9 ms·

I think the real elephant in the room is ARM. iPad Pro has the performance of (at least) a toaster “real” laptop. Sure Apple is expensive but very soon you are

I think the real elephant in the room is ARM. iPad Pro has the performance of (at least) a toaster “real” laptop. Sure Apple is expensive but very soon you are going to see cheap and actually good ARM PCs. That can’t be good for either Intel or AMD.

monkmartinez 9y ago
I, for one, can't wait. I am not convinced that it is going to be Apple, but I do believe ARM or something like it will replace my Intel laptop.
- emdowling 9y ago
  How much more convincing do you need that it will be Apple? No one comes close to them in ARM performance. The iPad Pro’s processor is so overpowered compared to the software you can run on it, it’s incredible that we don’t have ARM MacBooks already.
  - Kurtz79 9y ago
    Even if they make MacOS ARM-compatible, its users will be left with tons of applications that won't work anymore on an ARM-based architecture. Considering that Apple does not compete on price, making developers and users unhappy to save on costs does not seem to me a very Apple-like move. Seeing iOS get more and more desktop features in due time is much more likely, IMHO.
    - gruturo 9y ago
      Apple is the one company in the world which pulled off this sort of migration - twice - without leaving users in the cold. First, 68k to PPC, then PPC to Intel. Both times they included the ability to run binaries from the previous architecture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_68k_emulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_68k_emulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
      - sspiff 9y ago
        And both times they had a transitional period in which their toolchain was modified to produce "fat" binaries, including executables for both the old and new architectures. I find it stunning that people think Apple couldn't pull this of a third time.
        reitzensteinm 9y ago
        Both times, the performance boost of the new architecture significantly offset the emulation overhead. It's going in reverse this time, emulating the old instruction set with a weaker processor. Further, there's a lot more focus on battery life these days, and while many apps will be tolerable from a UX perspective if you halved their speed, that also means the CPU is spending twice as long at the highest turbo states. Ouch. I also think Apple could pull it off, and actually want to see it happen for the health of the PC industry. But I haven't seen anyone declaring it's not possible, I think that's a bit of a straw man.
        sspiff 9y ago
        Both times the new CPU architecture was faster than the older one, granted. But still the emulated software would be slower on the new models with the emulator compared to bare metal execution on the old models. I assume Apple will make some more improvements to close the gap between x86 and ARM, and switch when it makes sense for them. I also assume that, with the Mac App Store, they will start forcing developers to ship software compiled to both architectures ahead of making the switch. This way, only software that is distributed outside their store would be slow, which is going to become more and more niche as Apple enabled stricter signing enforcement by default in macOS Sierra (by default, only apps from the Mac App Store are allowed to run).
        gruturo 9y ago
        Given that Apple has full control over the CPU itself, I wouldn't be surprised if the first ARM Mac has a CPU with a handful of extra instructions which bridge the performance gap. I bet they already did extensive profiling of x86 code from any major app (esp. those submitted to the app store) and identified 5-6 instructions (to be made available to the emulation layer only) which avoid some of the most expensive translation / abstraction / emulation steps.
  - cmrdporcupine 9y ago
    I think it's more likely that Apple will just let OS X and the desktop/laptop computer form die on the vine as they turn iOS devices into more and more of a 'pro' product with more and more of OS X's features and more input modalities, etc. To me this is a bit of a frightening scenario given the closed nature of iOS.
chrishacken 9y ago
AMD has invested heavily in developing ARM based chips.
- ihsw2 9y ago
  But it didn't go anywhere and it's largely abandoned, just like Intel's supposed foray into mobile SOCs a number of years ago.
  - snvzz 9y ago
    Supposedly Jim Keller did work on that, besides Zen. They simply stopped talking about their supposedly awesome new ARM chip. My personal guess is that they're reworking it, targeting RV64G now; Because why bother with ARM licensing.
- redshirt 9y ago
  Sort of. That kind of died given lack of funding. Others have invested far more: Fujitsu, Qualcomm, Cavium, Cray, HPE,etc.
bhouston 9y ago
Many Chromebooks in schools are already running on Rockchip ARM processors.
- jordanthoms 9y ago
  Yeah - the older ones were horrible, but the latest generation in the Chromebook plus etc has pretty decent performance.
  - yohui 9y ago
    I was interested to learn that, though the "OP1" processor in the Samsung Chromebook Plus is manufactured by Rockchip, the "OP" brand belongs to Google and is used for ARM CPUs optimized for Chromebooks: https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14691396/google-chromebook-arm-laptop-op1-processor-apptop https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14691396/google-chromeboo...
  - fpoling 9y ago
