Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Behind the Apple-Intel Deal, IBM Surprised
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Reason "CELL" not considdered.
The reason I believe the cell was not considdered is that it multiplies the strengths and weakenesses of the PPC. You will have notcied that in benchmarks, the 970 eaither comes in at 70% perfomance of its competitors, or 200+%. This would be even more extreme in the cell, somehere at 30~50%, and 800+%. Unfortunately the number of benchmarks that show the 800% improvement would be reduced, and those that show the 50% loss would be increased.
The cell would make a good co-processor addon to get that 800% boost on code it is good for ( streaming media, vector calculations, highly paralell graphics rendering ), while having a more traditional CPU ( not the cut down one on the cell itself) handle the general computing tasks.
Given the target and volume of the cell, and the spread of low-lactency peripheral interconects ( like PCIe, which seems to be ont he new "MacTel" boxes ), one could get 90% of the benefits of the cell from an addon card with the same connection width as a GFX card. The local memory of the SPE's would mask the added latency of the peripheral bus nicely.
iJaz said:
The reason I believe the cell was not considdered is that it multiplies the strengths and weakenesses of the PPC. You will have notcied that in benchmarks, the 970 eaither comes in at 70% perfomance of its competitors, or 200+%. This would be even more extreme in the cell, somehere at 30~50%, and 800+%. Unfortunately the number of benchmarks that show the 800% improvement would be reduced, and those that show the 50% loss would be increased.
The cell would make a good co-processor addon to get that 800% boost on code it is good for ( streaming media, vector calculations, highly paralell graphics rendering ), while having a more traditional CPU ( not the cut down one on the cell itself) handle the general computing tasks.
Given the target and volume of the cell, and the spread of low-lactency peripheral interconects ( like PCIe, which seems to be ont he new "MacTel" boxes ), one could get 90% of the benefits of the cell from an addon card with the same connection width as a GFX card. The local memory of the SPE's would mask the added latency of the peripheral bus nicely.
Game CPUs are not PC CPUs
The problem of going with a game CPU such as IBM's CELL and Xenion chips is that performance progress is very slow. You don't have better and better chips each year as with PC Chips such as Intel's Pentium. This is because a game console does not have to be updated every year - it gets updated every 6-7 years. PC's on the other hand, have to be updated each year or less in order to be competitive. THUS, the CELL and Xenion chips - despite their power today - will be STAGNANT in progress over the next 6-7 years. During this time, Intel's chips will only become more powerful and faster. IBM LOVES the idea of not having to pour development costs into making new versions of the CEL and Xenion each year. Unfortunately, despite the current power of the CELL and Xenion chips, that is all you will get for the next 6-7 years. Note that the CELL is not even designed for PC use. It can only address 256 megabytes of memory - due to limitations of its memory bus - despite its speed. It would take another two years to be able to churn out CELLs good enough for PC use (i.e. which can address more memory). It would take another two years to be able to churn out CELLs which can have low enough power requirements to make it into laptops. To Apple, this would mean stagnation and eventual death.
Intel's processors on the other hand, have to improve each year to remain competitive. AND Intel can produce bulk numbers of their processors. AND Intel chips have low power requirements NOW for laptop use. For Intel to survive, it has to aggressively innovate and progress quickly. Look at how Intel developed a RISC core with a CISC wrapper to improve the Pentium's performance compared to RISC chips like the PowerPC. Eventually, the Pentium outstripped the PowerPC on almost all tasks. Despite the CELL's current power, I believe Intel (because it has to), will improve their chip power to the point it will also be faster than the CELL. Remember that the CELL's progress will be stagnant over the next 6-7 years because IBM will not have to innovate.
Apple absolutely made the right choice by choosing Intel. I wished they had done so years ago instead of foreseeing the dead-end that PowerPC would head into. As former Apple CEO John Sculley said, not going Intel was his BIGGEST mistake.
