Apple in Talks with Intel?

[MarcelV]

Macs are very usable. Thank you.

Eh, yeah, but that's not because I didn't look at the inside. You was the one who said, stop looking only at the outside. Or I must have really misunderstood you. I love my macs that I have, but that's not of the CPU inside that thing. It's the user experience, and that one is not CPU dependent.

 

[wdlove]

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

I hope that your comment is just a musing. Nothing about this is worth loosing your life. Not even doing something to get sick.

 

[Sun Baked]

This whole thing is entirely absurd. There are plenty of reasons why Apple would be meeting with Intel that have nothing to do with CPUs for their computers, and it just goes to show how totally and incredibly stupid these allegedly knowledgeable analysts really are. Wall street and the mainstream press consistently gets tech stories all wrong; even "IT" magazines aimed at high-level CIO types (who are not tech-savvy) are constantly screwing up.

Forget it. It's not happening. Long Live PPC.

-bb

Basically is is absurd, for the first time in a long time -- Apple has too many PPC choices on what to use next.

Why would Apple walk away now, when there are soo many options?

PCI-Express and/or the next generation Wi-Fi would be the two things at the top of the list to make Apple walk into Intel's door and work with them.

Maybe somebody had some stock they wanted to dump.

 

[csubear]

Intel can't take over making PPC chips unless licensed by IBM to do it, and what do you think the odds of that happening are?

Are you sure? I thought that Apple, IBM, and Moto (AIM) owned the ppc specs? And the Instruction set is a standard, just like x86 is a standard. AMD does not licences x86 from Intel (maybe mmx, sse). Nothing is stoping Intel from designing a ppc chip.

 

[minimax]

ok, summarizing this thread I think it is safe to say:

- IBM makes superior processors
- Intel sucks
- Steve likes blowjobs

 

[ogminlo]

Ignorance Reapeating

Okay, I'm too disgusted to continue reading this thread, so this will be my last post. Many points (in no particular order):

Intel's Centrino is a marketing blanket, not a chip. It is just the brand name for the Pentium M + PRO/Wireless 802.11g paired up in a laptop. Centrino is not a CPU!

Intel is a company, not a platform. They already make chips that go into Xserve RAIDs, and they may also want to get into the PPC game now that there is real demand for it beyond Apple. It is smart for Apple to encourage this. Let me repeat, Intel is not one in the same with the x86 architecture. They make other products!

Dropping an x86 version of Tiger over a P4 would not yield WinXP software working on OS X. There's more to it than that and there's no smooth way to do it. Mac devotees and Windows migrants would both be left with a kludgey and slow hack of an OS that barely works and largely sucks. Yeah, great idea guys.

The WSJ, Reuters, Faux News, et al have very uninformed and bogus stories that speculate on new bad ideas and regurgitate old bad ideas. Their goal is not to inform but to inflame. It worked here.

Steve Jobs excused the GHz shortfall last year by saying everyone hit the wall. They did. Otherwise we'd have 5.5GHz P4s and Athlons by now. We don't. The whole CPU market has been basically stagnated since 2003. They can't go smaller so all of them are switching to a new approach, multi-core. So enough about how switching to x86 would be a boon for speed and economy. Bullsh*t. There is WAY more to speed than clock cycles. Otherwise SGI would have faster chips in their Tezro.

Bottom line is this: Apple will not go x86 and Intel might start fabbing PPC chips. That's it. I assure you.

 

[nomore]

What technical glitches? There are technical reasons that need to be considered when increasing clock speeds, but it's not like there are G5 bugs that need to be fixed before working on higher clock speeds.

Not glitches with the CPU design... glitches with the fabrication process.

 

[poundsmack]

They can't go smaller so all of them are switching to a new approach, multi-core.[/b]

they can and are going smaller 65mn, thats where intels new notebook processors are going and eventualy where the processor market will go as well. and of course multi core. and for god sakes this thread is over. its for PCIe. there done thats the most likely by far, or possibly something to do with the new wireless stuff intel is behind. but almost surely PCIe.

