In five years Apple will Toast Intel again... Since macOS is based on OpenStep by NeXT it is highly cross-platform and can be ported to their proprietary CPUs. When Mac OS X shipped it was running on Intel behind closed doors since day one. Just a matter of time before they get their designs ready to take on Intel.
... While the results are lovely, when taking few shots in succession the app queues them because it takes quite a while to process each one and after a few minutes the phone overheats and starts to trottle heavily, crawling to a halt, while also force dimming the display untill all the shots are processed (which starts taking forever due to the throttling). On a recent trip to a hot-ish place I had to periodically get in the car and hold the phone, without a case, against the airco vent and that helped immensely. I know this is a somewhat rare and extreme usage scenario, but not out of this world extreme, especially for a product touting its technological superiority in a big way.
No doubt. I've started to play Minecraft on iOS with my son more, as one of our friends has a new server. My iPhone heats up more than I'd like if it is in any kind of case, though I'm not noticing a performance slow-down. But, that's the advantage of desktop (and some laptop) setups, is that you can generate adequate cooling to get (and keep) the performance. (That's also why I think this idea that we're all going to be running phones/iPads plugged into monitors and such is kind of silly.)
In five years Apple will Toast Intel again... Since macOS is based on OpenStep by NeXT it is highly cross-platform and can be ported to their proprietary CPUs. When Mac OS X shipped it was running on Intel behind closed doors since day one. Just a matter of time before they get their designs ready to take on Intel.
Sure, but as I said in an earlier post... that comes with tradeoffs for what I'd imagine a large percentage of Mac (pro) users do with their machines. VMs and running Windows and other OSs are quite common, especially among developers. Apple may not care enough about them (i.e.: what percentage of users do this on Apple's pie chart?) to be concerned over that, but it is a concern.
Also, note that this commercial was back from when Apple cared about having higher performance and being better than the competition in ways that mattered to pros, though some might think today the 'toast' reference was in regards to heat/power if they don't watch carefully. Apple switched to Intel for power-savings, not performance, as the G5s at the time of the switch were faster than anything Intel had. Maybe we'll get both this time?
"Apple's A12 Bionic comes close to desktop CPU performance in benchmarks"
I have yet to see one of these articles compare the Apple CPU to a desktop CPU. Fire up a Linux distro on the latest iPhone and the latest desktop with this year's i7 processor and let's see the comparisons.
The headline touts comparison to desktops. Then compares to other phone chips.
So why doesn’t Apple use these in its notebooks and end the reliance on Intel?
Third party software.
Until they come up with a solution for that, any migration will have to be slow.
Not on an operating system level. Generally apps wouldn’t need to be rewritten that much, since they call operating system libraries and these calls are consistent regardless of the CPU family. Unless you use stuff developed outside this standard (Adobe probably). Recompiling would obviously be necessary. Once Apple introduces a laptop built using their own CPU, they probably support Intel emulation the same way they did when moving from PowerPC to Intel, and before that 86k to PPC. Each developer would be incentivized by compiling to the new chip to avoid a huge performance slow down for their app.
I have one question on the possible plan to move away from Intel chips - what happens to the partnership with Intel for supplying modem chips for iPhones? Would Apple ditch Intel for this also and go back to Qualcomm again? Not likely... Would Apple start making modem chips on their own for iPhones??? Quite possible, but any comments on this?
CheeseFreeze said: Once Apple introduces a laptop built using their own CPU, they probably support Intel emulation the same way they did when moving from PowerPC to Intel, and before that 86k to PPC. Each developer would be incentivized by compiling to the new chip to avoid a huge performance slow down for their app.
Apps maybe, but emulation doesn't work well for things like OSs and VMs and such. Though, if Apple is wanting to ditch their pro user market, that would be one really good way to move that goal along.
I have one question on the possible plan to move away from Intel chips - what happens to the partnership with Intel for supplying modem chips for iPhones? Would Apple ditch Intel for this also and go back to Qualcomm again? Not likely... Would Apple start making modem chips on their own for iPhones??? Quite possible, but any comments on this?
I don't think it would make much difference. Intel purchased a company so that they could get a piece of the iPhone action. Or, just like Apple's battles with Samsung don't keep them from using Samsung parts. While there may be legal squabbles and such, ultimately these are still businesses that don't want to cut off a revenue stream.
Also, making a cellular chip isn't all that simple, as you're dealing with the complexity of thousands of carriers around the world. Apple could certainly do it, but I wonder if they'd want to. As much as I dislike the way Qualcomm is acting, I actually wonder if we're going to see issues with the move to Intel, as that was one thing Qualcomm was very experienced at (and I don't know much about the company Intel bought in that regard).
Yes, it comes close in benchmarks and I am excited as it is a very capable processor. But, putting aside the fact Intel's and AMD's chips are manufactured at almost 2 manufacturing generations behind, most of the enthusiasm comes from geekbench and similar " benches", which should not be trusted.
