That would also exclude the Samsung Exnyos and the Broadcom CPU in the Raspberry Pi (even though they run the ARM ISA just like Apple's chips)...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ARM MacBook Pro I don’t want an Overpriced Netbook.
- Thread starter TheRealAlex
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would also exclude the Samsung Exnyos and the Broadcom CPU in the Raspberry Pi (even though they run the ARM ISA just like Apple's chips)...
That's your opinion. They are using the core ARM ISA and have an ARM license. They did NOT build Apple Silicon from scratch. Yes it has extensions, but so does everything out of intel and AMD since the 8086.
Anyway, do you have anything more relevant to contribute to arguing naming semantics?
At the end of the day, if I take some ARM compiled code it will run on the "Apple Silicon" Macs. They're ARM. They may be a SUPERSET of the ARM ISA, but saying they're "not ARM" is like saying a lime isn't a fruit because it is a different colour to a lemon.
Or that a Tesla isn't a car because it doesn't have a combustion engine.
The latest Samsung Exynos are a hybrid. Samsung has their own architecture for the high performance processors but use an ARM design for the high efficiency CPUs.
I think Raspbery Pi’s are just straight ARM designs.
It isn’t semantics. Apple is not extending existing ARM architectures. It’s not opinion. Some people just can’t admit when they are wrong. It doesn’t hurt, really.
Thank you. I admit I am not understanding why some just can't seem to get this. Literally the only ARM thing in Apple Silicon is the instruction set. And even with Krait (which I loved BTW) Snapdragon was not a totally unique design but a derivative of Cortex.
Weird as it may sound, Apple Silicon in some ways is the answer to the question "What would Core 2 be like if it was using the ARM instructions?". It MUCH more closely resembles Conroe (Core 2) than any ARM based designs.
You are arguing a point I never made. I’m not arguing whether or not they should be called ARM. I don’t care about that. I’m arguing your statement that Apple Silicon is based on an ARM design is factually incorrect. Outside of the ISA, they are not based on an ARM design. And the ISA is a paper spec not a computer architecture.
Agreed. What the distinction between Apple Silicon and other ARMs does is answer the question of why the A Series outperforms all the other mobile SOCs so much. It also speaks to WHY Apple is confident it scales up properly to laptops and desktops - it is because the microarchitecture (which is FAR more important than the ISA spec) is already desktop class (and seeing as the people behind it including Johnny Srouji were poached off of Intel and were part of the design team behind Banias, Dothan, Nehalem and Conroe it isn't that shocking).
The ISA is the entire point as it determines software compatibility.
The ISA is what determines code compatibility. They are ARM compatible. As far as the implementation details of the ARM instruction set in Apple's devices goes - I don't care whether they're built on ARM core design, PowerPC or x86 internally.
As an end user it makes no difference.
As a programmer it makes no difference.
That's an implementation detail for apple to deal with that no end user should care about so long as they get results.
What matters is what code they run, and they run ARM code.
Apparently you do care.. you have repeated the ARM licensed core claim even though others have corrected you.
Those are very specific claims and have nothing to do with ISA or software compatibility.
ARM Holdings Cores IP implement ARMv8.2-A with some dot inclusions from the newer ISAs. Apple is the only company with full implementations up to v8.4-A.
Comparison of ARM processors - Wikipedia
If you look at Apple’s cores and ARM Holdings IP the fact that Apple didn’t merely license an ARM Holdings core and extend if is abundantly clear.
It is kind of funny.
I hate to break it to him but the ISA really is not that important with software development nowadays. This of course is because we don't write our code directly to the hardware but rather to an interpretative layer. The ISA comes into play more in terms of compiling and secondarily there will be some items here and there where a class may need different values or such.
Operating System is a far bigger thing for developers. After all, you can code for Android and yes the compiling uses the ARM ISA but the app will not run on iOS. Likewise you can code for Windows and it is CISC and x86 but you cannot just run it on an Intel Mac. This is why having XCode ready was so big for Apple Developers as it gives them the means to take the MacOS apps and recompile them to run natively on Apple Silicon.
