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

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 176
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 1,605member
    racerhomie3 said:
    The number who will buy a Mac for $500-900 will more than make up for that.
    Exactly... and a perfect example of the type of thinking I fear is in play at Apple.
    racerhomie3 said:
    The Pros priced ($2000-20000) will use Intel
    The consumer level($500-1500) should use A series.
    Yes, that is one potential solution.
    edited April 2
  • Reply 62 of 176
    GG1GG1 Posts: 200member
    cgWerks said:

    Basically, I see two scenarios for the Mac:
    1) The Mac has fallen behind because of Apple growth pains and bad decisions. They've recognized this and will now fix it. The future looks bright.

    2) The idea is to move on to the new iOS-thing and 'the future' and just put enough effort into the Mac to stave off chaos. In that case, the future looks bleak.
    3) Apple are tired of Intel's slow releases (unless this is your first point)

    4) Apple can make their processors more secure if kept in-house (avoid Spectre/Meltdown exploits as the design is kept secret)

    1983watto_cobra
  • Reply 63 of 176
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 1,774member
    Presumably they’ll unify iOS and macOS to a degree that the chipsets powering the entire product line are largely the same?
    Apple seems to be betting on evolving iOS to surpass OSX. Cook sees OSX as the old way of doing things, and iOS the modern way. I know, I don't see that happening in iOS's current state either, but I also never seen their labs or POCs. We can only assume at this point, but if Apple didn't changed its mind, iOS is where their focus is.
  • Reply 64 of 176
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 568member
    Apple’s Mobile processors like the A11 are without a doubt top notch and very capable chips, but what do they have available for desktop processors or high-end processors like the iMac Pro? Are they planning on using their own chips for laptops but Intel chips for high end computers?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 65 of 176
    19831983 Posts: 1,081member
    The A11 already nearly as powerful as a 2016/17 Intel i7...wow! How’s the A12 later this year going to do? Impressive, I didn’t realize it was that close! So bring it on Apple! Looking forward to this. I misread...multi-core similar to ‘original’ 15” MBPr, not the recent redesign. So not bad, but still no match for the needs of power users. So it will be offered only on the low-end Macs then.
    edited April 2 watto_cobra
  • Reply 66 of 176
    As a developer I can tell you what this switch would mean to me:

    Absolutely nothing.

    For those people bemoaning that your dev environments would be halted because you would suddenly be on ARM, I can tell you first hand that Linux on ARM (which Vagrant, VirtualBox, et al, all handle just fine) is just as speedy. Hell, I have a Raspberry Pi that is pretty darn quick, and that is a tiny processor on it! And as for compilable software, I can guarantee that Apple will make the transition from x64 to ARM as painless as possible.

    My only "concern" is that of Windows emulation. I am looking at the Gamers and the Business people who rely upon Boot Camp. I am thinking that by the time this all comes to fruition, the x64 emulator for ARM may have been fully fleshed out. A quick Google search landed me "Unicorn" which is a processor agnostic compiler. All in all, pretty cool stuff.

    My only concern is the timing of this "rumor", and what is really gained by stating it.
    h2pwatto_cobraZestyMordant
  • Reply 67 of 176
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,531member
    creemail said:
    This means that ARM has almost caught x86. We can expect the A11X to be significantly greater in performance over the A11. I would guess and say at least 40-50% improved. In which this sets the stage for the A12, A12X, then to the A13/A13X (2020), in which Apple will rename the processors differently. My guess by 2020 we should expect at least 6500-7500 single core with a multiscore of 45,000-50,000. This is bound to happen...
    "This means that ARM has almost caught x86."

    No. It means Apple's capabilities have caught up to the point where they can design ARM-based SoCs that are on par (or better) performance-wise compared to x86.  This doesn't apply to others like Qualcomm.
    racerhomie3watto_cobra
  • Reply 68 of 176
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,146member
    My only concern is the timing of this "rumor", and what is really gained by stating it.
    1) What is gained by any rumour?

    2) While it could have no source I think there are movements that could indicate where Apple is going. Like getting rid of x86_32 support which isn't really hurting anything right now so that it's cleaner for AArch64 being introduced. I also think that the stagnating MacBook Air is another potential avenue. By keeping the Air marque but effectively making it a 12" MacBook, for example, but with an Apple-designed ARM SoC they can offer a less expensive model that is both modern and fast. With the recent event for education which had a remarkably well priced iPad I think that this is even more feasible today as it shows Apple is serious about capturing the education market which could really use a cheaper traditional PC that runs macOS.
  • Reply 69 of 176
    I guess it's nice that Apple will make it's own CPUs, but before they do that CAN APPLE RELEASE SOME NEW COMPUTERS ALREADY? PLEASE!!!

    SEND LITTLE TIMMIE COOKIE TO AN IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT.

    BRING BACK THE GUY AND LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL AGAIN.
    williamlondonwozwoz
  • Reply 70 of 176
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    Soli said:
    1) What is gained by any rumour?
    Cheap Intel stock.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 71 of 176
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,146member
    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.
    1) Can you patent a term?

    2) I'm not seeing a single reference to "FAT binary" anywhere. Maybe FAT was an acronym, but all I see are clear references to fat referring to the fattening to the codebase to support multiple architectures. I'm also seeing plenty of supporting data that states that NeXTSTEP officially called it" Multi-Architecture Binaries."
  • Reply 72 of 176
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,070member
    2020?   That soon? 

