Keep whatever future CPU x86 compatible, and I'm all for it. Personally, I think Apple would do a far better job than Intel would. Intel lateness in introducing certain chips and chipsets have cramped Apple in the past.
I use both my iMac and MBA to run Windows and that is a necessity. I hope Apple doesn't leave us in the dust.
I hope this is false. They could move to AMD but their processors are not in line with Intel performance wise. As long as AMD isn't able to catch up with Intel, it would be a bad move.
Moving to ARM... maybe but I guess it would be a very unpopular move. The move from PowerPC to Intel was right once the PPC processors were lagging behind Intel ones but Intel are still on top in performance and are the best Apple can get in their computers.
I don't see a safe landing space for Apple here. ARM is years away from having consumer class hardware beyond the mobile space.
AMD could be purchased for a pittance but does Apple really want to get into head to head competition with Intel?
Lastly virtualization is very key to Apple products being sold in Enterprise. Not saying it cannot be done with Apple homegrown solutions but a different architecture makes that endeavor much harder.
This seems like a bad idea in the short to medium term. Intel's process technology is just so far ahead of everyone else that they can more than make up for x86's apparent performance-per-watt disadvantage to ARM. If Intel can ever get their act together and include some AMD-quality integrated graphics, they'll be invincible in the medium power-budget laptop market.
On the other hand, we've seen from the iPhone/iPad that the processor is less and less important in many consumer applications, while the GPGPU hardware makes more of a difference. If Apple's willing to bet that people who do depend on CPU performance (like those of us compiling all the time) will either stick around because of the industrial design or aren't enough of the market to care, they could transition to ARM whenever they want to. They can always switch back if it doesn't work out (of course, the SDK is crucial here).
Ooh, I don't know ... maybe 'doing a Samsung' on the MacBook Air with the Ultrabook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonteponte
"Ultrabook, inspired by Intel" ?
I don't keep up to date on Windows tech apparently. Anyway, I really don't care about being able to run Windows on a Mac, although, I can understand how it could be a benefit to some. I always have a Win box around the office anyway. As long as OS X is still running UNIX and compatible with Adobe CS it will be fine with me. I'm assuming the performance would also be improved, which is the big question. Can they really build their own chip that performs better than Intel's?
It would be amusing to see a slide "OSX has really been living a triple life all along" but I don't see it happening.
ARM does what it does well, x86 does what it does well. Intel has the best fabrication in world, period. AMD would be a step backwards, heck Apple is back to using nVidia for graphics too in the new rMBP. As for a switch to ARM for OSX it makes little to no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This should probably read:
"... tests have shown that almost any ARM based chip, even non customised versions, are significantly faster and more efficient than any Atom chip yet made."
Obviously someone at Apple needed some negotiating power with Intel -- hence, the leak. True or not, I imagine there are a few execs at Intel who are not willing to "bet the farm" that the news is outright false.
That's not true, is it? From what I've seen, the Atom based smartphones are at the top of the Android heap performance-wise. Maybe not the fastest, but not terribly slow either.
I'm generalising of course but I'm pretty sure my version is a lot closer to the truth than the original in the article. Even back in the very beginning of iPhone mania in 2007, Intel was asserting their Atoms were the best, but actual testing showed they lagged quite a bit behind even the ARM chips of those days which are far slower than what we have today. I would also doubt that Intel could have pushed the performance of the Atom further in the intervening time than the development of the ARM solutions which has been rapid and steep. Also, Atom may be fast(ish) now, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's efficient.
Well, for one, they subsidized the development of MacBook Air knock offs by offering a $100million ultrabook development fund so vendors could come close to matching Apple's pricing.
Apple was able to get Oracle to build a version for OSX but that stopped with an early version of 10. Compatibility with enterprise unix applications doesn't seem to matter since they aren't getting anywhere with the largest one. I understand the desire to have Windows capability but I'm not so sure that would keep Apple from abandoning intel chips (which ones are we talking about, only the CPU or everything?). As for customized AMD CPUs for desktops, I have been waiting for an ARM-based cluster desktop with a boatload of A-type chips. Look at how small the iPhone 5 motherboard is and envision twenty of those in a Mac Pro half it's current size. Would it satisfy power users? Would Thunderbolt operate external x86 boxes for a mini-Windows box? Is the graphic driver found in an iPhone 5 powerful enough to scale to a desktop system (multiple drivers or a larger one)? Could we start with a dual A6 in a MBP that comes with SIM-slot-technology for adding additional A6s?
