S|A: (rumour) Apple dumps Intel from laptop lines

[dma0991]

Microsoft is developing Windows 8 for ARM and now Apple wants to go ARM. Sounds plausible but I think it would be more believable if ARM processors have equal or near performance compared to x86. AMD must be regretting not going with ARM when they had the chance. D:

 

[cotak13]

No one makes any money regretting choices. That's in the past you only have to worry about the future.

Windows 8 for ARM is right now what? Shipping? We know nothing about it except that they showed a demo. It could be canceled or simply never released. Microsoft can do that because for them it's just a hedge against the tablets.

I think a switch to ARM is unlikely because they will have to do ton of software work. All just to go to a new UNPROVEN processor. Apple has money but their profitability will tank if they have to spend so much on a new architecture that's unproven. And it's not just the OS, they have to recreate an entire eco system. If Apple was seriously considering ditching x86 and go with ARM they wouldn't have launched the OS X app store. Getting people on board for something lik that then puling the rug out form under them in an architecture switch is a pretty good way to put a lot of your developers out of business.

Also no only do they have to redo their own OS. All their vendors will need to redo drivers. Suddenly all these things people are using on their Macs no longer works. And vendors will take time to do new Mac drivers. Most will decides it's too annoying to do it for old stuff and suddenly Macs are back to when you have to search for stuff like printers etc that'll work with Macs.

Some people point to the supposed convergence of iOS and OS X. I think most people are mistaking what Jobs said. He said that features from the two OS will migrate to each other. He didn't say iOS will become the only OS for apple. And you know what? It's a good reason why it's likely Apple will always have 2 OSes. Your mobile devices are always going to be smaller, slower, have less memory and require different interfaces than a desktop or laptop. Having 1 OS that tries to be everything is as we know from what microsoft tries to do before with windows fraught with pit falls. If you have seen the previews of Lion, or used it, you'd know the moving of iOS like stuff to OS X is exactly what Apple's doing.

 

[Dark Shroud]

Microsoft is developing Windows 8 for ARM and now Apple wants to go ARM. Sounds plausible but I think it would be more believable if ARM processors have equal or near performance compared to x86. AMD must be regretting not going with ARM when they had the chance. D:

Even if AMD had not sold their ARM devision to Qualcom they'd still be a little fish in a big pond. AMD's Bobcat SOCs are more powerful than ARM anyway and will be used in Tablets & other devices. AMD already have OEMs lined up for this.

 

[Dark Shroud]

The first thing I thought of when I heard of this was "There goes bootcamp", but then I remembered that Windows 8 will have an ARM port. Is this a perfect storm we're seeing here?

For consumers no. Switching to ARM would give Apple more control at a new level. Yes you could run Windows 9 with Office on ARM and then that's it. MS hasn't announced any detils or anything about .net running on ARM. So that would leave apps written in Silverlight & web/hosted. We might get Adobe Air & JAVA.

This will also put the hurt on Adobe's OSX software pushing people to Final Cut Pro and Apple's other software.

 

[RobertPters77]

Even if AMD had not sold their ARM devision to Qualcom they'd still be a little fish in a big pond. AMD's Bobcat SOCs are more powerful than ARM anyway and will be used in Tablets & other devices. AMD already have OEMs lined up for this.

I really hope the Fusion projects succeed. I'm also hoping for a sub 5 watt bobcat with atleast half of the c-50's graphics ability.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Normally I would be LOL at the idea of This , But I must say With yesterdays news and than this bit of detective work Kinda makes sense , Alot of sense considering Apples history. In the Arm market Apple commmands Alot of Market share in phones and Tablets.
Some here Look at Intels Announcement and scrath combined heads, Maybe just maybe Intels 22nm ATOM Has alot more to offer than Apple wants to deal with in the market. Intels atom at 45nm right now. Oaktrail 1 core 2 threads 3watts, AT 45nm .

