40 ms·

What are the possible reasons why they haven't done it already? 1. The power savings just isn't there. I find this hard to believe. 2. The performance of the

What are the possible reasons why they haven't done it already? 1. The power savings just isn't there. I find this hard to believe. 2. The performance of the chips just isn't there. This is very possible. 3. Not enough software is compatible yet. What are the crucial pieces? 4. Xcode isn't up to snuff running on ARM yet.

DCKing 6y ago
It's a combination of development in CPU performance. The peak performance levels of the Apple's ARM architectures have reached peak Intel/AMD levels around the Apple A12, so they haven't been at this level for that long. In addition, Intel has not been good at iterating on their hardware since Skylake in 2015 and don't look to be making great strides in the short term. It's like the PowerPC->Intel story all over again. Intel was not at PowerPC levels that long before 2005 (PowerPC had substantial advantages from 1994 to 2002), and IBM was not showing evidence of improving the situation beyond 2005. I think before 2018 it was unclear whether an ARM Mac would be superior in terms of performance/heat/power, but I think given Intel's lull and Apple's continued improvements I think the best decision is clear [if you think it is worth the transition, which is the most debatable item].
perardi 6y ago
5. Development cycles are long, they were operating under the assumption Intel would deliver efficient 10nm parts in volume, and instead Intel is still on 14nm++++++++++++.
AshamedCaptain 6y ago
1 and 2 are just a tradeoff. I.e. the performance may be there, but at a power level that isn't really much lower than Intel. Or viceversa.
diroussel 6y ago
Other reasons: - They have only just finished deprecating 32-bit x86 instruction set support in Catalina. Now there is space to support another instruction set, as supporting 3 at the same time would be more expensive - The patents on AVX are due to expire, making x86_64 emulation a possibility, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14523587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14523587

DCKing 6y ago

It's a combination of development in CPU performance. The peak performance levels of the Apple's ARM architectures have reached peak Intel/AMD levels around the Apple A12, so they haven't been at this level for that long. In addition, Intel has not been good at iterating on their hardware since Skylake in 2015 and don't look to be making great strides in the short term. It's like the PowerPC->Intel story all over again. Intel was not at PowerPC levels that long before 2005 (PowerPC had substantial advantages from 1994 to 2002), and IBM was not showing evidence of improving the situation beyond 2005. I think before 2018 it was unclear whether an ARM Mac would be superior in terms of performance/heat/power, but I think given Intel's lull and Apple's continued improvements I think the best decision is clear [if you think it is worth the transition, which is the most debatable item].

perardi 6y ago

5. Development cycles are long, they were operating under the assumption Intel would deliver efficient 10nm parts in volume, and instead Intel is still on 14nm++++++++++++.

AshamedCaptain 6y ago

1 and 2 are just a tradeoff. I.e. the performance may be there, but at a power level that isn't really much lower than Intel. Or viceversa.

diroussel 6y ago

Other reasons: - They have only just finished deprecating 32-bit x86 instruction set support in Catalina. Now there is space to support another instruction set, as supporting 3 at the same time would be more expensive - The patents on AVX are due to expire, making x86_64 emulation a possibility, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14523587 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14523587