5 ms·

> So I think x86 is here to stay, or at least that's not the Apple switch that is going to initiate a revolution. It will, indirectly. When MacBooks offer 1.5x

by jorvi 6y ago

> So I think x86 is here to stay, or at least that's not the Apple switch that is going to initiate a revolution. It will, indirectly. When MacBooks offer 1.5x the performance at 2x the battery life, people using Windows or Linux will start to demand similar devices from Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer, etc; It makes me the saddest for AMD. They’ve just clawed back a few victories from a decade of loss, and starting within 5 years that will hardly matter. As for the customer: this will be an amazing time, especially if we will finally get some standardization around ARM SoCs. Apparently every single one of them (at least phones) does their own little boot quirks, instead of their being a unified BIOS or EFI or whatever to guide it all.

temac 6y ago
> It will, indirectly. When MacBooks offer 1.5x the performance at 2x the battery life, people using Windows or Linux will start to demand similar devices from Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer, etc; Well, people can demand that, but if only Apple knows how to design the chips, and given they will not sell them to competitors...
- baconandeggs 6y ago
  Users don't want chips they want systems and the way people will "demand" them will be by buying Apple. Dell and Lenovo will have to come up with something or cede market share.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    That's the direct pressure, not the indirect pressure. And yeah it'll exist but if they decide not to make the OS replaceable then there's going to be a severe dampening effect on people switching to Apple hardware. So we'll see on that front.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Where I come from, people won't certainly be rushing to buy Apple with 300 euros as minimum wage and 1000 euros on average for regular IT job.
    - baconandeggs 6y ago
      Sure, but neither are they now so it makes no difference to Apple.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Which makes the whole point of the article meaningless.
  - greggman3 6y ago
    I know Apple probably sells the most computers of any single company but in terms of the total market share they are under 10%? (laptop market). Part of that is cost. Apple's cheapest laptop is $999. I can get 3 chrome books or even 3 windows laptops for that. Sure the $999 Macbook Air is a much better machine but the person buying the $300 laptop, or even the $600 laptop doesn't care. It's like saying BMW or Mercedes is a better car than a Kia. I'm sure it is but neither my sister nor my 2 adult nephews can afford the Mercedes and neither can they afford the MBA. Just like Kia will still get them to work and to the grocery store the cheaper laptops will still let them facebook/twitter/ms-office/slack/google/maps just fine. Going on Amazon an typing "laptop" 6 of the first 7 hits are under $500 so less than 1/2 the cost of the cheapest Mac. The 1 that is over is $579 so nearly 1/2 I'm typing this on a $3600 MBP and I have a $2700 MBA as well so it's not like I'm not an Apple fan but I see what my family buys they'll opt for the perfectly adequate $550 computer over the probably superior $999 one.
- sjwright 6y ago
  Interesting times ahead, that's for sure. In my mind the small wildcard is going to be how effectively Apple can scale up CPU performance as their thermal budgets are increased. But the big wildcard is going to be how their in-house GPU tech scales up. It's going to be strange times ahead if Apple can bring the fight to AMD and Nvidia's mid-tier discrete products.
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    Where is the pressure for Apple to beat the GPU performance of AMD or Nvidia going to come from though? Game consoles are stalwartly back on x86 for at least another generation (Xbox Series X, PS5), so AAA developers will have even less pressure for ARM ports and especially macOS-specific ARM ports. Apple may be hoping for more "bottom up" ports from iOS/Apple Arcade, and ARM macOS will make that easier, but games ported up from mobile don't seem particularly like a source for parity with AMD/Nvidia, much less a source for innovative competition "fight".
    - sjwright 6y ago
      To be clear, I was referring to AMD/Nvidia mid-tier. And I don’t expect Apple to come close to that any time soon. But who knows—Apple have already exceeded all expectations on their in-house GPU tech. While Apple doesn’t need to be chasing tier 1 AAA game performance, they do need graphics horsepower to handle two or three 6K displays. They also need to be a compelling platform for occasional gamers. And they need performance to power their push into AR.
ahartmetz 6y ago
I'm not too worried about AMD as long as Lisa Su is in charge. They know how to make high performance CPUs and they probably didn't finish their K12 only because x86 seemed more profitable for the time being. I don't see Su missing an important trend when the time comes - when there is sufficient demand for ARM, pioneered by others, and the company has gained enough x86 marketshare (an ongoing, slow process) to be able to afford more parallel R&D.
theevilsharpie 6y ago
> It will, indirectly. When MacBooks offer 1.5x the performance at 2x the battery life, people using Windows or Linux will start to demand similar devices from Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer, etc; > It makes me the saddest for AMD. They’ve just clawed back a few victories from a decade of loss, and starting within 5 years that will hardly matter. I wouldn't be sad for AMD at all. This transition presents them with an amazing opportunity to take more of the client market. The performance deficit you cite is more of an Intel performance deficit, as current AMD processors also substantially outperform Intel's offerings. I would expect AMD Zen 2/3 and Apple Silicon to perform similarly in terms of performance/watt, as they're both modern processor designs manufactured at TSMC. Unless Intel can quickly resolve the manufacturing woes that keep them from moving to a competitive semiconductor process, I expect the PC OEMs threatened by Apple to turn more often to AMD to stay competitive.

