How long till Apple makes its own mac hardware?

[Deleted member 172152]

By now we've all seen the a10x geekbench scores and even though they are very controversial, most agree that it's one heck of a SoC. If it really is as fast as a macbook, even if it's just the basemodel, and with the inclusion of ARM SoC's in cheaper laptops it isn't unlikely Apple could make a mobile SoC chip for MacBook's or even a cpu for (i)Mac's. Who knows, they may even heavily modify mobile gpu's and out them in desktops!

Even more interestingly, the A10x only uses up to 3 cores: the 3 in the fast cluster or the 3 in the slower cluster. Therefore Apple could easily up performance simply by making a real 6-core and they could optimize their own OS for it! Add active cooling and some higher clocks, and Apple could have a killer SoC/APU/CPU!

The potential is there at least, but what do you think? Could I buy a gaming/high-end workstation MacBook/iMac in the next few years with Apple's own hardware, or will Apple stick with the default manufacturers (Intel, AMD and maybe nvidia at some point)?

 

[Toothless]

Didn't they used to?

 

[therealmeep]

Personally I don't think it would be a great investment in time or money for apple when they can "mooch" off of the regular PC segment of CPUs/GPUs and sell them on for a profit that would be exponentially decreased if they decided to develop their own, not to mention compatibility issues moving away from native x86, sorta like the g4s.

 

[mad1394]

Never. Any new hardware they developed would need to be compatible with the current x86/x64 ecosystem. Meaning licensing fees from intel and amd that would need paying.
They already use their own processors in phones but they don't have the push to make this happen on pc.
I believe the current status quo suits them just fine. Manufacturing their own components would not result in increased income.

 

[Deleted member 172152]

Personally I don't think it would be a great investment in time or money for apple when they can "mooch" off of the regular PC segment of CPUs/GPUs and sell them on for a profit that would be exponentially decreased if they decided to develop their own, not to mention compatibility issues moving away from native x86, sorta like the g4s.

Apple did dump imagination though, so there may be a benefit cost-wise to developing their own pc hardware. Also, Apple has its own OS, so any compatibility issues can be ironed out a bit better than for example with the 835's in windows notebooks.

Also, Apple making it's own hardware should lower costs as well, making MacBooks and iMacs more attractive and more customers equals better support from devs, so there will be more games compatible with Apple for example (perhaps via a good emulator, but still).

 

[Vya Domus]

No. One word : x86

 

[Deleted member 172152]

No. One word : x86

X86 isn't really a valid argument anymore since windows already is capable of running ARM and has been for quite some time I believe. Since Apple has their own OS, they can fully optimize for ARM. Would be a bit confusing since that likely means two different versions for ARM and x86 Apple PC's, but it's entirely possible. Not sure if it's viable yet though, but I think Apple could make their own hardware for (low-end) MacBooks at the very least.

 

[_JP_]

Potential always runs into a wall called "cost", namely R&D.
Because it isn't as simple as to just scale whatever exists, Apple is fabless and would have to sign a billion dollar contract to make those SoCs.
And Apple would really have to profit from them, so if the market isn't big enough, they aren't going to make it.
Apple has a track record of scaling down hardware (iPhone -> iPod), not the other way around.
Another aspect is the software library that exists for both x86 and ARM and its respective limitations, so there's still a divider.

 

[therealmeep]

Didn't they used to?

X86 isn't really a valid argument anymore since windows already is capable of running ARM and has been for quite some time I believe. Since Apple has their own OS, they can fully optimize for ARM. Would be a bit confusing since that likely means two different versions for ARM and x86 Apple PC's, but it's entirely possible. Not sure if it's viable yet though, but I think Apple could make their own hardware for (low-end) MacBooks at the very least.

Windows can run on arm, but thst is cut down wayy past a point you would want to use on a regular basis. Not to mention that those x86 programs flat out don't work or emulation of x86 is crap, meaning not only would Apple's current Mac ecosystem, but it would essentially turn them into tablets with permanent keyboards and great performance.

 

[Vya Domus]

X86 isn't really a valid argument anymore since windows already is capable of running ARM and has been for quite some time I believe. Since Apple has their own OS, they can fully optimize for ARM. Would be a bit confusing since that likely means two different versions for ARM and x86 Apple PC's, but it's entirely possible. Not sure if it's viable yet though, but I think Apple could make their own hardware for (low-end) MacBooks at the very least.

