5 ms·

This was either a sharp prod for intel, or some serious signaling.

theshrike79 8y ago
MacBooks _will_ transition to Apple's own chips at some point. My guess is that the A14 or A15 generation will be fast and powerful enough to make the leap. This will be big especially if they can get major price or power usage advantages.
- lwkl 8y ago
  Microsoft is preparing the move to ARM too. I'd be really interested how the performance will be. The Intel Mobile Processor (i7 + M7) felt really slow before the eight generation and still used a lot of power (at least in the Lenovo and HP Business notebooks).
  - olyjohn 8y ago
    Is Microsoft preparing an x86 emulation layer for their ARM-based OS? Because as the past has proven, nobody wants to buy a Windows PC that can't run Windows software. Unfortunately, it's almost all been compiled to run on x86. Or are they still betting on moving everything to UWP?
    - detaro 8y ago
      Microsoft is shipping an x86 emulation layer on the ARM based Windows laptops right now. (although with some limitations, e.g. as far as I know no 64-bit support yet, and of course it's slower than native on already not-so-fast laptops) Benchmarks from the first device generation: https://www.techspot.com/review/1599-windows-on-arm-performance/ https://www.techspot.com/review/1599-windows-on-arm-performa...
    - OkGoDoIt 8y ago
      Yes, it was launched earlier this year: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on-arm-x86-emulation https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on...
- SllX 8y ago
  Arguably they are already powerful enough to make the leap in at least some cases, that said Apple does not push Macs in the same quantities as iOS devices as to justify wholly new silicon for the line. I have been in an argument with a friend for the past year or so about precisely when (or if) Apple will rip Intel out and use their own silicon. I think they will, but I'm going to try to present his argument to the best of my abilities, with my own observations and guesses as context. Presently the T series is generally gimped variations of the A series. My understanding is that the T2 is essentially an A10 with the high performance cores disabled, and the low performance cores repurposed to manage the myriad of functions that were previously handled by dedicated controllers. They're also necessary for certain features like TouchID, and for Apple to use its own HEVC encoder/decoder. Presumably the T3 will be keyed off of a later part like the A12 or a later generation, which will make it the first T series chip to also include the neural engine. Assuming they don't disable that part, it will potentially make the NE available to Mac application software. So what's the real problem with ripping out Intel right now? Given a higher TDP, Apple could hypothetically design a much more performant chip that would replace both the CPU and GPU in their current Mac lineup, but they simply don't push enough Macs to justify the expenditure on custom silicon, right now at least. Probably doesn't help that they have been making existing customers less happy, but it also doesn't help that Intel has simply been re-releasing Skylake in different variations for a good few years now. If you have a Macintosh able to run Mojave, an SSD, and at least 16GB of RAM, you are probably set. The important thing about Mojave isn't so much any one feature of Mojave, it is the continued support including bug fixes and security updates. Given all of that, most people simply won't need a new system any time soon. There's essentially no reason a laptop from 2012 can't take you all the way to 2022 all other things being equal, so we're starting to see sales stagnate across the entire PC market including the Macintosh, so while Apple is selling phones about as fast as they can stamp them out, the same is not true of Macbooks or iMacs. Silicon