Apple and IBM's PowerPC Potential

MacRumors · Jun 30, 2005, 01:02 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif

eWeek is reporting that IBM denies that Apple's PowerPC power-consumption concerns were valid:

Quote:

[IBM] could build PowerPC chips that satisfy the needs of the entire range of Apple's product lines, including portables such as the PowerBook, said Rod Adkins, vice president of development for IBM's Systems and Technology Group, which produces IBM's PowerPC chips.

Actual delivery/availability to Apple, however, may have been limited due to IBM and Apple's current relationship and manufacturing capability. There is also some speculation amongst analysts that perhaps Jobs was given non-public information about Intel's roadmap which may have swayed his decision. Such thoughts remain purely speculative, however.

IBM will be providing future PowerPCs for upcoming PowerMacs, however, as Jobs had indicated.

Quote:

"We still have a number of products we're [IBM] doing with them [Apple]," Adkins, who declined to elaborate on the exact ones

The PowerPC 970MP has been widely discussed as a potential processor to be used in upcoming PowerMacs.

Fabio_gsilva · 01:21 PM

If it's true, why the heck they didn't it??? It's impossible that Apple did not asked for this best processor, and they must be deaf, dumb and blind if they did not see it through out the mac world...

Ridiculous...

Fábio.

neverfade · Jun 30, 2005, 01:08 PM

It seems that IBM wants Apple back?

I don't know - I thought that they didn't have time for Apple and put all their efforts into gaming consoles.

I say that the 3ghz machine still isn't here. Let's see what Intel can do. Intel seems very very happy to be with Apple on this frontier.

Lacero · Jun 30, 2005, 01:09 PM

I hate IBM and I hate their idiotic PowerPC chips. Long live Intel!!!

FoxyKaye · Jun 30, 2005, 01:12 PM

This sounds like a PR move from the company that basically just confessed that Apple's Intel switch had them completely blindsided. Like a little, "hey, we're still cool, we can still hang with the cool kids," for the rest of the world that's using IBM PPC chip variations in their stuff.

iGary · Jun 30, 2005, 01:14 PM

Let me look on my 3.0 GHz G5 and check that out....

Freg3000 · Jun 30, 2005, 01:15 PM

Prediction:

Fall Revision of Power Macs using the 970 MP.
About 10 months later at WWDC 2006, a small speed bump.
Another 10-12 months later, possibly at WWDC 2007, the first Intel based Power Macs.

Power Macs will be the last line to convert to Intel, maybe second only to the xServe.

Dr. Dastardly · Jun 30, 2005, 01:17 PM

Well Intel musta showed Steve somethng that got him all hot and bothered to warrant a transition to a new cpu architecture. And if IBM is saying that they could deliver on what Jobs wanted then why didnt they? They screwed up and they knew it. They must be blind if they didn't see there was a problem. I'm sure Steve let them know plenty of times that he wasn't happy.

Switzermac · Jun 30, 2005, 01:18 PM

IBM is still trying to win apple back, what losers

MacTruck · Jun 30, 2005, 01:19 PM

I had a nightmare that Apple switched to intel a few nights ago. Then I woke up an thats when the real horror started, I realized its true.

IBM get off your buts and give us lower power G5 chips in dual core already. Apple please stop this intel nonsense.

shompa · Jun 30, 2005, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iGary

Let me look on my 3.0 GHz G5 and check that out....

+ dual core.

Then I upgrade my dual 2ghz G5.

Porchland · Jun 30, 2005, 01:24 PM

If Rosetta is what Apple says it is, couldn't Apple theoretically use both PPC and x86s on different lines of machines (say, PowerBooks and PowerMacs) without running into software problems?

Certainly, Apple is full steam ahead with Intel, but -- if Rosetta is pretty efficient -- it would still be possible to see PPCs in some devices down the road.

Freg3000 · Jun 30, 2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir

Really

I could have predicted quad 4GHz machines coming next Tuesday and I would have really gotten

.

While certainly not outlandish, not everyone thinks that Power Macs will be last to go Intel. I do.

shompa · Jun 30, 2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTruck

I had a nightmare that Apple switched to intel a few nights ago. Then I woke up an thats when the real horror started, I realized its true.

IBM get off your buts and give us lower power G5 chips in dual core already. Apple please stop this intel nonsense.

At least Apple should continue with Power PC for the pro range.
Since they have dual binaries in the software, why not have a dual hardware lineup?

Powermac and Powerbook = PPC (as long its faster then Intel, and it STILL is faster today)

Imac/MacMini/Ibook can play with slow cellerons or other X86 playware.

Yebot · Jun 30, 2005, 01:30 PM

This eWeek article gives more credence to the idea that Apple -> Intel is a direct attack on Microsoft.

MongoTheGeek · Jun 30, 2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shompa

At least Apple should continue with Power PC for the pro range.
Since they have dual binaries in the software, why not have a dual hardware lineup?

Powermac and Powerbook = PPC (as long its faster then Intel, and it STILL is faster today)

Imac/MacMini/Ibook can play with slow cellerons or other X86 playware.

