This is being portrayed in the press as Apple trying to eliminate its dependency upon its arch-rival Samsung for chip fabrication. However, Intel has established itself as an Apple back-stabber. I, for one, will never forget Paul Otellini taking the stage with Steve Jobs to announce Apple shifting from PowerPC to Intel - and later, Intel embarked upon a program called Ultrabook to encourage and support its PC vendors in copying the MacBook Air. This is not the measure of a supportive business partner.
Samsung is currently making A4 and A5 chips in their Austin, TX fab. Not sure if Intel would be making the A6X in the US. It has facilities in 63 countries and regions around the world.
But of course Intel also has many US facilities. It would be great if Intel got the contract and built them in the US.
I could see Apple making an Atom (or other x86) model of the iPad -- but not the only model.
We are in the middle of a revolution -- from kb/mouse multiple overlapping windows -- to touch/voice single window (post pc).
It isn't clear, yet, how all this will turn out -- and it would be difficult for Apple to offer only an x86 iPad -- and not be able to run OSX apps on it.
One way to ask the question: Does a tablet need more than 1 window on the screen at the same time? If so, how many? Should they overlap? Should they be resizable? Should the apps in the background windows keep running?...
I don't see it as moving away from keyboard and mouse, but more of supplementing it and filing in the holes where KB and mouse just didn't work before.
And I don't see how this has Anything to do with x86.
To answer your question though: yes, I do think tablets need some kind of windowing system. I want to be able to see two documents side by side. Or have a website and email open at the same time. Or an IM and website open, etc
This is being portrayed in the press as Apple trying to eliminate its dependency upon its arch-rival Samsung for chip fabrication. However, Intel has established itself as an Apple back-stabber. I, for one, will never forget Paul Otellini taking the stage with Steve Jobs to announce Apple shifting from PowerPC to Intel - and later, Intel embarked upon a program called Ultrabook to encourage and support its PC vendors in copying the MacBook Air. This is not the measure of a supportive business partner.
I don't know that the Ultrabook effort by Intel was "backstabbing".
AIR, Apple got early access to large quantities (almost all) of an Intel chip designed for the Air. These were later made available to other OEMS as a normal part of Intel's business.
I suspect that Apple knew all along that Intel would encourage OEMS to exploit the advantages of the new chip and the [similar to the Air] Ultrabook architecture.
Apple had the advantages of:
a special chip designed (more or less) to Apple requirements
economies of scale
first to market lead of 9-12 months
AIR, Apple was able to dominate this market... and still does.
I could see Apple making an Atom (or other x86) model of the iPad -- but not the only model.
We are in the middle of a revolution -- from kb/mouse multiple overlapping windows -- to touch/voice single window (post pc).
It isn't clear, yet, how all this will turn out -- and it would be difficult for Apple to offer only an x86 iPad -- and not be able to run OSX apps on it.
One way to ask the question: Does a tablet need more than 1 window on the screen at the same time? If so, how many? Should they overlap? Should they be resizable? Should the apps in the background windows keep running?...
I don't see it as moving away from keyboard and mouse, but more of supplementing it and filing in the holes where KB and mouse just didn't work before.
And I don't see how this has Anything to do with x86.
To answer your question though: yes, I do think tablets need some kind of windowing system. I want to be able to see two documents side by side. Or have a website and email open at the same time. Or an IM and website open, etc
I think I agree with 2 windows -- but I don't think resizable and overlapping are necessary (for most uses/users more confusing than beneficial).
I don't think that Apple or anyone else has a completly safisfactory (or mature) touch UI. Things like hovering, arrow keys within a selection, offset loupe for magnifying selection (more granular), inter app communication, file access... IMO, it would be a shame if putting x86 into a tablet would invorate the kb/mouse UI in detriment to the further development of the touch/voice/gesture UI.
I think I agree with 2 windows -- but I don't think resizable and overlapping are necessary (for most uses/users more confusing than beneficial).
I don't think that Apple or anyone else has a completly safisfactory (or mature) touch UI. Things like hovering, arrow keys within a selection, offset loupe for magnifying selection (more granular), inter app communication, file access... IMO, it would be a shame if putting x86 into a tablet would invorate the kb/mouse UI in detriment to the further development of the touch/voice/gesture UI.
