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

12345679»

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 176
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,310member
    lkrupp said:
    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 don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
    Boot Camp is super-useful to me, a college student w/ a MacBook that has to use a few Windows-only apps.
    Like many people, you could use Parallels. If you’re not just playing Windows games, it’s better, because you can share data between Mac and Windows software, among other things.
  • Reply 162 of 176
    nhtnht Posts: 4,034member
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
    Boot Camp is super-useful to me, a college student w/ a MacBook that has to use a few Windows-only apps.
    Like many people, you could use Parallels. If you’re not just playing Windows games, it’s better, because you can share data between Mac and Windows software, among other things.
    Parallels won’t work well on arm either.  Lkrupp is also probably wrong about Apple caring but that’s nothing new.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 163 of 176
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,216member
    lkrupp said:
    I don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements..
    Huh?  If they didn't care about running Windows on Macs then why would they care about what neckbeards are doing in their basements?

    That makes zero sense.  Of course they cared about running Windows on Macs - they went through a lot of trouble to create Bootcamp.  It took at least a few people and some insignificant engineering to create the utilities, package the drivers, test/debug and furthermore maintain all these years.  And why not?  It makes an excellent marketing point; especially in the pre-iPhone days. 

    If they would have had the iPhone revenue would they bother today?  Maybe not.  But I fail to see how that's a good thing.  If anything that would concern me even more.  

    The biggest single advantage of the Mac is the hardware and software comes from one place.  It leads to an amazing experience compared to other platforms.  The problem with the hardware and software coming from one place is if Apple decides that something isn't important you are screwed.  There is no other choice.  And the more they gravitate towards iOS and further away from macOS the more concerning this gets.  

    Seriously, if the Mac is such a burden to Tim Cook they just need to spin it off somewhere it can again be the center of attention instead of an afterthought.  I'm starting to get more pessimistic about the Mac then during the craptastic 90's before Steve came back and I never expected that to ever happen again :(
    cgWerks
  • Reply 164 of 176
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,216member
    Big mistake, Apple!  Some of us remember what a dead end the Power PC chips turned out to be.  I have been a Mac user since you changed to Intel (currently own 4, not counting my iPhone and iPad), and I will probably move away if you stop using industry standard hardware.  
    If IBM and Motorola would have kept up with PowerPC development, especially in mobile, Apple would have never switched.

    Apple is kicking Intel's but in performance per watt at the low end where mobile lives.  I could see them doing lower end laptops with ARM while leaving everything else on Intel.  I think some of the marzipan (SP?) rumors aren't just about unifying UI between iOS and macOS but also under the covers automation to make managing multiple CPU architectures more transparent to developers.  When you look at what they have done with compiler development and some of the other low level toolsets, this isn't much of a leap.  

    I don't expect them to ditch Intel for the higher end laptops or for desktops - unless they have some cool tech that's been cooking in the labs we just don't know about.  It could happen - but CPU architectures are complex and manufacturing is no cake walk either.  Intel would have to be screwing up a lot more than they are on the higher end chips to get Apple to take on that overhead, IMHO.  

    Apple has more experience than anyone in supporting multiple architectures at once having transitioned their entire user base to new CPU architectures twice now.  Heck they are simultaneously supporting two right now between iOS and macOS.  How I use the MacBook Air I'm typing on, an Arm based version of it would be great for me.  Something with better battery life and that doesn't get as warm?  Why not!  It would probably be faster too.  
  • Reply 165 of 176
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,212member
    cgWerks said:
    No one is going to largely rebuild all that stuff unless the whole industry shifts. Companies are also still using IE6, too.
    HAHA IE6. Any company that hasn't updated their intranet software to not be stuck on IE6 is a shitty company, and this is not good justification for any behavior.
  • Reply 166 of 176
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 950member
    docno42 said:
    There is no other choice.  And the more they gravitate towards iOS and further away from macOS the more concerning this gets.  

