AMD/nVidia OSX hybrid rumors...

[Taft]

Grrrr...

Originally posted by alex_ant

I am unable to see what you're trying to accomplish in your post. It seems as if you've selectively argued a couple of the points everyone in this thread has made against Apple x86 machines, ignoring all the rest.

Alex

My original post was against Apple moving to x86 (though I might not have made that clear). My point was that just because Apple goes to x86 doesn't mean their computers would be any cheaper--which is a reason against moving. This is because it would effectively gain you only an increase in MHz while costing you back-compatibility and not really lowering prices. Little-tiny gain, and much loss. Not cool.

And I haven't visited this thread in a while so I wanted to reply to your comment, so thats why it seems a bit selective.

I think we are on the same side. Moving to x86 would be a bad, bad, bad idea. Though I still disagree about an Apple move to x86 lowering prices significantly on their line.

One other question (and this is an actual question, not sarcasm or anything)...I know that there are other small/thin/crazily shaped computers out there, but aren't they generally priced much higher than your garden variety computer? From the evidence I've seen this is the case, but I'm not exactly up on the latest prices in the Wintel market.

Matthew

 

[eirik]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Lower price...

Originally posted by alex_ant

[/b]
So... because the Mac experience necessitates high hardware integration and ease of use that comes at a high design and manufacturing cost, you want Apple to stop doing what they're doing well (PowerPC machines), and go head-to-head with the big boys, in the process slaughtering themselves because they are not able to compete? I just don't get it.

I am unable to see what you're trying to accomplish in your post. It seems as if you've selectively argued a couple of the points everyone in this thread has made against Apple x86 machines, ignoring all the rest.

Alex [/B]

I agree, Apple customers buy Mac's because they are comprehensively integrated systems. The CPU and limited set of video cards are throughly integrated, tested such that their motherboards are designed specifically for the components and visa versa. Similarly, the software and hardware is tightly integrated.

Also, I believe these customers also choose Mac's because of its industry leading single instruction multiple data capability, provided by the G4.

I'm not so sure, however, just how important it is to these customers that there be a PowerPC inside. I would not say that with certainty because many Apple, and AMD, customers tend to have a David and Goliath complex or favor the underdogs. If AMD made an x86 CPU with a comparable SIMD implementation in terms of performance as well as ease of software development, I wonder if a significant number of Apple customers would be disappointed?

Now, such a beast might consumer more power. However, for desktops, few folk really care, provided the PC isn't obnoxiously loud due to fan noise.

Now, assume for a moment that an x86 box satisfies Apple's hardware requirements in general. I am very confident that Apple would enjoy all of the cooperation from the manufacturer in integrating it into Apple's motherboard design, et al.

Please note, I AM NOT ADVOCATING a move to x86!!! I've read (don't know how credible the source) that while MacOS X and Cocoa applications would migrate relatively painlessly but that Carbon applications would be painful because those API's do not exist in x86 form. If this is true, then the x86 ought to have a hell of a performance and economic advantage over PowerPC to justify the effort by Apple.

I say by Apple because I presume that if Apple compiles the Carbon API's in x86 form, that most Carbon apps would be fine. As for AltiVec enhanced apps, I suspect that all of those software developers' efforts to write the software in terms of matrix operations and all of the other methods so as to exploit AltiVec would be wasted unless the x86 handled such algorithms well.

Well, I'm out of my element here.

To sum up, I don't think we would see radical changes in Apple's price structure if their Mac's were based on x86's. I don't buy the argument that market pressure due to a reference effect from Windows machines that use x86 would do so because as Alex said, Apple customers are buying a thoroughly integrated hardware/software solution.

Eirik

 

[eirik]

Apple Prices

Mozez, you make some good points. Though, you'd make them more effectively if you wrote your posts in multiple paragraphs with no more than 2 grammatical subjects each.

I don't believe CPU cost is the single largest factor in establishing Apple's minimum prices. Motorola and IBM sell the same CPU's to many other customers in the embedded market.

Now, cost is obviously not the only driver of price. Naturally, there is perceived and real value-based pricing derived from the overal system that Apple offers.

But in as far as cost is a major driver, if not the one, I believe Apple's primary cost driver stems from volume. Dell buys well over ten times (I have no idea what the actual figure is.) the number of hard drives, video cards, and other common components that Apple. Consequently, Dell enjoys channel power that commands large volume discounts that Apple can only dream of acquiring.

As for how the mini-PC manufacturers attain such low pricing, hence low costs, they employ motherboards and other compound components that are mass produced by the likes of IBM, AMD, and others. Again, economy of scale works against Apple in this way.

Mozez makes another really good point about consumer preferences. The PowerPC's and Apple's motherboards are certainly NOT cutting edge performance in terms of raw numbers. Only when AltiVec is involved does Apple stay competitive.

Fortunately for Apple, performance is driven by applications that are either satisfied by the video card or by AltiVec, which does so wonderfully. Those applications include games, multimedia processing, DVD ripping, just to name a couple.

However, how much faster does a CPU have to be for web browsing, email, office, and most other applications? Here, the bottleneck is often some kind of a serial dependency where either an application is not thoroughly multithreaded or it has to wait for data from a network.

Apple's multiprocessors can really kick butt with multithreaded applications because G4 is fully MERSI compliant. I read in a post recently that the Athlon is supposedly MERSI compliant. But, I'm not totally convinced until I read it form a credible source. Mutliprocessors don't have to add a $1000 to price!!!

While Mozez was ranting about the motherboard and RAM, I found my head nodding in frenzied agreement. This is very frustrating given that these elements are within Apple's control.

