Google "looking forward" to using non-Intel procesors

One thing is certain, that Intel's halcyon days in which it benefited immensely from sharing a monopoly with Microsoft in an explosive desktop PC market from the 80s-00s are now in the rearview mirror.

It's good that they've been forced back down to Earth and now have to compete on a level playing field with IBM, Qualcomm, and others in various areas such as processor architecture and manufacturing process.

>>57100684
Take that, Israel.

>>57100684
x86 should disappear.

>>57101141
x86_64 is the only architecture worth writing compilers for.

I thought power was dead... what happened?

Does this mean apple will make a new PowerMac?!?!

>>57101188
POWER never went anywhere.

>>57101166
Nope.

>>57101188
Apple has a very capable in-house ARM engineering team making the best mobile chips in the market. The A-series is their future.

>>57101141
x86 doesn't even exist anymore

>>57101188
PowerPC is prominent in embedded systems, especially in cars along with government shit

>>57101225
It's not ever coming to the desktop.

>>57101265
It wouldn't surprise me if their new macbook line (you know, the one with just one USB-C port) used them

ARM is cheap to produce and since apple has in-house engineering they could brag about "muh efficiency" while cutting costs

>>57101326
(cont) It also produces less heat, and honestly the atom-tier shit they put in them is worthless under any kind of decent load

>>57101326
It would surprise me because they'd have to port OS X to ARM and I don't see current Apple taking on that kind of project when they're all about cell phones and tablets, now.

>>57101265
Apple doesn't really use traditional "desktop" chips anymore, outside of the Mac Pro. They just want small, cool, power-sipping chips they can develop on their own timeline, fit into any form factor they wish to, and aggressively optimize for their own software. They've done it for iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV, and their new AirPods and Beats headphones.

It's inevitable that in the next few years there will be one or more Macs running on in-house Apple CPUs and even graphics. (They recently poached a bunch of engineers from Imagination Technologies)

>>57101344
Isn't the iOS branch using a kernel similar to macOS's?

Still, it'd make more sense for them to just drop macOS and restart on the iOS base, maybe bring touch controls over to the glorified tabled that is macbook, like it should have in the first place

>>57101361

Wasn't there some rumor floating around about them having AMD design them a completely custom graphics processor for their computers?

>>57101339
Produces less heat? My iPhone almost burns my hand if it does anything too intensive like video chat. Bump it up a little with desktop-tier load and its just going to be an overheating POS like the current intel chips.

>>57101367
I sincerely hope that never happens
IOS a shit

>>57101361
>pple doesn't really use traditional "desktop" chips anymore, outside of the Mac Pro.
I don't really understand what you're talking about.

iMac also uses full desktop chips and the i5 and i7 mobile processors are a long way from the Apple A9 and A10.
>>57101367
iOS and Mac OS are built on the same kernel, yes, but you still have the rest of the shit to deal with.
>Still, it'd make more sense for them to just drop macOS and restart on the iOS base
Maybe, but I'd really rather not have iOS infect any more of the Apple software.

>>57101399
Smartphones in general have bad heat spreading

But i'm pretty sure their chips have better thermals than intel's when they have the entire base of the macbook to use as a heat-spreader

>>57101344
Apple has handled two ISA transitions in the past pretty well. There would likely be another 1-2 year period of universal binaries before x86-64 is dropped altogether. Phil Schiller will go onstage and praise it as an act of courage.

>>57101367
All of Apple's platforms share the same OS foundation with some variation in APIs.

>>57101265
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple switched to ARM, even if just for their laptops. They had a universal binary system for PowerPC and IA32 and used it again for IA32 and AMD64, what's stopping them from using it for AMD64 and ARM?

>>57101344
iOS is OS X for ARM. Making a full ARM OS X desktop OS wouldn't be too hard at all. Hell, they probably already have it. They had OS X for x86 years before the transition from PowerPC.

>>57101447
>Apple has handled two ISA transitions in the past pretty well.
They went from 68k to PPC in the early 1990s when everything was much simpler and such transitions were far more commonplace. Then in 2006 Apple was basically forced into doing it because IBM couldn't deliver G5 chips that would work in laptops. Plus I think we can all agree Apple was far more ambitious a decade ago.

I'm not saying it's impossible to pull off or anything, just that I don't see them doing it until they have a really good reason like profits. X86-64 would basically have to be deprecated.
>>57101477
>iOS is OS X for ARM.
I'm fairly sure it's not as simple as you think it is, but I'm not a computer programmer.

>>57101494
>but I'm not a computer programmer
Then shut the fuck up.

