Speculation: 2013 Haswell - Is this the next big thing for the Air?

[filmbuff]

You need to understand the difference between a RISC CPU and a x86 CPU. You cant run one OS native on both. They both have to be programmed from the ground up. You can make one look like the other but the apps for one wont work on the other.

OSX is an x86 based OS. It wont run on an ARM CPU.

You would need to use iOS and iOS would make it iPad with a keyboard and it would suck.

Hm, maybe you shouldn't be commenting on peoples' technical knowledge if you think OSX won't run on an ARM CPU. iOS is OSX based so obviously it can. Mountain Lion obviously won't run directly on an ARM processor but that doesn't mean Apple can't make it work. Apps can be ported, just like how many apps are available for iOS and Mac OS.

 

[Mr. Retrofire]

OSX is an x86 based OS. It wont run on an ARM CPU.

iOS is a smaller version of OS X (Darwin & other parts), and runs as a UNIX-based OS on ARM CPUs. And OS X has no problems on RISC-architectures (see ARM & PowerPC). ;-)

 

[pandamonia]

iOS is a smaller version of OS X (Darwin & other parts), and runs as a UNIX-based OS on ARM CPUs. And OS X has no problems on RISC-architectures (see ARM & PowerPC). ;-)

OSX had to be coded from the ground up to work on intel x86. Just because iOS is based around UNIX doesnt mean OSX can just run on ARM.

Why do you think the old Power PC support was cut off pretty quick. You make it sound like porting across is easy.

You only have to look at Windows 8 and Windows RT to understand that porting isnt as easy as you think.

OSX on ARM would be a dumb idea. OSX support in general is pretty crap compared to windows. Make a 3rd ecosystem to program for would be terrible. You would just end up with iPad apps

 

[knightlie]

OSX had to be coded from the ground up to work on intel x86. Just because iOS is based around UNIX doesnt mean OSX can just run on ARM.

Why do you think the old Power PC support was cut off pretty quick. You make it sound like porting across is easy.

You only have to look at Windows 8 and Windows RT to understand that porting isnt as easy as you think.

OSX on ARM would be a dumb idea. OSX support in general is pretty crap compared to windows. Make a 3rd ecosystem to program for would be terrible. You would just end up with iPad apps

You sure about all that? If you had a "desktop class" ARM processor, why not just have X86/ARM code in a universal binary? Aren't we already compiling the same code to X86 and ARM already?

I can see OSX running on ARM in a few years - I wouldn't be surprised if it's already being/been done.

 

[pandamonia]

You sure about all that? If you had a "desktop class" ARM processor, why not just have X86/ARM code in a universal binary? Aren't we already compiling the same code to X86 and ARM already?

I can see OSX running on ARM in a few years - I wouldn't be surprised if it's already being/been done.

ARM Desktop CPU's dont even have a fraction of the out of order CPU computational power than intels do. If Apple wants to make cheaper computers there is AMD who sells for less than intel.

Apple doesnt even want to fragment its screen resolution in the iPhone and iPad.

Its a pretty dumb idea to fragment an entire OS and ecosystem. And for what? To try and cut down the cost of a notebook? whilst cutting down its power and usefulness?

The day Apple moves to ARM for any real notebook will be the days its competitors break out the bubbly

 

[knightlie]

ARM Desktop CPU's dont even have a fraction of the out of order CPU computational power than intels do. If Apple wants to make cheaper computers there is AMD who sells for less than intel.

Apple doesnt even want to fragment its screen resolution in the iPhone and iPad.

Its a pretty dumb idea to fragment an entire OS and ecosystem. And for what? To try and cut down the cost of a notebook? whilst cutting down its power and usefulness?

The day Apple moves to ARM for any real notebook will be the days its competitors break out the bubbly

So ARM will *never* scale their CPUs up to the power of a desktop CPU? And remember they "fragmented" OSX once before, and System x before that - it seemed to go pretty well...

 

[pandamonia]

So ARM will *never* scale their CPUs up to the power of a desktop CPU? And remember they "fragmented" OSX once before, and System x before that - it seemed to go pretty well...

No they didnt fragment at all. They totally walked away from PowerPC for the most popular and powerful desktop CPU on the market.

ARM will never scale its performance to intel CPU's but intel will get its power envelope closer to ARM's

AMD is a smarter option for lowering costs but lets face it. Apple doesnt want to lower its pricing anyway.

 

[Madd the Sane]

OSX had to be coded from the ground up to work on intel x86.

