Macs With Apple-Made CPUs Could Debut in 2020

[AndrewFreedman]

An Apple analyst with a great track record thinks Apple could be off Intel chips by 2020.

Macs With Apple-Made CPUs Could Debut in 2020 : Read more

 

[shrapnel_indie]

Apple History: CISC, CISC, RISC, CISC, and now back to RISC.

Apple doesn't really make anything anymore. They design it and then farm it out to be manufactured in China.

 

[jimmysmitty]

So what do they plan to do for the users who want to run WINE and have a Windows VM to run x86 based applications that don't run on Mac at all?

I guess those people will be forced to move back to PC. This will also kill gaming for Mac if Apple plans to push it across their lineup.

I only see this for two things. Either control and profit, Apple will make way more using their own CPU design vs using Intels, or they will push this to lower end devices with higher end devices such as the Mac Pro keeping higher end Intel CPUs. I doubt the latter as it would require Apple to support two types of hardware in Mac OS and that would add complexity to the OS thus increasing potential problems and we all know how they like to support problems.

I also wonder if they plan to do this to be able to unify iOS and Mac OS much like how Windows 10 can be on anything from a cell phone to a desktop.

 

[captaincharisma]

the way apple is going i wouldn't be surprised if they kill off mac OS and make a desktop version of IOS to go with these new CPU's. after all they thought the notch was a good idea for their phones lol

 

[photoew]

Considering the iPhone XS not has a processor that has beaten even the iMac Pro in one particular measurement, I would not be so sure about Apple not being able to compete with Intel's high end. Even Intel hasn't made the 10nm transition standard for their processors, and that was supposed to happen when? 2015?

AMD and Apple fans should be pretty happy to see Intel shown up by the competition. And we should be happy to buy devices that aren't hobbled by Intel's foot-dragging ways.

 

[photoew]

Folks, Apple made it absolutely clear they are not going to merge iOS and MacOS. Why would they when they make more money (profits, based on profit margin, not market share) on the Mac than the top five competitors combined? There's a cost to making things on a razor-think profit margin as the competition does.

Besides, they know they would lose a lot of developers if they were to drop the Mac. Because you can't run Objective C on an iOS device.

Maybe some day when one device can actually do everything a computer and a phone can do at the same time and not compromise the user interface, they'll come out with something completely new, not "a camel is a horse designed by a committee" abomination that would come out of merging iOS and macOS.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Considering the iPhone XS not has a processor that has beaten even the iMac Pro in one particular measurement, I would not be so sure about Apple not being able to compete with Intel's high end. Even Intel hasn't made the 10nm transition standard for their processors, and that was supposed to happen when? 2015?

AMD and Apple fans should be pretty happy to see Intel shown up by the competition. And we should be happy to buy devices that aren't hobbled by Intel's foot-dragging ways.

Maybe in single threaded applications but it is still at best a 6 core CPU vs Intel and AMD both launching 8 core to mainstream and even more on HEDT. Apple can move if they want but there is a lot more at stake than just change the CPU and "everything just works". It would take a lot of "bribing" to convince software developers to re-write entire code for a new CPU.

We shall see but I think its a mistake. The biggest advantage Apple has with Intel is the ability to run WINE and run Windows so Mac users can utilize x86 applications that are otherwise not available on Mac OS. Thats a big change to make.

 

[bobba84]

At least Apple will have a valid reason to charge what they want, instead of getting an actual PC, changing the firmware and doubling the price.

 

[bloodroses]

I'm thinking this will be a bad move for Apple since they'll either have to split their hardware market for OSX to support both architectures, or settle for inferior performance on their higher end machines. ARM chips are designed more so for low power consumption, not absolute performance.

To give an idea how ARM currently compares, this article tests a snapdragon 835 vs x86 chips:
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/270550-are-arm-cpu-cores-finally-ready-to-fight-intel-for-the-laptop-market

the A76 they claim will compete vs an i5-7300u (which is a dual core, ht chip btw). According to the article above, that will place it just below the middle of the pack. According to this tom's article, ARM claims their performance increase will be 15% each generation for the next two releases:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/arm-new-cpu-chips,37614.html

Even with a 15% gain each generation, it still doesn't put them in the performance realm of the high end mobile chips; not even taking into consideration newer x86 models coming out. Again, this means either fragmenting their OSX market for the two architectures/markets, or taking a performance hit. The only other option is to release a higher wattage chip for higher performance, but then you'll be starting to tread into Intel's 15 watt territory (ARM currently uses 5 watts).