by jorvi 6y ago

temac 6y ago

baconandeggs 6y ago
Users don't want chips they want systems and the way people will "demand" them will be by buying Apple. Dell and Lenovo will have to come up with something or cede market share.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  That's the direct pressure, not the indirect pressure. And yeah it'll exist but if they decide not to make the OS replaceable then there's going to be a severe dampening effect on people switching to Apple hardware. So we'll see on that front.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Where I come from, people won't certainly be rushing to buy Apple with 300 euros as minimum wage and 1000 euros on average for regular IT job.
  - baconandeggs 6y ago
    Sure, but neither are they now so it makes no difference to Apple.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Which makes the whole point of the article meaningless.
- greggman3 6y ago
  I know Apple probably sells the most computers of any single company but in terms of the total market share they are under 10%? (laptop market). Part of that is cost. Apple's cheapest laptop is $999. I can get 3 chrome books or even 3 windows laptops for that. Sure the $999 Macbook Air is a much better machine but the person buying the $300 laptop, or even the $600 laptop doesn't care. It's like saying BMW or Mercedes is a better car than a Kia. I'm sure it is but neither my sister nor my 2 adult nephews can afford the Mercedes and neither can they afford the MBA. Just like Kia will still get them to work and to the grocery store the cheaper laptops will still let them facebook/twitter/ms-office/slack/google/maps just fine. Going on Amazon an typing "laptop" 6 of the first 7 hits are under $500 so less than 1/2 the cost of the cheapest Mac. The 1 that is over is $579 so nearly 1/2 I'm typing this on a $3600 MBP and I have a $2700 MBA as well so it's not like I'm not an Apple fan but I see what my family buys they'll opt for the perfectly adequate $550 computer over the probably superior $999 one.
sjwright 6y ago
Interesting times ahead, that's for sure. In my mind the small wildcard is going to be how effectively Apple can scale up CPU performance as their thermal budgets are increased. But the big wildcard is going to be how their in-house GPU tech scales up. It's going to be strange times ahead if Apple can bring the fight to AMD and Nvidia's mid-tier discrete products.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  Where is the pressure for Apple to beat the GPU performance of AMD or Nvidia going to come from though? Game consoles are stalwartly back on x86 for at least another generation (Xbox Series X, PS5), so AAA developers will have even less pressure for ARM ports and especially macOS-specific ARM ports. Apple may be hoping for more "bottom up" ports from iOS/Apple Arcade, and ARM macOS will make that easier, but games ported up from mobile don't seem particularly like a source for parity with AMD/Nvidia, much less a source for innovative competition "fight".
  - sjwright 6y ago
    To be clear, I was referring to AMD/Nvidia mid-tier. And I don’t expect Apple to come close to that any time soon. But who knows—Apple have already exceeded all expectations on their in-house GPU tech. While Apple doesn’t need to be chasing tier 1 AAA game performance, they do need graphics horsepower to handle two or three 6K displays. They also need to be a compelling platform for occasional gamers. And they need performance to power their push into AR.

ahartmetz 6y ago

I'm not too worried about AMD as long as Lisa Su is in charge. They know how to make high performance CPUs and they probably didn't finish their K12 only because x86 seemed more profitable for the time being. I don't see Su missing an important trend when the time comes - when there is sufficient demand for ARM, pioneered by others, and the company has gained enough x86 marketshare (an ongoing, slow process) to be able to afford more parallel R&D.

theevilsharpie 6y ago

> It will, indirectly. When MacBooks offer 1.5x the performance at 2x the battery life, people using Windows or Linux will start to demand similar devices from Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer, etc; > It makes me the saddest for AMD. They’ve just clawed back a few victories from a decade of loss, and starting within 5 years that will hardly matter. I wouldn't be sad for AMD at all. This transition presents them with an amazing opportunity to take more of the client market. The performance deficit you cite is more of an Intel performance deficit, as current AMD processors also substantially outperform Intel's offerings. I would expect AMD Zen 2/3 and Apple Silicon to perform similarly in terms of performance/watt, as they're both modern processor designs manufactured at TSMC. Unless Intel can quickly resolve the manufacturing woes that keep them from moving to a competitive semiconductor process, I expect the PC OEMs threatened by Apple to turn more often to AMD to stay competitive.