>>57101494
iOS is more or less OS X with a more touch friendly Cocoa implementation. Hell iirc they actually do the OS development for ARM then port it to x86.

NVIDIA WON

>>57100684
>SUICIDE WATCH

Please quit saying this, you have ran it into the ground.

>>57101518
Surely you can back that up?

>>57101339
>It also produces less heat
because they're low-power chips, what matters is performance per watt and i'm not so sure if arm would win that

>>57101464
Their "universal binary system" is called emulation.

>>57101494
>Then in 2006 Apple was basically forced into doing it because IBM couldn't deliver G5 chips that would work in laptops.

I see exactly this happening again right now with Intel. I think Apple is really not happy with Intel's much slower process improvements, longer architecture timelines, moving to a "tick-rock-tock" release cadence, etc over the past couple of years. Apple always wants to go thinner and more power-efficient, and Intel is clearly hitting a wall with that. The time is fast approaching for Apple to drop Intel and go in-house for its Mac chips.

>>57101516
You're not a normie. You don't understand what normies want. Normies are where the money is at.

>>57101361
Apple probably hates having to be dependent on Intel and being forced to delay the release of their mac devices everytime Intel decides to delay the release of their CPUs. I'm sure apple wish they could develop their own processors for the macbooks and have it released whenever they want.

Probably has more to do with the fact that POWER can be produced by Google to their desired specifications where as with x86 they don't get that kind of control. Google is a part of the OpenPOWER foundation.

>>57101593
lol no it's not

learn what a fat binary is

>>57101537
I guess I was wrong about iOS development being prioritized but I can say that Darwin is OS X's base OS which OS X and iOS both use (and OS X is essentially Darwin with some closed source APIs such as Cocoa and programs, which is also how one would describe iOS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

>>57101593
No it's not, you fucking moron. It's an application bundle that contains binaries for both platforms. You're probably thinking of Rosetta, a feature in Snow Leopard which emulated PowerPC-only programs (as in non-universal binaries) on x86.

>>57101616
Why don't they just use ARM?

it's not like ISA actually matters in 2016

>>57101593
No they actually had both PPC and x86 binaries in a single app bundle.

What you're thinking of is Rosetta, the PPC-to-x86 dynamic binary translator.

Remember the USS Liberty

>>57101594
It's certainly looking like it, but Intel is not yet nearly as bad as the PPC chips were getting. Nothing currently is significantly outperforming Intel X86 processors for the price whereas the 970MPs were getting their asses handed to them by Xeon systems at the time in a lot of applications.
>>57101631
I'm aware of Darwin and all that, but I'm not sure how much more on top of Darwin either of the systems is.

>>57101732
>I'm aware of Darwin and all that, but I'm not sure how much more on top of Darwin either of the systems is.
Porting the base OS would be the hard part, which Apple already did a decade ago.

>>57101494
>Plus I think we can all agree Apple was far more ambitious a decade ago.

A decade ago the iPhone wasn't even publicly known, and Apple was most famous for being "the iPod company" that also made Macs.

Between all the different form factors, platforms, and services they now develop and manage, not to mention a hugely expanded global presence and a goal to run on 100% renewable energy, I'd say Apple has never been more ambitious than it is today.

>>57101631
I hope you know there's a ton of shit on top of Darwin and that's the actual problem.
iOS and macOS share way less in common (code wise) than many people seem to think.
There's also a ton of stuff (APIs, e.g. OpenGL drivers supporting more than ES) on macOS that iOS lacks and if they were so similar then porting them would be no deal.

>>57101344
>>57101477
>>57101494
Making an ISA change isn't free, but well within Apple's capability. FFS I'm single highhandedly updating our code from a 32 bit big endian to run on a 64 bit little endian platform. And I'm a fucking dummy.

They even had rosetta back for the x86 switch and emulation techniques have only improved since. The xbox one backwards comparability runs 360 PPC binaries on x86.

The real barrier to switching is managing the publicly-facing portion of a switch. Carrying all the getting all the people developing for their platforms is the real problem. Because a lot of the people developing low budget shit apps are fucking hacks. And it causes end user confusion.

>>57100867
>Qualcomm
Please tell me that's a joke

>>57101796
>I hope you know there's a ton of shit on top of Darwin and that's the actual problem.
I'm well aware. Again, keep in mind that Apple had x84 OS X years before they switched from PowerPC, do you really think they don't have full desktop ARM OS X already? I'd honestly be surprised if Apple doesn't already have OS X fully ported to ARM.

>>57101826
*x86

>>57101826
>Again, keep in mind that Apple had x84 OS X years before they switched from PowerPC
Prove it.