 

[svan71]

captaincharisma yeah that stupid notch, Im getting a new Pixel 3 oh wait...

 

[alextheblue]

Apple History: CISC, CISC, RISC, CISC, and now back to RISC.

Apple doesn't really make anything anymore. They design it and then farm it out to be manufactured in China.

"CISC" isn't really CISC anymore. It's not even really relevant. Also designing is kind of a big deal in the scheme of "making" a modern SoC. Really, that's the bulk of the work. With that being said, yes it would be nice if we had more domestic fabs.

 

[shpankey]

Their CPU team is actually pretty amazing... I seriously think this is not only the right move for them from a cost/profit/readiness perspective, but even in a performance perspective. I wouldn't count out this team they have and what they can accomplish... and with the OS and Software written specifically around their in-house CPU, it will be plenty fast.

The problem w/ Intel is keeping the past support. It's like a yoke around their neck.

 

[s1mon7]

Did you see the performance of the latest Apple chips? If they can scale them up and add more advanced instruction sets, sure as heck they can and will take the spot of Intel's high-performance models. While I'm not looking forward to this on the software side, as it will be a mess, I really do look forward to this on the hardware side as it will add a new competitor to the desktop hardware space, in a way.

More importantly, putting any Apple disdain I might have had to the side, their CPU design team is probably where some of the largest tech progress is happening at the moment, and their chips are nothing short of incredible. Probably the greatest talent in the CPU space at the moment is exactly there, doing what is currently the best work in the industry.

 

[stdragon]

Apple will not split OSX into two CPU architectures. No way! If anything, they will export iOS for the Desktop. One device OS platform, many devices, one cloud. It's consolidation and unification of API standards. Given the explosive growth in iOS development, it only makes sense to make the next hop to laptop/desktop units an easy transition once an iOS app has already been developed.

As for gaming? Gaming on OSX is basically dead in terms of mainstream support. Games on iOS however, countless options to choose from!

 

[jaexyr]

Good, go make your own crap

 

[bigdragon]

I look forward to seeing what Apple has planned. I don't use their products, but I love the potential competition implications of Apple moving to their own processors. We could see serious competition between x86 and ARM products rather than the complementary product roles in today's market. Further, we could see renewed competition in the laptop, tablet, and 2-in-1 markets that Intel has stagnated badly over the past decade (and still dominates).

Apple has said that they don't want to merge IOS and MacOS. What exactly defines an OS though? Is it the kernel, user interface, APIs, software, or something else? Marketing people tend to be much looser with definitions than tech people. I wonder if Apple will move Macs to the same kernel and APIs as IOS but provide a completely different, desktop-focused user interface for their Mac devices.

 

[mlee 2500]

So what do they plan to do for the users who want to run WINE and have a Windows VM to run x86 based applications that don't run on Mac at all?

I guess those people will be forced to move back to PC. This will also kill gaming for Mac if Apple plans to push it across their lineup.

I only see this for two things. Either control and profit, Apple will make way more using their own CPU design vs using Intels, or they will push this to lower end devices with higher end devices such as the Mac Pro keeping higher end Intel CPUs. I doubt the latter as it would require Apple to support two types of hardware in Mac OS and that would add complexity to the OS thus increasing potential problems and we all know how they like to support problems.

I also wonder if they plan to do this to be able to unify iOS and Mac OS much like how Windows 10 can be on anything from a cell phone to a desktop.

I suspect, and my observation of mac users around me supports this, that not nearly as many folks do what you describe as they once did when Intel based Mac's first came out. Allot of folks bootcamped or VM'd Windows to help transition from the Windows Platform, or to play games as you say. That's not to say that none still do, but I'd bet it's far less prevalent (I could be wrong, but again, of the 5 or so other Mac users in my department, who all bootcamped several years back, now none do, including myself).

In either case, I don't see Apple making roadmap decisions based on support of a Microsoft Operating System. It's not in their DNA. At all. And I'm certain they only supported it when they did to entice users who might otherwise be afraid to move away from Windows in the first place, back when they only had about 1% of the PC market share. They're around 6% or so now, mostly people willing to pay a premium for more expensive hardware, and have shown zero interest in competing in the much less lucrative ultra-low margin commodity PC space. I susepct they have the same level of interest in supporting another OS they derive no income from.