That is where you are wrong. NeXTstep and OpenStep, the parents to OS X, ran on four architectures: Intel's i386, PA-RISC, Motorola's 68k, and Sun's Sparc. In fact, that is where the universal binaries came from: Not when Apple transitioned from PowerPCs to Intel, but before the NeXT OS was even in Apple's hands. I bet if Apple really wanted to, they could port OS X to Sparc and UltraSparc without too much trouble.

Why do you think the old Power PC support was cut off pretty quick[?]

Apple hates supporting legacy systems.

You make it sound like porting across is easy.

Depends on what you're porting. The only major issues are byte order and assembly code. Most of OS X is coded in C, C++, and Objective C: high level enough that you don't have to worry about assembly code.

You only have to look at Windows 8 and Windows RT to understand that porting isnt as easy as you think.

I will direct you to the porting effort for OS X from PowerPC to Intel. Most apps just needed a switch set. Part of the issue with Windows on ARM is that Microsoft is doing a different model than normal PCs: store-only. If there was a way to make universal binaries on Windows, porting would be easier: just flip a switch and the linker or a tool would make a program that had two architectures in it.

Make a 3rd ecosystem to program for would be terrible.

There is three ecosystems that Apple uses: iPad, iPhone, and OS X. Adding another architecture to OS X wouldn't be hard: it currently has two, i386 and x86_64.

 

[atMac]

There is three ecosystems that Apple uses: iPad, iPhone, and OS X. Adding another architecture to OS X wouldn't be hard: it currently has two, i386 and x86_64.

Not quite, the iPhone/iPad are very similar, and there is no i386 or x86_64, Apple is dropping 32bit apps in favor of 64bit. The two are not completely different architectures, x68_64 is just an extension of x86. Adding an architecture is much harder than you seem to think that it is.

 

[Madd the Sane]

While Apple is deprecating 32-bit, they haven't formally done that or removed it.
Also, i386 and x86_64 are similar, but there are differences. And with how Apple handles 32-bit and 64-bit, they might as well be different architectures: You can't call 32-bit code in a 64-bit program, and vice-versa.

As for adding another architecture: I have ported over an old app, PlayerPRO, from PowerPC to Intel. It helped that there was some work already done (mostly endian issues). I didn't have to worry about assembly code at all.

 

[pandamonia]

While Apple is deprecating 32-bit, they haven't formally done that or removed it.
Also, i386 and x86_64 are similar, but there are differences. And with how Apple handles 32-bit and 64-bit, they might as well be different architectures: You can't call 32-bit code in a 64-bit program, and vice-versa.

As for adding another architecture: I have ported over an old app, PlayerPRO, from PowerPC to Intel. It helped that there was some work already done (mostly endian issues). I didn't have to worry about assembly code at all.

You only need to look how badly porting is between iOS and Android and they are both ARM CPU based operating systems. The apps are relatively simple and small and they often cant get it right.

There is no chance in hell that OSX will split into ARM and x86 based operating systems. There would be mass confusion and it would never work. Simply no advantage to any of it

 

[Madd the Sane]

iOS and Android are different Operating Systems with different APIs. Porting to different OSes will be harder if there isn't common APIs.

You forget that Apple once had two different architectures going at once (PowerPC and i386). They did this by making it easy to build for both architectures and having an emulation layer to run old PowerPC code. Also, Apple is pushing 64-bit technology quite hard. If they do port OS X to ARM, it will be to a 64-bit ARM processor.

 

[seek3r]

iOS and Android are different Operating Systems with different APIs. Porting to different OSes will be harder if there isn't common APIs.

You forget that Apple once had two different architectures going at once (PowerPC and i386). They did this by making it easy to build for both architectures and having an emulation layer to run old PowerPC code. Also, Apple is pushing 64-bit technology quite hard. If they do port OS X to ARM, it will be to a 64-bit ARM processor.

The ability to create fat binaries is a different thing from Rosetta (the emulation layer). One was for forward compatibility (compiling to two arch targets at the same time so it would run native on both), the other backward compatibility (running PPC only apps in emulation since the end user doesn't usually have the ability or inclination to recompile commercial software themselves)

Targeting multiple arches using high level APIs is actually usually reasonably easy.

As for the different OS comment.... There are different high level APIs on OSX and iOS, but there are many common ones too. That's not an effect of the arch, but the platform (touchscreen design vs normal computer). The base system is the same, a Darwin OS built around a MACH kernel with a GNU/BSD user land.

iOS and OSX are the same OS in any way that matters to Apple's internal devs, and I guarantee you that just as they had working builds on intel long before they announced, they certainly have full on builds of OSX running on ARM (and likely still PPC/Power at least too)

The hardest part of moving the OS to ARM for Apple would be:

1)eking the kind of performance desktop users expect out of current gen ARM chips

and

2)Drivers

Recompiling most of the higher level portions of the OS is not particularly problematic. Hell, there's a reason Debian runs on 11+ archs.