The problem of going with a game CPU such as IBM's CELL and Xenion chips is that performance progress is very slow. You don't have better and better chips each year as with PC Chips such as Intel's Pentium. This is because a game console does not have to be updated every year - it gets updated every 6-7 years. PC's on the other hand, have to be updated each year or less in order to be competitive. THUS, the CELL and Xenion chips - despite their power today - will be STAGNANT in progress over the next 6-7 years. During this time, Intel's chips will only become more powerful and faster. IBM LOVES the idea of not having to pour development costs into making new versions of the CEL and Xenion each year. Unfortunately, despite the current power of the CELL and Xenion chips, that is all you will get for the next 6-7 years. Note that the CELL is not even designed for PC use. It can only address 256 megabytes of memory - due to limitations of its memory bus - despite its speed. It would take another two years to be able to churn out CELLs good enough for PC use (i.e. which can address more memory). It would take another two years to be able to churn out CELLs which can have low enough power requirements to make it into laptops. To Apple, this would mean stagnation and eventual death.
Intel's processors on the other hand, have to improve each year to remain competitive. AND Intel can produce bulk numbers of their processors. AND Intel chips have low power requirements NOW for laptop use. For Intel to survive, it has to aggressively innovate and progress quickly. Look at how Intel developed a RISC core with a CISC wrapper to improve the Pentium's performance compared to RISC chips like the PowerPC. Eventually, the Pentium outstripped the PowerPC on almost all tasks. Despite the CELL's current power, I believe Intel (because it has to), will improve their chip power to the point it will also be faster than the CELL. Remember that the CELL's progress will be stagnant over the next 6-7 years because IBM will not have to innovate.
Apple absolutely made the right choice by choosing Intel. I wished they had done so years ago instead of foreseeing the dead-end that PowerPC would head into. As former Apple CEO John Sculley said, not going Intel was his BIGGEST mistake.
Macrumors said:
you guys nitpick all you want. its obvious what jobs is saying. otherwise we would still be looking at a future with the PowerPC.
i can here the responses now.
actually we do have a future with PowerPC. Apple isnt making the swith to Intel until 2006 starting with the lower line. most likely the mini, then moving on to the pro line the following year. the PowerPC to Intel transition, according to my calculations and profound knowledge on the subject, should be complete by 2007.
sure what ever makes you feel useful.
i can here the responses now.
actually we do have a future with PowerPC. Apple isnt making the swith to Intel until 2006 starting with the lower line. most likely the mini, then moving on to the pro line the following year. the PowerPC to Intel transition, according to my calculations and profound knowledge on the subject, should be complete by 2007.
sure what ever makes you feel useful.
Josh396 said:
Agreed. I think they will introduce a faster PowerPC Chip just before Christmas or early fall. That will most likely be the last major speed upgrade. It should be a big enough speed bump to keep the Mac Faithful happy for a good 12 months. By early 2006 Apple should have another great product such as the iPod to make up for a decrese in PowerMac sales.
I very much doubt IBM was in the dark. That is not how big companies work. IBM might have informed Apple that they have hit a brick wall and any further improvements in speed would be followed by a significant jump in prices for those faster chips. I am sure the Apple/IBM contract is very detailed with many exemptions and exits for both companies. Technology is very fluid and hard to predict therefore one can only promise so much.
At some point Apple informed IBM that the present situation is unacceptatble and they will be shopping for suppliers who can deliver. This alone should not give IBM a reason not to make a good faith effort in continuing to provide Apple with what is reasonable and affordable.
In five years a great book can be written about how Apple's problems with IBM led to the doubling of its market share.
Graphic Processors (GPUs) are already faster than CELL
Note that the CELL is essentially a weak PowerPC core with 8 programmable Altivec units surrounding it. The 8 programmable Altivec units behave like DSPs - able to do parallel processing work at nigh speed.
The problem is that much personal computer work is serial not parallel. Outside of graphics and scientific number crunching, almost everything else is done serially in the CPU. Thus, dual or quad FULL cores are better for personal computer work.
Apple SOLVED the problem of faster parallel processing by harnessing the existing power of the programmable GPUs in the graphic cards provided by ATI and nVidia. These GPUs have much more power now than the CELL processor. Newer ones can easily outstrip the CELL processor. People don't realize how powerful their graphics cards are when used for other functions. Mac OS X no longer needs to use the Altivec processor to speed up its graphics. It instead gives the work to the GPU - which does a fantastic job of speeding up drawing the user interface - as much as 2000% faster, or more.