 

[hannibal]

I think that you are right. The users of bootcamp has declined a lot... I have seen the same trend in my circles too.
Interesting to see if the Apple move completely to own CPU or does it leave some models to Intel... It is easier to support one cpu architecture, but it may be so that the cheapest $999 models will be using Apple CPU and expensive $2500 and above to use Intel... for at least in the beginning. Lets wait and see!

 

[jimmysmitty]

So what do they plan to do for the users who want to run WINE and have a Windows VM to run x86 based applications that don't run on Mac at all?

I guess those people will be forced to move back to PC. This will also kill gaming for Mac if Apple plans to push it across their lineup.

I only see this for two things. Either control and profit, Apple will make way more using their own CPU design vs using Intels, or they will push this to lower end devices with higher end devices such as the Mac Pro keeping higher end Intel CPUs. I doubt the latter as it would require Apple to support two types of hardware in Mac OS and that would add complexity to the OS thus increasing potential problems and we all know how they like to support problems.

I also wonder if they plan to do this to be able to unify iOS and Mac OS much like how Windows 10 can be on anything from a cell phone to a desktop.

I suspect, and my observation of mac users around me supports this, that not nearly as many folks do what you describe as they once did when Intel based Mac's first came out. Allot of folks bootcamped or VM'd Windows to help transition from the Windows Platform, or to play games as you say. That's not to say that none still do, but I'd bet it's far less prevalent (I could be wrong, but again, of the 5 or so other Mac users in my department, who all bootcamped several years back, now none do, including myself).

In either case, I don't see Apple making roadmap decisions based on support of a Microsoft Operating System. It's not in their DNA. At all. And I'm certain they only supported it when they did to entice users who might otherwise be afraid to move away from Windows in the first place, back when they only had about 1% of the PC market share. They're around 6% or so now, mostly people willing to pay a premium for more expensive hardware, and have shown zero interest in competing in the much less lucrative ultra-low margin commodity PC space. I susepct they have the same level of interest in supporting another OS they derive no income from.

Possibly but then there is still the issue of software support. I doubt most companies will release a support patch for the new uArch and users will have to re-purchase their software to support it.

Then again it would depend on the actual amount of Mac users which I have not looked at the user base in a long while as their profit machine is their iPhone.

 

[rksj0000]

@JimmySmitty so much software is going the way of the cloud that support would not be an issue with regards to repurchasing as you are already repurchasing. I'm thinking Office 365, Adobe Creative Cloud, and others.

 

[omischon]

One OS in the future. Phone chips are now almost on Atom level. Plenty power for a prn
player. PS runs on ios. My bet is all Apple PC and Laptops will be on ios soon. Why maintaining two lines when you can do one. Ios is a consumer device os. Fine for the drones. They dont know better.

 

[collin3000]

I'm super not a fan of apple but there are a few things that are being missed.

#1 die size. The current A12 doesn't actually perform as well as Intel chips. But it's a 83mm die. Intel's mobile 8300H is over 125mm and desktop 8xxx is almost 150mm. They've got a lot of literally physical room to grow for a laptop/desktop

#2 Win ARM instruction set. Thanks to windows officially supporting ARM instructions in certain modern OS. Lots of the huge non-gaming apps are coded to run through app store and work on ARM. With apples money they could buy WINE source and chuck $100 mil extra in to make it work if they really cared.

 

[The Paladin]

what the point of making a new mac, most apple users only know how to use a phone, then go to work and use a pc.

 

[stdragon]

what the point of making a new mac, most apple users only know how to use a phone, then go to work and use a pc.

To look cool and hip at the local Starbucks.

 

[mlee 2500]

I'm super not a fan of apple but there are a few things that are being missed.

#1 die size. The current A12 doesn't actually perform as well as Intel chips. But it's a 83mm die. Intel's mobile 8300H is over 125mm and desktop 8xxx is almost 150mm. They've got a lot of literally physical room to grow for a laptop/desktop

#2 Win ARM instruction set. Thanks to windows officially supporting ARM instructions in certain modern OS. Lots of the huge non-gaming apps are coded to run through app store and work on ARM. With apples money they could buy WINE source and chuck $100 mil extra in to make it work if they really cared.

Both excellent points, and I was going to mention a variation of your second item...with Qualcomm's Snapdragon being supported by Windows 10 now via an ARM port, it would be a very short distance and entirely feasible to make Windows also run native on Apples ARM implementation, no WINE or emulation even necessary.

Now, whether Apple (or Microsoft) would ever be interested in doing that is another story...I suspect they would not.