How long till Apple makes its own mac hardware?

[Static~Charge]

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

The first Macs (1985-1996) used Motorola MC680x0 processors. Apple started transitioning over to PowerPC processors in 1994. They jumped ship to Intel x86 processors in 2006.

List of Macintosh models grouped by CPU type

 

[Solaris17]

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

its not that simple either. These CPUs have specific archetecture and specific instructions, they are meant for specialized work loads.

 

[Toothless]

its not that simple either. These CPUs have specific archetecture and specific instructions, they are meant for specialized work loads.

Sooooo no superduper funsies and limited to x things? Sounds like the 5775c and gaming.

 

[Totally]

Macbooks and Macs do not make a big enough portion of their business to even warrant such a consideration. The iPhone that brings in the lionshare gets this treatment simply because (1) there is no longer any risk, Apple knows that they'll make their money back with such a venture, and (2) further increase their profits since their cutting out those parties they'd have to pay for those parts meaning cost of may be cheaper, fewer royalties and other contractual obligations. Macs/Macbooks lose out on just the first point.

 

[notb]

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)?

I think you must be very young. Worse still, you haven't learned much about computers in the last 3 decades.

Apple did design their CPUs for a very long time. They dumped it because they decided that moving to x86 will hugely improve their competitiveness and profitability. Few years later we know it was a good idea. Intel CPUs are fast and secure enough.

So no, it's very unlikely that Apple would go back to using an in-house architecture for Macs - especially a non-x86 one.

It's slightly more probable that they'll make a GPU. That's because they want to join the AI / autonomous car industry and building this on their own GPGPU could be a strong selling point (and comfort). Again: for normal Macs the chips they get from Intel, AMD and NVIDIA are good enough.

 

[Steevo]

I think you must be very young. Worse still, you haven't learned much about computers in the last 3 decades.

Apple did design their CPUs for a very long time. They dumped it because they decided that moving to x86 will hugely improve their competitiveness and profitability. Few years later we know it was a good idea. Intel CPUs are fast and secure enough.

So no, it's very unlikely that Apple would go back to using an in-house architecture for Macs - especially a non-x86 one.

It's slightly more probable that they'll make a GPU. That's because they want to join the AI / autonomous car industry and building this on their own GPGPU could be a strong selling point (and comfort). Again: for normal Macs the chips they get from Intel, AMD and NVIDIA are good enough.

Macbooks and Macs do not make a big enough portion of their business to even warrant such a consideration. The iPhone that brings in the lionshare gets this treatment simply because (1) there is no longer any risk, Apple knows that they'll make their money back with such a venture, and (2) further increase their profits since their cutting out those parties they'd have to pay for those parts meaning cost of may be cheaper, fewer royalties and other contractual obligations. Macs/Macbooks lose out on just the first point.

When you see "CPU designed by Apple" all it means is they have taken ARM designs and checked the boxes of how many cores, cache, and a few other things and then bought and paid for the final design. Which is exactly what they used to do with IBM.

Apple doesn't design hardware anymore than Sony or MS do for consoles, they just get companies that specialize in hardware to build to a specification after quoting it from a couple, sampling some hardware emulated on servers, and checking in on different phases of the design as things change and final silicon is spun.

The 5Ghz Power chips were as fast at tasks as Pentium chips, but used more power as many had extra hardware IBM used for security. Later Power chips were as fast at 3Ghz, kinda like the whole Prescott to C2D. The company I used to work for didn't believe how noisy a server was until they bought it and it was installed, then no one wanted to use that office as it was always hot and noisy. Sounded like the old X1800XT fan on max, and about 5 of them.

 

[Rehmanpa]

If my memory serves correctly, power cpus from IBM excel and are extremely proficient at tasks involving extremely high computational tasks and things like super computing and massive databases? And that x86 is better for things that like 98% of the market does?

 

[silentbogo]

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

Not only that. PowerCell CPUs were used in both XBox360 and PS3.
Those were some powerful chips, and because of early fat PS3's ability to support Linux, some enthusiasts built homemade supercomputers from those. I used to fix consoles as a side-gig for extra cash, so even I had my 4xPS3 cluster, later repurposed for F@H under native PS3 OS (I think that was my last dedicated folding setup). All for the low price of $450 w/ shipping from Canada (ATM, of course, all broken and needed some parts and maintenance).

