Intel switch...Timing is everything...

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by asencif, Mar 21, 2006.

  1. asencif macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    #1
    I was just reading an interesting article linked from www.lowendmac.com, which interestingly states what many have suspected. It wasn't only really about the power of the chips for the swtich, but many other factors we have yet to know about. It also states that the PPC was going to go through a renaissance of sorts and the 3GHZ would've made it this year. Of course the supply would've never met the demand, so Intel makes sense financially in a lot of ways especially marketing wise. Keep in mind mac hardwars sales were on the rise last year despite not having Intel.

    http://www.blachford.info/computer/articles/Timing_is_Everything.html

    There's also a mention of something that most likely won't happen, but I always wondered of Apple choosing to use to different architectures. It sounds innovative and would be the only company to do it. Especially now that UB are being coded.
     
  2. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #2
    Interesting article.

    I don't think Apple were thinking of the forthcoming year, but 5 or more years in front. Also the difficulty IBM has always had at producing enough chips & bringing down cost to Apple (not the consumer) will probabpy also remain.

    The fact that IBM announced it was leaving the manafacturing of PC's market and concentrationg on business solutions probably had some implications too.

    Why not AMD though?

    Someone asked me the other day why they went with intel rather than amd? Whilst we don't know the exact reasons the one I gave was..

    The Intel roadmap for low power processors and they're strength at designing motherboards & integrated components (graphics & audio) all help with Apples small formfactor designs. If they had gone with AMD they probably would have to R&D out to a lot more manufacturers rather than relying on one.... Increasing cost and development time.

    Having someone who can produce chips to keep up with demand and have plenty of moola & experience in integrated components is a real bonus... Doe's that sound about right?
     
  3. asencif thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    #3
    Makes sense and also there are other factors we don't know about. Some special deals and maybe a joint product they might be working on that no one envisions yet. I would hope Apple keeps it's options open though. They can be very revolutionary by using different architectures, however at this point it's not very cost effective. It is interesting about the PPC's still developing and being powerful chips.
     
  4. Maxiseller macrumors 6502a

    Maxiseller

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Location:
    Little grey, chilly island.
    #4
    I think thats just about bang on the money; I don't think this was a difficult decision for Apple to Make. The average joe on the street know and hear intel every day of their lives - it's a brand name that has worldwide recognization, and I think that counts for a lot.

    Not only that, but intel is literally the biggest chip giant in the world. That means no chance of supply problems, that means multiple manufacturing plants...it's the biggest change in comparison to the Powermac G4 fiasco a few years ago where they actually had to LOWER the clock speed that was shipped compared to the speed promised - now, they've actually increased it when shipping the macBook pro.

    Its a sign of good things to come, certainly.
     
  5. hhlee macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    #5
    re: amd vs intel

    yes, intel has a large brand recognition. if that was the case though, why not use both amd and intel? intel > amd for mobile processors and from what i remember amd >= intel for desktop processors.

    supply issues are also not as big of a point when considering intel vs amd. pc market share is much larger than mac market share and considering both amd and intel have decently priced processors, i highly doubt supply is a big factor.

    i think apple might be looking to tightly integrate intel hardware like virtualization into the os x kernel. otherwise, i don't know what large driving reason there is to solely use intel. maybe by being exclusively intel, apple gets better loyalty from intel?
     
  6. asencif thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2005
    #6
    Yes of course they get some exclusivity and loyalty; that should be part of the deal. Look at the recent marketing rush of ads promoting Intel Macs by Apple. There is more to this deal than what we think I believe. It's not about better power chips on desktops as the G5 is powerful enough right now and as the article says it's starting to pick up. Kind of late for Apple, but really only on the laptop side. To me I would love for them to use Intel for their laptop line, mini and iMac, but use the G5 and future G6 on their desktops. Right now Conroe can't even run as a Quad and we already have a Quad.

    Apple can be innovative enough to keep using the best architecture out there at present time at anytime. UB apps is an amazing thing and open up a world of options. Of course the Intel deal probably has Apple only using their chips.

    AMD would be great too, however with Intel being their main competitor I doubt Intel would be happy they use them simulteanously. Hey other companies like Dell use different chips....Why can't we in the future? PPC, Intel, AMD...Why not? Choices is great.
     
  7. shokunin macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    #7
    Yup, Intel makes more sense in that they are a complete fabrication from chipsets to integrated (graphics, wireless, LAN, I/O controllers) plus processors. AMD? WHile I love AMD and have a dual dual-core Opteron 280 Workstation, AMD is NOT in the chipset business and they have little in terms of a mobile marketshare (although turion x-2 is looking good).

    Apple would have had to make it's own chipset ($$$) or rely on nVidia or ATI or VIA (ugh) to make their chipsets. Until recently even nVidia didn't have an integrated video option on the nForce chipsets. Well, maybe that's a plus since they would have been forced to put an dedicated GPU in mini.
     
  8. Timepass macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    #8
    Well my thoughs on why they didnt go with AMD is several.
    Historicly in desktop chips AMD is a little better in cost to profomances ratio and normally better than intel.


    The reason for going with intel

    intel is a lot better in the moble cpu market and planly makes better laptop CPUs.
    The other part is intel makes it own mobos and chip sets. And they are also more able to make spealized stuff for just apple.
    It might of been cheaper in the desktop to go with AMD but it would of required apple to deal with 3 differnt companies. Intel for laptops, AMD for desktop CPUs and then a Mobo suppliers for the desktop.
    Intel is a one stop shopping.

    Supply wise I think AMD would not have a problem to keep up with what apple needs. and I dont see them falling behind intel in the desktops cpus. Currently there desktop CPUs I think are still better but it amd moble chips blow.

    Sum it up
    Intel makes better moble chips
    There desktop chips are not as far behind
    Intel is a one stop shopping

    Intel has more marketing power.
     

Share This Page