Apple in Talks with Intel?

[BWhaler]

Alright guys, after reading 300 posts of junk and speculation and utter chaos, this guy finally got part of it right. If I remember correctly Intel owns the rights to PCIe. Apple doesn't have PCIe in it's machines yet. Either way, all of the new video cards are going towards PCIe. I read somewhere the other day that Nvidia's next generation video cards won't be AGP, only PCIe. This means that if Apple wants to try and stay up there with video cards and everything, they need PCIe. Now, both video card companies, ATI and Nvidia, are making a type of SLI compatible card. (ATI is developing theirs right now). To use SLI, you need PCIe. It was also mentioned in a previous rumor, Apple had hired/was going to hire, whatever, game guys. And what do you use SLI and PCIe for right now? Oh, that's right, gaming. OH, and Apple was also talking to ATI at some point in time about something, which I can't remember right now. (Sorry) So, apparently, Apple wants to bring gaming home, and Intel has the keys. Case solved. End of story.

This is it exactly.

 

[noel4r]

I dont care also what they put inside my Apple. As long as it works the same or better, I'm all for it....

 

[amac4me]

Forbes: Why Apple Won't Embrace Intel

An interesting read. Forbes indicates that these types of rumors generally "surface around the time Apple is close to making an important change in its system". It goes on to say that this may have been leaked by Apple to get leverage and concessions from IBM.

Is IBM more devoted to the Video Game Console makers instead of Apple? One can argue that IBM will be able to sell more consoles than it will Macs. Time will tell what is going on here but it's a nice read. Here's the link:

http://www.forbes.com/technology/personaltech/2005/05/23/cx_ah_0523apple.html

 

[jocknerd]

I hope the rumors false

I was getting ready to purchase $5000 of Apple shares and I really don't like the fact that the stock is up $4 from last week.

 

[iJaz]

I won't look through the whole post to see if this has been posted before. From everybody's favourite Paul Thurrott:

Now I'm hearing that the Apple/Intel work may be related to an Apple Tablet announcement, which is apparently due soon. Regardless, the Intel talks apparently involve some sort of power management technologies for Sonoma-like Powerbooks and/or Tablets. It's not anything ARM or XScale related, my sources tell me.

 

[cube]

Intel makes no PCIe chipsets that Apple could possibly use.

 

[zap2]

i hope not, i really think this is wrong.

 

[bodeh6]

I don't know what the big deal is. It is not like they are going to be putting Pentium 4 chips in PowerMacs. No one made a fuss when Apple ditched Motorola for IBM to make PowerPC chips. If Apple ditches IBM for Intel for making PowerPC chips, then let them do it. If Intel can make the PowerPC chips cheaper, faster, and for Powerbooks run cooler, then all for it.

 

[Church]

Intel makes no PCIe chipsets that Apple could possibly use.

What do you mean? PCIe is a technology just like PCI-X, AGP, USB, whatever. If chips are indeed used in PCIe, I think apple could figure out how to use them, just like they did with the Intel Chips in Xserve RAID or whatever they use them in.

 

[Yvan256]

I don't know what the big deal is. It is not like they are going to be putting Pentium 4 chips in PowerMacs. No one made a fuss when Apple ditched Motorola for IBM to make PowerPC chips. If Apple ditches IBM for Intel for making PowerPC chips, then let them do it. If Intel can make the PowerPC chips cheaper, faster, and for Powerbooks run cooler, then all for it.

Indeed. But what everybody thinks is that Apple going intel means a switch from PPC to x86.

But if it's indeed a "Apple asks intel to make PPC CPUs" then I'm all for it. I'd still be asking "why not ask AMD instead of intel", though.

What would kick ass is some Dual-Core, Dual Power5 CPUs with multiple Cell co-processors (per CPU core) and Pentium-M-like energy savings.

 

[Lacero]

If there are really negotiations, how could Apple make a transition to x86 and keep a lock (partial) on the HW side?

One way: They could bargain with Intel for a variant of x86 with small Apple specific extensions, nothing affecting normal operations of the CPU, just a couple of new Apple specific instructions and exclusive license for this CPU. Much like MMX, SSE, this is essentially backward compatible.

Now Apple builds OSX-86 and sells x86 Mac HW to run it, not only that but these machines can easily support your old MS windows stuff in a dual boot and take advantage of economies of Scale of PC HW to compete on price.

 

[Church]

If I remember correctly, the last time apple licensed their os to be used on anything other than their own hardware, they got boned. I don't think it's gonna happen you x86 fan boys.