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!

A10X is impressive, but not really controversial. A10X is a big-ass SoC designed to compete with Core U and Y processors, so I'm pretty sure that a hexacore ARM CPU with large cache and equally huge GPU will also fall into 10-15W category.
Basically it's a pair of A9X CPUs shrinked to 10nm with two smaller extra cores for low-power operations. Theoretically it should've been even faster.

I'm sure it's quite possible to make a decent MacBook with ARM CPU onboard, but who's gonna port MacOS to ARM, and convince software developers to do the same with their products.
Remember what happened to Windows RT. It may happen eventually, but not this decade.

 

[Vya Domus]

If my memory serves correctly, power cpus from IBM excel and are extremely proficient at tasks involving extremely high computational tasks and things like super computing and massive databases? And that x86 is better for things that like 98% of the market does?

The days of large scale computing being done on just CPU's are long gone. GPUs are taking over for a lot of things. Heterogeneous computing is called , the idea is that you write software where you let the CPU do it's thing and every time you need something very computationally intensive that can parallelized you leverage that to the GPU.

 

[trparky]

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.

Microsoft already has a version of Windows 10 that runs on ARM that has full x86 instruction set emulation. Check out this article at How-To Geek and this Microsoft Channel 9 video for more details. They have desktop programs, not just Windows Store UWP apps, but actual full x86/x64 desktop programs running on Windows 10 ARM.

With that being said, if Microsoft can pull off emulating x86/x64 on ARM and do it with (relatively) no loss in performance I'm sure that Apple can do the same thing if they switched to their own in-house ARM-based A-Series of chips.

 

[Jetster]

Apple almost went under twice on it's own hardware. If it wasn't for Microsoft they would have

 

[trparky]

Apple almost went under twice on it's own hardware.

And yet the iPhone has been the largest success story of them all for Apple and it's running on their own silicon. Hell, the very reason why the iPhone is so successful is because iOS is completely married to the hardware in ways no other platform can say.

 

[Steevo]

And yet the iPhone has been the largest success story of them all for Apple and it's running on their own silicon. Hell, the very reason why the iPhone is so successful is because iOS is completely married to the hardware in ways no other platform can say.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A10

It's an Arm chip, Apple just checked the boxes of what they wanted TSMC to manufacture from Arm's portfolio.

Apple couldn't design their way out of a cardboard box if it wasn't point and click. Single button only mind you.

The only silicone Apple has is in implants of their employees.

 

[Jetster]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A10

It's an Arm chip, Apple just checked the boxes of what they wanted TSMC to manufacture from Arm's portfolio.

Apple couldn't design their way out of a cardboard box if it wasn't point and click. Single button only mind you.

The only silicone Apple has is in implants of their employees.

It would be a cool looking box though

Apple is not successful because of software and hardware. Its their marketing

 

[trparky]

I'd have to disagree on that since if you ask me iOS stomps all over Android without even a sweat. Now had Google not been so monumentally stupid back when they released Android to the world and kept a leash on their OEM and carrier partners the Android ecosystem wouldn't be the fragmented shit pile that it is today. If they had kept the leash on them they would have been able to keep their partners in line and would be able to pull them back and tell them to update their shit. Meanwhile Apple, right from the beginning, told their carrier partners to go pound salt.

But that's all I'm going to say since going further than this would turn this thread into an Android vs. iOS thread and we don't need that.

 

[notb]

Apple is not successful because of software and hardware. Its their marketing

Not really. It's partly marketing and partly very good design. And I mean product design - not manipulating silicon...

Lately we had a few fairly intensive discussions around Intel vs AMD.
So the "enthusiasts" say that Ryzen is a dream, because they can finally spend days on choosing proper RAM, fiddling with BIOS and testing what new AGESA / driver / game patch does to the performance.
The... I don't know... "realists" (?) say that the reason they are building their PCs is not building a PC itself. That they prefer the "just works" idea, the convenience.

