Apple and IBM's PowerPC Potential

[Scottgfx]

Whatever folks. I liked mac for awhile. My next computer will be a windows machine. Cheaper, Faster, Better, More Compatible. Probably an IBM NetVista or Intellistation.

Hey, what happened? Did Apple fire you? Look, I know you've been under a rock for awhile, but; IBM sold their PC biz to a Chinese company called Lennovo. Yes, I know this makes you sad, but please, accept this extended arm and outstretched middle finger as a gesture of my knowledge of your trollness.

XP on a PII? I've got OS X ia32 running on a PowerMac 8100!

 

[zoltamatron]

Of course, if you remember, Windows used to be architecture independant. Remember Alpha chips? Windows NT 4 ran on Alpha. It was, by all accounts, a lot faster/better than Intel chips. It died a quiet, lonely death.

Yeah, but did anyone write any software for NT Alpha? This is the killer of any OS -- software base. If the software is not cross-architecture, then the platform is not architecture independent.

God no. Only thing I'd run Windows for is games. Seriously, name me one thing that you'd use Windows for that isn't available for OS X now?

I'm not talking about me or you.....I could give a crap about running windows programs and I'm sure you could too....but there are a lot of Windows users that don't want to have to repurchase all of their software. There are a lot of businesses that have key software that is Windows only. I'll never use the feature, but I know that Windows apps on OS X will get a lot of users to come to our side.

It's about Laptops and the future direction of chips. Intel is serious about their chips for Personal Computers. IBM seems not to care. 2 years, and still not up to 3 gigahertz. Heat issues. Etc. They plague IBM.

Yeah, I agree. Laptops are pretty key right now. But what gives Steve so much faith in Intel? Yeah, IBM took 2 years to go from 2GHz to 2.7GHz but Intel took almost three years to take the Pentium 4 from 3GHz to 3.8GHz!

If Steve plays it right, it won't matter what CPU you have in your Mac. Intel, PPC, etc. It will just work. It will run. I'm looking forward to more choices, and further developments that OS X has coming....

I totally agree.....what I really WANT to see is a lineup that includes both Intel and PPC offerings, with software that is independent of the processor. If my main apps run faster on PPC, I'll get that. If they run faster on Intel, I can get that too.....all while keeping my software investment.

-z

 

[iMeowbot]

Well, not a productive comment, or a well-informed one. Let's see... The top two supercomputers in the world are PPC-based. Six of the top ten systems are PPC. IBM has over half of the top 500.

Look again at those machines, at the sheer number of processors and the (low) speed of the individual processors. PowerPC isn't what makes Blue Gene interesting, it's the networking in there.

Something else happened this year. More than half of new PCs sold are notebooks. What you can do with an 80-watt CPU, or a thousand lesser CPUs, is rapidly becoming irrelevant in the personal computer arena. The amount of work that can be done by low power chips, in small numbers, is what matters from now on.

Big tin was a non-issue under that arrangement, Apple don't make it and never would have been able to compete in that space when their chip supplier had their own needs in that space to consider first.

 

[xrayzed]

God no. Only thing I'd run Windows for is games. Seriously, name me one thing that you'd use Windows for that isn't available for OS X now?

Half a dozen specialist applications written for my work that are Windows only. While generic products like word processors and spreadsheets are well covered in pretty much all OSes, business apps are primarily Windows based.

 

[scem0]

Its about the PRICING! Period.

I recall reading somewhere that the cost of Apple computer will rise, if anything, from the switch and that it is cheaper for apple to buy from IBM rather than Intel. I don't know the reliability of this source (I forgot where I read this), so take that with a grain of salt.

scem0

 

[GregA]

Totally wrong. I predict that the FIRST macs to go Intel will be the PowerMacs. A Dual Core Intel chip running at 3.6+ Gigahertz, with NATIVE Final Cut Pro, Logic, and other Apps? Totally.

What do you base your prediction on?

- Would this be a faster machine than current PowerMac dual 2.7?
- Would it be a cheaper machine?
- Does it fit with Intel's roadmap?
(note I assume we want the first Intel macs to be faster than current Macs to offset some of the Rosetta speed-loss)

As far as the more common prediction - dual core Yonah powerbook at between 1.5-2.2Ghz?...
- Would it be faster than current Powerbook 1.67?
- Would it be a cheaper machine?
- Does it fit with Intel's roadmap

 

[eSnow]

besides the volume, from what I understand, Apple is getting the best price point in the market for the chips. I don't think Intel will be making loads of money off them. It has been Intel's mantra for the past ten years to get apple "at all costs". welp....they got them. now, let's deliver.

haha, I'd really like to see that. intel got apple in the sack now - they don't have options any longer. They can't go back to PPC, they can't move to any other desktop CPU, because there is none (excluding AMD, but their chips run much too hot).