    Seriously, if the Mac is such a burden to Tim Cook they just need to spin it off somewhere it can again be the center of attention instead of an afterthought.  I'm starting to get more pessimistic about the Mac then during the craptastic 90's before Steve came back and I never expected that to ever happen again :(
    That could be the plan... to move the current Mac base and the rest of the world to iOS. One way to do that would be to convince us it's better. The the other might be to give us no other option. Unless the grass is greener elsewhere (it isn't as afaik), what choice do we have?

    docno42 said:
    If IBM and Motorola would have kept up with PowerPC development, especially in mobile, Apple would have never switched.
    Just a note so you're careful about what 'kept up' means. When the switch happened, I was doing a reasonable bit of 3D rendering work. The rendering app I use is cross-platform and has a stand-alone rendering engine. In the tests at the time, the Apple G5 machine was beating the best Intel had, even on the most custom, high-end built machines (by a reasonable margin). The problem was more that Apple recognized the future problem in scaling performance, especially the issue of power consumption.

    cgWerks said:
    No one is going to largely rebuild all that stuff unless the whole industry shifts. Companies are also still using IE6, too.
    HAHA IE6. Any company that hasn't updated their intranet software to not be stuck on IE6 is a shitty company, and this is not good justification for any behavior.
    You'd be surprised. Microsoft sold the whole 'use our Web technology to build it thing' really hard back in the day, and a lot of stupid IT departments fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Now they are stuck having to rebuild everything, or stick with old stuff.
  • Reply 167 of 176
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,310member
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
    Boot Camp is super-useful to me, a college student w/ a MacBook that has to use a few Windows-only apps.
    Like many people, you could use Parallels. If you’re not just playing Windows games, it’s better, because you can share data between Mac and Windows software, among other things.
    Parallels won’t work well on arm either.  Lkrupp is also probably wrong about Apple caring but that’s nothing new.
    We don’t know that. Parallels is software like any other. It could be rewritten to work on ARM. I’d bet that that would be one of the first to be ported over if required. And while everyone seems to be ignoring what I’ve been saying about the chips, that would be the best solution.
  • Reply 168 of 176
    nhtnht Posts: 4,034member
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
    Boot Camp is super-useful to me, a college student w/ a MacBook that has to use a few Windows-only apps.
    Like many people, you could use Parallels. If you’re not just playing Windows games, it’s better, because you can share data between Mac and Windows software, among other things.
    Parallels won’t work well on arm either.  Lkrupp is also probably wrong about Apple caring but that’s nothing new.
    We don’t know that. Parallels is software like any other. It could be rewritten to work on ARM. I’d bet that that would be one of the first to be ported over if required. And while everyone seems to be ignoring what I’ve been saying about the chips, that would be the best solution.
    Everyone is ignoring what you said because if x86 compatibility was so easy it would already be in ARM. 

    Parallels could be rewritten to depend only on software emulation of x86 but it would be slow and not as good as today.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 169 of 176
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 1,212member
    cgWerks said:
    cgWerks said:
    No one is going to largely rebuild all that stuff unless the whole industry shifts. Companies are also still using IE6, too.
    HAHA IE6. Any company that hasn't updated their intranet software to not be stuck on IE6 is a shitty company, and this is not good justification for any behavior.
    You'd be surprised. Microsoft sold the whole 'use our Web technology to build it thing' really hard back in the day, and a lot of stupid IT departments fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Now they are stuck having to rebuild everything, or stick with old stuff.
    Trust me, I know. I’m a web developer and still have he occasional IE6 flashback. What I mean though, is the last release of IE6 was a decade ago now. Anyone still tethered to it at this point is beyond negligent. 
    cgWerks
  • Reply 170 of 176
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 950member
    fastasleep said:
    Trust me, I know. I’m a web developer and still have he occasional IE6 flashback. What I mean though, is the last release of IE6 was a decade ago now. Anyone still tethered to it at this point is beyond negligent. 
    I agree. I think it was more or less dead to me almost a decade ago (I think the last I included any code, purposefully, for IE6 in website was like in 2012 to redirect to the IE 6 death countdown :smile: ).

