Doubt it.
As per my post above, any silicon dedicated to running X64 code is dead die space once the transition happens. Apple would be better off just throwing resources at making A12X (or whatever) run all native code faster and emulate the x64 using software. The space the x64 hardware would consume would be far better used by more ARM based processor cores, cache, more GPU cores etc.
That way they don't need to debug x64 (a complex architecture) in hardware - hardware debugging and fixing is expensive. They aren't wasting die space. The performance per watt on native code will be better, the cpu will be much cheaper to make, etc. And it will be a subtle push to developers to get their code ported, rather than just providing dead-end native hardware for it to run as well as native.
If Apple and AMD were in bed on GPUs, i doubt Apple would have designed their own. Maybe Apple might license infinity fabric or HBCC tech, but that's about it. If that.
I'm an AMD fanboy as much as the next guy (I have a crossfire vega 64 setup in my PC!), but it just doesn't make sense from Apple's perspective - AMD have nothing to offer them.
[doublepost=1527644888][/doublepost]
"Yes"...
[doublepost=1527645024][/doublepost]
Mac hardware is currently crap for gaming even if you boot-camp it. There's a massive pool of iOS game developers out there who would be chomping at the bit to get their software on some proper hardware - like a high end mac A series chip.
For the cost of a Mac that runs games at any real sort of pace, you could buy a 21.5" imac AND a gaming PC. I know this, because it's what I've done. Well, replace 21.5" iMac with Macbook Pro.
[doublepost=1527645355][/doublepost]
The A10X is passively cooled. In a very tight thermal enclosure... give it better cooling and the clocks will sustain much better.
The A10X is running in a lot less than 15 watts. And was out almost 12 months ago. Time moves on. Apple won't be putting the A11X in a macbook. It will be their NEXT generation of part. With a larger die, more cores and improved tech.
[doublepost=1527645611][/doublepost]
Did you read my post where i mentioned coffee lake is the FIRST UPGRADE WORTH TAKING since sandy bridge.
Of course i know they are getting potentially a 40% performance boost. When turbo-ing. At above the chips rated TDP, which can't be sustained.
That's the first time in 8 years they've made a jump like that, apple have been getting 50-100% improvement per year, since 2008.
Too little, too late - and their onboard GPUs are crap too.
Coffee lake is the exception rather than the rule - and is 5-6 years late.
[doublepost=1527645919][/doublepost]
Yup.
Even microsoft are trying their best to kill win32. With the new metro/fluent/whatever applications. Dabbling with ARM, etc.
The fact they've moved all their stuff to 365 and are now giving first class application support (almost, give it time) to iOS and macOS is yet another signal that they're going OS-agnostic.
Microsoft are just having a more difficult time than Apple will, because they've got 30 years of hacked-together-crap in Windows to sort out, and the applications that make use of it.
Apple went through a lot of the hard work in the shift to OS X already - macOS/OSX has had the benefit of a lot of lessons learned when NEXTSTEP was developed and also since. Plus apple has been much more brutal about deprecating and removing old technology they no longer want in the platform. Microsoft has not.
Those chickens are coming back to roost now. For everyone who whines every time Apple remove stuff from macOS - this is why they do it. To enable platform shifts like this to be accomplished much more easily.
[doublepost=1527646045][/doublepost]
No, i mean coffee lake due to increased core count.
Cannon lake will be another worthwhile upgrade for Apple, however Apple has been able to use DDR4 if they wanted to make that call for years.
They didn't, and thats their call.
I'm talking worthwhile upgrades overall - not just from Apple's perspective. But even from Apple's perspective, the higher core count Coffee Lake mobile parts are a no brainer. It won't give them everything they want (no LPDDR4), but its actually more than a 5% improvement this time around.
But still an illustration of why Apple want to get off intel, long term. Apple's goals and Intel's goals don't line up well enough.
[doublepost=1527646230][/doublepost]
Remove those power, thermal and cost constraints and Apple will be able to scale their A series chips up significantly. Just as intel scale DOWN their core series.
Double the core count and 1.5x the clock speed inside of 15 watts vs. the A10X (which would be totally feasible for a 13" macbook air replacement) and you've got a monster laptop CPU...
As to "not seeing the downsides". Of course i see the downsides. There WILL be short term pain in terms of performance. But if Apple can get enough of a boost in performance from AX, they can mitigate most of it on non-native software (as they did with the intel shift) and then the following 2-3 years make significant improvements in running non-native code, and also phase out the non-native code as well - getting even more performance back.
Yes, this transition is not without pain. But apple have the pieces in place (LLVM bytecode in the store to recompile store apps natively, multi-arch binary support in macOS, rosetta technology, an amazing processor architecture) to alleviate a lot of it.
Long term, it definitely makes sense for Apple. And Apple tend to take the long view. They've got plenty of money in the bank to be able to afford to take a risk. If the new low end machine with ARM doesn't take off - so be it. But i think it will.
Will this happen at WWDC this year? I'm not sure. But i believe it will happen inside 18 months.
[doublepost=1527647105][/doublepost]
Of course. All the more reason for Apple to do it themselves.
No, just pointing out Apple's strategy. Intel can build processors for whoever they want. Doesn't mean it is in Apple's long term interests to use them.
What? Apple has sold far more laptops than desktops for about a decade.
The macbook air has been their volume seller since about 2010.
Take an A10X. Double or triple it in size (i.e., 12-18 cores). Give it actual active cooling with a fan and heatsink/heat-pipe.
You've got something that will destroy a "mainstream" desktop i7 on multi-threaded code inside of 35 watts. At far less cost to Apple.
Sure, it will perhaps take Apple a while to get the confidence to put that part out, but they could conceivably do it today. They have the tech. They have the motive. They have the money in the bank.
Apple as a company is bigger than intel... there's no reason they need to accept what intel make.
edit:
replaced A11X with A10X. got my model numbers confused. point remains.
