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.
Could Apple be going through yet another architecture change?
- Thread starter KawaiiAurora
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't mind me, I'm just sitting here drooling at the reality of RISC processors eating x86 alive, which it in most cases already has.
x86 has been pretty much RISC for a while now.
This sounds eerily similar to the PPC versus x86 claims from the 90's. Which one is Apple using now?Don't mind me, I'm just sitting here drooling at the reality of RISC processors eating x86 alive, which it in most cases already has.
It’s ok to be skeptical, but I prefer to be optimistic.
I’m not trying to be anti-Intel. I just want our macs to be the fastest they can be. If dropping Intel allows that to happen, then so be it.
Apple’s “Secure Enclave” and “A12X Bionic with Next Generation Neural Engine” chips are as proprietary as anything Intel have developed. The black boxes are an evil that comes with the territory of major manufacturers.
POWER would be an ideal solution given open source and system transparency are priority. However, the downside being that exploits are regularly discovered as the system’s source code is readily available to anyone interested.
There's nothing wrong with being optimistic. However there's a difference between optimism and "ARM is da bomb!". If we look back at history there were a number of RISC based processors. Today most of them are gone. The cost to continue develop a competitive processor was just too high.
Today we have people extolling the virtues of ARM as if it is some magical processor that is just going to come in and clean up. Lower power, smaller size, lower cost, all while handily besting Intel. Sounds too good to be true.
Apple could help in this area by releasing Macs with the latest technology from Intel. Instead we have a professional computer which continues to ship with technology approximately six years old.
I'm not anti-ARM. However statements to the effect "It's already faster than Intel" ignores that this appears to be the case in very specific instances (low power, portable devices) and with one "use" case (Geekbench). I feel it is more than reasonable to ask for something other than some lame benchmark to support such a claim. Yet people continue to act like such a request is unreasonable.
It’s a good thing, the prices of their computers (perhaps) will come down or they could put in a better graphics processor.
[doublepost=1551107390][/doublepost]The best computers was alway arm based wether it was Atari, Amiga or even videgames systems used almost the same processor.
I never said that anything pumped out by Apple wouldn't be as closed as the industry gets.
Mostly, I was referring to Intel's Management Engine and AMD's equivalent, but you're wholly correct that the Ax has just as much black box (if not more so...) as Intel chips.
POWER forever.
Guess its time to put in my updated two cents... About a year ago, I made the below post:
Since then, my view points have made a complete 180 degree turn. I am extremely excited for ARM based Macs on the horizon. Apple has proven with the A12 and especially the A12X that these processors are gearing up to be ready to go head to head with Intel's latest offerings. Intel has been pushing 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ for several years now with little to no improvements as they continue to struggle to get 10nm out the door. Meanwhile, TSMC got 10nm out the door with ease. The benchmark of the iPad Pro 12.9in really proves just how insane these processors are. Even more so, the comparison chart of iOS device benchmarks really shows off how much these CPUs improve year over year, something that simply hasn't been happening with Intel's offerings. For comparison's sake, this is the benchmark of my main laptop, a 2012 15in MacBook Pro 9,1 that's been completely spec'd out. A new iPad Pro is significantly more powerful than my laptop, both in graphics and processing, and its also significantly lighter and probably has a better battery life too. I would absolutely make a new iPad Pro my main "laptop" if it were not for the fact that its running iOS, which restricts the capability of stuff I can do on it, unlike my laptop that runs full desktop apps and Windows. Now also for comparison sake, here is the benchmark of my main desktop and most powerful computer I own; a 2012 Mac Pro 5,1 with dual 6-core 3.33GHz Xeon X5680s, 28GB RAM, and a RX580. The iPad Pro destroys it in single core score, and the multi-core isn't all that far off.
With all of the above being taking into consideration, by the time Apple launches ARM CPU-based Macs in 2020, I expect the A14X to be on par with or even exceed my Mac Pro in terms of processing power, which is absolutely insane to me. Don't forget, these CPUs are being put into extremely small devices like the iPhone and iPad, not larger devices like the MacBook, iMac, Mac Mini, or Mac Pro, where these CPUs would have more thermal headroom and larger batteries, allowing Apple to make even more powerful versions of their A-series CPUs to take advantage of these larger devices. We saw this with the PowerBooks, PowerMacs, and iMacs from the PPC-era, using the same CPUs in both their desktops and their laptops, with the desktop versions offering higher clock speeds or dual CPUs. With how small these ARM CPUs are and how little heat they give off and power they use, Apple could easily stick two CPUs into their laptops and desktops, offering even more processing power. Now, I know that Geekbench isn't the end-all, be-all way to tell how powerful a certain computer or device is, but its pretty damn close given that it runs fairly normal tasks for these CPUs to carry out.