I doubt Apple will be selling the same type of computer in five years that we're using today so thinking about the future is definitely something Apple has to do today.
AMD has shown off a fanless HTPC using the A10-5700K. I think that the small form factor that this enables would be a good thing (especially with it's low power consumption) for future Mac systems. I'm no AMD fanboy either. I built my own i5-3570k based gaming rig and couldn't be happier with it. Hopefully this is possible with the "non-K" processors in the A10 line. I think it is safe to say Apple will never use an unlocked CPU.
If apple were to put their own custom-designed ARM chips in Macs, here is how it would happen:
1. Apple would design a 64 bit ARM processor.
2. That processor would first be used in Apple's data centers -- we wouldn't hear about it for years
3. Once Apple was satisfied with the processor, it would introduce it to outside customers at the high end. Perhaps Apple would make a "render farm in a box" and sell it to people who need a lot of CPU power for very specific software packages.
4. If step 3 works out, then Apple could slowly migrate the processor into consumer Macs.
How about they are planning on porting iOS over to the desktop/laptop side. Then they start using their custom designed chips.
Dont tell me there isnt an iOS powered imac sitting in the lab. And dont get me wrong, I am not talking about touch powered. It might have keyboard and cursor interface just as OSX has today
This is just raw performance specs which doesn't tell you a lot really. I was talking primarily about efficiency, and also "faster" in the context of actually making an OS faster, not just pushing pixels on a test.
Also, the A6 (admittedly the "top of the line" ARM chip and perhaps not representative of general ARM advances), wastes the performance of the Atom chip device you point to, doubling or halving all those scores, because it's literally twice as powerful, which is a pretty rare thing and a hard obstacle for Atom adoption to overcome.
The only manufacturers using Atoms in the near future will be those that are paid to do so, or Microsoft. There doesn't seem to be much of a point to adopting Atom for anyone else.
Comments
I use both my iMac and MBA to run Windows and that is a necessity. I hope Apple doesn't leave us in the dust.
I hope this is false. They could move to AMD but their processors are not in line with Intel performance wise. As long as AMD isn't able to catch up with Intel, it would be a bad move.
Moving to ARM... maybe but I guess it would be a very unpopular move. The move from PowerPC to Intel was right once the PPC processors were lagging behind Intel ones but Intel are still on top in performance and are the best Apple can get in their computers.
AMD could be purchased for a pittance but does Apple really want to get into head to head competition with Intel?
Lastly virtualization is very key to Apple products being sold in Enterprise. Not saying it cannot be done with Apple homegrown solutions but a different architecture makes that endeavor much harder.
This seems like a bad idea in the short to medium term. Intel's process technology is just so far ahead of everyone else that they can more than make up for x86's apparent performance-per-watt disadvantage to ARM. If Intel can ever get their act together and include some AMD-quality integrated graphics, they'll be invincible in the medium power-budget laptop market.
On the other hand, we've seen from the iPhone/iPad that the processor is less and less important in many consumer applications, while the GPGPU hardware makes more of a difference. If Apple's willing to bet that people who do depend on CPU performance (like those of us compiling all the time) will either stick around because of the industrial design or aren't enough of the market to care, they could transition to ARM whenever they want to. They can always switch back if it doesn't work out (of course, the SDK is crucial here).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
Ultrabooks
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevt
Ooh, I don't know ... maybe 'doing a Samsung' on the MacBook Air with the Ultrabook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonteponte
"Ultrabook, inspired by Intel" ?
I don't keep up to date on Windows tech apparently. Anyway, I really don't care about being able to run Windows on a Mac, although, I can understand how it could be a benefit to some. I always have a Win box around the office anyway. As long as OS X is still running UNIX and compatible with Adobe CS it will be fine with me. I'm assuming the performance would also be improved, which is the big question. Can they really build their own chip that performs better than Intel's?
Originally Posted by mstone
So what did Intel do to piss off Apple?
It would be amusing to see a slide "OSX has really been living a triple life all along" but I don't see it happening.
ARM does what it does well, x86 does what it does well. Intel has the best fabrication in world, period. AMD would be a step backwards, heck Apple is back to using nVidia for graphics too in the new rMBP. As for a switch to ARM for OSX it makes little to no sense.
Quote:Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This should probably read:
"... tests have shown that almost any ARM based chip, even non customised versions, are significantly faster and more efficient than any Atom chip yet made."
would be closer to reality.
I would do a little more reading. These aren't those craptastic netbook Atom chips anymore. Intel's made solid advancements with Medfield. It's only slightly short of current gen ARM. http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/motorolas-razr-i-benchmarks-intel-2ghz-medfield/
If the MAC loses the ability to run Virtual Microsoft OS and I will no longer own one.....
Sorry, but the reality is that the vast majority of Business still use Windows Software and will for the for seeable future....
This would kill MAC sales in my opinion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
That's not true, is it? From what I've seen, the Atom based smartphones are at the top of the Android heap performance-wise. Maybe not the fastest, but not terribly slow either.
I'm generalising of course but I'm pretty sure my version is a lot closer to the truth than the original in the article. Even back in the very beginning of iPhone mania in 2007, Intel was asserting their Atoms were the best, but actual testing showed they lagged quite a bit behind even the ARM chips of those days which are far slower than what we have today. I would also doubt that Intel could have pushed the performance of the Atom further in the intervening time than the development of the ARM solutions which has been rapid and steep. Also, Atom may be fast(ish) now, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
So what did Intel do to piss off Apple?
Well, for one, they subsidized the development of MacBook Air knock offs by offering a $100million ultrabook development fund so vendors could come close to matching Apple's pricing.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Demonstrates-Fanless-A10-5700K-Trinity-System-296214.shtml
I doubt Apple will be selling the same type of computer in five years that we're using today so thinking about the future is definitely something Apple has to do today.
Do you think Apple is also ready to give up Thunderbolt? As I recall that requires Intel chip set, right?
As for Thunderbolt- http://www.techpowerup.com/158480/AMD-Demonstrates-Trinity-APU-Its-Own-Thunderbolt-Alternative.html
If apple were to put their own custom-designed ARM chips in Macs, here is how it would happen:
1. Apple would design a 64 bit ARM processor.
2. That processor would first be used in Apple's data centers -- we wouldn't hear about it for years
3. Once Apple was satisfied with the processor, it would introduce it to outside customers at the high end. Perhaps Apple would make a "render farm in a box" and sell it to people who need a lot of CPU power for very specific software packages.
4. If step 3 works out, then Apple could slowly migrate the processor into consumer Macs.
How about they are planning on porting iOS over to the desktop/laptop side. Then they start using their custom designed chips.
Dont tell me there isnt an iOS powered imac sitting in the lab. And dont get me wrong, I am not talking about touch powered. It might have keyboard and cursor interface just as OSX has today
on newly modified apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
I would do a little more reading. These aren't those craptastic netbook Atom chips anymore. Intel's made solid advancements with Medfield. It's only slightly short of current gen ARM. http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/18/motorolas-razr-i-benchmarks-intel-2ghz-medfield/
This is just raw performance specs which doesn't tell you a lot really. I was talking primarily about efficiency, and also "faster" in the context of actually making an OS faster, not just pushing pixels on a test.
Also, the A6 (admittedly the "top of the line" ARM chip and perhaps not representative of general ARM advances), wastes the performance of the Atom chip device you point to, doubling or halving all those scores, because it's literally twice as powerful, which is a pretty rare thing and a hard obstacle for Atom adoption to overcome.
The only manufacturers using Atoms in the near future will be those that are paid to do so, or Microsoft. There doesn't seem to be much of a point to adopting Atom for anyone else.
Well that sucks if it comes to fruition. I like using Fusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Do you think Apple is also ready to give up Thunderbolt? As I recall that requires Intel chip set, right?
http://www.techpowerup.com/158480/AMD-Demonstrates-Trinity-APU-Its-Own-Thunderbolt-Alternative.html