It's an argument as valid as it can get , ARM is not fit for desktop. x86 is.

You're not going to write comprehensive productivity software for ARM processors , which is what the Mac is primarily aimed at really. ARM is a weak RISC architecture , good enough for phones/tablets/embedded but not for heavy duty desktop computing. Apple already went through the trouble of switching to x86 from PowerPC and there is a very good reason on why they did that. They are never going to switch to ARM for the Mac line-up , unless they want to turn them into glorified web browsing device which to be honest wouldn't surprise me. But at that point , it wouldn't even matter anymore.

Also making your own silicon is expensive as f**k.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Didn't they used to?

Nope, in the early days their cpus were made by Motorola, believe it or not

 

[SnakeDoctor]

Mac did try use there own Cpus before 2006 - PowerPc Cpus

PPC = PowerPC, referring to the processor found in Macs before 2006 known as 601, 603, 604, G3, G4, and G5.
These were made by Motorola and IBM to varying degrees. In spite of that fact, they are less compatible with IBM PC compatibles
than the newer Intel Macs.

 

[Rehmanpa]

I doubt it. It's easier to buy and resell than build their own. Here's why:
If they wanted to make say their own cpus for their imacs only, they would have to build a factory to produce it in. Then they would have to buy all the machines for it. After that, they have to purchase the raw materials, or get the materials shipped ready to assemble things with. After this they will need an actual cpu design, which means spending more money on engineers to design it. Now to test it out before mass production, wait a moment, what are they gonna place it on? That's right, I almost forgot, they're going to use the brand new chipset the had to design, purchase different machinery to make, and produce while simultaneously working on the new cpu!

What about patons, machinery expenses, time, lots of engineers, etc.? They'll spend a fortune on the machines to make them, it'll take so long to break even on its not even worth considering. What about patons? X86 aside (which is a very important one) I guarantee that there are either going to be huge expenses on the machinery to build these or there will be patons for existing machines preventing them from building their own, unless they want to design and build those to!

That's only for the iMac. What about ipads, iPhones, i(enter random name here) that's a different cpu)? What about gpus? Hell why doesn't apple just become a monopoly and own everything between the raw resources and the final product? Because a. That's illegal and b. It doesn't make fiscal sense. It's all about the money.

Tl;dr: won't happen. They're a completely different business and it doesn't make sense to change. After all, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[dorsetknob]

Apple is Run By Accountants Not by the Enthusiast

Didn't they used to?

They for years run the RISC CPU Power PC till the X86-64 made scaling the power pc CPU to cost inifficant and impracticable
In 2005 Apple announced they would no longer use PowerPC processors in their Apple Macintosh computers, favoring Intel-produced processors instead, citing the performance limitations of the chip for future personal computer hardware specifically related to heat generation and energy usage, as well as the inability of IBM to move the 970 processor to the 3 GHz range.

for apple when they can "mooch" off of the regular PC segment of CPUs/GPUs and sell them on for a profit

I believe the current status quo suits them just fine. Manufacturing their own components would not result in increased income.

The Cost of setting up a line for Macs using different hardware would be extortionate
Example in the past mac Specific Graphics cards cost a lot more (including the Apple premium) because production runs were tiny compared to Regular X86 Pc's

Apple making it's own hardware should lower costs as well,

See above reply

Potential always runs into a wall called "cost", namely R&D.

See above reply

Nope, in the early days their cpus were made by Motorola, believe it or not

RISC Power pc by motorola
PowerPC (a backronym for Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC – Performance Computing, sometimes abbreviated as PPC) is a RISC instruction set architecture created by the 1991 Apple–IBM–Motorola alliance, known as AIM

 

[TheMailMan78]

FYI the PowerPC got up to 5ghz.

 

[dorsetknob]

FYI the PowerPC got up to 5ghz.

