch to ARM then that fact in itself will be a huge game-changer. (Intel gained a lot of cred from Apple's Intel switch, which pretty much flagshipped the new Core processors after the Pentium 4 debacle).
There are versions of most Linux Distros running on ARM, just like there is a Version of Windows 10 Pro running on ARM, so yes, It can be done and it will be done. The issue will be the lack of ARM versions of the Apps people need on these OSes. People currently running Windows on Arm have been waiting forever for ARM Chrome, even Office is still emulated.
you are confused my apple marking. when you upgrade to 32gbs, you are only buying 16gb as the base 16gb were already included int he price. right now it is 360 for the extra 16gbs
This thread reminds me of the saying: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Lots of poster who know a little bit about Marzipan, Windows for ARM, development, etc. and then draw erroneous conclusions.
A previous poster made a good point that the x32 to x64 transitions already wiped out abandoned/non-viable applications, so presumably most current x64 applications will be updated and likely with little difficulty for the developer.
A previous poster made a good point that the x32 to x64 transitions already wiped out abandoned/non-viable applications, so presumably most current x64 applications will be updated and likely with little difficulty for the developer.
Sure they would. The would only sell one device instead of two to people who need both. Instead they could make two iPad-like products, but remove the touch interface from one and add an attached keyboard and more thermal management in its place. Put macOS on it and call it a MacBook. Double the sales to people who have both use cases.
The same hysteria or raging arguments were had over PPC to Intel. Mac OS9 to Mac OS X.
Apple left them behind without a care in the world. And here we are without '9' or 'PPC.'
Many said they would no longer be Macs on 'Intel' cpus.
I'd happily see a giant iPad/iMac running on a 'custom ARM/Mac' cpu. It's a matter of time. iOS shows us where the Mac is going to evolve to and beyond. With a larger screen giving iOS room to spread its wings.
Time will tell.
Azrael.
Apple left them behind without a care in the world. And here we are without '9' or 'PPC.'
Many said they would no longer be Macs on 'Intel' cpus.
I'd happily see a giant iPad/iMac running on a 'custom ARM/Mac' cpu. It's a matter of time. iOS shows us where the Mac is going to evolve to and beyond. With a larger screen giving iOS room to spread its wings.
Time will tell.
Azrael.
Sure... #4 sounds good.
But remember... #1-3 and #5-12 sell VASTLY more units than Apple can ever dream of.
During a good quarter Apple can sell 5 million units.
But Lenovo alone can sell more than three times that.
Here are the estimates from the previous Holiday quarter, in millions:
17.8 - Lenovo
17.1 - HP
12.4 - Dell
4.7 - Apple
4.3 - Acer
15.2 - Others
In short... there were over 70 million computers shipped last Holiday quarter... but less than 5 million were from Apple.
And also remember that Apple isn't switching their entire lineup to ARM anytime soon. It will likely be a few low-end models initially. So that's an even smaller subset of the overall computer industry.
So while I'm excited to see what Apple can do with ARM in their computers... I don't think it will have any great effect on the computer industry as a whole.
(offtopic -sorry)
Thanks for the pointer. I knew that there would be some such efficient method - serious research and trying to remember (censored)-year old trig and calculus lessons is on the TODO list - but I was just kinda stunned that something as dumb as simply calling "sin(x)" even worked at audio frequency. The bloat of modern software makes us forget how insanely fast hardware is these days...
I guess Apple couldn't design a custom chip through AMD or another x86 manufacturer featuring both x86 and ARM cores or instruction sets with an intelligent task scheduler in software to delegate tasks to whichever core could perform fastest or most efficiently. Not sure if this is possible or not, I don't know a ton about CPU design. That way you could have the best of both worlds.
...but also remember that it depends on price points. #1-3 sell a lot of cheap basic laptops and lowest-bidder corporate desktops while Apple's sales are all premium-priced machines sold to deep-pocketed customers - and the first candidate for ARM machines are also their biggest sellers.
5 million units a quarter isn't insignificant.
Apple are hugely influential, and have basically set the industry trends for laptop and all-in-one design for the last 20 years (even if they've dropped a few balls recently). They don't have to be #1 for that. Walk into a large PC store (sigh... remember those days?) and the MacBooks are likely to be one of the more prominent displays.
Its clear that NVIDA does some anti-competitive stuff - GPP, ”Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” et al. Apple embraced Machine Learning on their devices, NVIDIA does it in the data center. NVIDIA wants to dominate in AI and ML, but has zero influence or footprint with iOS or macOS devices. Perhaps this is not something NVIDIA cares about, but their strategies always seem to come at the expense of someone else and I suspect they tried to play that game with Apple over CUDA, Metal, iOS and macOS and were rebuffed quite harshly. At some point, for better or worse, Apple decided ML was worth taking on themselves along with Metal and they simply have no use for NVIDIA, who is not the type of partner that AMD is and may actually have a larger ego than Apple.
