Linus Torvalds says ARM just doesn't look like beating Intel

[technix]

Stop comparing with Apple. Apple developers have by far the easiest job around when it comes to compatibility. They're all in one building deciding how their software runs on their hardware.
Linux has the added difficulty that there are hundreds of different platform variants around it should be compatible with. With many to come in the future.

Apple also does not compete in markets where performance of large applications matter; they only have to optimize at most for small applications.  In this respect, iOS and OSx are toy operating systems and this is reflected in Apple's retreat from servers and high end desktop and portable computers which I can hardly blame them for; most of their sales and profits comes from iOS anyway.

In OS X and in earlier versions of iOS, the size of a page is 4 kilobytes. In later versions of iOS, A7- and A8-based systems expose 16-kilobyte pages to the 64-bit userspace backed by 4-kilobyte physical pages, while A9 systems expose 16-kilobyte pages backed by 16-kilobyte physical pages.

https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Performance/Conceptual/ManagingMemory/Articles/AboutMemory.html

That will make for great fun porting OSx and OSx applications to A9 or later.  Now I question if Apple does have OSx running on A9 or later hardware.

The page size problem is not insurmountable but it is problematical enough for performance and memory requirements to place a premium on not increasing it.  It would look bad if the same large application was either an order of magnitude or more slower or took several times as much memory (and was still slower) on ARM than on x86.

Since they figured out how to back 16kB pages with 4kB hardware pages, there is no reason to doubt if they would port the same memory management system to macOS along with the same 16kB-optimized libraries. As I have said before, all Apple's operating system brands share the same codebase, and they would bother leaving out globally-applicable optimizations even though introduced in a different platform.

[tooki]

Indeed. In a way, Apple just sells software, which happens to require a laptop or phone shaped dongle!

Maybe not... Ever heard of Unibeast?

See that smiley I used in my comment? It matters. You completely missed the point…

It is just too sad that Apple don't have a passable AMD graphics driver. Before I upgraded the graphics to R9 380 on my workstation (had a GTX 650 Ti) I was running OS X on it too.

Not passable? Meaning what? Apple's graphics drivers are rock-solid (Steam reported that Mac users had only 5% as many crashes as Windows), and support pro 3D apps without special, expensive "pro" drivers like on Windows. I run an AMD HD 7970 (same as R9 280x) on my Mac Pro now, and it's not even flashed with Mac firmware.

Stop comparing with Apple. Apple developers have by far the easiest job around when it comes to compatibility. They're all in one building deciding how their software runs on their hardware.
Linux has the added difficulty that there are hundreds of different platform variants around it should be compatible with. With many to come in the future.

Apple also does not compete in markets where performance of large applications matter; they only have to optimize at most for small applications.  In this respect, iOS and OSx are toy operating systems and this is reflected in Apple's retreat from servers and high end desktop and portable computers which I can hardly blame them for; most of their sales and profits comes from iOS anyway.

Define "large". Apple doesn't do classic DB and server stuff, but their pro media apps certainly are "large" by most definitions. Designing software to manage thousands of photos without lagging is not easy. Designing software to edit video without rendering is not easy (Apple accomplished that years before everyone else). No, Apple doesn't focus on the server. They focus on UI performance, which is a very different skill set, and one which others mostly struggle with.

[David Hess]

Apple also does not compete in markets where performance of large applications matter; they only have to optimize at most for small applications.  In this respect, iOS and OSx are toy operating systems and this is reflected in Apple's retreat from servers and high end desktop and portable computers which I can hardly blame them for; most of their sales and profits comes from iOS anyway.

Define "large". Apple doesn't do classic DB and server stuff, but their pro media apps certainly are "large" by most definitions. Designing software to manage thousands of photos without lagging is not easy. Designing software to edit video without rendering is not easy (Apple accomplished that years before everyone else). No, Apple doesn't focus on the server. They focus on UI performance, which is a very different skill set, and one which others mostly struggle with.

These include applications which demand a lot of the virtual memory system.  Compiling large applications is a good example.

[technix]

It is just too sad that Apple don't have a passable AMD graphics driver. Before I upgraded the graphics to R9 380 on my workstation (had a GTX 650 Ti) I was running OS X on it too.

Not passable? Meaning what? Apple's graphics drivers are rock-solid (Steam reported that Mac users had only 5% as many crashes as Windows), and support pro 3D apps without special, expensive "pro" drivers like on Windows. I run an AMD HD 7970 (same as R9 280x) on my Mac Pro now, and it's not even flashed with Mac firmware.

You are using a GCN 1.1 card. When talking about GCN 1.2 it is a whole another story. Check the forums and you will find out, or try put a R9 380 onto your system and boot it. For nVidia card you are almost always guaranteed to boot for at least once, and this gives you time to install the vendor-provided driver package.