Saying they are a scam is being polite to them. All consumer processors(CAUTION I am referring to the cpu only in this comment) are Turing machines, all processors have a theoretical maximum performance which one can calculate by facts freely available, such as frequency, ipc and so on... Most processors are not 100 percent efficient and their real life performance is usually about 60 to 80 percent of the theoretical maximum. Now when high-end Intel and AMD processors are on average at least an order of magnitude faster than ARM based processors(while on inferior manuf. Process) theoretically, they simply can't be only x1.8 x2 in REAL life. It's like saying ARM processors are 100 percent efficient and x86 are 20 percent efficient which is nonsense of course.
Now , what does all this mean? That ARM based processors are somehow useless? Only an idiot would think like this. ARM based processors are awesome and super efficient FOR THE POWER ENVELOPE FOR WHICH THEY ARE MEANT TO BE USED. The same is true for desktop class processors. The power envelope of mobile processors is 1 to 4 watts, while that of desktops is 60 to 300 watts. For this reason alone it is quite stupid not only to think they are about equal, but only the fact that we compare them does not make sense. Because it's like comparing a motorbike to a big truck or fiat cinquecento to Ferrari la Ferrari, or Ferrari to Boeing 747..
So why doesn’t Apple use these in its notebooks and end the reliance on Intel?
I'm sure they are working on it.... secretly. Just like how Intel chip came about.
They've already commented for years that they have working prototypes of Macbook Pros using their ARM chips and that the experience was "not that bad". And this was before their chips reached i7 level performance.
To move from Intel to the A architecture will require another Rosetta miracle and if anybody can do it, it will be Apple.
They're also hoping that the staggering wealth of applications coming from the iOS platform to the Mac will help mitigate legacy Mac applications that didn't get translated.
To move from Intel to the A architecture will require another Rosetta miracle and if anybody can do it, it will be Apple.
They're also hoping that the staggering wealth of applications coming from the iOS platform to the Mac will help mitigate legacy Mac applications that didn't get translated.
Unfortunately, I think that is the plan. Hopefully we'll get some more professional iOS apps, but I won't be holding my breath.
Comments
Sure, but as I said in an earlier post... that comes with tradeoffs for what I'd imagine a large percentage of Mac (pro) users do with their machines. VMs and running Windows and other OSs are quite common, especially among developers. Apple may not care enough about them (i.e.: what percentage of users do this on Apple's pie chart?) to be concerned over that, but it is a concern.
Also, note that this commercial was back from when Apple cared about having higher performance and being better than the competition in ways that mattered to pros, though some might think today the 'toast' reference was in regards to heat/power if they don't watch carefully. Apple switched to Intel for power-savings, not performance, as the G5s at the time of the switch were faster than anything Intel had. Maybe we'll get both this time?
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd-epyc-7000-cpu-battle-of-the-decade/14
The A12 beats the server grade processors in most single thread tests. I haven’t seen the use SPEC CPU2006 in a while but these aren’t mobile parts.
I don't think it would make much difference. Intel purchased a company so that they could get a piece of the iPhone action. Or, just like Apple's battles with Samsung don't keep them from using Samsung parts. While there may be legal squabbles and such, ultimately these are still businesses that don't want to cut off a revenue stream.
Also, making a cellular chip isn't all that simple, as you're dealing with the complexity of thousands of carriers around the world. Apple could certainly do it, but I wonder if they'd want to. As much as I dislike the way Qualcomm is acting, I actually wonder if we're going to see issues with the move to Intel, as that was one thing Qualcomm was very experienced at (and I don't know much about the company Intel bought in that regard).
But, putting aside the fact Intel's and AMD's chips are manufactured at almost 2 manufacturing generations behind, most of the enthusiasm comes from geekbench and similar " benches", which should not be trusted.
Saying they are a scam is being polite to them. All consumer processors(CAUTION I am referring to the cpu only in this comment) are Turing machines, all processors have a theoretical maximum performance which one can calculate by facts freely available, such as frequency, ipc and so on...
Most processors are not 100 percent efficient and their real life performance is usually about 60 to 80 percent of the theoretical maximum.
Now when high-end Intel and AMD processors are on average at least an order of magnitude faster than ARM based processors(while on inferior manuf. Process) theoretically, they simply can't be only x1.8 x2 in REAL life. It's like saying ARM processors are 100 percent efficient and x86 are 20 percent efficient which is nonsense of course.
Now , what does all this mean? That ARM based processors are somehow useless? Only an idiot would think like this. ARM based processors are awesome and super efficient FOR THE POWER ENVELOPE FOR WHICH THEY ARE MEANT TO BE USED. The same is true for desktop class processors. The power envelope of mobile processors is 1 to 4 watts, while that of desktops is 60 to 300 watts. For this reason alone it is quite stupid not only to think they are about equal, but only the fact that we compare them does not make sense. Because it's like comparing a motorbike to a big truck or fiat cinquecento to Ferrari la Ferrari, or Ferrari to Boeing 747..