I still don't understand how you're connecting x86 with UI. Which processor your device uses doesn't determine the UI. The OS and the input components do.
Absolutely none of Apples recent processors have been Samsung designs. How could you be so misinformed??? More importantly many of Samsungs designs have Apple IP in them via Apples purchase of Intrinsity. You are off by 180 degrees here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
surely any new Apple SOC will be based on a Samsung design. I do not really see this happening as is. Apple are more likely to use a Mediatek or Qualcomm design with TSMC or Intel doing the silicon run.
I think I agree with 2 windows -- but I don't think resizable and overlapping are necessary (for most uses/users more confusing than beneficial).
I don't think that Apple or anyone else has a completly safisfactory (or mature) touch UI. Things like hovering, arrow keys within a selection, offset loupe for magnifying selection (more granular), inter app communication, file access... IMO, it would be a shame if putting x86 into a tablet would invorate the kb/mouse UI in detriment to the further development of the touch/voice/gesture UI.
I still don't understand how you're connecting x86 with UI. Which processor your device uses doesn't determine the UI. The OS and the input components do.
If Apple made an x86 iPad, it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to sell if the buyers were limited to iOS apps only... If they allow OSX apps, then users will need and use a mouse/kb.
This is what Microsoft is trying to do: usurp the post-pc revolution with the Surface Tablets -- which really require a kb and touchpad or mouse.
Then Microsoft, and many other software vendors, can continue business as usual -- adding layers of bloat to existing desktop apps.
Some: Adobe and Autodesk, for example are taking the opportunity to rethink and reimplement their apps to work in the post-pc era...
IMO, there is a lot to be gained by the post-pc revolution -- I don't want to see anything short-circuit it.
You are making an assumption just like the article made that this is about ARM chips. It could be of course but it also could be about customer i86 chips. Intel has done special shipments for Apple in the past but this isn't what is thinking about. Rather I'm thinking they will go further into the custom arena and produce specialized chips for the Mac Pro and maybe even Apple other desktops. Laptops could have their own initiative too.
As for the Mac Pro I could see Apple scoring big with a customized Xeon Phi like chip. The customization here would be fewer cores to cut power to ideally well under 150 watts and a native interface to the Xeon bus instead of PCI. Another approach would be Xeon Phi technology in a fully system master capable chip. In other words a many core chip to replace the conventional system processor.
Why do I think this is even possible? Because Intel has become extremely quiet about their many core initiatives of late. You don't hear much about Xeon Phi any more, nor the other chips planned in the Phi family. This includes system processors with built in Super computer networking. A year or so ago Intel made lots of noise about these initiatives and then suddenly went into tea lath mode. My thought is that Apple made them an offer that was hard to refuse especially after the Luke warm reception Phi has gotten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
Like most everyone else and the article itself, this is about Intel fabbing ARM SoCs (Apple's A5, A6, A7, etc) for use in iPhones, iPads, etc. Nothing to do with Macintoshes, laptops or desktops.
But many a company can design an ARM chip competitive with Intel's chips if given the same TDP targets. An ARM chip with a 15 W TDP will be competitive to ULV Intel x86 chips if given all the same development resources. But, there's really no point and no gain in doing that as x86 is just fine and basically the highest performance CPUs in the market at TDP from 10 to 100 Watts.
Apple certainly wants quad-core Core i7 performance in a 5 W package. This way they can make a 10 mm thick (at it's thickest point) iMac without any fans, light, and cool to the touch, while outperforming today's iMacs. If Intel can't get x86 down to 5 W and outperform today's quad-core i7s, say in 2014, then I can see Apple wanting to try it themselves.
Id be the first to admit that ARM on Intels processes might be interesting. However it would be a very hard pill for Intel to swallow.
I'd be really pissed off at Intel if I were TSMC, Global Foundries to name but two, not to mention the entire Semiconductor News industry for this garbage about claiming Intel will stamp out wafers on technology they don't even own or can even license.
The A series are 100% Apple Designs and the Fab process is 100% joint venture between Samsung, TSMC and Global Foundries. Intel isn't involved, nor will they ever be involved.
