[AppleInsider] Apple may abandon Intel for its Macs starting with post-Broadwell

[NTMBK]

But why all that fpu power? It makes no sense in mobile.

Games.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Yeaa i saw the linked in profile and the bragging about ares. But why all that fpu power? It makes no sense in mobile.

If you want to move your cores up the value chain beyond traditional mobile, FPU perf is important.

That, and, as NTMBK points out, games

At any rate, these folks at ARM are delivering more impressive cores each generation. It's exciting to watch!

 

[krumme]

Games.

Good guess. But the a72 fpu seems to far outweight the gpu perf relative to consoles. But the relevance starts if we se more cross platform with mobile and consoles/pc using vulcan like api? (it seems to be all btw lol)

 

[Fjodor2001]

https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/4422-apple-leaks-chip-sources.html

"Apple iPad & Mac, A9X order allocation, 2015: TSMC 16 nm FinFET, 100%"
"Apple iPad & Mac, A10X order allocation, 2016: Samsung 10 nm FinFET, 100%"

I.e. Apple Mac migrates from x86 to ARM if this proves to be correct.

PS. And yeah, also posted in another thread, but probably even more relevant in this one.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Lets see what KGI Research thougth a roadmap would be.

Not to mention their complete iPad 5 blunder:

So I wouldnt take it too serious. They are after all just guessing.

 

[Fjodor2001]

So some of the stuff was released a bit later (e.g. 12" MBA in 2015Q1 instead of 2014Q3, due to Intel 14 nm being delayed), but otherwise their roadmap proved to be correct to a large degree.

So maybe we won't see Apple transitioning from x86 to ARM in 2015, but 2016 instead. The important question is whether or not they eventually intend to do that. Signs are pointing in that direction.

 

[dahorns]

So some of the stuff was released a bit later (e.g. 12" MBA in 2015Q1 instead of 2014Q3, due to Intel 14 nm being delayed), but otherwise their roadmap proved to be correct to a large degree.

So maybe we won't see Apple transitioning from x86 to ARM in 2015, but 2016 instead. The important question is whether or not they eventually intend to do that. Signs are pointing in that direction.

So... you're thinking that a product roadmap for 2015 that lists Macs being powered by the A9x wouldn't have also included the just announced Broadwell powered models?

I mean, if any Mac was going to feature Apple's in-house processor, you'd think it would be the newly released MacBook. Or at least I think that.

 

[Fjodor2001]

So... you're thinking that a product roadmap for 2015 that lists Macs being powered by the A9x wouldn't have also included the just announced Broadwell powered models?

I mean, if any Mac was going to feature Apple's in-house processor, you'd think it would be the newly released MacBook. Or at least I think that.

I'm seeing the Roadmap indicating Mac on ARM (since it's A*X chip and not fabbed by Intel). Whether it'll happen in 2015 or later is another story. But given the indications, it's not too far way.

 

[witeken]

But given the indications, it's not too far way.

Confirmation bias.

 

[dahorns]

I'm seeing the Roadmap indicating Mac on ARM (since it's A*X chip and not fabbed by Intel). Whether it'll happen in 2015 or later is another story. But given the indications, it's not too far way.

My point was that in order to believe that roadmap is actually from Apple, you'd have to believe that it didn't list Intel as a supplier for its mac processors at all. That includes not only the new MacBook (the only likely candidate to be replaced by arm), but also things like desktop Macs and the MacBook Pro.

Clearly Intel is supplying processors for these devices. And clearly Intel will keep providing processors for the high end MacBook Pros and Mac desktop models.

So... if that roadmap is real, why wasn't Intel listed at all?

My conclusion - the roadmap is not real and lacks any credibility.

 

[Fjodor2001]

I don't think that's the right conclusion. If Apple A9/A9X was already released, then yes maybe. But it isn't.

Here's what Tom's say about it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-a9-a9x-16nm-finfet,28748.html

So once the A9X is released, we'll know. The roadmap indicates that once it's released, it'll be ARM. And it'll go into Mac's.

 

[dahorns]

I don't think that's the right conclusion. If Apple A9/A9X was already released, then yes maybe. But it isn't.

Here's what Tom's say about it:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-a9-a9x-16nm-finfet,28748.html

So once the A9X is released, we'll know. The roadmap indicates that once it's released, it'll be ARM. And it'll go into Mac's.

And once again, you're going to have to believe it'll replace ALL of Intel's processors. That's what the roadmap says. That isn't happening.

Further, the roadmap is for the full year. Presumably, the A9 is coming out this fall. So the A9 will be here, and Intel will still have provided processors for (1) all of Mac desktop models, (2) MacBook air and pro, and (3) the new MacBook. You'd think instead of having a big 'ole zero under Intel in the chart, there would be some number that would account for the substantial number of chips Intel is providing.

Apple may very well put the A9 or the A10 in some of its Mac products. But, this article isn't evidence of that. It is nothing but baseless speculation.

I mean hell, it isn't like Apple is late with the A9 or anything. If this roadmap were ever real, why would it be different from reality? Seems like everything has gone to plan for Apple. And I imagine if that plan included completely replacing Intel in 2015, we'd have seen that already.