 

[iGary]

I can't decide whether I'll hang myself or swallow a bunch of pills if this happens.

 

[Sun Baked]

Intel makes no PCIe chipsets that Apple could possibly use.

They could alway use an Intel HT Southbridge chip with PCI-Express to replace the K2 I/O chip.

A german design group has proposed a something similar for a PPC970 computer using a IBM CPC925 + nForce4 SLI chip.

But to date only one 3rd party has actually built a PPC970 system that they are selling, most everything else is a blade.

Most likely Apple has been working closely with Intel to add PCI-express to their Memory Controller (UH3/IBM CPC925) for our next generation PowerMac G5 (if it's a G5)

Something like an Intel PCI-to-USB controller is also possible, but it shouldn't generate this type of news.

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I don't know what the big deal is. It is not like they are going to be putting Pentium 4 chips in PowerMacs. No one made a fuss when Apple ditched Motorola for IBM to make PowerPC chips. If Apple ditches IBM for Intel for making PowerPC chips, then let them do it. If Intel can make the PowerPC chips cheaper, faster, and for Powerbooks run cooler, then all for it.

everybody isn't convinced it is PPC we are talking about, but x86....and THAT is a big deal.

 

[cube]

What do you mean? PCIe is a technology just like PCI-X, AGP, USB, whatever. If chips are indeed used in PCIe, I think apple could figure out how to use them, just like they did with the Intel Chips in Xserve RAID or whatever they use them in.

Well, maybe just the Southbridge is possible.

 

[7on]

OSX on X86 happens to be the worst rumor ever.

Why? All apps have to be rewritten much like OS9 apps had to be rewritten for OSX. Sure some developers might do it, but to my knowledge Apple has already made developers rewrite their apps twice (once for teh move to the G3 and another for the move to OSX). Another call for a rewrite quite possibly could upset many developers. For instance, Star Wars Episode 1 Racer works under OS9 only - it was never written for OSX therefore you can not play it. Likewise prolly will many games like Quake 3 and Halo and such will stop working with the switch to x86.

Not only that, how many companies that had OS9 versions offered OSX versions for free? None that I know of. So those of us that rely on expensive software will have to make multi-thousand dollar purchases with such an upgrade - just like what happened not 4 years ago with the move from OS9 to X. This will upset many professionals when you can run Photoshop 4 on even Win XP.

And don't say "It'll be easy for developers to do!" well those that develop for Windows don't have to rewrite their entire code every 4 years or so. SNES9x hasn't been touched by their developers for many many years (not counting the Custom Packs made by other devs using the free source code). And SNES9x still runs like always, the point of this is "Why?" Developers like their work to be easy, rewriting written apps is annoying to them.

Such a move to x86 will take way longer than the move from OS9 to X. The same reason PPC Linux apps won't work on x86 Linux. The only difference is Mac x86 apps will have to boughten as opposed to PPC linux apps.

OSX will not run on x86 generic machines. PearPC will be faster, but things like a Mac's GPU will prolly remain the same. Not to mention drivers from other manufacturers will not exist. And Open Firmware will not be licensed. You don't see OSX on other PPC machines do you?

This is no fanboyism here, I just don't want to have to spend $5000 rebuilding my software library when I need a new machine in 2 years.

 

[buggybear]

Apple to release new "Newton"

Intel makes the XScale® processor for PDAs -- this clearly indicates that Apple is coming out with a new mini-Newton that'll play MP3s too. With that much power to spare it should be able to support .WMA and .WMV video too...
Bye-bye iPod!

- bb

 

[Cooknn]

Is history repeating itself?

Apple denies eyeing Intel chips

There is every chance that this is all a smokescreen and next month, at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference., CEO Steve Jobs will unveil a 3GHz Power Mac and a G5 PowerBook. Two years ago, there was similar talk of a tie-up between Apple and AMD, though nothing materialised - except for the Dual 2GHz G5 Power Mac

 

[Dr.Gargoyle]

Indeed. But what everybody thinks is that Apple going intel means a switch from PPC to x86.

But if it's indeed a "Apple asks intel to make PPC CPUs" then I'm all for it. I'd still be asking "why not ask AMD instead of intel", though.

What would kick ass is some Dual-Core, Dual Power5 CPUs with multiple Cell co-processors (per CPU core) and Pentium-M-like energy savings.

If Intel would be able to deliver PPC faster and cheaper than IBM, I am all for it. But arent there some legal obstacles for that, regarding patents?

 

[jiggie2g]

This could work

In the long term Apple will be better off. IBM has already proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that Apple is not a priority customer. as Sony , M$ , and Nintendo have already leap froged Apple in the who get the CPU's 1st food chain.

