5 ms·

The reason they don't have them in laptops is not because of performance, it's because they don't have an OS. A laptop that only runs iOS is called an iPad and

The reason they don't have them in laptops is not because of performance, it's because they don't have an OS. A laptop that only runs iOS is called an iPad and it doesn't have the software I want to run.

aquadrop 8y ago
My point was that if they had this abysmal advantage now, it means they would see it coming several years prior and would work on OS and anything else it needed. But it's not the point, main point is that I think statement that current A12 is close (to whatever reasonable %) to top desktop chips is simply not true. I didn't see any concrete evidence of it, and everyone just seem to like this idea, that's why it was talked much lately. I'm all for great advantages and all that, but I still must use common sense, 3-4W vs 150+ W - that's too much.
- pertymcpert 8y ago
  People aren't comparing 3W mobile chips to 150W desktop CPUs. They're comparing like for like in terms of perf/watt. Skylake isn't a particular SKU, it's a micoarchitecture generation, from which Intel can scale the design from low power 10W parts to power hungry server chips.
  - aquadrop 8y ago
    Article reference specific CPU - Xeon 8176. It has 165W TDP.
- wintercharm 8y ago
  SpecInt/FP is comparing Single core IPC between one A12 BIG core, and one Skylake server CPU core. Per-core power consumption on that Intel chip is 165W/28cores = 5.89W Apple is pushing similar IPC at 3W instead of 5.89W. In that context, it's not so unbelievable, and it's still really fucking impressive.
  - aquadrop 8y ago
    Yeah, I know, I wrote about it in my original comment, you didn't have to tell me that twice :) And that's my point, Apple already has very impressive thing going on, no need to smudge it with sensationalists statements.
_ph_ 8y ago
I am quite sure that macOS runs quite fine on an A12. Like back in the PowerPC times, where Apple would build OS X always on x86 chips too, they certainly keep testing macOS on ARM hardware. Even if they don't have any imminent plans to release an ARM based Mac, it is a great way of testing your software for portability.
- jonknee 8y ago
  Of course, but without any software. Microsoft has done some interesting stuff in that regard so maybe there is an easier transition than getting all third party developers on board, but it's a tough nut to crack.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Apple have experience of that, and I mean a lot. The first C compiler I used was the cheap student version of Metrowerks that only compiled to 68K, I was on a PowerPC machine at the time. Mac OS X had a Mac OS classic compatibility mode until around the time the Intel processors replaced PowerPC ones, and early Intel machines could run apps compiled for PPC.
  - _ph_ 8y ago
    Yes, the challenge is the software. Not so much the native Mac software created with XCode. That would probably rebuild at a button press. The elephant in the room are VMs. Many Mac users (for example me) are running x86 based operation systems inside VMs on their Mac. This wouldn't work without a dynamic translation like Rosetta. But as Apple is making their own processors, I would consider it a possiblity that they add some hardware accelerators for a Rosetta style software to their chips.
    - et2o 8y ago
      While I understand running VMs are important for you and many developers, people like us who want to do this have to be a miniscule share of Apple's market. I wouldn't bet on them spending much time on it.
chrisBob 8y ago
Apple has successfully changed architectures before, and has been developing an ARM version of Mac OS for a while. I am sure that it doesn't have the same level of refinement, it is might not be that far off.

aquadrop 8y ago

My point was that if they had this abysmal advantage now, it means they would see it coming several years prior and would work on OS and anything else it needed. But it's not the point, main point is that I think statement that current A12 is close (to whatever reasonable %) to top desktop chips is simply not true. I didn't see any concrete evidence of it, and everyone just seem to like this idea, that's why it was talked much lately. I'm all for great advantages and all that, but I still must use common sense, 3-4W vs 150+ W - that's too much.

pertymcpert 8y ago
People aren't comparing 3W mobile chips to 150W desktop CPUs. They're comparing like for like in terms of perf/watt. Skylake isn't a particular SKU, it's a micoarchitecture generation, from which Intel can scale the design from low power 10W parts to power hungry server chips.
- aquadrop 8y ago
  Article reference specific CPU - Xeon 8176. It has 165W TDP.
wintercharm 8y ago
SpecInt/FP is comparing Single core IPC between one A12 BIG core, and one Skylake server CPU core. Per-core power consumption on that Intel chip is 165W/28cores = 5.89W Apple is pushing similar IPC at 3W instead of 5.89W. In that context, it's not so unbelievable, and it's still really fucking impressive.
- aquadrop 8y ago
  Yeah, I know, I wrote about it in my original comment, you didn't have to tell me that twice :) And that's my point, Apple already has very impressive thing going on, no need to smudge it with sensationalists statements.

_ph_ 8y ago

I am quite sure that macOS runs quite fine on an A12. Like back in the PowerPC times, where Apple would build OS X always on x86 chips too, they certainly keep testing macOS on ARM hardware. Even if they don't have any imminent plans to release an ARM based Mac, it is a great way of testing your software for portability.

jonknee 8y ago
Of course, but without any software. Microsoft has done some interesting stuff in that regard so maybe there is an easier transition than getting all third party developers on board, but it's a tough nut to crack.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Apple have experience of that, and I mean a lot. The first C compiler I used was the cheap student version of Metrowerks that only compiled to 68K, I was on a PowerPC machine at the time. Mac OS X had a Mac OS classic compatibility mode until around the time the Intel processors replaced PowerPC ones, and early Intel machines could run apps compiled for PPC.
- _ph_ 8y ago
  Yes, the challenge is the software. Not so much the native Mac software created with XCode. That would probably rebuild at a button press. The elephant in the room are VMs. Many Mac users (for example me) are running x86 based operation systems inside VMs on their Mac. This wouldn't work without a dynamic translation like Rosetta. But as Apple is making their own processors, I would consider it a possiblity that they add some hardware accelerators for a Rosetta style software to their chips.
  - et2o 8y ago
    While I understand running VMs are important for you and many developers, people like us who want to do this have to be a miniscule share of Apple's market. I wouldn't bet on them spending much time on it.

chrisBob 8y ago

Apple has successfully changed architectures before, and has been developing an ARM version of Mac OS for a while. I am sure that it doesn't have the same level of refinement, it is might not be that far off.