Rumor: Apple plans to move laptops from Intel to ARM processors - Page 4

Originally Posted by ViktorCode

Are. You. Nuts? According to you, yes, you, Apple would cut the performance of Macs manyfold while bringing software incompatibility for the sake of... lower power bills?

ARM won't have desktop level performance, not now, not 2 years later, not ever. To reach where Intel soars ARM would have to create new chip architecture from the ground up, and there's no way to keep it compatible with ARMs of today AND have that level of performance at the same time. No amount of magic would help either.

Originally Posted by paxman

The way Apple will deal with this (they are doing it) is through the apps themselves.

It is a long way off being unified and easy to use however. I sometimes attach images to emails by going the Photo Browser route. It is a pain in the arse but you can see how this could be a great way to access photos. So we are talking app media browsers.

But keeping track of thousands of media files - is difficult at the best of times.

Originally Posted by bigdaddyguido

This. Apple said it when they released the air, they feel that it's the future of computing. If they can put a ton of low power, multiple-core chips in an air-esque form factor and have it be even close to as powerful as the bulkier version, why wouldn't apple do that? Not just for mbp, but paper thin iMacs and apple tv sized minis. And if anyone would know if/when this is possible, it'd probably be the people making the iPad 2, no?

Originally Posted by MacTel

Been saying this for over a year now. Lion is the last version of OSX. Top of the cats. It is more like iOS because iOS will replace OSX. Look to the MBA being the first to go to ARM and the Mini.

Originally Posted by monstrosity

I can see most of you think this story is nonsense. But I think it is inevitable and have done for a few years now.

Originally Posted by solipsism

I seem to recall Apple cycling between Nvidia and AMD(ATI) for there discrete GPUs on several occasions.

Originally Posted by filburt

You are thinking too narrowly. If ARM is coming to Macs, it will be destined for lightweight portables, such as MacBook Air.

Power efficient processors aren't just about lowering power bills, but about increasing battery life for portables, as well as (1) allowing silent fan-free computing and (2) smaller and lighter form factor.

I believe ARM-based Mac OS X is at least in R&D mode, especially since iOS is a subset of Mac OS X with additional components and layers.

Originally Posted by sheff

I dunno, 2012 - 2013 is pretty far away I think. I guess if ARM gets crazy performance upgrades, while keeping battery consumption way below intel it could happen, but right now I just don't see it.

Originally Posted by filburt

Let's look at the facts. Intel's x86-64 CPUs run significantly hotter than ARM processors. True, ARM processors trail Intel's x86-64 ULV processors (used by MBA) by a great deal. Specifically, iPad 2 is about 3 times slower than entry level MBA. Although I wouldn't go far and say the performance gap is closing, it is certainly narrowing.

Meanwhile, at 18W of TDP, Intel's Sandy Bridge ULV processors (which are destined for MBA) is even hotter than Core 2 ULV used on MBA (10W). iPad 2 has mere 0.5W TDP.

At some point, Apple's ARM processors will be fast enough for mainstream notebooks, starting with MBA. It would be foolish of Apple to not invest in ARM-flavor Mac OS X, just as it invested in both PowerPC and Intel Mac OS X nearly a decade ago.

Originally Posted by ViktorCode

The most shocking is not this senseless rumour from a long time BS provider, no. It is the reaction of some of Apple Insider readers who actually think this could happen.

Are. You. Nuts? According to you, yes, you, Apple would cut the performance of Macs manyfold while bringing software incompatibility for the sake of... lower power bills?

ARM won't have desktop level performance, not now, not 2 years later, not ever. To reach where Intel soars ARM would have to create new chip architecture from the ground up, and there's no way to keep it compatible with ARMs of today AND have that level of performance at the same time. No amount of magic would help either.

Originally Posted by Fusion

Think about it. The rumor is only laptops. But what about desktops? Are we suggesting that laptops would use ARM but desktops would use i7? But that's crazy! Then Apple would have to maintain full support for OS X (or whatever it is by then) for 2 CPU's... Rosetta all over again...

But, if you think about it... it's not so crazy. If a universal binary can target PowerPC & Intel, then why not ARM & Intel? Pursuing the thought even further, it would enable Apple to fuse the iPhone/iPod/iPad line and the "low end" laptop segment together - consolidating parts and OS work.

