Former Mac boss predicts PC makers will have to dump AMD and Intel to ‘go ARM’

[StDragon]

He speaks of ARM, but he's pulling my leg.

[Vishera]

Just now, Kisai said:

128 low power cores does not get you the performance of 1 high power core.

It doesn't scale that way,and is a blatant exaggeration.

An 8 core ARM processor is equal to a quad core Intel Haswell processor...

iPad Pro: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=iPad+Pro+(12.9-inch+3rd+Generation)

4790K: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=4790K

 

But for compute you need A LOT,but A LOT of ARM processors to match X86:

iPad Pro: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/4862921

My PC: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/4714310

[redf5]

9 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

I think everyone is saying ARM, ARM, ARM because everyone was fed up with Intel extorting everyone for basically a decade.

Bunch of people bet Intel would keep their pace, and they did for the most part, until AMD changed everything.
For Apple, it makes complete sense to choose their chip over anything else, they skip the middle man, save up on R&D, etc.

For other OEMs that have to pay the full price for high performing chips from Qualcomm, Samsung, Rockchip, Realtek, Microchip, or whatever, things are wildly different.

Wouldn't they spend more on R&D and save money by vertically integrating their supply chain? Just a minor nitpick.

 

3 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The word you're looking for is "interpreted". Java, and Flash (and Javascript, Python, PHP, Ruby, etc) are interpreted at runtime, and Javascript itself is compiled into non-portable bytecode.

 

Interpreter emulations are insanely slow and that's not what Rosetta2 is doing. Rosetta2 is recompiling the binary before it runs the first time, which means that it will only succeed with software that didn't break any rules (eg no hand-coded assembly, no virtualization, no hardware drivers, etc) and only uses system libraries. If something like, say Adobe software requires Adobe's own runtimes, or QT software requires OS-installed QT runtimes, you are likely to see Rosetta fail because the dependency is on a third party library that doesn't function like the first party native routines do. It's fixable, if those third party libraries get native compilations, but good luck when a lot of third party libraries have bitrot and can't even be installed without mile-long lists of specific version numbers of libraries.

 

At any rate we may get stuck if Apple still asks $600 USD+ for what is effectively a headless imac/ipad and adoption uptake is low. Developers are fine with recompiling things if the effort is worth it, but a lot of software (particuarly games) have to be recompiled with those old versions of libraries(eg SDL1 is a great example of bitrot in action) and can't be recompiled on a new OS because the new OS doesn't have that functionality anymore.

Games will be dead in MacOS, unless the entire processor market shifts to ARM. Have they mentioned anything about what happens to Bootcamp?

[Vishera]

Just now, redf5 said:

Have they mentioned anything about what happens to Bootcamp?

They are killing it,closing the platform even more,like how it is now is not closed enough.

[sof006]

Apple: "It runs too hot!"

Everyone else: "Yeah duh, but you also don't know how to connect a heatsink to a fan"

Apple: "Huh?"

[atxcyclist]

14 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

I think everyone is saying ARM, ARM, ARM because everyone was fed up with Intel extorting everyone for basically a decade.

Bunch of people bet Intel would keep their pace, and they did for the most part, until AMD changed everything.
For Apple, it makes complete sense to choose their chip over anything else, they skip the middle man, save up on R&D, etc.

For other OEMs that have to pay the full price for high performing chips from Qualcomm, Samsung, Rockchip, Realtek, Microchip, or whatever, things are wildly different.

It makes sense for a company like Apple to control both the hardware and software sides of their ecosystem, but going ARM makes no sense for x86/AMD64 computing since running software from decades ago is possible and still done. There was quite a big hullabaloo when Apple dropped PowerPC and thus ended Classic support in OSX, so much so that people kept using old G4/G5 PowerMacs for many years and even to this day, because there is software made for old Apple computers that is completely incompatible with the newer ones. This isn't an issue with x86/AMD64-based Windows machines, because a huge amount of Windows software since Windows '95 will run in Windows 10 with a little compatibility tweaking.

[atxcyclist]

1 minute ago, sof006 said:

Apple: "It runs too hot!"

Everyone else: "Yeah duh, but you also don't know how to connect a heatsink to a fan"

Apple: "Huh?"

The fact that many Apple users will leave a lot of performance on the table or even risk hardware failure in order to not hear a fan, is proof that many buy them because they are bougie, or the perceived superiority of owning an Apple product, and/or because they are easier to use if you're not very computer literate. This doesn't mean all Apple users are that way, but the people I know with Macs that really rely on them or do stuff on them that require horsepower, use 3rd party software to run their fans harder.

[GDRRiley]

given how much AMD does in 15W apples going to have a hell of a time.

