Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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

macduke said:
Looking at the beast that is the A12X in the iPad Pro, I can see why.

As a customer looking to buy an Apple desktop this year, I'm really torn on what to do now. Is the lifespan of my Intel-based Mac going to be shortened by this? Seems likely. I also wonder if the transition will start with portables or desktops? You would think with a major modular redesign of the Mac Pro this year that it will be supported for a long time, but now I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's tough. But if you're getting a desktop, I have to imagine you need something a little heavier duty, so probably okay to go with Intel for the foreseeable future.
 
I wonder if they will put Version 1.0 of the ARM hardware layer in the new MacPro in anticipation of developer's needs? Might explain the silly delay. As Steve pointed out with iPhone 1, once the hardware ships you're stuck with that. Maybe get stuck with an imperfect but serviceable iOS engine in MacPro 2019 knowing full well that board is updatable on a modular system.
 
Optheduim said:
ok--fine. But here is my concern:

what about boot camp? I this going to screw with my windows 10 when I decide to buy a new Mac. Second, what about the programs that came to Mac once apple transitioned from G-processors? Are they all going away then?
Click to expand...
Microsoft also now have windows for ARM with a baked in x86 emulator (works pretty well from what I have seen) unlike earlier attempts which were app store only. I assume the majority of the transition will be done while the MacBook/ air/ mini are ARM but the MacBook pro, iMac and Pro are still running intel - i.e. by the time the line is all ARM there will basically be an ARM version of everything ready to go. Remember there's a huge developer base for iOS so plenty of experience for companies with x86 software to draw upon for new versions of their programmes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus, MacsRuleOthersDrool, Santiago and 1 other person
Good for Apple. I saw this coming for awhile (especially the cross-platform app and OS thingy that people said would never happen) and I think we're going to get amazing battery life out of laptops once it does. I'm wondering how this plays into high-end processing which Apple doesn't have anything close to for the foreseeable future... like Intel Xeon Platinum (which I hope makes it to the new Mac Pro).
 
  • Like
Reactions: radiologyman and turbineseaplane
Zwhaler said:
Good for Apple. I saw this coming for awhile (especially the cross-platform app and OS thingy that people said would never happen) and I think we're going to get amazing battery life out of laptops once it does. I'm wondering how this plays into high-end processing which Apple doesn't have anything close to for the foreseeable future... like Intel Xeon Platinum (which I hope makes it to the new Mac Pro).
Click to expand...

That more or less eases my mind, that they will probably stick with intel for the more "serious" work-horses and support both architectures. (I hope)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glockworkorange and MacsRuleOthersDrool
How is binary code compatibility an issue or feature these days?

Code is small in comparison to data and artwork, we (eg Android) already have fat (multi-architecture) binaries, app stores automatically processor-match and deliver the right code type...

Apple only need to adapt their frameworks and things will work on both platforms. Though keeping multiple code bases up to date at the processor/chipset integration level is tedious.

I guess things might get cheaper, though, once they don‘t need to pay Intel a fortune. Whether the customer will see any of that, though...

Smaller, snappier, better integrated is what I would expect. And the ability to add custom features (Cam, AI, AR, multiple and mixed cores...) to silicon without having to wait for Intel to match Apple‘s needs.

Let‘s hope the chip department has better QA 🙂
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus
some how I think this will backfire for us business users. I have a lot of fear of parallels, bootcamp and even MS Office not working. To me this is the worst news I could possibly hear. Panic mode has set in!
 
Lozza013 said:
My only concern with this is will this change still allow us to run Boot Camp and Parallels Desktop on ARM based Macs?
Click to expand...
I can't believe I had to scroll down this far for this. But I'm not concerned about the parallels/fusion route...I need to be able to run windows full bore here and there, mostly for for some CAD software that just does NOT wanna be virtualized.

**edit: I should have said, I want windows in bootcamp when I want it. I also use parallels for lighter stuff when I can get away with it, but sometimes it just isn't enough**
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus, HappyIntro and Lozza013
zombierunner said:
I'd love to get a fanless Macbook size device that has ARM based chip and matches the performance of MBPs. Also think bezels, face ID and OLED. Thanks.
Click to expand...

