What implications does an ARM CPU architecture have for the GPU? Are we talking about an Apple-designed SOC for Mac laptops?
The vast majority of PC laptops uses on-die GPUs (processor graphics in Intel vernacular). Well, probably desktops too. This is the same arrangement that Apple has with their SoCs: on-chip GPUs. At minimum it will be performance competitive. For the high end pro machines, Apple will have to use discrete GPUs as they are now.
GPU performance is basically a power game. Power as in Watts, and how many transistors they are willing to devote for the GPU. They are going to use their custom GPU with Imagination Tech IP as they are now. How performant they are will depend on what their transistor and power budgets are. Since they don’t need to sell the chip for profit, this theoretically lets them use 30 to 50% more transistors at the same cost they would buy one for from a 3rd party vendor. So, it could be more performant than on-die GPUs from Intel or AMD they choose to take advantage of this margin, or use less power for the same performance.
People should really be looking at what AMD has done with their latest APU chips to understand what can be done with integrated graphics these days. The new Ryzen based APUs are in many ways a big leap ahead of Intel. Then we have the coming gaming APUs for XBox and PlayStation. In either case (console or laptop) great strides have been made in performance and power efficiency.
So if Apple only meets these performance points we will have rather impressive integrated GPUs in the ARM based chips.
That being said I don’t think the GPU is even a driver to get Apple to move to ARM. I still think the real reason is to get access to the silicon to implement their own IP. In this case the number one concern for Apple would be IP for AI acceleration. For personal computers I see this tech as the number one driver moving forward. AI tech will eventually becomes the operating system, that is almost everything OS wise will he touched your AI techniques in some manner of another.
I expect Arm Macs this year. I bought my Arm desktop computer already. It’s a $44 rock64, add a 27inch 4K ips monitor, touch mouse (bluetooth) and bluetooth keyboard and it will top out at $400. I expect Macs to be priced similarly.
There is right about zero percent chance of this. The RK3328 in there supports a whopping 4GB of RAM too.
zero chance maybe but Apple needs a wider market for the Mac ecosystem. I’ve come to the conclusion that Macs are not worth it based on the extreme cost for what you get.
The fact is Apple could offer a $400 computer today without the monitor if they really wanted to. Unfortunately they have become obsessed with high profit margins on computers that don’t offer even the simplest features.
The Mac Mini is a perfect example here. Way too expensive to be a introductory computer and way too limited to function as a power users desktop computer. So who buys the Mini today? Does anybody?
The Laptop lineup suffers in different ways, again making them really poor buys. The keyboards suck and general reliability has gone down the tubes. Battery life is absolutely terrible if you do any real work on them. We could hope that Apple uses ARM as an opportunity to address the issues Apple's laptops have.
The problem is I suspect what Apple will do instead is to make yet another thinner laptop with the same crappy battery life when actually running real workloads. I’d actually would prefer thicker if it leads to better battery life, better keyboards and more reliable hardware. Honestly what good is a 1mm thick laptopif I can’t type on it and the battery goes dead in an hour if you do anything but use Safari?
An "A15X" type 5 nm chip in a laptop is going to blow the doors off anything offered by Intel
Batteries in the MBP are 2-2.5x the size of iPad Pros. Plus the thermal envelope of the MBPs are much greater. It will allow Apple to dramatically increase the number of cores plus boost the clock frequency. It is going to be something to behold
This is the laptop I want
How about a dual processor Mac Mini?
The future is chiplet technology putting as many cores as you need in one package. We don’t need a dual socket Mini we just need for Apple to pay attention to the Mini because even today the Mini is a joke.
In anyevent if you are not up on the latest tech read up on chiplet tech and the way AMD is using the tech to beat Intel senseless. AMD’s high end Threadripper no comes with up to 64 cores in one package. That is 64 cores and 128 threads. These chips will not fit into the Mini but simply highlight chiplet tech.