TSMC just announced at the end of February the new Snapdragon by Qualcomm being stamped out on the 28nm process.
Apple is most certainly already stamping out and it isn't with some fabricated Intel future.
I don't know that the Ultrabook effort by Intel was "backstabbing".
AIR, Apple got early access to large quantities (almost all) of an Intel chip designed for the Air. These were later made available to other OEMS as a normal part of Intel's business.
If they had stopped there, no one would have accused them of backstabbing. Instead, they gave PC OEMs several hundred million dollars to create and market competitors to the MBA. Clearly, that was a shot fired directly at Apple.
Seriously dude if iPad had an i86 it would still be running iOS. Frankly the vast majority of iPad buyers don't even know what an ARM chip is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
If Apple made an x86 iPad, it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to sell if the buyers were limited to iOS apps only... If they allow OSX apps, then users will need and use a mouse/kb.
This is what Microsoft is trying to do: usurp the post-pc revolution with the Surface Tablets -- which really require a kb and touchpad or mouse.
Then Microsoft, and many other software vendors, can continue business as usual -- adding layers of bloat to existing desktop apps.
Some: Adobe and Autodesk, for example are taking the opportunity to rethink and reimplement their apps to work in the post-pc era...
IMO, there is a lot to be gained by the post-pc revolution -- I don't want to see anything short-circuit it.
This is being portrayed in the press as Apple trying to eliminate its dependency upon its arch-rival Samsung for chip fabrication. However, Intel has established itself as an Apple back-stabber. I, for one, will never forget Paul Otellini taking the stage with Steve Jobs to announce Apple shifting from PowerPC to Intel - and later, Intel embarked upon a program called Ultrabook to encourage and support its PC vendors in copying the MacBook Air. This is not the measure of a supportive business partner.
Wasn't there an article here recently that Intel was planning on making a tablet of its own? Not sure I trust them.
Seriously dude if iPad had an i86 it would still be running iOS. Frankly the vast majority of iPad buyers don't even know what an ARM chip is!
Yeah, this was basically what I was going to say.
There's nothing forcing apple to put OSX on the iPad if it tan atom.
Also, look at it from Intel's standpoint. Currently atom is already competitive with the latest ARM processors on power efficiency. See: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showdown if you don't believe me. What intel needs is a design win; a mainstream tablet or phone to show off atom. The iPad and iPhone fits that bill perfectly.
You are making an assumption just like the article made that this is about ARM chips. It could be of course but it also could be about customer i86 chips.
Yes. That's the assumption. The Reuters article was an article on how Intel is moving forward by becoming more of a foundry business as the market moves from PC to post-PC, discussing what customers Intel could have. Obviously Apple would be a big customer and they stated that Apple and Intel had discussions regarding Intel fabbing Apple's ARM SoCs. It would not be unusual for companies like Apple and Intel to have these discussion, so, I have no doubt that it has happened.
Same thing with custom x86 chips. I'm sure there are lots of discussions between Intel and Apple regarding custom x86 chips, from special bins of 10 W ULV Core i5/i7 chips, 1 W Atom SoCs, ARM SoCs, all the way to the Xeon Phi. And they all happen more or less simultaneously.
You are making an assumption just like the article made that this is about ARM chips. It could be of course but it also could be about customer i86 chips. Intel has done special shipments for Apple in the past but this isn't what is thinking about. Rather I'm thinking they will go further into the custom arena and produce specialized chips for the Mac Pro and maybe even Apple other desktops. Laptops could have their own initiative too.
As for the Mac Pro I could see Apple scoring big with a customized Xeon Phi like chip. The customization here would be fewer cores to cut power to ideally well under 150 watts and a native interface to the Xeon bus instead of PCI. Another approach would be Xeon Phi technology in a fully system master capable chip. In other words a many core chip to replace the conventional system processor.
Why do I think this is even possible? Because Intel has become extremely quiet about their many core initiatives of late. You don't hear much about Xeon Phi any more, nor the other chips planned in the Phi family. This includes system processors with built in Super computer networking. A year or so ago Intel made lots of noise about these initiatives and then suddenly went into tea lath mode. My thought is that Apple made them an offer that was hard to refuse especially after the Luke warm reception Phi has gotten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
Like most everyone else and the article itself, this is about Intel fabbing ARM SoCs (Apple's A5, A6, A7, etc) for use in iPhones, iPads, etc. Nothing to do with Macintoshes, laptops or desktops.
