G.Skill TridentZ5 RGB DDR5 7200 CL34 2x16 GB review
ASUS TUF Gaming B760-PLUS WIFI D4 review
Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
Starting 2020 Apple Will No Longer Use Intel processors
Over at Bloomberg word got out that Apple will be fabbing a self-developed CPU for their Mac computers. That means Apple will be giving Intel the boot when it comes to processors.
It's even mentioned that it will not stop with just processors as Apple wants to tie everything together, a larger project with code name Kalamata learns that Apple wants all its devices to work seamlessly together, so besides Macs also the iPhones and iPads. Apple is working on a new software platform called Marzipan (which may already be released this year), which makes it possible to run apps for the iPhone and iPad on the Macs. Apple is 5% of Intel's business, the shares of Intel dropped by 9.2 percent when the news was revealed.
-- Bloomberg -- The shift would be a blow to Intel, whose partnership helped revive Apple’s Mac success and linked the chipmaker to one of the leading brands in electronics. Apple provides Intel with about 5 percent of its annual revenue, according to Bloomberg supply chain analysis.Intel shares dropped as much as 9.2 percent, the biggest intraday drop in more than two years, on the news. They were down 6.4 percent at $48.75 at 3:30 p.m. in New York.
Apple could still theoretically abandon or delay the switch. The company declined to comment. Intel said, “We don’t comment on speculation about our customers.”
For Apple, the change would be a defining moment. Intel chips remain some of the only major processor components designed by others inside Apple’s product portfolio. Currently, all iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and Apple TVs use main processors designed by Apple and based on technology from Arm Holdings Plc. Moving to its own chips inside Macs would let Apple release new models on its own timelines, instead of relying on Intel’s processor roadmap.
“We think that Apple is looking at ways to further integrate their hardware and software platforms, and they’ve clearly made some moves in this space, trying to integrate iOS and macOS,” said Shannon Cross, an analyst at Cross Research. “It makes sense that they’re going in this direction. If you look at incremental R&D spend, it’s gone into ways to try to vertically integrate their components so they can add more functionality for competitive differentiation.”
HP launches F-Series monitors: 1080p IPS FreeSync starting at $99 - 01/08/2018 02:59 PM
HP today announced affordable IPS FreeSync monitors, tagged under the F-series. Five 1080p monitors are being released and they all (21.5 to 27-inch) get an IPS panel. FreeSync is included as well,...
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 Available Starting Today - 08/28/2017 01:45 PM
Two weeks ago you probably have read our Vega 56 and 64 reviews, what you perhaps missed is that the Vega 64 actually went on sale, the Vega 56 cards however did not. Until today that is....
Intel Core i9 7980 XE Available Starting September 25th - 08/09/2017 04:08 PM
Yesterday Intel released the last specs for their Core X-series Processor Family Specs 14- to 18-Core. Earlier indication for the Core i9-7980XE would be a release in October. It now seems that the ...
AMD Readies Ryzen 5 Series and will offer six- and four-core processors starting April 11 - 03/16/2017 05:22 AM
In a conference call yesterday AMD announced more Ryzen processors. As you guys know AMD made a promise to release the Ryzen 5 series in Q2 this year. Well, they have been able to meet that time slot ...
OEMs won't be able to sell PCs with Win7 / 8.1 starting November - 10/03/2016 08:14 AM
Windows 7, perhaps Microsoft's most succesful release of Windows, along with the less popular Windows 8.1 won't come installed on large OEM PCs after October 31, 2016....
vbetts
Moderator
Posts: 15142
Joined: 2006-07-04
Moderator
Posts: 15142
Joined: 2006-07-04
#5534916 Posted on: 04/04/2018 10:00 PM
Interesting little note to this topic.
https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/981135048429752322?s=20
This means 3 possibilities.
1. AMD
2. VIA
3. Licensing out x86 instructions from Intel to build their own.
I could see options 1 and 3 happening before option 2...Which if it's still x86/64, hackintoshes are still safe!
Interesting little note to this topic.
https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/981135048429752322?s=20
This means 3 possibilities.
1. AMD
2. VIA
3. Licensing out x86 instructions from Intel to build their own.
I could see options 1 and 3 happening before option 2...Which if it's still x86/64, hackintoshes are still safe!
waltc3
Senior Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: 2014-07-22
Senior Member
Posts: 1439
Joined: 2014-07-22
#5534927 Posted on: 04/04/2018 10:46 PM
Most likely this is fake news from Bloomberg (not known for its tech news savvy, anyway)--picked up on a rumor somewhere. I see that many people in this thread are not aware of Apple's jaded history with CPUs--Macs started with Motorola 68000 cpus, then went to Motorola PPC cpus and from there to (If memory serves) IBM PPCs, and then finally transitioned to x86 Intel cpus...lol...
