It's not ARM chips, it's Apple Chips using ARM instruction set

[Woochoo]

I don’t think it’s silly. By primarily using the ARM moniker, one creates associations, which establish expectations. A computing professional might be able to compartmentlize these things properly (but even they have difficulties), but an average user? That’s why you have the “common knowledge“ that ”ARM is slow”, “ARM is for low power”, “ARM is not for pro applications” etc.

I don't think any computer professional that does a little research before talking about this would ever say that, considering many supercomputers are ARM-based (actually the top 1 to put an example).

AFAIK there haven't actually been ARM-branded processors since the days when the "A" stood for "Acorn".

Because ARM doesn't make CPUs, they design and sell the IPs to manufacturers (who then put their own naming scheme, but most except a few ones like Apple or Samsung use generic designed cores i.e ARM Cortex A76).

And since ARM is just a user-facing spec, we should stop talking about ARM CPUs. We should talk about CPUs implementing ARM ISA. We don’t say that Intel makes AMD CPUs, do we (even though their CPUs implement ISA developed by AMD)

ARM based Macs, Apple SoCs, or Apple A chips, problem solved. Let people speak the way they want, they just won't start learning about ASICs, unified memory, etc. just to understand why they shouldn't call them ARM Macs. People that matter will know how to properly call them.

My point is: if you consider ARM Macs to be too generic and unable to describe how custom and unique on its own Apple SoCs are (which they are), Apple Silicon as much as it's its official branding name is as generic or even more as the former one. It describes nothing but less you pretend to. And this comes from someone who has defended their transition to them and their performance and uniqueness since 3-4 years ago.

If Apple really cared about terminology, they'd have put the Apple Silicone branding way before (for their first 64 bits A SoC for instance) to let everyone know their iPhones weren't "ARM phones" but "Apple custom SoC designs". Nor it was needed, as everyone knew about that, you just need to see every time a new Apple A chip comes out

 

[Boil]

Apple Silicon Macs = ASi Macs

 

[Waragainstsleep]

In both cases above, it's because they're actual Intel chips. However, ASi (Apple Silicon) are not ARM chips. Not even close.

Yes but the differences in software compatibility are potentially trivial (compared with porting between unrelated architectures). We aren't using the term to denote the hardware, its to denote which software they can run.

 

[eoblaed]

Yes but the differences in software compatibility are potentially trivial (compared with porting between unrelated architectures). We aren't using the term to denote the hardware, its to denote which software they can run.

In general, I would agree with this, except where we have the issue of people mistaking the phrase to mean the Macs will have actual ARM chips against which they're setting expectations for potential Mac performance.

The primary reason I started the thread was to try to educate against that misconception.

 

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm not seeing the massive problem you seem to be seeing here. Are you saying people will try tp predict the performance of AS Macs based on what is known about chips like the Cortex, Snapdragon or Altra?
That seems like something that's going to stop once they launch. I would classify the as a very small problem if its a problem at all.