How do you refer to Apple's ARM chips?

[MrCheeto]

A64. ARM. M-series. I'm seeing it referred to by many different names and it has made it difficult to search for support and convey advice. I think it's time to nail down precisely what makes the most sense and helps with SEO, tech support, shopping etc.

I can't blame old people for being out of the loop, especially at the moment while the post-intel transition is happening. They seem to get more confused by M1, M2, vs. intel etc. When you tell somebody that moving from intel to "M1" is a major transition and that some apps and functions may break (running official Windows), it compounds the issue whenever "M2" comes around because somebody might think that means another equally major shift. What if Apple decides to branch their Mac chips with a new letter designation? We can't go on calling it something like "Mx". I've never heard somebody refer to PowerPC Macs as "Gx".

I've seen it described many different ways but I think "Apple Silicon" or "AS" isn't helping and is not very hashable. One thing I know for certain: calling it "Silicon" is a major wrinkle-brain move. You're going to convince people that Apple has moved to some new semi-conductive substrate called "silicon" as if it hasn't been used since the earliest days of microprocessors or that it's some magic Apple proprietary innovation.


Here's the previous convention:

x86: The 8086 was made and its architecture was adopted for generations all ending with "86" in the name. Thus, it simply made sense to refer to the series by its instruction set architecture, "x86" since the architecture and the silicon were intertwined and inseparable. As it grew from 16-bits, we've come to know it as "x86-32" and "x86-64". (I won't get into the AMD aspect of the 64-bit architecture but I'll throw you this bone: AMD64. There, I said it.)

68k: Much like intel's repeating ____86 designations, Motorola would begin their chips with "68" thus the series went "68000, 68010, 68020" etc. We now widely refer to this instruction set and architecture as "68k" since "68" is always in the thousands place.

PPC: Beginning with the G1 processors (601, 500, and 800) Apple transitioned from Motorola 68000-based chips to new AIM-alliance processors based on the IBM Power instruction set. The new instruction set was called PowerPC and was even grafted onto Apple's product names, ie. PowerMac, PowerBook. Once again, we have adopted the instruction set architecture as the nomenclature giving us PowerPC or PPC for short.

Now it gets confusing. The Apple chips use ARM64 or AArch64 instruction set but is it Apple specific? Also, we've never used the bit-width in reference to the architecture in general. I've seen PowerPC-64 when an application requires 64-bits specifically but that is very rare. Why would it make sense to include "64" with the new chipsets? Do we simply call it ARM? If so, how do we specify that it is Apple ARM? I suppose that one relies on the answer to the previous question about how much the ISA is Apple-specific.

Type "arch" into terminal and Apple will tell you that it's "arm64". So does that make it official? Let's end the confusion.

 

[Rafterman]

All are correct, but I've seen Apple Silicon most often.

 

[MrCheeto]

Is that what you’re going to type out every time you search for a piece of software or for support?

Can’t you see how difficult that is to hash for search engines etc?

Nobody goes around asking for “an IBM processor version of Snow Leopard” or “a universal binary for AIM RISC and intel Core 2/Core i processors”. The convention is: “Universal binary: PPC/x86”.

I can’t see “Universal binary: x86/Apple Silicon” or, gag me, “x86/AS” 🤮 becoming any sort of widely accepted standard.

The best I could see as a straight forward designation is when downloading from certain sites I have seen options such as “x86, A64”. While I like “A64”, again I amn’t sure we should include the bit-width in the title.

 

[Rafterman]

Is that what you’re going to type out every time you search for a piece of software or for support?

"Apple Silicon"

Not very difficult.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

Is that what you’re going to type out every time you search for a piece of software or for support?

Can’t you see how difficult that is to hash for search engines etc?

Nobody goes around asking for “an IBM processor version of Snow Leopard” or “a universal binary for AIM RISC and intel Core 2/Core i processors”. The convention is: “Universal binary: PPC/x86”.

I can’t see “Universal binary: x86/Apple Silicon” or, gag me, “x86/AS” 🤮 becoming any sort of widely accepted standard.

The best I could see as a straight forward designation is when downloading from certain sites I have seen options such as “x86, A64”. While I like “A64”, again I amn’t sure we should include the bit-width in the title.

I get the point you are trying to make here. "Apple Silicon" is definitely a mouthful compared to "PPC" and "x86". But "AS" will never work... too basic and spelled just like the word "as". So I don't see that gaining traction. Honestly, I think I like "A64" the most. Despite your reservations about using bit-width, I doubt we'll see anything wider in the near future. If so, well "A128" is an option at that point. Also, Intel did refer to their 64-bit microprocessors as "IA-64", so there is precedence to it. "M-Series" is ok for now also, but how long will that last? Will Apple launch an "N-Series" in a few years? Why is it "M" anyway?