So I am quite excited to see ARM-based Macs, given that they can finally offer something new and exciting compared to the constant groan that Intel CPUs have become as of lately. While Apple may not be the same company they were back in 2005 for the PPC to Intel transition, I feel like without being restricted by hot and power hungry Intel CPUs, Apple can make some radical and unique design choices much like they did back in the PPC days instead of continuing with the same boring designs every year. I'm actually planning to hold onto my current laptop as long as I can until ARM-based Macs come out since once they do, Intel-Macs will likely be quickly plunged into obsolete territory, so getting one now wouldn't exactly be a smart choice.
Since then, my view points have made a complete 180 degree turn. I am extremely excited for ARM based Macs on the horizon. Apple has proven with the A12 and especially the A12X that these processors are gearing up to be ready to go head to head with Intel's latest offerings. Intel has been pushing 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ for several years now with little to no improvements as they continue to struggle to get 10nm out the door. Meanwhile, TSMC got 10nm out the door with ease. The benchmark of the iPad Pro 12.9in really proves just how insane these processors are. Even more so, the comparison chart of iOS device benchmarks really shows off how much these CPUs improve year over year, something that simply hasn't been happening with Intel's offerings. For comparison's sake, this is the benchmark of my main laptop, a 2012 15in MacBook Pro 9,1 that's been completely spec'd out. A new iPad Pro is significantly more powerful than my laptop, both in graphics and processing, and its also significantly lighter and probably has a better battery life too. I would absolutely make a new iPad Pro my main "laptop" if it were not for the fact that its running iOS, which restricts the capability of stuff I can do on it, unlike my laptop that runs full desktop apps and Windows. Now also for comparison sake, here is the benchmark of my main desktop and most powerful computer I own; a 2012 Mac Pro 5,1 with dual 6-core 3.33GHz Xeon X5680s, 28GB RAM, and a RX580. The iPad Pro destroys it in single core score, and the multi-core isn't all that far off.
With all of the above being taking into consideration, by the time Apple launches ARM CPU-based Macs in 2020, I expect the A14X to be on par with or even exceed my Mac Pro in terms of processing power, which is absolutely insane to me. Don't forget, these CPUs are being put into extremely small devices like the iPhone and iPad, not larger devices like the MacBook, iMac, Mac Mini, or Mac Pro, where these CPUs would have more thermal headroom and larger batteries, allowing Apple to make even more powerful versions of their A-series CPUs to take advantage of these larger devices. We saw this with the PowerBooks, PowerMacs, and iMacs from the PPC-era, using the same CPUs in both their desktops and their laptops, with the desktop versions offering higher clock speeds or dual CPUs. With how small these ARM CPUs are and how little heat they give off and power they use, Apple could easily stick two CPUs into their laptops and desktops, offering even more processing power. Now, I know that Geekbench isn't the end-all, be-all way to tell how powerful a certain computer or device is, but its pretty damn close given that it runs fairly normal tasks for these CPUs to carry out.
So I am quite excited to see ARM-based Macs, given that they can finally offer something new and exciting compared to the constant groan that Intel CPUs have become as of lately. While Apple may not be the same company they were back in 2005 for the PPC to Intel transition, I feel like without being restricted by hot and power hungry Intel CPUs, Apple can make some radical and unique design choices much like they did back in the PPC days instead of continuing with the same boring designs every year. I'm actually planning to hold onto my current laptop as long as I can until ARM-based Macs come out since once they do, Intel-Macs will likely be quickly plunged into obsolete territory, so getting one now wouldn't exactly be a smart choice.
Last edited:
I disagree. Intel processors are not and likely never will be in the same place PowerPC was in 2005. At the time, Apple was the only company that offered desktop PowerPC chips, making PowerPC Macs very unique in both hardware and software.