I suspect that a familiar obstacle blocks Apple from implementing DDR and other speed enhancements: limited volume. Perhaps Apple figures that an upgrade of just faster RAM and a faster bus would not do enough for consumers to motivate them to buy new Mac's in high enough volume to keep component unit costs down. So, maybe that is why Apple is waiting for a major CPU upgrade before they upgrade the bus, RAM and other components.

Man, I hope we see a fast ****ing G5 that stomps all over Pentiums and Athlons this summer. Let it be, baby; let it be!!!

Eirik

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Grrrr...

Originally posted by Taft
One other question (and this is an actual question, not sarcasm or anything)...I know that there are other small/thin/crazily shaped computers out there, but aren't they generally priced much higher than your garden variety computer? From the evidence I've seen this is the case, but I'm not exactly up on the latest prices in the Wintel market.

That Shuttle computer I mentioned, the SV24, has two built-in USB ports, 2 Firewire ports, Ethernet, 2 serial ports, a parallel port, s-video out, built-in sound, ATA-100, and one free PCI slot. No CPU is included, but it supports any Socket 370 chip with a 66, 100, or 133MHz FSB. So for less than $400 you can have a 1GHz computer in a cube that is 7" by 7.5" by (I don't know). This computer has a page at http://www.spacewalker.com/sv24.htm if you're interested. I'm not sure what point I'm trying to prove, but here it is anyway.

Alex

 

[alex_ant]

Re: Re: Grrrr...

Originally posted by alex_ant

That Shuttle computer I mentioned, the SV24, has two built-in USB ports, 2 Firewire ports, Ethernet, 2 serial ports, a parallel port, s-video out, built-in sound, ATA-100, and one free PCI slot. No CPU is included, but it supports any Socket 370 chip with a 66, 100, or 133MHz FSB. So for less than $400 you can have a 1GHz computer in a cube that is 7" by 7.5" by (I don't know). This computer has a page at http://www.spacewalker.com/sv24.htm if you're interested. I'm not sure what point I'm trying to prove, but here it is anyway.

Alex

Sorry, I forgot to mention the fact that you would have to add a hard drive and RAM to the price of that, but you get the idea.

 

[digital1]

Mozez, you have to consider something too, Apple utilizes the whole architecture. That is what Risc is based on Not the processor alone the architecture. I do have to admit, the overall speed of everthing with the G4 is utilizing older technology, but that is the beauty of a RISC architecture, you can be using some of the oldest methods of data transfer and still get lots of effieciency. RISC isn't all about speed, its about how efficiently calculations can be handled.

 

[ibjoshua]

Re: Re: Re: Grrrr...

Originally posted by alex_ant


Sorry, I forgot to mention the fact that you would have to add a hard drive and RAM to the price of that, but you get the idea.

don't forget monitor, keyboard, mouse

 

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Vilacr
How about Apple drop moto join IBM and take down M$. As for porting OS X to AMD I don't think so.

Because whenever companies that are not related (subsidiaries or the like) band together in order to affect competition, they are subject to being hit with an antitrust lawsuit.

 

[pc_convert?]

Taft said,

I (and I'd guess many others here) do not believe Apple will ever do this. At least not in the forseeable future.

I think you missed the point. I never said that Apple would do this.

Darwin is open source, therefore anyone could take darwin and build an OSX like OS even MS if it was so inclined.

I AMD/Nvidia could basically build an OS that looked like (within reason), and provided similar functionality to OSX.

I was speculating on what effect this would have on Apple..if any.

Like you said I don't think it will ever happen but...thats whats these forums are for.

 

[mischief]

What if it's not about CPU's at all?

What if it's about an Apple/nVidia/AMD collaboration to make a super graphics card?

 

[jerry]

Interesting thread...

I just hopped on over to see what's up in the Mac world.

As an AMD investor I think I can help this discussion out a bit.

1. Amd at present can make around 8 million chips a quarter. They are very constrained. A few months back they decided to outsource with Taiwan chip maker UMC. Starting Q4 they will begin making chips for AMD as AMD's fab30 starts its hammer ramp. AMD also is going 50/50 on a fab with UMC that will come on line in I believe 2005. I'm not sure what Apple's volumes are, but AMD basically sells every chip they make so I can't see Apple outsourcing/using AMD for awhile. AMD lacks BIG OEM deals because they are basically a 1 fab company at the moment and have a tough time selling that they can dedicate steady volume to an OEM.

2. AMD may actually be at fault of G4 (?) shortages. AMD's new CEO is a former Motorola exec and since coming to AMD he has brought many Motorola engineers with him. A nice pun is that AMD means 'another motorola division'.... Now about buying up IP. Amd already works very close with both Motorola and IBM for R&D. AMD 'learned' SOI that will be in Hammer from IBM. On a side note, I don't think (IMHO) that Motorola will hold onto its CPU division. A few people in this thread mentioned someone buying Motorola's IP and I personaly don't think that's out of the question.

3. I need to get to bed so I need to cut this much shorter then I wanted to, but I basically think that IBM will bail you guys out, Apple will not support AMD/Intel chips and all and all it will be a good thing for Apple. And for the kicker, AMD is 'selling their soul' to MSFT right now to get 64bit support. MSFT would never go ahead with that if AMD did anything to help Apple.

Hope I helped.

 

[mischief]

Yes, you most certainly did!

Thanx Jerry and welcome to Macrumors!

 

[alex_ant]

Wow, jerry, if your subsequent posts are all as informative as your first one, I think you'll be a very valuable member of Macrumurs pretty soon.

Alex