The fact is, Apple has proven it can bring forth a viable cross-compiling development environment with XCode - and it's already done a lot of legwork in the ARM + XCode dept. Why not take it from iOS app development all the way to full OS?

Who knows what those clever devils are truly up to. But it isn't the craziest move after all.

Originally Posted by Gwydion

Ein? iPad doesn't do any virtualization

Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers

VMWare runs pretty well on the iPad...

Originally Posted by Hudson1

I took the point to mean that since Windows 8 will end up running on ARM architecture then so will Windows applications before long. If that turns out to be true then the whole virtualization question becomes much simpler.

Originally Posted by doh123

Windows 8 will mostly likely have an ARM variant, yes... but that doesn't mean that all Software written for Windows 8 will run on any install of Windows 8 on any hardware. The software will still specify and only run on certain processors. most of the high end software people will want that runs on Win8 will still require an x86-64 cpu.

They [Apple] are not moving... and Win8 x86 software will not run on Win8 ARM OS... its not the same thing.

Originally Posted by piot

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/arm...idc-2011-05-05

Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.

I noted the earlier post when someone noted Arm starting life out on the Acorn computers. Yes. Desktop computers. It pretty much kicked the snot out of Amiga and PC computers back then. It was very, very fast.

The stuff in the iPad 2. A 'second gen' chip...is what? 'Four' times faster? Twice as fast? Take your pick. It's significant. Try to imagine that evolution to 2013. The gpu power is 9 times faster now? Imagine PVR in 2013?

It's pretty academic saying what Intel is now or will be then. It's more a case of where Apple is heading with the iOS platform and frankly, the Mac OS platform is going to blow bubbles keeping pace with the growth of the iOS platform. And we clearly haven't seen the next few cards of Apple's iOS hand played yet. A tv? A bigger tablet? An expanded range of sizes... An iOS 'Air' or 'iMac'. Who knows.

An iPad can already do nine tenths of what I use my computer for...and do it very, very quickly. Having played with an iPad 2...it's very quick. Imagine this with a retina display in 2012? With yet another leap in cpu and gpu performance? Gulp.

Double it's size and you have a very workable iOS 'mini iMac' that takes iOS and Apple into the unchartered territory.

You only have to look at the video effects on the latest iPad 2. It's pretty astonishing in something so thin. The gpu performance is impressive. It's closing in on the PS3/xbox 360.

You could pretty much stick a keyboard on it now. Oh. You can dock with with a keyboard.

With the 'concurrent' WWDC in June featuring Mac Os X and iOS development in tandem...

You'd have to be in serious denial to see this is classic Apple at work here.

I can easily see a super thin iMac tablet equivalent. iOS apps dwarf those of the Mac OS. (Same thing but with the 'fat' cut off?)

Just look at how many iPod, iPhone, iPads have been sold. Getting on for 200 million? More? It eclipsed Mac total sales and installed base some time ago.

Never say 'never' with Apple. I remember when the Intel news dropped. They'll flog the Mac for all it's worth. But I think the ongoing amalgamation is happening before our eyes.

It will be very interesting to see where we end up in two years time.

The writing is on the wall.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Originally Posted by xsu

The only way I can see a unified chip line up happening, is if Intel finally get their act together and design an x86 that can compete in the mobile arena.

Originally Posted by palegolas

Also, Apple is famous for not looking back, but instead looking forward. I'm sure they have great insight in the ARM vs x86 roadmaps, and their in house expertise too, for years to come.

Originally Posted by quinney

Better yet, how long would it take them if they started in 2008 (when Apple acquired PA semi)?

Originally Posted by jameskatt2

[Intel's new] 3D Transistors ... will double the processing speed of existing processors. And, they will simultaneously lower Intel processor power requirements to the point they are equivalent to ARM's.

Intel is very very aggressive since processors are their life-blood.

I can see, however, Apple going to Intel to fabricate Apple's A5+ ARM chips. After all, with 3D [transistor] processor and 22mm process technologies, Intel can make Apple's A5 and future ARM chips much much more powerful than non-Intel ARM chips. This will give Apple a huge lead on its competitors.

Originally Posted by Galbi

This is why Intel wont supply Apple with chips.

It's a conflict of interest for them. By making chips for Apple, Intel is indirectly killing its own market share in the PC business.

Originally Posted by bigpics

I doubted this too but by gollies, you are right!

ahttp://www.vmware.com/company/news/releases/view-ipad-3-9.html
http://blogs.vmware.com/view/2011/03...-for-ipad.html

Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.

