PDA

View Full Version : Apple's using wrong chip - Intel


iGav
Aug 6, 2003, 10:12 AM
Cheeky monkey....

Link junkies get your fix here...

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/main_news.cfm?NewsID=6696

Or full article below...

An Intel executive has criticized Apple's choice of chip, claiming the company "has made the wrong processor choices for "20 years".


Intel senior VP and chief technology officer Pat Gelsinger told the Edmonton Journal: "Steve Jobs has made the wrong CPU choice for 20 years. He just added a few more years to the life of his bad decisions. Steve's not an illogical guy, he's passionate and opinionated about the directions he wants. It's a poor path for the company as well as a poor path for the users".


Gelsinger added: "Our chips would help, Apple could find ways to open up more applications for themselves, a broader set of products."


He believes that Apple's tight control of both hardware and software suppresses innovation. Intel's business model, though, supports it.


Gelsinger did concede, however, that Apple has done a good job of turning itself around: "You can't discount all the things it's doing."


Looking at the future of technology, Gelsinger predicted mobile phones the size of a shirt button, tracking devices for objects and children and more. "We will build everything into silicon that allows us to touch and deliver technologies everywhere," he said.

MacManDan
Aug 6, 2003, 10:24 AM
There is a similar article on the same topic, discussed here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34209

Article here:

http://www.canada.com/technology/story.html?id=262551E7-13C4-47D2-8782-E933BC367BF6

It was originally from an interview with the Intel VP.

Powerbook G5
Aug 6, 2003, 11:21 AM
Wrong chip? You'd have to be a moron to drool over a Pentium 4 chip when you're sitting in front of your dual 2 GHz G5...

patrick0brien
Aug 6, 2003, 12:08 PM
-All

There it is from the Man himself - sour grapes.

They are about to get their asses handed to them, and they know it - so theyre FUD'ding as best they can now, while they have the window. And they know that even the P4 3.2 won't help them much either.

idea_hamster
Aug 6, 2003, 12:23 PM
Apple's business model "suppresses innovation". :rolleyes:

Can he really say that with a straight face? Man -- if my eyes roll any harder, they might just stick like that.

As they say, unless you're the lead dog on the sled, the view never changes. I think that someone at Intel is getting tired of his view of Steve Jobs' nether regions.

MorganX
Aug 6, 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by idea_hamster
Apple's business model "suppresses innovation". :rolleyes:



I'm sure ex-mac clone makers would agree. Would-be motherboard makers would too.... I think this is where he was going with that comment.

MorganX
Aug 6, 2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by patrick0brien
-All

There it is from the Man himself - sour grapes.

They are about to get their asses handed to them, and they know it - so theyre FUD'ding as best they can now, while they have the window. And they know that even the P4 3.2 won't help them much either.

I just had my first experience with a Centrino laptop. It spanks desktop P4s. I don't think Intel is about to get their butts handed to them by the G5 or anyone else. The will once again have meaningful competition at the high end though.

I also didn't think the comments were particularly negative. IMO, Microsoft should be more upset by the comments than Apple.

mymemory
Aug 6, 2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Wrong chip? You'd have to be a moron to drool over a Pentium 4 chip when you're sitting in front of your dual 2 GHz G5...

I have learned to never underestimate experience, you comment is the one expected but Apple is just turning in to IBM and lets see when happen then, it was a desperate solution to the performance problem. Apple was so desperate that we do not know what they are gonna do with the Powerbooks yet.

I do not know about Intel, I know Windows is lame but in a case of Apple using Intel chips (I see that not happening) that will reduce processor cost because they may be costing about %20 of a IBM chip and using OSX over Intel will hurt pretty bad Microsoft in that case if Apple gets similar or better performance.

Mav451
Aug 6, 2003, 01:38 PM
hehe why not use OSX on an AMD? All i hear is intel intel, but if AMD/IBM/Apple teamed together, that certainly would make things a bit more interesting against Chipzilla :)...

however--the G5 vs. Opteron/Athlon64 would be splitting up the hardware and with more diversified hardware comes a much broader range for allowing bugs/incompatibilities to be introduced.