 

[MongoTheGeek]

Totally wrong. I predict that the FIRST macs to go Intel will be the PowerMacs. A Dual Core Intel chip running at 3.6+ Gigahertz, with NATIVE Final Cut Pro, Logic, and other Apps? Totally.

Steve said at WWDC that the powermac would be the last to switch. Right now all the altivec optimizations in those programs need to be tested against the intel vector library(can't remember what its called) The pro users of those applications will switch to PC apps if the hop to intel hardware isn't dramatically faster and it won't be dramatically faster unless the optimizations work.

 

[aegisdesign]

Good or bad, universal binaries should allow Apple to move back and forth between processors.

True. But that's not what Steve said. Developers may be compiling universal binaries but it was very clear that this is a transition entirely to Intel across the whole line.

If Steve didn't mean it, the word 'Transition' and an Intel logo wouldn't have been in 20ft high letters behind him.

 

[Truffy]

I too hope for serious G5 cpu's in the next PowerMac iteration, maybe this time IBM will deliver.

I've been saving up for a PowerMac a long long time, maybe not frugally, but here and there when able too. I want great cpu performance, but I dont want to pay for an increase electric bill because of an inefficient cpu is chugging along, I already have that with my Dell P4 2.0Ghz machine. I'm seriously interested to see what Intel will offer Apple in 12months from now, although I dont expect too much for it will be in the consumer lineup.

Yep, same here. Just waiting for the dual-cores to be announced, and I think they will. Either way, I should be in possession of a PM by the end of the year.

 

[aegisdesign]

Steve said at WWDC that the powermac would be the last to switch. Right now all the altivec optimizations in those programs need to be tested against the intel vector library(can't remember what its called) The pro users of those applications will switch to PC apps if the hop to intel hardware isn't dramatically faster and it won't be dramatically faster unless the optimizations work.

It's not just the Pro apps.

Things like iTunes and Quicktime use Altivec extensively to both speed up encoding/decoding of media steams and to offload a lot of work from the rest of the processor.

Intel only recently released SSE3 on the Pentium4 and that gets sort of there by comparison to AltiVec, but they've not got that in the Pentium M yet - SSE2 only. I'd not be surprised if a G4 couldn't trounce a faster Pentium M at media applications still. Much of the benchmarking that gets done is integer/FPU performance yet when you see Photoshop trouncing faster Intel chips and certain filters, DVD mastering running 2 times quicker and mp3 encoding via iTunes running quicker you have to wonder if throwing out Altivec for a faster overall integer speed is that good an idea. Laptops, sure, Desktops - harder to call.

 

[Fabio_gsilva]

Surprise us!!!

The question is simple: IBM is claiming that they had amazing processors ship to Apple, but, they didn't because Apple don't ask.

If this is true, they still have time to surprise everybody releasing some incredible processors to make the very best Mac machines ever!!! At least everybody will miss IBM whem Mactels become true...

Now, it's only a dream inside of a dream...

 

[MarcelV]

They can't go back to PPC, they can't move to any other desktop CPU, because there is none (excluding AMD, but their chips run much too hot).

Wrong!! Universal Binaries are giving the possibilities to go back and forth between Intel and PPC..... And that's exactly what's it all about. When IBM can get their act together, SJ will just announce that he will use Intel in one line and PPC in another line. The lines will not be competitive to eachother but complimentary....

...that's not what Steve said. Developers may be compiling universal binaries but it was very clear that this is a transition entirely to Intel across the whole line.

Yep, and Steve always told us the truth.... Sometimes business decisions are made and you live with it. But, never assume that business decisions made in th epast can't be changed. For now, the plan is to switch the complete line, but guess what? If tomorrow teh circumstances change, do you really think SJ will ignore those, just because he had mentioned before he was switching the complete line? Think different, think twice.

 

[Jayskie]

My 2, 3, 4 & 5 cents:

I don't think this Intel/IBM thing is a war between chips, I think it's more about the OS'es. I think Apple will keep IBM PPC for high end (G5, server) computers and Intel for low end (Mini's) which would be smart, more selling point. Apple hardcore users would stick with IBM and MAC entry users would go with Intel (cheaper price tag). There is still a lot of computer users out there oblivious to MAC, many started to learn about it because of IPod's. See, all here who come to MacRumors know what a MAC is, but ask your neighbor if he would buy a PC or a MAC. He'll most likely say "I have a PC or thinking of going to "BestBuy" to get one, but what's a MAC?" then Steve decides to "Open Doors not Windows".

