After years of work, Microsoft is still trying to make its own Apple Silicon-like chip

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware
A report pointing to job listings claims that Microsoft wants to take on Apple Silicon more directly -- but the company has been hiring ARM engineers for a decade.

An ARM chip
An ARM chip


Apple's introduction of its M-series chips in Mac and MacBook models brought with it a massive performance increase and other benefits. Keen to catch up on its main rival, Microsoft could be preparing for Windows 12 to be a very ARM-focused effort.

In job postings on the Microsoft website allegedly seen by Windows Latest before removal, Microsoft wanted to hire new staff in key positions relating to chip production. This included positions covering custom silicon accelerators, System on Chips, and creating high-performance, high-bandwidth designs.

One listing for the "Microsoft Silicon Team" apparently wanted a Principal SoC Silicon Architect who would be "responsible for building complex, state-of-the-art SOCs using leading silicon technology nodes." Another job listing wants a "Senior Silicon Power Integrity CAD Manager."

The jobs were supposedly posted to the end of April, with most mentioned as being part of the "Microsoft Silicon Team," which is a group of engineers that internally develops silicon components. While this has previously involved designs for Azure, Xbox, Surface, and HoloLens, it is likely that the team will also work on ARM-based processors, especially if Microsoft treads down the self-designed chip route.

It is thought that Windows 12 is part of Microsoft's Windows Core project, which will make a modular version of Windows to work across multiple form factors. The hiring of ARM-focused engineers indicates a greater push to make Windows 12 work as well as possible on ARM chips, furthering the prospect of Microsoft using its own silicon.

Microsoft has been engineering ARM for a decade

While the job postings point to a bigger effort to take on Apple Silicon, Microsoft is certainly no stranger to ARM, as it has used such chips in some Surface releases over the years. It has also gradually hired engineers in the field to increase its capabilities for over a decade.

It has also prepared developers for a more ARM-based future, with the Windows Dev Kit 2023 being a Mac mini-like compact PC running ARM, which Microsoft sells for $600. While not using a Microsoft-designed chip, the kit formerly known as "Project Volterra" does use the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3 compute platform for its processing.

On the software side, it has created a Windows 11 version for ARM systems, and though there's no official support for Apple Silicon systems to run it directly, there are ways around Microsoft's limitations.

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    emoelleremoeller Posts: 574member
    If Microsoft is just hiring now they have years and years to go before creating their own chips, as Apple has done.  Granted ARM architecture will make things easier for Microsoft, but the process isn't easy or inexpensive.  

    Furthermore with Apple's cadence of upgrades I doubt that Microsoft or Intel will catch them anytime soon.


    lolliverradarthekatKTRFileMakerFellerjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 37
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,239member

    They are a software company. Their name is not MicroHard.
    waveparticlemuthuk_vanalingamsdw2001rezwitslolliverwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 37
    rotateleftbyterotateleftbyte Posts: 1,630member

    They are a software company. Their name is not MicroHard.
    Didn't they just can all (or most) of their MS branded hardware? Some of it wasn't that bad (now to wash my mouth out with soap)

    Going into SOC development requires lots of $$$$ and a long time. Apple does that sort of long-term investment. It remains to be seen if MS can do the same. 
    lolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 37
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,239member

    They are a software company. Their name is not MicroHard.
    Didn't they just can all (or most) of their MS branded hardware? Some of it wasn't that bad (now to wash my mouth out with soap)

    Going into SOC development requires lots of $$$$ and a long time. Apple does that sort of long-term investment. It remains to be seen if MS can do the same. 

    I guess I forgot to add the /s to my comment. They have made some very good hardware.  :)

    (strangely, my comment is not visible outside of the forum. It's just blank)  :(

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 37
    Designing chips is easy. Child’s play. Mostly irrelevant.

    What matters is the fabrication process and what yield-cost trade-off Microsoft goes with.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 6 of 37
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,799member
    emoeller said:
    If Microsoft is just hiring now they have years and years to go before creating their own chips, as Apple has done.  Granted ARM architecture will make things easier for Microsoft, but the process isn't easy or inexpensive.  

