3 ms·

> Apple's microarchitecture expertise makes it entirely likely that their fabled next Mac Pro is entirely ARM-based I would like to understand this statement b

by dm3730 8y ago

> Apple's microarchitecture expertise makes it entirely likely that their fabled next Mac Pro is entirely ARM-based I would like to understand this statement better. In 2012, I read this article saying ARM chips were matching x86 chips and that we'd be seeing ARM desktops, ARM servers, and ARM laptops within 2-3 years. https://liliputing.com/2012/02/fastest-arm-chips-are-comparable-to-intels-slowest-atom-chips.html https://liliputing.com/2012/02/fastest-arm-chips-are-compara... But it is now, 2019. Aside from my phone, access point, and tablet which are ARM based, everything else is still x86-64. Am I an outlier? What data leads you to believe that "entirely likely that their fabled next Mac Pro is entirely ARM-based"? > does Apple have enough economy of scale just on the high-end desktop compared to Intel? Doubtful I don't understand this statement. Is the volume of chips "manufactured" by Apple significantly lower than the volume of chips manufactured by Intel?

DCKing 8y ago
I would argue that x86's dominance is actually Intel's dominance. Intel just has a very good tactical position in terms of high-performance hardware. Intel is a better source for hardware reliability, platform reliability, logistics and being able to deliver in volume, mostly already has existing contracts in place, and is still one of the leaders in performance. Even AMD - which makes x86 hardware and should be the most easy to transition to - has trouble getting more than single digit market share gains despite making a mostly superior product performance wise for the first time in more than a decade. Apple is affected the least by this Intel lock-in, since they are the biggest seller of high-performance hardware to consumers and are capable of doing their own support infrastructure. Moreover, they have been heavily investing and building up a very successful own processor unit themselves. Finally, Apple has famously transitioned their entire hardware platform multiple times already when it felt like their current hardware plaform didn't suit them strategically. They've shown to be capable of supporting their own oddball hardware platforms before Intel, when they were a lot smaller still. Given Apple's level of control over their own technology and Intel's recent stagnation, I think it's very likely Apple wants to move in this direction if they are capable of doing it from a business perspective. The Mac Pro might be a bold product to begin with since it's so focused on professional users and Apple is really peculiar about having a bold vision an the high-end desktop. It would also be clear signal of their strategy to transition the Mac Pro to this new architecutre. The reason I threw in that sentence about economy of scale is that the high-end desktop is a small market for Apple, and it might not be worth for them to make large workstation class chips for such a market. Especially considering that Intel's high-end Xeon W-line is based on the exact same silicon as Intel's high end servers, and therefore Intel just makes a lot more high end chips than Apple would. Of course, Apple would be able to work around this with a chiplet architecture like AMD is doing, but I feel that we're already too far in speculation territory.

by dm3730 8y ago

DCKing 8y ago

I would argue that x86's dominance is actually Intel's dominance. Intel just has a very good tactical position in terms of high-performance hardware. Intel is a better source for hardware reliability, platform reliability, logistics and being able to deliver in volume, mostly already has existing contracts in place, and is still one of the leaders in performance. Even AMD - which makes x86 hardware and should be the most easy to transition to - has trouble getting more than single digit market share gains despite making a mostly superior product performance wise for the first time in more than a decade. Apple is affected the least by this Intel lock-in, since they are the biggest seller of high-performance hardware to consumers and are capable of doing their own support infrastructure. Moreover, they have been heavily investing and building up a very successful own processor unit themselves. Finally, Apple has famously transitioned their entire hardware platform multiple times already when it felt like their current hardware plaform didn't suit them strategically. They've shown to be capable of supporting their own oddball hardware platforms before Intel, when they were a lot smaller still. Given Apple's level of control over their own technology and Intel's recent stagnation, I think it's very likely Apple wants to move in this direction if they are capable of doing it from a business perspective. The Mac Pro might be a bold product to begin with since it's so focused on professional users and Apple is really peculiar about having a bold vision an the high-end desktop. It would also be clear signal of their strategy to transition the Mac Pro to this new architecutre. The reason I threw in that sentence about economy of scale is that the high-end desktop is a small market for Apple, and it might not be worth for them to make large workstation class chips for such a market. Especially considering that Intel's high-end Xeon W-line is based on the exact same silicon as Intel's high end servers, and therefore Intel just makes a lot more high end chips than Apple would. Of course, Apple would be able to work around this with a chiplet architecture like AMD is doing, but I feel that we're already too far in speculation territory.