To those who have faith in Intel...

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Voidness, Oct 14, 2005.

  1. Voidness macrumors 6502a

    Voidness

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    Null
    #1
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20051012220034.html

    Haha, that's just pure Intel. They always talk about their "superior" technology, and this is how it ends up to be. Not to mention their inability to meet the supply demand of their new high-end processors. Let’s also put aside their habit of recalling every Rev A processor of almost every processor generation.
     
  2. cubist macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #2
    There was a discussion of this on the Inquirer, here, http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26904
    and they pointed out that just because there will be higher-performance Yonah's available, that doesn't prove that there won't be lower-performance ones available. False alarm.
     
  3. Voidness thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Voidness

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    Null
    #3
    Ok then, could you please tell me why Apple switched to Intel? I guess it was something releated to "better performence per watt". This doesn't seem to be the case here. To actually get decent performence out of this Intel peice of junk, it will have to greatly increase the power consumption. Do you think Apple plans to put low performence processors in thier future Powerbooks? What would change from the current situation? I can't belive how most of the Mac community fell for Intel's lies. Intel processors were always notorious for thier increadible heat issues.

    My point here is that there's nothing Intel could offer that IBM/Freescale can't, PPW-wise. Even in the future.
     
  4. hyperpasta macrumors 6502a

    hyperpasta

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #4
    I thought the same thing. But Intel's doing a major shift soon. Also, Apple has access to Intel's, IBM's, and AMD's future plans, so they can pick the best one better than anyone else. I think we should trust them.
     
  5. wrxguy macrumors 6502a

    wrxguy

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    Location:
    Deepest Regions of Hell
    #5
    Im curious if apple was ever in discusion with any other chip manufacturers other than intel
     
  6. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
  7. stoid macrumors 601

    stoid

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    So long, and thanks for all the fish!
    #7
    Switching chip platform is a dangerous, and potentially fatal for a small market company like Apple, I'm certain that they wouldn't dare risk avoiding discussions with any chip manufacturer. Not even Steve with all of his oddities could possibly be stupid enough to avoid a manufacturer on grudge or principle.

    Also, as a previous poster said, big things are changing at Intel AFAIK Apple will not be using Yonah processors at all, but the next-gen Merom chips due sometime next year. That's the reason that anyone suggesting that Intel PowerBooks would be out next week is absolutely dead wrong, the processors the Intel PowerBooks will use aren't released yet!
     
  8. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #8
    Apple switched, because IBM/Freescale had basically moved far enough away from the PPC desktop processor -- that any future development would be 100% paid for by Apple.

    Apple isn't large enough in sales to support such an effort with two chip suppliers, and were probably very uncomfortable with switching to a single chip supplier for future PPC chips.

    The switch to Intel is a one time cost, the next new PPC CPU is something that Apple would be paying for forever.

    Edit: Yes, Both IBM/Freescale can do it, but it will cost Apple hudreds of millions to keep up -- this is only because Apple's desktop CPU needs diverged drastically from what IBM/Freescale were willing to supply in the future.
     
  9. Voidness thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Voidness

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    Null
    #9
    Well, what makes us so sure that Merom are actually any better? A few months ago everyone was talking about Yonah and how it could deliver high-performance with very little power consumption.

    If it was either Intel or AMD. I would have definitely preferred AMD. They provide better PPW than Intel could ever provide and historically faced less problems in supplying their processors.

    That's not entirely true, because if you look at Freescale's and IBM's future processor roadmap, they sure look promising and aimed at high-performance computing, which would be suitable for desktops/portables/servers. Take this processor as an example: The MPC8641D Dual Core processor, which you can read about here: http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=0162468rH3bTdG7249

    Other than that, what you mentioned is the true and only reason Apple switched to Intel, it's not about PPW or the future of the platform.
     
  10. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #10
    Why can't they go with both?

    I don't see why Apple can't choose to put an Athlon 64 in a machine at a later point. It's x86.
     
  11. Voidness thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Voidness

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    Null
    #11
    True, they're both x86. But apparently, Apple has only been mentioning Intel everywhere in their transition plans. Even in their developer guides they say "PowerPC to Intel", which is technically incorrect. Even in the processor tool it shows an image of an Intel processor.

    That also shows how this isn’t about the platform, it's about money.
     