The writing is on the wall.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

I like the idea of that...

But how would that work -- Isn't the A5 RAM part of the PoP SoC?

Originally Posted by solipsism

I think youre talking about two different options here.

The one you say seems ridiculous is ridiculous because of inherent performance loss and lack of need for excessive power savings for a desktop system. The one you say isnt so crazy isnt so crazy if you look at the Motorola Atrix and and Chrome OS which are both desktop OSes running on ARM. With the former I can see the potential for Apple to leverage their iOS/OS X/Darwin foundation with CocoaTouch UI for the included touchscreen but when connected to applicable peripherals it instantly switches to the Mac OS Aqua UI like any other app.

Within this Mac OS Aqua UI you can launch any series of windowed or fullscreen apps from LaunchPad, Finder, Dock or Spotlight. App Store apps will be have an option in Xcode by then to be Universal for iOS for iPhone/Touch, iOS iPad, IOS for Aqua UI, and Mac OS. with a possible inclusion for AppleTV despite its unique UI.

For example, this would allow you to use your iPhone in the same manner for accessing webpages but a simple dock setup with a display and keyboard and mouse would turn off the iPhones display (or use as a Magic Trackpad) that is now displaying a the same Safari window you are used to on Mac OS X. You finish what youre doing, charging your device or simply need to take off and the phone kicks back to CocoaTouch when you disconnect the device.

If anyone can do this its Apple. They have all the Doozers and all the candy radishes (obscure reference) to make it work. Motorola had to start from scratch to give their Atrix a UI and it fails because of it.

That is the only way I can see Apple bringing the Mac OS UI to iOS in a sensible way.

Originally Posted by bigpics

90% of the people calling "bogus" here are a) not looking far enough ahead, b) haven't checked the evidence (see the link above - real companies are working on this) and c) as in the next post below blows away are simply making straight-line projections that the future will just be more of the present.


Thanks to Lemon Bon Bon (interesting handle) for saving me a lot of writing. To concentrate on a point below.....










Lots of venerable companies are in trouble. Including both halves of the long-dominant WinTel duopoly.

Office and its file formats are the only things tethering many 10's of millions of MS's customers to its products. Even if Win 8 and all its variants all hit their marks and then some, MS has years of fighting to reclaim position in smart phones and tablets (which may have been supplanted by new device classes by then, introduced at least partially by guess who?). MS's biggest OEM, HP, is trying to re-invent itself in the Apple mode, controlling its own hardware and software stack with Web OS even as we talk about this.

As for Intel, neither MS nor Apple has the slightest interest in Atom - that point where the x86' basic architectural flaws - a kludged design dating back to the original IBM PC - have finally become the limiting factor they always were destined to be - the computing power/power-for-speed roadblock that is keeping Atom from being a serious rival to ARM. And iDevices are the growth story for CPU's for the next decade most likely.

At this point then, x-86 volumes aside Apple is arguably already Intel's most important customer, both for their imprimatur (consider how openly Intel partnered with Apple on Thunderbolt even tho' it hopes the volume will eventually go into non-Apple PC's and peripherals) and the volume they could throw Intel's way with their mobile business.

So.... ....Intel wants to fab for Apple. Apple wants a fab with companies it's in less litigation with. Intel and Apple seem to be working fairly well together and there are few areas where they're in competition unlike Apple's former friend Google. And Intel's realizing Atom is likely to stay a bomb. And both Win 8 and iOS are Arm systems.

But Intel doesn't want to be reduced to a commodity chip vendor to stay in the game....

So.... ....Apple's ARM implementation via the chops of their recent acquisitions is arguably the best ARM around or close to it. Intel has gobs of talent, the most modern fabs and that new 3D tech noted above.

Another collaboration - much bigger than Thunderbolt - suggests itself. An Apple-Intel leveraged ARM design as suggested by Jameskatt2 could easily stand out in the commoditized ARM market.

Intel would be rescued from its Atom box canyon.

Apple would - by virtue of its IP contributions - get the best deal by far on the chips - and - collect royalties on every one of the chips sold to anyone else (i.e., Apple would be making money on the internals of the most advanced Android and Windows smart phones and tablets on the planet as well as the highest margins on its own). They would also ensure that Intel's future iterations would be designed with their specific new device designs in mind.

All cotton candy thinking for the moment, but Intel really needs to make some kind of out of the box move. Atom's not cutting the mustard.