The Apple processors are designed by Apple, not by anyone at ARM. The only thing licensed by Apple is the ISA (instruction set), not the physical designs of the processors. That's why Apple can diverge from the Cortex designs and create their own variants of each generation they design (A12, A12X, A12Z, etc.). Generic ARM code may not just "run" on Apple Silicon as you claimed because of the OS hooks that would be required for the code to work on iOS and MacOS. The Apple processors are built on the ARM ISA, not the Cortex physical designs.
I hope that’s true. I think it’s possible Apple will prioritize thinness - “the thinnest MacBook ever!” - over battery capacity or thermals. Which I personally think is dumb, but boy oh boy do consumers love impressively thin technology.
I think the 'Air' class machines will certainly both go thin (12" MacBook thin) and also fanless, so they will definitely be leaving some theoretical potential on the table. Considering the already superlative sustained performance the iPad Pro can pump out under similar constraints, though, and the class of computer I don't think there's going to be too many complaints.
For the 'Pro' class machines, I think Apple's learned from the Touch Bar generation MBPs and they will almost certainly want to flex their silicon muscle here to really show off how much performance grunt their chips have, so if the Apple Silicon MBPs are the thinnest ever I think it will be incidental, something which Apple Silicon allows passively, not a choice to the detriment of maximising performance.
It's worth revisiting Apple's own chart that they showed at the WWDC. This is the road map. From this chart they absolutely aren't going to prioritise thinness over battery or thermals. In fact, they are going to do the exact opposite.
We shall see, but I can't wait. We are going to get amazing machines from Apple over the next 18 months.
Attachments
I don't think we can read into their thinness/weight goals with this chart. We know they're going for more performance and lower power, and the latter allows for thinner devices if they'd want to, I think. I can see the 16" going back to 15" thickness (or even less) since, based on that chart, I don't think they'll be running it at the power levels they currently do for example.
I agree, but I was responding to a poster who was worried that Apple are going to prioritise thinness over thermals and battery. I just pointed out according to this official chart release by Apple (as their basic roadmap) for AS machines it isn't thinness and in fact the very thing he wanted. That's not to say they won't get thinner though. I'm sure they will.
There‘s only so much they can further thin portable machines like a 12“ MacBook or MacBook Air, due to physical (ports, weight of display assembly), mechanical (hinge) and ergonomic (keyboard) constraints. Notebook displays are consuming a considerable amount of overall power, which requires battery capacity accordingly.
That really depends on what you're doing! There's a lot of low-level work where the ISA is hugely important. If you're writing performance critical code like compilers, or big-name software video encoders (e.g. x264), or certain parts of game engines, you absolutely care about the ISA, because even if you're not writing literal assembly, you still need to make sure your code is tightly, manually optimized for the processor.
This isn't a huge range of projects, but they effect a lot of other people! Game developers care about having optimized game engines, and lots of developers want to have well-optimized compilers for lots of different languages.
And sure, Apple could create some of this core work themselves, but e.g. Clang benefits greatly from the work done by non-Apple contributors, and I don't think Apple wants to start supporting their own iterations of Rust and Go and all of the other languages people use. Because Apple is using ARM, those projects can very easily port over their existing ARM code to Apple Silicon. If Apple went with a fully custom design, everything would be a lot harder, and I frankly don't think even Apple would have the clout to pull it off.
Last edited:
At the end of the day, what instruction set do these new processors run?
What have we called them since the mid 2010s when it was abundantly clear that Apple were eventually going to switch?
Apple can call them what they like, it won't change the above two facts.
And again, neither intel nor AMD's current processor bear any resemblance internally to the x86 or even original x64 processors they are compatible with yet we still call them x86/x64. Neither of them are CISC internally either, they have a CISC micro-op decoder in front of a RISC core, but we still call them CISC.
What have we called them since the mid 2010s when it was abundantly clear that Apple were eventually going to switch?
Apple can call them what they like, it won't change the above two facts.