    Furthermore with Apple's cadence of upgrades I doubt that Microsoft or Intel will catch them anytime soon.


    Without an in-house OS Intel can’t get there, Microsoft, if they stay focus, may be able to get there sometime in the far future, but it would need to carryover to the next CEO at Microsoft, which means it’s doubtful they can get there.
    lolliverKTRwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 37
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,255member
    JP234 said:
    Well, now that they have samples of the M-series chips, it's just a matter of time before they reverse engineer their own using them as templates.
    Depending on what you mean by 'reverse engineer', I wonder if it's even possible. And even if it's possible, I doubt that it's a good use of time/money. 

    Probably better just to figure out how large of a die size you can afford on a given process, what your power and performance goals are, and then start modding a standard ARM design to try and achieve those goals. 


    JP234williamlondonFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 37
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,255member
    It's such a huge indictment of multiple Intel management failures over the past 10-20 years that MS has to do this at all. 

    For reasons of national security, I think it's necessary to try and save Intel. But I think "we" (meaning, I guess, American citizens and policy makers) need to think long and hard about how to try and reduce the chances of something like this from happening again. Intel was a national treasure and these a-holes absolutely plundered it and put their country at risk. I know there are some financial institutions that have been designated as being too important to the financial system to fail, meaning they both get extra protection but also extra oversight/regulation. Maybe we need a similar national security designation for companies that are vitally important to our long term national security to also receive some extra protection but also oversight. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 37
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,400member

    They are a software company. Their name is not MicroHard.
    Didn't they just can all (or most) of their MS branded hardware? Some of it wasn't that bad (now to wash my mouth out with soap)

    Going into SOC development requires lots of $$$$ and a long time. Apple does that sort of long-term investment. It remains to be seen if MS can do the same. 
    I see MS making long terms investments that could benefit Surface and Xbox consoles. But also, they have Azure, which is a large part of their business.  Using their own SoC could help to reduce the cost of the datacenters.
    edited May 2023 FileMakerFeller
  • Reply 10 of 37
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,400member
    danox said:
    emoeller said:
    If Microsoft is just hiring now they have years and years to go before creating their own chips, as Apple has done.  Granted ARM architecture will make things easier for Microsoft, but the process isn't easy or inexpensive.  

    Furthermore with Apple's cadence of upgrades I doubt that Microsoft or Intel will catch them anytime soon.


    Without an in-house OS Intel can’t get there, Microsoft, if they stay focus, may be able to get there sometime in the far future, but it would need to carryover to the next CEO at Microsoft, which means it’s doubtful they can get there.
    I don't think it would take that long for MS.  For example, it took Google about 4 years to release their Tensor processor.  
  • Reply 11 of 37
    techconctechconc Posts: 275member
    The move to ARM and SoCs in particular seems inevitable at this point.  Apple has a huge lead and I doubt Microsoft will ever catch up.  Realistically, all they have to produce is something better than the Qualcomm offerings they are using today.

    Designing chips is easy. Child’s play. Mostly irrelevant.

    What matters is the fabrication process and what yield-cost trade-off Microsoft goes with.
    I hope that was meant as sarcasm because you have that exactly backwards.  The value of Apple’s chips comes from their custom design far more than the manufacturing process they are on.  With enough money, anyone can contract and negotiate to manufacture on the best process.

    blastdoor said:
    It's such a huge indictment of multiple Intel management failures over the past 10-20 years that MS has to do this at all. 

    For reasons of national security, I think it's necessary to try and save Intel. But I think "we" (meaning, I guess, American citizens and policy makers) need to think long and hard about how to try and reduce the chances of something like this from happening again. Intel was a national treasure and these a-holes absolutely plundered it and put their country at risk. I know there are some financial institutions that have been designated as being too important to the financial system to fail, meaning they both get extra protection but also extra oversight/regulation. Maybe we need a similar national security designation for companies that are vitally important to our long term national security to also receive some extra protection but also oversight. 
    It’s really unbelievable that Intel hasn’t pursued the SoC route at least for business laptop customers that prioritize battery life, etc.  They really blew that opportunity.

