[SeekingAlpha] Cherry Trail not ramping until March 2015

[krumme]

This is true but I am assuming you hold everything else constant (same GPU, modem, etc.)

Clearly there is cost to Intel the that eg Rockchip dont have. We are talking 4b a year loss. And my guess a huge part of the loss is due to variable cost - as Intel will probably want to lipstick the bad results by moving cost to the more fixed side (eg development ressources and support not easily classified). Whatever the reason its so bad there is probably a multitude of challenges. And it is damn straightforward to look at the products production cost as one of the factors. There is no reason to hide for the most straightforward explanations.

 

[beginner99]

I would be really surprised if the 2016 macbook air is still using an intel chip.

It will. Else they would have to re-validate all macbook software on ARM. And doing that just for the mac book air is sure too expensive while also loosing performance. I also highly doubt they will move all macs to ARM. Intel big core is just way, way ahead of the competition and macs are commonly used in quiet CPU demanding areas.

 

[witeken]

An ARM chip will simply be a lot slower and power hungry. In 2016, FinFET will be old technology. Apple can impossibly beat an updated Skylake architecture built on Intel's 10nm post-silicon process with clock speeds beyond 3GHz and a top-notch Gen10 GPU architecture. Maybe Apple could make the Macbook Air cheaper with an ARM CPU (although I wonder if that's still the case if the other costs are factored in) because that would actually be a downgrade, but isn't that necessary anyway even today with its cheap low-resolution TN panel?

 

[Ajay]

It will. Else they would have to re-validate all macbook software on ARM. And doing that just for the mac book air is sure too expensive while also loosing performance. I also highly doubt they will move all macs to ARM. Intel big core is just way, way ahead of the competition and macs are commonly used in quiet CPU demanding areas.

^This. And the the likelihood that the replacement ARM CPU would be under powered for something like Apple's Rosetta or LLVM. The OS is probably already testing under ARM - just in case (just as IOS is almost certainly already being tested on x86).

An ARM chip will simply be a lot slower and power hungry. In 2016, FinFET will be old technology. Apple can impossibly beat an updated Skylake architecture built on Intel's 10nm post-silicon process with clock speeds beyond 3GHz and a top-notch Gen10 GPU architecture. Maybe Apple could make the Macbook Air cheaper with an ARM CPU (although I wonder if that's still the case if the other costs are factored in) because that would actually be a downgrade, but isn't that necessary anyway even today with its cheap low-resolution TN panel?

And ^This! A Cannonlake 'Core M' SoC will likely crush a 20nm FF ARM SoC in perf/watt. [Though I think you meant "Apple can't possibly..."]

Well stated by the both of you.

 

[monstercameron]

^This. And the the likelihood that the replacement ARM CPU would be under powered for something like Apple's Rosetta or LLVM. The OS is probably already testing under ARM - just in case (just as IOS is almost certainly already being tested on x86).



And ^This! A Cannonlake 'Core M' SoC will likely crush a 20nm FF ARM SoC in perf/watt. [Though I think you meant "Apple can't possibly..."]

Well stated by the both of you.

does it matter if it crushes it or that apple have more margin on a good enough performing product?

 

[frozentundra123456]

does it matter if it crushes it or that apple have more margin on a good enough performing product?

Apple is a premium product, or at least they cultivate that image. Cant see them having to rework all their software and use a second rate chip.

 

[monstercameron]

Apple is a premium product, or at least they cultivate that image. Cant see them having to rework all their software and use a second rate chip.

isnt that the situation they have had in the phone and tablet space? nearly all of their competitors have higher performing socs but that doesnt really matter.

 

[frozentundra123456]

isnt that the situation they have had in the phone and tablet space? nearly all of their competitors have higher performing socs but that doesnt really matter.

No, because they were first to dominate the market, and part of the appeal of their products is the software. Same for the macbooks, but a big part of the appeal is the ability to run x86 software. We all have seen one bastardized version of windows fail (win RT), would they want to risk another? Plus with Intel processors you can dual boot to windows.

 

[monstercameron]

No, because they were first to dominate the market, and part of the appeal of their products is the software. Same for the macbooks, but a big part of the appeal is the ability to run x86 software. We all have seen one bastardized version of windows fail (win RT), would they want to risk another? Plus with Intel processors you can dual boot to windows.

all fair points but what about the mba platform? is windows useful feature on such a low power platform?

 

[Homeles]

isnt that the situation they have had in the phone and tablet space? nearly all of their competitors have higher performing socs but that doesnt really matter.

We're talking about Apple's situation, right? Apple's arguably the best right now.

 

[Arachnotronic]

isnt that the situation they have had in the phone and tablet space? nearly all of their competitors have higher performing socs but that doesnt really matter.

In what sense? Apple's A7 and A8 provide superb power-constrained performance and implement the functionality required to service the phone's features.

 

[cbn]

It will. Else they would have to re-validate all macbook software on ARM. And doing that just for the mac book air is sure too expensive while also loosing performance. I also highly doubt they will move all macs to ARM.

I don't think changing ISAs is something Apple would be afraid to do.

Prior to 2006, All macs were using Power PC after all.

So I think the question is not will Apple change ISAs, but when will they change ISAs?