Thus with Intel providing leading edge general purpose CPUs and ATI/nVidia providing leading edge GPUs, Apple is no longer constrained in power as it has been over the past several years.
Note that when Sony advertises the terraflops of power provided by the Playstation 3, it does not tell you that most of that power is provided by the GPU - not the CELL.
Note that the CELL is essentially a weak PowerPC core with 8 programmable Altivec units surrounding it. The 8 programmable Altivec units behave like DSPs - able to do parallel processing work at nigh speed.
The problem is that much personal computer work is serial not parallel. Outside of graphics and scientific number crunching, almost everything else is done serially in the CPU. Thus, dual or quad FULL cores are better for personal computer work.
Apple SOLVED the problem of faster parallel processing by harnessing the existing power of the programmable GPUs in the graphic cards provided by ATI and nVidia. These GPUs have much more power now than the CELL processor. Newer ones can easily outstrip the CELL processor. People don't realize how powerful their graphics cards are when used for other functions. Mac OS X no longer needs to use the Altivec processor to speed up its graphics. It instead gives the work to the GPU - which does a fantastic job of speeding up drawing the user interface - as much as 2000% faster, or more.
Thus with Intel providing leading edge general purpose CPUs and ATI/nVidia providing leading edge GPUs, Apple is no longer constrained in power as it has been over the past several years.
Note that when Sony advertises the terraflops of power provided by the Playstation 3, it does not tell you that most of that power is provided by the GPU - not the CELL.
bort said:
intel had to do some good enticing to apple too....i mean intel must have made this deal worth wild for apple
arn said:
I believe you're right about the 970's but the Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Revolution will both be using PowerPC cores. That's a lot of volume.
Sounds like the lower power and higher speed ppc chips Steve has been promising are possible, but IBM did not think it was worth the effort for the projected apple market size. Bottom line that IBM wanted more money then Apple was willing to pay to continue the development of the ppc. Jobs called Intel, great chips, low price, good future with or without Apple involved.
You can access the site using fake info and invalid email accounts. Wonder how much spam JoeSmith@hotmail.com gets?
ZLurker said:
You can access the site using fake info and invalid email accounts. Wonder how much spam JoeSmith@hotmail.com gets?
Don't forget about Sony
The article also points out that the negotiations with Sony also fell through. It made it sound that Sony was pushing Apple to adopt the Cell chip for access to their other products. I interpret that to mean the PS3. I really thought that Apple would strike up a deal with Sony to create a product for the home, but doesn't look like that will happen now.
So, that leaves Apple moving forward with Intel to create something for the home. This leads me to believe that Apple has something up their sleeve. They must feel pretty strong that they can fight both Sony and Microsoft in the home theater space. It seems pretty clear that Sony and MS are betting the farm that their consoles will be their pathway into our homes, but I get this funny feeling that Jobs has a different idea.
Products we want to make in the future he said. Hmm... rumors of Intel mini computers. Hmmm... Holographic data storage that boggles the mind. H.264 changes everything...hmmm... A streaming media server is my guess. Might it look something like this ? Why put a HD disc in your console when you can stream all your movies from a media library without getting up off your fat a$$.
The article also points out that the negotiations with Sony also fell through. It made it sound that Sony was pushing Apple to adopt the Cell chip for access to their other products. I interpret that to mean the PS3. I really thought that Apple would strike up a deal with Sony to create a product for the home, but doesn't look like that will happen now.
So, that leaves Apple moving forward with Intel to create something for the home. This leads me to believe that Apple has something up their sleeve. They must feel pretty strong that they can fight both Sony and Microsoft in the home theater space. It seems pretty clear that Sony and MS are betting the farm that their consoles will be their pathway into our homes, but I get this funny feeling that Jobs has a different idea.
Products we want to make in the future he said. Hmm... rumors of Intel mini computers. Hmmm... Holographic data storage that boggles the mind. H.264 changes everything...hmmm... A streaming media server is my guess. Might it look something like this ? Why put a HD disc in your console when you can stream all your movies from a media library without getting up off your fat a$$.