Atom 32 should come in at 1-2 watts single core, The jump to 22 on 3D should give a New Atom multicores Arch . Some real muscle In the ARM segment. I am thinking Apple really doesn't like Intels 22NM tri-gate

 

[dma0991]

Even if AMD had not sold their ARM devision to Qualcom they'd still be a little fish in a big pond. AMD's Bobcat SOCs are more powerful than ARM anyway and will be used in Tablets & other devices. AMD already have OEMs lined up for this.

AMD may have a fighting chance in tablet and ultraportable market. The C-50 and E-350 sells pretty well in netbook and C-50 in tablet form like the Acer Iconia W500. There is still a lot of room of improvement for Bobcat as they shrink to 28nm.

 

[OS]

so their premium pricing on a worse performing platform?

not saying it's impossible, but good luck with that.

 

[jpeyton]

First and foremost, the rumor stipulates that the change wouldn't happen soon. Not in 2011, not in 2012. 2013 is a maybe. A lot can happen to ARM architecture in 3 years. Compare the performance of late-2008 T-Mobile G1 with the late-2011 tablet/phone running a Tegra Kal-El (quad-core Cortex-A9).

Of course, Intel and AMD won't be standing still either. But look at the direction that Apple is increasingly moving towards. Lower power, longer battery life, thinner, lighter, solid state storage (spinning platters/optical discs are going extinct in Cupertino). Apple secretly wants all their laptops to be as thin as the MacBook Air, and all their desktops to be the size of a hockey-puck. Power users be damned. This is a post-PC world now, and Apple is making bank off casual users (just look at iPad sales).

Above all else, Apple is in love with being as vertically integrated as possible. If they can ditch Intel and shove an Apple A32 CPU inside their MacBooks, they will. iOS and OSX are slowly blurring together, and iOS already runs like butter on a lowly Cortex-A8.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Well, it isn't impossible. Apple has switched platforms semi-recently, I could see them doing it again.

They key, in my mind, is going to be if they can get performance up to snuff. (though, to be honest, most mac users don't use their macs for performance intensive tasks.. even a slow ARM might be a reasonable switch).

-1

Um... Photoshop?

Yeah, a lot of Mac users don't use graphics and video processing, so why would they care? (/sarcasm)

Careful with your generalizations, Cowboy. For every Mac user who doesn't care about performance, multiply that 10x on the PC side.

 

[Dadofamunky]

And, um, the so-called rumour is pure Grade-A BS. Charlie's track record is almost nil. He's a carnival barker. And who cares about what happens a couple years from now? That alone should tell you how stupid this idea is. ARM isn't within the same zip code as Intel, performance-wise. Smart phones, sure. But desktop or performance laptop? Cold day in Hell.

 

[Dribble]

First and foremost, the rumor stipulates that the change wouldn't happen soon. Not in 2011, not in 2012. 2013 is a maybe. A lot can happen to ARM architecture in 3 years. Compare the performance of late-2008 T-Mobile G1 with the late-2011 tablet/phone running a Tegra Kal-El (quad-core Cortex-A9).

Of course, Intel and AMD won't be standing still either. But look at the direction that Apple is increasingly moving towards. Lower power, longer battery life, thinner, lighter, solid state storage (spinning platters/optical discs are going extinct in Cupertino). Apple secretly wants all their laptops to be as thin as the MacBook Air, and all their desktops to be the size of a hockey-puck. Power users be damned. This is a post-PC world now, and Apple is making bank off casual users (just look at iPad sales).

Above all else, Apple is in love with being as vertically integrated as possible. If they can ditch Intel and shove an Apple A32 CPU inside their MacBooks, they will. iOS and OSX are slowly blurring together, and iOS already runs like butter on a lowly Cortex-A8.

+1

The world in a few years won't revolve around PC's - it's all about portable. Where as in the past you have your main sales on PC's/laptops and kind of keep a few portable devices on the side that is changing, in the future your portable devices are central, and the odd power user on desktop/laptop goes on the side.