 

[Mord]

Why would Intel invest (lets say) even a "puny" billion dollars to create a PPC clone, baring legal action from IBM and Freescale? Even if Apple sold (gasp!) ONE MILLION computers, it is not like Apple would pay $1000 for each processor

they are happy enough chargeing pc users that much

 

[RichCoder]

...Bottom line is this: Apple will not go x86 and Intel might start fabbing PPC chips. That's it. I assure you.

I was totally with you until the last statement. How do you know they will not use the x86 chips or chips derived from the x86? It appears you know for a fact.

It is more likely that Intel would make x86 chips for Apple then it would be for them to make PPC chips. The only manufacturers that have made PPC chips are those that were part of the design on the PPC(IBM, Motorola). Intel has no rights to unless Apple limited rights allows them the right. I don't think so since the PPC is derived from IBM's POWER architecture.

How about some facts...

- Darwin(which OSX is build on) already runs on x86 processors
- Apple has experience moving to a totally different CPU architecture (68xxx -> PowerPC)

Before Intel panic overtakes everyone, I'm sure Apple will only come to a decision that makes thier stock rise, not fall. As I stated in an earlier post, I beleive that if Apple moves to the X86, the first generation IntelMacs will likely have a G4 processor on-board for legacy applications. I would be shocked if Apple came out with a Mac that couldn't run current software.

-rich

 

[Jmitch]

All I have to say about this is that I doubt it. I highly doubt it. Every time there's been rumors about this happening nothing has come out of it. Apple is going to take over the world with their amazing software and hardware.

I just don't think Apple would give up their prized software to an inferior platform. I mean it doesn't make sense. If Apple wants to be a software company than sure. But I think Apple has bigger plans...

 

[fluidinclusion]

Better than no horse

X86 Architecture has reached the end of its useful life. It makes no sense for Apple to jump on a tired horse at the end of its game.

Yeah, but it's better than walking on your own with no horse.

 

[B_Gates]

Smart Move

I think its a great idea. Intel processor are cheaper & faster. If Apple would do this they could sell their computers cheaper & get noticed. Most people have forgotten about Apple's, maybe they could finally compete with the big boys "Microsoft, Dell, HP & E-Machines.

I'm sure Apple would pocket the extra money they would save, since they like to rip off their customers.

 

[jiggie2g]

benchmarks do not prove intels cpu's are faster the dual 2.5GHz G5 beats the dual 3.4GHz xeon in 4/6 tests (http://www.barefeats.com/macvpc.html), if you dont like those benchmarks find me some better ones, I dare you.

multi core progress? dont make me laugh, the dual core 3.2GHz p4 gets hammered into the floor by the athlon X2 and neither of them will ship until august/september except for in one dell pc, intel cpu's are no faster they run hot and have very little future you'd be an idiot to think it would be a good idea for apple to switch to them, the only suitable cpu for apple with future would be the itanium and thats very very expensive (~$10k).

you clearly know nothing of cpu's and your on such thin ice you go so low as to attack my spelling/grammer, always a sign of weakness in opinion, some of us have better things to do than be an anal retentive over their spelling/grammer.

You know I am sick of you Hector pulling these stupid onesided barefeats benchmarks out of your ass every time someone states the facts about x86 being faster. You quote barefeats like some religious nut quotes scripture.

If Apple is going x86 all I can say is about damn freakin time , as OSX would scream on my Athlon 64@2.4ghz , Geforce 6600GT , and NF4 PCIe MB ..none of which are available on the mac side.

Yes Intel desktop cpu's suck for now, but wasn't this the case 5yrs ago. AMD had the Athlon T-Bird vs. PIII , then Intel just made a new CPU(P4) and killed AMD all over again.

All of this has happened before and will happen again.