Let alone AMDs going to do even more in a few months

[Kisai]

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

It doesn't scale that way,and is a blatant exaggeration.

An 8 core ARM processor is equal to a quad core Intel Haswell processor...

iPad Pro: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=iPad+Pro+(12.9-inch+3rd+Generation)

4790K: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=4790K

 

But for compute you need A LOT,but A LOT of ARM processors to match X86:

iPad Pro: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/4862921

My PC: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/compute/4714310

I know what I'm talking about my dude. You're literately quoting stuff I said elsewhere on the forum.

 

Let's say you have 2 "big cores" and 126 small cores. That means you still only have 2 big cores. So that is not going to blow the pants off an x86-64 CPU with 4 "big cores" and zero small cores. 

 

A High TDP core is designed for performance, and is allowed to burn as much energy as needed to get there provided it doesn't exceed a certain thermal threshold. A low TDP "little" core is capped at a performance level to save as much energy as possible, which means if you had a CPU of all "little" cores, it should not even require a heatsink. One 5w ARM CPU core or 128 cpu cores, still has a TDP of 5w.

 

If all you're doing is serving web server files, 128 low power cores will get you farther ahead than 4 high power cores. But that is a specific use case the Mac is not good at. That's a use case that FreeBSD is good at, because FreeBSD systems are good at being servers, but only servers. Windows would not do well with no high power cores. 

 

Like, a weak analogy here is to consider the "HT" portion of intel processors the "little cores" but without the power savings. This is why i3 and i5 chips were classicly half the CPU cores, you either had 4 non-ht cores, or 2 big cores and 2 additional ht cores, but those HT cores only gained you 20% not 100%.

 

So if we use the same logic and assume that the A12 being used is like having a 4 core CPU with 4 hyperthreads, it is quite literately in the exact same use case as the i7. Quad core with four additional weaker cores. But that's not how ARM works, not even how hyperthreading works. That's why Intel has largely been locked out of the mobile space. Their CPU's can not be made low power enough, or even be turned off to use in a mobile device.

 

ARM parts on the other hand do not scale up the same way Intel parts do, as the ARM parts are not designed as high TDP parts. 

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/amperes-altra-is-80-arm-cores-of-cloud-native-power-efficient-cpu/

 

Quote

ARM CPU vendor Ampere announced an 80-core CPU called the Altra on Tuesday. If the core count didn't clue you in already, the Altra is aimed at data-center computing rather than home or even typical business needs. The Altra's 80 cores do not offer hyperthreading, so 80 cores here means 80 threads as well.

So for all intents, this is a ARM cpu designed as a high TDP CPU.

 

It is not a desktop. Also note the gap between AMD and the Ampere Altra is much narrower than the Xeon. You can only buy this as a rack server. There is no desktop.

You know what these kinds of parts are good for? Web servers. Cloud services. They are not desktops. The only benchmarks I've seen of this CPU are with apachebench.

https://www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/ampere-s-new-128-core-altra-cpu-targets-intel-amd-in-the-cloud

Quote

While Altra's flagship processor has 80 cores, the product actually consists of 11 SKUs, with four 80-core processors ranging in thermal dynamic power (TDP) from 150 to 250 watts and in frequency from 2.6GHz to 3.3 GHz. The midrange processor has 72 cores, 3GHz and a 195-watt TDP. Four additional processors have 64 cores, ranging in TDP from 95 watts to 220 watts and in frequency from 2.4GHz to 3.3GHz. The second-to-last Altra has 48 cores, 2.2GHz and an 85-watt TDP while the final SKU has 32 cores, 1.7GHz and a 45-watt to 58-watt TDP.

So those last two parts, the 48 core and the 32 core are closer to desktop typical CPU TDP. That 85 watt 48 core TDP 2.2Ghz part is almost exactly the same TDP as the Haswell CPU parts. 

 

So if you follow the train of logic here, Apple should in theory be able to put a 32 core 45 watt CPU in something the size of a mac mini, as the i7 part they put in the 2018 MacMini is already a 65w part. It will just be a question if we get a CPU that is functionally like a desktop CPU and not "mobile" optimized like the existing A-series CPU's are.

 

Let's say, in theory that Ampere's CPU's are clock-for-clock identical to Apple's, and 2.2Ghz is what you get at 45w. That Intel part is a 65 watt, 3.2Ghz part (4.4 turbo) and has 6 cores/12 threads. (Also keep in mind iGPU.) Yes, the 32 cores nets you higher benchmark scores in multicore, but it doesn't give you a high enough single-core performance for typical games. Applications can get away with spreading loads to more cores (think about all the web browser tabs you have open) but a game never will. A game is designed around a fixed hardware expectation, and offering it more doesn't magically increase the visual quality, game mechanics, physics, etc. Probably the only game out there that can ever benefit from more cores are RTS games as there are a lot of small moving parts rather than a few very large moving parts like in a FPS/TPS.

