IBM vs. Intel

MacRumors · Mar 5, 2004

The Inquirer posts an internal IBM memo in which IBM their major win in beating Intel at providing technology for Microsoft's upcoming Xbox as well as Apple's PowerMac:

We've handed Intel another defeat. Earlier this year, we kept them out of the Apple G5 and now we've thrown them out of Xbox. (Not bad, considering one Intel executive recently called us "trivial");

The fact that Apple had considered using the Intel processors for their PowerMac line was previously revealed in another internal IBM publication.

DamnDJ · Mar 5, 2004

Go IBM!

w00master · Mar 5, 2004

I still to this day find it funny (and ironic) that we Apple fans are cheering on "Big Blue."

Hee hee.... ahh how the world has changed!

As I stated in my previous posts regarding XBox Next (and other game consoles), the one true winner in the upcoming console wars is: IBM.

w00master

Naimfan · Mar 5, 2004

Interesting. Especially that Intel would consider IBM "trivial" when IBM is the one company that has the resources and management to not only compete but surpass them...

Also suggests that IBM is promising and/or delivering more than Intel, which appears to have fallen far behind Moore's law, even if clock speed has always been only part of the overall throughput equation. Now if Dell or other large PC box makers start thinking about it, we'll really have a story!

Bob

PlaceofDis · Mar 5, 2004

i just wonder where/how IBM is going to expand next? they are an interesting company but i have never really kept tabs on them too much, i wonder if they are going to try to go head to head with intel?

virividox · Mar 5, 2004

i dont care whoever makes the chips as long as they make my baby run

Stolid · Mar 5, 2004

Remember: Moore's law technically applies to transistor counts; not speed. Just being a specific nitpicker.

dongmin · Mar 5, 2004

virividox said:
i dont care whoever makes the chips as long as they make my baby run

yeah really. IBM's commitment to Apple is only five years. who knows what will happen after that. don't be so quick to dismiss intel.

IJ Reilly · Mar 5, 2004

Now this is interesting. Apple really was prepared to make the jump to x86 until IBM reeled them back in.

wdlove · Mar 5, 2004

Thank you IBM.

Intel is just too tied up with Microsoft.

Steven1621 · Mar 5, 2004

would intel processors make for x86 compatibility?

3-22 · Mar 5, 2004

PlaceofDis said:
i just wonder where/how IBM is going to expand next? they are an interesting company but i have never really kept tabs on them too much, i wonder if they are going to try to go head to head with intel?

I doubt they will go head-to-head with Intel. AMD has been there done that. Besides they aren't even focused on x86. I'm guessing they will target niche markets; super computers, midranges, servers, Apple, and consumer devices (xbox).

Mac-Xpert · Mar 5, 2004

Steven1621 said:
would intel processors make for x86 compatibility?

Yeah, they're fully compatible with x86

Somehow I think you meant something different

jethroted · Mar 5, 2004

I can't wait to get one of those! I'm going to hack that baby, and get osx running on it. I'm not going to buy any games for it. M$ takes a huge hit on the money they lose by selling the hardware for $300, and I get a dual G5 for next to nothing! Oh sweet baby!

Naimfan · Mar 5, 2004

Stolid said:
Remember: Moore's law technically applies to transistor counts; not speed. Just being a specific nitpicker.

Stolid--Nit taken! You'd make a good lawyer..... ;-)

Seriously, though, my impression is that PCs haven't seen the kinds of speed increases they have in the past, and I've read a lot about Intel having trouble getting past 4 GHz. And the fastest consumer machines I typically see are usually 3.06 or 3.2 GHz (please don't get me wrong--very fast indeed!).

I do think IBM is the one company Intel should be scared of--IBM has the resources, financially, scientifically, engineering-wise, and management, to take on Intel head to head and win. IBM would obviously not compete in the x86 arena, which has had its run, but rather in more advanced chips where they have a clear advantage (from what I've read) over Intel. And IBM has, as the saying goes, an annoying habit of doing what they say they will....

