Macbook Air going to A6 cpu?

[GWestphal]

I read a rumor article somewhere saying that the next Macbook Air may merge the iOS and OS X experience and use the A6 processor. While it would get fabulous battery life, it seems like this can't be true. You wouldn't be able to run like 95% of productivity applications. What are your thoughts?

 

[alfa147x]

The only way a computer running an ARM chip will work is if it can run/ emulate x86/x64 operations at the current speed. Just like moving from power pc to intel

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Not gonna happen. That's all I'll say.

 

[Bateluer]

At first, I thought you were referring to the AMD A6 APU, but I read further. I fully expect Apple to move to one of their ARM designs in the future, but the A6 ARM chip is not going to cut it.

 

[Patranus]

Here is the thing about OS X.
It Coco layer should allow any application to run on any platform.

Depends on if Apple can get their A* CPU lineup up to speed.

 

[Bateluer]

I actually would like to see Apple use the AMD APUs, the next generation. They'll give up some CPU power, but gain a MASSIVE increase in GPU power vs the Intel IGPs.

 

[ultimatebob]

If anyone can pull it off a switch to ARM, it would be Apple. Only their customers and developers are loyal enough to go through yet another platform change without some of them getting frustrated and defecting.

Come to think of it, they've already gone from Motorola to PowerPC to Intel over the past 25 years... maybe they're due for another change.

 

[alent1234]

except intel is better than PPC. ARM is like Intel only gimped. if there was an ARM CPU with Intel power it would be as power draining as Intel

 

[mmntech]

ARM is 32-bit only, and Apple is starting to push 64-bit. The Core i5 in the Air is orders of magnitude faster than the A5. Likely the same with the A6. The Air is still a full featured computer. ARM is better suited for embedded systems like the iPad.

 

[theeedude]

It's possible that in a year MBP shrinks and starts looking like MBA. At that point, Apple can take MBA into the ultra mobile space and switch to ARM, ditch the fan and make it even thinner and lighter.

 

[manly]

The only way a computer running an ARM chip will work is if it can run/ emulate x86/x64 operations at the current speed. Just like moving from power pc to intel

binary translation would likely require ARM-64. Although come to think about it, Apple could theoretically force developers who distribute in the MAS to recompile a fat binary for x86-64/ARM-64. But that's not a seamless solution for software that's not shipped in the MAS.

ARM is 32-bit only, and Apple is starting to push 64-bit. The Core i5 in the Air is orders of magnitude faster than the A5. Likely the same with the A6. The Air is still a full featured computer. ARM is better suited for embedded systems like the iPad.

best answer so far, Apple has been pushing 64-bit Cocoa APIs so they're dependent on an ARM-64 instruction set before they can seriously consider ARM-based Macs.

 

[runawayprisoner]

While it may not be that Apple can run OSX solely on top of a single ARM-based SoC, it is still possible for them to run a hybrid processor, use ARM for general interface and other core OS services while Intel can be used for legacy support and for intensive tasks.

That should work out well enough if they can somehow work out the nightmarish soft- and hardware engineering behind it. It's a big mess to mesh two different architectures together to run the same OS. Technically possible, but very hard to achieve, and very likely to be bug-ridden or extremely unstable.

I personally don't think Apple would go that route, but if they can pull it off, they would probably be better off than the rest of the industry for a few years.

Bottom line is, though, I can see Apple moving to ARM in the future at some point for their mobile devices, but that time probably won't be in the next few years unless ARM leapfrogs its performance drastically somehow.

 

[alfa147x]

While it may not be that Apple can run OSX solely on top of a single ARM-based SoC, it is still possible for them to run a hybrid processor, use ARM for general interface and other core OS services while Intel can be used for legacy support and for intensive tasks.

That should work out well enough if they can somehow work out the nightmarish soft- and hardware engineering behind it. It's a big mess to mesh two different architectures together to run the same OS. Technically possible, but very hard to achieve, and very likely to be bug-ridden or extremely unstable.

I personally don't think Apple would go that route, but if they can pull it off, they would probably be better off than the rest of the industry for a few years.

Bottom line is, though, I can see Apple moving to ARM in the future at some point for their mobile devices, but that time probably won't be in the next few years unless ARM leapfrogs its performance drastically somehow.

It also would be the sad end to hackintoshing

 

[MrX8503]

ARM processors would have to get considerably more powerful to be considered as a replacement for Intel. With the MBA getting Ivy Bridge I don't see Apple switching to something so much slower. Using ARM would be like sticking an efficient Pentium 3 in there.

 

[alent1234]

While it may not be that Apple can run OSX solely on top of a single ARM-based SoC, it is still possible for them to run a hybrid processor, use ARM for general interface and other core OS services while Intel can be used for legacy support and for intensive tasks.

That should work out well enough if they can somehow work out the nightmarish soft- and hardware engineering behind it. It's a big mess to mesh two different architectures together to run the same OS. Technically possible, but very hard to achieve, and very likely to be bug-ridden or extremely unstable.

