https://www.anandtech.com/show/15165/arm-serv … n-a-workstation

Errius wrote on 2020-04-25, 15:03:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15165/arm-serv … n-a-workstation

Ohhh.... They are sweet machines. And they run Linux too. Switching to an ARM workstation, running Linux is very much apealing to me. As long as I can avoid cloud computing.

EDIT....
From 2018, still want this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buIE0tA_IyM

Looks like Apple will announce NEW processors at WWDC 2020 in two weeks.

brostenen wrote on 2020-04-24, 10:54:

If they move to ARM and stuff works, who freaking cares.
Especially Apple users/fanboys, as most of them only care for what is on the screen and what name it has.

Now quit complaining, unless it does not work.

let them switch, why not ?
their system is anyway not compatible from version to version.
Each upgrade breaks something.

I'm not a long time user of Apple products. I had iBook G4 from 2003-2006, MacBook Pro from 2006-2009, and a Hackintosh from 2010 to present. So, I kind of missed out on some of their classic systems like the Apple ][, 68k and PPC macs. But, from my limited experience I feel that switching to Intel made their desktop PCs somewhat less interesting. Plus it was then easier to make direct hardware comparisons and see how badly you were being milked. I hope ARM brings something new to the table, but I think it might be too late if they were hoping to bring consumers back into the fold. A lot of normies now solely use their phones to conduct their business. Desktop PCs as a whole seem to be on the decline. Even traditional laptops don't seem all that common anymore.

Color me interested in the 2nd or third generation 😉

matze79 wrote on 2020-06-17, 07:07:

let them switch, why not ? their system is anyway not compatible from version to version. Each upgrade breaks something. […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote on 2020-04-24, 10:54:

If they move to ARM and stuff works, who freaking cares.
Especially Apple users/fanboys, as most of them only care for what is on the screen and what name it has.

Now quit complaining, unless it does not work.

let them switch, why not ?
their system is anyway not compatible from version to version.
Each upgrade breaks something.

Exactly. If anyone know the pain of switching, it must be Apple people. And they do not really complain, after a year or so. I remember when they switched from m68k to PPC and then again when they switched from PPC to x86. Apple always provided some kind of software layer, to combat incompatibility to a certain degree. Because of that, Apple might be the number one experts on hardware architecture switch. The thing is. People who complain the most, are in reality non-apple centrists (Windows users and so on), that are not really planning to use Apple products anyway. Rosetta Stone layer, did work well enough, for developers to have time to eigter recompile their code or write the next version to a new architecture.

If it can be done on ARM in the future, then we will see colder running hardware and power saving in the end. That is way better for the earth.

EDIT:
Perhaps it would be wise for Apple, to offer both x86 and ARM versions of the newest incarnation of their products, for a short period of time. Like two versions of the same MacBook and so forth. And on the same time, they have a software compatibility layer like Rosetta Stone, for people who need to run older software for a short period of time, before they have enough money for a new version. That way Apple will give people more time to switch.

The iPad Pro cpu A12 is pretty powerful . Faster than an intel quad core i5.

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:37:

matze79 wrote on 2020-06-17, 07:07:

let them switch, why not ? their system is anyway not compatible from version to version. Each upgrade breaks something. […]
Show full quote

brostenen wrote on 2020-04-24, 10:54:

If they move to ARM and stuff works, who freaking cares.
Especially Apple users/fanboys, as most of them only care for what is on the screen and what name it has.

Now quit complaining, unless it does not work.

let them switch, why not ?
their system is anyway not compatible from version to version.
Each upgrade breaks something.

Exactly. If anyone know the pain of switching, it must be Apple people. And they do not really complain, after a year or so. I remember when they switched from m68k to PPC and then again when they switched from PPC to x86. Apple always provided some kind of software layer, to combat incompatibility to a certain degree. Because of that, Apple might be the number one experts on hardware architecture switch. The thing is. People who complain the most, are in reality non-apple centrists (Windows users and so on), that are not really planning to use Apple products anyway. Rosetta Stone layer, did work well enough, for developers to have time to eigter recompile their code or write the next version to a new architecture.

If it can be done on ARM in the future, then we will see colder running hardware and power saving in the end. That is way better for the earth.

I am not a fan of Apple in general, but moving to ARM would make sense for them and likely their users. Maybe we'll stop hearing about overheating/throttling high-end MACs . The environmental aspect is a significant one as well, not to mention the cost of electricity.

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:46:

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:37:

matze79 wrote on 2020-06-17, 07:07:

let them switch, why not ?
their system is anyway not compatible from version to version.
Each upgrade breaks something.

Exactly. If anyone know the pain of switching, it must be Apple people. And they do not really complain, after a year or so. I remember when they switched from m68k to PPC and then again when they switched from PPC to x86. Apple always provided some kind of software layer, to combat incompatibility to a certain degree. Because of that, Apple might be the number one experts on hardware architecture switch. The thing is. People who complain the most, are in reality non-apple centrists (Windows users and so on), that are not really planning to use Apple products anyway. Rosetta Stone layer, did work well enough, for developers to have time to eigter recompile their code or write the next version to a new architecture.

If it can be done on ARM in the future, then we will see colder running hardware and power saving in the end. That is way better for the earth.

I am not a fan of Apple in general, but moving to ARM would make sense for them and likely their users. Maybe we'll stop hearing about overheating/throttling high-end MACs . The environmental aspect is a significant one as well, not to mention the cost of electricity.