Not untill a few years after Apple Dumped them

wilki

• POWER6, 64-bit, dual core, 2 way SMT/core, 3.6 – 4.7 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.03. Introduced in 2007.
• POWER6+, 64 bit, dual core, 2 way SMT/core, 5.0 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.05. Introduced in 2009.
• POWER7, 64-bit octo core, 4 way SMT/core, 2.4-4.25 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.06. Introduced in 2010.
• POWER7+, 64-bit octo core, 4 way SMT/core, 3.0-5.0 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.06. Introduced in 2012.
• POWER8, 64-bit, hex or twelve core, 8 way SMT/core, 5.0 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.07. Introduced in 2014.

 

[Toothless]

Not untill a few years after Apple Dumped them

wilki

• POWER6, 64-bit, dual core, 2 way SMT/core, 3.6 – 4.7 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.03. Introduced in 2007.
• POWER6+, 64 bit, dual core, 2 way SMT/core, 5.0 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.05. Introduced in 2009.
• POWER7, 64-bit octo core, 4 way SMT/core, 2.4-4.25 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.06. Introduced in 2010.
• POWER7+, 64-bit octo core, 4 way SMT/core, 3.0-5.0 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.06. Introduced in 2012.
• POWER8, 64-bit, hex or twelve core, 8 way SMT/core, 5.0 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.07. Introduced in 2014.

Where are these and how do I get much processor?

 

[Steevo]

X86 isn't really a valid argument anymore since windows already is capable of running ARM and has been for quite some time I believe. Since Apple has their own OS, they can fully optimize for ARM. Would be a bit confusing since that likely means two different versions for ARM and x86 Apple PC's, but it's entirely possible. Not sure if it's viable yet though, but I think Apple could make their own hardware for (low-end) MacBooks at the very least.

X86 software does matter, and the fact is Apple waked away from RISC based hardware a long time ago, and short of them dedicating trillions of dollars to hardware and software support, it won't happen.

If anything they may start using AMD hardware now beyond the graphic cards.

 

[dorsetknob]

Where are these and how do I get much processor?

here https://www-03.ibm.com/systems/uk/power/hardware/
Or Ebay
or Alibaba ( beware of Fake/clone's)
maybe direct from IBM( or is it lenevo now)

 

[Solaris17]

They wont.

 

[Countryside]

I have always said to people who ask me should i buy a apple laptop my response has always been this "If you wish to pay more for an Intel cpu then go ahead"

And the answer to your question is Highly unlikely that they will.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Not untill a few years after Apple Dumped them

wilki

• POWER6, 64-bit, dual core, 2 way SMT/core, 3.6 – 4.7 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.03. Introduced in 2007.
• POWER6+, 64 bit, dual core, 2 way SMT/core, 5.0 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.05. Introduced in 2009.
• POWER7, 64-bit octo core, 4 way SMT/core, 2.4-4.25 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.06. Introduced in 2010.
• POWER7+, 64-bit octo core, 4 way SMT/core, 3.0-5.0 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.06. Introduced in 2012.
• POWER8, 64-bit, hex or twelve core, 8 way SMT/core, 5.0 GHz, follows the Power ISA 2.07. Introduced in 2014.

My point was the PowerPC broke 5GHz before the x86 did. It was mentioned before that the reason Apple dumped IBM was because it couldn't hit 5Ghz. That's simply not true. They dumped them because of software library and Apples lack of it. Apple has NEVER built its own hardware. Even back in the Apple II days those were Texas Instruments. Apple is a software company that has an epic marketing department.

Where are these and how do I get much processor?

They are beasts.........if you like Linux.

Latest one.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER9

 

[dorsetknob]

Apple is a software company that has an epic marketing department.

Apple is an Accountancy Company now designed to extract/Gouge its Clients/customers for the max Dollar while minimizing its Legitimatize Tax Revenue

 

[TheMailMan78]

Apple is an Accountancy Company now designed to extract/Gouge its Clients/customers for the max Dollar while minimizing its Legitimatize Tax Revenue

lol that too.

 

[Toothless]

My point was the PowerPC broke 5GHz before the x86 did. It was mentioned before that the reason Apple dumped IBM was because it couldn't hit 5Ghz. That's simply not true. They dumped them because of software library and Apples lack of it. Apple has NEVER built its own hardware. Even back in the Apple II days those were Texas Instruments. Apple is a software company that has an epic marketing department.


They are beasts.........if you like Linux.

Latest one.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER9

So basically amazing for server anything Linux based and have huge L3 caches and possible L4.