    I used Samsung Chromebook from 2012 with Exynos 5 ARM CPU for Java development running Eclipse and a web server locally. It was not speedy but very OK setup for a laptop costing 250USD. The main problem was speed and amount of memory, not raw CPU performance. Given that I expected that some company would release ARM laptops with better specs memory-wise especially after introduction of ARM64 CPUs, but that did not happen. I guess Intel has still too much grip on the industry.
- stephenr 9y ago
  When you have zero locally installable apps, it's not really hard to support a different CPU type.
loeg 9y ago
It seems like only Apple has made a performant ARM core so far, though. Will they license the technology? It doesn't fit their historical business model. Or do you think someone else is going to make ARM fast?
- simonh 9y ago
  There's really nothing to stop another ARM licensee making more powerful ARM processors, there's no special Apple pixie dust, it's just a matter of investment. The other licensees just got lazy and psychologically trapped by their price models into thinking in terms of deterministic, incremental annual performance and feature improvements. They 'knew' nobody else would break that cycle because the margins weren't big enough to support the investment needed to jump so far ahead. If the margins and volume in fast efficient ARM laptops are there, then there's nothing stopping them from happening.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    One of the huge differences is Apple hasn't gone down the root of making octo-core ARM CPUs. They stuck to dual-core designs all the way until (and including) the iPhone 6S, then the iPhone 7 going quad-core, and the iPhone 8 going hexa-core. They've very clearly avoided following the big.LITTLE that most ARM licensees have followed.
    - simonh 9y ago
      The last two generations of Apple chips are big.LITTLE.
  - redshirt 9y ago
    It’s already happened. Just wait till Fujitsu has their post-K chip out.
  - exDM69 9y ago
    > There's really nothing to stop another ARM licensee making more powerful ARM processors, there's no special Apple pixie dust, it's just a matter of investment. Apple CPUs are designed in-house, not by ARMH. It's not magic pixie dust, but designing a CPU core architecture from scratch is a non-trivial investment of which very few companies are capable.
mr_toad 9y ago
My money would be on ARM based Macbooks rather than Windows machines.
- ctolkien 9y ago
  MS has x86 working on ARM however: http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-x86-on-arm64-emulation-a-windows-10-redstone-3-fall-2017-deliverable/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-x86-on-arm64-emulati...
- arthurfm 9y ago
  The first ARM-based Windows 10 PCs are due to be released soon. https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/31/15711334/microsoft-windows-10-arm-qualcomm-pcs-asus-hp-lenovo https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/31/15711334/microsoft-window... http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-on-arm-hps-leak-hints-that-new-snapdragon-laptops-nearing-release/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-on-arm-hps-leak-hint...
  - kennydude 9y ago
    ARM-based Windows machines already exist -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_(2012_tablet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_(2012_tablet) They worked out well
- stephenr 9y ago
  Technically there already is one - the Touchbar is controlled by a dedicated ARM co-processor. There was a report on MacRumors [1] (yes, so take it with a grain of salt) that the iMac Pro is likely to ship as an A10 Fusion + Intel Xeon. The A10 would apparently be 'always-on' for things like "Hey Siri", and would actually handle the boot process, passing the EFI firmware for the Xeon to boot with. https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/19/imac-pro-a10-chip-hey-siri/ https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/19/imac-pro-a10-chip-hey-s...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
NicoJuicy 9y ago
Why should an iPad need laptop like performance? The iPad is still a consumer device ( probably going to get downvotes because this statement), while something like Surface Pro is both. I'm not sure how long it will last though.
- twic 9y ago
  The iPad Pro, at least, is explicitly positioned as a working machine, with "far more power than most PC laptops": The A10X Fusion chip with 64‑bit architecture and six cores puts incredible power in your hands. So you can edit a 4K video on the go. Render an elaborate 3D model. Or create and mark up complex documents and presentations. https://www.apple.com/uk/ipad-pro/ https://www.apple.com/uk/ipad-pro/
  - NicoJuicy 9y ago
    > The A10X Fusion chip with 64‑bit architecture and six cores puts incredible power in your hands. So you can edit a 4K video on the go. I'm not discussing the current hardware, i acknowledge their marketing about it. I'm discussing the tools and usability on a iPad Pro. I'm saying that the usability of a tablet, is merely consumerism and doesn't needs the power of the iPad Pro. Ps. I had both in my hands and i can create stuff far easier on a Surface Pro vs iPad Pro. I can't imagine even development on a iPad, i can do it on a Surface Pro though.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
sounds 9y ago
Agreed. Also, the last time HN discussed this, PTX came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15658031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15658031 > My view is CUDA has already won, and everyone else needs to get over it. Even clang supports PTX now, which is a reasonably device agnostic representation, albeit controlled mostly by Nvidia. Perhaps intel will introduce their own extensions to this ISA. > Even if my precompiled CUDA application could run on Intel GPUs at 50% of the throughput, I'd be happy if I could later tweak and recompile it to get the full benefits from their hardware.