PowerPC Progress
I think IBM will come out with the dual-core PowerPC chip at 3 GHZ soon. This will be then the end of the road. It will keep Mac fans happy for the next couple of years. Apple can come out finally with a quad CPU desktop. Then in 2 years, Apple will have it's first full-blown Intel desktop Macs.
Unfortunately, IBM will have no laptop CPU. Apple will probably use Freescale's 2 GHz dual-core G4s for its laptops. These should keep things going for the next two years - they will be faster overall than current PC single CPU laptops. Then in June 2006, Apple will come out with its first Pentium-M laptops.
I myself would buy a dual-core G4 laptop since the current ones are running out of steam for myself.
I think IBM will come out with the dual-core PowerPC chip at 3 GHZ soon. This will be then the end of the road. It will keep Mac fans happy for the next couple of years. Apple can come out finally with a quad CPU desktop. Then in 2 years, Apple will have it's first full-blown Intel desktop Macs.
Unfortunately, IBM will have no laptop CPU. Apple will probably use Freescale's 2 GHz dual-core G4s for its laptops. These should keep things going for the next two years - they will be faster overall than current PC single CPU laptops. Then in June 2006, Apple will come out with its first Pentium-M laptops.
I myself would buy a dual-core G4 laptop since the current ones are running out of steam for myself.
scu said:
scu said:
The G5 did the doubling? I'd have to say that since the G5 is only in two hardware line for Apple that this statement is highly controversial. The G4 is in the rest. The Mac mini was Apple's posterboy in the January Quarter, based on a G4 as you all well know, getting articles reviewing it and praising Apple for it EVERY DAY (My google alerts for Apple constantly had a few).
Now this may change in the coming months as Apple moves products to the PPC G5, as Jobs said, "We have some awesome PowerPC products in the pipeline."
CELL is not ready for the desktop
The CELL is not ready for the desktop. AND it certainly is not ready for a laptop.
The CELL can only use 256 megabytes of RAM. It would have to be redesigned to address the 8 gigabytes of RAM current PowerMacs can use. That would take 2 years.
The CELL has a weak PowerPC core. For general computing use, this has far lower power than the current PowerPC 970. Almost all computing work is done Serially not Parallely (outside of graphics and scientific computing).
The CELL is not ready for laptop use. It would take 2-4 years to redesign it for laptop use.
All of these features and more make the CELL very disappointing to Apple.
The CELL is good for graphic intensive applications such as games and video, but weak in so many other areas.
The CELL is not ready for the desktop. AND it certainly is not ready for a laptop.
The CELL can only use 256 megabytes of RAM. It would have to be redesigned to address the 8 gigabytes of RAM current PowerMacs can use. That would take 2 years.
The CELL has a weak PowerPC core. For general computing use, this has far lower power than the current PowerPC 970. Almost all computing work is done Serially not Parallely (outside of graphics and scientific computing).
The CELL is not ready for laptop use. It would take 2-4 years to redesign it for laptop use.
All of these features and more make the CELL very disappointing to Apple.
The CELL is good for graphic intensive applications such as games and video, but weak in so many other areas.
Object-X said:The article also points out that the negotiations with Sony also fell through. It made it sound that Sony was pushing Apple to adopt the Cell chip for access to their other products. I interpret that to mean the PS3. I really thought that Apple would strike up a deal with Sony to create a product for the home, but doesn't look like that will happen now.
So, that leaves Apple moving forward with Intel to create something for the home. This leads me to believe that Apple has something up their sleeve. They must feel pretty strong that they can fight both Sony and Microsoft in the home theater space. It seems pretty clear that Sony and MS are betting the farm that their consoles will be their pathway into our homes, but I get this funny feeling that Jobs has a different idea.
Products we want to make in the future he said. Hmm... rumors of Intel mini computers. Hmmm... Holographic data storage that boggles the mind. A streaming media server is my guess. Might it look something like this ? Why put a HD disc in your console when you can stream all your movies from a media library without getting up off your fat a$$.
beatle888 said:
So are you assuming every single Mac buyer will switch to intel by 2007 or that apple will have all products based on intels by 2007. I can tell you that there will be a lot of PPC's out there still in use in 2008 and 2009.
