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.
What If Apple Made Processors For Its Computers?
- Thread starter testcss
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If they did, and they were comparable in power to Intel's CPUs, then I would like it because Macs could be cheaper then.
But to be honest, I seriously doubt this will ever happen outside the iOS-family.
But to be honest, I seriously doubt this will ever happen outside the iOS-family.
Not gonna happen. Thank goodness.
Windows compatibility is the best thing that ever happened to the Mac -- not because Windows is so great, but because most of the issues with switching just vanished overnight.
When I'm using my ancient PB G4 which can't run a VM, I sort of feel like one arm is cut off.
And on top of that, Intel has just been destroying its competition in the PC space.
Windows compatibility is the best thing that ever happened to the Mac -- not because Windows is so great, but because most of the issues with switching just vanished overnight.
When I'm using my ancient PB G4 which can't run a VM, I sort of feel like one arm is cut off.
And on top of that, Intel has just been destroying its competition in the PC space.
Processor design is a very expensive operation, if Apple did this then they'd have to find manufacturing capacity to produce them, along with test and packaging. I spent the last 12 years of my career working at Intel in the MPG group, our processor design teams ranged from 1100 to 1800 people. These people cost money and with continuous pressure from buyers on the margins it's a constant battle to keep costs down and profits up. Apple is smart, let someone else deal with the costs and hassles of making processors.
I know the feeling. I had an HP 1000 netbook(kind of wish I went with the Lenovo) to complement my MBP at the time and it was garbage(mainly due to the Atom cpu). They said performance was suppose to be on par with the G4 chip the in the iBook and Powerbook, but just browsing the net was turning into a hassle(linux os it came with didn't do it any help). So, if Apple went with like a dual core A5 cpu in the Air that would be a bad idea.
No thanks. At least on the desktop/notebook side of computing, x86 is king. Apple made the switch 6 years ago and it would be fairly counterproductive of them to swtich again. They'd have to rework OS X like they did back in the day and developers would have extra work getting their apps to run on both platforms.
But, as far as I know, Microsoft is planning on using that only in tablets. They've decided to go a different route than Apple and Google and use the same platform that they use in their desktops. Whether or not their plan will work is a different story.
But, as far as I know, Microsoft is planning on using that only in tablets. They've decided to go a different route than Apple and Google and use the same platform that they use in their desktops. Whether or not their plan will work is a different story.
Who knows. Right now ARM is only available for tablets and smart phones (and alike products). If you buy a real computer, it will have either Intel or AMD CPU which are both x86. However, NVidia's Denver might change this. It will provide the first ARM CPUs designed for normal computers and even servers.
That computer has a SSD, but its still ****-slow... The 11" MBA pwones its ass
Yeah, but most of the netbooks of the time had a slow SSD that generally maxed out at 16gb(with a few 32gb here and there) and aren't the good stuff we see on the market now.
I will admit the I would take a quad core nvidia(tegra 3?) tablet with at the very least n-trig duo pen support on an IPS display with 10 hour battery life(and keyboard options). I don't even really care about what OS it runs as long I can do full web browsing and note taking.
Last edited:
At the same clock rate, the ARM CPU in the A5 would run equivalent code about 1.5X to 3X slower than the current x86/C2D in the Air. That would put A5 around 2X to 4X slower than the a Core i5 or i7. So, just from a performance point of view, to be competitive, an ARM in a MacBook Air wouldn't work unless ARM and/or Apple figure out how to make the ARM CPU, in some hypothetical A6 ASIC, 2X to 4X faster than the current CPU in the A5 at the same processor clock rate and power envelope.
The other problem is memory size. The current ARM architecture can't address over 4GB of main memory, which the Air may need a couple hardware updates from now to stay competitive.
The other problem is memory size. The current ARM architecture can't address over 4GB of main memory, which the Air may need a couple hardware updates from now to stay competitive.
But it IS a netbook "on the market today". Its barely 1 year old and has a 160GB SSD.
The HP Mini 1000 was a 160gb HDD, not SSD. I'd hope the Air is faster considering it costs almost three times as much.
It's far older than a year, I had one in late 2008.
Well when I was looking at the S10 that was back in 2008 when it was 160gb hdd or a 16gb ssd. Haven't kept up with that one so it could be using the newer Atom, and SSD could be now at 160gb, but still its a slow ssd as the purpose is to keep the price low.
If that does happen, I can't see it getting too far. x86 has been around for a long time, and I'm doubting ARM is just going to bust in and take the market away. AMD has been around for years, and it has yet to catch up to Intel, so it seems that ARM is a little late to the game, unless it can provide a massive improvement in some aspect of performance. Plus, devs wouldn't be too happy about that, so it seems like it would be ill-supported and only be good for a very small percentage of the market.
Lol thats why PC users say SSDs don't make your computer much faster... Most of the cheep SSDs in netbooks and stuff are crap
The cost of energy is already larger than the cost of CPUs in data centers (reports are that they already eat more than 1% of the national power grid). Anything that would decrease energy use in data centers, in server transactions per watt-hour, would bust in and take market away. For linux (and Mac OS X) servers, support for ARM is a quick recompile away... trivial for any competent IT devs.
I have a little ARM linux server running already. No fan. Runs on about 4 watts.