is much more of a volume business. Apple can re-purpose older versions of their A series chips because those are an R&D and capital investment that has already paid off, it isn't a new design, and they just need someone to continue fabbing them. New generations of the A series chips will generally pay off, because they will be selling hundreds of millions of the same iPhone, and usually for greater than one calendar year. This past year, for the first time since the A7 was released, they skipped releasing an -X variant of their A series chips which are generally released to support new iPads (there was no A11X for those who may have forgotten). It is possible that iPads have not been selling in the quantities necessary for even a variant design, and rather than an annual refresh cycle, we could reasonably expect them to move to a biennial refresh cycle, hence why they have skipped the A11X and jumped straight to the A12X. Intel and Qualcomm have customers, but for Apple's own silicon, Apple's only customer is itself, by design. That also imposes a limitation on themselves that it just might not make financial sense to fabricate a series of chips exclusive to their Mac lineup, appropriate to the TDP of a Mac. By all means, tear this apart if you disagree.
- cs02rm0 8y ago
  I'm worried they won't transition MacBooks to these CPUs, but they'll just let the entire Mac lineup gradually fade to black with intermittent refresh cycles and dead end features like touch bar. I can well imagine Apple expecting people to plug in a keyboard and monitor to their iPad Pro, while it gets thinner and thinner.
  - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
    While "intermittent refresh cycles" are certainly a thing for the Mac line recently, I think it's important to distinguish "new features that seem to be flops" from both "no new features" and "not caring about the Mac line." The Touch Bar may or may not be a dead end (I don't hate it the way many other people do, but if it went away I wouldn't shed a tear, either), but it represents a significant amount of engineering work put into a Mac-only feature. So does the love-it-or-hate-it† "Butterfly" keyboard. And the new ARM-based T2 chip, which handles tasks from encryption to signal processing to being the SSD controller, is also obviously significant engineering -- and again, Mac-only. I don't doubt that Macs will eventually fade into the sunset, but I don't think it's coming nearly as quickly as either pundits or pessimists seem to believe. "Marzipan" may indeed be a first step, but I think it's going to be a Carbon vs. Cocoa situation, taking many years to fully transition. For iOS to supplant macOS, it has to essentially do everything macOS does. It doesn't have to do everything the same way, but if it's going to be a full replacement for a general purpose computing platform, it has to be, well, a general purpose computing platform. †Technically, "grudgingly-tolerate-it" should be in there, but it doesn't flow well.
    - SllX 8y ago
      Just a note on the T2: it's a variant of the A10, more specifically, it's basically an A10 running a custom operating system (BridgeOS) and with the high performance cores disabled. There might be other modifications, but it isn't the kind of thing I would hold up as a triumphant piece of Mac-specific engineering. Not that it is a bad piece of silicon, just repurposed silicon isn't the sort of thing I would put stock in when it comes to the importance of the Mac to Apple. The TouchBar was a good example though, even if it didn't receive the warmest reception on the market, it is still a good piece of Mac-specific engineering.
- hbosch 8y ago
  I think by the time MBPs are using A chips, iOS will have morphed into the new macOS — launching these together as a new MBP.
lern_too_spel 8y ago
Or pure marketing. Look for the asterisk that explains the workload.