Frankly the newest Ryzen mobile chips could do wonders in a Mini As these are 8 core 16 thread at the top end with a very good GPU all of 45 watts. No chiplets in Ryzen mobile either just one well designed processor chip. AMD has a whole range of desktop chips too, but the point is the Mini could easily move forward if Apple really wanted to and that is on X86. On ARM we probably could see even more CPU cores. The interesting thing about ARM is that Apple can tailor it in any way Apple sees fit. I would not be surprised at all to see far more AI acceleration cores than regular CPU cores. It is an interesting time in processor design and CPU cores are now just a portion of the overall chip. Apple could easily put out a 16 core ARM based processor if they wanted, at this point it comes down to if they want to allocate the die space.
I'm aware that most/all Intel chips come with multiple "cores". I'm not aware if any ARM chips come with multiple cores. (I googled it and found some A9 and A11 chips with multiple cores, but we're already up to A13.) Will an ARM-based Apple computer come with only a single core?
Huh? Almost every ARM based Applications processor has been multi core for years now. I’m not sure how you missed that. What is unique to ARM is that these multi fire chips often come with 2ir more types of cores. So you have both high performance and very low power cores.
I actually expect Apple to maintain this dual personality arrangement with a low power core complex and high performance complexes in its Laptop and desktop chips. The difference is instead of 2-4 high performance cores you might have a dozen or two.
We live in different times but it isn’t foolish to think about cores in terms of dozens. 12 cores is easy with ARM in desktop and laptop chips. If the focus is just the desktop 24 would be easy today. The real challenge isn’t cores but rather keeping up with caches and memory.
I expect Arm Macs this year. I bought my Arm desktop computer already. It’s a $44 rock64, add a 27inch 4K ips monitor, touch mouse (bluetooth) and bluetooth keyboard and it will top out at $400. I expect Macs to be priced similarly.
There is right about zero percent chance of this. The RK3328 in there supports a whopping 4GB of RAM too.
Unfortunately they have become obsessed with high profit margins on computers that don’t offer even the simplest features.
The Mac Mini is a perfect example here. Way too expensive to be a introductory computer and way too limited to function as a power users desktop computer. So who buys the Mini today? Does anybody?
But the 2018 Mac mini is a different beast. It is much more powerful — it is, without hyperbole, a miniature Mac Pro [...]
This device is powerful, compact, and everything a power user would want the Mac mini to be. Plus, it gives you the freedom to buy the peripherals you want at the price you’re comfortable with, so long as you’re okay starting at that $799 base price and shelling out for more speed, memory, and storage. For a certain type of Mac user, myself included, the new Mac mini strikes a solid balance.
...likewise for your claims about the MB; you’re the first i’ve heard to claim its battey sucks. I know a million developers who use a MBP (myself included). Journalists seem to love them as well.
As far as simplest of features, no idea what you’re on about. I switched to macs over a decade ago, and I run dev tools, VMs, SQL Server, VS, etc... If I can do pro Windows development on a Mac it surely is fine for normals.
Maybe you’re looking for a hobbyist linux project to tinker on?
There is also (I believe) a substantial cost savings to Apple here
Assumptions:
- Half of Macs use internally developed Apple CPU: 10M/yr (the other half stays on Intel) - Current cost Apple pays per Intel chip: $200 (likely higher) - Cost to Apple to manufacture new chip at TMSC: $30 (likely lower) - Dedicated Apple CPU chip employees and cost: 300 employees x $400K/yr fully weighted cost = $120M
Total Intel Cost: 10M x $180 = $2B Total internal Apple Cost: 10M x $30 = $300M + $120M = $420M
Total Annual Savings: $2B - $420M = $1.6 Billion
It would be $3.2 Billion if Apple were to move it all internal. That would increase overall gross margin of the company by ~ 1%. It would be a huge financial win. But more importantly, it gets Apple untangled from the mess that is Intel
Not included here is the massive R&D effort/spend to get to launch. Maybe this is one of the driver's of Apple R&D spend exploding over the last 5 years
I suspect that your chip costs are wrong. This mainly because Apple is always on TSMC bleeding edge processes and Apples chips are rather large. Apple pays for being first so I’d double that processor cost. Maybe even more depending upon how it is packaged, if Apple does a multi chip module we could be seeing a huge jump above $30.