 

Now as I mentioned earlier in this thread about "socketed whitebox ARM" PC's, this is a stones throw away from that. I would rather have a 4Ghz ARM part with 16 cores than an ARM part with 32 2Ghz cores in a desktop. Even AMD and Intel do not have their highest clocked parts as their highest core counts, it's simply a thermal budget that can be hit if all the cores are in use. Those very high core count Intel Xeon CPU's are often only 2Ghz.

 

[themoose5]

There is way too much inertia behind x86 based platforms for a switch like this to happen. There would have to be some MAJOR benefit for everyone involved to really push the market completely away from x86.

 

C++ can't even make ABI breaking changes in part because there are large companies out there that don't have the ability to re-compile important pieces of their software. If something like a language standard can't move forward because of issues like this the death of an entire ISA is going to see even more resistance.

[Guest]

These new MacBooks will cost an ARM and a leg haha

[kuddlesworth9419]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

I was about to say there are no red areas but I spotted them now. With the amount of mobile phones there are I'm actually surprised it's that few.

Looks like the Channel Islands although the results are likely wrong.

[Sauron]

7 hours ago, Vishera said:

Don't forget that the legendary Jim Keller laid the foundations for this CPU,the same person that brought us the Athlon 64 and Ryzen.

As far as i know those chips are very power efficient,so heat should not be a problem.

ULP intel chips have been power efficient for years too, Macs using them still overheat constantly because they care more about looks and noise than performance. It's going to be exactly the same with ARM. "Efficiency" doesn't mean "low TDP regardless of performance". There are ARM servers but none of them are passively cooled.

7 hours ago, Vishera said:

That SOC is more suitable for lower end devices,it won't be a suitable replacement for a i9 CPU,but it's good enough for replacing the i5 lineup.

Pretty sure they won't just be using the iPad's SOC in all of their ARM models.

[Vishera]

Just now, Sauron said:

Pretty sure they won't just be using the iPad's SOC in all of their ARM models.

As matter of fact they plan to use ARM only for low end devices for the time being,and if it's a success they will gradually implement ARM in more and more devices in their line-up as time progress.

[Sauron]

5 minutes ago, Vishera said:

As matter of fact they plan to use ARM only for low end devices for the time being,and if it's a success they will gradually implement ARM in more and more devices in their line-up as time progress.

Again irrelevant, eventually they'll show up in higher end models too and I'm pretty sure this guy isn't using low end models so if anything that's one more reason his point makes no sense.

[Master Disaster]

His reasoning for the entire industry to make such a radical shift is "Macs gets hot"......

 

I've got a better idea. Allow Apple engineers to design proper effective coolers because fun fact, we have PCs that are WAAAY faster than any Mac and yet, somehow (maybe its magic?), don't run anywhere near as hot.

[Master Disaster]

27 minutes ago, Sauron said:

ULP intel chips have been power efficient for years too, Macs using them still overheat constantly because they care more about looks and noise than performance. It's going to be exactly the same with ARM. "Efficiency" doesn't mean "low TDP regardless of performance". There are ARM servers but none of them are passively cooled.

Pretty sure they won't just be using the iPad's SOC in all of their ARM models.

I actually agree with Linus on this one. Apple have likely been slowly gimping their own cooling solutions in a deliberate attempt at misleading customers into thinking that Intel CPUs are too hot for the job so they can swap them out for CPUs which are cheaper for their bottom line.

[Sauron]

6 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I actually agree with Linus on this one. Apple have likely been slowly gimping their own cooling solutions in a deliberate attempt at misleading customers into thinking that Intel CPUs are too hot for the job so they can swap them out for CPUs which are cheaper for their bottom line.

I'm not sure about that, Macs have almost always been overheating because of stupid design constraints. I doubt they were thinking this far ahead since the day they moved to Intel.

[Vishera]

28 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I've got a better idea. Allow Apple engineers to design proper effective coolers

But it will be thick and noisy,it's a heresy to the Apple cult.

In all honesty when you open up a Macbook you see tons of batteries,but for cooling both the exhaust and intake are closed shut with no vents.

Long story short: no intake and no exhaust,the system suffocates.

 

No vents:

How it should be done (4 vents at the sides):

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I'm not sure about that, Macs have almost always been overheating because of stupid design constraints. I doubt they were thinking this far ahead since the day they moved to Intel.