Intel is already at work on a 11-13 stage CPU , think of Pentium M with better Floating Points + 64bit processing. I am sure Apple knows about this CPU.

As for notebooks there is nothing to compete with the Pentium M, and to say otherwise is just being a plain hater , nothing not the Turion 64 , not the G4 or G5 can even touch this CPU. It matches the Athlon 64 clock 4 clock and at lower power consumption if it has a better FPU and 64 bit extensions it would be perfect .I may be an AMD fan but I am not so much a zealot or fan boy than I will not give the otherside it's due when it makes a fantastic product.

Intel right now doesne't have it's hands tied up like IBM does with all the console makers. It can out chip anyone when it comes to manufacturing. also since they are past the 90nm bump it should be smooth sailing from now on.

Lastly as for x86 being a dying platform , not if those Athlon X2 and Pentium EE 840 scores have anything to say about it. fact is x86 is holding all the cards , we have low power mobile cpu's now, Dual core now, PCIe now , SLI now , USB 3.0 soon and 802.11N soon then BTX. The G5 is still stuck in 2003. Every hardware site has a Pentium D or X2 right now for testing , no one has a Dual core PPC 970. Pentium Ds are on sale now in Japan , and will be here(US) by late June.

x86 Dead I think not.

 

[Mord]

You know I am sick of you Hector pulling these stupid onesided barefeats benchmarks out of your ass every time someone states the facts about x86 being faster. You quote barefeats like some religious nut quotes scripture.

If Apple is going x86 all I can say is about damn freakin time , as OSX would scream on my Athlon 64@2.4ghz , Geforce 6600GT , and NF4 PCIe MB ..none of which are available on the mac side.

Yes Intel desktop cpu's suck for now, but wasn't this the case 5yrs ago. AMD had the Athlon T-Bird vs. PIII , then Intel just made a new CPU(P4) and killed AMD all over again.

All of this has happened before and will happen again.

Intel is already at work on a 11-13 stage CPU , think of Pentium M with better Floating Points + 64bit processing. I am sure Apple knows about this CPU.

As for notebooks there is nothing to compete with the Pentium M, and to say otherwise is just being a plain hater , nothing not the Turion 64 , not the G4 or G5 can even touch this CPU. It matches the Athlon 64 clock 4 clock and at lower power consumption if it has a better FPU and 64 bit extensions it would be perfect .I may be an AMD fan but I am not so much a zealot or fan boy than I will not give the otherside it's due when it makes a fantastic product.

Intel right now doesne't have it's hands tied up like IBM does with all the console makers. It can out chip anyone when it comes to manufacturing. also since they are past the 90nm bump it should be smooth sailing from now on.

Lastly as for x86 being a dying platform , not if those Athlon X2 and Pentium EE 840 scores have anything to say about it. fact is x86 is holding all the cards , we have low power mobile cpu's now, Dual core now, PCIe now , SLI now , USB 3.0 soon and 802.11N soon then BTX. The G5 is still stuck in 2003. Every hardware site has a Pentium D or X2 right now for testing , no one has a Dual core PPC 970. Pentium Ds are on sale now in Japan , and will be here(US) by late June.

x86 Dead I think not.

Bar the apple benchmarks which i am sure you'd say are crap there is little else, last time i looked the opteron has not gone past 2.6GHz and xeon has not gone past 3.4GHz, so they are still pretty relevant, the dual core athlons wont ship until september and the pentium D will probably be delayed and is slow as **** anyway seeing as most pc apps are single threaded, apple is secretive they dont hand out engineering samples, x86 has won the race the the commercial (aka non POWER based) dual core, but so what? the 970MP cant be far behind and in the price range for a while yet the G5 is pretty competitive.

the only way a pc is defiantly way way faster is if you have a dual dual core opteron, and that is an extremely expensive rig.

