Starting 2020 Apple Will No Longer Use Intel processors

Interesting, considering they use AMD GPUs.

@topic, can't say that I'm surprised by this. They wanna wall their walled garden even higher. I do half-expect for them to do stupid crap like go ARM for the MacBook Pros or something similarly dumb.

 

Sure, you can emulate everything, but the efficiency goes out the window. Why would anyone use apple's solution with terrible performance when they can use alternative laptop with x86 chip and linux on it ?

 

Because it's not apple that way!

And yes, that's why.

 

I don't think that even Apple has such great marketing, but I could be wrong of course

Anyway, the ARM route seems possible, but I really doubt they will make something comparable in performance to what they have now from Intel. But maybe they just believe they can optimize the SW so the performance will be the same. At least for some of THEIR programs. Actually, that would be very much Apple like.

 

Microsoft stated that x86 applications through the windows abstraction layer on ARM run near native or at native speed. The only problem is that you're running those applications on a Snapdragon 835.

 

Well, this may be the end of Hackintoshes and dual-booting Macs. I suspect the latter issue alone could dramatically hurt Apple's sales. Buying a Mac that could also boot Windows was a selling point.

If they make an x86-based CPU (which as others have pointed out, doesn't seem very likely) I don't think there'd be that much of a problem.
But let's say Apple goes with ARM, which is a realistic possibility. It is important to consider that both Windows and Linux have proven that you can emulate x86 on ARM. It's not very fast, but it can be done. Hardware emulation is not foreign to Apple. Rosetta, for example, allowed Intel Macs to run PPC software. I find it very hard to believe Apple would intentionally break so much compatibility.
Apple provides most of the software you want out of a Mac, so as long as their stuff is optimized for whatever the new CPU is, I think most users wouldn't notice much of a difference. I'm sure major 3rd party applications like Adobe's Creative Suite would be optimized, too.

Intel will barely feel this. As pointed out by the article, Macs only make up 5% of Intel's revenue. Intel could lose 20% of their revenue and they'd still have more money than they know what to do with. If anyone is going to hurt from this, it's Apple.
Besides, even if Intel were hurt by this, they could use some humbling.


EDIT:
For those of you saying they would go for AMD CPUs, I find that a bit unlikely. Generally, Apple doesn't even want to use AMD GPUs - the only reason they do is because Intel's are inadequate and Apple isn't fond of Nvidia. Apple doesn't have the time to make their own, so, they're stuck with AMD whether they like it or not. But... part of me hopes they do choose AMD for CPUs. It'd really help with their revenue, while maintaining compatibility with current software.

 

Probs end up using VIA lol

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this hahaha

 

Reading all this makes me wonder... VIA Technologies... if I rembember at the time they acquired Cyrix who also got a x86 license... so in theroy we got a 3rd player that has this licence too...

please correct me if i'm wrong...

Best Reagards,

Will.

 

I'm not sure if VIA acquired Cyrix, but, VIA does still have an x86 license, and they are still making x86 CPUs to this day. They're just really unpopular in western countries, and even more unpopular in PCs - they're usually found in embedded devices, like POS machines. If you've ever encountered a cash register or an ATM running Windows XP, there's a good chance that if it wasn't using a Celeron, it was using a VIA CPU.

I'm sure Apple is better off using ARM (or even PPC) than any of VIA's x86 options. The amount of time and money they'd have to dump into VIA's architecture wouldn't be worth it to them.

 

So, professional software must be rewritten and no one will port AAA titles to this CPU and they will rely on Iphone's games. LèL

I think power9 is the only architecture that can reach actual x86 level of performance.

 