As for Apple and Intel’s chips that will be a lot harder to determine. For one Intel is under the watchful eyes of regulators and can not offer any discounts beyond those that are volume based. So Apple will pay about the same as any other builder with about the same volume. The sticker here is that Apple often buys Intel hardware not sold to anybody else. In any event I suspect their average price might be a bit more than $200 a crack.
As for R&D spending who knows where it all goes. Like the pentagon Apple likely has black projects we don’t know about. I kinda like to believe Apples rumored car development is more about autonomous robots than cars.
Here is something on the A9 that is old but well thought out. The estimate from IHS was $22 to $24. But the chips will be much more complicated and larger. But I would be surprised if Apple pays anything north of $40 to mfg
And, here is Intel's official price list. You're right that Apple buys chips made just for it. Eyeballing, my $200 estimate looks low. The list also reinforces to me what a mess Intel is. All these models and they could not even figure out mobile. Steve would have walked in the door and slashed this monstrosity to 8 SKUs.
Is anyone able to estimate performance of A14XX in 4 or 8 core or 4+4 Little/Big design?
Well I can offer up some wild guesses. However the scuttle butt is that TSMC 5nm tech is very good. We could see 30 - 40 percent better per core. That while lowering power usage. Since Apple will likely improve the cores architecture it is very likely that we could see the 40% number. As for how Apple allocates die space it is anybody’s guess, but 8 cores are possible depending upon how you count them. The X variant might go to 12 cores but then again the GPU might be more important to Apple.
Oh buy 8 cores I mean 4 performance and 4 low power. 12 cores simply adds 4 more performance cores.
The reality is cores are not a huge problem. Cores are already low power vs what it takes to support those cores. Your caches and memory interfaces are far more power hungry and you need them to be even more active when adding cores. At some point Apple will need to increase cache sizes considerably and that might out weigh the addition of cores. On a related note I’m surprised that Apple hasn’t added a dedicated frame buffer for the GPUs. Anything that reduces off chip trips to RAM would be a good thing for Power usage. With the fixed screen sizes this should be easy to do.
There is also (I believe) a substantial cost savings to Apple here
Assumptions:
- Half of Macs use internally developed Apple CPU: 10M/yr (the other half stays on Intel) - Current cost Apple pays per Intel chip: $200 (likely higher) - Cost to Apple to manufacture new chip at TMSC: $30 (likely lower) - Dedicated Apple CPU chip employees and cost: 300 employees x $400K/yr fully weighted cost = $120M
Total Intel Cost: 10M x $180 = $2B Total internal Apple Cost: 10M x $30 = $300M + $120M = $420M
Total Annual Savings: $2B - $420M = $1.6 Billion
It would be $3.2 Billion if Apple were to move it all internal. That would increase overall gross margin of the company by ~ 1%. It would be a huge financial win. But more importantly, it gets Apple untangled from the mess that is Intel
Not included here is the massive R&D effort/spend to get to launch. Maybe this is one of the driver's of Apple R&D spend exploding over the last 5 years
I suspect that your chip costs are wrong. This mainly because Apple is always on TSMC bleeding edge processes and Apples chips are rather large. Apple pays for being first so I’d double that processor cost. Maybe even more depending upon how it is packaged, if Apple does a multi chip module we could be seeing a huge jump above $30.
As for Apple and Intel’s chips that will be a lot harder to determine. For one Intel is under the watchful eyes of regulators and can not offer any discounts beyond those that are volume based. So Apple will pay about the same as any other builder with about the same volume. The sticker here is that Apple often buys Intel hardware not sold to anybody else. In any event I suspect their average price might be a bit more than $200 a crack.
