Microsoft is working on its own ARM chips for servers, just like Amazon already has, because performance-per-watt starts mattering a lot when you have warehouses full of servers.
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 Urged to Take 'Immediate Action' Amid Threats From Apple Silicon and AMD
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Microsoft is working on its own ARM chips for servers, just like Amazon already has, because performance-per-watt starts mattering a lot when you have warehouses full of servers.
Note that that's just a Bloomberg report. It could be accurate, and it's somewhat plausible, but they could also be misunderstanding context. So far, Microsoft uses Qualcomm Snapdragon-based SoCs for their laptops, and Qualcomm Centriq (which appears to use a custom core, not Cortex?) for their servers. There's some collaboration going on there, but it probably doesn't go far beyond "oh yeah, if your CPU behaves like this, Windows will be more power-efficient".
Including Intel sorting out their manufacturing processes and heat issues. Or have a high heat dissipation, but blow-up the performance in-line with that.
I think its because a lot of the presenters are just presenting facts/info - not communicating vision. That was Steve's bread and butter.
What I learned about companies being in trouble: A large profit making company with a highly successful, "unbeatable" product is likely in trouble if you have these red flags: 1. Large investments into research and development don't produce significantly improvements in products (that looks like Intel to me). 2. A smaller competitor starts making large gains, even if they are still much smaller (that would be AMD). 3. New competitors appear out of nowhere (that would be Apple).
That's three big red flags. If you react quick enough, you can overcome these red flags. If you wait too long, you're history.
(I think it was Clayton Christensen, (1997): "The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail.")
That's three big red flags. If you react quick enough, you can overcome these red flags. If you wait too long, you're history.
(I think it was Clayton Christensen, (1997): "The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail.")
Last edited:
It isn't just that; it's the "show, don't tell" that's missing, I think.
Like, Steve would spend five minutes showing Exposé. Just a single new Mac OS X feature. That's all. Instead of saying "Mac OS X Panther is the best OS ever!!1 (please buy it)", he said "here's something I love about Mac OS X Panther, and why I think you'll love it too".
He's showing, in detail, a feature that is ultimately a relatively small detail in the OS — but it's great. Craig comes close, but doesn't quite have the same amount of patience. Maybe because the audience isn't quite the same, but still, I think some magic is lost.
If they do, hopefully Microsoft can get X86/x64 emulation to work as well on ARM and Apple seems to have done with Rosetta 2.
The difference is that if TSMC hits a snag, Apple could theoretically turn to Samsung, or perhaps even Intel, if they have taken/re-taken the lead in process technology. Samsung has produce Apple chips in the past. I’m guessing Apple prefers TSMC since they are solely a contract manufacturer, and not a competitor, but if they were to have issues, Apple has options.
I like how people talk that Intel processors need to support code for 40 years, but time and time again we have seen companies UNABLE to update from either Windows XP or Windows 7 due to software not working on newer operating systems. What point is it having a i9-10900k support 40 year old code if Windows itself does not? You can't really get into old versions of Windows (version 2 or 3) since there is no BIOS anymore, UEFI is the standard.
“My dog cafe business runs mission critical accounting software on MS-DOS, and I need Dell to keep selling MS-DOS compatible machines or I’ll take my business elsewhere”
Set your bios to legacy boot and/or run virtual machines.
google reports about 25 million computers are running xp. An 18 year old operating system supported by 30 years of legacy code/micro-code. What the stats don't say are how many computers cannot be run with emulation due to hooks into hardware.
Would MS-DOS really work on a i9-10900k and a UEFI motherboard, and 128GB of RAM and an RTX 3080? I think I remember even Windows 2 can't even see SATA hard drives, it needs to be IDE. Let alone NVME SSDs
Most uefi motherboards can be set to legacy boot, like I set mine. I have an i9-10900K and a z490 aorus master. I can boot windows xp, windows 7 and windows 10. ACHI can be knocked down to IDE. Of course on a going forward basis older operating systems can only see hardware there are drivers for.
Technically @jonnysods is right to "remember" as the retina machines were still Jobs' babies. He died in October 2011, the retinas were released mid-2012 (great machine, used it for 7 years). By the time he died, the design and direction was well set in stone by him, so people did lash out at the dead Jobs because Tim had next to nothing to do with any of those innovations.
Yes. Read the original post. And the response. They were thinking of the Air.
Like you said, Craig is pretty close. Steve is one of a kind and I think Craig will be as close as we can get.
PS - the CPU on my 2015 rMBP 15" is a i7-4870HQ, and it has TDP of 47W, and the i9 CPU's in the 16" MBP are either i9-9980HK or i9-9880H, and they both have TDP of 45W. My 2015 has a greater TDP, and yet rarely runs up the fan, and I'm sitting here typing on my lap in my boxers with the laptop barely luke warm on a hot summer's day down here in Australia. Even when it does run up the fan, I can still run it on my lap So why does the 16" have cooling issues? Because it's cooling has been gimped by Apple, whereas the cooling of the Retina models has been done correctly. Why? Well I have my theory, but your guess is as good as mine.
While the TDP is indeed the same, the actual power draw variance of recent Intel 14nm generations has gone up significantly — they try to cool down more, but they also heat up more when performance demands it.
Apple’s case design isn’t ideal for that, but also, recent Intel generations are simply very power-inefficient.
I thought it is because TDP is not adhered to recently. It has become a guessing game of what is actual power draw.
Effect of Intel struggling in process improvement?
Yes it’s only “ unimportant” businesses that rely on legacy software 🙄
And I have no problem with an “if it’s not broke don’t fix it” option. Newer isn’t always better.
Well Intel seems to be doing something, at least:
"Over the last three years, we have doubled our wafer volume capacity"
newsroom.intel.com
"Over the last three years, we have doubled our wafer volume capacity"
10nm, Creative Improvements Expand Intel Manufacturing Capacity
In response to incredible customer demand, Intel has doubled its combined 14nm and 10nm manufacturing capacity over the past few years.
Well Intel seems to be doing something, at least:
"Over the last three years, we have doubled our wafer volume capacity"
10nm, Creative Improvements Expand Intel Manufacturing Capacity
In response to incredible customer demand, Intel has doubled its combined 14nm and 10nm manufacturing capacity over the past few years.
Doubling 14nm capacity isn’t exactly something to be proud of
Yes, this. Intel makes huge margins on their Xeons and coincidentally the data centre is where power consumption is just as important than laptops given the cost.
I believe that the "bunny" suits were the early 90s with their Pentium ad campaigns
Well some organisation(s) must believe there is talent in Intel as their people are being head hunted all over the place. Their proprietary Intel speak does not mean that underneath that there isn't a talented designed from a conceptual standpoint. It could be a case of their creativity being absolutely smothered by middle management who are resistant to change because "that's the way we have always done things".
Not really. IBM started out in the high end enterprise space before they moved into the consumer space. When they got into trouble in the early 00s, they simply sold off their consumer divisions to companies like Hitachi (hard drives) and Lenovo (PCs and laptops) and went back to their "safe place" at the high end of enterprise computing and consulting. Just a correction: in 1984 IBM was actually at the peak of their dominance.
Intel does not have their foot in any other markets like IBM did - they would need to totally reinvent themselves which is unlikely.
Yes, they can survive on their legacy markets for the next decade, but unless they make some massive changes, it's highly unlikely they will come back.
I think this shows a lack of foresight. Although no one yet quite knows how to best exploit FPGA technology in mainstream computing, they really do offer an awful lot of potential.