    As for national security, the US needs domestic manufacturing capabilities far more than they need any IP from Intel’s instruction set or even chip designs.
    lolliverwilliamlondonFileMakerFellerjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 37
    waveparticlewaveparticle Posts: 1,497member
    blastdoor said:
    It's such a huge indictment of multiple Intel management failures over the past 10-20 years that MS has to do this at all. 

    For reasons of national security, I think it's necessary to try and save Intel. But I think "we" (meaning, I guess, American citizens and policy makers) need to think long and hard about how to try and reduce the chances of something like this from happening again. Intel was a national treasure and these a-holes absolutely plundered it and put their country at risk. I know there are some financial institutions that have been designated as being too important to the financial system to fail, meaning they both get extra protection but also extra oversight/regulation. Maybe we need a similar national security designation for companies that are vitally important to our long term national security to also receive some extra protection but also oversight. 
    It is overstretching things without any concrete facts. Will you eve stop this kind of hate mongering, fear mongering? 
    edited May 2023 williamlondon
  • Reply 13 of 37
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member
    I can't see Microsoft ever really being a major player in the ARM-hardware space.  I see Microsoft using whatever Qualcomm ARM chips are available.
    lolliverStrangeDaysjony0watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 37
    techconc said:
    I hope that was meant as sarcasm because you have that exactly backwards.  The value of Apple’s chips comes from their custom design far more than the manufacturing process they are on.  With enough money, anyone can contract and negotiate to manufacture on the best process.
    No sarcasm. Designing chips is easy. It’s just an economics problem rather than a technical one. Chip design is a commodity skill set with a low skill ceiling compared to developing a bleeding-edge node.

    Notice that M2’s performance gain from M1 is exactly the same percent as TSMC’s transistor density increase. It’s all fab process. Design has little to do with it.
  • Reply 15 of 37
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,400member
    sflocal said:
    I can't see Microsoft ever really being a major player in the ARM-hardware space.  I see Microsoft using whatever Qualcomm ARM chips are available.
    I agree with you that MS will not be a major name in the ARM-hardware space.  But they are a major force in the cloud and AI market.  They already showed AI in MS Office, and it looks very good.  And it looks like the next version of Windows will have a lot of AI integration. With their own SoC, MS could improve those experiences.  

    They also offer OpenAI services in Azure, using Nvidia GPU's.  They could reduce a lot of cost with their own SoC.  

    My point is that they don't need to dominate the ARM SoC market.  But having their own custom SoC will help them improve in markets they already dominate.  
    JP234
  • Reply 16 of 37
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,243member
    blastdoor said:
    It's such a huge indictment of multiple Intel management failures over the past 10-20 years that MS has to do this at all. 

    For reasons of national security, I think it's necessary to try and save Intel. But I think "we" (meaning, I guess, American citizens and policy makers) need to think long and hard about how to try and reduce the chances of something like this from happening again. Intel was a national treasure and these a-holes absolutely plundered it and put their country at risk. I know there are some financial institutions that have been designated as being too important to the financial system to fail, meaning they both get extra protection but also extra oversight/regulation. Maybe we need a similar national security designation for companies that are vitally important to our long term national security to also receive some extra protection but also oversight. 
    It is overstretching things without any concrete facts. Will you eve stop this kind of hate mongering, fear mongering? 
    What the hell are you even talking about? America can and should make as many things ourselves as possible. If self reliance equals hate, then I guess I’m a hater too. 
    blastdoorStrangeDaystmaywilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 37
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    hexclock said:
    blastdoor said:
    It's such a huge indictment of multiple Intel management failures over the past 10-20 years that MS has to do this at all. 

