4 ms·

> What that means is that you really can't add an instruction if you're an Apple or a Cisco or what not to your CPU to make your particular use of the part more

by bjustin 14y ago

> What that means is that you really can't add an instruction if you're an Apple or a Cisco or what not to your CPU to make your particular use of the part more efficient. But with ARM you can. If you are an instruction set licensee you can make internal changes and keep the compatibility high. Apple just demonstrated with the A5x that this was something they were willing to do. There is no relationship with Intel where that sort of option would be possible. By licensing armv7s, Apple got to make the A6's CPU unbeholden to Samsung, Qualcomm, etc. They also got an armv7s using processor out before anyone else by making their own. Intel's fab advantage and CPU design expertise, plus their willingness to make custom parts for Apple (see small outline C2D for original Macbook Air), would make up for what design control Apple loses by not designing in house.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
"Intel's fab advantage and CPU design expertise, plus their willingness to make custom parts for Apple (see small outline C2D for original Macbook Air), would make up for what design control Apple loses by not designing in house." As I understand it the small outline C2D was simply a packaging option rather than a silicon change. And then Intel turned around and has been trying to get all of the 'other' manufacturers to make MBA clones aka Ultrabooks. If Apple says, "Make us a Haswell chip where there is an extra GPU core, but don't let anyone but us use that core." That is a hard place to be for Intel. Now they invest time and energy in a silicon change, and an all mask change at that (not just a metal layer change) with the proviso that only Apple can use those extra transistors. The only way to amortize that cost is on Apple sales, and if Apple says "Gee, that hasn't been as successful as we'd like, never mind." Intel takes a hit. When I was at Sun, Sun decided to start making its own CPUs (the SPARC architecture). Seeing how they could tune their code and their process to the CPU gave them similar advantages that DEC, HP, and IBM had who all had an in house CPU capability. Previously Motorola was the chip maker but Motorola wouldn't agree to 'Sun specific' changes, especially if it forces Motorola to support a specialized part just for Sun. Early on Apple tried a different approach which was a consortium which had a CPU architecture (PowerPC) that could make chips just for it. That must have shown them the advantages of that approach but dissuaded them from wanting to convince 'somebody else' when they wanted something done their way. FWIW, I also think the fact that Samsung had that capability (making their own ARM chips) and they were executing faster than Apple was really pushed Apple into the space it is today. What that adds up to is Intel being frozen out of the market. Can't compete on price, can't compete on features, and can't compete on software base (any more). Bad news all around. Will be interesting to see if Intel decides they are going to start making smartphones/tablets themselves.

by bjustin 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

"Intel's fab advantage and CPU design expertise, plus their willingness to make custom parts for Apple (see small outline C2D for original Macbook Air), would make up for what design control Apple loses by not designing in house." As I understand it the small outline C2D was simply a packaging option rather than a silicon change. And then Intel turned around and has been trying to get all of the 'other' manufacturers to make MBA clones aka Ultrabooks. If Apple says, "Make us a Haswell chip where there is an extra GPU core, but don't let anyone but us use that core." That is a hard place to be for Intel. Now they invest time and energy in a silicon change, and an all mask change at that (not just a metal layer change) with the proviso that only Apple can use those extra transistors. The only way to amortize that cost is on Apple sales, and if Apple says "Gee, that hasn't been as successful as we'd like, never mind." Intel takes a hit. When I was at Sun, Sun decided to start making its own CPUs (the SPARC architecture). Seeing how they could tune their code and their process to the CPU gave them similar advantages that DEC, HP, and IBM had who all had an in house CPU capability. Previously Motorola was the chip maker but Motorola wouldn't agree to 'Sun specific' changes, especially if it forces Motorola to support a specialized part just for Sun. Early on Apple tried a different approach which was a consortium which had a CPU architecture (PowerPC) that could make chips just for it. That must have shown them the advantages of that approach but dissuaded them from wanting to convince 'somebody else' when they wanted something done their way. FWIW, I also think the fact that Samsung had that capability (making their own ARM chips) and they were executing faster than Apple was really pushed Apple into the space it is today. What that adds up to is Intel being frozen out of the market. Can't compete on price, can't compete on features, and can't compete on software base (any more). Bad news all around. Will be interesting to see if Intel decides they are going to start making smartphones/tablets themselves.