4 ms·

On the other side, AMD APU code name was found in latest macOS release which should hint the other side of the story. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-m

On the other side, AMD APU code name was found in latest macOS release which should hint the other side of the story. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-may-start-selling-macs-with-amd-cpus https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-may-start-selling-ma...

rcarmo 6y ago
That would actually make sense. I was kind of surprised to see many Hackintosh builds with Ryzen CPUs and reference motherboards working pretty much out of the box...
- ksec 6y ago
  Yes, if you look up Geekbench, nearly all the top scores are from AMD Hackintosh. https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/singlecore https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/singlecore
  - smcl 6y ago
    I'm not familiar with geekbench - is it expected that a phone is at the top of those rankings? That seems a bit sketchy to me.
    - Veedrac 6y ago
      The top results are nonsensical.
ksec 6y ago
I much prefer them to switch over to AMD if cost was a concern. Rather than outright dumping x86 codebase.
- wadkar 6y ago
  I think it’s about time we relegate x86 only codebase to VMs.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  I doubt that cost is the concern. Both Apple and Intel are big players, they can find a fair price between them, and Apple always had the threat of switching to ARM to get better prices. I'm pretty sure this move is for power consumption and maybe so all Apple products are on the same architecture.
  - ksec 6y ago
    A13X cost $30, compared to cheapest Intel used in MacBook Air cost $200+. I think it is quite a difference. That means consumer are paying $300+ for x86 compatibility.
    - Exmoor 6y ago
      Source on that pricing?
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      > A13X cost $30, compared to cheapest Intel used in MacBook Air cost $200+. You aren't comparing costs fairly here. A13X costs $30 each + $XXX million to develop. With Intel the development costs are part of the SKU. If Apple launches a series of desktop CPUs, the cost to develop those chips is going to be substantial. Some of that cost will be in common with the iPad/ iPhone, but a good chunk will be unique to their new CPUs. Since Apple ships far fewer Macs than iPhones, the development cost/ unit will be significantly higher.
      - philwelch 6y ago
        iPad Pro is already beating some MacBooks in CPU benchmarks. Apple might just reuse the same CPU’s.
        ogre_codes 6y ago
        > iPad Pro is already beating some MacBooks in CPU benchmarks. Apple might just reuse the same CPU’s. Maybe some. Just considering the size of the devices, I'd expect the 16" MacBook Pro would have beefier CPU options than the iPad Pro.
- philwelch 6y ago
  Apple designs their own chips. They have a single fixed cost for the design work which gets amortized by the massive volume of device sales. The only variable cost is the cost of third party fabrication. AMD can’t compete with that.
abrowne 6y ago
Is a CPU with both ARM and AMD-sourced x86-64 cores possible?
- jdsully 6y ago
  Physically? Yes. The trick is finding someone willing to license the X86 IP to make it.
  - hajile 6y ago
    AMD already shipped one ARM server chip. At this point, I think they're more interested in their patents covering non-x86 parts of the chip that make it possible to pipeline data into the CPU. If Apple is transitioning regardless, it's either lose out on potential profits completely or take what they can get for a few years. Making a deal would hurt Intel and get them money. AMD could probably hold out for a guarantee that Apple would buy their chips for the next 3-5 years too (at least on desktop).
- hajile 6y ago
  It seems like it should be -- especially if Apple licensed AMD's Infinity Fabric. Apple could buy discounted dual or quad-core chiplets and add them onto their system. x86 performance would decrease to encourage shifting architectures, but it would allow a couple years of transition time. All the talk about x86 emulation doesn't seem feasible. x86 is crufty enough when implemented in silicon and would be much, much worse being implemented by a team that hasn't spent their entire life learning all the weird little performance tricks for the architecture. Even if they somehow succeeded, Intel has deep pockets too and lots of lobbyists and would probably push for (and get) an injunction while in court. Even if Intel lost, the injunction would hurt Apple severely during the transition period. Apple would need still-patented x86_64, SSE x.x, AVX, virtualization instructions, etc that are all patented. In addition, if Oracle v Google decided in Oracle's favor, that would open yet another attack avenue. Throwing in a couple hardware cores shouldn't cost a ton and would stop those legal concerns in their tracks.

