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

Discussion in 'General Off Topic Forums' started by transmaster, Apr 3, 2018.

  1. quaddriver

    quaddriver 120 What's per channel Subscriber

    I was taking some numerical analysis course senior year college (that was fun - not) and what we were doing was showing just that, how some computations of classic theories take a long time to do (this was 1987 mind you)

    I forget the problem du jour, but we had access to the NSF's Cray xmp48 in pittsburgh. We had to use any language we desired, and solve it on AT&T 6030 pcs which were an 8mhz 8086 with a math coprocessor, a vax 8600 series, and the cray.

    So ok, the 6030's ran all night, you had to kick it off and let it chew and hope it didnt crash over night.

    The vax, took about an hour (both of these were in pascal, turbo 3.0 on the 6030 under dos and whatever was vogue on the vax)

    Then on the cray, it was a batch machine, so you built the program, debugged it and sent the executable, datafile, and an output file to write data into, all as a package to the cray. when the vax sent it over, you got 3 messages indicating transmission...vax to cray.... vax to cray....vax to cray like that for each file

    upon completion, you got cray to vax (program back with notes where it optimized it), cray to vax (data file back touched only with an indication of how far it got into it) and lastly cray to vax, the output file with either errors or the answer.

    so I kick it off, on my terminal, I saw this:
    vax to cray....
    vax to cray....
    vax to cray....
    cray to vax....
    cray to vax....
    cray to vax....

    all within 20 seconds.

    it impressed me at the time....
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  2. buglegirl

    buglegirl In The Direction Of The Singularity Subscriber

    Messages:
    11,782
    Location:
    Mid Atlantic
    The adoption rate and viability of Windows is much greater for a reason you know.

    I get your point but if I was a large business I would NEVER recommend Apple products because of this constant upheaval however well intentioned.

    Again I get your point to a degree but Apple with this is already invalidating most of the desktop market they have. Who would buy an Apple Desktop knowing that its going to be an orphan in a year or so.

    And don't come back with Apple will make sure these are updated. Yes updated but dead as far as new features which will be the carrot to lure people to pay to replace current hardware.

    Its smart as long as Windows keeps dundering along. But I gotta figure there is some happy folks in Redmond over this.

    Frannie
     
    Bill Ferris likes this.
  3. quaddriver

    quaddriver 120 What's per channel Subscriber

    well hold on a second, backwards compatibility is EXTREMELY important for end users that have a substantial software investment.

    Granted, at some point you have to move on (there did come a point where 8086 stuff would no longer run native on 80x86 machines and 24 bit addresses had to be shelved)

    but it would be disastrous to the industry as a whole if a new version of the program had to be purchased with each new machine. back in the day, actually, until a few years ago, you bought software and it was your to keep, or in business environments, OS software was billed using a GML (graduated monthly license) nowadays we rent software which costs you more of course, but it has an upgrade path because each mandatory release contains a data migration tool.

    data format among the versions is the biggest bugaboo and there is a LOT of industry code behind the scenes.

    apple, feels entitled to not just change versions but architecture. that is the sole reason why those in the industry do not consider apple a real company with real machines. we refer to them backhandedly as iJunk (and there are less than complimentary terms that echo off the walls about the users as well...but yanno)

    interestingly, if you walk thru a goodwill store now, you will see DOZENS of docks...why? apple changed the end plug to dock portable iJunk and people who bought these things from various manus, who went thru the mandatory phone upgrade, now have $100 of worthless electronics you cannot sell.

    Why people keep patronizing them is beyond comprehension. (I think there is a joke called 'if apple built airplanes....' and the end is, not only would a bunch of stuff change, but each version you would also have to build new airports)
     
    Bill Ferris likes this.
  4. WobblySam

    WobblySam Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Middle of NC
    As far as Apple "making" new chips, have they actually built or purchased a modern wafer fab? I know they bought an old Maxim fab some years back, but that's not going to produce modern cpus. I can see that they might have a design group that outsources fab to somebody like Samsung. Given Apple's pricing structure, I don't see where outsourcing their design for fab vs using established cpus is going to be that much of an advantage to them. But, what goes on Apple often eludes me - since 1983.
     
    Bill Ferris likes this.
  5. transmaster

    transmaster AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,819
    Location:
    Cheyenne, Wyoming
    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.
     
    Bill Ferris likes this.
  6. botrytis

    botrytis Trying not to be a Small Speaker Hoarder Subscriber

    Messages:
    29,312
    Location:
    In FLUX currently......
    Nonsense. They do it all the time. I mean there was on OSX version that was NOT backwards compatible at all. So, if people wanted the newer version they had to buy a new computer. I had a friend that just bought a fully blown Apple notebook at the time and then a month later, it was obsolete because the new OS version came out. Not cool. Apple said to him, 'Tough Luck'. That is a HUGE issue, in my book, for Apple. Their PC's end up be 2X to 5X more expensive than a Windows PC with the same hardware. But, Apple is a hardware company, not a software company.

    Apple does have old code in their system. Copies of the old ROMs that made the Apple OS only run on Apple hardware. Now you can put together a Hackintosh way cheaper and this is what they are trying to stop. That and they want to combine the 2 OS's so they only have to support one (which makes sense).
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  7. transmaster

    transmaster AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,819
    Location:
    Cheyenne, Wyoming
    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.
     
    Bill Ferris likes this.
  8. Bob

    Bob AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,936
    Location:
    West coast
    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.
     
  9. AdamAnt316

    AdamAnt316 Collector of heavy things Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,095
    Location:
    MA
    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
     
  10. charles 1973

    charles 1973 Super Member

    Messages:
    2,981
    "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: Apr 4, 2018
    Bill Ferris likes this.
  11. Bob

    Bob AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,936
    Location:
    West coast
    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.
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  12. transmaster

    transmaster AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,819
    Location:
    Cheyenne, Wyoming
    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.
     
  13. botrytis

    botrytis Trying not to be a Small Speaker Hoarder Subscriber

    Messages:
    29,312
    Location:
    In FLUX currently......
    AMD is doing well with their Ryzen processors and doesn't need Apple. Their server processors are better than Intel's, right now, so why go to Apple. Nah - let Apple shoot themselves in the foot.
     
  14. transmaster

    transmaster AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,819
    Location:
    Cheyenne, Wyoming
    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
     
  15. quaddriver

    quaddriver 120 What's per channel Subscriber

    (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)
     
  16. blhagstrom

    blhagstrom Mad Scientist, fixer. Subscriber

    Messages:
    12,634
    Location:
    Duvall, Washington
    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.
     

     

    Please register to disable this ad.

  17. transmaster

    transmaster AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,819
    Location:
    Cheyenne, Wyoming
    What you just said is exactly what Intel said when AMD beat them to 1 GHz. They were laughed at.
     
  18. whoaru99

    whoaru99 Epic Member

    Messages:
    40,951
    Location:
    LoTL
    OTOH, if Apple shit out a big turd I get the impression you'd still be #1 shill on AK.
     
    Bill Ferris likes this.
  19. restorer-john

    restorer-john Addicted Member

    Messages:
    5,752
    Location:
    Australia
    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.
     
    Bill Ferris likes this.
  20. quaddriver

    quaddriver 120 What's per channel Subscriber

    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)
     

Share This Page