Dude ARM's right outside the front door. My iPad2 can do pretty much 95% of what everyone uses a computer for, web, email, youtube, hd video, games. It generates zero heat, its never warm, it never warms up, it requires zero cooling. If you want to encode video, or whatever that is going to take more power, throw a couple more chips in there, again zero heat. Apple owns the rights to both the ARM RISC and PPC RISC through their aquistion of PA Semiconductor, so all the have to do is tell Samsung to build more factories to keep up, they no longer need to pay IBM or Intel or AMD any licensing since they can make/design there own chips nor do they have to rely on and delay products do to the chip makers inability to deliver, they already do it on a mass scale.
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.
More on Intel's Ivy Bridge Notebook Chip Delays [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dude ARM's right outside the front door. My iPad2 can do pretty much 95% of what everyone uses a computer for, web, email, youtube, hd video, games. It generates zero heat, its never warm, it never warms up, it requires zero cooling. If you want to encode video, or whatever that is going to take more power, throw a couple more chips in there, again zero heat. Apple owns the rights to both the ARM RISC and PPC RISC through their aquistion of PA Semiconductor, so all the have to do is tell Samsung to build more factories to keep up, they no longer need to pay IBM or Intel or AMD any licensing since they can make/design there own chips nor do they have to rely on and delay products do to the chip makers inability to deliver, they already do it on a mass scale.
If Angry Birds is all you play, then iPad is probably sufficient. iPad doesn't have the horsepower to run titles like Call of Duty at PC graphics.
It doesn't work that way, you can't just magically put more chips inside a machine and get better performance. Heat and power consumption will also go up if you increase the performance enough. There was a time when regular PCs didn't have any fans either.
Apple will always rely on others unless they build their own fab. If Samsung or whoever manufactures their chips is having yield issues, it will reflect to Apple's chips. Like I said in my earlier post, others are just starting to gear up 28nm while Intel is already at 22nm. They could take a nap and still be ahead of the competition.
Apple doesn't have to delay any products because they have announced none. There is no proof that we would see updated Macs before June, even if IVB was released to masses in April.
Intel at at 32nm with a mature, stable process. They are starting to gear up on 22nm. Both Intel the others are both in the "production, but still figuring out how to stabilize it for much higher volumes" stage. Intel is ahead but they aren't immune to having to ramp up new processes into maximum yield deployments.
For the other's, their 28nm is effectively catching up to the 32nm that Intel deployed earlier (that 4nm gap up is far closer than the 6nm down). The 22nm is ahead, but not "Go to sleep" ahead. The upcoming intro problems with their next shrink are significant and will take time.
Of course it works that way, what I'm getting at is, if a little iPad can play 720p video without a frame drop and generating zero heat, if you had like 4-5 ipads worth of chips inside and iMac it could easily surpass or be comparable to intel, and it would generate a ****hairs worth of heat in comparison to intel. That's with the A5, I'm sure the A6 should be double the A5, like the A5 was to the A4.
Samsung's already fired out 75+million chips already without much issue aside from keeping up with the pace so they're as reliant as intel or amd or who ever else. And if Intel can afford to take a nap since there so far ahead of everyone, why is the MacPro still waiting on a new upgrade as well as everything else. Apple since I've kept track since 2003, likes to update there offerings atleast once a year preferably twice, once in the spring and once in the fall. Intel's lack of advancing or inability to deliver worthy increases in performance seem to be why the MacPro has been stuck for well over a year now with no upgrade
There were speed bumps that Apple chose to not use. There is a downside to using a multisocket architecture, and you are seeing it. The new SB-E Xeon CPU use a new socket that recently came out. So it is possible they are having some issues with yield in the server chips too.
So, Steve was stupid or lying about the switch to Intel.
We'll wait for your choice.
Clearly Steve wasn't a stupid person. Me personally I'd say lying, in terms of why Apple chose Intel I think its more of Steve wanted to focus on laptops, not focus but wanted to see more people with Apple laptops, and IBM could not provide, so instead of waiting they went with Intel. To backup my lying on the switch I'd say that having a 3.2ghz 6/7/or 8 core cpu on 1 socket in 2006 shows that IBM was already there with speed, if you used a dual socket where they left off that'd give a 12/14/16 core @ 3.2ghz workstation in 2006, still no laptop sadly.
No, he is telling the truth. PPC's smoked the Intel chips of their generation. However, IBM languished in pushing out updates to PPC (especially, mobile versions). If only IBM could have managed faster development and advancement of PPC, we might still be using PPC's in Macs, today. What a world that woudl be. I miss those days when we had more hardware differences to go by than just the OS.
Because obviously all the problems with parallele execution go away magically because the chips are ARM based right ?
ARM isn't even near the door sorry. If all you do is web/e-mail, I got news for you, Intel is also in that market with their Atom line-up, and so is AMD with their APU line-up.
Then there's that whole pesky issue of applications being compiled and written to x86_64 and x86 and not ARM, that's a major stumbling block right there...
PA Semiconductor is a processor design firm that is fabless. They owned no IP over ARM or PowerPC, which are still owned by their respective companies. I think Apple, a co-founder of ARM, sold their shares long ago.
You don't quite seem to grasp what exactly ARM is.
Apple does not pay Intel for a x86 license. I don't know what you think they license from AMD and IBM. Are you confused ?
----------
Sorry, I don't drink the Apple kool-aid. The PPC chips were always pretty much on par with their Pentium counterparts, Altivec having a great rival in MMX, then SSE instruction sets. It had a slight edge for a while there in floating point performance, which ended when Intel switched their consumer line-up from the P5 architecture (Pentiums) to the P6 architecture previously used in workstation grade CPUs (the Pentium Pros) with the Pentium II.