 

[jdb8167]

The current Intel/AMD x86 is referred to as x86-64 all the time. I think Linux refers to it as AMD64. I’ve also seen it as the very confusing x64. So there is no real consensus on the Intel side either.

Apple calls it “Apple silicon”. I agree that referring to Apple silicon as just silicon is silly and potentially confusing. I sometimes refer to Apple silicon as ASi but that didn’t seem to catch on.

 

[maflynn]

I think it's time to nail down precisely

Meh,
I've used all sort of variations depending on my mood. I see no reason to precisely nail it down.

Its like how so many people got their panties up in a wad when people called their computers MACS.

Also the need to properly call it by the platform is not needed that much. I mean how often did we call MBPs X86 MBPs?

I think Linux refers to it as AMD64

That's because AMD developed the 64bit instruction set, not Intel.

 

[MrCheeto]

how often did we call MBPs X86 MBPs

Apple fixed that for us.

When the Intel transition happened, the whole lineup was renamed. It was no longer PowerMac, iBook, PowerBook etc.

That left the mini and iMac. We then started calling the old ones “G4 mini” and “G5 iMac” and the new ones were “intel mini/iMac”. During the current transition, we now refer to MBP’s as Intel or…whatever they want to call the new ones.

During this transition we’ve just called the A64 Macs by their specific chipset which isn’t going to last long as we have to operate with this information online and communicate it etc. Again, I’m pointing out the need to hash the data. Look at how difficult it is to find original Xbox-specific information online. Typing “Xbox” will include results about every Xbox model. Typing “Xbox one/1” just makes it worse thanks to Microsoft’s genius. In time, we will be searching for something that applies for all A64 Macs or offering something that is A64 compatible and people will be confused because some will say “For M1, M2 Macs” and ask if their M5 is compatible in the future. Or we will have to keep adding to the current trend of saying stuff like “the new M1/M2/M3/M4 Macs…”

 

[unrigestered]

Apple Silicon, or AS tp make it brief
though sometimes Apple M-Series too

 

[maflynn]

gain, I’m pointing out the need to hash the data

I'm pointing out there is no need.

I know you want to see people use a certain convention, all I'm saying is we all use what we want, there is no convention per say.

 

[AlixSPQR]

Apple Silicon is a collective term for different macs with M SoC:s containing arm64 architecture. Or something entirely different, IDK.

 

[257Loner]

Starting with the Apple A4 in the iPad and iPhone 4 of 2010 and the Apple M1 in the Macs of 2020, Apple has designed their own microprocessors. Instead of designing separate microchips, they design System-on-a-chip packages that share memory between the CPU and integrated GPU cores. Their SoC designs are branded A-series for the iPhones and M-series for the Macs.

Apple-designed chips since 2010 have used the RISC architecture licensed by ARM. Their chips became capable of processing 64-bit wide instructions starting with the Apple A7 chip found in the iPhone 5S released on September 10, 2013.

Any chips designed by Apple, regardless of underlying architecture, is called Apple Silicon. The architecture Apple Silicon chips have been based upon since 2013 is arm64. This arm64 foundation has allowed software developers to create a version of the Linux OS that can run natively on M1 Macs.

In an interview with Ars Technica in 2020, Craig Federighi was asked about Windows on arm64 Macs:
As for Windows running natively on the machine, "that's really up to Microsoft," he said. "We have the core technologies for them to do that, to run their ARM version of Windows, which in turn of course supports x86 user mode applications. But that's a decision Microsoft has to make, to bring to license that technology for users to run on these Macs. But the Macs are certainly very capable of it."

 

[MrCheeto]

“Apple Silicon” is ignorant of the actual architecture because what if Apple switches to a slightly different architecture? Suddenly, compatibility is divided and we have to differentiate further. Heck, they’ve already switched from 32bit to 64bit. So if something is “Apple Silicon” compatible, is it assured that it will run on an A4? That’s an example of how “Apple Silicon” is too vague, too long, and I have to say it is confusing people because they shorten it to “silicon” and then others start thinking that “silicon” is a new magic element or technology.

Then you have to explain why they can’t get a straight answer when they ask if something they want to buy “works with silicon”. You may think it’s not an issue but who has never heard of somebody that thought a CD-ROM tray was a cup-holder? This was a real thing that happened in the 90’s. The more we can spoon-feed people, the less likely they will be frustrated with their investments or hobbies.

“Apple Silicon” is just not pocketable.
Next, we should correct “o’clock” to “on the clock”. 🙄

 

[rpmurray]

I've seen Apple Silicon shown as ASi, which, when you pronounce it as a word, pretty much describes it.

 

[Basic75]

The new instruction set was called PowerPC and was even grafted onto Apple's product names, ie. PowerMac, PowerBook.

