Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel to Begin Manufacturing 64-Bit ARM Chips in 2014

Macbook Air 2018 - 64-core, 64-bit ARM processor. One task, one core. Up to 720h of battery life (4-core mode). Upgrade options: 128-core and 256-core.

rMBP 2019: 128-core, 128-bit ARM; up-to 512-core.

Mac Pro 2020: 1024-core, 128-bit ARM. Up to dual 2048-core. iOS X 10.6.

"Be Asynchronous"
 
MacRumors said:
Intel partner Altera announced at the ARM developers' conference yesterday that the world's largest semiconductor chip maker will start manufacturing 64-bit ARM chips beginning in 2014,
Click to expand...


Most of the commentary after this and in the threads here so far is completely out of context.

Intel is making/fabricating a SoC for Altera that happens to have a ARM component in it. It also has an Altera FGPA in it. In the context of "ARM for all Apple products" hysteria the that latter far more important. Basically this is a component being made for high end networking equipment. The custom, high speed hardware processing that the gear needs done is pushed through to the FGPA. The ARM core is to keep that feed and to overall overhead and housekeeping work.

That is a market that Intel CPUs aren't in. It does nothing to Intel's CPU market to fab these also. The high end networking gear market is already dominated by PowerPC, MIPS, and increasingly ARM.

Intel is spending billions to have x86 derviates compete with ARM head-to-head in the more general server and mobile device markets. This Altera chip is no change from that strategy.
 
winston1236 said:
but consumers and non pros love to feel like they are using what real pros use
Click to expand...

So true! And since Apple is predominately focused on the "user experience" it is pretty obvious that they don't care about the professionals. Professionals want to get stuff done - their main focus is productivity.
 
Michael Goff said:
Really? Current ARM chips have the power of a C2D? Even if that is true, and I haven't seen much to suggest that it is, that's a C2D. We've moved up in the world. They'd have to design a chip that has the power efficiency of an ARM chip and the power of an i-Processor if they don't want to weaken the air. And that's not even talking about the fact that they'd be cutting off their own feet in terms of laptop applications.

Why are people pushing for a one OS solution? It isn't always the best idea.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that the A7 is capable of running OS X, granted that apple recompile and reengineer it for ARM64. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an ARM64 code base already for OS X. And when did apple ever say that they want on OS on both? It's the analysts and others who say that. Even though they put some iOS apps and features on OS X, those are perfectly optional and not mandatory like windows 8.
 
deconstruct60 said:
Most of the commentary after this and in the threads here so far is completely out of context.

Intel is making/fabricating a SoC for Altera that happens to have a ARM component in it. It also has an Altera FGPA in it. In the context of "ARM for all Apple products" hysteria the that latter far more important. Basically this is a component being made for high end networking equipment. The custom, high speed hardware processing that the gear needs done is pushed through to the FGPA. The ARM core is to keep that feed and to overall overhead and housekeeping work.

That is a market that Intel CPUs aren't in. It does nothing to Intel's CPU market to fab these also. The high end networking gear market is already dominated by PowerPC, MIPS, and increasingly ARM.

Intel is spending billions to have x86 derviates compete with ARM head-to-head in the more general server and mobile device markets. This Altera chip is no change from that strategy.
Click to expand...

Great post. Worth repeating.
 
adildacoolset said:
I'm just saying that the A7 is capable of running OS X, granted that apple recompile and reengineer it for ARM64. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an ARM64 code base already for OS X. And when did apple ever say that they want on OS on both? It's the analysts and others who say that. Even though they put some iOS apps and features on OS X, those are perfectly optional and not mandatory like windows 8.
Click to expand...

It isn't capable of running it as well as current chips. It is technically capable of doing it, but so is an atom chip. At least the atom would have the advantage of not screwing over OS X, even if the experience would be sup-par.
 
This thread is hilarious. Intel will never manufacture ARM for phones/laptops/desktops. They will only select non-competitive FPGA vendors such as Altera, Xilinx to manufacture for.

Get it out of your heads, x86 isn't going anywhere.
 
MentalFloss said:
This is a fairly unexciting bit of news. Intel takes over the production of chips for another company. In this case, they happen to be ARM chips. Nothing special.
Click to expand...

It is "special" when the "other company" happens to be a major competitor, namely shifty conglomerate and chronic knockoff artist: Samsung.
 
adildacoolset said:
I don't think they'd want to compete with the chrome book. For them, I'd imagine they'd want full OS X or bust.
Click to expand...

An A7 Apple laptop would run the full OS X, but it would be like an iPad with a built in keyboard/trackpad (not like the Surface). I think Apple could compete with Chromebooks by lowering the price to around $500 or $600.
 
sseaton1971 said:
An A7 Apple laptop would run the full OS X, but it would be like an iPad with a built in keyboard/trackpad (not like the Surface). I think Apple could compete with Chromebooks by lowering the price to around $500 or $600.
Click to expand...

