Porting games requires a dual boot computer or having more than one. Your Civilization games are ports right? I stand by my statement.
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.
Intel Expecting Apple to Transition to Custom ARM-Based Chips Starting in 2020
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Porting games requires a dual boot computer or having more than one. Your Civilization games are ports right? I stand by my statement.
You mean on mac? It’s a port, but i don’t need to dual boot to run it. The folks at aspyr did it. Not sure what your point is.
That's not necessarily true.
A lot of code relies on x86 processor hinting... it's not just a simple recompile and Cocoa layer to make it work on a Mac. For heavy intensive stuff, some devs go right to assembly code and that's on the chip level. Audio and video apps with specialized DSP code you can expect will never make the journey over. Right now it's lucrative enough to make a make port worthwhile for a lot of devs. IF Apple goes their own chips, you basically have the equivalent of an Xbox and a tiny dev community. What's Apple going to do, put 10 A10 chips as its Mac "Pro?"
If this is true, this would officially be the pro community's final kiss of death. Expect Pro app developers like Maxon, AutoDesk, and hundreds of other audio and video players to start dropping Mac support just like in the "good old" PPC days. Many people still forget many apps never ever made the transition from 68K to PPC.
Apple moving over to Intel was the best move they could have made because it opened up a whole lot of codebases that were never going to make it to PPC. And Apple had grown its user base enough that it made good financial sense. Apple's closed OS was just open enough being on UNIX that it was familiar but different.
What's wrong with migrating to a better cpu architecture that can be custom-designed specifically to Apple's needs? With Apple's own proprietary secret sauce. And then be in control of updates (and Apple's future), that are hopefully more significant than Intel's less than modest spec bumps.
I meant it in the “theoretically possible” sense, not the practical sense. In any case, macOS will be ported over and will not be an iOS-style locked down system. Some software will be ported, some won’t. But a lot of new software will turn up thanks to marzipan, and the millions of programmers who know UIKit but not AppKit.
For those developing using Xcode (which really should be most of them by now), it will likely mean clicking a button for ARM and recompiling. Then, a bit of work optimizing. Most will likely have the work done ahead of the release of the first devices.
For those using cross platform libraries, they’ll need to depend on their provider to do the transition.
Windows NT used to run on ARM processors decades ago. Windows 10 runs on ARM processors today: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/. Your x86 ISOs won't necessarily install on Windows 10 on ARM, but we may not be that far from many major windows apps being cross-compiled to run there natively.
hahahahha. hahah. no.
your macbook doesn't have a discrete gpu that would eliminate this problem. if your intention was to do anything graphics intensive beyond the capability of an integrated intel chip, that doesn't not make the laptop underperforming, it means you did not choose the right device for your needs.
My Macbook Pro has substantially more muscle than your iPad "Pro" does. Your iPad "Pro" doesn't have professional anything about it. It is an engorged iPhone with a really pretty display and stylus support. It cannot allow an external drive to connect to it directly by usb-c and allow a third party program to fully interface with it. I cannot connect an external usb drive, edit documents with microsoft word, and save the edits to that drive.
I cannot connect an external drive to it, and edit photos on the drive directly with Lightroom or another program of my choosing. It must first be imported to Photos, and then my application is allowed to access that library of photos, thus creating two copies.
I cannot make changes to the operating system that I desire, nor access a terminal or command prompt.
I cannot install Steam on it, and access my library of games available to me across Windows & OS X.
I cannot even tell that iPad to open map links in Waze or Google Maps if I want to.
I cannot choose Gmail to be the default program for mail.
I cannot have multiple user accounts.
If you're tired of reading "I cannot" by now: good. The iPad Pro, is not a "Pro" device at all.
I wanted the new iPad Pro so badly, but I could not justify an upgrade from my iPad Air when they accomplish virtually the same thing. The new Pro is generations faster, and has a much nicer display, but its software is just as uninspired. I really love the iPhone, but I just cannot love iOS. It is a miserable waste of so much potential that Apple refuses to allow because they won't open the OS even slightly.
But please stop singing praises of the iPad Pro in a conversation about performance in high-end devices. Maybe it compares at the low end vs just a macbook, but at the higher performance tiers with the Macbook Pros and a comparison vs software, it's not even slightly relevant.
For consumer level Macs, this is a no brainer. There's really not much of a jump in real world improvements on intel since, probably, Haswell. Even Sandybridge is still a decent performing machine today. I mean if Apple doesn't intentionally put old Macs to Vintage/Obsolete status, people probably won't ever see the need to upgrade for performance wise, especially after the switch to SSD. Battery life of Macs post Haswell have not really improved much either.
I can imagine an Apple-TV-size "Mac" mini.
I can imagine an Apple-TV-size "Mac" mini.