Originally Posted by bigpics

As for Intel, neither MS nor Apple has the slightest interest in Atom - that point where the x86' basic architectural flaws - a kludged design dating back to the original IBM PC - have finally become the limiting factor they always were destined to be - the computing power/power-for-speed roadblock that is keeping Atom from being a serious rival to ARM.

[]

All cotton candy thinking for the moment, but Intel really needs to make some kind of out of the box move. Atom's not cutting the mustard.

Originally Posted by solipsism

I don’t disagree with your comments about Atom, but Anand seems to think 2012 Atom will go nuclear.

The bigger story here actually has to do with Atom. The biggest gains Intel is showing are at very low voltages, exactly what will benefit ultra mobile SoCs. Atom has had a tough time getting into smartphones and while we may see limited success at 32nm, the real future is what happens at 22nm. Atom is due for a new microprocessor architecture in 2012, if Intel goes the risky route and combines it with its 22nm process it could have a knockout on its hands.

•

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4313/i...ing-in-2h-2011

"Much like it has been near impossible to displace either Intel or Microsoft in the PC space, it is likely to be equally hard to displace ARM in these new device classes because ARM is entrenched and the eco-system around it is becoming more robust by the day," Enderle said.

He said Intel desperately needs some very large design wins to get moving in the tablet/smartphone markets. And this 3D chip win is a strong one to start off with.

"Intel has virtually nothing compelling in either the tablet or smartphone space in terms of a shipping product," he added. "[The new technology] is core, no pun intended. This is generally how they advance. But Intel needs to address technology and marketing requirements and, so far, they are only effective on technology."

The new 32-nanometer Atom processors are expected to be launched on the 1st of August this year while the two i7 models will hit the market in the later end of the month of June. In addition to this, to enhance the speed of the complete i-series processors, the company is also launching a new motherboard chip this month. The release of the new Atom series processors is breaking news in the field. Low power consumption processors, Atom D2500 and D2700 are said to be codenamed as Cedarview which will enter the market in between 1st August to 31st October.

Speaking more about the new Atom processors, they are expected to have their applications in low-power consumption laptops i.e., the shrinking netbook market, set-top boxes and home-theatre systems. They are also expected to have support for the new technology, Blu-ray 2.0, to have their own media engine and to produce much lesser heat during the service.

as the market for devices like tablets and smartphones grows, Intel still faces pretty big challenges, even with its new "3D" chips. Here some issues Intel will have to address if it wants an Apple, a RIM, or a Motorola to pick its x86-based Atom processors over the ARM chips those device makers have so far chosen to power their mobile devices.
Developers, Developers, Developers

Intel says it's going to have a three-year jump on the competition with its 22-nanometer Tri-Gate process technology. But when you consider that the Atom product line won't be moved to 22nm as quickly as the company's PC and server processor families, that lead isn't quite as long. Other semiconductor companies should be adopting Tri-Gate by the time they ramp the 14nm process node in a few years time.

What this means is that mobile OS developers will have to consider if it's worth it to pour a lot of resources into developing for Intel's x86 architecture when they've already invested quite a bit towards getting their operating systems to run on ARM. If Intel's advantages with Tri-Gate are seen as only temporary, could some potential customers decide to just wait it out until the ARM chips catch up?

The good news for Intel is that cross-architecture software development isn't nearly as difficult as it was even a few years ago. For example, Dalvik, part of Google's Android OS, provides a platform-independent programming environment, meaning individual app creators don't have to make the x86/ARM decision.

And it's not like Intel doesn't have a pretty robust developer ecosystem for the x86 architecture already. They don't call it "Wintel" for nothing.

But here's the thing. Intel pushes a lot of semiconductor innovation forward, as it is now doing with Tri-Gate a generation ahead of its competitors. But those competitors aren't exactly standing still. Companies licensing the ARM architecture will have '3D' transistors on their chips eventually, they'll get to 22nm even sooner and they are moving into multi-core designs. Nvidia isn't just hoping to get into tablets—Tegra's already there. And guess what? ARM's got working 22nm silicon.

AMD is ramping up 32 nanometer processes and a new chip design, but Intel is already gearing up to start production on its 22 nanometer process and its related Tri-Gate 3D transistor, the combination of which looks to give Intel a greater advantage in performance and power efficiency than many had been expecting from the chip giant's shrink to 22 nanometers.