I know, Apple will license the Surface keyboard from Microsoft for the iPad.

NOT.
 
Eeeeeeek

Costs an "arm & a lag" hah!

*Sigh*

No excitement at all these last few years for this big shiny red fruity company huh???????????????

*Snore*
 
Go home intel. You were beat by the brits. Thats what you get for spending so much on marketing and so little on the future.
 
troop231 said:
I believe Apple has enough chip talent and aquisitions under their belt to design their own SOC to move away from Intel's x86 chips.

The hard part is ensuring cross compatibility with existing apps (x86) on the ARM instruction set. Craig and his team have their work cut out for them, but I know they can do it.
Click to expand...

They've already developed technology in MacOSX for processor transitions when they moved from PPC to x86. In fact, I believe I remember that back in the day NeXTStep (the foundation for OSX) was developed to be compatible with all processors. So even back in the 90s NeXT had NeXTStep running on Intel processors.

Regardless, even if Apple uses Intel to manufacture chips just for iOS, this would still be great for Apple and their ever-expanding needs for chip foundries. They could decrease their reliance on Samsung foundries and use Intel and TSMC exclusively, no longer giving any business to their biggest competitor (and cloner).
 
this is old news, it just made the news because it happens to be the first quad core 64 bit arm chip.


i'm sorry to say, apple Ax chips aren't going to beat intel core chips in performance anytime soon, x86 will be here for the foreseeable future
 
Redbeard25 said:
iOS and OS X merge codebase in 2015. I'm calling it. Announcement at WWDC 2014. It's why the iWork apps are all getting lined up and why the 5S has a 64-bit proc.

"We decided not to introduce iOS 8 and OS X.10. We're introducing AppleOS 1."
Click to expand...

OSX and iOS already share code. The difference is in the APIs, and even then they still share many APIs. iOS uses Cocoa Touch, while OSX uses Cocoa. So even if applications could theoretically run cross-platform, they would still need a complete overhaul in their design and APIs due to the different form factors. Which is much how things are done today.

I just don't see Apple merging OSX and iOS into a single platform. Every thing Apple has said and the direction they're moving is in fact the opposite. They are two different platforms with two different needs. Desktop applications should be written in Cocoa, and touch screen applications should be written in Cocoa Touch. That doesn't change. When you don't focus like that, you end up with Windows 8.
 
NIKKG said:
Man I remember a while back when it was Powerpc vs Intel and all the Apple guys despised Intel. How times have changed.
Click to expand...

There is a part of Apple's fanbase who go to extremes every time Apple makes a change. Yes, there was a portion who "despised Intel" - these are likely the same fanatics feel the need to despise Google and bash Forstall a few times a day on every message board they visit. Generally these guys are the least knowledgeable on the subject matter... Trust me, if Apple switches away from Intel, all Intel processors will suddenly become "crappy" to these guys...

And although Apple does seem to have more extremists (I am purposely avoiding the FB term) all companies do have them. They are just more fanatical when it comes to Apple. They all pretend to be on a 1st name basis with all of Apple's executives and post questions on MacDailyNews like "Does anyone know what brand T-shirt "Jony" wears" or "My wife and I are ready to go Christmas Shopping. What's everyone buying "Steve" this year for Christmas" ???????

So, when I hear fanatics going out of their way to slam a person, company, or product - my recommendation is that you take whatever they say with a grain of salt and do some research yourself. For the record, the PPC processor was a great processor, and so was/is the Intel.
 
Millah said:
They've already developed technology in MacOSX for processor transitions when they moved from PPC to x86. In fact, I believe I remember that back in the day NeXTStep (the foundation for OSX) was developed to be compatible with all processors. So even back in the 90s NeXT had NeXTStep running on Intel processors.

Regardless, even if Apple uses Intel to manufacture chips just for iOS, this would still be great for Apple and their ever-expanding needs for chip foundries. They could decrease their reliance on Samsung foundries and use Intel and TSMC exclusively, no longer giving any business to their biggest competitor (and cloner).
Click to expand...

Having Windows Rt on Arms ,Osx could go Arm and have emulation even more easily isn't it?Maybe this is the only way Rt could survive...
Now with Intel,the A7,this Intel Arm rumor,the Apple Hybrid Laptop rumor, the discrete almost killed for the soldered hardware by Intel and the never stopping race to thin all of the Cook's Team...the only doubt i have is...the next generation consoles in the 2020 will be Arm as well?
 
Oletros said:
Yes, I have seen a lot of ARM processors beating intel processors in the desktop and workstation market /s
Click to expand...
Um...??

The desktop and workstation market is dead. It's not the trend anymore. Those are devices we are forced to use in a work environment.

You are failing to see the big picture here: there are more ****ing smartphones and tablets in the market right now than there are total desktop/workstation units, and all this happened in the last 5 years!

So... yeah... Intel ****ed themselves. You get complacent and you WILL be run over and you WILL die.

FOLLOW THE MONEY!
 
Last edited:
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