I suspect apple is already at the forefront of this, while we all hear about how well the iPad/iPhone is doing we hear very little about desktops are doing, and I suspect that is because they are doing badly. Even in notebooks you see very few large apple notebooks, most people seem to have little lightweight ones. If your customers want small, light, and thin with a long battery life and don't really seem to care about cpu power or high end games what do you give them?

 

[Blitzvogel]

I'm sure a multicore ARM based SoC (like 8 cores or so @ 1.5 GHz + decent graphics core) could be pretty peppy, if iOS is redesigned to be so parallel. Throw in some form of real dedicated graphics for the Pro line models since those users will expect it, in which case Nvidia would be better suited to such machines.

I wonder though, what all can be done with x86 to cut out legacy features, and go purely 64 bit? Maybe the best solution is too have a single "legacy core" along with newer design cores that are not bound to legacy design?

 

[Arkadrel]

I think it's funny that this comes on the heels of Intel's Tri-Gate announcement......

^this,

I thought intels advanced labs would mean theyd have a chance in smart phones/netbooks now, against ARM.

what happends?

ARM claws its way back, getting ARM in apple laptops makes sense, because of "good enough performance" and battery life.

Apple have always been good about doing the obvious stuff, that alot of others seem to overlook. Getting ARM into laptops is either gonna make them silly rich with money, or end up a catastophy, depending on how apples competitors role out, and how well ARM is able to combat x86.


To me this really does seem like a big gamble, apple is betting BIG on ARM winning.
Now we just gonna wait for 1 of 2 outcomes, epic win or epic fail.

This is also about the "warning bells" Intel needs... Intel DOES NOT need to worry about Ivy Bridge.

MUCH MORE important is that Intel makes a insanely fast Atom, that uses little to no power, and stop ARM invadeing them, or the intire x86 market is eventually gonna die because of it.

I'm sure a multicore ARM based SoC (like 8 cores or so @ 1.5 GHz + decent graphics core) could be pretty peppy, if iOS is redesigned to be so parallel. Throw in some form of real dedicated graphics for the Pro line models since those users will expect it, in which case Nvidia would be better suited to such machines.

I wonder though, what all can be done with x86 to cut out legacy features, and go purely 64 bit? Maybe the best solution is too have a single "legacy core" along with newer design cores that are not bound to legacy design?

Apple has MUCH better relations with AMD.... Nvidia though probably knows ARM better, but not sure if that matters in makeing a GPU.

86x will have to cut some legacy stuff out of it, to combat ARM. With you on that one.

 

[IntelCeleron]

I'm sure a multicore ARM based SoC (like 8 cores or so @ 1.5 GHz + decent graphics core) could be pretty peppy, if iOS is redesigned to be so parallel. Throw in some form of real dedicated graphics for the Pro line models since those users will expect it, in which case Nvidia would be better suited to such machines.

I wonder though, what all can be done with x86 to cut out legacy features, and go purely 64 bit? Maybe the best solution is too have a single "legacy core" along with newer design cores that are not bound to legacy design?

Not that I know what I am talking about.... but I don't see the Pro line going ARM. I imagine that, and maybe the iMac would stay Intel. At least not in the 2013 time frame. I could see maybe a 2014 or 2015 switch. Then again who knows what Apple has planned. Maybe they'd sooner drop the Pro line. Or maybe they plan to, or have planned, a crazy amount of cores ARM processor.

 

[mnewsham]

Not that I know what I am talking about.... but I don't see the Pro line going ARM. I imagine that, and maybe the iMac would stay Intel. At least not in the 2013 time frame. I could see maybe a 2014 or 2015 switch. Then again who knows what Apple has planned. Maybe they'd sooner drop the Pro line. Or maybe they plan to, or have planned, a crazy amount of cores ARM processor.

That's what I was thinking too, I could see a macbook air sort of ARM device in 2013 with other laptop lines following in late 2013 with mac mini and imac in 2014 I can't see the Mac pro moving off intel Xeon's for awhile though. IF this ARM switch does happen I expect years of transition before apple is solely ARM.