And again, neither intel nor AMD's current processor bear any resemblance internally to the x86 or even original x64 processors they are compatible with yet we still call them x86/x64. Neither of them are CISC internally either, they have a CISC micro-op decoder in front of a RISC core, but we still call them CISC.
they will do as they always have done and create a balanced laptop.
They will get as thin as they can, with a great battery life and great performance.
It wont be the 'thinnest, lightest, longest lasting and fastest'' laptop, but will compromise accross all of them.
However, I do think it is going to destroy the intel laptops in all ways. Really looking forward to 2021 and tech.
Edit - Just realised I contradicted myself. If they can build it then why not
well, big news:
www.theregister.com
Microsoft lends Windows on Arm a hand with emulation layer to finally run 64-bit x86 apps at last
News from the Department of Wait, It Didn't Already Do That?
That's what I've been saying: Microsoft doesn't have the traction to get a big move towards new stuff. Their game has been backwards compatibility ad absurdum and "only kids" try their more modern stuff. Apple has enough platform control to force developers to move with the times, and now that the second-biggest client platform is going Arm-only, Microsoft finally sees an opportunity for non-x86 computers to become the client of choice, at least for people on the move.well, big news:
Microsoft lends Windows on Arm a hand with emulation layer to finally run 64-bit x86 apps at last
News from the Department of Wait, It Didn't Already Do That?
Microsoft are still completely dependent on backwards compatibility, hence the emulation layer, but by forcing people to emulate the old stuff rather than attempting to port their legacy frameworks they also create a carrot for developing new software using more modern frameworks so they'll work well on the new-and-shiny platforms...Which in turn provides more portability to run their software on the Mac and possibly in the future Linux.
I think that for Apple's entry-level Macbook (let's say a MacBook Air-like computer) there is some argument to be made in favour of thinness as a differentiating factor against the iPad Air / Pro + Magic Keyboard. The latter will always, inherently because of the tablet design, have to put the logic / battery behind the screen and have a minimum thickness and weight (as counterweight) for the keyboard / case, and, as a result the current iPad Pro, despite being only a few mm thick, is as thick as a MacBook Pro / Air when combined with the Magic keyboard. If Apple can manage to reduce the MBA's thickness by a significant amount (let's say 1-1,2cm, with let's say 7mm or so dedicated to the keyboard and 3 to the display), while managing to pack in as much battery capacity as the current MBA (something maybe possible given the removal of the fan and the smaller logic board), there may be something to play for here in Apple's mind.
Conversely, in the age of Homo Rechargeus and no magsafe, a true all day battery life, regardless of load, is very tempting...
For the MBP on the other hand, as other posters have said I would anticipate the thickness to remain similar and Apple to put it all on battery, performance, and other benefits (better screen mainly).
That's not the point of the discussion. You keep insisting all ARM cores have their basis in ARM Holdings designs. Including insisting on multiple occasions that Apple extends ARM's designs. This is patently false and no amount of backtracking or goal post moving is going to change that.
Irrelevant. Intel and AMD don't call their CPUs x86, each of them has a marketing name like Ryzen or 11th Gen (and codenames and model numbers).
Qualcomm's 8cx and Apples A12Z are both ARM CPUs but they don't have any other similarities just like AMD and Intel CPUs don't other than that.. one doesn't just conflate all x86 CPUs and make judgment calls on efficiency or performance. However, they do that when to comes to ARM.
Yes Apple's CPUs are ARM CPUs but at the same time they are not "ARM" CPUs.
Who calls them that these days?
Can you show me one place where x86 is mentioned in Intel or AMD marketing or customer facing specs? What about the Tiger Lake launch collaterals?
Intel® Core™ i7-1165G7 Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.70 GHz, with IPU) - Product Specifications | Intel
Intel® Core™ i7-1165G7 Processor (12M Cache, up to 4.70 GHz, with IPU) quick reference with specifications, features, and technologies.
ark.intel.com
AMD Ryzen™ 9 4900H
Do you say I got the latest Dell XPS it has a x86 cpu in it? No you say it has a Tiger Lake or 11th Gen CPU in it or a U series CPU etc etc.
Even the companies that make them don't explicitly call them x86