Lastly, in terms of 64bit, the big reason to move quickly to 64bit on intel is the expanded registers that come with operating under AMD64/EM64T as well as the expanded memory limitations. On a more limited ARM based device the memory limitations may be less needed, and ARM doesn't carry the baggage i386 does that necessitated the way AMD expanded performance in AMD64

EDIT: for the record btw, my iPhone4:

mobile$ uname -a
Darwin iPhone 11.0.0 Darwin Kernel Version 11.0.0: Sun Apr 8 21:51:26 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1878.11.10~1/RELEASE_ARM_S5L8930X iPhone3,1 arm N90AP Darwin

my Macbook Air:
seek3r$ uname -a
Darwin MacbookAir 12.1.0 Darwin Kernel Version 12.1.0: Tue Aug 14 13:29:55 PDT 2012; root:xnu-2050.9.2~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64

I suspect iOS6 will see that version number bump to 12, and the builds will match again as they have in the past.

 

[modular]

lets bring this back to haswell talk

 

[Elijen]

I doubt the Haswell will bring HUGE battery life to MBA (CPU is not the only thing that consumes battery). But I believe the GPU boost will be significant and I am actually kind of excited about it.

OSX had to be coded from the ground up to work on intel x86. Just because iOS is based around UNIX doesnt mean OSX can just run on ARM.

Unless the OSX is written in x86 specific assembler, it does not have to be coded from the ground up to work on ARM chip. Some core parts, maybe ... otherwise re-compiling should be enough. (if I am wrong, please correct me )

 

[Stingray454]

Unless the OSX is written in x86 specific assembler, it does not have to be coded from the ground up to work on ARM chip. Some core parts, maybe ... otherwise re-compiling should be enough. (if I am wrong, please correct me )

Seems Apple already made some tests on this, at least according to this rumor.

 

[voyagerd]

I believe that 4th Generation Intel® Core™ Processors will be quite an enhancement to the MacBook Air on the graphics front.

 

[gordon1hd1]

I believe that 4th Generation Intel® Core™ Processors will be quite an enhancement to the MacBook Air on the graphics front.

According to this very through analysis done by Anandtech, we can expect the following from Haswell for the MBA:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/intels-haswell-architecture/12

1. Up to 30% improvement on graphics compare to Ivy (there is only so much you can do with 15watt TDP)
2. 5-15% better performance, assuming the cpu clock speed is comparable.
3. Much better standby and idol performance from the CPU. But remember cpu is only part of the power consumption, there are other parts that take a lot of power like the screen, wifi, bluetooth, backlight keyboard... So I am guessing probably ~20% better max battery life.
4. Under heavy load, the cpu will consume 15watt TDP instead of 17watt in Ivy, so probably only about 5% to 10% better battery life from heavy load.

So based on Anandtech review of the 2012 MBA we can probably expect the following(http://www.anandtech.com/show/6063/macbook-air-13inch-mid-2012-review/8) :

~ 8.5 hours under light load
~ 6 hour under medium load
~3.5 hour under heavy load

Unfortunately gaming under Haswell using the ULV processor still won't cut it. +30% max increase over ivy mean probably closer to +15% in most games. Ivy was good for playing older games, Haswell can do the same. But don't expect anything approaching Nvidia GT650m level of performance.

 

[junhong]

Purely speculative: TL,DR incoming

I downloaded iFixit's teardown picture of MBA's logic board, and mess about in MS Paint. Cutting and pasting parts together

http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/nmItfRdGJsVaLKcl.huge

So:
1) Haswell has PCH(Platform Control Hub) integrated into CPU, remove that and we get extra space, say 5%?

2) Apple Engineers would be able to use lower TDP CPU(say 10-12W) for same performance, but lower power consumption and heat production compare to IVB. I say same performance because you can't magically have better power versus IVB at lower TDP, unless Intel Engineers are wizards in disguise

3) With the low TDP CPU(10-12W) they can remove the fan, which frees up 20% of the logic space dedicated for the fan. Perhaps a flat heat pipe the run the length of entire logic board to spread out the heat. So it finally lives up to its name: MacBook Air...cooling (Don't flame me for a little fun )

4) Taking inspiration from Retina MBP now, vents at the side of the MBA, improve speaker design, maybe the MBA can pump audio through the vents instead. So the speaker hardware can be in one long bar(I shape) instead of the current L shape. So space saving of 10%

5) By now we have 35% extra space(remove PCH, fan, slimdown speaker part), move the CPU to far right, move SSD to sit just beside CPU. Voila, I just reduce the logic board size by 30-40%(since its not entirely rectangle), and we have more space for the battery.