    I haven't heard much from a couple friends who work in this kind of stuff a lot lately, but I think it was just a few years ago that one friend said he was still running into it. But, IMO, a lot of corporate IT is decades behind, so maybe it's fitting.
  • Reply 171 of 176
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,310member
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
    Boot Camp is super-useful to me, a college student w/ a MacBook that has to use a few Windows-only apps.
    Like many people, you could use Parallels. If you’re not just playing Windows games, it’s better, because you can share data between Mac and Windows software, among other things.
    Parallels won’t work well on arm either.  Lkrupp is also probably wrong about Apple caring but that’s nothing new.
    We don’t know that. Parallels is software like any other. It could be rewritten to work on ARM. I’d bet that that would be one of the first to be ported over if required. And while everyone seems to be ignoring what I’ve been saying about the chips, that would be the best solution.
    Everyone is ignoring what you said because if x86 compatibility was so easy it would already be in ARM. 

    Parallels could be rewritten to depend only on software emulation of x86 but it would be slow and not as good as today.
    That’s not true, because there hasn’t been a need for until now. And the research results was only announced last year, so there was no real understanding of what would be needed to accomplish it, nor time to incorporated anything learned from it. It takes a good two years to see results from new research. It could take more, because chip design is two years ahead of the production. Major changes, or additions, would derail that carefully planned timeline.

    adding this instruction would alleviate the need to have Parallels emulate the x86, as the parts that did need to be emulated would be done by the OS, if needed. Otherwise, no emulation would be needed to just make up for that lagging 20-25% of performance, if that lack even existed.
  • Reply 172 of 176
    nhtnht Posts: 4,034member
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
    Boot Camp is super-useful to me, a college student w/ a MacBook that has to use a few Windows-only apps.
    Like many people, you could use Parallels. If you’re not just playing Windows games, it’s better, because you can share data between Mac and Windows software, among other things.
    Parallels won’t work well on arm either.  Lkrupp is also probably wrong about Apple caring but that’s nothing new.
    We don’t know that. Parallels is software like any other. It could be rewritten to work on ARM. I’d bet that that would be one of the first to be ported over if required. And while everyone seems to be ignoring what I’ve been saying about the chips, that would be the best solution.
    Everyone is ignoring what you said because if x86 compatibility was so easy it would already be in ARM. 

    Parallels could be rewritten to depend only on software emulation of x86 but it would be slow and not as good as today.
    That’s not true, because there hasn’t been a need for until now. And the research results was only announced last year, so there was no real understanding of what would be needed to accomplish it, nor time to incorporated anything learned from it. It takes a good two years to see results from new research. It could take more, because chip design is two years ahead of the production. Major changes, or additions, would derail that carefully planned timeline.

    adding this instruction would alleviate the need to have Parallels emulate the x86, as the parts that did need to be emulated would be done by the OS, if needed. Otherwise, no emulation would be needed to just make up for that lagging 20-25% of performance, if that lack even existed.
    ARM has been trying to move into the x86 server space since 2010.  There’s been a “need” for a while now.  One of the issues with arm is that if you just wanted to save some money you’d just get an x86 compatible AMD epyc and have no software porting costs.  Google can go ARM but unless they release their ARM tooling open source few others can.  Maybe they hate intel enough to give a competitive advantage away to Amazon but I’m thinking maybe not.

    /shrug

    You making grand assertions on something that folks have wanted for a long long time...literally decades. Even if technically sound, which I haven’t done sufficient analysis to say, it’s likely going to get legally challenged by Intel.  

    Until a production chip exists it’s just conjecture and that’s years away. 
    fastasleep
  • Reply 173 of 176
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,310member
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
    Boot Camp is super-useful to me, a college student w/ a MacBook that has to use a few Windows-only apps.
    Like many people, you could use Parallels. If you’re not just playing Windows games, it’s better, because you can share data between Mac and Windows software, among other things.
    Parallels won’t work well on arm either.  Lkrupp is also probably wrong about Apple caring but that’s nothing new.
    We don’t know that. Parallels is software like any other. It could be rewritten to work on ARM. I’d bet that that would be one of the first to be ported over if required. And while everyone seems to be ignoring what I’ve been saying about the chips, that would be the best solution.
    Everyone is ignoring what you said because if x86 compatibility was so easy it would already be in ARM. 

