Live data from Hacker News

Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

bloomberg.com

171–180 of 263 posts

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Divestment is an oversimplification of the direction Apple seems to be taking the Mac. Consolidation would be a better term: trying to prune the product line into a lineup of hits and nothing else, often to the exclusion of non-mainstream (professional) users. So the test to apply is: will this enable a headline feature? In this case, if it lets Apple put a significantly bigger battery life number on the product page…

I mean, I'm not a fan of the new MBP myself, but I don't think they're ignoring professional users. Didn't their MBP sales go UP?

There was pent-up demand from people who had been holding off buying the old model....

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#172
post #136
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so? A Mac is a very high ASP item - why not, for example allow iOS apps to run in macOS (using the ARM processor). Ultimately, the 2016 MBPs are a great example of why Apple needs to divest from Intel. The poor timing for Kaby Lake mobile processors and lack of low-power RAM were both Apple's reasons stated when the topic of "the MBP isn't keeping up with the competition" arises. And who's to say that macOS.next…

> why not, for example allow iOS apps to run in macOS Never say never, but that is the sort of thing Apple would never do.

I believe the Touch Bar on new MacBook Pros is a modularized component running a version of iOS on ARM.

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#173
post #155

I often wonder why Apple doesn't purchase something like AMD. They could design their own x64 chips and GPU's.

AMD's license for the parts of x64 owned by Intel is conditioned on AMD not getting sold. The license wouldn't be transferrable to the buyer.

(So, yeah, AMD could do their own slightly-different chip, using just the bits and bobs that are strictly theirs.)

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Ben Thompson had the best take on this. Something was fucked up bad in the product, and they aren't budgeted to make the necessary capital investment so soon to dig out a marginal product that nobody buys anyway.

> [...] to dig out a marginal product that nobody buys anyway I wonder if they could expand the Pro desktop to be for serious gamers as well as dev's, videographers, animators etc. It'd be interesting to see what Razor and Alienware make on their systems - could it be enough to justify a presence in the high-end desktop market? As for bringing gamers to the platform, Apple already has experience with this...from the…

> It would come down to whether there's money to be made in the area, and I suspect most serious gamers build their own systems.

Spot on. The ultra-performance professionals and the big-spending gamers often do their own builds and then keep upgrading them.

Apple has always seen itself more of a sealed-box consumer appliance supplier, basically de-skilling computing.

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#175
post #173
post #155

I often wonder why Apple doesn't purchase something like AMD. They could design their own x64 chips and GPU's.

AMD's license for the parts of x64 owned by Intel is conditioned on AMD not getting sold. The license wouldn't be transferrable to the buyer. (So, yeah, AMD could do their own slightly-different chip, using just the bits and bobs that are strictly theirs.)

Is x64 owned by Intel? How much of the x86 stuff would Apple need?

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#176
post #173
post #155

I often wonder why Apple doesn't purchase something like AMD. They could design their own x64 chips and GPU's.

AMD's license for the parts of x64 owned by Intel is conditioned on AMD not getting sold. The license wouldn't be transferrable to the buyer. (So, yeah, AMD could do their own slightly-different chip, using just the bits and bobs that are strictly theirs.)

I thought that deal goes both ways, AMD also licensing important parts of AMD64/x86_64 to Intel, so both sides would have a strong interest in keeping it alive in some form.

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#177

It has been interesting to watch the ARM ecosystem unfold. Sort of like seeing a levy breach where just a trickle of water starts flowing over it and then more and more and more. Apple has the resources and the motivation to build a "desktop" 64 bit ARM processor. The history here is also interesting. After debuting the Macintosh in 1984, and getting into fights with Motorola over what should be in the next generatio…

Apple didn't adopt PowerPC after fighting with Motorola and it was no shock to Motorola, or the world. Motorola and Apple and IBM worked together on PowerPC in a consortium, after the Motorola 88000 RISC (which Apple also tried) failed for various reasons. This was all in the exiled-Jobs years while Apple was thrashing about trying to build a real operating system (or systems) to replace classic Mac OS. (NeXT also pl…

Yes. In fact, the Newton was the reason ARM was formed as a separate company. The chip design was originally done by Acorn (using VTI tools). When the ARM operation was spun out of Acorn under joint ownership (Acorn, Apple and VTI), they changed the A from Acorn to Advanced.

