Present and future of Mac CPU: PowerPC ▸ Intel x86 ▸ ARM?

Once Apple has used in the first iPad A4 processor homemade, crawled rumors that in the future the company may abandon Intel processors in Macs and go to ARM-architecture. This has its advantages, however, this migration is fraught with a lot of consequences that Apple will need to be overcome. Is the game worth the candle?

Why modern Macs run on Intel processors

Starting from 2006, all new Apple computers run on x86 processors in conjunction with the GPU from Nvidia or AMD (or integrated graphics core Intel in the entry-level models). Thanks to the Open GL, PO Macs can communicate with the graphics processors of different architecture that allows Apple to change the graphics provider without any problems.

After the transition to Intel processors, Apple has released two major release of OS X, in which the support has been implemented old (on PowerPC machines) and new (x86) architecture, but left in 2009, Snow Leopard only worked with Macs processors Intel.

The transition to ARM is different from the transition to Intel with the PowerPC

In the period from 1994 to 2005-th, all the software for Mac OS was "enchanted" exclusively for work on the PowerPC processor architecture that is radically different from x86. Earlier, during the previous ten years, Macs were running processors Motorola, which called 68K (68000, 68020, 60030 and 68040).

The first change of the architecture has been caused by the desire to move to a modern and high-performance processors with 64-bit computing. Due to performance on PowerPC machines, far superior 68K, he could easily perform emulation of the existing code.

Second transition Apple, with PowerPC to Intel, did not look so great step forward. Manufacturers PowerPC chips (IBM and Motorola / Freescale) actually left the PC market, "playing bit parts" in the automotive industry niches and game consoles. Apple was their most recent client, but in a year the company sold less than 4 million of its computers.

But on Windows-based PC market was very lively, all the computers using the Intel x86 architecture, or a compatible CPU from AMD. Turning to the PowerPC to Intel, Apple left the sinking ship and chose evolving ecosystem, where due to large volumes of production innovations and technologies are developing very fast.

However, the available x86 architecture was, in fact, a step backwards. After all, at that time, all Intel processors are 32-bit, while on PowerPC machines, which Apple used in its PowerMac G5 since 2003, and supported 64-bit computing. Only in 2006, when Intel introduced the Core 2 lineup, Apple has returned to the 64-bit processors in their computers.

We were in the transition to Intel architecture, and other shortcomings, but they were covered with high rates of development, related to a large market. At that time, Intel processors were slightly more powerful than on PowerPC machines, but their performance enough to emulate most of the code written for the PowerPC. This was made possible thanks to Rosetta technology, which Apple bought out and finalized in order to smooth the difficulty of transition to the new platform.

In addition, the change in the x86 architecture meant the opportunity to run Windows (Linux and other x86 OS). This significantly expands the potential audience, involving the purchase of Mac users who have had a specific need to run Windows-based applications. Boot Camp lets you install Windows on a second disk system, and third-party applications allowed to run Windows programs directly in the environment of OS X. Both methods are significantly faster emulation easy Windows code supported for PowerPC, which was the only option available to Mac-users to transition to Intel processors.

The Apple may be interested in a departure from Intel processors

savings

The main reason that Apple could consider the possibility of creating a Mac without the use of Intel processors - is the high price of the latter. Intel chips are very high-tech and sophisticated enough to copy, so they are out of the competition and allow Intel to charge for them, such a high price.

It is difficult to determine the exact price paid by Apple for Intel processors. analysts IHS iSuppli believe that the Intel Core i5, used in Microsoft Surface Pro, 4-5 times more expensive than ARM-chips in the Surface RT. A6 processor for the iPad, according to them, costing Apple $ 25 per share, while Intel chips used in Macs cost $ 180-300. The idea that Apple would replace the 200-dollar Intel chips on one or two 25-dollar and prompted speculation about the possibility of the transition of Apple computers on ARM-architecture.

However, this comparison is not entirely correct, because the current ARM-based processors are significantly inferior in performance Intel Core i5 chips, even entry-level. Between the processing power of Intel processors and the fastest ARM-processor is an abyss - a proven Microsoft experiment in Windows porting to ARM-chip Surface RT.

Apple is able to create more efficient ARM-based processors

Apple is actively increasing the computing power of its processors Ax series, thanks to funding due to economies of scale. Every year the company sells about 70 million iPad, and nearly 170 million iPhone.

This year, Apple could create an even more powerful chips the A8, if not for the restrictions dictated by the thickness of the body, the limited size of the battery and heat problem in iOS-devices. The company has made it clear that the design of the A8 main priority was energy efficiency, which is so important for iPad Air 2 (having a smaller battery than its predecessor) to leave the autonomy of the device at the same level.

Mac mini and even the MacBook Air is much less constrained by limited energy consumption and heat dissipation, which would allow Apple to increase the operating frequencies of processors, the number of cores, or add them to other hardware, providing large amounts of memory and cache.