6) And if improved battery capacity/tech in iPad 3 and Retina MBP is used in Haswell MBA, couple with low TDP CPU, could give MBA extra 1-2 hours(low expectation for this as the battery life can be affected by myriads of factor)

7) Infact, while we're at it, why don't we solder the SSD to the logic board too? So now we're saving space in Z-height too, this would benefit the long heatsink I mentioned in Point 3, later who knows? Even thinner MBA if the thinner light guide for keyboard backlight turns out to be true

8) IGZO screen would be sound. Would probably stick with same resolution, but with IPS tech to save power, in terms of consumption and GPU processing. Pushing mad rez need additional power. Or maybe the crazy rumor of RAM in display if user is just reading a still webpage or document(forgot the link to that rumor, its for a non Apple product), may give the CPU and CPU some rest, since Apple micromanage those even between keystroke.

9) My hope is that MBA will be like the iPad, almost completely sealed in(except for speaker port due to obvious reason), the iPad basically use its shell as a big heatsink for air cooling. So with my specualtion above, the Air's unibody shell IS the big heatsink for the CPU. So now you have no worries of a mini leafblower, or Tamiya electric racing motor on your lap Yay for stillness, silence, and grace of Zen(which the late Steve Jobs practice).

Phew...long list. But if everything goes according to my speculation(which it probably won't, sadly ). The MBA will finally lives up to its name. Air cooling, Pro lines uses fan

OK bad joke, let me know what you guys think

p/s: No opening for heat venting = no dust buildup that needs cleaning. Apple, It Just Work(tm)

 

[Quu]

I'm looking forward to Haswell for my next Notebook. I've had my MBP now since early 2009 when it launched and I'm definitely ready for something new.

The thing that interests me the most about Haswell is its focus on power consumption. Intel have gone to great lengths to decrease power consumption of the processor while working but more importantly while idle. Enhancing the C power states.

Another interesting thing to me is Intels inclusion of 128MB of eDRAM in to the CPU package which can be accessed by both the CPU die and the GPU die. This should result in significantly improved graphics performance for our notebooks which again will help power consumption as it means we can stay on the integrated graphics during workloads that previously we would have to use the dedicated GPU for.

Intel has done a great job with the overall platform surrounding Haswell too. This will be their first CPU which takes the VRM off the motherboard and integrates it on to the CPU package. This is a big deal because not only can the CPU perform this function while using much less power it releases a lot of space on the motherboard which can now be used for other features or to reduce the size of the motherboard so that they can make smaller products or increase the size of the battery resulting in even better battery life.

Architecturally Haswell is the biggest change since the original Nahlems. It significantly alters the design of the processor and reorients Intels goals towards lower power consumption. This architecture will still be top dog when it comes to performance but for the first time it will come in power envelopes below 10 Watts and be able to bring high level performance to the atom market.

This isn't going to compete with ARM yet which is hovering in the subwatt to 2 watt category but it's a great start and as Intel move their manufacturing process further south (14nm) we can expect Broadwell (the "tick" to Haswells "tock") to reduce power consumption to 1-2watts - And at this level it won't even need a heatsink which makes it perfect for tablets.

By the way if anyone is wondering about Broadwell, expect it in 2014. It will be the same architecture as Haswell (like Ivy Bridge is to Sandy Bridge) but it will be built on a newer 14nm process as opposed to Haswells 22nm process. This means it will decrease power consumption. Skylake which is Intels next generation architecture will then take over probably in 2015 or 2016 and it too will be at 14nm - That will then be followed by Skymont which is again the same architecture as Skylake but reduced again to 10nm.

Intels fabrication right now is world class when it comes to processor dies. They aren't there yet on SoC's but Haswell by integrating the PCH, VRM, GPU and some Memory in to the CPU package is getting very close to becoming a system on a chip which is where everyone in computing is headed.

I can't wait to get a Haswell notebook from Apple. I'm expecting great performance coupled with amazing battery life.

 

[jacob.schmidt]

I'm looking forward to Haswell for my next Notebook. I've had my MBP now since early 2009 when it launched and I'm definitely ready for something new.

The thing that interests me the most about Haswell is its focus on power consumption. Intel have gone to great lengths to decrease power consumption of the processor while working but more importantly while idle. Enhancing the C power states.

