Apple Killing Intel on Macs? This Is Big

[mrmez]

This is all assuming that a) Apple IS developing it's own CPU's, and b) they WILL be ARM.
For all we know it could just be an investigation (like the apple television), or they could very well be developing a competing x86 chip.

Even if it is ARM, with less thermal and space restrictions you could triple the power of an iPhone X, and if the owner of Geekbench is correct, that would make a devastatingly fast CPU.

Anyway, x86 won't last forever, just like ANYTHING else in life. Your options are to create the next thing, or wait to copy it. And of course, whenever you change something, people always complain, whether it's BUS architecture, CPU socket, or a tweaking the Coke recipe.

 

[bit_user]

This is all assuming that a) Apple IS developing it's own CPU's, and b) they WILL be ARM.
For all we know ... they could very well be developing a competing x86 chip.

No, it's really a big lift to make x86. They already make custom ARM cores. It's easy to see how they could make more ARM cores, but much harder to see the RoI case for them to start building x86. And why even would they? x86 doesn't have any major technical advantages... just installed base, which they've shown they can deal with.

I think it'll either be ARM, or perhaps something original that would enable them to leap-frog the rest of the computing world. Because it's Apple, they hold all the cards necessary to roll out a new hardware + software ecosystem needed to make a revolutionary change in CPU architecture. That's really why it hasn't happened, elsewhere - that you need a coordinated change in both software and hardware.

And of course, whenever you change something, people always complain, whether it's BUS architecture, CPU socket, or a tweaking the Coke recipe.

I don't think people complained about SATA, PCIe, or NVMe. Or AM4, to your point about CPU sockets.

 

[toadhammer]

I'll also point out there's a world of difference between desktop-only applications and "apps" that run on laptops or ipads. It's really not feasible to switch some of those applications over to ios, or at least not without major hoopla. I think the staggered rollout applies only to laptops running ios. Any plan they have for desktops would have to lag that, or involve dropping them outright, or keeping them as-is.

The rumor doesn't mean that iOS will be ported to Macs, but rather that macOS will receive an ARM version. It's what makes the most sense, since Microsoft has already released a version of Windows 10 for Snapdragon processors.

iOS will remain exclusive to iPhone and iPad, and macOS will remain exclusive to Macs. However, both operating systems share their kernel (just like GNU/Linux and Android), so Apple can add some compatibility layer in order to be able to run iOS apps on macOS.

And what I'm thinking is they will replace (low-end) macbooks with ARM laptops, running iOS.

 

[toadhammer]

Apple moving towards the ultimate and most profitable consumer platform while leaving the pros and creatives who use their computers behind.

Yeah, they're never realistically going to come up with an ARM system usable for professionally editing 4k video, for instance. They're barely supporting the pro market as-is.

 

[Dosflores]

And what I'm thinking is they will replace (low-end) macbooks with ARM laptops, running iOS.

They already have ARM laptops running iOS, but they call them iPad Pro.

 

[oneblackened]

This is all assuming that a) Apple IS developing it's own CPU's, and b) they WILL be ARM.
For all we know it could just be an investigation (like the apple television), or they could very well be developing a competing x86 chip.

Even if it is ARM, with less thermal and space restrictions you could triple the power of an iPhone X, and if the owner of Geekbench is correct, that would make a devastatingly fast CPU.

Uh, you know Intel doesn't just hand out licenses for x86, yes? AMD has one and that's because without AMD having one there would be antitrust breaking up of Intel.

 

[cryoburner]

What works well on mobile does not necessarily translate well to the desktop though, and the opposite is also true.

*sigh* nobody is saying desktop-only apps will go away. You're using an extreme position to argue that a firewall be maintained between mobile and desktop/laptop? Nice.

I wasn't claiming that desktop apps were going away, just that the existence a large number of mobile apps (and developers) doesn't necessarily translate to an abundance of software that will be considered worth using on a desktop platform, and that it's not just as simple as adding some features to existing mobile apps to appeal to desktop users. Some of that mobile software might make a decent transition to a desktop environment, but probably not the vast majority of it.

 

[bit_user]

Uh, you know Intel doesn't just hand out licenses for x86, yes? AMD has one and that's because without AMD having one there would be antitrust breaking up of Intel.

I wonder how much longer this hegemony can be maintained. The license is presumably for patents, of which how many have yet to expire?

However, given the amount of work needed to build a competitive x86 core, at a time when x86 is fast running out of steam, should cast doubts on the likelihood of this trajectory.

If I were Apple, I'd build a core that lacked a standard ISA. Simply do just-in-time translation of popular ISA (ARMv8 and x86 included), or high-level languages, to the native instruction format of the CPU. I just wonder how much energy is consumed by modern x86 CPUs in repeatedly translating the same x86 instructions to the micro-ops that the CPU cores actually execute. It'd be much more efficient to simply do it once and cache the result, and this would be a natural stepping stone to doing runtime optimization.

Nvidia reportedly did this with their "Denver" ARM cores, used in some of their later Tegra SoCs.