Apple to move away from Intel in the future

G

Guantanamo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
1,855
Reaction score
2
Location
Slaap Stad
Didn't see anything like this posted, if it is mods please merge or close.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/11/05/bob-mansfields-new-group-implied-to-be-heading-transition-away-from-intel-processors-on-macs/

Apple allegedly plans to one-day abandon Intel to implement a version of chips into Macs that currently power its mobile devices.

Bloomberg first reported the story, citing “people familiar with the company’s research,” and said Apple believes mobile device chips will eventually run its computer lineup. Apple previously mentioned semiconductor development during its management shift announcement on Oct. 29.

Bob Mansfield, senior vice president of Apple’s new “Technologies” group, is apparently leading the chip research, and Apple specifically said its semiconductor teams have “ambitious plans for the future.”

The Cupertino, Calif.-based company first began using Intel processors for Macs in 2005, but two of Bloomberg’s sources noted Apple would continue to rely on the tech for at least a few more years:

As handheld devices increasingly function like PCs, the engineers working on this project within Apple envision machines that use a common chip design. If Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook wants to offer the consumer of 2017 and beyond a seamless experience on laptops, phones, tablets and televisions, it will be easier to build if all the devices have a consistent underlying chip architecture, according to one of the people.
Click to expand...

Interesting move and not sure if it is a particularly smart one. But on the other hand I can see many benefits, especially for their notebook range. Obviously this is a good couple of years away but interesting nonetheless.
 
It would be very Apple-like to seek to create a unique chip architecture for every single device they create. But if they think they can compete with Intel on a per-core speed basis they are more ambitious than I had imagined.


Maybe they should buy AMD hm?
 
cerebus said:
It would be very Apple-like to seek to create a unique chip architecture for every single device they create. But if they think they can compete with Intel on a per-core speed basis they are more ambitious than I had imagined.


Maybe they should buy AMD hm?
Click to expand...

What GPU you got?
An AMD, ATI, Apple....somehow that doesn't ring well :p
 
Apple going to be the architects of their own demise
 
Another day another 'Oh look at me I'm Apple and I'm going to rule the world' article.
 
Using ARM can work due to SMP becoming mainstream. ARM might not match Intel on performance per core but 64 core ARM chips are already being built. Just imagine where ARM could be in 3 - 5 years time.

Just because the current Intel chips are quite awesome doesn't mean that they should avoid considering something with future potential
 
They used to use the RISC chipset didn't they? What happened to that platform?
 
Fudzy said:
They used to use the RISC chipset didn't they? What happened to that platform?
Click to expand...

They left PowerPC (RISC arch) for Intel.
ARM is RISC, so should be an even smoother transition for them.
The only reason I ca imagine them doing this, is so they can design their own SoC, instead of relying on Intel's
 
Fudzy said:
They used to use the RISC chipset didn't they? What happened to that platform?
Click to expand...

RISC isn't a chipset or a platform, it's a way of designing chips. There are many different RISC based chips/architectures (ARM being one) but Apple used the IBM PowerPC I believe. They switched to Intel when the performance gap became so big that even WhackJobs couldn't pretend that performance didn't matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple's_transition_to_Intel_processors
 
TJ99 said:
RISC isn't a chipset or a platform, it's a way of designing chips. There are many different RISC based chips/architectures (ARM being one) but Apple used the IBM PowerPC I believe. They switched to Intel when the performance gap became so big that even WhackJobs couldn't pretend that performance didn't matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple's_transition_to_Intel_processors
Click to expand...

Thanks! Never really looked into the history of Apple hardware, always been a PC guy.
 
Apple allegedly plans to one-day abandon Intel to implement a version of chips into Macs that currently power its mobile devices.
Click to expand...

So they are going to use ARM processors in their laptops, desktops & servers? Yeah right! Everything has it's place but I don't see ARM as a substitute in the near future for those environments, simply not enough horsepower.
 