Yeah... Who does not remember first gen Socket-775 Pentium4's? The box/stock cooler that Intel provided in the box, was horrible. They added a copper core later on, however the first 6 to 12 months is a painfull memory. On that, I feel sad for Apple users. Something at a premium price, that you makes a noisy work environment. Dang. 🙁

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:46:

Maybe we'll stop hearing about overheating/throttling high-end MACs . The environmental aspect is a significant one as well, not to mention the cost of electricity.

Honestly, it's not Apple's problem, it's Intel's problem. Something like a mobile Core i5 has the nominal TDP of 15 W but it will consume and dissipate 50+ W when in all-core turbo. If you go to r/ThinkPad, you will see a lot of whining about overheating/throttling etc simply because it's impossible to effectively dissipate 50+ W in a laptop which is just 14mm thick.

Am I the only one who hates the turbo boost/core "feature"? It just seems like a convenient way for AMD and Intel to obscure the true thermal characteristics of their crappy CPUs.
Sometimes I feel like my systems are going to burst into flames if they run turbo mode too long.

Anonymous Coward wrote on 2020-06-17, 14:01:

Am I the only one who hates the turbo boost/core "feature"? It just seems like a convenient way for AMD and Intel to obscure the true thermal characteristics of their crappy CPUs.
Sometimes I feel like my systems are going to burst into flames if they run turbo mode too long.

After 40 odd years of continuous evolution, cracks are really starting to show in x86's armor . Backward compatibility is generally a good thing, but maybe it has helped to create a monster this time .

I wonder how much overhead is due to this compatibility requirement .

Anonymous Coward wrote on 2020-06-17, 14:01:

Am I the only one who hates the turbo boost/core "feature"? It just seems like a convenient way for AMD and Intel to obscure the true thermal characteristics of their crappy CPUs.
Sometimes I feel like my systems are going to burst into flames if they run turbo mode too long.

Unless I am compiling stuff, I keep Turbo Boost permanently disabled on my computers.

darry wrote on 2020-06-17, 15:03:

Anonymous Coward wrote on 2020-06-17, 14:01:

Am I the only one who hates the turbo boost/core "feature"? It just seems like a convenient way for AMD and Intel to obscure the true thermal characteristics of their crappy CPUs.
Sometimes I feel like my systems are going to burst into flames if they run turbo mode too long.

After 40 odd years of continuous evolution, cracks are really starting to show in x86's armor . Backward compatibility is generally a good thing, but maybe it has helped to create a monster this time .

I wonder how much overhead is due to this compatibility requirement .

It's astonishing, though, that it has lasted that long. I consider x86 a long time experiment.
In some way or another, it's a bit akin to technology's counterpart to evolution of mankind.

Ironically, x86 has lived so long because it never gave up on its roots (never denied its heritage).
Some wise man said, that you need to know your past in order to find your destiny/find your future..

If that's true, then x86 is on a good way. ARM on the other hand, while ancient too, never held true to its principles in the same way.
Current generations are just as messy, and proprietary, too.

RISC-V or another open architecture would make more sense, I think.
There's a reason Raspberry Pi people consider at least supporting at some point.
https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1412361

By the way, the core x86 instruction set (i386) is very simple and should not take up much silicon in modern x86 CPUs.
It was implemented in an "emulation" type of form multiple times, also. Transmeta Crusoe, Nexgen NX586, Intel Itanium..

brownk wrote on 2020-04-24, 10:31:

Btw, when I switched back to linux, the first things that hit me were how fucking gorgeous and unbinding its console was, and how equally flimsy its GUI system still was. Oh, God...

That's what I noticed when I first started using Linux for work. Simple features in the GUI are very flimsy, lacking features that were present two decades ago in Windows 3.x. The goddamn mouse driver with precision and "is this button pressed or not?" issues is my pet peeve; it really sucks - and whoever thought that a mouse driver should only have adjustable acceleration and not adjustable speed should be shot... (and don't get me started about the "If you don't like it, you can change it because it's Open Source"-bullshit - as a regular user I should not need to be a developer to get basic features in an OS right).

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-17, 08:37:

Exactly. If anyone know the pain of switching, it must be Apple people. And they do not really complain, after a year or so. I remember when they switched from m68k to PPC and then again when they switched from PPC to x86. Apple always provided some kind of software layer, to combat incompatibility to a certain degree.

Yeah, but where the compatibility layer for 68k lasted 15 years (the last PPC Macs can still run software from 1990 in Mac OS X via Classic), the compatibility layers for PPC Macs lasted only through OS X 10.5's subversions.

And given that modern Macs unfortunately have become the stereotype of Macs in the PPC era (overly expensive with too much focus on design and too few features, bad support - which was untrue in the PPC era, but unfortunately not now), I completely expect Apple to simply slam the door to users of Intel Macs rather quickly.

Wasn't overheating the reason Apple originally switched away from PPC? History would be repeating.

PPC compatibility was available for 10.6, too.
So Apple supported it from 2006-2011. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(software)
and from what the rumors tell us, Apple won't switch this year. This year only a MacBook "will" arrive with ARM (but rumors, we will know more soon).

Errius wrote on 2020-06-18, 20:54:

Wasn't overheating the reason Apple originally switched away from PPC? History would be repeating.

One way to put it. The PPC was at it's highest clock frequency, performance/speed/heat-wise. It did not deliver enough, when going faster, compared to x86.

brostenen wrote on 2020-06-18, 21:19:

Errius wrote on 2020-06-18, 20:54:

Wasn't overheating the reason Apple originally switched away from PPC? History would be repeating.

One way to put it. The PPC was at it's highest clock frequency, performance/speed/heat-wise. It did not deliver enough, when going faster, compared to x86.

PPC from that era also seems to just run hot no matter what you do. Even the Slim versions of the PS3/360 end up in the upper 60s if not lower 70s regularly.