Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 263 posts

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

#51

Post by [deleted] »

wmf wrote: post #26
mmastrac wrote: post #9

I think that in the long run you'll see a hybrid ARM/x64 Mac sharing the same case in the same way we have hybrid graphics. If you look at most of the processes running on a Mac, how many of those need to be running on the power-hungrier Intel chip? You could easily offload much of the kernel, Dock, compositor, Twitter desktop, etc to a lower-power ARM. In the case where you aren't running any x64 apps, you could the…

This sounds incredibly kludgey and at odds with Apple's de-investment in macOS. (As in "reduced investment", not "divestment".) Adding massive complexity to eke out another hour or two of battery life seems like a poor choice when there are so many things to be fixed in the OS.

[deleted]

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

#53

Post by sorenjan »

mmastrac wrote: post #9

I think that in the long run you'll see a hybrid ARM/x64 Mac sharing the same case in the same way we have hybrid graphics. If you look at most of the processes running on a Mac, how many of those need to be running on the power-hungrier Intel chip? You could easily offload much of the kernel, Dock, compositor, Twitter desktop, etc to a lower-power ARM. In the case where you aren't running any x64 apps, you could the…

Why doesn't Intel include an Atom core on their CPUs as a next level speed step, like ARMs big.little? It has to be much easier to keep both the high and low power parts the same architecture.

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

#54

Post by 5ilv3r »

danjoc wrote: post #7

>Is it IBM compatible though? Man, I hated hearing that question. It was so utterly retarded, but trying to explain to the person who asked why it was a retarded thing to say always came off as damage control. >Yep, not IBM compatible. Not interested. Maybe Apple can get away with their own chips now. It sounds like they just want to take more R&D away from Mac though. "Just stick an A10 in it."

The need for IBM PC compatibility has been dead longer than software sold in boxes. Longer than compaq has been gone. Longer than USB has been a thing. Longer than current CS students have been alive, even!

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

#55

Post by pvg »

astrodust wrote: post #17
alrs wrote: post #13

There's always a hedge afoot. Apple had OS 7 running on Intel as early as 1992. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project

NeXT had an Intel version as a hedge as well. Seems those two projects were destined to merge together.

That was actually their product rather than a 'hedge' for a while.

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

#56

Post by jahnu »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #27
mmastrac wrote: post #9

I think that in the long run you'll see a hybrid ARM/x64 Mac sharing the same case in the same way we have hybrid graphics. If you look at most of the processes running on a Mac, how many of those need to be running on the power-hungrier Intel chip? You could easily offload much of the kernel, Dock, compositor, Twitter desktop, etc to a lower-power ARM. In the case where you aren't running any x64 apps, you could the…

There already are ARM chips in the new MBPRs, for example - the touchbar and touch ID with its secure enclave runs on ARM. I could easily foresee them putting in more powerful ARM chips and offloading some tasks to them.

Hope it's less crashy/buggy in the future than my current touchbar :/

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

#58

Post by wmf »

r00fus wrote: post #45
wmf wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds incredibly kludgey and at odds with Apple's de-investment in macOS. (As in "reduced investment", not "divestment".) Adding massive complexity to eke out another hour or two of battery life seems like a poor choice when there are so many things to be fixed in the OS.

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

That's not what the article is talking about and it's a bad idea for UX reasons (no touchscreen).

And who's to say that macOS.next will be anything similar to the current macOS?

Don't even go there; a vocal minority of Mac users including me do not want anything like that. And getting back to the article, if the OS is radically different then presumably it doesn't need both Intel and ARM processors.

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

#59

Post by astrodust »

pvg wrote: post #55
astrodust wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NeXT had an Intel version as a hedge as well. Seems those two projects were destined to merge together.

That was actually their product rather than a 'hedge' for a while.

It started out as a hedge against their own hardware being an impediment to sales, then ended up being their entire business. I guess it was a good hedge to have!

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

#60

Post by throwawayish »

dbalan wrote: post #24
Kenji wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that complicate the mainboard design vastly? Memory & caching, clocks & time, concurrency, etc.

Both CPUs are connected with a PCI bus and as far as the main SOC is concerned its a bunch of peripherals on PCI https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-7946-console_hacking_2016

The CPUs run different OSes and there is no ability to move tasks between them; this is rather unlike a hybrid or "big.LITTLE" approach.
Post reply on HN