5 ms·

> He's also targeting getting Apple back Very unlikely to happen. Maybe Intel could end up manufacturing Apple's M* chips, but it seems very unlikely at this p

> He's also targeting getting Apple back Very unlikely to happen. Maybe Intel could end up manufacturing Apple's M* chips, but it seems very unlikely at this point that Apple would ever go back to the Intel architecture - Apple would be ceding control if they went back and they're not going to do that.

threeseed 5y ago
> Apple would be ceding control if they went back and they're not going to do that. Case in point: 2x ProRes accelerators in the M1 Max. These are critical to a significant percentage of Apple's core base and yet there is zero chance that we would see them in the Intel offerings.
gjsman-1000 5y ago
Not to mention they'd need Rosetta 3, which would be the opposite of Rosetta 2. Things would have to be desperate to do that.
- simondotau 5y ago
  Just about the only backflip I could imagine is for Apple to declare that the highest end variants of Mac Pro would remain Intel indefinitely, making the Mac a permanently multi-architecture platform. But I’d put the odds of that happening at far less than 1%.
  - UncleOxidant 5y ago
    Unless Intel comes up with some completely new architecture with a new ISA I don't see how they could catch up with what Apple has done with the M* CPUs.
    - gameswithgo 5y ago
      there is no firm evidence that apples chips are better because of isa, they perform about like a ryzen would at 5nm
      - jtc331 5y ago
        I think there is evidence—the number of execution decoders can be much higher than x86 because fixed width instructions make that less speculative. That improves out of order and speculative execution prospects.
        UncleOxidant 5y ago
        This. ARM instructions are much more regular and easier to decode (meaning a smaller decoder) than x86 instructions, allowing for more instruction decoders in the M1.
        bryanlarsen 5y ago
        A few hundred thousand extra transistors aren't a big deal on a 20 billion transistor chip.
        djbusby 5y ago
        Does this mean the chip is more "secure" like against those attack vectors (Sepcetre?) that affect some x86?
        mrDmrTmrJ 5y ago
        No. As long as you're preforming speculative execution Spectre vulnerabilities will persist. (Meltdown was different and solved.) The good news is Spectre style vulnerabilities are extremely hard to use and indeed have never been observed in the wild. Also, good security practices (only run trusted code on your own dedicated machine) provide full protection against theoretical Spectre attacks.
        bryanlarsen 5y ago
        Decoders are less than 1% of the chip, that's not a substantive difference. Both Intel and Arm decode their instructions into micro ops, so there is no difference to out of order and speculative execution prospects because of the instruction code. The only substantive difference is that Intel provides a stronger memory ordering guarantee. This is theoretically an advantage for Arm, but there are disadvantages too, so I'd call that a wash.
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      If Itanium is any indication, even inventing a new ISA is something Intel will likely screw the pooch over. With that said, I'm cautiously hopeful that with the move to a big.LITTLE-like configuration in Alder Lake processors, Intel is at least taking notes from it's competitors. If chasing Apple is enough of a carrot to add ECC support to i7's in the near future, I say chase away.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
philistine 5y ago
I would be so surprised to even see that. For a second I pondered the idea of Apple perhaps using Intel as a fab for older chips in less demanding devices like the Homepod or the Apple TV, but that can never be better than simply using older iPhone chips. Just keep the old fabs pumping out old chips. I have to come to the conclusion that this statement just a rallying cry. Woo the uninformed that Intel will get Apple back, and try and rally the informed using this crazy claim as a North Star: Intel will become so good in the future, Apple wished they could come crawling back, if not for their pride.

threeseed 5y ago

> Apple would be ceding control if they went back and they're not going to do that. Case in point: 2x ProRes accelerators in the M1 Max. These are critical to a significant percentage of Apple's core base and yet there is zero chance that we would see them in the Intel offerings.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

Not to mention they'd need Rosetta 3, which would be the opposite of Rosetta 2. Things would have to be desperate to do that.

simondotau 5y ago
Just about the only backflip I could imagine is for Apple to declare that the highest end variants of Mac Pro would remain Intel indefinitely, making the Mac a permanently multi-architecture platform. But I’d put the odds of that happening at far less than 1%.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  Unless Intel comes up with some completely new architecture with a new ISA I don't see how they could catch up with what Apple has done with the M* CPUs.
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    there is no firm evidence that apples chips are better because of isa, they perform about like a ryzen would at 5nm
    - jtc331 5y ago
      I think there is evidence—the number of execution decoders can be much higher than x86 because fixed width instructions make that less speculative. That improves out of order and speculative execution prospects.
      - UncleOxidant 5y ago
        This. ARM instructions are much more regular and easier to decode (meaning a smaller decoder) than x86 instructions, allowing for more instruction decoders in the M1.
        bryanlarsen 5y ago
        A few hundred thousand extra transistors aren't a big deal on a 20 billion transistor chip.
      - djbusby 5y ago
        Does this mean the chip is more "secure" like against those attack vectors (Sepcetre?) that affect some x86?
        mrDmrTmrJ 5y ago
        No. As long as you're preforming speculative execution Spectre vulnerabilities will persist. (Meltdown was different and solved.) The good news is Spectre style vulnerabilities are extremely hard to use and indeed have never been observed in the wild. Also, good security practices (only run trusted code on your own dedicated machine) provide full protection against theoretical Spectre attacks.
      - bryanlarsen 5y ago
        Decoders are less than 1% of the chip, that's not a substantive difference. Both Intel and Arm decode their instructions into micro ops, so there is no difference to out of order and speculative execution prospects because of the instruction code. The only substantive difference is that Intel provides a stronger memory ordering guarantee. This is theoretically an advantage for Arm, but there are disadvantages too, so I'd call that a wash.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    If Itanium is any indication, even inventing a new ISA is something Intel will likely screw the pooch over. With that said, I'm cautiously hopeful that with the move to a big.LITTLE-like configuration in Alder Lake processors, Intel is at least taking notes from it's competitors. If chasing Apple is enough of a carrot to add ECC support to i7's in the near future, I say chase away.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

philistine 5y ago

I would be so surprised to even see that. For a second I pondered the idea of Apple perhaps using Intel as a fab for older chips in less demanding devices like the Homepod or the Apple TV, but that can never be better than simply using older iPhone chips. Just keep the old fabs pumping out old chips. I have to come to the conclusion that this statement just a rallying cry. Woo the uninformed that Intel will get Apple back, and try and rally the informed using this crazy claim as a North Star: Intel will become so good in the future, Apple wished they could come crawling back, if not for their pride.