Live data from Hacker News

Macintel: The End Is Nigh

mondaynote.com

91–100 of 156 posts

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#91

From the article: > Because of this excess baggage, an x86 chip needs more > transistors than its ARM-based equivalent, and thus it > consumes more power and must dissipate more heat. This is true but it ignores the primary reality of "desktop class" processor design today: RAM is the bottleneck in a really major way and most of a desktop class CPU's transistors are dedicated to overcoming this. In the ancient days,…

You're actually wrong with regards to the branch prediction. the A7 is (according to anandtech [1]) closest to the "big processor" designs that intel makes with aggressive branch prediction (massive issue width, huge branch prediction buffer, huge caches).

[1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/7910/apples-cyclone-microarchi...

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#92
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, as soon as the guy started saying this I discounted the whole article. Yes, maybe Apple will switch to A7 chips, but this author sure doesn't know enough about processors to have any kind of a privileged viewpoint. If one doesn't even know what uops are, and doesn't have a mental estimate of what percentage of i7 silicon is devoted to the instruction decoder, one doesn't get to write articles comparing Intel to…

> I note the author is Jean-Louis Gassee Yeah, not sure why anyone is interested in what Gassee has to say. He used to be "head of Apple's advanced product development", but was forced out for failing to deliver.[1] Also, he should get the small details right. He claims in the article The x86 nickname used to designate Wintel chips originates from the 8086 processor introduced in 1978 – itself a backward-compatible e…

Gasse is probably better known to HN folks as the head of the BeOS system, which he did after Apple and was very well regarded in its day. In fact it was almost the next Mac OS, but he overpriced the deal.

In addition he has been an excellent writer about technology businesses for years now.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#93

"The aging x86 architecture is beset by layers of architectural silt accreted from a succession of additions to the instruction set... Because of this excess baggage, an x86 chip needs more transistors than its ARM-based equivalent" I wish people would stop saying this. On the inside, x86 CPUs are basically RISC. There is a translation layer from the publicly facing instruction layer to the internal representation. T…

Intel chips even support 16-bit processing. How is that not baggage?

An 8086 had <30k transistors. Haswell is well over a billion. They could add a hundred dedicated 8086 cores to Haswell and you wouldn't notice the difference.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#94
post #5
post #3

For someone who's not very knowledgeable about architecture shifts, what software changes would be require to make this happen? I'd assume that the Mac OSX itself might be able to make the shift easily, given that Swift and ObjC code seems to run on both iOS/ARM devices and MacOS/x386 machines. What else will have to change? Or is this purely a hardware choice?

The fact that iOS shares a lot of the same code as OS X will make this a much easier transition. Apple can take a lot of the low-level stuff from iOS, where they've had years to figure out how to get Darwin working smoothly on ARM. Beyond that, all apps on the OS X app store will have to be recompiled and resubmitted. None of the binaries installed on current OS X machines will still work, unless Apple includes an x8…

  > Beyond that, all apps on the OS X app store will have to be recompiled and resubmitted.
This is one of Apple big benefits from having the App Store (and possible a strategic reason for establishing it) — they can simply tell developers: rebuild for ARM or you're out.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#95
post #26

What would happen to the cost, battery life, and size of an A10-powered MacBook Air? It would be worse in almost every aspect. The cost wouldn't change much, and Apple wouldn't profit much more from the switch. The cited CPU cost is the suggested retail price . Apple's volume lets them negotiate huge discounts. Battery life would go up a bit, but battery life is already pretty good on Apple laptops. My 2013 11" Air g…

You're making the incorrect assumption that apple would in fact emulate. As they control the whole stack, they can (relatively) quickly switch architectures. They'd lose the market that does in fact install windows on mac hardware, though that is likely a negligible niche. So for the vast majority of their customers there would not be a performance penalty. Quite the opposite.

Apple chips are in terms of tech already competitive with anything Intel has to offer [1], though of course currently optimised for mobile. Introduce a dedicated chip for macOS without the heat and power restrictions and Apple won't be chained to intel any more. It will save the extra $50-500 they pay intel for every chip. On top of that, the battery will be smaller/cheaper; it will require fewer external chips as the SoC will incorporate this functionality (also cheaper, more control); the retina graphics will be driven by a chip that is adequately powered and optimised (intels graphics chips are extremely slow): all of the sudden the whole package is extremely compelling.

All you lose is windows compatibility. A small downside to multiple big upsides.

[1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/7910/apples-cyclone-microarchi...

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#96

From the article: > Because of this excess baggage, an x86 chip needs more > transistors than its ARM-based equivalent, and thus it > consumes more power and must dissipate more heat. This is true but it ignores the primary reality of "desktop class" processor design today: RAM is the bottleneck in a really major way and most of a desktop class CPU's transistors are dedicated to overcoming this. In the ancient days,…

Problem here is that you are mixing memory latency and memory bandwidth together. We have memory that can easily sustain 16 simultaneous cores in bandwidth (and honestly, memory bandwidth potential is mostly untapped - you only see higher bandwidth benefits for integrated GPUs because they have many more execution units demanding more data).