monkmartinez 9y ago

I, for one, can't wait. I am not convinced that it is going to be Apple, but I do believe ARM or something like it will replace my Intel laptop.

emdowling 9y ago
How much more convincing do you need that it will be Apple? No one comes close to them in ARM performance. The iPad Pro’s processor is so overpowered compared to the software you can run on it, it’s incredible that we don’t have ARM MacBooks already.
- Kurtz79 9y ago
  Even if they make MacOS ARM-compatible, its users will be left with tons of applications that won't work anymore on an ARM-based architecture. Considering that Apple does not compete on price, making developers and users unhappy to save on costs does not seem to me a very Apple-like move. Seeing iOS get more and more desktop features in due time is much more likely, IMHO.
  - gruturo 9y ago
    Apple is the one company in the world which pulled off this sort of migration - twice - without leaving users in the cold. First, 68k to PPC, then PPC to Intel. Both times they included the ability to run binaries from the previous architecture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_68k_emulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_68k_emulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
    - sspiff 9y ago
      And both times they had a transitional period in which their toolchain was modified to produce "fat" binaries, including executables for both the old and new architectures. I find it stunning that people think Apple couldn't pull this of a third time.
      - reitzensteinm 9y ago
        Both times, the performance boost of the new architecture significantly offset the emulation overhead. It's going in reverse this time, emulating the old instruction set with a weaker processor. Further, there's a lot more focus on battery life these days, and while many apps will be tolerable from a UX perspective if you halved their speed, that also means the CPU is spending twice as long at the highest turbo states. Ouch. I also think Apple could pull it off, and actually want to see it happen for the health of the PC industry. But I haven't seen anyone declaring it's not possible, I think that's a bit of a straw man.
        sspiff 9y ago
        Both times the new CPU architecture was faster than the older one, granted. But still the emulated software would be slower on the new models with the emulator compared to bare metal execution on the old models. I assume Apple will make some more improvements to close the gap between x86 and ARM, and switch when it makes sense for them. I also assume that, with the Mac App Store, they will start forcing developers to ship software compiled to both architectures ahead of making the switch. This way, only software that is distributed outside their store would be slow, which is going to become more and more niche as Apple enabled stricter signing enforcement by default in macOS Sierra (by default, only apps from the Mac App Store are allowed to run).
        gruturo 9y ago
        Given that Apple has full control over the CPU itself, I wouldn't be surprised if the first ARM Mac has a CPU with a handful of extra instructions which bridge the performance gap. I bet they already did extensive profiling of x86 code from any major app (esp. those submitted to the app store) and identified 5-6 instructions (to be made available to the emulation layer only) which avoid some of the most expensive translation / abstraction / emulation steps.
- cmrdporcupine 9y ago
  I think it's more likely that Apple will just let OS X and the desktop/laptop computer form die on the vine as they turn iOS devices into more and more of a 'pro' product with more and more of OS X's features and more input modalities, etc. To me this is a bit of a frightening scenario given the closed nature of iOS.

chrishacken 9y ago

AMD has invested heavily in developing ARM based chips.

ihsw2 9y ago
But it didn't go anywhere and it's largely abandoned, just like Intel's supposed foray into mobile SOCs a number of years ago.
- snvzz 9y ago
  Supposedly Jim Keller did work on that, besides Zen. They simply stopped talking about their supposedly awesome new ARM chip. My personal guess is that they're reworking it, targeting RV64G now; Because why bother with ARM licensing.
redshirt 9y ago
Sort of. That kind of died given lack of funding. Others have invested far more: Fujitsu, Qualcomm, Cavium, Cray, HPE,etc.

bhouston 9y ago

Many Chromebooks in schools are already running on Rockchip ARM processors.

jordanthoms 9y ago
Yeah - the older ones were horrible, but the latest generation in the Chromebook plus etc has pretty decent performance.
- yohui 9y ago
  I was interested to learn that, though the "OP1" processor in the Samsung Chromebook Plus is manufactured by Rockchip, the "OP" brand belongs to Google and is used for ARM CPUs optimized for Chromebooks: https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14691396/google-chromebook-arm-laptop-op1-processor-apptop https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14691396/google-chromeboo...
- fpoling 9y ago
  I used Samsung Chromebook from 2012 with Exynos 5 ARM CPU for Java development running Eclipse and a web server locally. It was not speedy but very OK setup for a laptop costing 250USD. The main problem was speed and amount of memory, not raw CPU performance. Given that I expected that some company would release ARM laptops with better specs memory-wise especially after introduction of ARM64 CPUs, but that did not happen. I guess Intel has still too much grip on the industry.
stephenr 9y ago
When you have zero locally installable apps, it's not really hard to support a different CPU type.