Apple takes this to another level. They clearly are a bit behind in technology (and overpriced), but they're strength is in good testing and being able to polish compatibility and UI.
I got my first iPhone a year ago (5s). I miss a better camera and battery life, so next time I'll most likely get back to the Android world.
But it's fairly clear that with iPhone I have hardly any need to go into Settings or do any kind of maintenance. I only had to reset it once (Firefox was crashing).
Compared to my previous smartphones (Samsung and LG) this is by far the device I use the most and take care of the least.

This approach clearly works for both users and Apple - also in other products, so it's unlikely that anything will change. The only reason why Apple would want to make something on their own is if it supported this cause - provided better compatibility, stability or easy of use. And the simple fact is: there is no need. Intel CPUs work perfectly well.

 

[theFOoL]

They did at one Point but then after a Years or so Just Stopped and just used Normal Hardware

 

[trparky]

I miss a better camera and battery life

Try getting the iPhone 7 or even the newer iPhone 7s that's coming soon. Best damn battery life I have ever seen in a mobile device.

 

[jaggerwild]

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)?

Some where, TOMS HARDWARE IS MISSING YOU!

 

[Steevo]

If my memory serves correctly, power cpus from IBM excel and are extremely proficient at tasks involving extremely high computational tasks and things like super computing and massive databases? And that x86 is better for things that like 98% of the market does?

Power PC architecture views memory from cache to drive as one continuous space with dedicated hardware. It works great for hardware scheduling based on access levels, and sucks for out of order and poorly branching software. Kinda the opposite of general purpose computing with CISC X86-64.

It's also why new IBM servers run blended processor setups in the same rack.

 

[silentbogo]

Microsoft already has a version of Windows 10 that runs on ARM that has full x86 instruction set emulation. Check out this article at How-To Geek and this Microsoft Channel 9 video for more details. They have desktop programs, not just Windows Store UWP apps, but actual full x86/x64 desktop programs running on Windows 10 ARM.

With that being said, if Microsoft can pull off emulating x86/x64 on ARM and do it with (relatively) no loss in performance I'm sure that Apple can do the same thing if they switched to their own in-house ARM-based A-Series of chips.

On topic: Also MS faces a threat of a lawsuit from Intel for it. If Apple does the same, there will be no exceptions.
Off topic: I've seen demos and it looks quite cool. At the same time it's going to undermine all Microsoft's efforts to push towards UWP, so I'm confident it won't go any further than a few gimmicky Snapdragon devices. Another thing that I've noticed form Qualcomm presentations, is that they are pushing for connectivity, productivity and usability. Pretty much the same thing you can already do with native apps on ChromeOS or Linux on ARM. At this point there is no issues running LibreOffice, GIMP, Chromium and Thunderbird on ARM. Heck, there's even an armv7 community port of Blender.

 

[BiggieShady]

It's an Arm chip, Apple just checked the boxes of what they wanted TSMC to manufacture from Arm's portfolio.

AFAIK not from arm's portfolio, it is an ARM instruction set cpu but a custom designed core by no other than Jim Keller, who also designed AMD's Zen core.

 

[Nosada]

AFAIK not from arm's portfolio, it is an ARM instruction set cpu but a custom designed core by no other than Jim Keller, who also designed AMD's Zen core.

Highly unlikely since Jim Keller has been working for Tesla since he left AMD.

Apple has "designed CPU's" in much the same way as I "designed cars" when I went to chose the upholstering for my car at the dealership. When you buy into ARM, it's not like getting a x86 license. AMD and intel design their CPUs from scratch, as does IBM. Companies that buy into ARM are basically handed an entire design and can make limited adjustements. In case of Apple A10X, this is ARM v8-A. This is a major improvement over previous generations, but EVERY company that buys into it, will see the same gains Apple is seeing. The fact that Apple pays extra licensing costs just so they can brand their ARM CPUs as "Apple" means absolutely nothing. Apple never has, and probably never will, designed a CPU. But reading the reactions in this thread, their marketing is second to none.

EDIT: If you wanna be impressed by ARM chips, read up on Cavium ThunderX2. 54-core CPUs used in Blades and high-end networking. Those are, incidentally, already at ARM v8.1.

 

[BiggieShady]

Highly unlikely since Jim Keller has been working for Tesla since he left AMD.

He was in Apple before AMD, and the architecture didn't change much ... don't know about the latest apple cpu though

 

[trparky]

The Most Important Apple Executive You’ve Never Heard Of