There would be issues with developers not doing stuff for both. They would need to spend a lot of effort to get Rosetta to work both ways.

Steve is pissed at IBM. 2 WWDCs without the promised 3GHz machines makes him and the promise look *REALLY* bad. IBM will have to pull 3.5GHz DC processors out with the same power characteristics as the current chips and some G5's that run at 2.5 or so GHz (I'll give you 1.75 dual core) that are powerbook suitable for Steve to even think of going back. That and some price guarantees.

sinisterdesign · Jun 30, 2005, 01:34 PM

"IBM could build PowerPC chips that satisfy the needs of the entire range of Apple's product lines....we're just not going to."

yeah, maybe they just didn't KNOW we were waiting on a PowerBook G5. we should have written a post about it or something...

shompa · Jun 30, 2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freg3000

Prediction:

Fall Revision of Power Macs using the 970 MP.
About 10 months later at WWDC 2006, a small speed bump.
Another 10-12 months later, possibly at WWDC 2007, the first Intel based Power Macs.

Power Macs will be the last line to convert to Intel, maybe second only to the xServe.

the problem is that Intel is slower.
The chips we are talking about from Intel is dual core 2.13ghz Yonath (sp) Pentium M.

A dual core G5 will beat them.

I don't know how fast the G5 MPs are. But they should be arround 3 ghz. That is quite faster than Intels 2.13ghz. (yeah, I know. Clockspeed isnt all, but everyone knowes that PPC are as fast or faster than X86 per clock cykle)

OryHara · Jun 30, 2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lacero

I hate IBM and I hate their idiotic PowerPC chips. Long live Intel!!!

how dose that contribute to the conversation?

ham_man · Jun 30, 2005, 01:38 PM

Would surprise me if IBM did not have something in the works. Sure they aren't the fastest company, but evolution is still there. ALso, it would not surprise me if Intel let Steve know of something major in their line - the nail in the coffin for him to switch. But what does it matter? What is done is done...

Ja Di ksw · Jun 30, 2005, 01:38 PM

If Apple is going to be using only Intel in a couple years, and Rosetta only goes from PPC to Intel, not Intel to PPC, why would anyone buy a PPC Mac now unless they absolutely HAD to, or they normally upgrade their Mac every couple of years? No one is going to be making new programs for PPC in a couple years. So why still put out PPC Mac's? Obviously they can't go 2 years without any new Mac's, who is going to buy those?

B_Gates · Jun 30, 2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shompa

At least Apple should continue with Power PC for the pro range.
Since they have dual binaries in the software, why not have a dual hardware lineup?

Powermac and Powerbook = PPC (as long its faster then Intel, and it STILL is faster today)

Imac/MacMini/Ibook can play with slow cellerons or other X86 playware.

Won't happen. Intel processors will be cheaper & faster, or the perception will be that they're are faster.

sinisterdesign · Jun 30, 2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MongoTheGeek

... IBM will have to pull 3.5GHz DC processors out ... for Steve to even think of going back. That and some price guarantees.

oh, there's no going back now. you can't drop a bomb like that on your entire developer & customer base and then say "psyche" just b/c IBM does something cool.

make no mistake, we're moving to Intel.

dernhelm · Jun 30, 2005, 01:41 PM

So what does IBM expect us to believe actually happenned? That SJ's decision to switch was based wholy on his embarassment at not delivering 3GHz? Come on, the man has an ego, but not that big of one. Apple made a business decision based on the availability of processors with particular interesting characteristics. Besides, what IBM believes they could pull off and what they have pulled off are two different things. Intel has real product in the pipeline that Apple could use TODAY - and they have the production capacity to keep up with Apple demand. Something neither IBM nor Moto can say.

pdpfilms · Jun 30, 2005, 01:43 PM

Looks to me like a futile effort of IBM to not look like the suckers in the event... an attempt to hold their name for the future market.

Jun 30, 2005, 01:07 PM	#2
Fabio_gsilva macrumors 6502 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: São Paulo - Brasil	If it's true, why the heck they didn't it??? It's impossible that Apple did not asked for this best processor, and they must be deaf, dumb and blind if they did not see it through out the mac world... Ridiculous... Fábio. __________________ "MacBook Pro, 2.16, coreduo" Last edited by Fabio_gsilva : Jun 30, 2005 at 01:21 PM.

Jun 30, 2005, 01:08 PM	#3
neverfade macrumors newbie Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Mpls, MN	It seems It seems that IBM wants Apple back? I don't know - I thought that they didn't have time for Apple and put all their efforts into gaming consoles. I say that the 3ghz machine still isn't here. Let's see what Intel can do. Intel seems very very happy to be with Apple on this frontier. __________________ A Mac, is there another?

Jun 30, 2005, 01:12 PM	#5
FoxyKaye macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Oakland, Terre d'Ange, Bas Lag	This sounds like a PR move from the company that basically just confessed that Apple's Intel switch had them completely blindsided. Like a little, "hey, we're still cool, we can still hang with the cool kids," for the rest of the world that's using IBM PPC chip variations in their stuff. __________________ G5/2GHz iMac \| G3/600MHz iBook \| iPod 5G, 60GB \| 8GB CF modPod Mini The afternoon, born on the day of the sunlight streaming through the leaves.