Given all these circumstances, Apple may be interested even in the creation of a new specific Mac, running on ARM-based processors, which will not be so far from the budget desktop performance processors. For now, ARM already bypasses mobile Intel x86 chips.

Before the transition to Intel processors, Apple has produced about 4 million Macs per year. At the moment, the annual volume of production of Mac make up nearly 20 million, about the same number of iPad has sold in the first two quarters. Apple initially considered the possibility of using iPad Intel Atom chips, but abandoned the idea in favor of ARM.

Creating your own silicon IC technology

Based on the fact that Apple uses an optimization of chips used in iOS-devices, it can be assumed the company's interest and also to optimize the processor for the Mac. It can remove unused chipsets and implement additional to implement hardware-based encryption processing audio or video decoding.

The use of a single architecture and Macs iOS-devices can greatly simplify the use of hardware and software, as well as transfer of API or other software between systems.

Moreover, the development of proprietary technologies, are used only in the Ah-processors, all Apple investment will remain within the company and bring profit only to her. Now, buying processors from Intel, Apple indirectly contributes to the development of the entire PC industry. Intel creates a new generation of processors that are available for everyone, but for their development costs are reduced due to the volume of production provided by Apple.

Considering not the most impressive successes in motivating Intel PC manufacturers to create ultrabooks clones Mac mini and tablets on Android Atom, the loss of such customer like Apple would be disastrous not only for the Intel, but also for everyone who uses processors x86 architecture.

What keeps Apple from moving to ARM

Apple has taken a step in the Intel side of reasonableness. In 2006, she did not have a serious team for the development of chips, as well as sufficient capital to develop its own technology to create them. Intel has already done the work and the purchase of a turnkey solution not only made sense, but was the best of the few options available to Apple at the time.

Despite the fact that now Apple is one of the leading manufacturers of mobile processors and a 150-billion capital, which allows to realize the most ambitious projects, the use of Intel chips still makes sense on a number of reasons.

Existing technologies and the Intel

To date, Intel has the world's leading technology for the production of processors and has a great production capacity corresponding to the needs of Apple. Staying Intel customer, Apple receives not only them, but also the future development chipmaker, in which it invests to be the most advanced manufacturer of processors world.

Large orders provide Apple chips priorities selection, as well as discounts due to large volumes. The company's profit, which it receives from each sold Mac simply unattainable for PC manufacturers, even with the considerable cost of Intel processors.

For Apple, there are no half-measures, which may go to other manufacturers, it selects only the most advanced technology. The company buys the best LCD-panel, using a licensed font is Helvetica. While Microsoft and Google use low-quality displays, copies of Helvetica, and do not use in their products, fingerprint scanners, because of their high cost.

Loss of AMD as a supplier

After retiring from Intel, Apple could lose a potential supplier of x86 compatible GPUs AMD.

The company now buys GPU like the AMD, and at Nvidia, choosing the best solution available, depending on the new technologies and prices. Due to the change of OpenGL GPU vendor does not cause difficulties.

Apple has not played on the AMD hand in their confrontation with Intel, but theoretically could - if Intel allow error and AMD will be able to create a more affordable and superior competitor processor, capable of executing x86 code Macs. Apple Care from Intel to ARM-based processors will exclude even the theoretical possibility to replace Intel chips for cheaper AMD.

Doubtful savings at partial transition to ARM

Apple is not able to replace the Intel-ARM processors in the entire Mac lineup, especially in high-end families and MacBook Pro versions and Mac Pro, and because this is the segment from which the company gets most of its profits and due to minimal competition remains loyal community.

If Apple releases only one new Mac model running on the ARM architecture, it will reduce its dependence from Intel, but also increase the cost of the purchase of processors for x86-Macs by reducing volumes. Thus, a partial shift to ARM will not work Apple in terms of cost.

The very fact of the creation of ARM-Mac does not guarantee its popularity. Microsoft has made an attempt to port Windows to ARM, but to attract a new audience to no avail. Two years were wasted, except for the result of the deterioration of relations with Intel. Processor giant responded to the announcement of support for Android and Meego / Tizen, spending billions of dollars, subsidized producers tablets, on the introduction of Atom, which was aimed at the same goal, that of Microsoft with its Surface RT - a significant expansion of the market.

Microsoft, of course, was not going to save, and the main reason for using the ARM has been striving to increase the energy efficiency in comparison with the desktop and mobile alternatives from Intel. But these wonderful initiatives were hacked on the vine harsh reality - existing Windows-based applications can not run on the ARM architecture.

Apple has a lot of experience in the transfer of the software to the new architecture. The company proved that it can simultaneously support different hardware platforms, but despite this, has always tried complete these transitions quickly to bring everything to a common standard and avoid the problem of fragmentation of the hardware.

great risks

On top of the financial side, the development of ARM-chips for Mac can cause additional problems, for example, complications, and slowing down the development of mobile processors used in the iPhone, iPad and other new products.