But many a company can design an ARM chip competitive with Intel's chips if given the same TDP targets. An ARM chip with a 15 W TDP will be competitive to ULV Intel x86 chips if given all the same development resources. But, there's really no point and no gain in doing that as x86 is just fine and basically the highest performance CPUs in the market at TDP from 10 to 100 Watts.
Apple certainly wants quad-core Core i7 performance in a 5 W package. This way they can make a 10 mm thick (at it's thickest point) iMac without any fans, light, and cool to the touch, while outperforming today's iMacs. If Intel can't get x86 down to 5 W and outperform today's quad-core i7s, say in 2014, then I can see Apple wanting to try it themselves.
Id be the first to admit that ARM on Intels processes might be interesting. However it would be a very hard pill for Intel to swallow.
Interesting.
Do you have any idea when it would be possible for the Mac Pro?
The ideal time to announce it would be for NAB -- April 6-11.
Apple could also drop the next version of Final Cut Pro X.
Yes. That's the assumption. The Reuters article was an article on how Intel is moving forward by becoming more of a foundry business as the market moves from PC to post-PC, discussing what customers Intel could have. Obviously Apple would be a big customer and they stated that Apple and Intel had discussions regarding Intel fabbing Apple's ARM SoCs. It would not be unusual for companies like Apple and Intel to have these discussion, so, I have no doubt that it has happened.
Same thing with custom x86 chips. I'm sure there are lots of discussions between Intel and Apple regarding custom x86 chips, from special bins of 10 W ULV Core i5/i7 chips, 1 W Atom SoCs, ARM SoCs, all the way to the Xeon Phi. And they all happen more or less simultaneously.
Xeon Phi is a bastard GPGPU that Apple can surpass by actually just supporting drivers for Nvidia and AMD Radeon lines, like they are doing in their latest 10.8.3 builds, both of which produce far and away better OpenCL performance for Parallel Processing, not to mention the added bonus of OpenGL 4.3 compliance.
Seriously dude if iPad had an i86 it would still be running iOS. Frankly the vast majority of iPad buyers don't even know what an ARM chip is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
If Apple made an x86 iPad, it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to sell if the buyers were limited to iOS apps only... If they allow OSX apps, then users will need and use a mouse/kb.
This is what Microsoft is trying to do: usurp the post-pc revolution with the Surface Tablets -- which really require a kb and touchpad or mouse.
Then Microsoft, and many other software vendors, can continue business as usual -- adding layers of bloat to existing desktop apps.
Some: Adobe and Autodesk, for example are taking the opportunity to rethink and reimplement their apps to work in the post-pc era...
IMO, there is a lot to be gained by the post-pc revolution -- I don't want to see anything short-circuit it.
What would be the advantage to Apple, or the iPad buyers, of switching CPI architecture -- if not to allow the iPad to run OSX/
Comments
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Made In USA
That would be awesome.
Go Apple, go go go...
Samsung is currently making A4 and A5 chips in their Austin, TX fab. Not sure if Intel would be making the A6X in the US. It has facilities in 63 countries and regions around the world.
But of course Intel also has many US facilities. It would be great if Intel got the contract and built them in the US.
I don't see it as moving away from keyboard and mouse, but more of supplementing it and filing in the holes where KB and mouse just didn't work before.
And I don't see how this has Anything to do with x86.
To answer your question though: yes, I do think tablets need some kind of windowing system. I want to be able to see two documents side by side. Or have a website and email open at the same time. Or an IM and website open, etc
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSince86
This is being portrayed in the press as Apple trying to eliminate its dependency upon its arch-rival Samsung for chip fabrication. However, Intel has established itself as an Apple back-stabber. I, for one, will never forget Paul Otellini taking the stage with Steve Jobs to announce Apple shifting from PowerPC to Intel - and later, Intel embarked upon a program called Ultrabook to encourage and support its PC vendors in copying the MacBook Air. This is not the measure of a supportive business partner.