As for R&D spending who knows where it all goes. Like the pentagon Apple likely has black projects we don’t know about. I kinda like to believe Apples rumored car development is more about autonomous robots than cars.
Here is something on the A9 that is old but well thought out. The estimate from IHS was $22 to $24. But the chips will be much more complicated and larger. But I would be surprised if Apple pays anything north of $40 to mfg
And, here is Intel's official price list. You're right that Apple buys chips made just for it. Eyeballing, my $200 estimate looks low. The list also reinforces to me what a mess Intel is. All these models and they could not even figure out mobile. Steve would have walked in the door and slashed this monstrosity to 8 SKUs.
The issue with what Apple Pay’s for its ARM based chips is something we can only guess at. My bias here is that Apples chips are relatively large running on the newest processes TSMC has. That costs extra. How much extra is only known to TSMC and Apple. I can see $30 a chip being on the low side.
As for Intel I’m just happy to see AMD causing them so much grief in pricing. Just today I’ve learned of a price cut to the refreshed server chips. No matter what Apple Pay’s I’m glad to seeIntel forced to cut prices.
Any ideas on how Apple will handle the X86 code of current apps to run on ARM architecture? I am not educated on this. Is ARM close enough to X86 that the transition will be easy or will it require a Rosetta-like translation framework like the move from Moto 68000 to X86 did. Will we have universal binaries again or something else during the transition?
This is the problem I’ve been wondering about for some time. While some people dismiss this as an issue, or in most cases, don’t even think about it (aren’t aware it is an issue), it’s the biggest issue apple will need to deal with. In previous changeovers, even Apple was very lax in getting their own big apps out. It took a year for them. It took a long time for Adobe and Microsoft, with their massive software, to come over too.
ARM is not close to x86. It’s optimized for battery life over performance. Apple and ARM have made significant advances on that front, but the instruction sets are different enough. We know from previous attempts at emulation, that a processor family needs to be 5 times as powerful in order to be able to run software at the same speed as the family they’re emulating. This hasn’t changed. Microsoft supposedly does it now, with their “universal” sdk. But they don’t, really. They require software to be rewritten, and recompiled for ARM. And there have still been issues with performance, specific features and bugs.
im not saying it can’t be done, because obviously it can. But if Apple is really going to release a device next year, there will either be significant limitations, or they’ve figured out a way around them. My suggestion, which no one here has ever commented on, from my memory, is to add a dozen x86 instructions to the chip. It’s been found that 80% of the slowdown between chip families is from about a dozen instructions. The chip, or OS, could hand that over to those when native x86 software needs them. Individual instructions aren’t patented, or copyrighted, as far as I know. If true, that would give Apple a way around the problem.
I can’t emphasise enough that the vast majority of apps produced for the Mac right now will be a recompile and some won’t even need that. The compiler is doing the work if you use the Apple tool chain.
Dont confuse the compiled machine code with the higher level frameworks that might be used.
You shouldn’t, because it’s a myth. Yes, small apps can be recompiled, and will often work without more revision other than to fix bugs that always creep in when recompiling. But anything else needs to be rewritten. It seems that people here forget the announcements that some developers have made during these transition periods in Apple demonstrations. They come out and announce how easy it was to get their massive app up and running in just a weekend. But then, it actually takes six months, or more, before that app is released. Why, because for the demo, they showed a few chosen features that worked out, after frenzied work. But the rest needed a good deal of work to function properly.
its incrediably naive to think that this will be easy.
Any ideas on how Apple will handle the X86 code of current apps to run on ARM architecture?
Because Apple designs its own processors, I suspect Apple will find a new way to add x86 instruction layer on top of a fast ARM core and it will run all software natively without emulation.
Well, they can’t run the x86 instruction set. They can run a few individual instructions. If they try to run the entire set, they will be sued by Intel., for sure.
Any ideas on how Apple will handle the X86 code of current apps to run on ARM architecture? I am not educated on this. Is ARM close enough to X86 that the transition will be easy or will it require a Rosetta-like translation framework like the move from Moto 68000 to X86 did. Will we have universal binaries again or something else during the transition?