Most likely this is fake news from Bloomberg (not known for its tech news savvy, anyway)--picked up on a rumor somewhere. I see that many people in this thread are not aware of Apple's jaded history with CPUs--Macs started with Motorola 68000 cpus, then went to Motorola PPC cpus and from there to (If memory serves) IBM PPCs, and then finally transitioned to x86 Intel cpus...lol... Of course, it wasn't just using non-x86 cpus that began the Mac's lifespan, but in early days Apple designed the motherboards, core-logic and bus designs, etc., for the Mac. This strategy quickly made Macs much more expensive and impractical than the x86 clone market, and the *only* way to keep the Mac competitive in terms of price-performance was to go Intel and take the Mac OS/OS X to x86. The rumor now is that the Mac will move to ARM in 2020, which will doom the Mac as a personal computer if it happens (IMO) because not only will Mac owners face another round of emulators (this time x86-Intel emulation) but also because ARM is dog slow compared to x86, especially when both are running x86 software (or attempting to emulate it). Microsoft so far has been unable to get decent Windows performance out of ARM even with ARM-native Windows code. Each time in the first three cpus employed for the Mac, Jobs roundly condemned Intel cpus because they were "so bad"--he said--right up until he decided to take the Mac to Intel cpus--and from that point on Jobs said Intel cpus were the greatest...! Of course, he did...And of course, some of his former PPC people went with him--and some of them bailed out to x86/WIndows at the time. Apple's Mac--the perpetual transition platform.

I think the substance of the rumor actually is that Apple wants out of the Mac PC business completely, because Apple hates competition and nowhere is the competition more fierce than in the x86 PC markets. ARM fits with Apple's money-making hardware markets of today--mobile--much better than the x86 Mac (iPhone, iPad, iOS, etc.). Apple could pick up AMD, of course, which is another possibility--but I think Apple wants to leave the x86 PC business entirely. My opinion has been that when Jobs moved the Mac to x86 and its OS to x86, it was the bailout strategy for the Mac, to keep the company afloat long enough to have the iPhone market mature--which it did. Simply put--Apple does not need the Mac any longer, plus as I said Apple is not a competitive company, preferring monopoly markets or semi-monopoly markets, always. When those heat up with direct competitors, Apple starts off suing everyone else who "dares" to compete with them, and then as time moves on and competitors begin taking market share from Apple, eventually Apple moves on entirely to markets where the company need not compete, if possible.

Still, this is only unsubstantiated rumor, so Apple may be planning no changes to the Mac at all. We shall see. I won't buy anything the company makes, but it will be interesting to watch Apple flounder around a bit more.

 

Honestly, I find all 3 unrealistic, but it's hard to argue against the link you provided:
1. I find this hard to be true, because I'm sure Intel had in their contract with Apple that they were not allowed to use AMD. Otherwise, why was Apple so AMD-exclusive from the very beginning? Back in 2006, AMD had very competitive products, and with Apple's marketshare, they would've got a modest boost in revenue to help refine their architecture (thereby making them a good investment for Apple). And yet, they didn't use AMD at all. It's also important to consider that modders even got Bulldozer to work with OSX, so surely Apple could've easily got AMD hardware to work if they wanted to. This leads me to believe that Apple was not allowed to use AMD. Today, AMD's products aren't good enough for Apple to backstab Intel like this. So, unless the contract ended, I don't see how Apple could escape this.
2. Same problem as #1, though Intel would likely just roll their eyes and be like "whatever, your loss". Keep in mind too that if they went with VIA, they'd have to basically start from scratch. VIA's CPU, GPU, audio, NICs, storage controllers, etc are all underwhelming even by 2008 standards. It's not just a new CPU they'd have to work on, but an entirely new platform. Apple does have a lot of their own in-house designs, but I can't imagine they'd have enough time to get an entire product series done. So, basically, it's the same idea as #3 except they can bypass Intel.
3. Nvidia once tried to get their hands on an x86 license, but to my recollection, Intel put their foot down and said no to this (and this is why their Tegra chips are based on ARM). Unlike Nvidia, Apple depends on Intel. So if Intel is who Apple must go through in order to make an x86 CPU, I don't see how they would ever OK that.

Either way - it'll be interesting to see how this pans out.

 

Maybe Apple will GTFO x86 instructions set.Without push the innovation(full x64 instructions set) ,they dont have such success (from iMac 1998 era).

Mac OS X based on UNIX is a great OS.

 

Kalamata? Calamity Jane? No Klamath anymore?

 

Don't underestimate Apple chips. I am not an Apple fan but their chips are a beast and it is no wonder they want to ditch Intel who has been sitting around for 8 years with their heads up their ass milking it while ARM makes generational leap after leap. There is no law to the universe that says PCs must be X86-based, and if Microsoft ever releases a competent ARM-based version of Windows, Intel will be in serious trouble if they haven't changed their business strategy (I expect Intel will enter the dGPU market soon).