loeg 9y ago

It seems like only Apple has made a performant ARM core so far, though. Will they license the technology? It doesn't fit their historical business model. Or do you think someone else is going to make ARM fast?

simonh 9y ago
There's really nothing to stop another ARM licensee making more powerful ARM processors, there's no special Apple pixie dust, it's just a matter of investment. The other licensees just got lazy and psychologically trapped by their price models into thinking in terms of deterministic, incremental annual performance and feature improvements. They 'knew' nobody else would break that cycle because the margins weren't big enough to support the investment needed to jump so far ahead. If the margins and volume in fast efficient ARM laptops are there, then there's nothing stopping them from happening.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  One of the huge differences is Apple hasn't gone down the root of making octo-core ARM CPUs. They stuck to dual-core designs all the way until (and including) the iPhone 6S, then the iPhone 7 going quad-core, and the iPhone 8 going hexa-core. They've very clearly avoided following the big.LITTLE that most ARM licensees have followed.
  - simonh 9y ago
    The last two generations of Apple chips are big.LITTLE.
- redshirt 9y ago
  It’s already happened. Just wait till Fujitsu has their post-K chip out.
- exDM69 9y ago
  > There's really nothing to stop another ARM licensee making more powerful ARM processors, there's no special Apple pixie dust, it's just a matter of investment. Apple CPUs are designed in-house, not by ARMH. It's not magic pixie dust, but designing a CPU core architecture from scratch is a non-trivial investment of which very few companies are capable.

mr_toad 9y ago

My money would be on ARM based Macbooks rather than Windows machines.

ctolkien 9y ago
MS has x86 working on ARM however: http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-x86-on-arm64-emulation-a-windows-10-redstone-3-fall-2017-deliverable/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-x86-on-arm64-emulati...
arthurfm 9y ago
The first ARM-based Windows 10 PCs are due to be released soon. https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/31/15711334/microsoft-windows-10-arm-qualcomm-pcs-asus-hp-lenovo https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/31/15711334/microsoft-window... http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-on-arm-hps-leak-hints-that-new-snapdragon-laptops-nearing-release/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-on-arm-hps-leak-hint...
- kennydude 9y ago
  ARM-based Windows machines already exist -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_(2012_tablet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_(2012_tablet) They worked out well
stephenr 9y ago
Technically there already is one - the Touchbar is controlled by a dedicated ARM co-processor. There was a report on MacRumors [1] (yes, so take it with a grain of salt) that the iMac Pro is likely to ship as an A10 Fusion + Intel Xeon. The A10 would apparently be 'always-on' for things like "Hey Siri", and would actually handle the boot process, passing the EFI firmware for the Xeon to boot with. https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/19/imac-pro-a10-chip-hey-siri/ https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/19/imac-pro-a10-chip-hey-s...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

NicoJuicy 9y ago

Why should an iPad need laptop like performance? The iPad is still a consumer device ( probably going to get downvotes because this statement), while something like Surface Pro is both. I'm not sure how long it will last though.

twic 9y ago
The iPad Pro, at least, is explicitly positioned as a working machine, with "far more power than most PC laptops": The A10X Fusion chip with 64‑bit architecture and six cores puts incredible power in your hands. So you can edit a 4K video on the go. Render an elaborate 3D model. Or create and mark up complex documents and presentations. https://www.apple.com/uk/ipad-pro/ https://www.apple.com/uk/ipad-pro/
- NicoJuicy 9y ago
  > The A10X Fusion chip with 64‑bit architecture and six cores puts incredible power in your hands. So you can edit a 4K video on the go. I'm not discussing the current hardware, i acknowledge their marketing about it. I'm discussing the tools and usability on a iPad Pro. I'm saying that the usability of a tablet, is merely consumerism and doesn't needs the power of the iPad Pro. Ps. I had both in my hands and i can create stuff far easier on a Surface Pro vs iPad Pro. I can't imagine even development on a iPad, i can do it on a Surface Pro though.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

sounds 9y ago

Agreed. Also, the last time HN discussed this, PTX came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15658031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15658031 > My view is CUDA has already won, and everyone else needs to get over it. Even clang supports PTX now, which is a reasonably device agnostic representation, albeit controlled mostly by Nvidia. Perhaps intel will introduce their own extensions to this ISA. > Even if my precompiled CUDA application could run on Intel GPUs at 50% of the throughput, I'd be happy if I could later tweak and recompile it to get the full benefits from their hardware.