This whole thing is just so funny, After years of no progress and constant lies from Motorola Jobs sure as heck wasnt going to go through that again with IBM doing the same darn thing. Im glad IBM found out in the news and i dont blame Apple for not returning these slackers phone calls. IBM doesnt even advertise their own 970s, they advertise their Intel Powered machine. PPC dont let the door kick you in your _ _ _ on the way out. Take Moto stink with you. 10 years late but its still a good thing.
Object-X said:The article also points out that the negotiations with Sony also fell through. It made it sound that Sony was pushing Apple to adopt the Cell chip for access to their other products. I interpret that to mean the PS3. I really thought that Apple would strike up a deal with Sony to create a product for the home, but doesn't look like that will happen now.
So, that leaves Apple moving forward with Intel to create something for the home. This leads me to believe that Apple has something up their sleeve. They must feel pretty strong that they can fight both Sony and Microsoft in the home theater space. It seems pretty clear that Sony and MS are betting the farm that their consoles will be their pathway into our homes, but I get this funny feeling that Jobs has a different idea.
Products we want to make in the future he said. Hmm... rumors of Intel mini computers. Hmmm... Holographic data storage that boggles the mind. H.264 changes everything...hmmm... A streaming media server is my guess. Might it look something like this ? Why put a HD disc in your console when you can stream all your movies from a media library without getting up off your fat a$$.
im not so sure about that whole media/computer systems now. i just ordered a new cable box from my cable company for $9 a month. it records up to 70 hours of tv. its like a tivo. it seems that the cable companies already got a head start in this area. they already have movies you can preview>watch>record...and its happening NOW.
cable companies have the content>delivery method>users and now an inexpensive box.
Man, someone must have lost their job at IBM. Why did the Apple Account Exec not pick up the phone and get a meeting scheduled? Whether or not its a huge financial blow to IBM, they sure lost part of their reputation as being the sole chip supplier to the most innovative computer company in the world.
If they heard the rumors, and then didnt receive calls from Apple, they should have known something was up. Either that, or they just didnt care and were tired of dealing with Jobs.
If they heard the rumors, and then didnt receive calls from Apple, they should have known something was up. Either that, or they just didnt care and were tired of dealing with Jobs.
Dont Hurt Me said:This whole thing is just so funny, After years of no progress and constant lies from Motorola Jobs sure as heck wasnt going to go through that again with IBM doing the same darn thing. Im glad IBM found out in the news and i dont blame Apple for not returning these slackers phone calls. IBM doesnt even advertise their own 970s, they advertise their Intel Powered machine. PPC dont let the door kick you in your _ _ _ on the way out. Take Moto stink with you. 10 years late but its still a good thing.
Wow, this is a scary week, first Apple switches to Intel and, after the dust settles, I'm actually pretty excited about it, and NOW I'm nodding my head in agreement for the first time ever to a Dont Hurt Me post... what's next, pigs flying?
Also, though a bit OT to this or any topic, seeing how MacRumor's designates user's quantity of posts by chip numbers of Apple computers and on (6502, 68020, etc.), I wonder how long/many posts someone will have to have to get up to the Pentium M/Yonah, etc?
Photorun said:
Well, is anybody even past the Motorola chips? I know I haven't seen any PowerPC chips yet...
Or, more likely, he just had trouble discerning your meaning through your countless grammatical and spelling mistakes. I had to read your "mocking" comment several times before I had it figured out, and even then I wasn't certain that my guess was correct. It was not at all clear that that paragraph in the middle was meant to be sarcasm.beatle888 said:your either very funny or your just skimming these posts. what you are commenting on is from a post i made mocking all the nitpickers on this site. you illustrated my point beautifully. thank you.
Your loose grasp of the english language leads to posts which are very difficult to understand. Consequently, perhaps you should consider spending more time articulating your meaning. -- or at least try to be less snarky when other people misunderstand your confusing posts.
cube said:
He didn't say the PPC was less effective.. he said Cell processor is less effective than the PPC.
I suppose its the way you read it - you could read it both ways - that he also infers the PPC processor is ineffective, like you say.
By the sounds of it Apple did the necessary homework to make an informed decision - Cell processor, AMD, and Intel.