Apple dumps Intel from laptop lines
- Thread starter rpg.314
- Start date
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Apple only got up from the dump when they started using x86 for windows compatibility.
ARM compatibility in Windows 8 will be both strange and limited, in terms of software support, for at least 5-8 years imo.
Plus, there have never been any rumours about MacOS X for ARM, afaik.
I think if they cut the x86 out of the equation in 2 years, they may very well go into the dump again.
People still buy macbooks mostly because they enjoy the looks and they can have windows in it.
Switching Intel for AMD's APUs makes sense, as people didn't exactly enjoy having a graphics downgrade from the GT320M to Intel's HD3000 during the last switch in the MB's hardware, and an APU would fix that.
But cutting the x86 alltogether in 2-3 would be a bit suicidal, even for Apple.
ARM compatibility in Windows 8 will be both strange and limited, in terms of software support, for at least 5-8 years imo.
Plus, there have never been any rumours about MacOS X for ARM, afaik.
I think if they cut the x86 out of the equation in 2 years, they may very well go into the dump again.
People still buy macbooks mostly because they enjoy the looks and they can have windows in it.
Switching Intel for AMD's APUs makes sense, as people didn't exactly enjoy having a graphics downgrade from the GT320M to Intel's HD3000 during the last switch in the MB's hardware, and an APU would fix that.
But cutting the x86 alltogether in 2-3 would be a bit suicidal, even for Apple.
I can see ARM taking the future slate product that falls between a MacBook Pro and an iPad in the near future, but ARM can't compete with SB for performance and a wholesale switch would either require ARM to match Intel or for Apple to give up a high-end solutions, neither of which I see happening in the next 2-3 years. What's more, if the ARM version of Windows is, in any way, not a full replacement for the x86 version, they would lose customers who rely on bootcamp.
I'm very skeptical.
I'm very skeptical.
iMacmatician
Regular
I've always thought that Apple plans on moving the iPad line "up" as its platform further matures and correspondingly moving the MacBook lines "up" too (more slowly).
I don't see Apple switching their Macs to ARM any time soon, though. I think it's more likely there'll be a $1000+ future iPad "Pro" in the MacBook segment.
I don't see Apple switching their Macs to ARM any time soon, though. I think it's more likely there'll be a $1000+ future iPad "Pro" in the MacBook segment.
Especially given that I think there were rumors about Mac OS X on Intel before it was officially announced.
Which perf sensitive apps are you talking about?
EDIT: While mac pro comes to mind, it is a very small part of the overall mac volume.
Last edited by a moderator:
???
Any mac with an i5 or i7 is one I would consider part of their high performance line. Is there any ARM chip than can keep up with an i5-2510M or i7-2600k?
I think the MacBook Pro is one of their bestsellers and all imacs now have SB.
Sure, but which apps would be hamstrung by an arm core?
A quad core 3-issue arm seems like a reasonable replacement for most of the apps.
Games & transcoding come to mind quickly...
... and flash, java, whatever..
I simply don't see how people expect ARM cores at the same performance to be that much more effective than x86. I don't think the ISA means that much for a modern high performance few-core processor, and intel/amd most probably have better cpu tech than any arm integrator.
Sure, it easy to make a simple, low performing core power efficient (also in work done per energy). But try to scale that single-thread performance up, and it'll probably look more and more like an x86 cpu with a different decoder on top.
Of course the "simple approach" will be "good enough" for more and more as time passes, but I don't see MBPs in this category anytime soon.
I simply don't see how people expect ARM cores at the same performance to be that much more effective than x86. I don't think the ISA means that much for a modern high performance few-core processor, and intel/amd most probably have better cpu tech than any arm integrator.
Sure, it easy to make a simple, low performing core power efficient (also in work done per energy). But try to scale that single-thread performance up, and it'll probably look more and more like an x86 cpu with a different decoder on top.
Of course the "simple approach" will be "good enough" for more and more as time passes, but I don't see MBPs in this category anytime soon.
Mac was never much of a gaming machine and gamers aren't apple's focus customers. AFAIK, mac os x ships with ogles2, which is sorta like SM2.x on SM5.0 hw.
Transcoding works fine with dedicated hw. Look at Quick sync.