Refining their ARM processor to be both high frequency and high IPC while maintaining good performance per watt will take time. But I would assume Apple is viewing the work as worth the effort since they would have full control of all the hardware features on their most high end products (MacIntosh).

Okay, now with that out of the way.....What does Intel do to counter this eventuality?

Does Intel begin to promote big core in ways they never did in the past? Maybe instead of four small cores in some SOCs we begin to see a single big core (with hyperthreading enabled)? (ie, a smaller version of Core M with all (or most) of the big core features enabled (AVX feature sets, etc))

 

[Qwertilot]

Keep Apple happy mostly, so lots of IGP, which they're already doing of course

Far from inevitable they will go. With the iphone/pad etc they're selling truly huge numbers, with lots of yearly upgraders too. So they can spread the R&D over those and it would be a huge surprise for things to change.

Also of course, given how small a percentage of the Ax processors is pure CPU, they'd need to do tons of work even if using off the shelf processor cores.

In comparison they really don't sell that many macs.

 

[NTMBK]

In comparison they really don't sell that many macs.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...ive-global-pc-vendors-for-first-time-idc-says

 

[cbn]

Keep Apple happy mostly, so lots of IGP, which they're already doing of course

I don't think having lots of iGPU is going to be enough to keep Apple happy in the long run.

Its going to take more than that, and ultimately I don't believe Intel will be able to bend enough to fulfill Apple's demands.

So with that in mind, I would like to know what plans Intel is developing in anticipation of the inevitable transition of Apple desktop to ARM? (This ARM desktop transition will also have spillover effect to the Android/Google software ecosystem as well)

 

[krumme]

Would you keep software on x86 platform if you were apple?
AMD is leaving x86 - the big cores at least - and that makes x86 a strickly monopoly market then.
There is absolutely no way Apple will put themselves at that danger. Especially when they have an arch with about the same ipc as big core Intel already developped.
My guess is they - as Samsung - will go a long way to protect their independence. Perhaps have two platforms.
Power PC was weak - but thats not the case for A8. And we get an A9 in a year. The acceleration in Arm development is crazy fast.

 

[ShintaiDK]

A8 doesnt have about the same IPC as Haswell. Lets not try and fool anywone about that part.

Also Apple would have to mess up the software support for their entire userbase. And depend even more on paying 10000$ for initial wafers and multibillion $ R&D. And Apple knows it can get first dips with Intel.

 

[jpiniero]

Also Apple would have to mess up the software support for their entire userbase.

They've switched architectures twice, from Motorola 680 to PowerPC and then from PowerPC to Intel. They could easily do it again to go from Intel to ARM.

 

[ShintaiDK]

They've switched architectures twice, from Motorola 680 to PowerPC and then from PowerPC to Intel. They could easily do it again to go from Intel to ARM.

They switched previously because the previous uarch was far behind/obsolete.

 

[witeken]

I don't think changing ISAs is something Apple would be afraid to do.

Prior to 2006, All macs were using Power PC after all.

So I think the question is not will Apple change ISAs, but when will they change ISAs?

Refining their ARM processor to be both high frequency and high IPC while maintaining good performance per watt will take time. But I would assume Apple is viewing the work as worth the effort since they would have full control of all the hardware features on their most high end products (MacIntosh).

Okay, now with that out of the way.....What does Intel do to counter this eventuality?

Does Intel begin to promote big core in ways they never did in the past? Maybe instead of four small cores in some SOCs we begin to see a single big core (with hyperthreading enabled)? (ie, a smaller version of Core M with all (or most) of the big core features enabled (AVX feature sets, etc))

Don't forget Intel's growing process advantage. Maybe Apple could use Intel's fabs, but those won't come for free because Intel rather wants Apple to buy their chips so they get paid twice.

 

[NTMBK]

Don't forget Intel's growing process advantage.

Really? 20nm ARM chips are on shelves right now, today, and have been for weeks. 14nm FinFET will probably be out same time next year. There's still a lead for Intel, but it's not growing.

 

[jpiniero]

They switched previously because the previous uarch was far behind/obsolete.

The allure of $20 chips is just too much. In a lot of ways, Intel's business model of selling $200,$300,$400 chips is obsolete.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The allure of $20 chips is just too much. In a lot of ways, Intel's business model of selling $200,$300,$400 chips is obsolete.

Do you really think the A8 is 20$?

20-30$ is barely what it cost them from TSMC. Then you can add R&D and so forth on top.

Also you are comparing apples and oranges since the A8 is nowhere near the same performance.

Oh, and Apple like everyone else isnt paying list prices at Intel.

 

[AtenRa]

^This. And the the likelihood that the replacement ARM CPU would be under powered for something like Apple's Rosetta or LLVM. The OS is probably already testing under ARM - just in case (just as IOS is almost certainly already being tested on x86).



And ^This! A Cannonlake 'Core M' SoC will likely crush a 20nm FF ARM SoC in perf/watt. [Though I think you meant "Apple can't possibly..."]

Well stated by the both of you.

Except that in 2016 Apple will have 14nm ARM products not 20nm and Intel will still be at 14nm.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Except that in 2016 Apple will have 14nm ARM products not 20nm and Intel will still be at 14nm.

But its not the same 14nm.