Apple planning to ditch Intel chips in Macs for its own custom silicon in 2020

2456789

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 176
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 277member
    Maybe there’s finally a chance to get rid of the thermal throttling.  Intel’s x86 chips always runs higher than their TDP rating if you pushed them to the maximum level, never a friendly solution for a thinner device.
    racerhomie3repressthisbrian greenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 176
    netroxnetrox Posts: 593member
    It's bound to happen with the incredible progress the ARM processor has gone. It's extremely efficient and blazing fast. So, it would be nice to have a huge boost in performance when we have the software recompiled for ARM.
  • Reply 24 of 176
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 869member
    I've been able to run Macs for work because of the ability to virtualize Windows. Not sure this bodes well for the future of Macs in certain business segments unless emulation performance under these new chips will be acceptable.
    I was thinking the same thing. Looks like I'll be working in Jump Desktop a heck of a lot more in the future...
  • Reply 25 of 176
    ph382ph382 Posts: 27member
    I like the idea of an SoC with integrated graphics and a big neural net processor!

    repressthisbrian green
  • Reply 26 of 176
    cashxxcashxx Posts: 96member
    I don't want to go through another proc change!  Keep intel!
    wozwoz
  • Reply 27 of 176
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,114member
    As a NeXT/Apple alum you folks are blatantly ignorant of the meaning of Fat Binary. Fat binaries were the binaries of NeXTSTEP/Openstep that were built binaries of the OS to run natively on different hardware architectures instruction sets.

     Apple continues working on shoring up the custom ARM based CPUs of its own design and still licenses the IP in order to produce them has nothing to do with leaving macOS to fend for itself on ARM based only instruction sets.

    More importantly, the effort to create OS X even with decades of x86/PPC/Moto/SPARC expertise took 5 years to get a limped version out the door, and that was already with a platform native on x86. The Rosetta was a compatibility layer on top of it.

     The logical solution moving forward is for Apple to license IP from AMD to have them build custom ASIC designs of SoC APUs and use their discrete CPUs/GPUs with the upcoming Thunderbolt licensing [now royalty free] to have a custom Thunderbolt controller designed by Apple on their boards, that are compatible with AMD's x86 chipsets, thus freeing Apple from relying solely on Intel.
    Before you throw stones, you'd better look at your history, and see what else the term was also applied to.

    I'm aware of your definition, and the usage you cite. However, there are more.
    The term FAT binary is actually patented by NeXT now owned by Apple. That term, is the only use we should ever discuss.
    tallest skilbrian green
  • Reply 28 of 176
    6toecat6toecat Posts: 44member
    good to know now, as I can start planning my migration from Apple hardware / Final Cut Pro to Resolve on another platform. 
  • Reply 29 of 176
    croprcropr Posts: 795member
    The moment we can no longer run an Intel based linux server in a VM on a Mac at a decent speed, will be the day that my company stops using Macs as development machines.  This is an absolute showstopper.  If we don't have this functionality locally on a development machine, all my developers will move to Intel machines with Linux (e.g. Dell XPS).
    dysamoria
  • Reply 30 of 176
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,686member
    cashxx said:
    I don't want to go through another proc change!  Keep intel!
    If you like your processor you can keep your processor.
    GG1xamaxrevenanth2p
  • Reply 31 of 176
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,686member
    cropr said:
    The moment we can no longer run an Intel based linux server in a VM on a Mac at a decent speed, will be the day that my company stops using Macs as development machines.  This is an absolute showstopper.  If we don't have this functionality locally on a development machine, all my developers will move to Intel machines with Linux (e.g. Dell XPS).
    I have to assume that Intel-based Linux VMs on Macs are statistically insignificant to Apple.
    StrangeDaysdysamoriawelshdogdocno42brian green
  • Reply 32 of 176
    I feel the intesity ooooo yes! 
  • Reply 33 of 176
    The hype is real!
    edited April 2
  • Reply 34 of 176
    knowitallknowitall Posts: 1,013member
    As a NeXT/Apple alum you folks are blatantly ignorant of the meaning of Fat Binary. Fat binaries were the binaries of NeXTSTEP/Openstep that were built binaries of the OS to run natively on different hardware architectures instruction sets.
    No, it is about applications running on multiple instruction sets.


     Apple continues working on shoring up the custom ARM based CPUs of its own design and still licenses the IP in order to produce them has nothing to do with leaving macOS to fend for itself on ARM based only instruction sets.
    Nonsense.


    More importantly, the effort to create OS X even with decades of x86/PPC/Moto/SPARC expertise took 5 years to get a limped version out the door, and that was already with a platform native on x86. The Rosetta was a compatibility layer on top of it.
    Nonsense, it’s just a recompile away, and macOS already runs on ARM.


     The logical solution moving forward is for Apple to license IP from AMD to have them build custom ASIC designs of SoC APUs and use their discrete CPUs/GPUs with the upcoming Thunderbolt licensing [now royalty free] to have a custom Thunderbolt controller designed by Apple on their boards, that are compatible with AMD's x86 chipsets, thus freeing Apple from relying solely on Intel.
    Your right that Apple needs to add a thunderbolt controller to its ARM socs.
    h2pbrian greenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 176
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 277member
    Francules said:
    The hype is real!
    Except all of that might just another hype.
  • Reply 36 of 176
    polymniapolymnia Posts: 831member
    As a NeXT/Apple alum you folks are blatantly ignorant of the meaning of Fat Binary. Fat binaries were the binaries of NeXTSTEP/Openstep that were built binaries of the OS to run natively on different hardware architectures instruction sets.