MacBooks _will_ transition to Apple's own chips at some point. My guess is that the A14 or A15 generation will be fast and powerful enough to make the leap. This will be big especially if they can get major price or power usage advantages.

lwkl 8y ago
Microsoft is preparing the move to ARM too. I'd be really interested how the performance will be. The Intel Mobile Processor (i7 + M7) felt really slow before the eight generation and still used a lot of power (at least in the Lenovo and HP Business notebooks).
- olyjohn 8y ago
  Is Microsoft preparing an x86 emulation layer for their ARM-based OS? Because as the past has proven, nobody wants to buy a Windows PC that can't run Windows software. Unfortunately, it's almost all been compiled to run on x86. Or are they still betting on moving everything to UWP?
  - detaro 8y ago
    Microsoft is shipping an x86 emulation layer on the ARM based Windows laptops right now. (although with some limitations, e.g. as far as I know no 64-bit support yet, and of course it's slower than native on already not-so-fast laptops) Benchmarks from the first device generation: https://www.techspot.com/review/1599-windows-on-arm-performance/ https://www.techspot.com/review/1599-windows-on-arm-performa...
  - OkGoDoIt 8y ago
    Yes, it was launched earlier this year: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on-arm-x86-emulation https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/apps-on...
SllX 8y ago
Arguably they are already powerful enough to make the leap in at least some cases, that said Apple does not push Macs in the same quantities as iOS devices as to justify wholly new silicon for the line. I have been in an argument with a friend for the past year or so about precisely when (or if) Apple will rip Intel out and use their own silicon. I think they will, but I'm going to try to present his argument to the best of my abilities, with my own observations and guesses as context. Presently the T series is generally gimped variations of the A series. My understanding is that the T2 is essentially an A10 with the high performance cores disabled, and the low performance cores repurposed to manage the myriad of functions that were previously handled by dedicated controllers. They're also necessary for certain features like TouchID, and for Apple to use its own HEVC encoder/decoder. Presumably the T3 will be keyed off of a later part like the A12 or a later generation, which will make it the first T series chip to also include the neural engine. Assuming they don't disable that part, it will potentially make the NE available to Mac application software. So what's the real problem with ripping out Intel right now? Given a higher TDP, Apple could hypothetically design a much more performant chip that would replace both the CPU and GPU in their current Mac lineup, but they simply don't push enough Macs to justify the expenditure on custom silicon, right now at least. Probably doesn't help that they have been making existing customers less happy, but it also doesn't help that Intel has simply been re-releasing Skylake in different variations for a good few years now. If you have a Macintosh able to run Mojave, an SSD, and at least 16GB of RAM, you are probably set. The important thing about Mojave isn't so much any one feature of Mojave, it is the continued support including bug fixes and security updates. Given all of that, most people simply won't need a new system any time soon. There's essentially no reason a laptop from 2012 can't take you all the way to 2022 all other things being equal, so we're starting to see sales stagnate across the entire PC market including the Macintosh, so while Apple is selling phones about as fast as they can stamp them out, the same is not true of Macbooks or iMacs. Silicon is much more of a volume business. Apple can re-purpose older versions of their A series chips because those are an R&D and capital investment that has already paid off, it isn't a new design, and they just need someone to continue fabbing them. New generations of the A series chips will generally pay off, because they will be selling hundreds of millions of the same iPhone, and usually for greater than one calendar year. This past year, for the first time since the A7 was released, they skipped releasing an -X variant of their A series chips which are generally released to support new iPads (there was no A11X for those who may have forgotten). It is possible that iPads have not been selling in the quantities necessary for even a variant design, and rather than an annual refresh cycle, we could reasonably expect them to move to a biennial refresh cycle, hence why they have skipped the A11X and jumped straight to the A12X. Intel and Qualcomm have customers, but for Apple's own silicon, Apple's only customer is itself, by design. That also imposes a limitation on themselves that it just might not make financial sense to fabricate a series of chips exclusive to their Mac lineup, appropriate to the TDP of a Mac. By all means, tear this apart if you disagree.
cs02rm0 8y ago
I'm worried they won't transition MacBooks to these CPUs, but they'll just let the entire Mac lineup gradually fade to black with intermittent refresh cycles and dead end features like touch bar. I can well imagine Apple expecting people to plug in a keyboard and monitor to their iPad Pro, while it gets thinner and thinner.
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  While "intermittent refresh cycles" are certainly a thing for the Mac line recently, I think it's important to distinguish "new features that seem to be flops" from both "no new features" and "not caring about the Mac line." The Touch Bar may or may not be a dead end (I don't hate it the way many other people do, but if it went away I wouldn't shed a tear, either), but it represents a significant amount of engineering work put into a Mac-only feature. So does the love-it-or-hate-it† "Butterfly" keyboard. And the new ARM-based T2 chip, which handles tasks from encryption to signal processing to being the SSD controller, is also obviously significant engineering -- and again, Mac-only. I don't doubt that Macs will eventually fade into the sunset, but I don't think it's coming nearly as quickly as either pundits or pessimists seem to believe. "Marzipan" may indeed be a first step, but I think it's going to be a Carbon vs. Cocoa situation, taking many years to fully transition. For iOS to supplant macOS, it has to essentially do everything macOS does. It doesn't have to do everything the same way, but if it's going to be a full replacement for a general purpose computing platform, it has to be, well, a general purpose computing platform. †Technically, "grudgingly-tolerate-it" should be in there, but it doesn't flow well.
  - SllX 8y ago
    Just a note on the T2: it's a variant of the A10, more specifically, it's basically an A10 running a custom operating system (BridgeOS) and with the high performance cores disabled. There might be other modifications, but it isn't the kind of thing I would hold up as a triumphant piece of Mac-specific engineering. Not that it is a bad piece of silicon, just repurposed silicon isn't the sort of thing I would put stock in when it comes to the importance of the Mac to Apple. The TouchBar was a good example though, even if it didn't receive the warmest reception on the market, it is still a good piece of Mac-specific engineering.
hbosch 8y ago
I think by the time MBPs are using A chips, iOS will have morphed into the new macOS — launching these together as a new MBP.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

Or pure marketing. Look for the asterisk that explains the workload.