

Apple to the Core: Why Steve Jobs is buying PA Semiconductor - naish
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080425_004775.html

======
stcredzero
Another place where Cringely gets it wrong -- Instruction Set Architecture
(ISA) _does_ matter in terms of virtualization. He's getting virtualization
mixed up with emulation. Unless you can execute a lot of X86 commands
natively, you basically can't virtualize in the manner of VMWare. So a PowerPC
based chip will be only able to _emulate_ an X86 operating system in software
at a significant performance penalty -- unless you happen to re-implement a
lot of X86 in hardware.

Perhaps multi-platform multi core chips will become the norm? Who knows?
Probably not Cringely.

~~~
SirWart
He also talks a lot about x86 having disadvantages as a CISC that are just
wrong. He says:

"If there are instructions that will never be used, why spend the silicon real
estate to hard code them? CPUs optimized for OS X would be smaller, cheaper,
and use less power than any Intel or AMD alternative simply because they could
be simpler overall."

The problem with this statement is that PowerPC is a RISC architecture, and it
clearly was insufficient. Despite having tons of unnecessary instructions and
backwards compatibility issues, x86 has huge economies of scale which is why
very few people buy SPARC or PowerPC anymore. The core of an x86 is a RISC
processor anyways, and the complex instructions get translated into micro-
instructions for execution. The only way the x86 is going to be upset is from
embedded processors or from massively parallel, but it's definitely not going
to be from a processor "optimized for OS X", whatever that means.

~~~
boucher
"The problem with this statement is that PowerPC is a RISC architecture, and
it clearly was insufficient."

PowerPC's shortcomings had nothing to do with being a RISC processor. After
all, you said it yourself: x86 is really RISC at its core anyway.

The "economies of scale" argument has nothing to do with the technical merits
of the chip design, it has everything to do with the fact that every PC save
PPC Macs has used an x86 chip for decades.

Architecturally, x86 does have disadvantages. It's been designed over the
years to maintain backwards compatibility -- meaning it's still living with
mistakes that were made decades ago. There are a lot of reasons why its
unlikely that Apple will start manufacturing custom chips to run OS X, but
none of them are because x86 is a great chip design, or that it would be
impossible to design a custom chip that would run OS X well.

~~~
SirWart
The economies of scale comment was simply that back before the Pentium Pro,
most people thought that RISC was going to take over since it is such a better
system, but because Intel is able to sell so many chips it can afford to throw
extra engineers at the problem and add things like out of order execution to
the x86. Or rather there are much more important things than the ISA's
technical merit when considering what is the best chip to use. Plus I don't
think that Apple has a chance, or they will have anything to gain by making
its own chips for desktops and laptops.

The absurdity of "running OS X well is that OS X is not that special. If he
means "running everything better" than it makes sense, because these are
general purpose processors, and there is just a small set of instructions that
are basically the same for all architectures.

x86 is not the best ISA, but the Core 2 Duo is an excellent chip, and it's
hard to make a better chip no matter what ISA you are using.

------
dangoldin
The author gives 2 reasons for the acquisition:

1\. The short term reason is to force Intel to give Apple price cuts for fear
that Apple will make their own chips.

\- I do not think that Intel needs to worry about Apple manufacturing their
own PC chips as Apple already went through that phase and AMD already provides
the necessary pressure on Intel to lower their prices.

2\. In the future, software and OSes will not be tied down to a specific chip
so Apple will start manufacturing their own processors to increase their
margins.

\- I think the author is on to something regarding the future of processors
but I do not think the PC market will change that drastically. Apple will
probably start making their own chips for the iPhone and their new gadgets but
I doubt they will do the same for the PC market. Maybe at one point we will
see an Apple server.

~~~
soundsop
_Apple will probably start making their own chips for the iPhone and their new
gadgets but I doubt they will do the same for the PC market._

Agreed. I am an electrical engineer (circuit designer) and Intel is a monster
when it comes to fabricating processors (their fabs are super optimized for
processors alone, unlike generic fabs). I don't think Apple could do much
better costwise by designing and manufacturing their own processers rather
than buying Intel (even factoring in Intel's profits). This assumes that AMD
continues to exist as competition.

Everyone in the circuits industry is very interested in how Apple will use PA
Semi's processors.

------
patrickg-zill
First, ISA refers to a particular kind of hardware interface. I have never
heard ISA refer to the Wintel duopoly.

Second, there actually is a reason to stick with Intel when it comes to
fabbing - only Intel and a few other large players can deliver 45nm process.
As long as Intel has the lead on process technology their chips will almost
always be faster.

Multiple cores - maybe. DSP-like or 3D acceleration in hardware - more likely.

------
soundsop
It looks like someone who might actually have some insight into this purchase
doesn't understand it: <http://www.cnet.com/8301-13512_1-9928659-23.html>

~~~
wanorris
I also find it hard to believe that Apple wants to get into the microprocessor
business.

Of course, one of the biggest traditional problems with device manufacturers
owning a chip supplier is that losing out on other chip customers (who don't
want to buy from a competitor) means they lose economies of scale, and Apple
probably has enough economies of scale in the device market internally.

Well, I suppose we'll see what the plan is with time.

------
allenbrunson
like a lot of things cringely writes, this strikes me as kind of dubious. on
the other hand, i hope it's true.

the fact that apple machines used to have a totally different architecture
than PCs felt right, in a psychological way. it drew a clear line in the sand
between Us and Them. now that apple machines are pretty much the same under
the hood as PCs ... it's sad.

cringely's reasoning sounds specious, but i haven't heard anybody come up with
anything better to explain why apple needs a chip company.

~~~
soundsop
_the fact that apple machines used to have a totally different architecture
than PCs felt right, in a psychological way. it drew a clear line in the sand
between Us and Them. now that apple machines are pretty much the same under
the hood as PCs ... it's sad._

I'm a bit of an Apple fanboy myself, but I simply don't get this attitude. I
want the best processor in my machines. I admit that I have an emotional
attachment to my personal computers, but it somehow does not encompass the
brand of processor (or hard drive, graphics chip, etc.).

------
STHayden
I can't wait till multi cores actually makes a difference. I have way too many
of them already.

~~~
aswanson
I wonder if it would make sense to have a dedicated core to virtualize any
processor/os in order to speed up emulation. A dedicated hardware/software
translation engine.

------
LPTS
I think this talk about intel is crap. They wanted PA Semiconductor because
Dan Dobberpuhl and his team are incredibly brilliant at design and because he
has a strong interest in techniques to lower power.

You can read an interview with Dobberpuhl where his interest in low power
comes through here:
[http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=show...](http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=75)

He's all about low power. Making iPhones that have processors that work great
but low power in an essential step to the coming revolution, and will further
distance iPhone from it's competitors. Therefore, acquisition. Pressure on
Intel is not what this is about. This is much more visionary than that and has
to do with continuing to push what is possible with iPhone as far as it can
go.

------
shiranaihito
Another perspective: [http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/24/why-did-apple-
buy-p...](http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/24/why-did-apple-buy-pa-semi/)