Well, both ARM and X86 chips are micro coded. Could Apple microcode the x86 instruction set into the ARM?
No, that would require a license from Intel. That ain't happening.
AMD builds compatible CPUs. So, Apple gets similar rights.
Or, Apple just buys AMD.
Intel is very strict about the x86 license. It’s highly unlikely that Intel would grant Apple a license. If that were possible, I would imagine that apple would have taken one out years ago, and like AMD, would already be producing x86 comparable chips. Intel would love to shut AMD down, if it were possible. They tried when AMD split the manufacturing division off.
Any ideas on how Apple will handle the X86 code of current apps to run on ARM architecture? I am not educated on this. Is ARM close enough to X86 that the transition will be easy or will it require a Rosetta-like translation framework like the move from Moto 68000 to X86 did. Will we have universal binaries again or something else during the transition?
Well, both ARM and X86 chips are micro coded. Could Apple microcode the x86 instruction set into the ARM?
My guess is they already have, hence the lower than usual performance bump when the moved to Vortex (virtual cortex).
...yet more proprietary lockdown upgrade fatigue...?
ARM Aarch64 ISA is no more proprietary than x86. What’s your point.
No. It was less because companies are running out of headroom in chip development. You’ve kept up with what’s happening, haven’t you? You know that Moore’s Law is pretty much kaput. Apple isn’t immune from that.
x86 is proprietary, as is ARM. You need to read more about all of this instead of just making things up from your imagination.
Is anyone able to estimate performance of A14XX in 4 or 8 core or 4+4 Little/Big design?
No, because Apple would need to do a major redesign of the chip. We have no idea how that would go. For a Macbook, would there be a need for “efficiency” cores? We don’t know. As you move up the ladder of frequency, you need to up the voltage. But current mores up faster. So you get a much larger power draw proportionally. Therefor, increasing frequency is a trip of decreasing advantage, and overwhelming heat. It’s why, so many years after Intel’s last Netburst chip, Prescott, at 3.8GHz, we’re barely beyond that.
adding cores was a solution. But it didn’t help the individual core performance conundrum. However, advanced chip design has made a major difference. The question is where are we? How much more performance can be squeezed out of a core? And at what power level?
at some point, the only real advantage ARM will have over x86 will be that ARM, thanks to Apple, will be 64 bit clean, while so far, x86 suffers by requiring 16 and 32 bit instructions and code. That wastes room on the die, and power, both of which could be better used for other things.
its possible that Apple would offer two chips instead of one. Two A14? Chips. Question mark, because Apple could remove certain duplicate functions that aren’t needed.
How can so many people be blind to the fact that Apple is about to release a hybrid iPadOS / macOS ARM-based laptop?
It will be a 2-in-1 type of product, which will replace the iPad Pro, running iPadOS when undocked and macOS when docked.
The new 2-in-1 platform will allow only App Store apps to be installed, which will be easily compilable for both modes and will be able adjust the GUI automatically. Any existing iPadOS app will be easily recompilable for the dual-platform device.
Those who do not need to run non-App-Store apps and who are not power users will be gladly bying that device. I know I will.
Power users will continue to buy Pro-level Macs that will stay on the Intel architecture.
iPad Pro will be discontinued in favor of this 2-in-1 device.
Regular iPads will remain as a cheaper iPadOS-only device the same way they are now.
The 2-in-1 platform will merge the iPad Pro and the MacBook Air into one device. Alternatively, Apple may keep MacBook Air on the Intel architecture and instead will merge the now discontinued MacBook line with the iPad Pro. The name of the new 2-in-1 device will be MacPad with the price range between $1,000 and $2,000, depending on the specs. The maximum screen size will be 13”, the maximum RAM will be 16GB, with the maximum disk space 1TB SSD.