 

[ydnas7]

i give the rumor a lot of credence, go to an apple web site, and they describe buying a laptop as the LAST laptop you will buy. to me that says that apple is phasing out laptops with inbuilt keyboards.

so they replace them with super sized iPADs. using a supersized A5, giving apple a supersized profit margin.

i don't think apple particulary liked intels recent process announcements, it threatens their plan.

 

[Arkadrel]

First and foremost, the rumor stipulates that the change wouldn't happen soon. Not in 2011, not in 2012. 2013 is a maybe. A lot can happen to ARM architecture in 3 years. Compare the performance of late-2008 T-Mobile G1 with the late-2011 tablet/phone running a Tegra Kal-El (quad-core Cortex-A9).

Of course, Intel and AMD won't be standing still either. But look at the direction that Apple is increasingly moving towards. Lower power, longer battery life, thinner, lighter, solid state storage (spinning platters/optical discs are going extinct in Cupertino). Apple secretly wants all their laptops to be as thin as the MacBook Air, and all their desktops to be the size of a hockey-puck. Power users be damned. This is a post-PC world now, and Apple is making bank off casual users (just look at iPad sales).

Above all else, Apple is in love with being as vertically integrated as possible. If they can ditch Intel and shove an Apple A32 CPU inside their MacBooks, they will. iOS and OSX are slowly blurring together, and iOS already runs like butter on a lowly Cortex-A8.

^ this

Apples vision is small/thin, and everyday users.
The "iPC" casual users, not the power users.

Differnt visions:

AMD has hetrogenos computeing, with a CPU/GPU mix where its "cores" can do both gpu and cpu tasks. (a GPU+CPU mix (no real cpu or gpu, but a hybrid "core" that is both at once, and adapts to the tasks at hand)

Nvidia has GPUs doing all the heavy work loads, with a small ARM cpu doing rest (why care about your cpu? when you have a GPU).

Intel has the CPU staying a CPU, but with more and more stuff added in it.
Kinda like how quicksync was added. "We need a GPU on same die as the CPU to stay competitive in price?"
"Sure why not, lets add it".

 

[ydnas7]

i can't find it on the apple site now, but this article's headline says it all
http://macdailynews.com/2011/03/30/...acbook-pro-the-last-notebook-youll-ever-need/

 

[Cogman]

-1

Um... Photoshop?

Yeah, a lot of Mac users don't use graphics and video processing, so why would they care? (/sarcasm)

Photoshop is primarily memory intensive, not CPU intensive. (though it can be if you got to the right filters or use the encoder).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/15

Current CPUs can do a lot of very complex tasks in photoshop from 11 to 26 seconds. Unless you are running a custom script (which is possible) you really aren't going to notice too much of a delay increase if the CPU gets slower.

This will not affect hobbyists (the most common photoshop mac users.) the people this will affect are professional photo shoppers and people who do video encoding.

Of course, this is all speculation. I doubt that the macs will just one instant switch over to ARM. More likely, their low ends will switch first and then they will continue to develop ARM until it is fast enough for their high ends.

There is a good reason for apple to do this, it is cheaper than using the x86 arch.

Careful with your generalizations, Cowboy. For every Mac user who doesn't care about performance, multiply that 10x on the PC side.

The ratio for PC users that care about performance is going to be higher. PCs still have a pretty decent gamer market. Couple that with the fact that just about every app that runs on MAC has a PC port and you can quickly see why the PC is going to have a larger percentage of people that care about performance.

That being said, the performance concerned bases for both sides aren't extremely big (in the consumer market).

I base these generalizations off of observation, I don't have any hard numbers to back up my gut feelings. If I sound like I'm trying to be authoritative on the subject I apologize, that wasn't my intent.

 

[Cogman]

^ this

Apples vision is small/thin, and everyday users.
The "iPC" casual users, not the power users.