I personally don't think Apple would go that route, but if they can pull it off, they would probably be better off than the rest of the industry for a few years.

Bottom line is, though, I can see Apple moving to ARM in the future at some point for their mobile devices, but that time probably won't be in the next few years unless ARM leapfrogs its performance drastically somehow.

will never happen

OS X GUI uses the GPU for basic display. Anand even did some tests a few years back showing how you needed a nice GPU just to use OS X at high resolutions

maybe in 10 years ARM will hit the desktop, but not now. It took Intel decades to go from desktop to server and only because the competition was too expensive and too slow in some tasks. Intel is neither

 

[Red Storm]

So take a massive drop in performance, and lose the ability to run all existing applications made for OSX?

Not for a long, long time. At best.

 

[runawayprisoner]

will never happen

OS X GUI uses the GPU for basic display. Anand even did some tests a few years back showing how you needed a nice GPU just to use OS X at high resolutions

maybe in 10 years ARM will hit the desktop, but not now. It took Intel decades to go from desktop to server and only because the competition was too expensive and too slow in some tasks. Intel is neither

Well, like I said, it would be an engineering nightmare.

But it's not necessarily that bad. ARM has quite powerful GPUs now. It's CPU is where they lack the power.

Plus Mac OSX still uses the CPU for a fair amount of things related to the interface. Most smooth scrolling applications, including Safari, still uses the CPU instead of GPU.

Intel is quickly losing ground in the power consumption and heat department. ARM's low power consumption allows them to be coupled with significantly more powerful dedicated chips, so ARM may still beat whatever Intel offers in some cases.

A prime example is iPad 2 could beat a bunch of Macs running Core 2 Duo at outputting 720p from iMovie.

Here's a link for reference:

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/03/15/imovie-on-ipad-2-beats-most-macs-in-benchmarks/

 

[Patranus]

How about throwing in an A5 WITH an intel chip so I can boot into low power mode to watch videos/ect on long flights?

 

[OS]

How about throwing in an A5 WITH an intel chip so I can boot into low power mode to watch videos/ect on long flights?

convoluted and not useful

 

[Eug]

Heterogenous multiprocessing doesn't have to be with ARM processors. The other alternative is to have two x86 chip architectures, analogous to what ARM is doing with their A7/A15 combo.

I've wondered in the past if this made sense for laptops, but then just assumed it wouldn't be pursued any time soon because of advances in chip power saving methods and so we wouldn't see such a thing on x86 any time soon in the mainstream.

And then ARM announced that they're doing just that, for the mainstream, but with ARM chips not x86. Theoretically Intel could do the same thing with x86 a few years from now.

 

[alent1234]

How about throwing in an A5 WITH an intel chip so I can boot into low power mode to watch videos/ect on long flights?

You can already do this on Intel. you have to have the video in the right codec and use software that takes advantage of the hardware to do this

 

[Eug]

You can already do this on Intel. you have to have the video in the right codec and use software that takes advantage of the hardware to do this

However, it still uses a lot more power than it needs to. That's why ARM is taking this approach:

From Wired:

http://www.wired.com/cloudline/2011/10/arms-cortex-a7/

 

[alent1234]

two big problems intel has. one is windows and the other is that ARM is a SoC

MS is solving this with Windows 8 and less services at start up. expect to see better battery life

Intel is solving the other part. the GPU is already on the die and once that happened the battery life went up by a lot. most of the laptops at CES this year had 5-7 hours battery life. Reason is that the there is less wires for electricity to travel over and less resistance to suck up power.

ARM also have RAM on the CPU package. when are ARM devices going to come with 4GB RAM? once ARM devices start using SODIMM's like Intel devices for more memory expect to see battery life drop by a lot

ARM is OK for low end tasks. HD video is one of them. ARM graphics aren't even as powerful as the current gen of consoles

Intel started the same way. it was crap compared to Sun SPARC and other CPU's. people bought them because they were cheap and they grew and Sun and others ignored Intel until it was too late. Intel is a little behind the power curve but they seem to have plans to catch up and keep ARM at bay

 

[Patranus]

convoluted and not useful

How long do you think an iOS device with an A* processor would last with a MBP sized battery?

Why would I want to boot into OS X when I could just boot into iOS, use a low powered CPU/GPU, and consume media.

 

[Eug]

Dual-booting just to use a different CPU core would a major PITA, and pretty much the opposite of user friendliness. Plus Apple would prefer you to just buy an iPod touch or iPad for that purpose anyway, so A6 + Intel to run two different OSes in the same machine just ain't gonna happen.

I think the only way something like this would happen is if Intel created a CPU architecture that allowed the usage of two different x86 cores in the same machine. That way you wouldn't need to reboot, but could use the low power core for low power functions, and the high power core for high power functions. Much, more more elegant and user friendly.