Another interesting thing to me is Intels inclusion of 128MB of eDRAM in to the CPU package which can be accessed by both the CPU die and the GPU die. This should result in significantly improved graphics performance for our notebooks which again will help power consumption as it means we can stay on the integrated graphics during workloads that previously we would have to use the dedicated GPU for.

Intel has done a great job with the overall platform surrounding Haswell too. This will be their first CPU which takes the VRM off the motherboard and integrates it on to the CPU package. This is a big deal because not only can the CPU perform this function while using much less power it releases a lot of space on the motherboard which can now be used for other features or to reduce the size of the motherboard so that they can make smaller products or increase the size of the battery resulting in even better battery life.

Architecturally Haswell is the biggest change since the original Nahlems. It significantly alters the design of the processor and reorients Intels goals towards lower power consumption. This architecture will still be top dog when it comes to performance but for the first time it will come in power envelopes below 10 Watts and be able to bring high level performance to the atom market.

This isn't going to compete with ARM yet which is hovering in the subwatt to 2 watt category but it's a great start and as Intel move their manufacturing process further south (14nm) we can expect Broadwell (the "tick" to Haswells "tock") to reduce power consumption to 1-2watts - And at this level it won't even need a heatsink which makes it perfect for tablets.

By the way if anyone is wondering about Broadwell, expect it in 2014. It will be the same architecture as Haswell (like Ivy Bridge is to Sandy Bridge) but it will be built on a newer 14nm process as opposed to Haswells 22nm process. This means it will decrease power consumption. Skylake which is Intels next generation architecture will then take over probably in 2015 or 2016 and it too will be at 14nm - That will then be followed by Skymont which is again the same architecture as Skylake but reduced again to 10nm.

Intels fabrication right now is world class when it comes to processor dies. They aren't there yet on SoC's but Haswell by integrating the PCH, VRM, GPU and some Memory in to the CPU package is getting very close to becoming a system on a chip which is where everyone in computing is headed.

I can't wait to get a Haswell notebook from Apple. I'm expecting great performance coupled with amazing battery life.

But as you point out, there'll be changes every year, so "the next big thing" is always a year ahead. I'm excited 'bout Haswell as well, but will have to buy the current Air within a week, so will miss out on Haswell. But again - when I buy next time (in 2014) there'll be the "next big thing" available... Technology is a never ending revolution - always with something new around the corner. But year, some improvement will be seen - don't now about 2 hours battery improvement though..

 

[Quu]

But as you point out, there'll be changes every year, so "the next big thing" is always a year ahead. I'm excited 'bout Haswell as well, but will have to buy the current Air within a week, so will miss out on Haswell. But again - when I buy next time (in 2014) there'll be the "next big thing" available... Technology is a never ending revolution - always with something new around the corner. But year, some improvement will be seen - don't now about 2 hours battery improvement though..

You are totally right. But this is a new architecture, Ivy Bridge wasn't.

What I've done in my upgrades is as follows:

Kentsfield (2006) -> Nahlem (2008) -> Sandy Bridge-E (2011) -> *Haswell

*Will be upgrading to

Which means I only go for the new architectures and do not purchase any architecture that is simply a die shrink like Yorkfield, Westmere and Ivy Bridge as they rarely make a noticeable difference in performance being only "Tick" changes to the architecture while the "Tock" changes are more drastic and worthwhile.

 

[Jobsian]

You are totally right. But this is a new architecture, Ivy Bridge wasn't.

What I've done in my upgrades is as follows:

Kentsfield (2006) -> Nahlem (2008) -> Sandy Bridge-E (2011) -> *Haswell

*Will be upgrading to

Which means I only go for the new architectures and do not purchase any architecture that is simply a die shrink like Yorkfield, Westmere and Ivy Bridge as they rarely make a noticeable difference in performance being only "Tick" changes to the architecture while the "Tock" changes are more drastic and worthwhile.

Interesting posts guys. Quu any thoughts on Junhong's idea of a fanless Haswell Air? I can't imagine it (based on nothing scientific) but would love to see it too!

Anyone else have any thoughts on this possibility? For some reference, the new iPad's TDP seems to be in the 5W range from a brief google search.

 

[Quu]

Interesting posts guys. Quu any thoughts on Junhong's idea of a fanless Haswell Air? I can't imagine it (based on nothing scientific) but would love to see it too!

Anyone else have any thoughts on this possibility? For some reference, the new iPad's TDP seems to be in the 5W range from a brief google search.

I don't think they will remove the fan from the air but I would expect it to be off until you do some hard work on it.

 

[Mac32]

deleted