Apple will have the following lines of computing products (excluding phones): 1. iPad (ARM) 2. macPad (ARM) 3. Mac Mini (ARM) 4. iMac (ARM)
5. (possible but not likely) MacBook Air (Intel) 6. MacBook Pro (Intel) 7. iMac Pro (Intel) 8. Mac Pro (Intel)
I'm skeptical. If what you say is true, Apple wouldn't have gone through the trouble of investing iPad Pro and iPadOS.
There is also (I believe) a substantial cost savings to Apple here
Assumptions:
- Half of Macs use internally developed Apple CPU: 10M/yr (the other half stays on Intel) - Current cost Apple pays per Intel chip: $200 (likely higher) - Cost to Apple to manufacture new chip at TMSC: $30 (likely lower) - Dedicated Apple CPU chip employees and cost: 300 employees x $400K/yr fully weighted cost = $120M
Total Intel Cost: 10M x $180 = $2B Total internal Apple Cost: 10M x $30 = $300M + $120M = $420M
Total Annual Savings: $2B - $420M = $1.6 Billion
It would be $3.2 Billion if Apple were to move it all internal. That would increase overall gross margin of the company by ~ 1%. It would be a huge financial win. But more importantly, it gets Apple untangled from the mess that is Intel
Not included here is the massive R&D effort/spend to get to launch. Maybe this is one of the driver's of Apple R&D spend exploding over the last 5 years
I suspect that your chip costs are wrong. This mainly because Apple is always on TSMC bleeding edge processes and Apples chips are rather large. Apple pays for being first so I’d double that processor cost. Maybe even more depending upon how it is packaged, if Apple does a multi chip module we could be seeing a huge jump above $30.
As for Apple and Intel’s chips that will be a lot harder to determine. For one Intel is under the watchful eyes of regulators and can not offer any discounts beyond those that are volume based. So Apple will pay about the same as any other builder with about the same volume. The sticker here is that Apple often buys Intel hardware not sold to anybody else. In any event I suspect their average price might be a bit more than $200 a crack.
As for R&D spending who knows where it all goes. Like the pentagon Apple likely has black projects we don’t know about. I kinda like to believe Apples rumored car development is more about autonomous robots than cars.
Here is something on the A9 that is old but well thought out. The estimate from IHS was $22 to $24. But the chips will be much more complicated and larger. But I would be surprised if Apple pays anything north of $40 to mfg
And, here is Intel's official price list. You're right that Apple buys chips made just for it. Eyeballing, my $200 estimate looks low. The list also reinforces to me what a mess Intel is. All these models and they could not even figure out mobile. Steve would have walked in the door and slashed this monstrosity to 8 SKUs.
The issue with what Apple Pay’s for its ARM based chips is something we can only guess at. My bias here is that Apples chips are relatively large running on the newest processes TSMC has. That costs extra. How much extra is only known to TSMC and Apple. I can see $30 a chip being on the low side.
As for Intel I’m just happy to see AMD causing them so much grief in pricing. Just today I’ve learned of a price cut to the refreshed server chips. No matter what Apple Pay’s I’m glad to seeIntel forced to cut prices.
Microprocessor Reports has estimated that Apple’s chips cost between $34 and $38. That’s for the chips the first year they’re out, obviously, prices drop over time, and Apple uses some chips for devices such as the aTv for years after nothing else in the line-up uses them. Their estimates have Androud bound flagship chips at about $26 to $30. Though with onboard cell radios, those prices are enhanced by another $10 to $20.
the problem Apple has to face is whether they could use a relatively I modified A14x chip in even a lowly Macbook. I do t think so. And they can’t simply raise the frequency more than a little bit above where the iPad is, because is]gs just not designed to disburse that extra heat. If Apple is working on a chip, or chips for this purpose, they could very well be completely different from what we;be been seeing. They would possibly come with a different designation to set them apart.
How can so many people be blind to the fact that Apple is about to release a hybrid iPadOS / macOS ARM-based laptop?