    For reasons of national security, I think it's necessary to try and save Intel. But I think "we" (meaning, I guess, American citizens and policy makers) need to think long and hard about how to try and reduce the chances of something like this from happening again. Intel was a national treasure and these a-holes absolutely plundered it and put their country at risk. I know there are some financial institutions that have been designated as being too important to the financial system to fail, meaning they both get extra protection but also extra oversight/regulation. Maybe we need a similar national security designation for companies that are vitally important to our long term national security to also receive some extra protection but also oversight. 
    It is overstretching things without any concrete facts. Will you eve stop this kind of hate mongering, fear mongering? 
    What the hell are you even talking about? America can and should make as many things ourselves as possible. If self reliance equals hate, then I guess I’m a hater too. 
    I don’t know that I agree about Intel being a key component of national security, but hexclock’s  response was so insane I just assumed it was facetious. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 18 of 37
    MadbumMadbum Posts: 536member
    JP234 said:
    Well, now that they have samples of the M-series chips, it's just a matter of time before they reverse engineer their own using them as templates.
    Apple has patented it to death and it’s not that easy.. if it were , the Chinese companies would have done it already. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 37
    waveparticlewaveparticle Posts: 1,497member
    sdw2001 said:
    hexclock said:
    blastdoor said:
    It's such a huge indictment of multiple Intel management failures over the past 10-20 years that MS has to do this at all. 

    For reasons of national security, I think it's necessary to try and save Intel. But I think "we" (meaning, I guess, American citizens and policy makers) need to think long and hard about how to try and reduce the chances of something like this from happening again. Intel was a national treasure and these a-holes absolutely plundered it and put their country at risk. I know there are some financial institutions that have been designated as being too important to the financial system to fail, meaning they both get extra protection but also extra oversight/regulation. Maybe we need a similar national security designation for companies that are vitally important to our long term national security to also receive some extra protection but also oversight. 
    It is overstretching things without any concrete facts. Will you eve stop this kind of hate mongering, fear mongering? 
    What the hell are you even talking about? America can and should make as many things ourselves as possible. If self reliance equals hate, then I guess I’m a hater too. 
    I don’t know that I agree about Intel being a key component of national security, but hexclock’s  response was so insane I just assumed it was facetious. 
    He must be a Putin sympathizer. Russia does not make a lot of things. 
  • Reply 20 of 37
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,255member
    techconc said:
    The move to ARM and SoCs in particular seems inevitable at this point.  Apple has a huge lead and I doubt Microsoft will ever catch up.  Realistically, all they have to produce is something better than the Qualcomm offerings they are using today.

    Designing chips is easy. Child’s play. Mostly irrelevant.

    What matters is the fabrication process and what yield-cost trade-off Microsoft goes with.
    I hope that was meant as sarcasm because you have that exactly backwards.  The value of Apple’s chips comes from their custom design far more than the manufacturing process they are on.  With enough money, anyone can contract and negotiate to manufacture on the best process.

    blastdoor said:
    It's such a huge indictment of multiple Intel management failures over the past 10-20 years that MS has to do this at all. 

    For reasons of national security, I think it's necessary to try and save Intel. But I think "we" (meaning, I guess, American citizens and policy makers) need to think long and hard about how to try and reduce the chances of something like this from happening again. Intel was a national treasure and these a-holes absolutely plundered it and put their country at risk. I know there are some financial institutions that have been designated as being too important to the financial system to fail, meaning they both get extra protection but also extra oversight/regulation. Maybe we need a similar national security designation for companies that are vitally important to our long term national security to also receive some extra protection but also oversight. 
    It’s really unbelievable that Intel hasn’t pursued the SoC route at least for business laptop customers that prioritize battery life, etc.  They really blew that opportunity.

    As for national security, the US needs domestic manufacturing capabilities far more than they need any IP from Intel’s instruction set or even chip designs.
    Exactly — it’s the manufacturing, not the x86 that’s vital to national security. My post wasn’t clear about that. 
    techconcwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.