Apple uses the ARM ISA, which everybody can license, with their own implementation. What should they be forced to open? Something about the GPU? I doubt anything about Apple is really bleeding edge. It's the vertical hardware-software integration which makes wonders.
If AMD (which already owns a good GPU architecture) chose to make an OS, it could get the same performance.
The ISA is open but the chip is custom and very different from any of the standard designs ARM Holdings has (or anybody else for that matter). Not exactly an "architecture" to open like OP said but just pointing out the CPU isn't some standard design with nothing to open up simply because it licenses the ARM ISA. That's like saying your book is off the shelf because it used an English dictionary for the words.
The vertical software integration creates many small wins that aren't insignificant overall but it's not why they are nearly 2x ahead of Qualcomm using the same ISA at the same power level in 3rd party userspace computation only benchmarks. There isn't any vertical integration in those, the raw performance is just better.
For another take on this Chrome vs Safari benchmarks put Chrome at ~90% the speed in web benchmarks and this is Chrome's 1st stable release of an M1 native version. At the same that's 45% faster than Chrome on my AMD 3950X. I remember when Apple added the Javascript rounding instruction to their chips people speculated that's why Safari was now so fast, turns out a Safari dev chimed it they hadn't started making use of it yet the new chips were just faster than before.
> just pointing out the CPU isn't some standard design with nothing to open up simply because it licenses the ARM ISA
The implementation is not an ARM reference design; but it's Apple's own implementation. Why should they be forced to open it up? How are they limiting their competitors?
> they are nearly 2x ahead of Qualcomm using the same ISA at the same power level in 3rd party userspace computation only benchmarks
I'm not sure whether you're speaking about M1 or A14 here. A14 is just a bit faster than other mobile SOCs, certainly not 2x.
If you're speaking about M1... well, what are you comparing it against from Qualcomm? Do they have a similar product, with a similar target and power envelope? The recently announced Snapdragon 8cx Gen 2 from Qualcomm is around 6-7W TDP, which is 50% that of M1.
> There isn't any vertical integration in those, the raw performance is just better.
I'm unconvinced. We need to consider the 5nm production process, the everything-on-soc approach, and the fact that Intel is selling more-or-less the same CPUs as 5 years ago. The Ryzen 7 4800U is quite close to the M1 both performance wise and TDP wise. Now, take a 4800U, make it 5nm, build a SoC with it which includes the memory and build a finely tuned OS - aka "vertical integration". Would you really think you could appreciate a performance or thermal difference?
Not original commenter that proposed it but I could see a case for splitting Apple separate hardware and software companies (among other possible divisions). Complete vertical integration where you're the only option for the hardware, software, app payment, account, browser, and so on is certainly creating a captive market segment which has only been growing in total size. How you think this should or shouldn't be broken up wasn't what I was really talking about though, just that the CPU IP itself is significant Apple specific IP that _could_ be broken off - definitely more than just licensed ARM ISA with a GPU attached. E.g. I imagine if Microsoft could simply purchase the M1 instead of the SQ2 (not-as-customized variant of the 8cx gen 2) in it's Pro line it would but the only reason that's not possible is Apple the software company wants to sell you macOS and their app store cuts and so on.
I was referring to the M1 at hand but actually the A14 is arguably in the 2x range as well, certainly not "barely ahead" as much as I love my Android with a Snapdragon. Qualcomm has been in this "ARM laptop" space for lack of a better term with things like the 8cx and now 8cx gen 2. While these Qualcomm laptop devices aren't completely blown out in multi-core (though it is a significant loss) Qualcomm's single thread performance isn't really that much better than the mobile chips it's based of off. Which to be honest is also true of the M1, it's not ridiculously better than the A14 by any means... the A14 just already trounced the 8cx even though it's for a lower segment. Hell I'd rather have an A11 from 2017 in my brand new Android phone.
I'm not really going to speculate with you on "what ifs" when we have the actual quantitative data from 3rd party benchmarks saying general purpose code ported by 3rd parties has nearly the same performance uplift as Apple got with its own software. Actual data tells more story than I could ever spin from personal theory.
As for the future Zen 4 going to the same TSMC 5nm process isn't going to close the wattage gap by any means but we'll have to see if AMD can make larger overall gains in single thread performance. Apples challenge with the M1X/M2 is going to be "does is scale to more cores" to compete with the likes of the *950X or Threadrippers as they move towards workstation hardware but that's a more tried and true challenge than trying to get x86 cores to run faster on less power. I don't want to count AMD out and I'm actually typing this from a 3900X with a 5950X on order but I can tell you right now it's noticeably faster to e.g. browse the web on my Fiancee's A14 Ipad than my liquid cooled 3900X with a 3090 and as Chrome has shown that's not because of magical software integrations because it's all got the same company name attached it's because the CPUs run the workload better.
(Disclaimer: maybe I haven't fully understood what you meant, I'm assuming you're claiming Apple ought to be split up somehow and/or limited in its advantages)
> Hell I'd rather have an A11 from 2017 in my brand new Android phone.
Beaucse of it single-thread performance, I suppose?
> Complete vertical integration [...] is certainly creating a captive market segment which has only been growing in total size
I can't say I agree with the captive market argument. The problem with Apple is that a) it sells a lot and b) its product are probably the best ones.
But we can't say there's no alternative to Apple products - there are a lot. They're just not as good as Apple's.
Tesla is the best electric car. Is anybody thinking about splitting it up and claiming they're anti-competition? Some few luxury car brands (BMW, Mercedes, Audi) command an awful lot of the high-end car market, and offer some features that cheap cars don't have (e.g. Mercedes PRE-SAFE). Should they be split up?
A monopoly is something different. We wouldn't blame Rolls Royce for making the "best cars" at the highest price level.
Of course, if Apple sold their phones for $50 and their M1 laptops for $300, there could be a case for pushing other solutions out of the market. But this is NOT going to happen; the cheapest Apple phone on the market (iPhone SE) is 2x the price of a decent midrange Android phone, and the cheapest Apple M1 laptop (MB Air) is 2x/2.5x a cheap windows/linux option.
It's also unlikely because unlike Intel, Apple doesn't sell their chips to other companies and thus can't illegally deal or try to maintain monopoly power over those companies.
I think it would be better if the chips can be in-house only, but hackitoshes and hackiniphones have to be legal. The OS/userland interfaces are incalculably wider so those are the more important ones to disembargo to encourage competition.
I know I would be much happier buying Apple hardware to run free software if I didn't feel like I was feeding the walled garden (because Samsung-made hackiniphones don't pay 30% to apple).
The only ARM IP Apple actually used was the ISA. The architecture in the M1 -- and all the A chips -- is 100% custom.
No other gadget maker has the internal engineering chops to do what Apple has done. And it'll be a few years before ARM releases a chip architecture that comes within spitting distance of the M1's performance -- by which time Apple will have released an even more powerful chip.
If AMD (which already owns a good GPU architecture) chose to make an OS, it could get the same performance.