It will be a 2-in-1 type of product, which will replace the iPad Pro, running iPadOS when undocked and macOS when docked.
The new 2-in-1 platform will allow only App Store apps to be installed, which will be easily compilable for both modes and will be able adjust the GUI automatically. Any existing iPadOS app will be easily recompilable for the dual-platform device.
Those who do not need to run non-App-Store apps and who are not power users will be gladly bying that device. I know I will.
Power users will continue to buy Pro-level Macs that will stay on the Intel architecture.
iPad Pro will be discontinued in favor of this 2-in-1 device.
Regular iPads will remain as a cheaper iPadOS-only device the same way they are now.
The 2-in-1 platform will merge the iPad Pro and the MacBook Air into one device. Alternatively, Apple may keep MacBook Air on the Intel architecture and instead will merge the now discontinued MacBook line with the iPad Pro. The name of the new 2-in-1 device will be MacPad with the price range between $1,000 and $2,000, depending on the specs. The maximum screen size will be 13”, the maximum RAM will be 16GB, with the maximum disk space 1TB SSD.
Apple will have the following lines of computing products (excluding phones): 1. iPad (ARM) 2. macPad (ARM) 3. Mac Mini (ARM) 4. iMac (ARM)
5. (possible but not likely) MacBook Air (Intel) 6. MacBook Pro (Intel) 7. iMac Pro (Intel) 8. Mac Pro (Intel)
This hybrid device is incredibly wishful thinking (but it would be cool). There is absolutely nothing that suggests that this is coming.
I expect Arm Macs this year. I bought my Arm desktop computer already. It’s a $44 rock64, add a 27inch 4K ips monitor, touch mouse (bluetooth) and bluetooth keyboard and it will top out at $400. I expect Macs to be priced similarly.
There is right about zero percent chance of this. The RK3328 in there supports a whopping 4GB of RAM too.
I think you are right (hope is still allowed, I hope), yes 4GB and low power consumption credit card size and quad core (about twice the computing power as my 2009 27inch iMac), makes it very interesting. It's in the pipeline directly from China, so I can't wait.
I imagine when someone "ports" their iPad over to the macOS via Catalyst it already has the code to run on ARM so it would not surprise me if Apple comes out and says "and if you develop for both iOS and macOS your apps will work right out of the bag!" With that being said, WWDC should be an interesting one this year. Maybe Apple will start encouraging developers who do not have an iOS app to bring their apps to that platform so it will be a seamless task to bring it back to the Mac once they have ARM processors?
There’s no need for catalyst. All iOS apps now run on intel. In reverse a Mac app could easily run on arm. That’s just a recompile.
Porting from iOS to Mac would still require a UI transformation, which is what Catalyst offers (with mixed results).
But that isn't what is needed here. It's about Mac apps being ported to arm on Mac.
I expect Arm Macs this year. I bought my Arm desktop computer already. It’s a $44 rock64, add a 27inch 4K ips monitor, touch mouse (bluetooth) and bluetooth keyboard and it will top out at $400. I expect Macs to be priced similarly.
There is right about zero percent chance of this. The RK3328 in there supports a whopping 4GB of RAM too.
I think you are right (hope is still allowed, I hope), yes 4GB and low power consumption credit card size and quad core (about twice the computing power as my 2009 27inch iMac), makes it very interesting. It's in the pipeline directly from China, so I can't wait.
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. I really like this kind of thing. I just don't see it (officially) for macOS.
Any ideas on how Apple will handle the X86 code of current apps to run on ARM architecture? I am not educated on this. Is ARM close enough to X86 that the transition will be easy or will it require a Rosetta-like translation framework like the move from Moto 68000 to X86 did. Will we have universal binaries again or something else during the transition?
Well, both ARM and X86 chips are micro coded. Could Apple microcode the x86 instruction set into the ARM?
