Soldato
Because the T2 chip does work so you won't actually get to properly compare the processors. Of course you could instead just set the encode to a something that the HW encoder does do, which would be quite common anyway.
Apple to replace Intel and move to ARM - *** Confirmed as "Apple Silicon" ***
- Thread starter UberTiger
- Start date
Because the T2 chip does work so you won't actually get to properly compare the processors. Of course you could instead just set the encode to a something that the HW encoder does do, which would be quite common anyway.
Why does it matter about the CPU alone, what matters is the package as a whole, both hardware and software.
The main advantage of Apples custom silicon is that they can customise it and tailor the software accordingly. Just look at how their phones and tablets are significantly faster than the competition while having ‘lower specs’ like ram.
The main advantage of Apples custom silicon is that they can customise it and tailor the software accordingly. Just look at how their phones and tablets are significantly faster than the competition while having ‘lower specs’ like ram.
Soldato
I just gave an example. Encoding video that doesn't take advantage of the T2 chip. Not all video does. Only certain H265 modes. And whilst it's fast, it's not necessarily efficient. Since ARM cpus are notoriously poor at video encoding. I think it is a reasonable concern for those of us using a Mac for video work.
Which is why traditionally RISC based systems often had additional co-processors and/or video chip for multi-media type processing.
EDIT: This goes way back but for example:
wikipedia said:
Last edited:
Caporegime
ARM got sold to Softbank which is Japanese,but for decades our governments just don't not care. Just look at GKN bought up by "investment specialists",Melrose in a hostile takeover. Wait another decade,and start to see bits sold off.
Last edited:
This keeps getting spouted but what do you expect the government to actually do (legally)? There are very few reasons for the government to actually get involved (e.g. competition) and none of them applied here.
At the end of the day ARM was a publicly traded company, the government has very little place in deciding who or who doesn't buy the shares.
Caporegime
In plenty of countries they have laws to stop strategically important companies from being sold up,or broken up. The UK tries to play via the "free trade" rules,but so many of the bigger countries don't do this,as they can use national security concerns to block sales,or stop things from happening. GKN is a company central to the national security of this country. Look at Samsung,TSMC,etc they are protected by their governments. Germany,France,the US and China do similar things.
Man of Honour
Posted this in the WWDC software thread but...
So Rosetta doesn’t support apps that virtualise x86_64 platforms, so no support for running Windows via VMWare, Parallels or any other software.
Also confirmed there’s no Bootcamp equivalent. Colour me surprised, amazed they are willing to alienate a lot of users like that
So Rosetta doesn’t support apps that virtualise x86_64 platforms, so no support for running Windows via VMWare, Parallels or any other software.
Also confirmed there’s no Bootcamp equivalent. Colour me surprised, amazed they are willing to alienate a lot of users like that
Sauce?
Man of Honour
This is only good for the consumer across the mac and PC space. Intel now has one more competitor to worry about, one that isn't expected to drop the ball for years like AMD did from 2008-2018, who also happens to have a bottomless pit of cash, and the scale to push through any new technology to the masses.
Sure, I share the immediate concerns for Mac users, maybe the performance wouldn't be up to par in the DTK or even the first generation products that will be released, but look at how much better their silicon got in the last 10 years, and they know where it will go in the next 10 years, and where Intel will be (Intel has surely shared their roadmap to their partners like Apple). Maybe certain tasks (video encoding, etc) will suffer in the first couple of generations, but over the long term I don't think there's any doubt that Apple's chip design team can compete with Intel's, and now they have every incentive to do just that.
Sure, I share the immediate concerns for Mac users, maybe the performance wouldn't be up to par in the DTK or even the first generation products that will be released, but look at how much better their silicon got in the last 10 years, and they know where it will go in the next 10 years, and where Intel will be (Intel has surely shared their roadmap to their partners like Apple). Maybe certain tasks (video encoding, etc) will suffer in the first couple of generations, but over the long term I don't think there's any doubt that Apple's chip design team can compete with Intel's, and now they have every incentive to do just that.
The original x86_64 patents expired (or will expire) this year. I wouldn't worry about this, we'll see proper x86 virtualisation eventually on ARM even if we don't see it right away. Internally, all modern processors are RISC and all ISAs (including x86) are binary translated anyway.
You appear to have missed that x86 includes the 64bit AMD64 patents that are a not expired. They will not be able to emulate on ARM within the next 5 or 10 years but for giggles I have pushed the questions I have to a colleague (I work in IP). The instruction set also includes many more recent additions, put simply the whole stack moves and Apple will be prevented from virtualising the instruction sets. Do you really think that Intel will roll over and just let their hold over x86 disappear because Apple want their own silicon to work with the instruction set?
I'm aware of the recent additions, but am also aware that they're not essential, and this is needed on mac for compatibility rather than performance. Sure they won't get AVX-512 but also there's not needed for vast majority of applications. Intel might hold onto x86 like their lives depend on it, and might (even successfully) block cross-compatibility and interoperability across platforms, but that's clinging to a past that no longer exists. Like it or not, x86 is not the sole future of high performance computing and I'm pretty confident that even Intel realises that. Their push into the high performance GPU market shows they are aware and are adapting.
Microsoft is also moving in this direction as well, Windows won't soon be a sole x86 thing in the mass market. While I expect Microsoft to continue to offer both x86 and ARM versions for a very very long time, they will want cross-compatibility and proper virtualisation as well. The demand for this on the Linux side was already pretty high before all of this. Intel won't be able to single-handedly fight off an industry-wide trend, and it's not in their interest to do so.
It should be interesting. I just don't see apple even fighting it. Port what they can to ARM in the short term and see what happens.
There's so much excitement in the computing market right now, more than anything we've seen in the last couple of decades. The next 5-10 years are going to be very different to the last 5-10 years.