Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

bbrosemer

macrumors 6502a
Jan 28, 2006
639
3
Belly-laughs said:
This means Steve now will have to pull out the MHz myth argument, again! :D
Um no even intel doesnt crank out the high Mhz anymore incase u didnt notice the core duo's are 1/2 the Mhz of the P4
 

GoCubsGo

macrumors Nehalem
Feb 19, 2005
35,741
153
adk said:
I highly doubt apple is going to use intel processors for few years and then go back to ppc. I have a feeling whatever IBM did can probably be carried over to intel.
I agree. I highly doubt that Apple would return to a company that is a day late and a dollar short. It took Apple leaving and Motorola seeing how profitable things really could have been for them to get off their asses and take care of business.


Someone should be fired.
 

SheriffParker

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2006
579
0
The land of love
The G6 will be the fastest PowerPC chip ever! Bring back the power!

Actually, I wouldn't put it past Apple to support both PowerPC and intel chips. All the software will be universal soon, so it wouldn't be that much of a problem for OSX applications.

Once all the windows users are converted, we'll force them to use the G6 and they'll have to wave goodbye to their precious boot camp and parallels crutches...

OSX will rule the world! And it only runs on Apple Hardware!! Muhuhuhuhahahaa!!!

Plus Vista is going to ruin microsoft... All signs point to a world of apple. :D
 

andiwm2003

macrumors 601
Mar 29, 2004
4,382
454
Boston, MA
FF_productions said:
I'm still waiting for my PowerBook G5 to come next tuesday...

if they slightly underclock the new chip to 3GHz it might even be possible to cope with the heat.:D

btw: could you please change your avatar? that thing is just digusting. what is it? it looks ugly.
 

bbrosemer

macrumors 6502a
Jan 28, 2006
639
3
I always thought that Apple's biggest problem with IBM was their seemingly lack of focus on developing PPC chips, instead IBM would go out and develop for gaming machines and server meanwhile ignoring apple and not presenting a good road map for the future isnt this neglect what lead to the chism.
 

brbubba

macrumors 6502
May 20, 2006
485
0
Announcements like this are made all the time. What they mean for the CPU industry in the short term is jack squat. These types of discoveries take years to even begin to trickle down to the consumer markets. Jobs made the right decision to go with Intel as they will always be guaranteed the best and cheapest consumer technology at the time.
 

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,709
69
USA
bbrosemer said:
I always thought that Apple's biggest problem with IBM was their seemingly lack of focus on developing PPC chips, instead IBM would go out and develop for gaming machines and server meanwhile ignoring apple and not presenting a good road map for the future isnt this neglect what lead to the chism.
Sort of. IBM's plans for the PPC had the family going in directions that did not fit Apple's needs. In particular, IBM had no plans for low-power versions of the PPC family. None of us knows what the future holds. However, it would be serious mistake to believe that Apple is married to Intel.
 

bbrosemer

macrumors 6502a
Jan 28, 2006
639
3
MisterMe said:
Sort of. IBM's plans for the PPC had the family going in directions that did not fit Apple's needs. In particular, IBM had no plans for low-power versions of the PPC family. None of us knows what the future holds. However, it would be serious mistake to believe that Apple is married to Intel.
If they start selling more and more computers they could at least become married to intel in the laptop market.
 

Timepass

macrumors 65816
Jan 4, 2005
1,051
1
MisterMe said:
Sort of. IBM's plans for the PPC had the family going in directions that did not fit Apple's needs. In particular, IBM had no plans for low-power versions of the PPC family. None of us knows what the future holds. However, it would be serious mistake to believe that Apple is married to Intel.


True but apple will have to be careful about just dumping intel. They are pretty good at burning bridges and if they keep it up they will run out of bridges to burn plus they dont have the marketing power to demand what they want. Loyalty goes a long ways and not dropping a company at chance that some else will have something better.

Apple seems to have a history of doing that and they need to slow down at it.
 

milo

macrumors 604
Sep 23, 2003
6,891
522
I doubt we'll ever see IBM ship this. They're notorious for promising and then NEVER delivering.

If they do deliver someday, it will probably be AFTER intel has done the same thing, and lower speeds than intel.

Apple completely made the right decision, if there's a huge change 2 or 3 years from now, nothing is stopping them from making another move.
 

gman71882

macrumors 6502
Jan 12, 2005
404
0
Houston, Tx
IBM wont hold back the findings for only them. They will licence the ability to other companies and try to make as much money off of the research as possible.
 

Krevnik

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2003
4,100
1,309
Peyton said:

The problem here is that IIRC, this development works with a different doping of Silicon which appeared to not be horribly practical for things like CPUs. However, this sort of thing is great in networking and communications, as you can get faster switches for fiber networks (currently one of the bottle-necks on fiber), the ability to produce/consume high-frequency signals more easily beyond 2-5 Ghz. These sort of applications are far simpler than a general-purpose chip.

If it can be used on the scale of a CPU, then we would have to wait a decade before we would even see one on the market, and it would likely be a very expensive chip aimed to be used in server farms of large corporations at first.
 

63dot

macrumors 603
Jun 12, 2006
5,269
339
norcal
iGary said:
Here they are putting the cooling system in place for one of these chips:

27.jpg

that's exactly what i thought...based on if the processor was mostly hardware based, but there are always up and coming software solutions for faster and cooler chips...i think i have the recipe in my cookbook (as the fbi reads this post and sends a couple of agents out to my house ;) )
 

superbovine

macrumors 68030
Nov 7, 2003
2,872
0
JRM PowerPod said:
You laugh now, this quote will be used one day.

I'm 19 the first computer i had in my house was a 66mhz 486, i thought it was fast with its 8mb ram and 400mb storage. 12 years later we have a Quad G5 with 1TB internal storage and 4Gb of ram. Thats 151 times the processor (4cores) 2500 times the storage and 512 times the ram. Using that as a basis in another 12 years i could be using a computer with a total of 1.5Thz in cores 10,000TB (wtf) and 2TB of Ram. Imagine that running solitaire

my first apple was 4 mhz, dual 5.25" floppy drives, 128 k of ram, and a black and white crt.
 

dmw007

macrumors G4
May 26, 2005
10,635
0
Working for MI-6
63dot said:
that's exactly what i thought...based on if the processor was mostly hardware based, but there are always up and coming software solutions for faster and cooler chips...i think i have the recipe in my cookbook (as the fbi reads this post and sends a couple of agents out to my house ;) )

Same here- something running at that clock speed would need some rather extraordinary cooling! :eek:
 

Killyp

macrumors 68040
Jun 14, 2006
3,859
7
My MacBook Pro runs my programs now, it will still run them in 10 years time...
 

howesey

macrumors 6502a
Dec 3, 2005
535
0
Intel have far more technologies in development. ;)

Just Google "Intel terahertz". They have used this technology and come up with a lot more to go with it. Thier roadmap is already designed and chips working for the next ten years, a reason to why Jobs was interested.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.