Blazkowicz
Legend
the mac is a brand for high end computers, when the next generation comes out and is slower than the one-and-a-half previous version, they'll be a laughing stock for cheaping out on hardware.
$500 laptops will outperform the $1199 mac laptop and that may be bad publicity.
I agree with CPU being often way overkill but mac is sold as a niche for audio creation, photoshop, video editing i.e. about the only applications for non technical people where CPU speed is important.
$500 laptops will outperform the $1199 mac laptop and that may be bad publicity.
I agree with CPU being often way overkill but mac is sold as a niche for audio creation, photoshop, video editing i.e. about the only applications for non technical people where CPU speed is important.
Image and video editing are rather amenable to gpu acceleration, and apple has a history of delivering gpu accelerated apps. More so with increasing programmability.
I doubt audio creation is a big consumer of cycles.
Besides, Arun's article was clearly saying that an armv8 core would be a very capable one. And don't forget, various vendors have announced >2GHz arm cores for phones in that time frame. With a little more clocks a reasonable replacement for laptop seems within reach.
Uh...are you seriously saying you don't know that many MacBook Pros either run Windows exclusively or have bootcamp installed for gaming? There's also that Steam client for the native OS...
Then you mention quick sync - an Intel solution to bolster my argument? Thanks!
Now show me the ARM solution with a dedicated transcoding solution...
Here's another point on the Intel vs. ARM in Macs...Macs are popular VM platforms. I often have two and sometimes three VMs running on mine at a time. That means lots of RAM and CPU resources. I don't think it's possible to compare such a situation on ARM as there is no general VM application out there for one of ARM's OSes yet, but I'd have to guess, based on how long it took for VMware and Sun/Oracle (VirtualBox) to get to the functionality they have today, it's going to be a while before I'm running two virtual servers inside my ARM-based Mac, with another VM running in parallels so I can test my latest embedded (XPe) apps or make sure a presentation made in PowerPoint2011 on OS X isn't dorked in PowerPoint 2010 (win) thanks to MS's incompetence in making file formats compatible.
I'm not saying there won't come a day when an ARM platform can do this, but I don't see it being within two years...I've been wrong before though...
I'm not saying there won't come a day when an ARM platform can do this, but I don't see it being within two years...I've been wrong before though...
Fair enough, lot's of people dual boot Macs. But then Windows on ARM will also be out in that time.
ARM vendors can copy that too, so it's hardly an argument.Then you mention quick sync - an Intel solution to bolster my argument? Thanks!
May be Apple will ship a VM alongside. Besides, it's not like apple cares about third party devs on mac.
So you are arguing that W8 on ARM will hold it's own against i7 / whatever intel in gaming then?
As for ARM copying Quick Sync, that's not so trivial as QS already kills CUDA for speed and quality.
Finally, Apple loves to sell their hardware and, as overpriced as it is, it is currently some, if no the best, out there. Longer battery life, aluminum chassis, backlit keyboards, etc. Only the top end Samsungs and Asuses are giving them good competition. Apple knows there are significant sales of their hardware for dedicated "other OS" machines and they won't want to lose those sales.
Personally I don't think this is plausible.
First, it's unlikely that Apple will dump Intel in favor of ARM in near future. The lack of performance is the biggest issue. If ARM is much faster than x86 then it's more likely (as x86 was faster than PPC back then so they can use software emulation to handle compatibility problem). Apple is also doing workstation and server markets, and performance is important in these markets.
Second, if Apple simply wants to make an additional product line as "ARM based netbooks," I don't see why they need to do that. Basically, the only benefit of netbook is low price. Apple has already shown that they have no interests in attracting these people. I don't see why they want to go though such troubles just to get some market share from a very low margin market.
First, it's unlikely that Apple will dump Intel in favor of ARM in near future. The lack of performance is the biggest issue. If ARM is much faster than x86 then it's more likely (as x86 was faster than PPC back then so they can use software emulation to handle compatibility problem). Apple is also doing workstation and server markets, and performance is important in these markets.
Second, if Apple simply wants to make an additional product line as "ARM based netbooks," I don't see why they need to do that. Basically, the only benefit of netbook is low price. Apple has already shown that they have no interests in attracting these people. I don't see why they want to go though such troubles just to get some market share from a very low margin market.
Similar threads