Powerbook G5
Aug 6, 2003, 02:09 PM
How would Apple turn to AMD/Intel? It's not as easy as going from Motorola to IBM--Apple uses RISC processors and their products are designed to run on RISC instead of the CISC that AMD/Intel uses. They are not compatible, not to mention, dated compared to the chips that Apple is using. I just don't see how Intel could be saying that Apple's use of chips like the PPC 970 is a bad decision. It's an excellent processor to say the very least. It's definitely a whole lot better than I have seen come out of Intel...ever.

idea_hamster
Aug 6, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by MorganX
I'm sure ex-mac clone makers would agree. Would-be motherboard makers would too.... I think this is where he was going with that comment.
You may well be right -- honestly, the Mac licensing clone period is so far in the past I had forgotten about that failed experiment. But that was Apple's first shot at competing with the wintel market on their own turf -- their second being the dark days of the beige boxes. Neither of these put Apple's comparative advantage to work, which was its idea mill.

Apple abandoned the clone and drone business models and, beginning with the B&W P'Mac and iBook, returned to the business model of giving us what we didn't even realize we wanted.

Microsoft's business model is not one for longevity, but medium-term success. Intel likes to feed OS makers their chips and someday may feed Apple. But until then, of all the valid criticism that can be leveled at Jobs and Apple, I'm not sure that I buy "stiffles innovation". "Doesn't let any of us share the innovation spotlight"? Maybe a bit more accurate....

Tim Flynn
Aug 6, 2003, 03:03 PM
Wrong chip LOL ...

Lets look back twenty years ...
IBM used the wrong or technically inferior chip. The 68000 is better than an 8088.

But IBM corrected their ways ... :D

thebossisback
Aug 6, 2003, 03:23 PM
well what is he gonna say "apple made the right choice by buying chips from IBM instead of us (Intel)" ?

MrMacMan
Aug 6, 2003, 04:53 PM
Well since Apple went to Moto, apple has really blown chunks.

When the G4 was stuck for a year at the SAME MHZ you know something was wrong, and it was.

The G5 will set them straight... but I wouldn't have minded if they kicked it in gear.

patrick0brien
Aug 7, 2003, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by MrMacman
Well since Apple went to Moto, apple has really blown chunks.

-MrMacman

Well, not to be argumentative, but I feel your facts are a little off. Before the G5, Apple has been supplied with only one microprocessor by IBM - the 601. Everything else, from 6502 through the G4 was manufactured by Motorola.

And dont forget that the P4 only exceeded the performance of the G4 Autumn of 2001.

Mav451
Aug 7, 2003, 01:59 PM
i thought that the P4 only exceeded the G4 a little bit later. 2001 was the time of the Williamette--beaten by Intel's OWN pentium 3 chips.

It wasn't until the northwood in Jan 2002 that Intel really "took off" per say. Lower priced, lower speed athlons even beat the "1.8ghz pentium 4 (williamette)" that so many Apple enthusiasts associate with the mhz myth.

patrick0brien
Aug 7, 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Mav451
It wasn't until the northwood in Jan 2002 that Intel really "took off" per say. Lower priced, lower speed athlons even beat the "1.8ghz pentium 4 (williamette)" that so many Apple enthusiasts associate with the mhz myth.

-Mav451

Oops! You're right! I'd crossed demo date with release date.

Silly me. :D

themadchemist
Aug 15, 2003, 12:56 PM
They've been cursing themselves for twenty years for being stuck with that dead-weight x86 technology. That's from a technical perspective, but from a financial one, they've been cheering loudly and downing the bubbly.

They know that CISC is inferior, but they're stuck with it. They're bound inescapably to their decades old architecture, but because they are using it, it must be right.

Like someone else said: Sour grapes.

I say, rejoice, for IBM has breathed new vitality into the PowerPC architecture! RISC and AltiVec forever!

And having one manufacturer control everything means a tight system. It means that all the parts work together well. This isn't some pieced together, mish-mashed bargain bucket PC. It is a technical masterpiece, a work of art, where every instrument and element works in perfect harmony. That's part of the reason that Macs don't need to have as highly clocked a processor to beat their x86 counterparts.

These comments show that Intel's getting jealous.


Well, not to be argumentative, but I feel your facts are a little off. Before the G5, Apple has been supplied with only one microprocessor by IBM - the 601. Everything else, from 6502 through the G4 was manufactured by Motorola.

Just wanted to comment on this. IBM also supplied Apple with G3 processors.

Motorola has been with us for quite a while and done a lot of great things. But they made a lot of mistakes, too. Their era of making processors for Apple is coming to a close, and we should thank them for their part, which at times was superb. Now, though, we can look forward to a bright future where IBM takes center stage in the production of processors for Apple.