4 ms·

I think it's more likely Apple moves to ARM for Macs than moving from ARM to Intel chips for iPhones and iPads, like it was rumored a few days ago. ARM chips wi

I think it's more likely Apple moves to ARM for Macs than moving from ARM to Intel chips for iPhones and iPads, like it was rumored a few days ago. ARM chips will be powerful enough for Apple notebooks in a couple of years, so I could definitely see an ARM chip in a future Macbook Air sometime in the next 2 years.

sasvari 16y ago
it might also be that Intel will gain some momentum with the recent introduction of their new 3D transistor approach leaving ARM behind even in regard to power consumption. this could discourage apple from making a major processor switch again, especially with the high overall costs (compatibility etc.) a switch would introduce.
- nextparadigms 16y ago
  Intel's big breakthrough with the 3D chips is that they can continue Moore's Law at a steady pace, even when they can't shrink the transistors anymore. But it's not a breakthrough in performance. So in regards to that they are still behind ARM as always. Intel is still moving at Moore's Law's pace, not faster. For now at least, ARM chips seem to be moving faster, doubling in performance every 12 months. I think Apple is planning to move to ARM once they have their (most likely) quad core A6 chip.
  - jcarreiro 16y ago
    > But it's not a breakthrough in performance. The tri-gate transistors have lower gate delays (they can switch more quickly) and can operate with lower voltages. How is that not a breakthrough in performance?
    - nextparadigms 16y ago
      It's mostly a performance improvement along Moore's Law. Are you saying that now with the tri-gate Intel's chips will double in power every 12 months or every 6 months? And if this is just a one time only "big" jump in performance, then even if it's 100% increased performance over sandy bridge, it's still not that much. ARM chips double in performance every 12 months. That's my issue with this. Because most people seem to think Ivy Bridge puts Intel so much closer to ARM, but it doesn't. Let's say that without 3D, the jump from 32nm to 22nm would give them 30% increased energy efficiency. Now with the 3D it gives them 50% increase, so an additional 20%. As I said,the jump in performance is nice but not a world changer.
microarchitect 16y ago
As you say, it's quite possible. Some competitive studies that a professional acquaintance of mine did indicated that if the ARM Cortex A15 meets it's performance goals, it would roughly have IPC [1] parity with AMD's Bobcat. Bobcat is now at 1.6 GHz and the Cortex A15 is being designed for 2.5 GHz. This means that the A15 might be up to 10-20% faster than Bobcat. Now, Bobcat is at approximately about 50-60% performance of a high-end notebook today, which leaves the A15 looking very decent performance wise. I think the real threat to the Cortex comes from the 22nm Atom. If the 30% power savings due to the FinFETs are true [2], taking into account the fact that the current-generation Atoms are still on 45nm, it's conceivable that Atom power consumption might reduce by something like 70%. Also note that the A15 will still be on either 28nm or 32nm, so due to Intel's manufacturing muscle means the Atom part will be very competitive. Things are beginning to get interesting in the microprocessor industry. :-) [1] IPC: Instructions per clock cycle. [2] I'm not a circuits guy but my semi-informed guess is that the numbers are not far from reality.
- nextparadigms 16y ago
  It will take a while for Intel to move Atom to 22nm. They are just moving it to 32nm next year. Normally, that means they would switch to 22nm in 2014, but if they are in a real hurry they'll do it in 2013. But I'm not seeing them doing it any faster than that. Two years is quite a lot of time in the mobile industry. It might be way too late for Intel, then. Plus, they'll only be able to get close with something like a single core Atom, like they are trying this year. We'll have quad core Cortex A15 chips by then, which means even if Atom catches up in energy efficiency, the ARM chips will be significantly more powerful by then - all at the same price or cheaper than Intel's Atom. So I don't see much incentive for manufacturers to use it.
  - microarchitect 16y ago
    Don't forget the A15 is also at least a year away. I'm not sure what you mean by this: "Plus, they'll only be able to get close with something like a single core Atom, like they are trying this year." > We'll have quad core Cortex A15 chips by then. I don't think this is a big deal. Intel already have dual-core Atoms which actually have 4 threads, which are going to be quite competitive out of the box with a quad core ARM chip. > all at the same price or cheaper than Intel's Atom. I don't buy this. Intel's fabs can blow the pants off everyone else in terms of yield and cost. The big pile of cash they're sitting will also help. > Two years is quite a lot of time in the mobile industry This might be true, but my points were specifically made for laptops and not mobile phone chips.

