Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [Tom's Hardware] Apple Considering Moving Macs Away From Intel Chips
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Tom's Hardware] Apple Considering Moving Macs Away From Intel Chips - Page 13

post #121 of 278
Apple will make their own chip eventually. Trust me.
Oxygène
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 Asus Prime B350 Plus VTX3D R9 390 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston Hyper X Kingston HyperX Fury ADATA SP550 ADATA SX8000 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Stock Windows 10 Dell U2711 Razer BlackWidow Tournament Edition 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Chieftec A-135 Series 1000W NZXT. Phantom 410 Razer DeathAdder Razer Goliathus Speed Edition 
  hide details  
Reply
Oxygène
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Ryzen 5 1600 Asus Prime B350 Plus VTX3D R9 390 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws  
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Kingston Hyper X Kingston HyperX Fury ADATA SP550 ADATA SX8000 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Stock Windows 10 Dell U2711 Razer BlackWidow Tournament Edition 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Chieftec A-135 Series 1000W NZXT. Phantom 410 Razer DeathAdder Razer Goliathus Speed Edition 
  hide details  
Reply
post #122 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by perfectblade View Post

arm chips currently outperform intel atom processor chips. yes it would mean some loss in power combined to ulv, but it wouldn't have to mean that much.

what are you talking about? Atom is meant for net books. I would love to see a macbook pro do final cut rendering using ARM chips. It'll be like night and day.
post #123 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z Overlord View Post

um they are not moving away from x86

that'd kill app support, and remove the ability to run Windows on Macs for application purposes

Remember there are still allot of programs that will never be ported to ARM.

there are also allot of games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution on the Mac app store, and also Steam for Mac
This.

It would be incredibly stupid to sacrifice compatibility (i.e., all x86 apps would no longer work) to downgrade to a weaker processor which has better performance per watt. Even moving to AMD would be pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnomepatrol View Post

No they made a few minor tweaks they didn't create an entire architecture. They don't have the engineers nor production ability to actually do that in house.
It wasn't a few minor tweaks. And yes they do have the engineers to do what they did. Apple has done the same thing as Qualcomm, and made their own processor design, based on one of ARM's reference designs.
Kasuf
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 6600K ASRock Z170 Pro4 ASUS Radeon RX 480 ROG Strix Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3000MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorPower
Samsung 850 EVO Noctua NH-D15 LG 34" Ultrawide (LG34UC98) Corsair HX750i 
Case
Silverstone FT05B-W 
  hide details  
Reply
Kasuf
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 6600K ASRock Z170 Pro4 ASUS Radeon RX 480 ROG Strix Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB 3000MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingMonitorPower
Samsung 850 EVO Noctua NH-D15 LG 34" Ultrawide (LG34UC98) Corsair HX750i 
Case
Silverstone FT05B-W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #124 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajile View Post

There's an interesting idea here (talking theoretically as I don't think it's the case). Apple could buy the entire IP of MIPS for a couple of hundred million; less than their investments in buying Intrinsity and PA Semi. The basics behind ARM and MIPS are fairly similar (with most of the architecture differences favoring MIPS). There wouldn't be be too much retraining required (in fact, for the ARM 64-bit rip off of MIPS, there's even fewer differences). ARM becoming popular means increased licensing costs (already seen in the difference in cost between similarly performing MIPS and ARM chips). Buying a complete ISA cuts these costs forever. China's MIPS cores offer a buy in to the performance(as previously mentioned). There's no/little security risk to apple because they would have the design “source code”. 
Emulation isn't exactly the right term (if I understand the design). A more accurate discription would be that (like Intel and AMD) Loongson decodes x86 instructions into micro-ops and those micro-ops are MIPS opcodes. The performance hit is similar to the speedup that could be achieved on Intel or AMD chips if one could bypass the decoder and instead code the micro-ops directly. The big question is patents. While my understanding is that ISA's can't be patented (like APIs can't), the fundamental methods necessary for efficient (ie competitive) implementations can be and are patented. The fundamental x86 architecture (like the fundamental ARM and MIPS architectures) are no longer patent protected (relevant patents have expired). Only new instructions (with patented implementations), barrier of entry (R&D costs), and trade secrets stand in the way. It could be possible to use less efficient methods that bypass these patents and ensure basic x86 execution.
It can't be stressed enough that a 40W, 1GHz, 65nm, 128GFLOPS Loongson beats a 77W, 3.9GHz, 22nm, 50GFLOPS 3770K ivy bridge (having 2.5x the GFLOPS of float performance). 70% of this performance while emulating x86 still beats the 3770K by 80%. A 3960X achieves 65GFLOPS while using 130W of power. If we assume that Haswell doubles this performance while reducing power consumption by 75%, we then have equivalent performance and power consumption on x86, but with billions more transistors, a 4x faster clockspeed (we know who has the best float IPC here), and 3 node jumps. It's little wonder why China could make a petaflop computer which used only 1/3 the power of similarly powerful machines (all x86) over here. I don't think there's ever been a significant length of time when x86 has held the GFLOPS record (that's almost always been SPARC or POWER since MIPS and Alpha left the market).