>>57101811
Why?
What's wrong with Qualcomm? :^|

>>57101804
>Making an ISA change isn't free, but well within Apple's capability.
No one said that it wasn't. The argument is whether or not they will, not whether or not they can.

>>57101898
http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/5/5380832/sony-vaio-apple-os-x-steve-jobs-meeting-report

http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/11/3077651/apple-intel-mac-os-x-retrospective

https://www.quora.com/Apple-company/How-does-Apple-keep-secrets-so-well/answer/Kim-Scheinberg?srid=i1

>>57101898
Rhapsody.

>>57101942
Arm is not meant to compete with x86, for some reason people can't seem to realize this. But they're two different things meant for two different jobs.

>>57101898
>Prove it.
He doesn't have to, even I know that.

>>57101826
>I'm well aware. Again, keep in mind that Apple had x84 OS X years before they switched from PowerPC, do you really think they don't have full desktop ARM OS X already? I'd honestly be surprised if Apple doesn't already have OS X fully ported to ARM.
Yeah but back then they cared about OSX and it took them quite a bit of effort.
Today, out of their operating systems, iOS is by far generating the most revenue and OSX is... well, usage is not even increasing. Why should they make such an effort?
Imo it is more realistic to assume that they try to extend iOS a bit to one day sell ARM MacBooks using iOS. And I fear that.

>>57101988
Wow, I've never heard of that before.

>>57101407
>iOS a shit
Apparently so is the English language.

>>57102020
>Imo it is more realistic to assume that they try to extend iOS a bit to one day sell ARM MacBooks using iOS. And I fear that.
Cook's already publicly stated that Apple believes desktop and mobile operating systems should remain separate things and that they have no intentions of bringing iOS to the desktop. I think they'd sooner drop Macs altogether before they brought iOS to them.

>>57102087
>Cook's already publicly stated that Apple believes desktop and mobile operating systems should remain separate things
They sure aren't practicing what they preach. OS X has more iOS style features than ever.

>>57102081
Spotted the newfag

>>57102009
Most people don't need a full-fledged workstation these days for what they need to do, which is mostly web browsing, writing email and documents, playing music and movies, basic photo and video editing, and some casual gaming. Any computer can do these things now, even a $5 Raspberry Pi. This is why the iPad has been so popular and why most people own laptops. An ARM-based processor will be good enough for a MacBook.

>>57102087
Doubt he would make any top secrete things public....

>>57102126
And I doubt Apple's stupid enough to put a cellphone OS on desktops.

>>57102081
spotted the summer leftover

>>57102139
You have a point there...

>>57102081
English is the javascript of human languages.

hit the nail to the coffin

>>57102101
That's been Apple's strategy all along: feature parity across their platforms, wherever it makes sense to have it. The last part of that is important.

The Mac is a traditional desktop/laptop form factor with larger displays, a built-in tactile keyboard, and a mouse/trackpad pointer as a form of indirect but more precise UI manipulation. The iPhone and iPad are touch-first handheld devices with smaller displays, no built-in keyboard, and direct but less precise UI manipulation. macOS and iOS play to their respective strengths and weaknesses, rather than trying to awkwardly merge them together and making the experience worse as a result.

Just because they share some features doesn't mean they are becoming the same. There are many more things that remain exclusive to one platform or another.

>>57100684
Intel kills their competition by moving swiftly and offering superior products.

>>57102334
The only reason Intel's relevant is because Windows is x86-only.

>>57102087
>Cook's already publicly stated that Apple believes desktop and mobile operating systems should remain separate things and that they have no intentions of bringing iOS to the desktop. I think they'd sooner drop Macs altogether before they brought iOS to them.
Well, statements from executives of shareholder driven companies usually have a pretty variable expiration date...

>>57102350
>implying Xeon D didn't kill ARM servers before they were even born

Intel dominates with a 99% marketshare in the extremely profitable server market.

Show me production ready ARM servers.

Windows isn't x86 only. They just killed the ARM version because nobody wants it.

>>57102421
Show me where I said anything about ARM.

>>57102009
you had the wrong idea to show your smartass opinion

what he is talking about is the future of computing on mankind, not your hobbyist needs for meme productivity

>>57102439
Since windows 3.1 they haven't supported any non x86 architecture other than ARM which they discontinued.

>>57102468
Spotted the complete fucking retard. You clearly know nothing. Leave /g/ and never, EVER come BACK.

>>57102521
>what were NT3 and NT4 non-x86 versions

>>57102521
Windows NT supported PowerPC, MIPS, and Alpha.