sasvari 16y ago

it might also be that Intel will gain some momentum with the recent introduction of their new 3D transistor approach leaving ARM behind even in regard to power consumption. this could discourage apple from making a major processor switch again, especially with the high overall costs (compatibility etc.) a switch would introduce.

nextparadigms 16y ago
Intel's big breakthrough with the 3D chips is that they can continue Moore's Law at a steady pace, even when they can't shrink the transistors anymore. But it's not a breakthrough in performance. So in regards to that they are still behind ARM as always. Intel is still moving at Moore's Law's pace, not faster. For now at least, ARM chips seem to be moving faster, doubling in performance every 12 months. I think Apple is planning to move to ARM once they have their (most likely) quad core A6 chip.
- jcarreiro 16y ago
  > But it's not a breakthrough in performance. The tri-gate transistors have lower gate delays (they can switch more quickly) and can operate with lower voltages. How is that not a breakthrough in performance?
  - nextparadigms 16y ago
    It's mostly a performance improvement along Moore's Law. Are you saying that now with the tri-gate Intel's chips will double in power every 12 months or every 6 months? And if this is just a one time only "big" jump in performance, then even if it's 100% increased performance over sandy bridge, it's still not that much. ARM chips double in performance every 12 months. That's my issue with this. Because most people seem to think Ivy Bridge puts Intel so much closer to ARM, but it doesn't. Let's say that without 3D, the jump from 32nm to 22nm would give them 30% increased energy efficiency. Now with the 3D it gives them 50% increase, so an additional 20%. As I said,the jump in performance is nice but not a world changer.

microarchitect 16y ago

As you say, it's quite possible. Some competitive studies that a professional acquaintance of mine did indicated that if the ARM Cortex A15 meets it's performance goals, it would roughly have IPC [1] parity with AMD's Bobcat. Bobcat is now at 1.6 GHz and the Cortex A15 is being designed for 2.5 GHz. This means that the A15 might be up to 10-20% faster than Bobcat. Now, Bobcat is at approximately about 50-60% performance of a high-end notebook today, which leaves the A15 looking very decent performance wise. I think the real threat to the Cortex comes from the 22nm Atom. If the 30% power savings due to the FinFETs are true [2], taking into account the fact that the current-generation Atoms are still on 45nm, it's conceivable that Atom power consumption might reduce by something like 70%. Also note that the A15 will still be on either 28nm or 32nm, so due to Intel's manufacturing muscle means the Atom part will be very competitive. Things are beginning to get interesting in the microprocessor industry. :-) [1] IPC: Instructions per clock cycle. [2] I'm not a circuits guy but my semi-informed guess is that the numbers are not far from reality.

nextparadigms 16y ago
It will take a while for Intel to move Atom to 22nm. They are just moving it to 32nm next year. Normally, that means they would switch to 22nm in 2014, but if they are in a real hurry they'll do it in 2013. But I'm not seeing them doing it any faster than that. Two years is quite a lot of time in the mobile industry. It might be way too late for Intel, then. Plus, they'll only be able to get close with something like a single core Atom, like they are trying this year. We'll have quad core Cortex A15 chips by then, which means even if Atom catches up in energy efficiency, the ARM chips will be significantly more powerful by then - all at the same price or cheaper than Intel's Atom. So I don't see much incentive for manufacturers to use it.
- microarchitect 16y ago
  Don't forget the A15 is also at least a year away. I'm not sure what you mean by this: "Plus, they'll only be able to get close with something like a single core Atom, like they are trying this year." > We'll have quad core Cortex A15 chips by then. I don't think this is a big deal. Intel already have dual-core Atoms which actually have 4 threads, which are going to be quite competitive out of the box with a quad core ARM chip. > all at the same price or cheaper than Intel's Atom. I don't buy this. Intel's fabs can blow the pants off everyone else in terms of yield and cost. The big pile of cash they're sitting will also help. > Two years is quite a lot of time in the mobile industry This might be true, but my points were specifically made for laptops and not mobile phone chips.