Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs

On 2020-07-04 9:02 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2020 03:18:22 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

The cheapest iPhone (the 2020 SE) is more powerful than the most
expensive Android phone.

The sad thing is that Lewis actually _believes_ everything he writes!

While I'm the one who broke the news of the iPhone 2020 SE to the Apple
newsgroups, I'm well aware of the bull**** surrounding that phone.

You mean this "bull****"...

....from that well known Apple shill site, Android Authority:

'The $399 iPhone SE clearly beats the $1,399 Galaxy S20 Ultra overall.
But, it isn’t all bad. Looking at the CPU time, which involves tasks
that rely heavily on the CPU (single-threaded and multi-threaded), the
S20 Ultra actually won; 38.5 seconds vs 39.5 seconds.'

https://www.androidauthority.com/iphone-se-vs-most-powerful-android-galaxy-s20-ultra-1120575/

On 7/4/2020 12:19 PM, Paul wrote:

snip

When Microsoft said "we're going to make an x86 software interpreter
for our new ARM box". Intel threatened them. Microsoft backed off.

Which company has the richest patent portfolio ?

Will they go to patent war with one another ?

Will Apple boxes be stopped at the border, on their way from China ?

I think that you can be pretty sure that Apple worked out some kind of
licensing and royalty deal with Intel, regarding x86, prior to
announcing the ARM-based Macs.

In article , sms
wrote:


I think that you can be pretty sure that Apple worked out some kind of
licensing and royalty deal with Intel, regarding x86, prior to
announcing the ARM-based Macs.

nope. apple silicon does not implement x86, therefore there is no
reason to license it or pay royalties.

On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 21:52:13 -0400, nospam wrote:

I think that you can be pretty sure that Apple worked out some kind of
licensing and royalty deal with Intel, regarding x86, prior to
announcing the ARM-based Macs.

nope. apple silicon does not implement x86, therefore there is no
reason to license it or pay royalties.

Hi nospam,
I could be wrong, but I think you missed the point, which, I think, Steve
was trying to make (even as Steve, himself, is a Type II apologist).

NOTE: Type II apologists aren't malicious like Type III apologists are, and
they don't always parrot Apple MARKETING mantra like Type I apologists do.

It would do Apple no good if Intel summarily dropped them (assuming they
could legally do so, and that it was in Intel's interest) simply because
Apple is substituting Intel Macs, over time, to ARM Macs.

Whether or not that's what Steve meant, I would assume that Apple isn't
stupid, so they don't wish to **** off Intel (look how well it turned out
for Apple with Qualcomm, i.e., perhaps the biggest abject surrender in
Apple's history to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars).

In short, logical, sensible, and reasonable adults _assume_ Apple worked
out a deal with Intel such that Intel isn't gonna "retaliate" to the
detriment of Apple's business plans.
--
Sometimes you have to explain the simplest of things to apologists.

On 2020-07-10 01:34:33 +0000, sms said:
On 7/4/2020 12:19 PM, Paul wrote:

snip

When Microsoft said "we're going to make an x86 software interpreter
for our new ARM box". Intel threatened them. Microsoft backed off.

Which company has the richest patent portfolio ?

Will they go to patent war with one another ?

Will Apple boxes be stopped at the border, on their way from China ?

I think that you can be pretty sure that Apple worked out some kind of
licensing and royalty deal with Intel, regarding x86, prior to
announcing the ARM-based Macs.

Intel has already said that they are working with Apple through the
changeover period. Even after Macs go fully Apple Silicon there will
still some Intel-tech in there that Apple pays for (such as
Thunderbolt, which has also said to continue in Apple Silicon Macs).

On 2020-07-09 8:21 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2020-07-10 01:34:33 +0000, sms said:
On 7/4/2020 12:19 PM, Paul wrote:

snip

When Microsoft said "we're going to make an x86 software interpreter
for our new ARM box". Intel threatened them. Microsoft backed off.

Which company has the richest patent portfolio ?

Will they go to patent war with one another ?

Will Apple boxes be stopped at the border, on their way from China ?

I think that you can be pretty sure that Apple worked out some kind of
licensing and royalty deal with Intel, regarding x86, prior to
announcing the ARM-based Macs.