I don't know that the Ultrabook effort by Intel was "backstabbing".
AIR, Apple got early access to large quantities (almost all) of an Intel chip designed for the Air. These were later made available to other OEMS as a normal part of Intel's business.
I suspect that Apple knew all along that Intel would encourage OEMS to exploit the advantages of the new chip and the [similar to the Air] Ultrabook architecture.
Apple had the advantages of:
a special chip designed (more or less) to Apple requirements
economies of scale
first to market lead of 9-12 months
AIR, Apple was able to dominate this market... and still does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I could see Apple making an Atom (or other x86) model of the iPad -- but not the only model.
We are in the middle of a revolution -- from kb/mouse multiple overlapping windows -- to touch/voice single window (post pc).
It isn't clear, yet, how all this will turn out -- and it would be difficult for Apple to offer only an x86 iPad -- and not be able to run OSX apps on it.
One way to ask the question: Does a tablet need more than 1 window on the screen at the same time? If so, how many? Should they overlap? Should they be resizable? Should the apps in the background windows keep running?...
I don't see it as moving away from keyboard and mouse, but more of supplementing it and filing in the holes where KB and mouse just didn't work before.
And I don't see how this has Anything to do with x86.
To answer your question though: yes, I do think tablets need some kind of windowing system. I want to be able to see two documents side by side. Or have a website and email open at the same time. Or an IM and website open, etc
I think I agree with 2 windows -- but I don't think resizable and overlapping are necessary (for most uses/users more confusing than beneficial).
I don't think that Apple or anyone else has a completly safisfactory (or mature) touch UI. Things like hovering, arrow keys within a selection, offset loupe for magnifying selection (more granular), inter app communication, file access... IMO, it would be a shame if putting x86 into a tablet would invorate the kb/mouse UI in detriment to the further development of the touch/voice/gesture UI.
I still don't understand how you're connecting x86 with UI. Which processor your device uses doesn't determine the UI. The OS and the input components do.
Absolutely none of Apples recent processors have been Samsung designs. How could you be so misinformed??? More importantly many of Samsungs designs have Apple IP in them via Apples purchase of Intrinsity. You are off by 180 degrees here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem
surely any new Apple SOC will be based on a Samsung design. I do not really see this happening as is. Apple are more likely to use a Mediatek or Qualcomm design with TSMC or Intel doing the silicon run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I think I agree with 2 windows -- but I don't think resizable and overlapping are necessary (for most uses/users more confusing than beneficial).
I don't think that Apple or anyone else has a completly safisfactory (or mature) touch UI. Things like hovering, arrow keys within a selection, offset loupe for magnifying selection (more granular), inter app communication, file access... IMO, it would be a shame if putting x86 into a tablet would invorate the kb/mouse UI in detriment to the further development of the touch/voice/gesture UI.
I still don't understand how you're connecting x86 with UI. Which processor your device uses doesn't determine the UI. The OS and the input components do.
If Apple made an x86 iPad, it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to sell if the buyers were limited to iOS apps only... If they allow OSX apps, then users will need and use a mouse/kb.
This is what Microsoft is trying to do: usurp the post-pc revolution with the Surface Tablets -- which really require a kb and touchpad or mouse.
Then Microsoft, and many other software vendors, can continue business as usual -- adding layers of bloat to existing desktop apps.
Some: Adobe and Autodesk, for example are taking the opportunity to rethink and reimplement their apps to work in the post-pc era...
IMO, there is a lot to be gained by the post-pc revolution -- I don't want to see anything short-circuit it.
You are making an assumption just like the article made that this is about ARM chips. It could be of course but it also could be about customer i86 chips. Intel has done special shipments for Apple in the past but this isn't what is thinking about. Rather I'm thinking they will go further into the custom arena and produce specialized chips for the Mac Pro and maybe even Apple other desktops. Laptops could have their own initiative too.
As for the Mac Pro I could see Apple scoring big with a customized Xeon Phi like chip. The customization here would be fewer cores to cut power to ideally well under 150 watts and a native interface to the Xeon bus instead of PCI. Another approach would be Xeon Phi technology in a fully system master capable chip. In other words a many core chip to replace the conventional system processor.