Differnt visions:

AMD has hetrogenos computeing, with a CPU/GPU mix where its "cores" can do both gpu and cpu tasks. (a GPU+CPU mix (no real cpu or gpu, but a hybrid "core" that is both at once, and adapts to the tasks at hand)

Nvidia has GPUs doing all the heavy work loads, with a small ARM cpu doing rest (why care about your cpu? when you have a GPU).

Intel has the CPU staying a CPU, but with more and more stuff added in it.
Kinda like how quicksync was added. "We need a GPU on same die as the CPU to stay competitive in price?"
"Sure why not, lets add it".

Intel is the #1 seller of GPUs. Their crappy GPUs are everywhere. Their idea was "Lets make something that is good enough for most". They've been following that model for a long time.

As for the visions of the GPU. Nvidia is retarded if they think the GPGPU is going to replace the CPU any time soon (and they have made statements to this affect). Heck, the fact that CUDA is so obscure even after several years of pimping it out should be a big red flag to them.

 

[Cerb]

Also, wouldn't this mean having to port OSX into ARM as well? I don't know what happened when they switched from Power to x86, but is this difficult, or just a non-issue?

No biggie. OS X has been multiplatform since long before it got the userland that got it to become OS X, and it would be moronic of Apple to allow it to get tied to an ISA, like MS has (non-kernel parts of Windows have delayed MS in getting non-x86 versions, which they're finally fixing).

Microsoft is developing Windows 8 for ARM and now Apple wants to go ARM. Sounds plausible but I think it would be more believable if ARM processors have equal or near performance compared to x86.

Well, Apple bought a CPU design company, headed by one of those Alpha guys, to give them ARM SoCs. Apple is not following, but leading. Second, competitive ARMs exist, and will only get better. Competitive with Core i and Phenoms? Not no, but hell no. Competitive with Atoms, and likely Bobcat? Sure thing. It's going to take a little time, but it's happening. Right now, a multicore A9 SoC could be competitive with Atoms, and have unique features included that Apple wants, which Apple can't get with Intel or AMD.

AMD must be regretting not going with ARM when they had the chance. D:

Agreed, here. They could tweak future Radeons for extra low power, and get back into it...but will x86 be good enough?

Disclaimer: I don't have confidence nor lack of confidence in this rumor.

 

[Dribble]

I think it's funny that this comes on the heels of Intel's Tri-Gate announcement......

You are aware of the other rumour going around that Intel fabs will build apple's ARM soc's? Again not so silly - if Intel finally admits x86 isn't the answer for everything then they can move to plan B and start to sell fab space for non-x86 designs. Apple is the obvious customer, they can afford to pay a little more for the best, and are very worried about IP - something Intel can probably protect better then any far eastern company.

 

[sm625]

I think it is more likely that apple is preparing for heterogenous multicore. Using ARM cores whenever possible, and only waking x86 cores when absolutely necessary. The battery savings would be immense. If AMD or Intel do not produce heterogenous multicore in time then they might even put both chips on their mainboard. Why not? MacBook buyers dont care about the added cost, and they could probably make up for that by being able to use a smaller battery. Besides, at 22nm you can get i5-450M performance out of 15 watts. Their target for cpu power consumption in the macbook is probably 5 watts. Together we're only talking 20 watts, and most of the time running strictly ARM-based apps it probably would only be 1 or 2 watts. That gives you under 5 watts average load power consumption. And it would give them a path away from x86 without totally screwing the software community. Of course the absolute best solution for apple (or anybody else) is a llano type fusion apu. 160 SIMDs with 2 ARM cores and 2 x86 cores. Doesnt it seem obvious that this is how a modern cpu should be built? What if apple simply purchased AMD?

 

[IntelCeleron]

You are aware of the other rumour going around that Intel fabs will build apple's ARM soc's? Again not so silly - if Intel finally admits x86 isn't the answer for everything then they can move to plan B and start to sell fab space for non-x86 designs. Apple is the obvious customer, they can afford to pay a little more for the best, and are very worried about IP - something Intel can probably protect better then any far eastern company.

Quite aware. Also semi-fits in with the timeline of it being the A6.