     Apple continues working on shoring up the custom ARM based CPUs of its own design and still licenses the IP in order to produce them has nothing to do with leaving macOS to fend for itself on ARM based only instruction sets.

    More importantly, the effort to create OS X even with decades of x86/PPC/Moto/SPARC expertise took 5 years to get a limped version out the door, and that was already with a platform native on x86. The Rosetta was a compatibility layer on top of it.

     The logical solution moving forward is for Apple to license IP from AMD to have them build custom ASIC designs of SoC APUs and use their discrete CPUs/GPUs with the upcoming Thunderbolt licensing [now royalty free] to have a custom Thunderbolt controller designed by Apple on their boards, that are compatible with AMD's x86 chipsets, thus freeing Apple from relying solely on Intel.
    Before you throw stones, you'd better look at your history, and see what else the term was also applied to.

    I'm aware of your definition, and the usage you cite. However, there are more.
    The term FAT binary is actually patented by NeXT now owned by Apple. That term, is the only use we should ever discuss.
    And Kleenex is proprietary to Kimberly Clark or P&G or whatever. But if there is a box of Puffs sitting on your desk and someone asks you to “pass me a Kleenex, please” do you launch into this same argument?

    Breaking it down further, if you and the person asking for the Kleenex had been talking about how to cure a cold prior the request for a Kleenex and having a disagreement. Once you proclaimed there is no Kleenex here, you have also convinced yourself by extension that your cold remedy is the best one. 

    Well played. 
    fastasleepwilliamlondon
  • Reply 37 of 176
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,252member
    knowitall said:
    As a NeXT/Apple alum you folks are blatantly ignorant of the meaning of Fat Binary. Fat binaries were the binaries of NeXTSTEP/Openstep that were built binaries of the OS to run natively on different hardware architectures instruction sets.
    No, it is about applications running on multiple instruction sets.
    Something makes me think that the actual NeXT employee knows more about this topic than you do. Or maybe you’d even like to edit the wikipedia page to stop being “wrong”?
    More importantly, the effort to create OS X even with decades of x86/PPC/Moto/SPARC expertise took 5 years to get a limped version out the door, and that was already with a platform native on x86. The Rosetta was a compatibility layer on top of it.
    Nonsense, it’s just a recompile away, and macOS already runs on ARM.

    Well, you’ve just confirmed you’ve never done any software development. I suppose Windows XP could have “just” been recompiled to run on a PowerPC Mac back in the day, right? Are you really trying to claim that the only thing stopping an iPad from running High Sierra is the lack of drivers for the specific hardware in one?
  • Reply 38 of 176
    spacekidspacekid Posts: 153member
    1- end of hackintoshes.
    2- should give Apple some extra room to improve security.
    3- how much you want to bet we will see fat binaries again?
    Improve security like preventing software not sold through the App Store from running?
  • Reply 39 of 176
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 736member
    Soli said:
    cropr said:
    The moment we can no longer run an Intel based linux server in a VM on a Mac at a decent speed, will be the day that my company stops using Macs as development machines.  This is an absolute showstopper.  If we don't have this functionality locally on a development machine, all my developers will move to Intel machines with Linux (e.g. Dell XPS).
    I have to assume that Intel-based Linux VMs on Macs are statistically insignificant to Apple.
    I would not say statistically insignificant, but then I think this story is being badly spun.  I am sure Apple is working to support macOS on ARM - transparently... but I am also pretty sure that they are not going to move their entire line off of Intel by 2020.  What I think Apple is aiming for is to support both ARM-based Macs and Intel-based Macs at some time in the future without too much confusion in the end users.  The machines that will be ARM-based will be the Macbook 12" (at that end) while the pro end (iMac Pro, Mac Pro - will still be using Xeon based chips).  VMs tend to be installed on the higher end, not on Macbook 12" (I have it installed on Macbook 12 - but I don't have any OSs installed :smile: ) The only people that will have to have an idea of the different internals will be those running VMs.
    h2pwatto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 176
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,128member
    I bought my first Mac in 2008 mainly because of its ability to run Windows at native speeds as a virtual machine.  I do 99% of my work on a Mac, but that 1% is crucial.

    I think it's great news that Apple is ditching Intel.  I truly do.  Once again, Intel shot themselves in the foot one too many times.  The first blunder was being late to the game as an ARM-competior and losing out to ARM for mobile chips.  Then, screwing Apple multiple times on late-as-ever CPU introductions, and CPU limitations such as the 16GB RAM limit on mobile CPU's.  Add the back-door CPU flaw, Thunderbolt licensing, etc., and I'm happy to see that Intel's stock price is falling like a rock.  They deserve it.

    Apple has proven that it is not only a competent CPU designer, but for mobile chips, it is the best in class.  I believe Apple can be as efficient and advanced as a desktop/laptop CPU competitor and put Intel to shame.

    I can only hope that Apple has a path for us that love Apple not just for MacOS, but also Windows as well.  Like it or not, It's still the most widely used desktop OS in the world.
    6toecath2pwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.