And Liquid Retina display to boot 😀
[doublepost=1550787875][/doublepost]Time for fanless Mac Pros.
 
Scooz said:
How is binary code compatibility an issue or feature these days?
Click to expand...

It depends on how you are using processor/architecture specific intrinsics or just go the brute force way of using whatever framework is offered. Ideally Apple will provide a framework that scales across the different types of CPUs but then you don't know exactly if certain apps used Apple APIs in the first place. I would imagine most 3rd Party Pro apps didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trellus
az431 said:
The A12 is already as fast as an i5. By 2020 it will make an i7 look like an 8086.
Click to expand...

Next you'll say that there are no FM chips in iPhones! HAHA! Did Tim Cook write this FAKE NEWS? This will be the end of "computers" for Apple as we know it if true. This is actually worse than the PowerPC Alliance, where 2 of the 3 companies involved are completely out of the personal computer business if not out of half or more of their businesses at the time! Apple even ran Motorola out of the cell phone biz too just to add insult to injury. When will people learn from mistakes?

It's not about whether Mac OS is better or not. Sure A-chips could run Windows software, but none of it is really available for ARM. It's about compatibility in the business and education sectors, and at least one if not both of these will not buy into the, "Well it works on iPhone so it's good for us strategy." Only a moron could come up with this plan. It's been done before and did NOT WORK! Didn't anybody learn anything? Even Steve Jobs eventually gave up on the MHz Myth BS. Not only is it not true, but no one will believe it even if it is!

Is Tim Cook really poised to start doing Mac vs. PC commercials and live bake-offs? I think not. The whole RISC phenomenon, even by Steve Jobs own admission was a failure! I never thought I'd say this, but these bean counters like Tim Cook might end my lifelong interest in Apple Macs and iPhones. If iPhones were so much faster than Android, why were sales down for several years and market share lost?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrBrush, trellus, Queen6 and 10 others
Lozza013 said:
My only concern with this is will this change still allow us to run Boot Camp and Parallels Desktop on ARM based Macs?
Click to expand...

cube said:
For this to be acceptable, Microsoft would have to offer Windows 10 ARM retail and only support pure .NET even on x86. Oracle would have to provide ARM Java.
Click to expand...

Microsoft has actually made progress on making Windows work well on ARM processors and they've made it in such a way where developers have very little (if any) changes to their code in order for their apps to work properly.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/arm/

So at this point, I (at the very least, since I use Windows and macOS side-by-side via Parallels) can breathe a sigh of relief.

The only issue now is to get previous versions of Windows to work on ARM processors, but this is of no concern for me since I don't use them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MacsRuleOthersDrool and Santiago
You should consider that when Apple went from PPC to x86, they mentioned that they’d been running OSX on both PPC and x86 the whole time. Why might this matter? Because maybe they learned something from that transition, and that they may have a solution to the switch that is better than Rosetta. Heck, MS already has WOA, which can run x86 programs. Performance isn’t great, but what MS has done is on relatively slow hardware. If Apple has a much more powerful version of their own chip in the wings, maybe the performance hit to run legacy code will be far more bearable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScienceIsReal, MacsRuleOthersDrool and Santiago
az431 said:
The A12 is already as fast as an i5. By 2020 it will make an i7 look like an 8086.

Also note that the current line of Apple chips are optimized for iPhones and iPads. A notebook or desktop version would probably smoke a base i7 today.
Click to expand...

Maybe my application isn't yours, but you spend your money how you see fit.
 
nathan_reilly said:
I can't believe I had to scroll down this far for this. But I'm not concerned about the parallels/fusion route...I need to be able to run windows full bore here and there, mostly for for some CAD software that just does NOT wanna be virtualized.

**edit: I should have said, I want windows in bootcamp when I want it. I also use parallels for lighter stuff when I can get away with it, but sometimes it just isn't enough**
Click to expand...
Yeah that's how I feel, I use Parallels for old legacy games using Windows XP eg: SimCity 4, I also have ETS 2 and ATS on Mac but I'd love to purchase a more powerful Mac and move those Steam Games over to Windows 10 and allow space for other games eg: Crash Bandicoot N Sane Trilogy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back