    Parallels could be rewritten to depend only on software emulation of x86 but it would be slow and not as good as today.
    That’s not true, because there hasn’t been a need for until now. And the research results was only announced last year, so there was no real understanding of what would be needed to accomplish it, nor time to incorporated anything learned from it. It takes a good two years to see results from new research. It could take more, because chip design is two years ahead of the production. Major changes, or additions, would derail that carefully planned timeline.

    adding this instruction would alleviate the need to have Parallels emulate the x86, as the parts that did need to be emulated would be done by the OS, if needed. Otherwise, no emulation would be needed to just make up for that lagging 20-25% of performance, if that lack even existed.
    ARM has been trying to move into the x86 server space since 2010.  There’s been a “need” for a while now.  One of the issues with arm is that if you just wanted to save some money you’d just get an x86 compatible AMD epyc and have no software porting costs.  Google can go ARM but unless they release their ARM tooling open source few others can.  Maybe they hate intel enough to give a competitive advantage away to Amazon but I’m thinking maybe not.

    /shrug

    You making grand assertions on something that folks have wanted for a long long time...literally decades. Even if technically sound, which I haven’t done sufficient analysis to say, it’s likely going to get legally challenged by Intel.  

    Until a production chip exists it’s just conjecture and that’s years away. 
    ARM in the server space isn’t being promoted as a Windows replacement. It’s a Linux based concept. It’s much easier to deal with that than Windows, because, for one thing, many servers are not x86 based already. Same thing with mainframes and supercomputers. So there’s an industry around that.

    what we’re talking here is different, and as I pointed out, which you are carefully ignoring, this research is new. And I did point out that it would take at least two , and possibly three years for Apple to do this, based on this research, if they wanted to. It’s a suggestion by me, that they could do this, as it is technically possible, which was one of the goals of this research. It really comes down to several things.

    one would be whether I’m correct in thinking that individual hardware encoded instructions aren’t patentable, as several people I’ve spoken to in the industry have told me.

    two would be the cost to add those instructions to the hardware.

    and three would be the practicality of getting them to work smoothly.

    i believe that the main problem would be if they were indeed patented, or possibly copyrighted. The rest is just technical, and could be worked out.
    edited April 17
  • Reply 174 of 176
    nhtnht Posts: 4,034member
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    nht said:
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:
    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 don’t think Apple has ever given a rats butt about running Windows on Macs. In my opinion they created Boot Camp to stave off the third party crap that was starting to ooze out of neckbeard’s basements. I don’t think many businesses opt to buy Macs and then install Windows. That’s not very cost effective at all. Nope, the dual boot crowd is the same tiny yet vocal minority of tech wannabes. And Apple has never, EVER, cared about what small minorities of naysayers think of their plans. I’m really happy about the prospect of the demise of hackintoshes though.
    Boot Camp is super-useful to me, a college student w/ a MacBook that has to use a few Windows-only apps.
    Like many people, you could use Parallels. If you’re not just playing Windows games, it’s better, because you can share data between Mac and Windows software, among other things.
    Parallels won’t work well on arm either.  Lkrupp is also probably wrong about Apple caring but that’s nothing new.
    We don’t know that. Parallels is software like any other. It could be rewritten to work on ARM. I’d bet that that would be one of the first to be ported over if required. And while everyone seems to be ignoring what I’ve been saying about the chips, that would be the best solution.
    Everyone is ignoring what you said because if x86 compatibility was so easy it would already be in ARM. 