2500k gets 130GFLOPS in IBT in raw unoptimized GF at 5Ghz using the AVX extension, however that says nothing about the real performance of these chips. The 3570k(essentially a 2500k) uses 77w, but that includes the integrated GPU as well, so the real power consumption is closer to 45w. Imagine if you could program direct to hardware in assembly, bypassing the instruction set.

I'll wager that Intel's chips will maintain its real theoretical maximum in real workloads. As I understand it, MIPS is a RISC style CPU, so comparing it to an primarily x86 CISC instruction set is fruitless. At the very core, Intel's CISC CPU gets decoding into RISC instruction sets so there is massive overhead. Same can be said of Atom. Intel actually adds extra stages I believe.

If we break it down to the micro-op level, I don't there's much difference between these CPUs which have totally different purposes anyway. Loonsgson was designed for fluid simulations, something its 256-bit floating point vector processors are good at.

At the micro-architecture level, Intel(and dare I say, AMD) appears to have the better, more rounded chip.
Edited by BizzareRide - 10/6/12 at 10:14am
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
Po' Pimpin'
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
i5 2500k @ stock Biostar TZ68K+ [A3] 4GB  Sandforce 1222 64GB SSD 
Optical DriveCoolingOSMonitor
LG 22x DVD-+RW  Stock Windows 7 x64 Acer S211HL 1080p 
PowerCaseMouse
600w Diablotek Linkworld Electronic Inland 
  hide details  
Reply
post #125 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajile View Post

It can't be stressed enough that a 40W, 1GHz, 65nm, 128GFLOPS Loongson beats a 77W, 3.9GHz, 22nm, 50GFLOPS 3770K ivy bridge (having 2.5x the GFLOPS of float performance)

some unknown architecture being able to beat intel's lastest creation while running at 1/4 the frequency and consuming ~1/2 the power and being 4 nodes bigger? proof.gif
sounds too good to be true
Dream PC
(17 items)
 
Surface Pro 3
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
INTEL Core i7 6700K ASUS Maximus VIII Hero Z170 MSI Geforce GTX 980 Ti Gaming 6G G.SKILL Ripjaws 4 series 16GB DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
SAMSUNG SM951 NVMe 512GB SAMSUNG 850 EVO 1TB COOLER MASTER Nepton 280L MICROSOFT Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
BENQ XL2420TE DELL UltraSharp U2415 WASD V2 custom CORSAIR HX850i 
CaseMouseAudioOther
NZXT H440 white CORSAIR Vengeance M95 CREATIVE Sound Blaster Z CPU Delid 
Other
LED Lighting 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 4300U Microsoft Surface Intel HD Graphics 4400 8 GB DDR3L 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardMouse
256 GB SSD Windows 10 Pro x64 Surface Pro 4 Type Cover with Fingerprint ID Microsoft Arc Mouse Surface Edition 
  hide details  
Reply
Dream PC
(17 items)
 