Intel Macs are a different story. Aside from running OS X and having a pretty housing (depending on who you ask), they are essentially typical PCs under the hood. Just because they have the Apple logo implanted onto them does not in any way make them obsolete because Apple ever said so, because unlike PowerPC Macs, Intel Macs will have the entire industry behind them continuing support, long after Apple has told you to buy a new model. Buying a late Intel Mac is not the same kind of ill-informed decision (on the basis of support) as buying a late PowerPC Mac was. On the contrary. Knowing Apple's hardware / software support cycles and typical lifespan, it's likely the late Intel models will be better supported than the early ARM models 10 years down the line because they will be able to run full Windows and the hundreds of Linux distributions for Intel processors.
And that, of course, isn't even taking into account the event of dedicated communities like this one forming around Intel Macs, making as much use as possible the final versions of Intel OS X (or OS X in general, if Apple merges iOS with OS X, or just replaces OS X with iOS in its entirety as far as desktop machines go), which will very likely make Intel Mac communities a bustling center of community-supported longetivity years following an ARM switch by Apple.
To summarize, they wouldn't be a smart choice if you are deeply entrenched in the Apple ecosystem and have zero plans of moving out. Quite the opposite, I would actually be inclined to believe they would be a smarter choice than buying the earlier ARM Macs if you are willing to run anything other than OS X, which many people are currently and fully-conciously moving away from due to intense personal frustrations of the operating system and lack of freedom modern OS X, sorry, "macOS" offers.
That said, I still think general ARM is superior and can't wait for Intel's monopolistic grip on the desktop market to expire. Especially when AMD processors, the only other viable "alternative", have little to no real differences when compared with their Intel equivalents.
Last edited:
I'm not sure that's true. IBM's security bulletins talk about Spectre and Meltdown as well as a few other CVEs which are not POWER-exclusive.
Besides, I'd rather have vulnerabilities regularly discovered and fixed than have them fester for years getting exploited in secret.
That is curious indeed.
If you ask me, it's all but confirmed. Widespread rumors like this don't get their start from nowhere, and the concept itself makes a lot of sense.
There won't be one anytime soon as there isn't even a concept of such a SoC. Make an ARM SoC big and you lose it's architectural benefits
No, they can't. They can in synthetic benchmarks that measure integer performance, but in reality those don't mean anything. ARM is a very specialized architecture for portable devices and includes only functions specific for this use case (currently). Many of the "standard" functions are removed simply because you don't need them in a phone. Compare for example your Raspi with a 2007 C2D MacBook - the Raspi sucks. Yes, energy consumption wise we don't have to talk about how much the MacBook loses. But, the architecture of a Raspi doesn't scale up very well. Energy consumption and performance don't increase linear but exponential - more performance means much more energy consumption.
You call e.g. PCIe lanes and a dedicated chipset "legacy baggage"? Where does your gigabit (or even higher) ethernet come from? Where do you plan to get your fancy shmancy graphics from? A typical ARM chip is a SoC whereas your typical PC is not. For compact systems a SoC may be a good choice to have a standardized energy efficient and small system without the possibilty of expansion. But try adding your 2 SATA drives, PCIe graphics card, RAID controller, second ethernet and video capture card. Add Thunderbolt 3. Want to upgrade your system with a higher end cpu? Add a second graphics card? Your system would be far beyond energy efficient, maybe even worse than current Intel tech and propably much slower in a real world use case because of it's very short pipeline of max. up to 15 stages (as seen in the Cortex A-15)
EDIT: yes I am a bit late to these posts, but it took a while to write them and do the topic justice
This sounds like a wishlist for that dream Mac Pro we're never going to get...
Remember, this is Apple we're talking about. They solder RAM, they solder storage, and they glue your batteries and displays. There are no 2 SATA drives, RAID controller, second ethernet, or video capture card. If you're locked out of even cleaning out your $2K Mac of dust, you can forget about that upgradable CPU or second GPU.
As far as a processor architecture change, and considering their current business model and target market, I don't think they would have any problem at all moving to ARM, and will do so as they damn well please. I'll even put money on the notion that they will do everything they can to achieve this, to lock down their desktop computer even further, in order to unify it with the rest of their product lines for the sake of pure control.
Last edited:
All good points.
If ARM is coming to the MacBooks, I wouldn’t expect it to have any of those add-ons. Fast WiFi. Maybe a thunderbolt3 port. Maybe not.
I’m skeptical that a full-fledged “pro machine” would be anything but intel for a long time, but who knows. Every day it doesn’t come proves the naysayers right, I guess.
The day Apple kills (not just ignores) the Mac Pro, is the day Apple finally abandons the pro market for good (I guess that’s kind of a “duh” statement, but there you have it).