Of course, it wasn't just using non-x86 cpus that began the Mac's lifespan, but in early days Apple designed the motherboards, core-logic and bus designs, etc., for the Mac. This strategy quickly made Macs much more expensive and impractical than the x86 clone market, and the *only* way to keep the Mac competitive in terms of price-performance was to go Intel and take the Mac OS/OS X to x86. The rumor now is that the Mac will move to ARM in 2020, which will doom the Mac as a personal computer if it happens (IMO) because not only will Mac owners face another round of emulators (this time x86-Intel emulation) but also because ARM is dog slow compared to x86, especially when both are running x86 software (or attempting to emulate it). Microsoft so far has been unable to get decent Windows performance out of ARM even with ARM-native Windows code. Each time in the first three cpus employed for the Mac, Jobs roundly condemned Intel cpus because they were "so bad"--he said--right up until he decided to take the Mac to Intel cpus--and from that point on Jobs said Intel cpus were the greatest...! Of course, he did...And of course, some of his former PPC people went with him--and some of them bailed out to x86/WIndows at the time. Apple's Mac--the perpetual transition platform.
I think the substance of the rumor actually is that Apple wants out of the Mac PC business completely, because Apple hates competition and nowhere is the competition more fierce than in the x86 PC markets. ARM fits with Apple's money-making hardware markets of today--mobile--much better than the x86 Mac (iPhone, iPad, iOS, etc.). Apple could pick up AMD, of course, which is another possibility--but I think Apple wants to leave the x86 PC business entirely. My opinion has been that when Jobs moved the Mac to x86 and its OS to x86, it was the bailout strategy for the Mac, to keep the company afloat long enough to have the iPhone market mature--which it did. Simply put--Apple does not need the Mac any longer, plus as I said Apple is not a competitive company, preferring monopoly markets or semi-monopoly markets, always. When those heat up with direct competitors, Apple starts off suing everyone else who "dares" to compete with them, and then as time moves on and competitors begin taking market share from Apple, eventually Apple moves on entirely to markets where the company need not compete, if possible.
Still, this is only unsubstantiated rumor, so Apple may be planning no changes to the Mac at all. We shall see. I won't buy anything the company makes, but it will be interesting to watch Apple flounder around a bit more.
Most likely this is fake news from Bloomberg (not known for its tech news savvy, anyway)--picked up on a rumor somewhere. I see that many people in this thread are not aware of Apple's jaded history with CPUs--Macs started with Motorola 68000 cpus, then went to Motorola PPC cpus and from there to (If memory serves) IBM PPCs, and then finally transitioned to x86 Intel cpus...lol...
Of course, it wasn't just using non-x86 cpus that began the Mac's lifespan, but in early days Apple designed the motherboards, core-logic and bus designs, etc., for the Mac. This strategy quickly made Macs much more expensive and impractical than the x86 clone market, and the *only* way to keep the Mac competitive in terms of price-performance was to go Intel and take the Mac OS/OS X to x86. The rumor now is that the Mac will move to ARM in 2020, which will doom the Mac as a personal computer if it happens (IMO) because not only will Mac owners face another round of emulators (this time x86-Intel emulation) but also because ARM is dog slow compared to x86, especially when both are running x86 software (or attempting to emulate it). Microsoft so far has been unable to get decent Windows performance out of ARM even with ARM-native Windows code. Each time in the first three cpus employed for the Mac, Jobs roundly condemned Intel cpus because they were "so bad"--he said--right up until he decided to take the Mac to Intel cpus--and from that point on Jobs said Intel cpus were the greatest...! Of course, he did...And of course, some of his former PPC people went with him--and some of them bailed out to x86/WIndows at the time. Apple's Mac--the perpetual transition platform.I think the substance of the rumor actually is that Apple wants out of the Mac PC business completely, because Apple hates competition and nowhere is the competition more fierce than in the x86 PC markets. ARM fits with Apple's money-making hardware markets of today--mobile--much better than the x86 Mac (iPhone, iPad, iOS, etc.). Apple could pick up AMD, of course, which is another possibility--but I think Apple wants to leave the x86 PC business entirely. My opinion has been that when Jobs moved the Mac to x86 and its OS to x86, it was the bailout strategy for the Mac, to keep the company afloat long enough to have the iPhone market mature--which it did. Simply put--Apple does not need the Mac any longer, plus as I said Apple is not a competitive company, preferring monopoly markets or semi-monopoly markets, always. When those heat up with direct competitors, Apple starts off suing everyone else who "dares" to compete with them, and then as time moves on and competitors begin taking market share from Apple, eventually Apple moves on entirely to markets where the company need not compete, if possible.
Still, this is only unsubstantiated rumor, so Apple may be planning no changes to the Mac at all. We shall see. I won't buy anything the company makes, but it will be interesting to watch Apple flounder around a bit more.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7249
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 7249
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5534932 Posted on: 04/04/2018 11:20 PM
1. AMD
2. VIA
3. Licensing out x86 instructions from Intel to build their own.
I could see options 1 and 3 happening before option 2...Which if it's still x86/64, hackintoshes are still safe!
