The reason behind the Intel switch (Macbidouille)

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by plastique45, Jun 7, 2005.

  1. plastique45 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    #1
    (badly) translated from French. Macbidouille were the first to get all the G5 PPC 970 info a year before it's release. They have a very good hardware connection somewhere and are usually reliable:

    Why switching to INTEL - Lionel - 12:13:26 - [...]We do it, because the information that we deliver to you belongs now to a recent past, and that it will make more comprehensible that the abandonment of the Power PC is not a whim on behalf of APPLE, but a vital need. Since the end of the year all hell broke loose between APPLE and IBM which is again qualified of a Motorola by Steve Jobs. IBM had great hopes for the famous PPC 975 976 then 980 but which is unceasingly delayed. The 970MP was inserted to face these delays. But it would have arrived in the best of the cases only at the beginning of 2006, whereas they do not even manage to produce in great quantity the PPC 970FX.
    For Powerbook G5 all the developments were at the dead point. Impossible to manage to manufacture a 970GX able to satisfy the needs for portability. Impossible to obtain an acceptable autonomy and an effective cooling.

    IBM also decided to give up the project of PPC 750VX which was intended to replace of G4 in the entry level machines. APPLE, like Steve Jobs said, had envisaged this possibility and had kept in its sleeve the INTEL card. In front of the incapacity of IBM to advance, they activated the Maklar project of which we start to see the extent. Our source largely reassured us on the future, because the current roadmapl seems planned for many years. But we leave that to other (real) rumour sites to tell you all that one day or the other. For this kind of information, our engagements to no longer publish rumor son forthcoming products always hold.

    Macbidouille were the ones to reaveal that both the 2.5GHz and 2.7Ghz PowerMacs were overclocked 2.2 & 2.3Ghz G5's:

    2004-08-24 - G5 2.5 overclocked-

    G5 dual-2.5 GHz currently delivered were initially manufactured at 2.2 GHz. It was thus necessary of the watercool the system in order to make them stable at this higher clock speed.
     
  2. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #2
    It really sounds as if IBM and Apple had a rough time of it. Given all that's gone on, I wouldn't want to have had all the stress of dealing with those issues.....bleh.

    I just hope that the future will turn out better.

    D
     
  3. joecool85 macrumors 65816

    joecool85

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Location:
    Maine
    #3
    And cooler.
     
  4. aliensporebomb macrumors 68000

    aliensporebomb

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN, USA, Urth
    #4
    Thoughts.....

    I've had some thoughts on this since Jobs dropped the bomb and I've also
    thought a lot since I got my dual G5 that this is what happened:

    -IBM had some great ideas with the architecture, they had planned (or so
    I'm told) that they would be at 5 ghz or more by now.

    -The ideas were sound, but the execution of getting those ideas achieved
    fell thru or were much harder to achieve than they originally planned.

    -Remember Jobs said the entire industry hit the wall at 90 nanometer, the
    focus wasn't going to be on pure speed but multiple cores and multiple CPUs.

    -Still, prior to this, Jobs said "believe me, this architecture has legs" and I
    really think that both he and IBM thought they KNEW exactly what to do to
    make the architecture fly.

    -Something happened - either the transfer to 90 nanometer or
    something along those lines (could even have been a simple
    communications breakdown or a key engineer being transferred
    to another project or a key portion of the design becoming an
    unsurmountable barrier) changed everything and it must have
    happened a while ago.

    -When the original systems came out and the dual 2.5 came out after,
    I thought "great machine, but something is wrong". When the refresh
    came and 2.7 was as high as they could must I thought "okay, now
    something is really wrong or we're going to do another migration of
    sorts". Sure enough.

    -So, interesting that MacBidoulle indicating some of the duals were
    overclocked after a fashion. Not surprising since my G5 2.5 has
    reached temperatures of over 213 degrees farenheit under heavy
    load (memory controller heatsink). I've overclocked computers
    before but that's asking for some kind of major failure down the
    road.

    -So, I wonder what the next PPC machines coming out will be? They
    will likely make 3 ghz with the next iteration but how much more can
    they push the CPUs before they ease the Intel systems in?

    Very interesting thread.
     
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #5
    Whatever, IBM pulled a "Motorola," and rather than doing the waiting game again like with the G4 and going extinct, they went for a complete change. Of course it was an act of desperation. Everyone knows that. Its not even news. Its something that we all could have guessed, because there's no way Apple decided this easily. To Apple, it was like giving the go-ahead to drop the atom bomb....
     
  6. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #6
    Something has allways been wrong with the PPC in my view, since the stagnate days of 450 G4s to the Stagnate days of More of the same from IBMs G5. Remember the UK telling Apple no more lies on the most powerful computer in the world. PPC has been a dog.

    The PPC guys remind me of Nasa, Lots of roadmaps, lots of Paper and spin, plenty of dreams but when it came down to hardware where the hell was it? Oh yeah on that paper. :rolleyes: was anyone paying attention at Apple?
     
  7. minimax macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #7
    Yeah well, all I can say is shame on Freescale and IBM for throwing away a great system architecture by not investing enough in it. You can have a great working idea but if you then sit down and enjoy it others will run right past you without you even know it. Apple had solid growth stats, moving into the direction of 3 % market share, perhaps even beyond that, but I guess it wasnt enough. It is very likely IBM pulled resources from the PPC 970 towards the CELL and XBOX processors. They probably didnt see Apple go anywhere that would pay off their investment.
     

Share This Page