Mind you, the G3, G4 and G5 chips were not bad at all, they just weren't "smoking" the x86 chips at all. That was pure FUD on the part of Apple, because, well, they were using the PPC chips and needed to convince buyers there was a reason to sacrifice the commodity of x86.
As Intel released the Pentium IIIs and the Pentium IVs, the Centrino mobile platform, they pretty much killed the PPC architecture, which is what led Apple to make the switch as IBM/Moto couldn't deliver anymore.
ARM was a joint venture between Acorn Computers (now defunct), Apple and VLSI. The ARM architecture is a development of the Acorn RISC Machine CPU created for the Archimedes computer back in the late 80s. For those of you that have never heard of Acorn or the Archimedes they were from the UK and were big players in the education market as they designed and manufactured the original BBC Micro which went into every school in the 1980s under a government program. The Arch was the follow up and flopped due to the price. When the CPU business was spun off Apple signed up as they were going to use it in the Newton.
Strange to think the bespoke 32-bit CPU from a £2000+ computer that was way ahead of it's time and damn near bankrupted the company in the late 80s ended up in just about every consumer gadget 15 years later.
Not sure if Apple still have a shareholding in ARM. Steve sold a lot to raise cash when he was the iCEO and it got cut from approx 40% to 15%. Not sure what happened after that.
That didn't come out right. I meant that when they aquired PA Semi they retained a PPC license that PA Semi only held that IBM granted them, I don't know if you remember they were going to release the low power mobile g5 chips but couldn't mass produce until 2007. Obviously Apple holds an ARM license since they have there own A4 and A5 chip, my point was Apple doesn't need Intel or any other chip maker for the fact of that matter they can do it all on there own. And yes I get it, PA Semi didn't create a physical chip mearly layed out and designed the chip to be fabricated at a seperate factory. I also understand that ARM is now a holdings company that licenses its RISC chip and architecture design to companies like Apple then Apple takes PA Semi and customizes and creates the A4,A5,A6 which they own the rights to the chip under a license with ARM.
Of course they pay Intel, what you think Intel says "dude its cool as long as you order a bunch of chips", and if you could comprehend what you read, you'd be able to put together that I am generalizing Apple needs no one. I'm not confused, I never said that they license or think they're currently licensing from AMD and IBM, my point was they no longer had to pay or deal with IBM once they acquired PA Semi because PA Semi held a PPC exclusive license from IBM to produce IBM PPC Chips in low power low watt applications. By aquiring PA Semi, Apple obtained the PPC license.
All 3 of those were total jokes compared to anything PPC. The G4 was as fast as the Pentium IV's, the G5 was 2-3 times faster than anything Intel offering that came out in that same time frame. Up until 2008/2009 the Apple Intel macs (2006-2007) weren't any faster than the last run of G5's, the new i5,i7 are faster, but compared to what.
This is completely delusional. The 2006 quad-core Mac Pro (standard 2.66 configuration) was about 1.5 times as fast by pretty much any benchmark as the 2005 quad G5. The 2006 MacBook Pro (standard 2.00 configuration) was almost four times as fast as the last PowerBook G4. You PPC dead-enders are smoking some seriously bad product.
To be honest, I'd love if the new MacBook Pros were delayed to June because of this. Since I'm a college student, I always need access to a computer to write papers and stuff. If I wanted to upgrade my MBP, I'd have to sell before the announcement of the new ones in order to get more when I sell it. During the school year, I would not be able to get by at all by going this route. But in the summer I can go a few weeks without a laptop until I buy a new one. I guess only time will tell.
Apple don't need an x86 license. They are buying the end product from Intel, not the rights to a CPU/chipset/communications bus design from which they manufacture their own chips.
U on crack bro?
PowerPC was faster/more efficient per clock than the intel chips of the period but you are comparing apples to oranges. Its fair to say that Apple picked their benchmarks carefully to get maximum publicity.
The first intel macs were faster at the same clock speed/price point than the end of line G5s. That's running native code - Rosetta doesn't count. Take into account that the initial Intel macs were using notebook CPUs vs the full-fat G5 and it's no contest. As for the last of the line G5s being quicker than anything this side of a i5, you really are utterly delusional. A fine product compared against the Pentium 4, but once Intel dumped Netburst it was no-contest.
They pay Intel for chips they buy, they don't license the x86 architecture from Intel. The only licensees left for x86 are AMD and VIA, and those licenses are historically granted (VIA by way of an acquisition of Cyrix I believe, remember those ?).
Again, you seem confused on the differences between processor design, processor architectures and actual processors.
Pure fantasy.
Also, you're forgetting the Pentium III was faster clock for clock than the Pentium IV as strange as that sounds. It's just that the Pentium IVs could reach much higher clock frequencies than the Pentium III architecture.
The G4 was on par with whatever Intel shipped in those years. Carefully selected benchmarks made for great marketing for Apple, but in pure integer/floating point performance and SIMD operations, both architectures were pretty much evenly matched.
Intel's own Coppermine held Willamette's feet to the fire. Not to mention that a similarly clocked Athlon Thunderbird would hold its own for much less.
It was not until Northwood that Pentium 4 was respectable. That is not saying much though...
Gah, still trying to forget the whole P4 era... For all the clock speed bravado they were never that impressive. What I find amusing now is that Intel is able to hit the speeds they had in the P4 era but more or less choose not to.
The BTX platform, exotic cooling, +150/180W speed runs on the Extreme Editions to show off... Thank goodness for Pentium-M.