Curious if they could shoehorn an x86 chip in the mix for offloading x86 instructions. I bet AMD would love to sell them something custom that could communicate across a direct link to what Apple’s cooking. Maybe Apple’s chip runs the OS and everyday apps and the x86 module is gated down until it is needed. Would make for some crazy battery life and standby time. AMD basically designs for this kind of flexibility.
My thoughts as well. I believe Apple has been planning this transition for a looong time and it's now coming together. The 2019 Mac Pro will be their showcase product.
Apple will soon be in much better control of their destiny with custom-designed chips with their own (and proprietary) secret sauce. No more being beholden to Intel and meager yearly updates.
They can afford to buy two machines, if necessary. More likely they had two machines, in fact. Hell, they may have only had a mac. You don't need a windows machine to look at source code. But the number of people porting windows games to macs is not exactly a big market for apple to worry about.
In any case, I've never said nobody needs dual-boot. I just said almost nobody does.
Yet there are so many chips. Which one to choose, or maybe it doesn't matter?
I don't have an A12X+ fabbed in a high performance process, packaged for a higher TDP, with a bigger heat spreader, and in a system with a fan like the MacBook Pro or Mac Mini. So I can't run your burn test on an even playing field. But Apple can.
Single thread, a Xeon doesn't perform significantly better an i7. So you are comparing a small die to a bigger die with room for more cores and cache. Duh. TSMC can fab larger chips.
For every person here who won't buy a new ARM MacBook because it might not run their legacy x86 stuff fast enough, there are probably at least 2 new customers who will switch to an ARM MacBook for better battery life, added AI/ML/DNN performance, security, and a growing catalog of enhanced iOS apps and games. Instead of a slower i5 laptop with less battery life.
Apple's A-series processors are blowing the mobile landscape out of the water. Nothing on the Android camp can come close with the same specs. Imagine what they will be able to deliver for Macs! Just wait... this is the change we've been waiting for, and very much needing.
I am not well-versed enough in software development to know if we will see apps go away, but a lot those concerned here were around before Intel and remember the way OS X was treated by developers. Often we did not get apps and if we did, they were usually well behind the Windows release in timing. I am sure the software landscape has changed since then, but one of the major reasons the Mac saw its renaissance was moving to Intel and greatly increasing the size and quality of its app library. I hope moving away does not reverse that. I also am wary of the idea of bringing iOS apps to the Mac. The UI and way you interact with a laptop or desktop is so different than a phone or tablet, that the app interfaces are not really compatible.
I also would be worried that with ARM comes a locked-down macOS. I would not at all be shocked if Apple made this the moment to require apps go through the App Store. They get their 30% cut, the OS is locked down, and Apple gets full control like iOS. If that happens, then I do think that would spell the end for the Mac.
I also would be worried that with ARM comes a locked-down macOS. I would not at all be shocked if Apple made this the moment to require apps go through the App Store. They get their 30% cut, the OS is locked down, and Apple gets full control like iOS. If that happens, then I do think that would spell the end for the Mac.
But even saying that, you are undervaluing an asset that's already in the system.The more you try to convince me, it sounds more simply like its to spite those that would dare to use Windows-even though that was the sales pitch for close to 20 years in order to attract a whole lot of people to join the ecosystem.
Apple's Arm chips are modular. They can easily come out with a MBP that is 2-8x faster than the chip in the new iPads (itself comparable to an Intel 8th gen quad with HT).
Similarly, a GPU that is purpose built for Final Cut acceleration would be of benefit to power users.
The AMD GPU in the current Macs is an absolute joke.
If Apple makes Macs faster by replacing the Intel chip with a jelly donut why would I care what's under the hood?
Apple made the MacBook Pro thinner, because they expected Intel to make cooler CPUs. But the opposite happened, 6-core CPUs came, and they run hotter than ever. This probably caught Apple off-guard, because they got stuck with a platform that is impossible to cool. However, the same happened with Dell and others, they all throttle into oblivion.
This is not my idea -- Dave 2D talked about this in his recent video, he thinks this is the reason why the next MBP may be 16". A bigger chassis provides more room for cooling.
Now going ARM would prevent this from happening again, because Apple controls both the CPU roadmap and the chassis design.
This is not my idea -- Dave 2D talked about this in his recent video, he thinks this is the reason why the next MBP may be 16". A bigger chassis provides more room for cooling.
Now going ARM would prevent this from happening again, because Apple controls both the CPU roadmap and the chassis design.
There may be important differences not at the CPU level, but at the motherboard level. Windows/macOS on Intel both have their motherboards configured broadly the same. Apple and MS are likely not communicating on their ARM designs, so the ARM macOS motherboard may do things in a way that’s different enough such that doesn’t make a BootCamp solution easy.
But then this is Apple. They won't be able to resist making the enclosure that much thinner, to the point where we'll have some form of throttle-gate, warping/failing keyboards, or diminished component life-span due to excessive/poor heat management.