Intel has already said that they are working with Apple through the
changeover period. Even after Macs go fully Apple Silicon there will
still some Intel-tech in there that Apple pays for (such as Thunderbolt,
which has also said to continue in Apple Silicon Macs).

And it wouldn't surprise me to see the Intel CPUs continue in the Mac
Pro for at least 2-3 years...

In article , Your Name
wrote:

Intel has already said that they are working with Apple through the
changeover period.

only because there will continue to be intel macs for another year or
so.

Even after Macs go fully Apple Silicon there will
still some Intel-tech in there that Apple pays for (such as
Thunderbolt, which has also said to continue in Apple Silicon Macs).

apple doesn't need to pay intel for thundebolt because they will be
designing their own chipsets.

also note that usb 4 is basically thunderbolt 3, so all apple (or
anyone else for that matter) needs to do is support usb 4.

In article , Alan Baker
wrote:

And it wouldn't surprise me to see the Intel CPUs continue in the Mac
Pro for at least 2-3 years...

it would surprise everyone, since apple stated that the transition to
apple silicon would be complete in 2 years.

note that they said that the powerpc-intel transition would take 2
years and it was complete in about a year.

On 2020-07-09 7:56 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 21:52:13 -0400, nospam wrote:

I think that you can be pretty sure that Apple worked out some kind of
licensing and royalty deal with Intel, regarding x86, prior to
announcing the ARM-based Macs.

nope. apple silicon does not implement x86, therefore there is no
reason to license it or pay royalties.

Hi nospam,
I could be wrong, but I think you missed the point, which, I think, Steve
was trying to make (even as Steve, himself, is a Type II apologist).

NOTE: Type II apologists aren't malicious like Type III apologists are, and
they don't always parrot Apple MARKETING mantra like Type I apologists do.

It would do Apple no good if Intel summarily dropped them (assuming they
could legally do so, and that it was in Intel's interest) simply because
Apple is substituting Intel Macs, over time, to ARM Macs.

Whether or not that's what Steve meant, I would assume that Apple isn't
stupid, so they don't wish to **** off Intel (look how well it turned out
for Apple with Qualcomm, i.e., perhaps the biggest abject surrender in
Apple's history to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars).

Hmmm...

Qualcomm net income for 2019: $4.386 billion

Apple net income for 2019: $55.256 billion.

On 2020-07-09 8:36 p.m., nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Baker
wrote:

And it wouldn't surprise me to see the Intel CPUs continue in the Mac
Pro for at least 2-3 years...

it would surprise everyone, since apple stated that the transition to
apple silicon would be complete in 2 years.

note that they said that the powerpc-intel transition would take 2
years and it was complete in about a year.


Maybe so, maybe no.

We'll see.

:-)

On 2020-07-10 03:30:50 +0000, Alan Baker said:
On 2020-07-09 8:21 p.m., Your Name wrote:
On 2020-07-10 01:34:33 +0000, sms said:
On 7/4/2020 12:19 PM, Paul wrote:

snip

When Microsoft said "we're going to make an x86 software interpreter
for our new ARM box". Intel threatened them. Microsoft backed off.

Which company has the richest patent portfolio ?

Will they go to patent war with one another ?

Will Apple boxes be stopped at the border, on their way from China ?

I think that you can be pretty sure that Apple worked out some kind of
licensing and royalty deal with Intel, regarding x86, prior to
announcing the ARM-based Macs.

Intel has already said that they are working with Apple through the
changeover period. Even after Macs go fully Apple Silicon there will
still some Intel-tech in there that Apple pays for (such as
Thunderbolt, which has also said to continue in Apple Silicon Macs).

And it wouldn't surprise me to see the Intel CPUs continue in the Mac
Pro for at least 2-3 years...

The Mac Pro and iMac Pro will almost certainly be the last Macs to
transistion over to Apple Silicon, but the Apple no doubt wants to get
the whole lot done as soon as practical rather than drag it out for too
long.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:44:00 +1200, Your Name wrote:

transistion over to Apple Silico

*Why do you call it Apple silicon when it has _always_ been ARM silicon?*

It has _always_ been "ARM silicon", in fact, even in Apple based reports.