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#178
post #67
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was mostly painless. Vast majority of applications provided an Intel binary right away without many issues. Rosetta wasn't too terrible for simple tasks for the rest of them.

Rosetta was mostly painless because the raw performance of the Intel chips were multiples of the G4 chips in the macs (especially considering most systems doubled the available core count). Even so Creative Suite was slower as high performance plugins used altivec which was not emulated. This wasn't an issue for compatibility as the G3's never had it, so almost every app had non altivec code paths. The overhead was m…

Performance per watt is pretty good on ARM. Most performance these days is about IO. How fast is the memory subsystem?

There are intel chips with 400 gigs per second memory subsystems. But the cores run at around 1.4ghz. Even a single thread with that much memory bandwidth can be much faster. Likewise with cache. If you have 32MB of cache, you can do quite a lot more processing in cache, and be lots faster for many things.

Considering that macbookpro laptops haven't really gotten better single thread performance in years - the things that really matter are IO, and performance within the power/heat budget.

ARM is competitive now within the macbook power requirements. The A10 chip is 75% as fast as the i7-6600U in some single core benchmarks. At a much lower power budget.

Within the chromebook space, where ARM and Intel laptops are currently competing - Intel often produces faster laptops. However, they are also often more expensive. Lots of people in many-many reviews say their ARM based chomebooks are too slow.

Having been through the raspberrypi 1,2,3 performance leaps, I can say that the latest one is quite usable as a desktop machine for word processing, web browsing and media playing.

The Samsung Chromebook plus with ARM is shipping, and the one with Intel isn't yet. The ARM one is cheaper, and the intel one is apparently more performant. Both have a similar battery life. The ARM one has better support of android apps. GUI app development is now 10x more active on ARM compared to intel, and the apps are optimized more for ARM.

GPU performance is improving faster on mobile chipsets than Intel is improving. Because of the demand from mobile VR applications. Some are predicting performance will be faster than laptops in a mobile power budget this year (see ARM Mali-G71). It's even faster than some nvidia discrete mobile chipsets. Since many apps are performance limited by the GPU, and not the CPU, I'd say ARM chipsets will win for many users low-mid users this year.

ARM is already taking over the low end laptop market. I won't be at all surprised if they take the mid range market by the end of the year. Especially as the market for chromebooks, and the low end laptops picks up. Because then more laptop class ARM based chips will go into production.

I think the demand will be there, as the android using market also want to use laptops that sync better with their apps.

[ED: add note about high performance ARM chips coming] High performance ARM chips are coming to super computers. The Post-K super computer by Fujitsu is expected to be one of the fastest computers in the entire world. If not the fastest. Will ARM take the super computer performance crown? I think so.

Re: Apple Said to Work on Mac Chip That Would Lessen Intel Role

#180
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's time to start fresh with a new architecture if they want to maintain their reputation of having the most powerful technology. They tried that, though. It was called Itanium and it went nowhere. Now, Itanium had all kinds of other problems and I wouldn't call its failure incontrovertible evidence against "Intel should make a new architecture", but I can understand why the company isn't eager to try that again.…

> It was called Itanium and it went nowhere. It was popular in its intended niche (HPC) for a while, but the value proposition was not sufficient. It dropped some x86 baggage but it didn't add anything fundamentally superior on top of it -- the ILP could easily be attained by having more cores on x86. To be honest I actually really like what they did with Itanium, but it wasn't a good enough innovation to break off t…

It wasn't intended to be a niche product. That was just how it ended up....
Post reply on HN