Apple to start making their own CPU’s, about time

There is a good reason why Apple only has a small percentage of the computer market, 7.4%. What is funny is sitting down with a MacBook Pro that was using Bootcamp to run Windows 10.
 
Watch Macbreak Weekly #604 Tue ,04 Apr 2018. The puts this whole CPU issue in perspective. The Engadget article is long on rumors and very short on reality.

My next computer is going to be a Raspberry Pi 3 Model B+ It has a 1.4GHz 64-bit quad-core processor, dual-band wireless LAN, Bluetooth 4.2/BLE, faster Ethernet, and Power-over-Ethernet support (with separate PoE HAT) Amazon has a complete starter set for $75 USD. I am going to use it at my radio operating position, rig control, with SDR’s etc and I can play with Linux. Have some fun with a computer again.
 
my input.

AAPL switching to PowerPC, moto68K owners left holding the Mac, switching to Intel, PowerPC
owners left holding their Macs. Switching to AAPL-ARMs (with custom gates => no subs from
the various ARM licensees) means Mac owners holding their obsolete Macs.

unless AAPL builds an emulation layer (in either hardware or software or both) to interpret
x86/x64 instruction codes and translates/maps/executes them in ARM code. if this doesn't happen
your new mac apps needs the new AAPL-ARM and that old intel-Mac drops in price
(BUT buy them to run Windows - best price performance in history - hundred dollar i7s!!!!)
In my recollection this has only been done once -successfully.
the bigger picture is what happens to two vastly different platforms (iOS and MacOS). I suspect
it was decided long ago to freeze MacOS innovation development (dudes - where my touchscreen?).
and move iOS to the laptop/desktop which brings multitasking (finally!), touchscreen, and
hopefully better voice input. single platform, single file, single GUI, single, single, single,...

hero for a nanosecond: take 10+ million intel-based macs, save 200+ per intel i7 CPU, save
whoa! 2 BILLION - (ARMs are cheap see Raspberry Pi) savings.

history lesson, back about 25 years ago, Microsoft bet the company, put 10,000 engineers
on the development of NT, ground-up, layered (subsystems in own layer), protected (rings),
with ability to support different CPUs. Like public ( Intel, Alpha, , etc) and private/not widely known,
ones like (Intergraph, HP/PA, MIPS, etc) and within a short period of time they all dropped out
why? costs about a billion to do the next version. the remaining CPUs are now found
in video games, etc. witness also the HP/Oracle suit regarding Itanium versions of Oracle,
and let's not forget the wonderful future of Oracle's Sparc CPUs.

no doubt there will be multiple AAPL-ARMs in the new MAC laptops and desktops, to
run compute intensive apps, higher than VGA resolutions for 3D/video editing/etc, and
now for the big question. how do you design the new MAC motherboard for new
cards to do Nvidia-type graphics or, heaven hoping, bitcoin mining, or parallel
processing co-procesors? PCI-e 16 lanes? crossfire stuff? m.2 support?
native NVMe/of support for supercomputer and WW supremacy.

with several hundred thousand employees, I would hope they avoid the Apple II
slot-dependent cards, or the IBM Micro Channel licensing, that's if they develop
a slot/channel based system. And hire the very best in the industry to develop
emulation software.

you can rule the world if you can emulate the upper level apps that use/require
intel x86/x64 code, and below it all run the code by runtime execution (just
not byte code, please, please, please) on limitless cpu (core, thread, speed,
optimization). start by buying VM and Windows emulators.

however, in about 2 years we will see whether the 100million Macs are worthy
or become the cheapest fastest Window machine on earth.
 
Apple has maintained some backwards-compatibility after major upgrades over the years, at least for a limited time. PPC Macs could run old 68K code using an emulation layer. Once OS X came along, Macs could still be made to boot into Mac OS 9 up until the last PowerMac G4 models, and until OS X 10.5, classic Mac OS programs would still run using a virtualized version of OS 9. Then, when Intel replaced PPC, you could still run pure PPC OS X programs using the "Rosetta" emulation layer on the Intel Macs until OS X 10.7.
-Adam
 
"Apple to start making their own CPU"

That's fine for them to make their own CPU's, The point is to make them as cost effective as AMD and Intel. Both of those brands have CPU with amazing capability for the money, and are configured specifically for Apple and PC. I think it unlikely Apple could compete with them. Development costs alone are outrageous. Their products are already very expensive, This will just raise the price that much more. Better to give AMD their performance requirements, and let their experienced engineers design one that fits their needs.
 
Last edited:
in those old days, the succeeding CPUs had a splash of more hp, potential improvements,
and a future.

so the secondary question is whether an AAPL-ARM can supply the necessary horsepower
to run any emulation in addition to what users expect in a new MAC that should be faster than
any earlier Intel-Mac. some of the new Macs sport i7 CPUs which are not slow.

future macs could use i9s before they're killed.

right now, the only way AAPL-ARM can run with the big dogs (Intel, AMD) is to use lots of
them - ARMs are RISC machines with limitations compared to
speculative execution/branch prediction/parallel this and that. however, future ARMs can
follow in these well worn footsteps.

I agree, as I mentioned earlier about the staggering costs of CPU development, that
it could cost AAPL a lot of the money it might be saving.

meanwhile, new ryzen threadrippers, i9s break the double-digit Ghz with their average CPUs,
and monster ones approach 200Ghz. in the next three years, watch the thread counts go past
100 and the total Ghz cross 300. that AAPL-ARM has a lot to catch up.

if I were AAPL, I'd have a funded, experienced group develop a strong plan B.
 
