knowitall
About
- Banned
- Username
- knowitall
- Joined
- Visits
- 170
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 825
- Badges
- 1
- Posts
- 1,648
Reactions
-
Why Apple will move Macs to ARM, and what consumers get
Several things: its about ARM not AMD (x86 is eol), Linux on ARM is very well supported, ARM for servers is already very well established (because of very favourable performance to watt ratio (compared to x86 architectures)), multicore architectures are standard ARM and 8 or more is not a problem at all, MS has windows on ARM so this runs fast on a ARM Mac, an equivalent to Xeon cpus is not at all a problem, Apple can produce the same processor for pads, phones and Macs, only the packaging and software performance settings will be different (also making a small production run of highly specialised processor chips is not that big of a burden), Apple is done with x86 (and rightly so) and will use its own processors from this year on I think.kellingford said:I can't see a move to ARM happening so easily. I think it's more likely that the report is referring to a future iPad, or some sort of Mac-iPad hybrid device - even though Apple has said they're not interested in a hybrid device.
Either the ARM report is true, or the other current rumour (with apparent evidence) that Apple will use AMD x86 processors, is true. I can't see both being true. Why introduce another x86 vendor 1 year before you transition to ARM? Especially since AMD processors would be most useful down the low-end of the Apple Mac platform range, where AMD's APUs (CPU+GPU) provide better performance (at least for graphics) than Intel's offerings. I would think the low-end Mac range would be where an ARM transition would start. Of course, having an AMD Threadripper at the top of the Mac Pro range might be interesting too, but Intel's 8-core CPUs are doing quite nicely at present in the MacBook Pro notebooks.
Also, Windows and Linux on ARM are not well supported yet. If Windows on ARM was compelling, there's be more reason for Apple to move to ARM. Without it, Apple would be disadvantaging lots of folks (me included) who run Windows on their Macs, either in a VM or using BootCamp.
Finally, and I think importantly, moving the Mac to ARM would mean that Apple has to develop a much wider range of "A"-series CPUs. I just can't see Apple producing:- an "A17" for the iPhone
- an "A17X" for the iPad
- an "A17XX" for the MacBook (Pro)
- an "A17XXX" for the iMac
- an "A17XXXX" for the Mac Pro
Either the move to ARM isn't going to happen, and Apple will use CPUs from AMD and Intel and keep each of them on their toes to give the best price and technology, or Apple will split the Mac line into ARM-powered low-end Macs, and higher-end Macs using x86 processors. All the "Pro" users and everyone who wants decent Windows/Linux support will keep using the x86 Macs for the foreseeable future. And the Mac App Store will have to provide ARM or x86 or "fat" binaries, as required.
-
Why Apple will move Macs to ARM, and what consumers get
Current Arm chips are equal or better in performance compared to Intel x86 chips, single or multi (hardware) threading.mham4908 said:The technology for ARM to do the extensive multi-tasking that Intel chips provide does not exist today. Arm chips can only now do very small multi-tasking operations. The technology for ARM is still several years away. The main advantage for Apple is Temperature, always on, non comparability with the open architecture that Intel has, (IE Kill Hackintosh) and MORE PROFIT. The most important for them being the last two. Because we know even with the bargain basement chip that ARM is Apple will not drop their pricing. I am old enough to remember when Mac had a completely closed architecture and sales was probably 1% of what it is today. Moving to Intel allowed them to grow to where they are today. ARM will be the death of Mac. Not Apply but the Mac for sure.
ARM will be Macs biggest breakthrough.
Edit: fixed threading
-
Why Apple will move Macs to ARM, and what consumers get
Cost, it all boils (or cycles) down to cost.tedz98 said:Saying ARM gives Apple control over the hardware/software stack doesn’t really help me understand the benefits of the switch. If Intel wasn’t missing targets would Apple still be doing this? There’s a bumpy road ahead to make the transition. It will be challenging for users. What about Pro level users? Can ARM work for them? Apple has shown they can integrate ARM processors such as the T2 chip into the existing intel platform. Maybe they should be going after graphics first? Or maybe they want seemless app capability across iOS and MacOS? Or maybe they want just a single OS? Any insights from the experts?
Apple can replace a $300 processor with a $30 one while spending a lot less on batteries and active cooling.
Apples (chip) production process and planning is also a lot more reliable and rollout of faster and more capable systems will improve. This means Apple will gain in advantage over PCs and get a lot more buyers, which will reduce production cost even more.
-
Why Apple will move Macs to ARM, and what consumers get
I don't think there is a need for fat binaries.
The App store can handle multi platform binaries by uploading the one corresponding to the requesting OS.
-
Why Apple will move Macs to ARM, and what consumers get
Thats a compilers game, one I know all too well.cpsro said:Non-programmers—and more specifically, people who don't know assembly language—can't appreciate the significance of ARM64's support for twice as many general purpose registers as X64. For most high-level code, with all else being equal, this gives ARM64 a 20-30% speed advantage over X64, without any tweaking, because it avoids the CPU having to access relatively slow caches and main memory so often.
Intel is stuck with X64 and the world is ready to move on.