Why do I think this is even possible? Because Intel has become extremely quiet about their many core initiatives of late. You don't hear much about Xeon Phi any more, nor the other chips planned in the Phi family. This includes system processors with built in Super computer networking. A year or so ago Intel made lots of noise about these initiatives and then suddenly went into tea lath mode. My thought is that Apple made them an offer that was hard to refuse especially after the Luke warm reception Phi has gotten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
Like most everyone else and the article itself, this is about Intel fabbing ARM SoCs (Apple's A5, A6, A7, etc) for use in iPhones, iPads, etc. Nothing to do with Macintoshes, laptops or desktops.
But many a company can design an ARM chip competitive with Intel's chips if given the same TDP targets. An ARM chip with a 15 W TDP will be competitive to ULV Intel x86 chips if given all the same development resources. But, there's really no point and no gain in doing that as x86 is just fine and basically the highest performance CPUs in the market at TDP from 10 to 100 Watts.
Apple certainly wants quad-core Core i7 performance in a 5 W package. This way they can make a 10 mm thick (at it's thickest point) iMac without any fans, light, and cool to the touch, while outperforming today's iMacs. If Intel can't get x86 down to 5 W and outperform today's quad-core i7s, say in 2014, then I can see Apple wanting to try it themselves.
Id be the first to admit that ARM on Intels processes might be interesting. However it would be a very hard pill for Intel to swallow.
I'd be really pissed off at Intel if I were TSMC, Global Foundries to name but two, not to mention the entire Semiconductor News industry for this garbage about claiming Intel will stamp out wafers on technology they don't even own or can even license.
The A series are 100% Apple Designs and the Fab process is 100% joint venture between Samsung, TSMC and Global Foundries. Intel isn't involved, nor will they ever be involved.
TSMC just announced at the end of February the new Snapdragon by Qualcomm being stamped out on the 28nm process.
Apple is most certainly already stamping out and it isn't with some fabricated Intel future.
If they had stopped there, no one would have accused them of backstabbing. Instead, they gave PC OEMs several hundred million dollars to create and market competitors to the MBA. Clearly, that was a shot fired directly at Apple.
Your argument makes no sense.
Seriously dude if iPad had an i86 it would still be running iOS. Frankly the vast majority of iPad buyers don't even know what an ARM chip is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
If Apple made an x86 iPad, it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to sell if the buyers were limited to iOS apps only... If they allow OSX apps, then users will need and use a mouse/kb.
This is what Microsoft is trying to do: usurp the post-pc revolution with the Surface Tablets -- which really require a kb and touchpad or mouse.
Then Microsoft, and many other software vendors, can continue business as usual -- adding layers of bloat to existing desktop apps.
Some: Adobe and Autodesk, for example are taking the opportunity to rethink and reimplement their apps to work in the post-pc era...
IMO, there is a lot to be gained by the post-pc revolution -- I don't want to see anything short-circuit it.
Wasn't there an article here recently that Intel was planning on making a tablet of its own? Not sure I trust them.
Yeah, this was basically what I was going to say.
There's nothing forcing apple to put OSX on the iPad if it tan atom.
Also, look at it from Intel's standpoint. Currently atom is already competitive with the latest ARM processors on power efficiency. See: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showdown if you don't believe me. What intel needs is a design win; a mainstream tablet or phone to show off atom. The iPad and iPhone fits that bill perfectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You are making an assumption just like the article made that this is about ARM chips. It could be of course but it also could be about customer i86 chips.
Yes. That's the assumption. The Reuters article was an article on how Intel is moving forward by becoming more of a foundry business as the market moves from PC to post-PC, discussing what customers Intel could have. Obviously Apple would be a big customer and they stated that Apple and Intel had discussions regarding Intel fabbing Apple's ARM SoCs. It would not be unusual for companies like Apple and Intel to have these discussion, so, I have no doubt that it has happened.
Same thing with custom x86 chips. I'm sure there are lots of discussions between Intel and Apple regarding custom x86 chips, from special bins of 10 W ULV Core i5/i7 chips, 1 W Atom SoCs, ARM SoCs, all the way to the Xeon Phi. And they all happen more or less simultaneously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Made In USA
That would be awesome.
Go Apple, go go go...