Meanwhile, the latency has been getting worse. The refresh rates increasing abates it slightly but all the indirection to make high bandwidth ram, plus the commoditization of ram to make high capacity rather than "fast" (transitor only memory like cache shows what is possible for orders of magnitude more complexity and cost).

Adding more cores doesn't impact that latency at all, it just demands more bandwidth. If anything, the diminishing returns of what Intel has done - dedicating a lot of per-core die to prediction just to throw away computations because the per core power is too high - make less sense than just putting a lot more dumb cores on the die.

But then you get GPUs. Shitty latency, huge bandwidth, huge flops, terrible context switching, etc.

It is worth mentioning that both sides of the equation are doing the same thing, though. RAM makers are dedicating a majority of the silicon on ram modules to controllers to accelerate lookup, rather than actual capactive storage.

For the average user, you don't need that hugely complex Haswell logic. Tablet class performance for the web, office suites, and even programming sans compiling are all perfectly competent. If we wrote better software that utilized all the available cores sooner, we would have gone down the route of 16 - 32 core main CPUs instead of extreme precomputation. That has a lot more potential performance, but it requires the software to use it.

ARM is kind of uniquely poised to do that as well. Most of its ecosystem is fresh, it went through an extremely fast multicore expansion, and its architecture lends itself to more cores instead of trying the "dedicate everything to offsetting slow memory" problem. If software architects started writing their programs to be core-variable as possible, ARM might be the first realistic platform to break consumer 16 core computing, because the Windows world is frozen in time.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#97
This is a horribly low-quality article. The central proposition is entirely analyst speculation, with no actual information to hook it onto that doesn't date back years. The author appears, from how he gets details subtly wrong, not to actually know anything about the history of CPUs (and not to have bothered e.g. checking Wikipedia).

There is nothing here that is backed-up news whatsoever.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#98
post #95
post #26

What would happen to the cost, battery life, and size of an A10-powered MacBook Air? It would be worse in almost every aspect. The cost wouldn't change much, and Apple wouldn't profit much more from the switch. The cited CPU cost is the suggested retail price . Apple's volume lets them negotiate huge discounts. Battery life would go up a bit, but battery life is already pretty good on Apple laptops. My 2013 11" Air g…

You're making the incorrect assumption that apple would in fact emulate. As they control the whole stack, they can (relatively) quickly switch architectures. They'd lose the market that does in fact install windows on mac hardware, though that is likely a negligible niche. So for the vast majority of their customers there would not be a performance penalty. Quite the opposite. Apple chips are in terms of tech already…

No. You also lose compatibility with every game and most major applications like Adobe, since all of these use lots of highly optimized, handwritten assembler code for critical sections, as well of all code paths using x86 vector instructions or other hw acceleration.

Thanks but no thanks.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#99

The real weakness of Intel in power consumption relative to ARM hasn't been so much in the chips as the chip sets, software and the balance-of-system. To create a low power system, ALL components need to be low power, and it is easier to start from a system built to be low power and scale up capabilities rather than go the other way around. For instance, I have a Windows-based laptop which is a great machine, but if…

To me it seems mostly a problem of unwalled garden. When Apple owns the platform from the silicon to the development environment, it's easier for them to manage power. Wintel on the other hand has so much variety all the way down the software stack and even into hardware, it is more difficult to control... x86+Linux (Lintel?) suffers the same problem. The unwalled garden can still be made low power. Android has set a…

If you think Android isn't a walled garden (unless you mean non-Google Android?) then the devil has convinced you he doesn't exist.

Re: Macintel: The End Is Nigh

#100
I'm saddened that nobody ever brings up video games when talking about these architectural shifts. Practically all PC games in the past few decades have been written for x86, and most of them will never be patched for ARM compatibility. These games are as important to many of us as movies or music, and yet I fear they're destined to disappear from our cultural memory if this shift ever happens. Virtualization just won't cut it; most modern games barely even run with Wine, to say nothing of performance. And given the slowing of Moore's law, we can no longer count on emulation to give us seamless reproductions a few years down the line. Does nobody care? Why doesn't anyone say anything? I love my Mac, but if I have to choose between ARM and my Steam library, I'll choose Steam and begrudgingly go back to whatever Windows version still supports it.

On a related note, I think it's important to differentiate between utility software that's assumed to be temporary, and one-off pieces of software that are intended to live forever. I wish there was an easier way to write software in such a way that it can easily be guaranteed to run in the future, no matter the architecture. (Open source is not a guarantee. Ever try compiling the source to a AAA game?)

Post reply on HN