Currently Microsoft dominates most of the work place environment with Windows and home users who are hard core gamers (smart ones get MAC) and I don't want to mention Linux. The fact that you can sell an operating system that would run on PPC and Intel opens a new market for both Apple and "the lost souls" that don't know MAC. And the fact that next MAC OS version launches next to Longhorn, priceless, which instead of Leopard should have the name Hyena (get it? ).
The world has been asking for a stable operating system, Apple will deliver. Can't afford to buy a new computer? Here's the operating system, just install to your Intel computer (or on top of your Windows, ) and......wait, this seems familiar......oh yes.....Windows Media and ITunes for Windows......ITunes hands down.
Current Retail prices - OSX $129 = WINXPPro $299 (prices taken from Microsoft.com and Apple.com, I know it's cheaper elsewhere).

Yes, I've heard people say "Hey that ITunes is great, what's a MAC?".

(Windows XP on a GP-233 with 192 ram, 4gb hard drive and blue screens, yes my job has a dozen tons of 'em and not a single MAC, don't ask me how it runs, I still have a job and while my kid beats on my PC, I'm happy with my PowerMAC & PowerBook at home. Yes, when it comes out I'll give my kid XP CD to play with, install OS X .5 to my PC and then wait for LongHorn with Service Pack 5 CD).

 

[bbyrdhouse]

If Apple is going to be using only Intel in a couple years, and Rosetta only goes from PPC to Intel, not Intel to PPC, why would anyone buy a PPC Mac now unless they absolutely HAD to, or they normally upgrade their Mac every couple of years? No one is going to be making new programs for PPC in a couple years. So why still put out PPC Mac's? Obviously they can't go 2 years without any new Mac's, who is going to buy those?

Well, while your argument seems to make sense on the surface. Just yesterday I spent $12,000+ for (2) 2.7 Powermacs with 20" displays and an "Edu" version of FinalCut Studio for $499.

Why? you ask. Because I had to have the best machine out there for my money now. And The Powermac was the best value. If I were to get a comparable DELL I would have saved about $75.00, but even then I would not have a Dual proc system.

Now I concur with you on all of the low end machines, but on the high end Apple still gives you the most bang for your buck.

 

[Mac-Xpert]

Wrong!! Universal Binaries are giving the possibilities to go back and forth between Intel and PPC..... And that's exactly what's it all about. When IBM can get their act together, SJ will just announce that he will use Intel in one line and PPC in another line. The lines will not be competitive to eachother but complimentary....

I agree. Although it could very well be their intention right now to completely switch to Intel, if Intels desktop offerings aren't what they expected, but the do have a nice notebook chip, while at the same time IBM offers them a Power 5 based PowerPC that clearly outruns the Intels, then I can certainly see Apple use those in their high-end machines.

When apple switched the powermacs to the G5, I'm sure their intention at the time was to eventually drop Motorola and use the G5 for everything, however that didn't work out.

So it does really make sense to change direction when things work out differently than originally planned.

 

[macdong]

Now I concur with you on all of the low end machines, but on the high end Apple still gives you the most bang for your buck.

except PowerBooks, of course.

 

[Yvan256]

Wrong!! Universal Binaries are giving the possibilities to go back and forth between Intel and PPC..... And that's exactly what's it all about. When IBM can get their act together, SJ will just announce that he will use Intel in one line and PPC in another line. The lines will not be competitive to each other but complimentary...

That's also what I think will happen. IBM and/or Freescale will deliver their next best thing (tm), and Apple will use it.

Steve did say "two years transition to Intel". Well, two years is a very long time in the computer world. I say that WWDC 2006 will have SJ saying something like "Well, the universal binaries are working great, you guys have been doing an excellent job. But so did IBM and Freescale. So, today, we're announcing that Apple is not moving all its computers to Intel processors. The PowerMacs will still use IBM's PPC processors, and the Mac mini and eMac will use Freescale's new G4 processors. The iMac, iBook and PowerBooks are still planned to go with Intel's new processors. So, keep making universal binaries!"

If Apple keeps hold on BOTH the PPC and x86 chips, they're not tied with any CPU maker. This gives them a stronger hand when asking for chips and prices from any of them.