Sales of Apple's mobile devices make up a large part of its profits. Over the past year the company has sold 244 million iOS-devices and only 18.9 million Macs. Going on ARM-architecture will inevitably lead to a change of priorities and the development of the mobile segment can theoretically allow competitors to become a leader. It is unlikely that Apple has hundreds of free engineers sitting around to spraying efforts ARM-chip development team into two different directions.

Moving away from a key supplier, Apple may confuse existing customers and risks cast a shadow on his name. When Microsoft introduced Surface RT, it has lost the trust of customers as "uncompromising Windows-PC "actually could not run Windows applications and have limitations associated with performance ARM-processors. Potential buyers ARM-Mac will be even greater demands and expectations of the new Apple product.

Incompatibility with x86

Apple has a lot of experience in porting their own OS, frameworks, applications and development tools to the new architecture. The company underwent a 68K Mac OS supported for PowerPC, NeXT Software ported to Intel supported for PowerPC, and the iOS, in fact, is adapted to the realities of the mobile OS X.

Apple certainly knows how to create ARM-version of OS X, and will provide developers with the tools, if necessary, which would help they recompile their applications for Macs on the ARM architecture, but it will take a lot of work and considerable effort from themselves developers. Costs and expenses related to the creation of ports applications can not live up to expectations, especially if Apple will sell in a year at least 20 million Macs.

Experience Apple TV

Like the Surface RT, Apple TV can be seen as an example the recent change of architecture. The original version of the Apple TV, to sell from 2007 to 2009, was actually cut down a Mac with an Intel x86 processor and graphics from Nvidia's, working on a modified version of OS X.

In 2010, Apple introduced the second generation of set-top boxes running running iOS on its own processor A4, which had a built-in graphics. This transition, which led to a complete redesign of the hardware architecture, allowed to reduce the price of the product from 299 $ to 99 $.

But Apple TV is a very specific example - the console is produced in relatively small quantities and are not brings big profits, besides there is no third-party applications, and hence the problems with their adaptation. Her transition to iOS and ARM was a fairly simple task. With the price of $ 300 at the Apple TV just did not have a chance in the market, but when it had fallen to $ 99, the prefix has become very sell well, bringing Apple about a billion dollars a year (including media content, increasing its sale). In 2010, Apple came source rejected the A4 chip (and then the A5), which were not suitable for the iPad, so Apple TV was the ideal candidate to go on ARM-architecture.

Do not wait for ARM-MacBook in the near future

The issue of transition of traditional Macs on ARM-architecture is not whether Apple will replace Intel, but rather whether it will be commercially profitable.

If Apple does decide to introduce extra-MacBook Air «netbuchnogo format", then it is easier will abandon expensive Core i5 chips and create a low-cost product that runs on iOS, or a cut-down version OS X. This MacBook would take place near the Surface RT and "Chromebook" from HP and Samsung, running on ARM-chips from Samsung.

However, at present too few convincing arguments that would prove that Apple is interested in selling notebooks with a small capacity. Now sold a record number of Macs in the price range $ 900-3000, in addition, there iPad, covering more than the budget range from $ 200 to $ 800.

Despite the fact that at the end of last year iPad sales were down 4%, it can not be said of the tablet form factor is losing popularity and need to be replaced. In fact, it looks as though Apple has made iPad from potential users Mac customers, and this is much more success (and profits) than the motivation to Mac users buying an iPad.

Still, the technology industry is constantly in motion and often habitual foundations crumble new products that stand and make less than the existing ones. Proof of this is the iPhone, which could significantly smaller than existing at the time smartphones, and iPad, and Apple TV, lacking features that were preceded them plates TV set-top boxes. Apple simply cut off the "necessary" features and thereby create new, affordable and attractive product categories.

Creating a Mac on ARM-based processor, Apple could severely damage their own business premium computers. Theoretically, the company could create an inexpensive the MacBook, for example, for education, but it is too small a market, which is now fed up "Chromebook» Google.

A year or two circumstances can change. It is possible that Apple will reach a point of development where premium business Mac will be difficult to expand further. During this time, the company can develop the technology that would allow her to create ARM-based processors very close in performance to the Intel, but with a lower price. Apple could create a hardware support for x86-emulation applications, thus minimizing the cost and accelerate the adoption of ARM.

So far Intel is not expected big breakthroughs in the development of x86-processors, so that Apple can be more reasonable to invest in design and development of its own advanced ARM-chips (or even a completely new architecture) for desktops and laptops.

In general, it seems that the market for traditional computers and laptops stopped in development. Apple is expanding its share among the premium-level computers and she has all the chances to develop this trend without making radical changes in Macy's. The Company may use its huge but still limited resources to more profitable investment than Intel's replacement as a supplier of processors for several million Macs. At least for the next few years.

(via)