ARM: Why!?

[verticalines]

The idea that Intel's CPU failings are the reason for the Arm switch is a little laughable.
For starters, what are these failings ? The article has no particulars , and reads like a gossip magazine. And of course they could switch to AMD's (Apple's GPU partner) awesome Ryzens with no effort.

Intel has been way delayed on 10nm. They used to be ahead of practically everyone by a node (TSMC wasn't even near what they are today). I remember 10nm was supposed to drop like 2017 but we've been no 14nm since forever. It's a fine mature process but it's not supposed to be the offering for 2020 in terms of performance and efficiency. It's not only Apple but other makers don't care too much about it. And they're willing to use AMD whose resurgence will kick Intel's butt into another gear so expect some fun times to come.

For Apple to have control, they need to control hardware because they can decide if it needs more cores or some accelerators can take the load off the software. It's probably much easier to turn the desktop into a console-like platform where the main experience is controlled top to bottom inside the metal box. You don't upgrade, you don't worry about that stuff, it'll just run until it's too old or breaks down. Replace and repeat. If they're already designing chips and think the performance for their idea of a computer will satisfy their market, why wait on others? It's not like AMD would deliver anything else but x86 in a currently newer package. If they can accelerate with some non-CPU option, what's the point of cores? That's what control over the whole stack offers Apple.

Coalesce everything into a singular platform. Apple determines what it thinks you need in terms of performance and perhaps that might be the point of hubris when x86 is dueling out 32-core sub-nm chips and next-gen graphics and Apple is showcasing faster ARM and trying to leverage what limited IP Imagination has that doesn't infringe on others. Would they transition back if the goals falter or keep steadfast forward stubbornly? What would be that fallout? Right now this is the first scene of Mad Max Fury Road: heading out to the green zone. If you've seen the movie, the second half could ring true.

 

[leman]

The idea that Intel's CPU failings are the reason for the Arm switch is a little laughable.
For starters, what are these failings ? The article has no particulars , and reads like a gossip magazine. And of course they could switch to AMD's (Apple's GPU partner) awesome Ryzens with no effort.

Bugs are discovered in CPUs and patched via microcode updates all the time. Just because you as end users don’t see it does not mean they are not there.

As to AMD CPUs - AMD only released their competitive hardware a few months ago and their CPU lineup is still a bit lacking. Not to mention that we dint know what their production volume is. This thread is about what happened over last couple of years, not months.

I do agree with you that assuming that Apple made their decision because of Intel bugs is a bit naive. Not does Apple “Solon publicity BS” - they never claimed that Intel bugs are to blame. The main reason why Apple is making this transition because they are ahead of the curve.

 

[Luki1979]

Imagine how small and energy efficient MacBook and Mac mini will be. Do you enjoy your MacBook getting hot when doing anything more serious than browsing internet? Nah mate, I'm not gonna miss Intel in my Mac.
Also when Intel dropping support for stuff like motherboards they remove Bios files, drivers and manuals from their servers. Absolute shocking treatment for their customers. They need a cold shower.

 

[johngwheeler]

The idea that Intel's CPU failings are the reason for the Arm switch is a little laughable.
For starters, what are these failings ? The article has no particulars , and reads like a gossip magazine. And of course they could switch to AMD's (Apple's GPU partner) awesome Ryzens with no effort.

The switch is obviously another deprecation of the Macbook line for monetary reasons. AMD64 is the performance king with perfectly acceptable power draws. But Apple already maintain Arm code for the cash cows of iPad and phones, so easier for them to spin some publicity BS and count the dollars with the CPU switch.

Well, Intel's failings are the failure to deliver significant performance improvements in a timely manner, which has frustrated Apple on many occasions. Most of the Intel processor line is still on 14nm while AMD and Apples own CPUs are already on 7nm architectures.

I expect that Apple did also consider AMD seriously, but probably thought that if they were going to change their CPUs, that they might as well make the new ones their own, thereby gaining almost full control of their own supply chains.

It will certainly help them financially because the CPU costs will be less for them, which they can then either bank or redirect into further R&D. It's a business after all - if they can improve their profits and user base, why shouldn't they?

 

[KPOM]

The idea that Intel's CPU failings are the reason for the Arm switch is a little laughable.
For starters, what are these failings ? The article has no particulars , and reads like a gossip magazine. And of course they could switch to AMD's (Apple's GPU partner) awesome Ryzens with no effort.

The switch is obviously another deprecation of the Macbook line for monetary reasons. AMD64 is the performance king with perfectly acceptable power draws. But Apple already maintain Arm code for the cash cows of iPad and phones, so easier for them to spin some publicity BS and count the dollars with the CPU switch.

AMD was behind in mobile chips for many years, as well, and in any case, switching to AMD would still leave them dependent on someone else’s roadmap. Apple has spent the last 12+ years building up the ability to design their own processors. Now they can build Macs based on their own timetable.

 

[verticalines]

Well, Intel's failings are the failure to deliver significant performance improvements in a timely manner, which has frustrated Apple on many occasions. Most of the Intel processor line is still on 14nm while AMD and Apples own CPUs are already on 7nm architectures.

I expect that Apple did also consider AMD seriously, but probably thought that if they were going to change their CPUs, that they might as well make the new ones their own, thereby gaining almost full control of their own supply chains.

It will certainly help them financially because the CPU costs will be less for them, which they can then either bank or redirect into further R&D. It's a business after all - if they can improve their profits and user base, why shouldn't they?

If the original conversation sparked around the time of Skylake, then AMD was just on the cusp of releasing then unproven Zen after years of lame Bulldozer. I surmise in Apple's eyes, the competition was not better and they could carve their own path forward given their strong in-house SoC unit.

Unifying into A-silicon allows them to bin and toss yields around in different hardware that use the same underlying foundation. 8-core fails and has 7 and some missing things? Disable to 6 and put in in the iPad. Cost-savings here. 5nm and beyond won't be cheap.

It is a different story if they looked at x86 last year. I'd ask if x86 can scale down better/faster than Apple can scale up (see the A12 chart from Anandtech's A13 review). They're still subject to the frequency/voltage curve and getting into the 3Ghz range looks to be the next challenge. So much more power for those last few steps in performance. Is it needed? They probably have a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick at right now and other options before stalling on pure clockspeed. But 5 years from now? Open future for both platforms.

I hope Apple really double-downs on stability and longevity instead of doing their annoying annual MacOS refresh for no apparent reason other than they feel expected to.