rcarmo 6y ago

That would actually make sense. I was kind of surprised to see many Hackintosh builds with Ryzen CPUs and reference motherboards working pretty much out of the box...

ksec 6y ago
Yes, if you look up Geekbench, nearly all the top scores are from AMD Hackintosh. https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/singlecore https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/singlecore
- smcl 6y ago
  I'm not familiar with geekbench - is it expected that a phone is at the top of those rankings? That seems a bit sketchy to me.
  - Veedrac 6y ago
    The top results are nonsensical.

ksec 6y ago

I much prefer them to switch over to AMD if cost was a concern. Rather than outright dumping x86 codebase.

wadkar 6y ago
I think it’s about time we relegate x86 only codebase to VMs.
dehrmann 6y ago
I doubt that cost is the concern. Both Apple and Intel are big players, they can find a fair price between them, and Apple always had the threat of switching to ARM to get better prices. I'm pretty sure this move is for power consumption and maybe so all Apple products are on the same architecture.
- ksec 6y ago
  A13X cost $30, compared to cheapest Intel used in MacBook Air cost $200+. I think it is quite a difference. That means consumer are paying $300+ for x86 compatibility.
  - Exmoor 6y ago
    Source on that pricing?
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > A13X cost $30, compared to cheapest Intel used in MacBook Air cost $200+. You aren't comparing costs fairly here. A13X costs $30 each + $XXX million to develop. With Intel the development costs are part of the SKU. If Apple launches a series of desktop CPUs, the cost to develop those chips is going to be substantial. Some of that cost will be in common with the iPad/ iPhone, but a good chunk will be unique to their new CPUs. Since Apple ships far fewer Macs than iPhones, the development cost/ unit will be significantly higher.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      iPad Pro is already beating some MacBooks in CPU benchmarks. Apple might just reuse the same CPU’s.
      - ogre_codes 6y ago
        > iPad Pro is already beating some MacBooks in CPU benchmarks. Apple might just reuse the same CPU’s. Maybe some. Just considering the size of the devices, I'd expect the 16" MacBook Pro would have beefier CPU options than the iPad Pro.
philwelch 6y ago
Apple designs their own chips. They have a single fixed cost for the design work which gets amortized by the massive volume of device sales. The only variable cost is the cost of third party fabrication. AMD can’t compete with that.

abrowne 6y ago

Is a CPU with both ARM and AMD-sourced x86-64 cores possible?

jdsully 6y ago
Physically? Yes. The trick is finding someone willing to license the X86 IP to make it.
- hajile 6y ago
  AMD already shipped one ARM server chip. At this point, I think they're more interested in their patents covering non-x86 parts of the chip that make it possible to pipeline data into the CPU. If Apple is transitioning regardless, it's either lose out on potential profits completely or take what they can get for a few years. Making a deal would hurt Intel and get them money. AMD could probably hold out for a guarantee that Apple would buy their chips for the next 3-5 years too (at least on desktop).
hajile 6y ago
It seems like it should be -- especially if Apple licensed AMD's Infinity Fabric. Apple could buy discounted dual or quad-core chiplets and add them onto their system. x86 performance would decrease to encourage shifting architectures, but it would allow a couple years of transition time. All the talk about x86 emulation doesn't seem feasible. x86 is crufty enough when implemented in silicon and would be much, much worse being implemented by a team that hasn't spent their entire life learning all the weird little performance tricks for the architecture. Even if they somehow succeeded, Intel has deep pockets too and lots of lobbyists and would probably push for (and get) an injunction while in court. Even if Intel lost, the injunction would hurt Apple severely during the transition period. Apple would need still-patented x86_64, SSE x.x, AVX, virtualization instructions, etc that are all patented. In addition, if Oracle v Google decided in Oracle's favor, that would open yet another attack avenue. Throwing in a couple hardware cores shouldn't cost a ton and would stop those legal concerns in their tracks.