    Parallels could be rewritten to depend only on software emulation of x86 but it would be slow and not as good as today.
    That’s not true, because there hasn’t been a need for until now. And the research results was only announced last year, so there was no real understanding of what would be needed to accomplish it, nor time to incorporated anything learned from it. It takes a good two years to see results from new research. It could take more, because chip design is two years ahead of the production. Major changes, or additions, would derail that carefully planned timeline.

    adding this instruction would alleviate the need to have Parallels emulate the x86, as the parts that did need to be emulated would be done by the OS, if needed. Otherwise, no emulation would be needed to just make up for that lagging 20-25% of performance, if that lack even existed.
    ARM has been trying to move into the x86 server space since 2010.  There’s been a “need” for a while now.  One of the issues with arm is that if you just wanted to save some money you’d just get an x86 compatible AMD epyc and have no software porting costs.  Google can go ARM but unless they release their ARM tooling open source few others can.  Maybe they hate intel enough to give a competitive advantage away to Amazon but I’m thinking maybe not.

    /shrug

    You making grand assertions on something that folks have wanted for a long long time...literally decades. Even if technically sound, which I haven’t done sufficient analysis to say, it’s likely going to get legally challenged by Intel.  

    Until a production chip exists it’s just conjecture and that’s years away. 
    ARM in the server space isn’t being promoted as a Windows replacement. It’s a Linux based concept. It’s much easier to deal with that than Windows, because, for one thing, many servers are not x86 based already. Same thing with mainframes and supercomputers. So there’s an industry around that.
    Intel has 99.5% of the server market share.  Many servers?

    https://www.nextplatform.com/2018/03/01/server-market-booms-last/

    And no...it's not "much easier to deal with that" in the Linux market when you find that many of the core applications stacks are built toward one or two flavors of x86 linux and all the dependent packages are compiled for x86.  It's much easier to move to AMD servers than ARM servers and has nothing to do with Windows.  You CAN recompile everything for ARM but it isn't worthwhile unless you're Google or Amazon.

    As far as running mainframe and supercomputer apps on ARM...LOL.
    what we’re talking here is different, and as I pointed out, which you are carefully ignoring, this research is new. And I did point out that it would take at least two , and possibly three years for Apple to do this, based on this research, if they wanted to. It’s a suggestion by me, that they could do this, as it is technically possible, which was one of the goals of this research. It really comes down to several things.

    Lets see...here's a quote from you last year:
    so we would have to go back to the premise I first brought up a few years ago. That is that experts have found that about 80% of the slowdown when running emulation is due to a small number of chip instructions, somewhere around a dozen, or a bit more, depending on which chip families are being emulated by which other families. As Intel doesn’t have patents on individual instructions, Apple could take those few and incorporate them into their ARM chip. When xu6 software requires them, the chip would switch over to them for these calculations.
    https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/201798/apples-a11-bionic-matches-single-core-13-macbook-pro-performance-in-alleged-benchmark/p2

    Either it's new or a few years ago. I vaguely remember clicking your link but you haven't provided it in this thread.
    one would be whether I’m correct in thinking that individual hardware encoded instructions aren’t patentable, as several people I’ve spoken to in the industry have told me.
    Who likely aren't IP lawyers and aren't in a position where Intel will rain fire down on their company if they are wrong.  People opinion of risk changes when they have real skin in the game.

    Quallcomm and Microsoft is feeling good about 32 bit apps because those patents are old enough to be gone.  Notice no 64-bit app support? While 32 bit app support is a bit sluggish not including 64bit app support isn't likely because of a technical reason.

    Intel x86 compatibility on servers and for windows is worth $$$.

    Is it impossible?  Nope.  But hardware acceleration for x86 emulation would get sued because Intel said it would to Qualcomm and Microsoft.





    fastasleep
  • Reply 175 of 176
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 28,797member
    Well, now isn't THIS interesting:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-18/facebook-is-forming-a-team-to-design-its-own-chips

    Facebook to develop their own custom chips.
  • Reply 176 of 176
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 744member
    Well, now isn't THIS interesting:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-18/facebook-is-forming-a-team-to-design-its-own-chips

    Facebook to develop their own custom chips.
    I do wonder if all these rumours are from this team at Intel going out and trying to drum up business.
    https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/emib.html
    Including possibly the Apple Rumour.

Sign In or Register to comment.