Just finished watching the latest Macbreak Weekly. The reason for the rumor is Apple is very unhappy with Intel’s speed in implementing stuff that Apple wants in the CPU they are getting from them. They want to design their own nothing was said about who is going to build them. One wonders if AMD is knocking on Apple’s front door with their hat in hand. I have never used Intel processors in any of my builds. The crowd I used to run with were AMD rebels. My current system uses a AMD FX 9590 8 core Black Edition 4.7 GHz.
 
Well if AMD can start building processors for Apple they can do a gigantic nanner-nanner in Intel’s direction. AMD beat Intel to the one GHz clock speed in 2000. The story has it that when Craig R. Barrett the CEO of intel at the time learned this he went on a screaming Baboon tirade, stomping up and down the hallways at Intel HQ and flaming everyone especially the marketing staff. One story had him standing on his desk top screaming like a banjee. 33B5A591-7679-416D-9428-EF9493F46D47.jpeg
 
(sidebar: ya'll know that clock speed isnt as important as people would like to think? there are better ways to measure a processors performance, tailored for a specific workload)
 
I imagine they will do a fabless semiconductor company thing.

Get the latest and greatest ARM chips on dev boards and customize to fit. Then mask out, test out and tweak, then crank out the next product.

Repeat

They are big enough and rich enough to handle the ramp up.

I worked for a couple successful fabless companies. NVidia was one. They do well.
 
(sidebar: ya'll know that clock speed isnt as important as people would like to think? there are better ways to measure a processors performance, tailored for a specific workload)
What you just said is exactly what Intel said when AMD beat them to 1 GHz. They were laughed at.
 
...Why people keep patronizing them is beyond comprehension...

Sheep. All of them.

It's interesting, my friends don't use Apple devices or ever use Facebook. Not that I influenced them at all, but independent thinking people stay away from closed environments and being told what to buy and what to do.
 
What you just said is exactly what Intel said when AMD beat them to 1 GHz. They were laughed at.
those who laughed were fools then. clock speed does make a difference, but in the overall scheme of things it is but one cog, and in an environment where you do data processing (i.e. any business) and are hence IO bound, a much slower machine as part of a farm will outperform a faster clock.

I could bore you all for a week long class I used to teach for IBM and VISA on this subject but the ROTM intel based pc or laptop has a higher clock than most mainframes, and an army of them will get their ass kicked by 1. (which is prolly why we as an industry configure as we do)
 
Clock speed is not the whole story what the people were laughing at was the petulant tone Intel had at the time. I was studying the history of these companies and you find out that Intel, and AMD upper executives had a "history" which all started with a group that were later called "The Traitorous 8". By the time of the 1 GHz chip event the members of this group had moved on or had retired but the bad blood between the two companies remained. This rivalry is what attracted the group I was running with. We could not afford Apple computers, they didn't run our software, and the people who had them were snobs. We went with AMD they were cheaper anyway. In those days, circa 1990, in a computer crowd if you said you used AMD processors the Intel people looked at you like you were at a PETA meeting eating a ham sandwich. We loved it.

The differences between the Apple and PC world were demonstrated to me the first time I went to an Apple Store. I had made my appointment at the "Genius Bar" (I was laughing when I did this online) I was there to get an iPod Touch replaced under warranty. The store lay out was interesting but what did it was a lady came in carrying an iMac, she was in tears, It was like she was bring a sick Dog into a Vet'. The Genius patiently calmed her down and fixed her iMac. The lady left overjoyed that her friend was working again, you know that lady was an Apple acolyte forever. Coming from the PC world it would have been 'piece of crap in the trash'. Did you get the Hard drive out; ya, cool. I walked out of the store realizing that Apple, Steve Jobs, was a marketing genius. I was taking care of my parents PC, not computer literate, always problems. I finally purchased them an iPad and they have been happy ever since.
.
 
There is a good reason why Apple only has a small percentage of the computer market, 7.4%. What is funny is sitting down with a MacBook Pro that was using Bootcamp to run Windows 10.
Off topic I know, but I must of missed it. When did Apple surge to 7.4% ? They wallowed for years with about 3.5%.
 
Off topic I know, but I must of missed it. When did Apple surge to 7.4% ? They wallowed for years with about 3.5%.

The latest figures I could find is 2016 this from Apple Insider.
https://iphone.appleinsider.com/art...as-windows-continues-to-cede-share-to-the-mac

Here are some newer figures from MacRumor The 2017 Q1 figures are 6.8%
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/11/q1-2017-worldwide-mac-sales-up-amid-pc-decline/
The total PC market is shrinking but Apple is maintaining their share of this market.
 
Last edited:
The latest figures I could find is 2016 this from Apple Insider.
https://iphone.appleinsider.com/art...as-windows-continues-to-cede-share-to-the-mac

Here are some newer figures from MacRumor The 2017 Q1 figures are 6.8%
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/11/q1-2017-worldwide-mac-sales-up-amid-pc-decline/
The total PC market is shrinking but Apple is maintaining their share of this market.

Thank you for the macrumors link. Interesting information from Gartner. I guess the phones and tablets will consume everything in the coming years. PC sales stated seemed a bit anemic and what a surprise with Apple having 12% of the domestic market. I never would have thought it would happen, but trends change as evidenced by the drop-off in desktop computers sales that started a some years ago.
 
Data gets bigger but screens get smaller.

AI gets smarter, but UI gets dumber.

Three quarters of all IT is make-work.

SSSSSssssssshhhhh! Don't tell...
 
MacRumers is a good place to go for Apple information, also iMore. What amazes me is how the direction we are going in computing is following what I have read in 55+ years of the reading of Science Fiction. I see visible computers disappearing you will have something like a bracelet, or something around your neck that will send information to a visor, or a pair of glasses. But the Anime series Ghost in A Shell is where I see things headed.
 
Back
Top Bottom