Apple's Ax chips are already made in Samsung's Austin Semiconductor plants in Texas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You are making an assumption just like the article made that this is about ARM chips. It could be of course but it also could be about customer i86 chips. Intel has done special shipments for Apple in the past but this isn't what is thinking about. Rather I'm thinking they will go further into the custom arena and produce specialized chips for the Mac Pro and maybe even Apple other desktops. Laptops could have their own initiative too.
As for the Mac Pro I could see Apple scoring big with a customized Xeon Phi like chip. The customization here would be fewer cores to cut power to ideally well under 150 watts and a native interface to the Xeon bus instead of PCI. Another approach would be Xeon Phi technology in a fully system master capable chip. In other words a many core chip to replace the conventional system processor.
Why do I think this is even possible? Because Intel has become extremely quiet about their many core initiatives of late. You don't hear much about Xeon Phi any more, nor the other chips planned in the Phi family. This includes system processors with built in Super computer networking. A year or so ago Intel made lots of noise about these initiatives and then suddenly went into tea lath mode. My thought is that Apple made them an offer that was hard to refuse especially after the Luke warm reception Phi has gotten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
Like most everyone else and the article itself, this is about Intel fabbing ARM SoCs (Apple's A5, A6, A7, etc) for use in iPhones, iPads, etc. Nothing to do with Macintoshes, laptops or desktops.
But many a company can design an ARM chip competitive with Intel's chips if given the same TDP targets. An ARM chip with a 15 W TDP will be competitive to ULV Intel x86 chips if given all the same development resources. But, there's really no point and no gain in doing that as x86 is just fine and basically the highest performance CPUs in the market at TDP from 10 to 100 Watts.
Apple certainly wants quad-core Core i7 performance in a 5 W package. This way they can make a 10 mm thick (at it's thickest point) iMac without any fans, light, and cool to the touch, while outperforming today's iMacs. If Intel can't get x86 down to 5 W and outperform today's quad-core i7s, say in 2014, then I can see Apple wanting to try it themselves.
Id be the first to admit that ARM on Intels processes might be interesting. However it would be a very hard pill for Intel to swallow.
Interesting.
Do you have any idea when it would be possible for the Mac Pro?
The ideal time to announce it would be for NAB -- April 6-11.
Apple could also drop the next version of Final Cut Pro X.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
Yes. That's the assumption. The Reuters article was an article on how Intel is moving forward by becoming more of a foundry business as the market moves from PC to post-PC, discussing what customers Intel could have. Obviously Apple would be a big customer and they stated that Apple and Intel had discussions regarding Intel fabbing Apple's ARM SoCs. It would not be unusual for companies like Apple and Intel to have these discussion, so, I have no doubt that it has happened.
Same thing with custom x86 chips. I'm sure there are lots of discussions between Intel and Apple regarding custom x86 chips, from special bins of 10 W ULV Core i5/i7 chips, 1 W Atom SoCs, ARM SoCs, all the way to the Xeon Phi. And they all happen more or less simultaneously.
Xeon Phi is a bastard GPGPU that Apple can surpass by actually just supporting drivers for Nvidia and AMD Radeon lines, like they are doing in their latest 10.8.3 builds, both of which produce far and away better OpenCL performance for Parallel Processing, not to mention the added bonus of OpenGL 4.3 compliance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Your argument makes no sense.
Seriously dude if iPad had an i86 it would still be running iOS. Frankly the vast majority of iPad buyers don't even know what an ARM chip is!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
If Apple made an x86 iPad, it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to sell if the buyers were limited to iOS apps only... If they allow OSX apps, then users will need and use a mouse/kb.
This is what Microsoft is trying to do: usurp the post-pc revolution with the Surface Tablets -- which really require a kb and touchpad or mouse.
Then Microsoft, and many other software vendors, can continue business as usual -- adding layers of bloat to existing desktop apps.
Some: Adobe and Autodesk, for example are taking the opportunity to rethink and reimplement their apps to work in the post-pc era...
IMO, there is a lot to be gained by the post-pc revolution -- I don't want to see anything short-circuit it.
What would be the advantage to Apple, or the iPad buyers, of switching CPI architecture -- if not to allow the iPad to run OSX/