I mean come on, for the past 10-20 years (don't know when they started using PPC) they've been limited to what PPC could do, and you really think they'll switch to Intel and be limited to what Intel can/should be able to do in the future? That's just nuts, especially now that they've got all the pieces in place to be the first TRUE "compile once, run anywhere" platform?

 

[RichP]

Everyone is so uptight about this switch; personally, I am thankful apple had a contingency plan, and is exercising it. Now is the time. iPod profits are going to start falling (how many can you possibly sell?) Apple has some buffer now, and can take a step back to prepare for the long term.

The switch to Intel is set in stone (Rosetta ) There is nothing that IBM could say, do, produce, deliver that is going to change that. There was an Intel article a few months ago in Technology Review that really summed up why I think apple made the switch. The intel rep interviewed stated that to perpetuating Moore's Law with simple speed increases is becoming almost impossible, but the speed increase can be maintained via well integrated platform architecture. Centrino was their first offering, and it is a success.

Intel can bring Apple integrated solutions that free up apple resources for other areas of product development. The future is not the Powermac, its the mac mini, the powerbook, the i-line of products. Its truely useful tablets that are literally a notebook replacement. Intel can deliver this; IBM and PPC cannot.

and beside..with the x86 conversion, if Intel does fail..there is AMD and VIA waiting in the wings.

(final thought? Maybe people dont want an x86 switch because it will make Windows to OSX speed comparisions very easy, and we may not like what we find out...)

 

[WebHead]

You ain't seen nuthin' yet

Apple should wait until something worthwhile comes out and I think that is their plan with the transistion.

Indeed. Rumor has it the team behind DEC's Alpha chip is working on Intel's Next Big Thing.

 

[javiercr]

So AGAIN, where is the 4 GHz processor Intel promised, please tell me.
There is such a thing called 'physics' FYI.

the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 when liquid cooled (like the PM needs to reach 2.7) can reach 4Ghz and it's dual core.
http://www.dvhardware.net/article4517.html

 

[Mac-Xpert]

the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 when liquid cooled (like the PM needs to reach 2.7) can reach 4Ghz and it's dual core.
http://www.dvhardware.net/article4517.html

That a chip can be extremely cooled to run on a higher speed is something different than the chip manufacturer creating a chip that runs on that speed.

At the time motorola and apple produced 500 MHz G4 systems, there was a company that over-clocked that same chip to 1200 MHz with some extreme cooling. It took about 2 years before motorola could produce a chip that was really capable of that speed without extreme cooling.

As mentioned many times before, the 2.7 GHz G5 should be able to run without liquid cooling, but the fans would have to run faster, creating a noisier system. After the bad comment that Apple got with the "wind-tunnel" G4 systems they wanted to keep the G5 as quiet as possible, hence the liquid cooling.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Apple, of course....if that new technology isn't stricly compatible with legacy hardware and is owned by Intel. Think USB.

Why? $$$$$$

Intel isn't going to make anything special for Apple. They are going to ship Apple the same they are shipping every other company. If there was a supply issue I tend to disagree and feel Intel would always take care of the PC companies first because of their volume. My guess is Apple will contribute very little to Intel's bottom line. I hate to say it, but Apple will become an afterthought to Intel just like they did to IBM/Freescale. The difference this time is that Apple will be running the same set up as the PC's so it won't matter what is in them.

 

[ksz]

If Apple keeps hold on BOTH the PPC and x86 chips, they're not tied with any CPU maker. This gives them a stronger hand when asking for chips and prices from any of them.

It is expensive to develop and support two lines of computers based on 2 processor architectures. Two types of motherboards, two types of chipsets with possibly different levels of support for DDR<n>, SATA-II, PCIe, etc., two endian schemes, two compiled binaries, two compilers (with individual optimizations for each processor architecture), two sets of technical documents, two groups of product repair technicians (or double the training for each technician), two chip partners to continually manage with two roadmaps, two types of multimedia extensions to code for (Altivec vs MMX/SSE2), two marketing strategies for two processor architectures (who will be the target audience for PPC, who will be the target audience for Intel), two this, two that, two, two, two.

One is cheaper than two. One is more manageable than two. One is less confusing than two (except for number of mouse buttons).

 

[wdlove]

I recall reading somewhere that the cost of Apple computer will rise, if anything, from the switch and that it is cheaper for apple to buy from IBM rather than Intel. I don't know the reliability of this source (I forgot where I read this), so take that with a grain of salt.

scem0

I certainly hope that the article is wrong. Up till now Apple has been improving speed, memory, and other components at approximately the same price. Because of the higher product of the Intel processor the cost should be less. So I hope that Apple will pass that along.