My $64,000 question for everyone is - If NVIDIA is the bees knees from a GPU standpoint, why did both Sony AND Microsoft choose AMD to power the PS5 and Xbox One X?
[automerge]1587751134[/automerge]
Apple does not view x86 as necessary anymore. It worked for a time and that time has passed.
That would be interesting if true. But even so with one Intel Mac a developer can target literally any platform. Xcode is only for developing on Apple's operating systems and Unix or Linux to some extent. Content creators are more likely to want hardware that is more flexible than that.
With one Mac I can install Visual Studio, Android Studio, Docker, Webstorm, etc. Businesses will definitely want to develop for more than just iOS and/or iPadOS.
Last edited:
Gotcha.
Yeah it'll be interesting to see if any of the other PC manufacturers hop aboard the ARM train.
If Apple finally found the secret to dumping Intel... will anyone else follow? Can anyone else do that?
Apple has been making their own processors for quite some time... but I don't see Lenovo, Dell and HP doing that. So maybe Qualcomm to the rescue?
I like the idea of Apple kickstarting the migration away from Intel. I'm just not sure if it will cause an industry-wide shift.
I could see the major PC manufacturers shifting to AMD much sooner than a shift to ARM.
Microsoft pretty much did this with the release of the Surface Pro X running full Windows 10, not a stripped down version like Windows 10 S.
Granted they tried before back with the original Surface and ARM CPUs, but we all know how that turned out.
Their new SQ1 processor (tweaked Qualcomm CPU) has pretty decent reviews, however they still run into the same issue Apple will have to deal with... app compatibility.
Granted they tried before back with the original Surface and ARM CPUs, but we all know how that turned out.
Their new SQ1 processor (tweaked Qualcomm CPU) has pretty decent reviews, however they still run into the same issue Apple will have to deal with... app compatibility.
Yes, I know we don’t know if new ARM Mac have a USB C power for power and a battery like laptops, or have a “built-in power supply” and 120 V power cord like current desktop Macs.
I’m asking what would be the advantage of line power? Does anyone here think new ARM is going to be driven at 40TDW like desktop class i7’s or was the purpose of ARM to match those specs at low power?
There was one of the initial PowerPC processor which was capable of running X86 instructions. I have no idea what happened to that. Clearly it wasn't successful, otherwise there would have been more than one.
I think there are two different issues here. Let’s put aside the power cord one. The good question is whether Apple will choose to provide greater performance at the same power consumption, or the same performance as intel at a lower power conception. As you aptly note, that’s always a choice any CPU maker can make, as well as choosing any point in-between.
My guess is that they will choose to make the raw CPU provide 10% or so better performance that equivalent Intel options, and use the rest of the ARM advantage for power savings. Remember they can also stick a lot of auxiliary logic (like the ”T2,” USB controllers, power control circuitry, etc.) all on one die (or at least in one MCM package), which further reduces power (and they can put exactly what they want in there, and not just what Intel puts on-chip for everyone else).
Between custom SSD controllers, the Arm processor, custom AI cores, custom video encoder/decoder circuits, etc., they’ll be able to say that for some workloads the speed is several times faster than Intel, but it’s x% faster across-the-board (something higher than 10%).
Rather than go fully crazy on clock rate, though, they’ll want to keep the voltage and frequency lower than they otherwise could in order to reduce power consumption enough to let them be a little more flexible with their form factor. I’d expect to see things that are recognizably different than the current MacBook or iMac form factors, for example.
Now, whether they choose to stick the power supply in an external brick vs. inside the machine, who knows. There are advantages and disadvantages to both, even on the desktop.
I’m going to guess they wanted prominent NVIDIA logos plastered all over the box and console, plus a royalty from each console sold, which are already sold at a loss, but I digress. AMD said, “This will cost
you $XXXXXXXX and it’s yours, to which MS and Sony said, “Buh-bye Team Green!”
AMD will provide custom solutions and tech - Nvidia provides CUDA.
How long do you think it will take software that actually does stuff will move to ARM?
I don't see any major (or minor) 3d app running on ARM in the near (1 - 5 years) future.
No there wasn’t. It was something Exponential Technology was trying to do, but the x704, when it was released, could only run PowerPC instructions. (I know, I helped design that chip
)There was also an IBM project to do an x86, but it was apparently never going to also run PowerPC code. Nothing was ever released.