smooth sailing for intel? hah dont make me laugh, they couldn't hit 4GHz so they are now doing the only thing left to increase speed, dual core, it's a desperate attempt at moving an aging architecture forward, PCIe is a non event for now as it's no faster in real world benchmarks and macs dont rely on gameing anyway, apple cant have a new logic board design every year.

you may think AMD and intel will own apple down the line and thats because they are not so damn secretive about there roadmaps, if you can find prof of apple being owned in some benchmakr post it in my thread here https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/128423/

 

[Flickta]

smooth sailing for intel? hah dont make me laugh, they couldn't hit 4GHz so they are now doing the only thing left to increase speed, dual core, it's a desperate attempt at moving an aging architecture forward, PCIe is a non event for now as it's no faster in real world benchmarks and macs dont rely on gameing anyway, apple cant have a new logic board design every year.

No, actually,everyone is working on dual core processors. IBM, Intel, AMD... This is because that "ageing technology" you are crying about is their common technology.

Get real, all processors of Intel and AMD, and IBM are on the same tech level. The results of benchmarks differ, but the difference (I mean real benchmarks) is 5-10%. And it actually means there is no difference at all. Few seconds here, few seconds there...

 

[Mord]

No, actually,everyone is working on dual core processors. IBM, Intel, AMD... This is because that "ageing technology" you are crying about is their common technology.

Get real, all processors of Intel and AMD, and IBM are on the same tech level. The results of benchmarks differ, but the difference (I mean real benchmarks) is 5-10%. And it actually means there is no difference at all. Few seconds here, few seconds there...

i'm not saying it's dead now x86 just dose not have much future and is no faster than ppc at the moment

 

[Flickta]

i'm not saying it's dead now x86 just dose not have much future and is no faster than ppc at the moment

It's not an x86 for a looong time. It's different. Various techs merged.

And why do you think it has no future, when all things they are doing are simultaneously done by all proc. manufacturers?

 

[cube]

It's not an x86 for a looong time. It's different. Various techs merged.

It's still x86. I don't want to have anything to do with that thing for low-level programming/debugging.

 

[Mord]

It's not an x86 for a looong time. It's different. Various techs merged.

And why do you think it has no future, when all things they are doing are simultaneously done by all proc. manufacturers?

look how much bigger intel and AMD are than IBM's 970 fab department, the fact that such a small venture can keep up with intel/AMD is proof that ppc is far superior, it's said that ppc gives you about a 6 month lead in cpu speed just IBM dose not have the R&D to push the cpu to the clock speeds that intel can push the p4, all thats holding x86 together are mad hacks and bodges to an old architecture that is only still used to keep wintel users backwards compatible, to move to x86 would be plain stupid as the powerpc is a fast chip with allot of future, compared to the bodge job that is the modern x86 cpu/

 

[iGary]

I hope that your comment is just a musing. Nothing about this is worth loosing your life. Not even doing something to get sick.

I'm just a writer with a vivid imagination.

 

[cube]

just IBM dose not have the R&D to push the cpu to the clock speeds that intel can push the p4

P4 is marketing-driven design. Made to get clock rates as high as possible, not performance.

 

[AidenShaw]

P4 is marketing-driven design. Made to get clock rates as high as possible, not performance.

But the high clock rates also give top performance, interesting....

Forget the MHz - the name of the game is whether the fastest chip from company A is faster than the fastest chip from company B.

It's not whether chip A is faster per MHz than chip B.

Despite the hype, the PPC970, Athlon and P4 are all about the same speed. Each will win some fair benchmarks, lose others. All are 64-bit.

On the mobile side, Pentium M is currently the king - the G4 and AMD mobile chips aren't even that close.

Do I care if x86 assembly code is ugly? Not at all - I never need to look at it from C++ or Java....

 

[Mord]

but the point is that x86 is no faster and to switch to it is stupid. and that the people calling the mac users who rate this thread negative are silly.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

but the point id that x86 is no faster and to switch to it is stupid.

We got your point.