221–230 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually an argument in favor of USB-C, since it's likely that faster versions of the standard will overtake Thunderbolt in the future.
There will be a Thunderbolt 2 which stays a few steps ahead by then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Playstation 4 does this as the south bridge is really just an ARM chip. So I think you are right.
Anyone interested in this should watch the CCC talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AoHGJ1g9aM
The uploader seems to have recorded themselves playing the video and it's missing the start and has buffering issues,
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…
Apple wouldn't need an ARM chip to allow iOS apps to run on Macs. I would think that all iOS apps are already compatible with x86. When a developer writes apps today using Xcode and runs the app in the simulator, they are running an x86 compiled version of their app linked against an x86 version of the iOS framework. It wouldn't be that much of a technical hurdle to polish the experience and officially support fat bi…
Intel based Android devices have an ARM emulator on board (libhoudini) and claim to be ARM when querying the store, in order to not have a software offering disadvantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we'll see an Arm/x86 hybrid, that wouldn't make sense as they're completely different ISAs and they either need to cross translate between them, or dobble compile everything. But a heterogenous CPU certainly does make sense. A super efficient, but not particular fast core for specific tasks that are more or less always running, and the beefy full core for regular work. If it eeks out another 2 hours of…
Too late, Apple already invented that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A10 The A10 is the new chip in the iPhone 7. It has two fast cores and two energy-efficient cores. EDIT: Sorry, "invented" was the wrong word. Apple is already doing that. My point was that the parent's idea isn't new.
ARM already offered this (A7+A15|A17, A53+A57|A72|A73), and Android phones have been using the design for years.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Licensing x86/AMD64 requires licenses from both Intel and AMD, which probably would be quite expensive, even if they can threaten to go ARM otherwise, and engineers with the low-level experience probably are way harder to find than for ARM (where quite a few companies hold various levels of licensing, and Apple likely already has quite a lot of talent inhouse)
> engineers with the low-level experience probably are way harder to find than for ARM Eh, the instruction set doesn't matter that much for modern CPU designers (within reason). Apple's in house expertise came (in part) from their acquisition of P.A. Semi and their PowerPC engineers; Apple it seems immediately redirected them to working on ARM designs. And the Transmeta guys proved that a third party can put out an i…
I think the problem is while ARM is good at lower power the moment you need sustained performance the power requirements shoot up and throttling begins. The flagship ARM A72 and A73 are not adequate for true desktop class performance, somewhat catching up to Intel's low end core u laptop chips. It's increasingly looking like to get x86 level performance ARM would lose its low power advantages. The AMD Zen on the othe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's really interesting how the historical strengths of companies can persist even after decades of evolution. If the people are coming and going, how is this institutionalized success being cultivated and maintained?
Apple isn't going down this road again because it's "in their culture", they're doing it because it puts them at an advantage and because they can. Changing the architecture means changes from the silicon level to the application level; it's not so much about engineering talent as it is controlling the entire stack. Still, 30 years later, Apple is the only company that could pull it off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how I saw it. I did recently discover PA's PPC looking into various implementations of the architecture that might be salvageable. It was quite impressive. Still better specs on 65nm than the Rocket RISC-V that's on 45nm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWRficient EDIT: Funnier is it was used in a desktop for Amiga's (AmigaOne X1000) before acquired by Apple. Had to hurt what little ego the Amiga people had left…
Linked in there was the EE Times article ( http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1168406 ) which refreshed my understanding of the licensing issue. It reads like the Power license they had would have to be re-negotiated with IBM as a transfer if they were to keep selling and making their parts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... or iOS will be graduating up to be the new OS across both mobile and desktop platforms? Earlier today via HN.... http://www.macworld.com/article/3163248/ios/the-future-of-io...
People have been saying this since the inception of iOS; given the trajectory of Cocoa vs UIKit, I don't see much sign of this.