Intel Skylake chip issues reportedly tipping point in Apple's silicon switch

Posted:
in General Discussion edited June 2020
A former Intel engineer claims that Apple is ditching x86 processors for Apple silicon because of the "bad quality assurance of Skylake."

Credit: Intel
Credit: Intel


At its WWDC 2020 keynote, Apple announced a massive two-year transition away from Intel processors in Mac to Apple silicon. Although Apple said the switch is more about performance and platform consolidation, at least one former Intel staffer thinks it's because of issues with Intel's chips.

Former Intel principal engineer François Piednoël said that the quality assurance of the chipmaker's Skylake architecture was "more than a problem," according to PC Gamer.

"It was abnormally bad. We were getting way too much citing for little things inside Skylake," Piednoël said. "Basically our buddies at Apple became the number one filer of problems in the architecture. And that went really, really bad."

Piednoël added that "when your customer starts finding almost as much bugs as you found yourself, you're not leading into the right place."

Apple's switch to proprietary Mac chips has been years in the making. And although it may be a bumpy road for some, Apple believes there will be tangible benefits to performance, integration and consolidation for both consumers and users.

But Piednoël maintained that quality control issues with Skylake was the "inflection point."

"This is where the Apple guys who were always contemplating to switch, they went and looked at it and said: 'Well, we've probably got to do it.' Basically the bad quality assurance of Skylake is responsible for them to actually go away from the platform," he said.

The transition to Apple silicon is expected to take two years, and Apple has taken steps to introduce emulation and virtualization software to help ease developers and consumers alike into the switch.

Intel, for its part, has promised to support Apple and its users "across several areas of business" for the next two years.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    KITAKITA Posts: 382member
    His full video:


    kpommuthuk_vanalingamavon b7GG1
  • Reply 2 of 14
    kpomkpom Posts: 655member
    Wasn’t Skylake the one where all the security flaws became known? The irony is that is where Intel stalled. All of the 14nm+++++ were iterations of Skylake. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 14
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,634member
    Wasn't Skylake delayed 3 years also?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 14
    p-dogp-dog Posts: 105member
    kpom said:
    Wasn’t Skylake the one where all the security flaws became known? The irony is that is where Intel stalled. All of the 14nm+++++ were iterations of Skylake. 
    Yes. Intel, unfortunately, shat the bed.
    EventHorizonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 14
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    p-dog said:
    kpom said:
    Wasn’t Skylake the one where all the security flaws became known? The irony is that is where Intel stalled. All of the 14nm+++++ were iterations of Skylake. 
    Yes. Intel, unfortunately, shat the bed.
    They shat the bed, rolled up the sheet and handed it to Apple. 
    BeatsaderutterargonautwilliamlondonGG1jony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 14
    jdb8167jdb8167 Posts: 621member
    KITA said:
    His full video:


    I think I need a transcript. I can't understand what he is saying. I'm usually pretty good with accents but his narration along with his obvious distraction with the flight simulator just makes this unwatchable.
    Beatsjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 14
    jdb8167jdb8167 Posts: 621member

    Beats said:
    Wasn't Skylake delayed 3 years also?
    I also remember that Microsoft took a beating with its Surface line that used Skylake chips. They had terrible problems and I think it was revealed (whispered anyway) that most of the problems were Intel's fault.
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 14
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,634member
    jdb8167 said:

    Beats said:
    Wasn't Skylake delayed 3 years also?
    I also remember that Microsoft took a beating with its Surface line that used Skylake chips. They had terrible problems and I think it was revealed (whispered anyway) that most of the problems were Intel's fault.

    I just remember people waiting years for these chips saying "Next Macs will have Skylake" for generations.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 14
    Rayz2016 said:
    p-dog said:
    kpom said:
    Wasn’t Skylake the one where all the security flaws became known? The irony is that is where Intel stalled. All of the 14nm+++++ were iterations of Skylake. 
    Yes. Intel, unfortunately, shat the bed.
    They shat the bed, rolled up the sheet and handed it to Apple. 
    Trainspotting style.
    argonautGraham'sNumberwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 14
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Apple had a choice here to go to AMD for what are arguably the best x86 processors on the market right now.   they didn't because they can't secure their future by doing so.    I've said again and again it isn't about ARM, it is about Apple IP on the SoC.   It will be most interesting what these new SoC will look like internally.  I'm expecting vastly improved NeuralEngine, fresh Video encode and decode blocks and so forth.   That graphic Apple displayed highlights the concept that the cores are only part of the equation.   They basically highlight every major compute subsystem or functional unit on the chip.
    tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 14
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Mmm. 

    Microsoft  and Redhat are porting the OpenJDK to Windows ARM. 


    I reckon we’ll see a flurry of ARM ports ver the next few months. 

    Remember how USB wasn’t making any impact until Apple, at a when they had nowhere the clout they have now, released the first iMacs which only had a USB port?

    I think Apple moving to ARM is going to have the same sort of impact that’ll benefit everyone including Intel. 
    edited June 2020 williamlondonMacProwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 14
  • Reply 13 of 14
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 1,206member
    Is this common sense?
    Apple Silicon was a waiting game, Apple weren't going to launch it until it would have meaningful performance in comparison to Intel's offerings. This means that every time Intel slipped, it would have brought Apple Silicon's launch date closer.

    If Intel were producing chips that drastically outperformed Apple Silicon inside of the crucial heat and power envelope, then we'd still not be seeing this launch for years. Instead the best performance intel can offer requires massive power and heat distribution systems.
    tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 14
    crapdaycrapday Posts: 31member
    Rayz2016 said:
    p-dog said:
    kpom said:
    Wasn’t Skylake the one where all the security flaws became known? The irony is that is where Intel stalled. All of the 14nm+++++ were iterations of Skylake. 
    Yes. Intel, unfortunately, shat the bed.
    They shat the bed, rolled up the sheet and handed it to Apple. 
    Trainspotting style.
    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Sign In or Register to comment.