  12. Music_Producer macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    #12
    Why Apple went with Intel

    When the rumors regarding Apple switching to Intel were abound, I called a family friend of mine who works at Intel and asked him to confirm. Without any hesitation he replied in the positive with a tone that was like "You didn't know this? Its old news!"

    When I asked him "Why?!!" He said "Thats because we make the best chips in the world.. just kidding.. we do make good chips but the main factor is pricing"

    So there it is - pricing. I don't think you guys see whats coming here. After the success of the ipod, Apple has to ditch manufacturing relatively expensive computers. Having a 2% market share in computer hardware is stupid. Time to make a change.. you have to be profitable as a corporation.. and I mean big profits like the ipod has given them.

    The new Apple hardware with intel chips will enable them to reduce costs significantly.. and run the Tiger x86 OS on those chips. Of course, performance per watt increases..less heat will be generated.. but the price factor will be the main cost.

    Imagine a powerbook @ 3 Ghz with all the features you can think of.. for $1200 (15 inch) or even less. Or a powermac for $700. Suddenly there will be a rush to buy these products.. believe me, if you don't own Apple stock right now.. do it before its too late.

    If Apple wanted to go for pure performance they could have gone with AMD.. but AMD can't handle the extensive volume, and the pricing break that Intel must have given Apple. The ipod nano is cheap because Samsung has an exclusive pricing arrangement with Apple, and intel does with apple as well. So I'm looking forward to the intel apple hardware.. which will be super cheap in price, but unmatched in quality and performance.
     
  13. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #13
    Dell, and everyone else, buys more chips from Intel than Apple will. It doesn't make sense that Intel needs to make a deal with Apple regarding chips.......as Apple holds very little power as a purchaser of Intel products.
     
  14. Cfg5 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #14
    I wanna see AMD 64's in desktops and Intel Pentium M's in notebooks.

    I bought 4 shares :rolleyes: of Apple stock a couple days, ago. Plan to buy more. How big of an impact do you think the Intel switch will have on Apple's stock?
     
  15. jdechko macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    #15
    But Apple has style that is unmatched by any other computer maker in the world. And that can go on Intel's resume... the best designed/looking computers in the world run our chips. Now they truly are the best.

    Apple also is innovative with hardware standards as well (ie Firewire), so I view this as more of an Apple/Intel partnership. Plus, with regards to the volume, we all know that IBM had difficulty delivering on their promises. This is a Non-issue with intel, the largest chip-maker in the world. (though I agree that Dell has more purchasing power as they ship a lot more machines).
     
  16. DeathChill macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2005
    #16
    As processors increase in speed of course their power consumption increases. The G5's use tons of power (hence why they're not in notebooks yet, though there's the lower power version now). There's no doubt that the Pentium 4 line had heat issues but that was simply because Intel ramped up the GHz which obviously increased the heat output. However, the P4's still perform relatively well on OS X (in comparison with the G5's most definitely :) ) and the newer chips focus on a different method (dual core and shorter pipelines) so speed should be right up there.
     
  17. earthman macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    #17
    The answer has alot to do with the way computers are marketed. Getting the highest GHz numbers to advertize with is of considerable importance, because the crowds of neophytes out there will always think bigger/faster is better, regardless of the truth. AMD and Cyrix were driven to use arbitrary "ratings" and so forth to compete with Intel's higher clock speeds, regardless of what the actual performance was. Apple faced the same problems with IBM processors, they just weren't able to deliver (in a timely fashion) cpus that were as fast as Intel's, regardless of how strongly they performed, so they made a decision to switch, though I suspect it's probably not just that simple. Apple has been very demanding with many of it's suppliers, asking them to absorb large development costs on relatively small chip runs, and it's entirely probable that IBM simply refused to accept their terms of business anymore. That said, I think Steve Jobs believes we are moving past the age of the desktop computer in a lot of ways, and the future lies in gadgets like the iPods, which is much more of a "growth" market than computers. Intel has much more interesting offerings in that arena, with the Xscale, for example. They also have quad core coming next year as well. Intel is a well-known (if not liked by everyone) brand, and will only help to expand the potential market against PC's. I'm not sure the "think different" approach to marketing is going to continue to work, since pretty much all the different-thinking people who are so inclined are already using Apple products, or have joined the Linux community...or are locked to Windows due to proprietary software issues. Apples have never been about hardware flaunting anyway (since they usually lag PC's in raw capability), so I doubt that any great number of people will even be aware of what processor is running their mac...come to think of it, how many are now?
     

Share This Page