/Is it that your brain can only comprehend what Apple MARKETING feeds it?/
--
The ignorati fall for every trick in Apple's (clever) Marketing playbook.

On 2020-07-09 9:18 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:44:00 +1200, Your Name wrote:

transistion over to Apple Silico

*Why do you call it Apple silicon when it has _always_ been ARM silicon?*

It has never been ARM silicon, Liar; well, not since the A6.

Apple designs its own chips, Liar.


It has _always_ been "ARM silicon", in fact, even in Apple based reports.

/Is it that your brain can only comprehend what Apple MARKETING feeds it?/

For a friend wrote:
On 2020-07-09 9:18 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:44:00 +1200, Your Name wrote:

transistion over to Apple Silico

*Why do you call it Apple silicon when it has _always_ been ARM silicon?*

It has never been ARM silicon, Liar; well, not since the A6.

Apple designs its own chips, Liar.

To be technically correct, you might call it an "Apple SOC".

Because that implies little about who designed it, or who
fabricated it.

It TSMC fabricates it, it's "TSMC silicon".

If the SOC is constructed from IP blocks purchased on the
open market, that doesn't say much, except that you had
buckets of money. An engineer at work was given such buckets
of money once, to prepare a chip that was almost engineering-free.
Just a bunch of blocks connected to some sort of Wishbone bus.
And he finished the design in around 30 days. Or so the
Powerpoint slide deck says.

Apple will use different design techniques per market
segment. The lower end equipment will use SOCs. The
Mac Pro highest end equipment will be closer to a
complete processor (like an Epyc or ThreadRipper
in terms of capability).

There is already a proxy for what Apple could build
out there, which I located in some random reading,
so they very well could make something impressive.
The part is fabricated by TSMC. It will need a
second chip specializing in I/O (a Southbridge or PCH design).
They could even purchase a PCH from Intel, as long as they could
license the DMI from Intel, as an example of a
collaboration. This would give Intel little in the
way of profits though. At the current time, Intel
is hungry to sell $1000 parts with decent margins.
It's not in a jellybean race with other companies.
Intel wants to be an "IBM" at the moment, in terms
of market mix.

Apple could purchase this server-grade chip right now,
and use its porting kit if it wanted to. The company
which designed the chip, makes two versions, and the
second one is in announcement phase, rather than shipping
immediately. But it's just a scaled version of the existing
one, so no technical challenges (no new cores). And, it
has a *lot* of cores. And that's why I consider it a
proxy for what Apple could do. What the advertising
material didn't dwell on, is clock rate versus
core utilization. It draws 250W, under some set of
conditions (that's their "bragging" number rather than
their "shipping" number). Being a server, it's unlikely to have
flavors of turbo built in. But it still might have
a power management system. They didn't dwell on those
sorts of details.

But at least in terms of "how big of a chip could TSMC
make for them", that chip gives some idea. 250W
being a good place to stop.

But because that companies CPU doesn't have "the Apple smell",
of course Apple couldn't use it. But it would allow a
relatively painless ship date.

Paul

On 2020-07-09 10:04 p.m., Paul wrote:
For a friend wrote:
On 2020-07-09 9:18 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 15:44:00 +1200, Your Name wrote:

transistion over to Apple Silico

*Why do you call it Apple silicon when it has _always_ been ARM
silicon?*

It has never been ARM silicon, Liar; well, not since the A6.

Apple designs its own chips, Liar.

To be technically correct, you might call it an "Apple SOC".

Because that implies little about who designed it, or who
fabricated it.

It TSMC fabricates it, it's "TSMC silicon".

Yup. The fact that Apple has no fab of its own is well known.


If the SOC is constructed from IP blocks purchased on the
open market, that doesn't say much, except that you had
buckets of money. An engineer at work was given such buckets
of money once, to prepare a chip that was almost engineering-free.
Just a bunch of blocks connected to some sort of Wishbone bus.
And he finished the design in around 30 days. Or so the
Powerpoint slide deck says.

Except literally no one is saying that Apple SOC is "constructed from IP
blocks purchased on the open market".