>>57102529
triggered

that's the least reaction i wanted to see from the thoughts of your peanut brain

>>57102543
>>57102547
I meant windows 3.51 you fucking nitpickers.

>>57102548
Not triggered. But by being here you're bringing down overall post quality. I think a place like
>>>/b/ would be much more your speed.

>>57102570
>says the wrong version
>calls us nitpickers for correcting him
Besides, even if you did mean NT 3.51 you're still wrong.

>>57100684
I'm sorry but honestly think you want to prevent somebody from committing suicide? It's a part of human nature so stop playing God and realize you're just human you idiotic morons.

>>57102581
your smartass opinion is still invalidated.

let me explain it to you because you don't know any better

>>57100867
>>57101811
what you first didn't understand here, is that not architecture (wether arm or x64) is the topic, but computing in general, he was talking about here

now keep in mind that ARM processors are efficient and cost effective in a tiny handheld compatible formfactor in much more customisable scale than x64 for modern purposes and now you will see how the market will slowly shift into powerfull enough ARM computers for everyones basic needs.

you simply shouted out something which you wanted to sound smart, but made you look dumber in the end.

you don't have do defend anything but say that you understoof your mistake or atleast declare it, that's the way you're raising the quality of the topic

>>57102592
>>57102439
>The only reason Intel's relevant is because Windows is x86-only.
>intel produces x86 chips
>windows needs x86 chips
>windows is relevant
>therefore intel is relevant too
>therefore intel wouldn't be relevant if windows runs on different architectures
>windows used to run on ARM, PowerPC, MIPS, Alpha but discontinued because of lack of demand
>therefore windows is not relevant on non x86


Thank you for your very elaborate way of saying windows and all the programs that depend on it are widely used.

>>57102706
Once again, you're proving how stupid you are, and that you know nothing. I will repeat myself because you're clearly stupid. They are NOT supposed to do the same thing. It's not a "smartass opinion". It's a fact. Just because you don't want to face reality like a feminist angry at a scale for telling her the truth, it's like saying cars and semi trucks are the same and cars will eventually replace semi trucks. It ain't happening pally.

>>57102783
ok i know no other way to explain it to you

you are talking about archs and your authism won't comprehend that we talk about market

>>57102706
It wont't. ARM SoCs manufacturers only produce in very large quantities. It's easy to sell a hundred thousand $200 phones. It's very difficult to sell even something as popular as the raspberry PI at these quantities.

>>57102796
No, you WERENT talking about market. And even if you were, you're STILL WRONG.

>>57102816
and how many children have a ARM SoC compared to Intel/AMD X64 desktop/laptop processors?

when i look at the new generation (work at a childrencare) everyone wouldn't won't to need better performance except a gaming console maybe, computergaming is a minority anyway

>>57102750
Maximum autism

>>57102706
>now keep in mind that ARM processors are efficient and cost effective in a tiny handheld compatible formfactor in much more customisable scale than x64 for modern purposes and now you will see how the market will slowly shift into powerfull enough ARM computers for everyones basic needs.

When you design a new ARM SoC you basically either just license the cores which doesn't allow you to customise anything except the chipset or you license the ISA then you have to design your entire CPU from scratch. There is no middle ground.

>>57102750
>>windows used to run on ARM,
Windows still runs on ARM

File: 1447083069080.jpg (799KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 1080x1080px

>>57102866
>I am incapable of forming an argument without resorting to attack the author

>>57102890
i guess they needed somethign which is more government driven

>>57101326
I really hope so. AMD actually announced, yes they actually did this - look it up, that they would produce motherboards that could run both x86-64 and ARM CPUs. I thought "well, now that'd be cool, an ARM CPU on a motherboard with 6 or 8 SATA connectors and PCI-Express would make for a nice low-powered server". Then time went by and AMD announced that there would be no AMD ARM CPUs or motherboards for it. Meanwhile Intel has as good as halted progress on x86-64 while AMD has been out of the game, years behind Intel. If Apple goes full ARM then perhaps someone else will make a fully featured PC-style motherboard?

>>57101344
They could just slam a PC-style skin on iOS and kill OS X.

>>57101399
Tablets don't get that hot and a laptop/notebook has a big area you can use to spread the heat. Do ARM chips really run that much hotter than desktop CPUs do? I have the distinct impression they use less power and produce less heat.

>>57101541
ARM is still becoming faster at the rate PC chips used to. I am old enough to remember the difference between the i286 and the i386 and then i386 vs 486. Back then performance doubled with each generation, now Intel barely offers a 5% improvement when they release new chips. ARM could catch up.

