For companies like Apple/Dell/HP there is no reason to move to AMD. These large companies have huge rebates from Intel in the 50% range. That's why we home builders CANT build cheaper using the exact same parts. intel also pays 300-400 million dollars each year in "design fees" to OEMs. AMD does not play that games today.
AMD have been able to land major OEM deals for years, but primarily for low-end GPUs. If they want major OEM deals for CPUs they need one thing; volume. AMD can't even keep the "tiny" market of custom builders fed, so they need a lot more production capacity to grow in the OEM market, which is something I would welcome.
If you like fast CPUs/innovation. Let's hope Apple instead finally announces ARM Macs / and or RISC V stuff.
ARM is not nearly performant enough for anything but low performance computing devices (like phones). RISC V is a "toy project", it has no chance to become competitive with x86 performance wise, even in 10 years. RISC V doesn't even have modern instructions like conditional moves, so performance will be terrible. And like ARM, it will go the custom route (even further in fact), and will require special firmware in the OS just to run.
The reason why Apple also killed 32bit apps are for ARM/RISC V migration. X86 uses 64bit extensions. Not real/optimized 64bit. Intel/AMD cant remove the 32bit ISA in the CPU without breaking their CPUs. Apple removed the 32bit ISA 3+ years ago on their ARM stuff.
This is pure BS. x86-64("AMD64") was redesigned as a fully 64-bit ISA with registers and everything.
Instead, they could put on 2 more cores. X86 needs to die. Its 50 years old and people think it's normal that CPUs cost 300+ dollars + motherboard tax 100 dollars.
Yet again you demonstrate that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.
x86 will not be killed off until we have something
better, and we don't have that yet. The whole RISC vs. CISC argument was pretty much defeated back in the early 90s when x86 designs moved to micro-operations, achieving the best of RISC and CISC in one. All current x86 microarchitectures use their own custom internal instruction set, so this claim that they use a 50 year old instruction set is just plainly wrong.
Strange, I thought Apple was moving away from x86 to Arm...
ARM is not going to come close to x86 performance wise. ARM does by design use more instructions to do the same basic work, and most of the x86 ISA improvements since the early 90s involves instructions which does more work, and if ARM is ever going to compete with this it needs to become CISC. The future advancements for x86 involves even more advanced instructions; including for "threadlets" and more SIMD. The original arguments in RISC vs. CISC wasn't really about x86 vs. ARM, but the old specialized mainframe instruction sets used in the 70s. The argument back then was that you could make a simpler CPU and just run it at higher clocks to achieve the same performance, while costing much less die space. But this was not really relevant for comparison with x86, this was targeting those intricate mainframe CPU architectures of the time. Today we all know that clock speed scaling will be limited by the power wall regardless of instruction set, so most of the "advantages" of RISC is already gone. Right now the only major advantage that remains is for low-power devices which don't really need performance.
All current ARM-based CPUs rely heavily on specialized hardware accelerated features to do any real work, much more than x86 CPUs, otherwise your phone, your tablet, your blu-ray player and your "smart-TV" wouldn't stand a chance to do their intended work. When it comes to general purpose high-performance workloads, ARM doesn't stand a chance vs. x86, which is why we don't see it in "high performance" laptops and desktops. So to answer your question; Apple will not move to ARM until they decide to kill off their "real" computers, which may happen eventually considering how they keep undermining their own products for professionals/prosumers.
www.guru3d.com
.