TJ99 said:
RISC isn't a chipset or a platform, it's a way of designing chips. There are many different RISC based chips/architectures (ARM being one) but Apple used the IBM PowerPC I believe. They switched to Intel when the performance gap became so big that even WhackJobs couldn't pretend that performance didn't matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple's_transition_to_Intel_processors
Click to expand...

Actually, PowerPC performance was excellent still, often outpacing Intel. The problem was performance per watt, which meant they couldn't put the G5 in a laptop, as it ran too hot.
Intel had already solved this problem though, hence the switch
 
Well it would explain the massive increase in R&D spending.
 
TJ99 said:
RISC isn't a chipset or a platform, it's a way of designing chips. There are many different RISC based chips/architectures (ARM being one) but Apple used the IBM PowerPC I believe.
Click to expand...

Not sure about Intel but AMD has a RISC core at it's heart where cisc instructions get translated into risc.
 
Apple had massive success with the A6 and A6x chips both designed in-house. So it's conceivable that they have the resources internally to pull off a move like this. But to leave Intel... that's gonna take some stones.
 
Ye, I think if Apple were to move away from Intel it would be to an Apple designed chipset. They have a full in house team who did the A6/X. I don't think it is unreasonable to think that they could get to bottom end notebook speeds with their A7X.
 
The problem Apple had using PowerPC was quite complex and had a lot to do with the fact that the partnership between IBM and Apple had started to wear in part because AIM had fallen to the wayside and IBM, Sony and Toshiba's work on Cell processors as a derived POWER achitecture system had come out - the Sony Playstation 3 as a kicker.

For dedicated purpose computing especially where graphics comes into play POWER makes sense but for a general purpose workstation (or laptop) it seemed to not have a fit. Intel's Itanium system also saw general market failure.

Apple didn't just decide hey lets start using the same chips as are found in most computers, quite the opposite actually, instead they decided that Intel was able to deliver a 86X64 system on which they could build the computers which they wanted to build and a partnership of sorts with Intel became possible. Remember though that IT alliances are always a tentative thing and companies hop from each others beds all the time. I think Intel and Apple's relationship will be defined by Thunderbolt - if it fails to take Apple will dump Intel.

So Intel 86X64 managed to get a firmer hold in the workstation market and Intel and Apple have since developed Thunderbolt and so on. Intel also wasn't using the POWER architecture for the iPod or the iPhone and the iPad has always been ARM based. Why Intel left ARM boggles my mind but ARM could in the medium term become the standard user device processing core which will hurt the x86X64 processor market. I fear though that ARMv8 might have the same problem that Itanium had - lets not forget that AMD developed the implementation which on Intel's adoption has kept the ball going. ARM solutions for general computing (opposed to smartphones etc ...) is already coming up in WindowsRT and I think Intel is really worrying itself.

My guess is that Apple still have feelers out on the POWER architecture and that an Apple product featuring a POWER architecture processor in the server world is not inconceivable.


Amusingly a big part of PowerPC was Motorola who Apple and IBM were partnered with at the time. I suspect some (but few most went to Freescale) of Motorola Mobilities patent portfolio is linked to this partnership and no points are awarded for knowing who owns that porfolio now.
 
Porting the current OSX to ARM makes no real sense to me. But extending iOS onto MB Air-like devices, perhaps around the A8/A9 era would be an intriguing possibility. A little more horsepower makes a little more multitasking possible, which leads to slightly more capable apps, which lead to the development of slightly more powerful chips, which ...

Even today, an iPad with a decent BT keyboard makes a passable laptop replacement for lightweight use (arguably better, since you can get online without an unsightly and vulnerable 3G dongle)). They have to be looking at the possibilities, now that MS is pushing the keyboards as the main differentiator for their own tablets.

Meanwhile the MacDinosaur line will be slowly cut back due to "lack of consumer demand". If there is a new Mac Pro next year, buy it. It will be the last one.
 
clasqm said:
Meanwhile the MacDinosaur line will be slowly cut back due to "lack of consumer demand". If there is a new Mac Pro next year, buy it. It will be the last one.
Click to expand...
That lack of demand is at least partly their own fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X