I believe IBM has it's hands tied with producing millions of CPU's for every console maker , plus supplying the Highend server market with Power 4 and 5 processor it is already streached thin as it is .Then has to make room for Apple and it's G5 .

Sorry folks but I believe IBM has officially given Apple the shaft , just like Motorola did as they don't see the Mac market as a profitable enough market to keep investing money in R&D.

Intel on the other hand can make a cash cow of Apple , as they have the capacity and means...they don't call Intel chipzilla for nothing.

Many of you know me as an AMD fan ...some may even call me a fanboy , but I will give the Devil his due and admit that AMD is but a fly fighting an Elephant when it comes to AMD vs. Intel.

AMD has the upper hand now but The Inquirer alreadys has reported that Intel has been hard at work on a 11-13 stage 64bit CPU for sometime and is expected to debut in 2006. kinda thier answer to the Athlon 64. I am rooting fot AMD all the way but I know that Intel will eventually catch up. It always does.

As for Apple choosing Intel over AMD , simple Manufaturing capacity , no one not IBM not anyone can out produce Intel , it's what they do best. They Supply the whole industy and AMD is just not big enough to be an exclusive supplier to Apple plus make chips for HP and everyone else. Why do you think Dell still hasn't gone AMD.

Intel has a real Mobile Solution in the Pentium M that is only going to get better with time ,Pentium M's already do PCIe and DDR2 533. DC Pentium M's as expected 2nd QT 2006 and will run DDR2 667-DDR2 800. Lets see a G4 do that. If they put that in a Powerbook i'd pay $2500 for that. Imagine a PowerBook 17in with 5hrs battery Life , DC 2ghz Pentium M DDR2 667 and X800 GPU .

I don't understand why everyine here has such a death grip on the G5/G4 , What makes Macs so great in OSX not a PPC chip, Imagine Powermac with an Nforce 4 MB running SLI .

Best of all floks you will be able to do a real upgrade and not have to fork out another $2000+ for a new PC.

If Apple can do another classic mode that will let you run your current Software on X86 till everyone makes the adjustments and buys the native stuff it will make the transition alot simpler.

lastly Windows is bloatware , HP and Dell have both been begging Apple forever to port OSX to x86. They hate M$ and Bill Gates this is a legitimate way out. If the hardware vendors wish for apple to suceed then it will. Linux screams on fast intel or amd hardware and i would expect the same type of performance from OSX.

 

[jsw]

I can't decide whether I'll hang myself or swallow a bunch of pills if this happens.

Well, maybe before you kill yourself - again assuming anything actually does happen - you might want to try the new systems (charge them - who cares about debt when you're about to punch your own ticket?) and see if they're actually as bad as you might think they are.

I'd be surprised if the amount of corporate evilness at Intel is really all that different from that at IBM, so I doubt the karma scales will tip adversely. I'm sure the performance and/or cost would be better (else why do it?). I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt - especially as I think it's unlikely the x86 rumors are true anyway.

The thought of all those innocent baby IntelMacs, fresh out of assembly, being hated and reviled and spit upon simply because of different genetics... it just breaks my heart.

 

[remingtonhill]

I agree, it seems unlikely and would probably stir up a lot of resentment, anger, and animosity. I switched from a PC for the PowerPC/OSX architecture. I'm running a 1.33GHz G4 in my PowerBook and I find that pretty fast for almost all tasks (except Photoshop edits), so I find it hard to believe that it's just a megahertz decision... and if Apple is considering a move, would strongly urge them to reconsider!

You switched for the power of a 167 Mhz frontside bus?

 

[savar]

You have just identified the reason why this will never happen.

Of course, Intel could design another chip not compatible with the x86 architecture...but that probably won't happen either.

One reason among many, of course.

Clearly this article has nothing to do with an OSX on Intel ISA...Intel is still a great chipmaker (even if their obnoxious marketing was partially responsible for marginalizing Apple as a PC maker) and whatever Apple is getting from them is probably top-notch.

And don't expect that Intel won't switch over to a RISC microprocessor similar to the PPC. As an industry leader they don't have to adopt the PPC ISA, but I guarantee you they will be making a drastic change in their product lines. Its going to be the only way to move forward. Look at all three next gen consoles coming out in the next 6 months: all RISC.

 

[Xtremehkr]

I wonder if an Apple would retain its longevity if it started using Intel chips.

I don't know if it is the software makers or the hardware makers in the PC market who make the computers obsolete in such a short period of time.