Jun 30, 2005, 01:14 PM	#6
iGary macrumors Demi-God Join Date: May 2004 Location: La Villa Strangiato	Let me look on my 3.0 GHz G5 and check that out.... __________________ Mac Pro Octophallus 2.8 \| 13" UMBP 2.26

Jun 30, 2005, 01:15 PM	#7
Freg3000 macrumors 68000 Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: New York	Prediction: Fall Revision of Power Macs using the 970 MP. About 10 months later at WWDC 2006, a small speed bump. Another 10-12 months later, possibly at WWDC 2007, the first Intel based Power Macs. Power Macs will be the last line to convert to Intel, maybe second only to the xServe. __________________ FregTK This Is Momentum.

Jun 30, 2005, 01:09 PM	#4
Lacero macrumors 601 Join Date: Jan 2005	I hate IBM and I hate their idiotic PowerPC chips. Long live Intel!!!

Jun 30, 2005, 01:17 PM	#8
Dr. Dastardly macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: I live in a giant bucket!	Well Intel musta showed Steve somethng that got him all hot and bothered to warrant a transition to a new cpu architecture. And if IBM is saying that they could deliver on what Jobs wanted then why didnt they? They screwed up and they knew it. They must be blind if they didn't see there was a problem. I'm sure Steve let them know plenty of times that he wasn't happy.

Jun 30, 2005, 01:18 PM	#9
Switzermac Banned Join Date: Jun 2005	IBM is still trying to win apple back, what losers

Jun 30, 2005, 01:19 PM	#10
MacTruck Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Endless Loop	I had a nightmare that Apple switched to intel a few nights ago. Then I woke up an thats when the real horror started, I realized its true. IBM get off your buts and give us lower power G5 chips in dual core already. Apple please stop this intel nonsense.

Jun 30, 2005, 01:24 PM	#12
Porchland macrumors 6502a Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Georgia	If Rosetta is what Apple says it is, couldn't Apple theoretically use both PPC and x86s on different lines of machines (say, PowerBooks and PowerMacs) without running into software problems? Certainly, Apple is full steam ahead with Intel, but -- if Rosetta is pretty efficient -- it would still be possible to see PPCs in some devices down the road. __________________ * 17-inch PowerBook, 1.5 GHz G4, OS X 10.5.4 * 2 GB iPod nano silver with Nike+ (his) * 1 GB iPod shuffle pink (hers) Yes we can!

Jun 30, 2005, 01:30 PM	#15
Yebot macrumors regular Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Central PA	This eWeek article gives more credence to the idea that Apple -> Intel is a direct attack on Microsoft. __________________ Grabastic Pieces

Jun 30, 2005, 01:34 PM	#17
sinisterdesign macrumors 6502 Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: atlanta	"IBM could build PowerPC chips that satisfy the needs of the entire range of Apple's product lines....we're just not going to." yeah, maybe they just didn't KNOW we were waiting on a PowerBook G5. we should have written a post about it or something... __________________ DESKTOP \| dual 3GHz Mac Pro & 30" Cinema Display LAPTOP \| 2.4GHz 15" Macbook Pro iTHINGS \| 32GB iPhone, 80GB iPod

Jun 30, 2005, 01:38 PM	#20
ham_man macrumors 68020 Join Date: Jan 2005	Would surprise me if IBM did not have something in the works. Sure they aren't the fastest company, but evolution is still there. ALso, it would not surprise me if Intel let Steve know of something major in their line - the nail in the coffin for him to switch. But what does it matter? What is done is done...

Jun 30, 2005, 01:38 PM	#21
Ja Di ksw macrumors 65816 Join Date: Apr 2003	If Apple is going to be using only Intel in a couple years, and Rosetta only goes from PPC to Intel, not Intel to PPC, why would anyone buy a PPC Mac now unless they absolutely HAD to, or they normally upgrade their Mac every couple of years? No one is going to be making new programs for PPC in a couple years. So why still put out PPC Mac's? Obviously they can't go 2 years without any new Mac's, who is going to buy those? __________________ Fetch Daddy's blue fright wig! I must be handsome when I unleash my rage.

Jun 30, 2005, 01:41 PM	#24
dernhelm macrumors 65816 Join Date: May 2002 Location: middle earth	So what does IBM expect us to believe actually happenned? That SJ's decision to switch was based wholy on his embarassment at not delivering 3GHz? Come on, the man has an ego, but not that big of one. Apple made a business decision based on the availability of processors with particular interesting characteristics. Besides, what IBM believes they could pull off and what they have pulled off are two different things. Intel has real product in the pipeline that Apple could use TODAY - and they have the production capacity to keep up with Apple demand. Something neither IBM nor Moto can say. __________________ Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind. --Terry Pratchett

Jun 30, 2005, 01:43 PM	#25
pdpfilms macrumors 68020 Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Vermontana	Looks to me like a futile effort of IBM to not look like the suckers in the event... an attempt to hold their name for the future market.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode