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.
Really? I was under the impression that Intel GPUs are integrated into the motherboard, but not part of the CPU? Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.
But I guess my question was more about the discrete element, and whether moving to ARM would place restrictions on what discrete GPUs are available in Macs. Are there impediments to getting drivers for an AMD X850 Megaballs or an nVidia Titania XL5000 on a version of macOS that runs on ARM, or is it something that'll happen pretty easily?
Intel GPUs really are integrated into the silicon, not the motherboard. In a few cases, they are integrated into the same package as the CPU, but in most cases, it's really a SOC.
I would presume that Apple would go with their own integrated GPUs for many reasons, and drivers may be one of them.
In terms of the effort needed to get AMD drivers for ARM, I really don't know. One thing I can, say, though is that AMD drivers are open source so that might make it a little easier for Apple to write ARM drivers for AMD GPUs. No doubt Apple has the money to pay for this to be done if they want it to be done.
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
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?
In the early 2000’s, Transmeta released the Crusoe and efficieon processors only to find that things like the LCD, RAM and storage gobble up a lot of energy. Battery life is clearly not at the heart of this transition.
Dont see how Apple is going to Reduce LCD power consumption, especially since mini/micro LED full array local dimming requires more power than an edge lit display.
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?
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?
The A13 has six-cores: two high performance and 4 energy efficient.
The A-Series isn't going to replace Intel in a MacPro anytime soon. I wonder if ARM will start as the casual consumer end of the Mac line or maybe they've figured out a way to make them work at scale. They've undoubtably have been planning this for over over 10-years so maybe they are much farther ahead than we think.
I can see Apple not offering any Rosetta-like emulation. I suspect this transition will start with lower-end Macs which won't have the same need for vendors with large apps with slow update times, like MS and Adobe. They also now have a Mac App Store and well designed code base that continually make it easier for developers to make changes to support new architectures. I suspect they will let devs know at a WWDC and then demo tools that will make it easy to compile for an ARM-based Mac.
ARM is intended to drive costs down, with better battery life, for a lower price point. That says Mac Book or Mac Book Air, not desktops. I'd argue that there is a significant proportion of Mac users who have never needed X86 compatibility, I certainly haven't, so eliminate it from initial products. Let current Mac developers reap the benefit of providing new capabilities and opportunities to ARM Mac users.
Totally agree that the 12" Retina MacBook is the form factor to be looking for here. You could make it even thinner and lighter while retaining the terrible keyboard!
Bad use for the user: It’s already difficult for some developers to keep their apps updated and compatible to the newest screen sizes and iOS/macOS.
This would mean years of chaos and transition at best, fragmented fighting standards and compatibility issues without a winner in worst case.
...the only advantage I could see would be a unification of iOS and macOS with common hardware but different screen sizes and power l.
1) Based on your comments it was a bad for the user that Apple moved from PPC to Intel and 32-bit to 64-bit, and yet as a Mac user during those transitions my experience as a Mac user has greatly improved.
2) There is no unification of iOS and macOS. They've even forked iOS last year so that iPadOS is a distinct OS, which is going in the opposite directing of your comment. Now, if you want to say that Apple will unify some aspects of their code base when it makes sense to do so, well they've been doin that since before the iPhone was announced.
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.
I proffer that it is your highly unreasonable expectations that lead to your constant negativity.
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.
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.
That's technically possible, but it defeats all the benefits of using AArch64 and adds a lot more complexity and cost to the chip, so I don't see that as being an option.
This is not intended as a replacement for Mac Os computers, imho, this will be perfect for Apple's response to Chromebook, "affordable" small touch-screen notebook based on an evolution of iOS rather than a degeneration of Mac Os, aiming at education mainly, and moms and pops who will make the jump from iPads...
In regards to Bootcamp and VMs, I've been a long time user of both (Bootcamp and Fusion), but since Microsoft released version 10 of their RDP client for Mac Os, I've mainly used my work windows desktop in remote, very smooth experience, and that is on a 12" MacBook
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?
That would be the worst of both worlds. You'd be paying for two processors (quite a bit for the Intel) and using only one at a time.
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.
This is not intended as a replacement for Mac Os computers, imho, this will be perfect for Apple's response to Chromebook, "affordable" small touch-screen notebook based on an evolution of iOS rather than a degeneration of Mac Os, aiming at education mainly, and moms and pops who will make the jump from iPads...
In regards to Bootcamp and VMs, I've been a long time user of both (Bootcamp and Fusion), but since Microsoft released version 10 of their RDP client for Mac Os, I've mainly used my work windows desktop in remote, very smooth experience, and that is on a 12" MacBook
"this will be perfect for Apple's response to Chromebook"
Bad use for the user: It’s already difficult for some developers to keep their apps updated and compatible to the newest screen sizes and iOS/macOS.
This would mean years of chaos and transition at best, fragmented fighting standards and compatibility issues without a winner in worst case.
...the only advantage I could see would be a unification of iOS and macOS with common hardware but different screen sizes and power l.
1) Based on your comments it was a bad for the user that Apple moved from PPC to Intel and 32-bit to 64-bit, and yet as a Mac user during those transitions my experience as a Mac user has greatly improved.
2) There is no unification of iOS and macOS. They've even forked iOS last year so that iPadOS is a distinct OS, which is going in the opposite directing of your comment. Now, if you want to say that Apple will unify some aspects of their code base when it makes sense to do so, well they've been doin that since before the iPhone was announced.
Except PPC had become a roadblock and a significant factor limiting new machines, particularly laptops. There may be advantages to ARM but the gap isn't nearly so big. The transition from 32 to 64 bit is not the same as a complete change in architecture and took place over several years so it's also a poor comparison.
Re. iPadOS - maybe they're 'maturing' ipadOS in anticipation of a merger/blending with an ARM-based MacOS?
Still, I share the concerns echoed above about the transition to an entirely new architecture. I am not a programmer and don't know how difficult it would be for developers to port software over but even in the best case scenario it would involve a reasonable amount of work and there's always the risk of loosing part of your application base because developers decide it's not worth it.
Comments
I would presume that Apple would go with their own integrated GPUs for many reasons, and drivers may be one of them.
In terms of the effort needed to get AMD drivers for ARM, I really don't know. One thing I can, say, though is that AMD drivers are open source so that might make it a little easier for Apple to write ARM drivers for AMD GPUs. No doubt Apple has the money to pay for this to be done if they want it to be done.
Dont see how Apple is going to Reduce LCD power consumption, especially since mini/micro LED full array local dimming requires more power than an edge lit display.
The A-Series isn't going to replace Intel in a MacPro anytime soon. I wonder if ARM will start as the casual consumer end of the Mac line or maybe they've figured out a way to make them work at scale. They've undoubtably have been planning this for over over 10-years so maybe they are much farther ahead than we think.
...the only advantage I could see would be a unification of iOS and macOS with common hardware but different screen sizes and power l.
2) There is no unification of iOS and macOS. They've even forked iOS last year so that iPadOS is a distinct OS, which is going in the opposite directing of your comment. Now, if you want to say that Apple will unify some aspects of their code base when it makes sense to do so, well they've been doin that since before the iPhone was announced.
No, that would require a license from Intel. That ain't happening.
Isn't that the whole point of the $329 iPad?
Re. iPadOS - maybe they're 'maturing' ipadOS in anticipation of a merger/blending with an ARM-based MacOS?
Still, I share the concerns echoed above about the transition to an entirely new architecture. I am not a programmer and don't know how difficult it would be for developers to port software over but even in the best case scenario it would involve a reasonable amount of work and there's always the risk of loosing part of your application base because developers decide it's not worth it.