EDIT: I think you may have been referring to the 9to5mac article- I'm going to leave this comment here, but the current article is way more specific.
EDIT: I think you may have been referring to the 9to5mac article- I'm going to leave this comment here, but the current article is way more specific.
But now, Moore's law is in the process of hitting a brick wall. Those big wins for free just aren't there. And if there's a x86 to arm JIT, it's either going to be single core, or the arm cores are going to have to have a stronger x86 like memory model, thus negating a huge part of their architectural win.
IMO, Apple's going to make their own x86 chips because the base x86_64 patents are going to expire real soon now, and they have enough patents from the crazy amount of fabless acquisitions to potentially cross license the rest.
Processors are commodities now, and that's really going to shake things up in crazy ways.
This simply isn't true, it wasn't until the G3-300 was released that the 68k emulator could run 68k code at 40MHz comparable speeds, and that was after 10 years of ppc601s and 603s running 68k system binaries at slower than quadra speeds on 180 and 200MHz processors.
Neither part of that statement is true. I had an LCII with a 68030-40Mhz card before upgrading to a 6100/60. The 6100/60 (601-60Mhz processor with a half speed bus) was much slower running 68K software than my LCII. It was about the same speed once I bought SpeedDoubler.
Also, between the slower bus, the slow shared graphics memory and System 7 on the PPC being emulated, it felt much slower than a decent 486-DX2/66 or a Pentium-60.
Has that calculus changed in the meantime?
Then again Apple was also the other partner (with Acorn) in founding ARM.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%27s_transition_to_Inte...
Regardless, that makes the financial calculus even more suspect as they would have even fewer units to amortize the cost over. But I don't work for Apple, and quite frankly the CPU market could certain use the injection of some more competition.
Quite the opposite. Apple, according to the book The Race for a New Game Machine, was an unprofitable demanding customer. The scale of the XBox 360 and PS3 dwarfed Apple's usage and IBM made several decisions that were contrary to Apple's needs. PowerPC for the embedded market has been the primary driver of PowerPC development.
I'm glad Apple opted to move to Intel then. The Cell is the hardest thing I ever tried to write code for.
Intel is behind on process and has been for a couple of generations right as everyone hits a process wall.
For the first time since I got into computers in the late 80s Intel looks vulnerable.
As to whether Apple would go ARM on a MacBook who knows, I’d guess they wouldn’t but they could straight buy AMD in cash so it’s not beyond the realm they could tool up for desktop class ARM.
I can't help but think there must be some secret benefit to make them pursue such a risky endeavour for something so tangential to their comparative advantage. Apple doesn't sell custom components, they sell consumer experiences. They must be planning on going a completely different direction with iOS to warrant custom processor technology.
How is this risky?
At least, that's according to what I've read about it.
The cross licensing deal (of AMD on x86) with Intel would be off. Pretty much AMD is not sellable in this regard.
AMD could produce/design an ARM chiplet, attached with infinity fabric to their Zen2.