 

[Fjodor2001]

And once again, you're going to have to believe it'll replace ALL of Intel's processors. That's what the roadmap says. That isn't happening.

That could be the case. But article isn't saying that definitely. It's only saying that Mac A9X and A10X will be on TSMC/Samsung 16/14 nm, implying Mac on ARM. It doesn't say that there wont be x86 Macs in parallel.

 

[dahorns]

That could be the case. But article isn't saying that definitely. It's only saying that Mac A9X and A10X will be on TSMC/Samsung 16/14 nm, implying Mac on ARM. It doesn't say that there wont be x86 Macs in parallel.

The article is based on the table titled "Apple AP & Baseband Suppliers and Order Allocation in 2015F - 2016F" from KGI research. You have to start with the table and ask whether what it says makes sense. The article itself is nothing but speculation based on the table, so what it says hardly seems relevant.

 

[Fjodor2001]

From the article:

"Take a look at the figure below and tell me this information did not come from inside Apple. I can assure you it did.
[...]
This spicy little piece of information comes from the SemiWiki Semiconductor Process Technology Forum by the way. SemiWiki has always been about crowdsourcing and you will not find a better semiconductor crowd than on SemiWiki.com, absolutely."

Sure you can never know for sure, but to call it "just speculation" is not correct.

 

[Idontcare]

https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/4422-apple-leaks-chip-sources.html

"Apple iPad & Mac, A9X order allocation, 2015: TSMC 16 nm FinFET, 100%"
"Apple iPad & Mac, A10X order allocation, 2016: Samsung 10 nm FinFET, 100%"

I.e. Apple Mac migrates from x86 to ARM if this proves to be correct.

PS. And yeah, also posted in another thread, but probably even more relevant in this one.

Your source couldn't even get the A9 production mix correct, and that product is ramping for mass production right now. They could have literally interviewed any number of roughly 1-2 thousand factory engineers across the eco-system and have known what the A9 situation is like.

So if they can't even get the most nearest term stuff right, what are the odds these guys are pulling from sources that know jack squat about what is happening in 2016?

Credible? Credibility isn't something that you get to have until you are proven wrong, its something you don't have until you prove yourself to be right. These guys haven't proven themselves right about anything, that is what the phrase "no credibility" means.

 

[avAT]

I was trying to talk myself out of replying to this, but I'm confused about what we're talking about. Are we trying to say that table is a new leak? That table is speculation based on KGI's research and was published 2 months ago. I read multiple articles containing that table back in January. Actually, this whole thread was created to comment on an AppleInsider post containing that exact table. Maybe I'm not following.

That said, as someone who believes ARM Macs only make sense and is pretty excited about it.. I'm happy the the topic is alive

There are a couple rumors of a new Apple TV box this year w/ gaming. What might that CPU look like? Would be nice if Apple adopted the PowerVR GT7900 this year.

 

[stuff_me_good]

What is the difference between all those X's and non X's? Like A9 vs. A9X? Are we talking about some serious performance advantage for X or just few measly percents?

 

[Ruiner1]

Even if this roadmap is accurate, it pretty much only talks about where Apple is going to get their Ax series CPUs from. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a separate Intel-based roadmap as well. Hell, iPad and Mac might be on the same line because they share some internal business structure - it might just be the name for the purchasing unit! We don't know and this doesn't tell us anything about any potential future Intel displacement.

 

[podspi]

What is the difference between all those X's and non X's? Like A9 vs. A9X? Are we talking about some serious performance advantage for X or just few measly percents?

Depends on the SoC, but typically X has a higher TDP, more CPU/GPU cores, etc.

 

[Idontcare]

What is the difference between all those X's and non X's? Like A9 vs. A9X? Are we talking about some serious performance advantage for X or just few measly percents?

The X's go into ipads, non-X's go into the iphones. There's your product placement and performance differential.

 

[scannall]

The X's go into ipads, non-X's go into the iphones. There's your product placement and performance differential.

A little more than that. The A8x has 3 cores vs 2 for the A8. And twice as many GPU cores. 8 vs 4.

 

[Idontcare]

A little more than that. The A8x has 3 cores vs 2 for the A8. And twice as many GPU cores. 8 vs 4.

Of course, I was implying stuff_me_good could go look at any number of iPhone6 and iPad Air 2 reviews to see what the performance difference is, as well as the delta in IC layout as that will be covered in just about any review they find.

 

[scannall]

Of course, I was implying stuff_me_good could go look at any number of iPhone6 and iPad Air 2 reviews to see what the performance difference is, as well as the delta in IC layout as that will be covered in just about any review they find.

I should know better than to reply at 4 AM, before coffee. ;-)

Back to the point of the entire thread. It doesn't make economic sense to go ARM for their Mac lines. While it's certainly possible to design a desktop/laptop strength ARM chip, it isn't cheap. Designing their own SOC's for mobile only makes sense because of the volume they have to spread it out over. To design a CPU for desktops, and the Mac Pro line for example just doesn't have the volume to justify the expense.

While I'm sure there is a certain level of frustration with Intel over shipping dates, about the most I see with these ARM rumors is to use it as a lever to negotiate with Intel some more.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Your source couldn't even get the A9 production mix correct, and that product is ramping for mass production right now.

Not sure what you mean. Please clarify.