I think they do plan that far in front, most companies plan decades in front of them, I just don't think they gimped it as a tactic, that goes against every successful business practice in the book. And when it comes to making a product and maintaining a product ethos Apple wrote the book.  I think their failures have been at a product marketing/management level. not a strategic company direction one.

 

Most managers will tell you there is no benefit in making a shit product on purpose. That not only tells the consumers your product is shit, but it also tells them you don't care about them and they were sold shit products because you want to look better later.

 

 

[Spindel]

12 hours ago, porina said:.

 

Edit: if we look at it in terms of units deployed, has ARM already passed x86? I'm assuming there are far more mobile phones than PCs+laptops in the world. Not sure servers would tip that balance much if included, bearing in mind they could use either.

My guess is that ARM passed deployed x86 systems a long time ago. Because outside of phones and tablets ARM is in everything.

 

Just in my home stuff that I know has ARM (outside the phones and tablets in our house):

• 2 routers (one of them is just used as a wireless AP with DD-WRT)
• Nintendo Switch
• Nintendo DS Lite
• Hub for connecting Z-wave and 433 to my smart home set up
• 2 NAS devices (one is not used)
• I would guess both of the TVs we have (not sure about ot being ARM, but I do know it’s not x86)
• 2 rasberry pi’s (but tbh none of them is currently used for anything)

 

That’s just from the top of my head, there are probably more things like the media unit in my car etc.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I think they do plan that far in front, most companies plan decades in front of them, I just don't think they gimped it as a tactic, that goes against every successful business practice in the book. And when it comes to making a product and maintaining a product ethos Apple wrote the book.  I think their failures have been at a product marketing/management level. not a strategic company direction one.

 

Most managers will tell you there is no benefit in making a shit product on purpose. That not only tells the consumers your product is shit, but it also tells them you don't care about them and they were sold shit products because you want to look better later.

Apple are not most businesses though, they're Apple. They already have huge brand loyalty with the iSheep and they know they can pretty much get away with just about anything (see Louis Rossmans video on how many design flaws they've simply shrugged at and released anyway). Apple customers will always buy Apple and there's a whole lot of Apple customers in the world.

 

You genuinely believe they think its OK to stuff an Intel CPU into a chassis that's a few MM thick and then have one heat pipe, one fan and literally zero openings in the chassis to let air flow in and out? Pull the other one, it has bells on.

 

You must remember, they designed the shit they're currently selling, to claim they're ignorant of the problem and how to fix it is absurd. Heck I'm no electrical engineer and even I know electronics need air flow to keep them cool.

 

Also lets not forget, they're not (potentially) just "making a shit product on purpose", they're making a shit product on purpose so people start to complain about the problem they designed in which allows them to ditch the more expensive component and replace it with a cheaper one while still selling the final product at the same price as before.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, Spindel said:

My guess is that ARM passed deployed x86 systems a long time ago. Because outside of phones and tablets ARM is in everything.

 

Just in my home stuff that I know has ARM (outside the phones and tablets in our house):

• 2 routers (one of them is just used as a wireless AP with DD-WRT)
• Nintendo Switch
• Nintendo DS Lite
• Hub for connecting Z-wave and 433 to my smart home set up
• 2 NAS devices (one is not used)
• I would guess both of the TVs we have (not sure about ot being ARM, but I do know it’s not x86)
• 2 rasberry pi’s (but tbh none of them is currently used for anything)

 

That’s just from the top of my head, there are probably more things like the media unit in my car etc.

While true I don't see how its relevant. I mean there's currently more V6 engines on the road than there is V12s, that doesn't mean the V12 isn't much faster.

[Kisai]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Most managers will tell you there is no benefit in making a shit product on purpose. That not only tells the consumers your product is shit, but it also tells them you don't care about them and they were sold shit products because you want to look better later.

 

Eh, I know there are management people who are that dense and out of touch with their customer base that they believe their customers will buy garbage with the apple logo on it. People buy garbage HP, Dell, ASUS, and MSI laptops all the time, so clearly being told a product is trash is not an impediment to buying trash.

 

I can tell you stories about how little Cingular cared about AT&T Wireless's customers in 2006 when they merged, and not only demoralized the customer service reps but threw the customers themselves under the bus very hard, and I would not fault anyone who was a former AT&T wireless customer from every having AT&T services ever again. When AT&T was trying to acquire T-Mobile, I was like "I see the snake is after another mouse"

 

[LAwLz]

Here is a threadly reminder that Apple's ARM cores already exceeds Skylake and Zen 2 in IPC. 

Yes, a quad core A13 clocked at 3GHz will have higher performance than a quad core Ryzen 3 processor clocked at 3GHz.

 

The myth that ARM is slow needs to die because it's flat out wrong.