Honestly, I find all 3 unrealistic, but it's hard to argue against the link you provided:
1. I find this hard to be true, because I'm sure Intel had in their contract with Apple that they were not allowed to use AMD. Otherwise, why was Apple so AMD-exclusive from the very beginning? Back in 2006, AMD had very competitive products, and with Apple's marketshare, they would've got a modest boost in revenue to help refine their architecture (thereby making them a good investment for Apple). And yet, they didn't use AMD at all. It's also important to consider that modders even got Bulldozer to work with OSX, so surely Apple could've easily got AMD hardware to work if they wanted to. This leads me to believe that Apple was not allowed to use AMD. Today, AMD's products aren't good enough for Apple to backstab Intel like this. So, unless the contract ended, I don't see how Apple could escape this.
2. Same problem as #1, though Intel would likely just roll their eyes and be like "whatever, your loss". Keep in mind too that if they went with VIA, they'd have to basically start from scratch. VIA's CPU, GPU, audio, NICs, storage controllers, etc are all underwhelming even by 2008 standards. It's not just a new CPU they'd have to work on, but an entirely new platform. Apple does have a lot of their own in-house designs, but I can't imagine they'd have enough time to get an entire product series done. So, basically, it's the same idea as #3 except they can bypass Intel.
3. Nvidia once tried to get their hands on an x86 license, but to my recollection, Intel put their foot down and said no to this (and this is why their Tegra chips are based on ARM). Unlike Nvidia, Apple depends on Intel. So if Intel is who Apple must go through in order to make an x86 CPU, I don't see how they would ever OK that.
Either way - it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
1. AMD
2. VIA
3. Licensing out x86 instructions from Intel to build their own.
I could see options 1 and 3 happening before option 2...Which if it's still x86/64, hackintoshes are still safe!
Honestly, I find all 3 unrealistic, but it's hard to argue against the link you provided:
1. I find this hard to be true, because I'm sure Intel had in their contract with Apple that they were not allowed to use AMD. Otherwise, why was Apple so AMD-exclusive from the very beginning? Back in 2006, AMD had very competitive products, and with Apple's marketshare, they would've got a modest boost in revenue to help refine their architecture (thereby making them a good investment for Apple). And yet, they didn't use AMD at all. It's also important to consider that modders even got Bulldozer to work with OSX, so surely Apple could've easily got AMD hardware to work if they wanted to. This leads me to believe that Apple was not allowed to use AMD. Today, AMD's products aren't good enough for Apple to backstab Intel like this. So, unless the contract ended, I don't see how Apple could escape this.
2. Same problem as #1, though Intel would likely just roll their eyes and be like "whatever, your loss". Keep in mind too that if they went with VIA, they'd have to basically start from scratch. VIA's CPU, GPU, audio, NICs, storage controllers, etc are all underwhelming even by 2008 standards. It's not just a new CPU they'd have to work on, but an entirely new platform. Apple does have a lot of their own in-house designs, but I can't imagine they'd have enough time to get an entire product series done. So, basically, it's the same idea as #3 except they can bypass Intel.
3. Nvidia once tried to get their hands on an x86 license, but to my recollection, Intel put their foot down and said no to this (and this is why their Tegra chips are based on ARM). Unlike Nvidia, Apple depends on Intel. So if Intel is who Apple must go through in order to make an x86 CPU, I don't see how they would ever OK that.
Either way - it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
Turanis
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 2014-08-15
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 2014-08-15
#5534942 Posted on: 04/04/2018 11:55 PM
Maybe Apple will GTFO x86 instructions set.Without push the innovation(full x64 instructions set) ,they dont have such success (from iMac 1998 era).
Mac OS X based on UNIX is a great OS.
Maybe Apple will GTFO x86 instructions set.Without push the innovation(full x64 instructions set) ,they dont have such success (from iMac 1998 era).
Mac OS X based on UNIX is a great OS.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 179
Joined: 2015-06-01
So, professional software must be rewritten and no one will port AAA titles to this CPU and they will rely on Iphone's games. LèL
I'm not sure if VIA acquired Cyrix, but, VIA does still have an x86 license, and they are still making x86 CPUs to this day. They're just really unpopular in western countries, and even more unpopular in PCs - they're usually found in embedded devices, like POS machines. If you've ever encountered a cash register or an ATM running Windows XP, there's a good chance that if it wasn't using a Celeron, it was using a VIA CPU.
I'm sure Apple is better off using ARM (or even PPC) than any of VIA's x86 options. The amount of time and money they'd have to dump into VIA's architecture wouldn't be worth it to them.
I think power9 is the only architecture that can reach actual x86 level of performance.