    If Apple wants to dump Intel because it thinks it can make faster processors than intel for less, then they will.  

    Consumers dont care care or even know what a processor is.   It runs their “Apps” and it does what they need.  

    Rosetta II will ease the transition.  Consumers won’t care.  If developers support Apple, then the software will continue to exist regardless of the CPU inside. 

    Apple doesn’t make much money (%-wise) on pro machines.   They won’t miss it if they continue to make awesome hardware for iOS or macOS.

    The PowerPC is dead.  Intel may die on Macs.  The A-series is probably faster than the average Intel chip for a fraction of the price. 

    Bring it.   
    d_2fastasleepracerhomie3watto_cobra
  • Reply 73 of 176
    Presumably they’ll unify iOS and macOS to a degree that the chipsets powering the entire product line are largely the same?

    I don’t think unified. I think throwing out iOS altogether and having your iPhone or iPad run macOS.
  • Reply 74 of 176
    thttht Posts: 2,809member
    Soli 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.

     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.
    1) Can you patent a term?

    2) I'm not seeing a single reference to "FAT binary" anywhere. Maybe FAT was an acronym, but all I see are clear references to fat referring to the fattening to the codebase to support multiple architectures. I'm also seeing plenty of supporting data that states that NeXTSTEP officially called it" Multi-Architecture Binaries."
    While I don’t know about the trademarking of FAT binaries or Multi Architecture Binaries, the terms of FAT binary or fat version was used by NeXTSTEP 3.1 users or later by 1993, and earlier inside NeXT I’m sure. FAT isn’t an acronym in this context (the file system aside). It was used to mean this or that binary was capable of running on NeXTSTEP/68k and NeXTSTEP/Intel.

    When HP PA-RISC was added to the mix, binaries were referred to as tri-FAT. After that, when NeXT ported NeXTSTEP to Sun SPARC, applications would be labeled at quad-FAT to indicate it supported the 4 concurrent arachitectures NeXT supported at the time. Not much different from the quad-FAT binary in the Universal Binary era during the PPC to Intel transition when 32, 64 bit PPC and 32, 64 bit Intel binaries were in one app package. A variant of this exists or existed in iOS for 32 bit and 64 bit too.

    edited April 2 fastasleep
  • Reply 75 of 176
    karmadavekarmadave Posts: 291member
    Every few months a story like this pops up on AI and have the same response. Apple will NOT abandon x86 architecture for the Macintosh. It would kill their Enterprise Mac business. They will continue to develop their own specialized processors, for Mac, in addition to utilizing an x86 compatible processor from Intel (or maybe AMD).
  • Reply 76 of 176
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,748member
    Incidentally, there is no existing US trademark on the word "FAT Binary".
  • Reply 77 of 176
    kruegdudekruegdude Posts: 147member
    6toecat said:
    good to know now, as I can start planning my migration from Apple hardware / Final Cut Pro to Resolve on another platform. 
    Can I have your Apple stuff?
    d_2fastasleepracerhomie3docno42watto_cobra
  • Reply 78 of 176
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 886member
    karmadave said:
    Every few months a story like this pops up on AI and have the same response. Apple will NOT abandon x86 architecture for the Macintosh. It would kill their Enterprise Mac business. They will continue to develop their own specialized processors, for Mac, in addition to utilizing an x86 compatible processor from Intel (or maybe AMD).
    The article does say multi-step move so to me so it seems to want to cover all options and say they are right.
    Except they say this means Apple ditching Intel and that's what this should be measured on (to me at least).

    I could see Apple doing different custom variations to suit the range with Intel as partner not just a supplier. Given Intel are touting tech to custom stitch dies together and be almost as effective as a single die chip why wouldn't Apple want to be in there to get best of both worlds.

    I can see Apple ditching intel Platform Hubs for an Ax based custom by 2020. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 79 of 176
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 3,212administrator
    karmadave said:
    Every few months a story like this pops up on AI and have the same response. Apple will NOT abandon x86 architecture for the Macintosh. It would kill their Enterprise Mac business. They will continue to develop their own specialized processors, for Mac, in addition to utilizing an x86 compatible processor from Intel (or maybe AMD).
    I've heard this at least twice before when it's been wrong.
    Solifastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 80 of 176
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,146member
    karmadave said:
    Every few months a story like this pops up on AI and have the same response. Apple will NOT abandon x86 architecture for the Macintosh. It would kill their Enterprise Mac business. They will continue to develop their own specialized processors, for Mac, in addition to utilizing an x86 compatible processor from Intel (or maybe AMD).
    I've heard this at least twice before when it's been wrong.
    My guess is that it won't be "ditching" the way people seem to be expecting it, like when migrating from the long stagnated PPC to Intel. I expect this to be more like an addition to the lineup so that say, an ARM-based 12" Retina MacBook Air will exist as well as an Intel-based Mac Pro. I'm also expecting that by the time Apple would be ready to transition all of their Mac products to ARM the most common complaint will be why it's taking Apple so long when ARM has such clear performance benefits for a power and heat threshold and price point.
    racerhomie3
Sign In or Register to comment.