Best,

Bob

Snowy_River · Mar 5, 2004

Naimfan said:
... Now if Dell or other large PC box makers start thinking about it, we'll really have a story!

Bob

Well, we know that M$ has a version of WinNT that will run on the 970. So, maybe other major computer mfg.s will consider it if M$ offers one of their OSes for general consumption on the 970 (whether it be the Mac G5, or a 970 based Dell).

1macker1 · Mar 5, 2004

I don't think Intel is really bothered by this, it's just IBM. I think they are more concerned with AMD.

Frisco · Mar 5, 2004

1macker1 said:
I don't think Intel is really bothered by this, it's just IBM. I think they are more concerned with AMD.

And that would be a mistake by Intel that just may come back to bite them in the Ass!

Snowy_River · Mar 5, 2004

Mac-Xpert said:
Yeah, they're fully compatible with x86 Somehow I think you meant something different

Yeah, I think he was wondering if Apple would be looking at Intel's x86 vs. having Intel make a PPC processor. However, I doubt that Intel would have made a PPC processor.

wrldwzrd89 · Mar 5, 2004

Snowy_River said:
Well, we know that M$ has a version of WinNT that will run on the 970. So, maybe other major computer mfg.s will consider it if M$ offers one of their OSes for general consumption on the 970 (whether it be the Mac G5, or a 970 based Dell).

Now that would be something (Dell and other PC manufacturers making PowerPC-based computers). It's too bad, then, that the odds of it happening are rather low (at least right now they are). With Intel being where they are (despite the fact that they're struggling to make Pentiums better), PC makers don't have any incentive to make PowerPC boxes.

dukemeiser · Mar 5, 2004

It is certainly good to know that IBM values Apple as a customer.

Mac-Xpert · Mar 5, 2004

Snowy_River said:
Yeah, I think he was wondering if Apple would be looking at Intel's x86 vs. having Intel make a PPC processor. However, I doubt that Intel would have made a PPC processor.

I don't think Intel would ever build a PPC. Why would they bother with all the necessary research needed if the PPC in a Mac only has about 3-4 percent market share, while their x86 holds the majority of the rest of the market. Also they might not be able duo to patents hold by Motorola and IBM.

MacsRgr8 · Mar 5, 2004

Macrumors said:
The Inquirer posts an internal IBM memo in which IBM their major win in beating Intel at providing technology for Microsoft's upcoming Xbox as well as Apple's PowerMac:

The fact that Apple had considered using the Intel processors for their PowerMac line was previously revealed in another internal IBM publication.

Wow.... Mac OS on x86 really was pretty close then.
No tnx to Moto...

Snowy_River · Mar 5, 2004

Naimfan said:
...Seriously, though, my impression is that PCs haven't seen the kinds of speed increases they have in the past, and I've read a lot about Intel having trouble getting past 4 GHz. And the fastest consumer machines I typically see are usually 3.06 or 3.2 GHz (please don't get me wrong--very fast indeed!)...

Well, you're right. Since August of 2002, when the 2.8 GHz P4 was released, the overall rate of speed increase has dropped. Consider the attachement. For almost the past two years, Intel's ability to release faster processors has been rather diminished...

Snowy_River · Mar 5, 2004

Mac-Xpert said:
I don't think Intel would ever build a PPC. Why would they bother with all the necessary research needed if the PPC in a Mac only has about 3-4 percent market share, while their x86 holds the majority of the rest of the market. Also they might not be able duo to patents hold by Motorola and IBM.

Well, more or less, that's my point.

IBM vs. Intel

macrumors bot

macrumors 6502

macrumors 65816

Suspended

macrumors Core

macrumors 601

macrumors regular

macrumors 68000

macrumors P6

macrumors P6

macrumors 6502a

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors 6502a

Suspended

macrumors 68030

macrumors 65816

macrumors 68020

macrumors 68030

macrumors G5

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 6502

macrumors G3

macrumors 68030

Attachments

macrumors 68030

Our Staff