Surface Pro 3
(9 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
INTEL Core i7 6700K ASUS Maximus VIII Hero Z170 MSI Geforce GTX 980 Ti Gaming 6G G.SKILL Ripjaws 4 series 16GB DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
SAMSUNG SM951 NVMe 512GB SAMSUNG 850 EVO 1TB COOLER MASTER Nepton 280L MICROSOFT Windows 10 Pro x64 
MonitorMonitorKeyboardPower
BENQ XL2420TE DELL UltraSharp U2415 WASD V2 custom CORSAIR HX850i 
CaseMouseAudioOther
NZXT H440 white CORSAIR Vengeance M95 CREATIVE Sound Blaster Z CPU Delid 
Other
LED Lighting 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 4300U Microsoft Surface Intel HD Graphics 4400 8 GB DDR3L 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardMouse
256 GB SSD Windows 10 Pro x64 Surface Pro 4 Type Cover with Fingerprint ID Microsoft Arc Mouse Surface Edition 
  hide details  
Reply
post #126 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoleras View Post

I dunno. Most apple users are clueless on technical stuff.

So friggin ironic considering the first 3 pages is littered with people thinking Apple is going to put ARM processors in their desktop and laptop line.

*epic facepalm*
post #127 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3st3r View Post

So friggin ironic considering the first 3 pages is littered with people thinking Apple is going to put ARM processors in their desktop and laptop line.
*epic facepalm*

Definitely not their desktop line. ARM isn't even remotely close to scaling to those TDPs.
Edited by Homeles - 10/6/12 at 10:30am
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom 9750 (stock) MSI MS-7548 (Aspen) HD 6950 @ 971/1387 1.25v 8GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB Windows 7 64-bit ASUS VH238H 1920x1080 Seasonic X-650 Gold 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Rosewill Smart One Razer Naga Razer Scarab 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom 9750 (stock) MSI MS-7548 (Aspen) HD 6950 @ 971/1387 1.25v 8GB DDR2 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
750GB Windows 7 64-bit ASUS VH238H 1920x1080 Seasonic X-650 Gold 
CaseMouseMouse Pad
Rosewill Smart One Razer Naga Razer Scarab 
  hide details  
Reply
post #128 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by BizzareRide View Post

2500k gets 130GFLOPS in IBT in raw unoptimized GF at 5Ghz using the AVX extension, however that says nothing about the real performance of these chips. The 3570k(essentially a 2500k) uses 77w, but that includes the integrated GPU as well, so the real power consumption is closer to 45w. Imagine if you could program direct to hardware in assembly, bypassing the instruction set.
I'll wager that Intel's chips will maintain its real theoretical maximum in real workloads. As I understand it, MIPS is a RISC style CPU, so comparing it to an primarily x86 CISC instruction set is fruitless. At the very core, Intel's CISC CPU gets decoding into RISC instruction sets so there is massive overhead. Same can be said of Atom. Intel actually adds extra stages I believe.
If we break it down to the micro-op level, I don't there's much difference between these CPUs which have totally different purposes anyway. Loonsgson was designed for fluid simulations, something its 256-bit floating point vector processors are good at.
At the micro-architecture level, Intel(and dare I say, AMD) appears to have the better, more rounded chip.

wth.gif

Assembly is just mnemonics replacing strings of ones and zeroes. It is programmed directly to hardware.
post #129 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantoddd View Post

what are you talking about? Atom is meant for net books. I would love to see a macbook pro do final cut rendering using ARM chips. It'll be like night and day.

of course it is not similar an i7 quadcore m processor, i said it might replace the ulv in the air. the macbook air needs a decently powered, super battery efficient processor, while the pros needs are very different
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRaZiGLiTcH View Post

Cool avatar @perfectblade Hyuna is cool ^_^

yep, especially with her adorable pouty face
post #130 of 278
This doesn't really mean anything in the end. The kind of consumer that purchases a Mac isn't going to care whether or not it has an Intel chip inside or not. And for those in the business world that use Macs... same again. Irrelevant.
SMITH
(14 items)
 
  
Reply
SMITH
(14 items)
 
  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Rumors and Unconfirmed Articles › [Tom's Hardware] Apple Considering Moving Macs Away From Intel Chips