For the record, the name PowerBook predates the use of PowerPC processors, the first PowerBooks were 68K based.

Now it gets confusing. The Apple chips use ARM64 or AArch64 instruction set but is it Apple specific?

Actually it's even more confusing because AArch64 is the architecture while the instruction set is called A64.

Abbreviating the marketing name "Apple Silicon" to just "silicon" is completely inappropriate, but very much in line with people nowadays using words without reflecting on or being aware of their actual meaning, coupled with an unfortunate tendency to abbreviate everything to the point of losing all sense and meaning.

 

[Basic75]

Starting with the Apple A4 in the iPad and iPhone 4 of 2010 and the Apple M1 in the Macs of 2020, Apple has designed their own microprocessors.

Not quite, the A4 and A5 did not feature Apple-designed processor cores. The A4 had a single Cortex A8 while the A5 had two Cortex A9, both off-the-shelf cores from ARM.

 

[Basic75]

there is no convention per say.

I think you meant "per se". I can understand the desire for a consistently used naming convention as it would make, say, searching for things easier. But I don't think we'll get it, and I most certainly can't imagine one arising from a forum thread. I mean, what are the odds of us agreeing on anything here?

 

[Basic75]

Its like how so many people got their panties up in a wad when people called their computers MACS.

Well, it's nice to see at a glance whether we are referring to a Mac, as in the computer, or a MAC, a Media Access Control address. But I'm also with you. Since it's impossible to convince or force everybody to use consistent naming we just have to live with the mess and not be too anal retentive, just as much as necessary

 

[MrCheeto]

Basic makes a lot of good points. While I dislike the naming convention of the ISA, “A64” is as close as we can get to following the trend with prior chip designs.

This means that it applies to ALL of Apple’s products assuming they continue to conform to ARM specs and that it is an existing designation rather than Apple-specific. That is to say; as Microsoft develops ARM compatible software, it wouldn’t break convention to call it “A64 Windows” when describing its compatibility with hardware.

@Basic75 is Apple using an existing architecture such as when they adopted x86 or PowerPC or are the Apple-prescribed chips in any significant way different enough to distinguish them from the vanilla “A64” instruction architecture?

 

[Basic75]

@Basic75 is Apple using an existing architecture such as when they adopted x86 or PowerPC or are the Apple-prescribed chips in any significant way different enough to distinguish them from the vanilla “A64” instruction architecture?

AFAIK the ARM architecture license requires Apple to be compatible with the standard. This neither permits omitting non-optional parts nor adding things that would make code not run on other chips implementing the same standard.

The only divergence that I am aware of is the possibility to switch the Apple cores to the stricter x86 memory model. Perhaps this is permitted by ARM because it's not a user-visible change; it does not break ARM standard compatibility for code compiled for Apple's chips.

Apple might have added some other undocumented features that similarly do not impact standard-compliant ARM code but might be used internally by Apple's applications, frameworks, run-time environments or kernel.

 

[MrCheeto]

Sounds like for all purposes the new Apple chips are “A64” compatible. Well if that’s that...

So starting with the Macintosh, we go;

68k>PPC>x86>A64

Interesting bit about the PowerBook line, btw. I’ll look into that one.

 

[257Loner]

Not quite, the A4 and A5 did not feature Apple-designed processor cores. The A4 had a single Cortex A8 while the A5 had two Cortex A9, both off-the-shelf cores from ARM.

When I said microprocessor, I meant the whole chip, as the word "microprocessor" traditionally means. I wasn't referring to particular cores. But thank you for sharing that information with me. I didn't know that.

 

[MacDaddyPanda]

Depends on who I'm talking to. If I'm talking to someone more techy I'd probably use all iterations I know of. "Apple Silicon", "AS"(when typing), M*(1, 2, etc). But seems to me "M*" would be the more ubiquitous term to use for most people since that's their marketing materials. "Apple M*". "Mac Device Name M*"

 

[BellSystem]

It’s a good thing we’re solving the world’s most critical issue here. I was worried it would go unaddressed…here is how most of the world searches for issues:

-M1 MacBook not booting
-M1 Studio has sad Mac
-M2 Mini console log says I hate Tim

Formal writing: Apple Silicon

-Apple Silicon not real says Intel
-Apple Silicon faster than my dog
-Apple Silicon now identifies as MIPS64

There has never been a standard so I don’t know why we are pretending there was. PPC was not used past the G3 to refer to Macs until the G5 era when there was a need to differentiate Macs again. Since this will likely be the architecture for a long long time, there will be no need to care once all the Intel Macs are dead and gone. We will just call them Macs or refer to the model number.

 

[AJK13K]

All are correct, but I've seen Apple Silicon most often.

Ditto