On the Atom front, the Intel has been quiet, but obviously with the Tri-Gate transistors and the 22 nanometer shrink, Intel should be able to field more power-efficient, low-end Atom parts that are more suitable for smartphones, tablets, and consumer electronics. It should also be able to create Atoms that have more oomph in the same power envelope – perhaps a lot more, like twice as many cores or a significant jump in single-thread performance.

It remains to be seen if these future Atoms based on Tri-Gate/22 nanometer technology will be able to take on the ARM collective, however. And even if the future Atoms don't hold out well against the Cortex-A15 derivatives due in late 2012 or early 2013 for tiny computers, they may nonetheless be a boon for micro servers.

Originally Posted by filburt

You are thinking too narrowly. If ARM is coming to Macs, it will be destined for lightweight portables, such as MacBook Air.

Power efficient processors aren't just about lowering power bills, but about increasing battery life for portables, as well as (1) allowing silent fan-free computing and (2) smaller and lighter form factor.

I believe ARM-based Mac OS X is at least in R&D mode, especially since iOS is a subset of Mac OS X with additional components and layers.

Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff

This.

And the fact that Apple/NeXT has ported this OS from 68K to Intel (92), SPARC, PA-RISC, back to PowerPC, and then to Intel again, as well as built iOS/ARM as a subset of the current OSX offering.

No one buys mac for it's emulation power... they buy it for the ability to run Mac apps. iOS is proving that it's the APPS that sell devices... and if you have some 200Million iOS users, wouldn't it be nice to have a way for those app developers and users to work with a more 'universal' binary?

With MS porting to ARM, Apple's timing makes sense, in a performance/price curve.

If high end ARM chips are demanded by 300Million devices a year... the price per chipset drops... at best putting pressure on Intel/AMD to improve it's pricing/delivery, and at worst, driving the inevitable bottom up migration from phones to pads to laptops to desktops to servers to mainframes.

So with this lead time, Apple is likely just firing a shot over the bow of Intel: 'Want the 3rd largest 'pc' maker to continue using Intel chips.... Make them to our specs, at our price, and at our timeline... or run the risk of losing our business in 2 years [and remember, this is like commodities... the pricing/capacity has to be planned out 2 years in advance.... the timing of this makes total sense]'.

Originally Posted by jmmx

If there already exists Windows OS code in native ARM binary format, then it should be a lot easier to virtualize. Otherwise you would need to create a whole virtual x86 emulator - a much larger task.

Originally Posted by Wiggin

Because multiple core gets you dimishing returns. A dual-core chip doesn't double your performance. A quad-core chip doesn't quadruple your performance. Except for highly parallel functions (such as video processing), adding more cores eventually gets to the point that it doesn't speed up the types of tasks that most people perform.

Apple is doing a lot of work to make it easier for programmers to take advantage of multiple cores and the GPU, and that helps. But if you have a series of calculations where each step is dependent on the previous steps being completed first, the work can't be distrubuted to multiple cores.

Right now, 4 cores seems to be a practical limit for a typical user. In the previous iMacs where Apple offered faster dual-core or slower quad-core CPUs as options, many typical users were better off with the faster dual-core iMac. I'm sure we'll eventually get to the point where adding more than 4 cores will be of practical benefit to the average consumer, but that's likely more than a year or so away still.

Originally Posted by ecs

I agree the Macbook Air form factor is the future of computing, because once you use one for some time, you realize how comfortable it is to have a computer like that, and when you go back to a weightier computer you feel it as a step backwards... you miss the Air. So, yes, the market will demand the Air form factor soon, no matter how hard MBP users try to think otherwise

However, this form factor is only useful if it has software, and I'm afraid a transition from Intel to Arm would be a severe problem in lack of software (the best known Mac developers would support Arm soon, but other developers would take years to support Arm, and that would be a problem).

I use my (4GB RAM, 256GB SSD, 2.13GHz) Air for serious work (finite element analysis, CAD, OpenGL graphics, and photo retouching) (yes, the Air is not a netbook, and can be used for such tasks, even if a lot of people are completely wrong believing the opposite), but if it had an Arm processor I could only use it as a netbook or as an ipad... I wouldn't buy a netbook, I don't need one.

The future is the power of the MBP on the form factor of the MBA. Anybody who believes the opposite will be proven wrong by the market evolution in the coming years. Period. But that needs software, and Arm would be a problem.