>>57102902
Are you talking about that IoT version for the raspberry pi or what? Back up your claims. Your comment doesn't contain any useful information.

>>57102921
>They could just slam a PC-style skin on iOS and kill OS X.
No

>>57102907
I don't need to form an argument, calling you autistic was more than sufficient.

File: Mumble-2016-09-15-153812.jpg (12KB, 359x270px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 359x270px

>>57102938
You can do it. I trust you.

>>57102959
Autism.

>>57102959
spare your efforts. summer is over

>China doesn't use Jewtel anymore for their supercomputers
>USA doesn't use Jewtel anymore for their supercomputers
>Google doesn't use Jewtel anymore for their supercomputers
Ayyy, we Palestina now.

>>57100684
Where can I buy that chip to play my games?

>>57103252
Does google have their own supercomputer?

>>57102929
windows phone 10 nigga

>>57103290
Their farms are equivalent to supercomputers.

>>57103291
intel is no longer relevant

related:
https://www.crowdsupply.com/raptor-computing-systems/talos-secure-workstation

>>57104275
It's garbage.
>can't even fund development of its own products
kek

>>57104366
Call it what you want, I can't wait to buy one.

>>57104387
You aren't going to buy one

>>57100684
This is great news for intel. They no longer to play nice with amd, they can buttfuck her to death now.

>>57104399
Yes I am.

File: 5be82f717a890bcc2bf945840842b03d.jpg (38KB, 651x439px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 651x439px

>>57102866
>>57102938
>>57102971
>>57102984

>>57102783
>>57101811
>>57102529
>>57102581
To be fair, the only argument you have been able to produce is, "YOU KNOW NOTHING, FUCKTARD." Perhaps that poster you're replying to is indeed an ignorant fucktard, but you could at least offer a logical rebuttal rather than a 12 year old's ad hominem (which, by the way, is more characteristic of /b/ behavior than the person your replying to)

Power970 was actually pretty decent in the G5...

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1989293

>>57104676
Here's the Intel comparison

https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/1163935

Mind you, merom, Conroe, and woodcrest were blazing fast and came out later, there hasn't been such a jump in architecture for Intel in their entire timeline.

>>57104813
That's 40 percent better while being way cheaper. It may have been OK to end users, but to Apple, no way.

Power970 had a strong FSB, strong bandwidth... Conroe had a lot more FP

Bare in mind, PowerPC was running in Geekbench 32-bit and Xeon in 64-bit. Whether or not that means Power970 had its wings clipped is be figured out.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2603768

In 64-bit, integer dropped a bit but FP gained some. Looks like Power970 64-bit was in its infancy.

Could also be just degradation on the silicon

Aren't Google gonna use their own custom silicon for the Pixel 2?

http://barefeats.com/quad06.html

Real World Tests

>>57100684
Been saying this for years. I'm in HVLL systems and Intel is figuratively dropping the ball due to complacency. We're still years off the paradigm shift so everyone is content to call us chicken little now, but within a decade x86_64 is going to hit a nose-dive.

>>57104557
If I wanted to spoon-feed retards I would have gotten a job in education.

>>57101245
>x86 doesn't even exist anymore
k

>>57105200
>HVLL

What is that, anon?

>>57101637
are there any "big" arm chips?
as in 100W+?

>>57104813
>>57104676
>geekbench
SPEC, you know, exists

>>57101166

>PCs are the only computers I heard of.

ur funny

>>57102121
>Le phone computer copypasta 7.5 (revision 8)


I mean in the compute sector

>POWER 8 CPU lowest spec literally $1,200 USD by itself
ARM is more of a threat, but they still can't compete on performance per watt. I think Intel will be fine.

>>57105716
arm has lower performance per watt than intel?

>>57105341
I don't think so. AMD's Opteron A1170 is the beefiest ARM CPU and its TDP is 32w.

>>57105808
Absolutely. The only reason people use ARM is because they're so inexpensive.

>>57105830
Which matters a great deal considering just how much more expensive intel is at the moment.

>>57105813
>beefiest
Just looked it up...

... it's an 8 core a57 on glofo's 28nm process node...

hmmm

not really what I would call the beefiest more like a demo before k12 comes

>>57100867
>arm
kek intel x86 cherrylake soc are better then arm

>>57105341
100W chips are pretty rare these days, anyway.

>>57106401
Power8 has buffers in front of RAM which consume 64w total alone. the full cpu is something like 200W

>>57106429
And POWER8 CPUs are what, 4 of thousands of chips?

anything is better than x86 which is becoming more and more harmful

Have there been any advances in open hardware lately? It seems stagnant