Thats funny, Intel already did that: Intel processors are RISC and emulate CISC (x86). The instruction set of the RISC processor isn't exposed helas, its probably the 64 bit one from Intels ‘new’ and failed processor architecture manny years ago. This emulation (realtime translation) cost a lot of chip surface and excess heat, which is the reason that Arm 64 bit will be a lot better (and an awful lot cheaper ) anything Intel can do.
P.S. micro instructions and its microcode code ... instructions, RISC processors don't use microcode because of the execution speed required (aim is all in one clock cycle), its a CISC thing and outdated.
Comments
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/16/18097117/apple-mac-mini-2018-review-upgrade-faster-more-powerful-features-price
But the 2018 Mac mini is a different beast. It is much more powerful — it is, without hyperbole, a miniature Mac Pro [...]
This device is powerful, compact, and everything a power user would want the Mac mini to be. Plus, it gives you the freedom to buy the peripherals you want at the price you’re comfortable with, so long as you’re okay starting at that $799 base price and shelling out for more speed, memory, and storage. For a certain type of Mac user, myself included, the new Mac mini strikes a solid balance.
...likewise for your claims about the MB; you’re the first i’ve heard to claim its battey sucks. I know a million developers who use a MBP (myself included). Journalists seem to love them as well.
As far as simplest of features, no idea what you’re on about. I switched to macs over a decade ago, and I run dev tools, VMs, SQL Server, VS, etc... If I can do pro Windows development on a Mac it surely is fine for normals.
Maybe you’re looking for a hobbyist linux project to tinker on?
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/11/10/how-much-does-the-apple-inc-a9-cost-to-make.aspx
And, here is Intel's official price list. You're right that Apple buys chips made just for it. Eyeballing, my $200 estimate looks low. The list also reinforces to me what a mess Intel is. All these models and they could not even figure out mobile. Steve would have walked in the door and slashed this monstrosity to 8 SKUs.
https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_downloads/cpu_price/2020/02/Feb_24_20_Recommended_Customer_Price_List.pdf
its incrediably naive to think that this will be easy.
No. It was less because companies are running out of headroom in chip development. You’ve kept up with what’s happening, haven’t you? You know that Moore’s Law is pretty much kaput. Apple isn’t immune from that.
x86 is proprietary, as is ARM. You need to read more about all of this instead of just making things up from your imagination.
No, because Apple would need to do a major redesign of the chip. We have no idea how that would go. For a Macbook, would there be a need for “efficiency” cores? We don’t know. As you move up the ladder of frequency, you need to up the voltage. But current mores up faster. So you get a much larger power draw proportionally. Therefor, increasing frequency is a trip of decreasing advantage, and overwhelming heat. It’s why, so many years after Intel’s last Netburst chip, Prescott, at 3.8GHz, we’re barely beyond that.
adding cores was a solution. But it didn’t help the individual core performance conundrum. However, advanced chip design has made a major difference. The question is where are we? How much more performance can be squeezed out of a core? And at what power level?
at some point, the only real advantage ARM will have over x86 will be that ARM, thanks to Apple, will be 64 bit clean, while so far, x86 suffers by requiring 16 and 32 bit instructions and code. That wastes room on the die, and power, both of which could be better used for other things.
its possible that Apple would offer two chips instead of one. Two A14? Chips. Question mark, because Apple could remove certain duplicate functions that aren’t needed.
the problem Apple has to face is whether they could use a relatively I modified A14x chip in even a lowly Macbook. I do t think so. And they can’t simply raise the frequency more than a little bit above where the iPad is, because is]gs just not designed to disburse that extra heat. If Apple is working on a chip, or chips for this purpose, they could very well be completely different from what we;be been seeing. They would possibly come with a different designation to set them apart.
It's in the pipeline directly from China, so I can't wait.
This emulation (realtime translation) cost a lot of chip surface and excess heat, which is the reason that Arm 64 bit will be a lot better (and an awful lot cheaper ) anything Intel can do.
P.S. micro instructions and its microcode code ... instructions, RISC processors don't use microcode because of the execution speed required (aim is all in one clock cycle), its a CISC thing and outdated.