ijimk said:
Yah well in this case the dark side is stronger, more flexable, and provides more robust choices. Hell if x86 could give me the power to shoot lightening Id be set.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple in Talks with Intel?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yah well in this case the dark side is stronger, more flexable, and provides more robust choices. Hell if x86 could give me the power to shoot lightening Id be set.
Reason(s) for switch to Intel
For Apple to consider such a drastic move as to switch from IBM to Intel as their primary CPU supplier says one thing: Apple sees IBM/PowerPC as a hindrance or possibly even a dead end in their ability to innovate and compete with Powerbook and Powermac product lines going forward.
I think evidence certainly suggests hindrance: Steve Jobs personally promised 3Ghz Powermacs and had to retract that statement. The product line currently tops out at 2.7Ghz and has had yield issues since the original Powermac introduction. How many quarters now have Powermac and iMac sales been "constrained" by G5 chip yeilds?
I think statements from Cupertino also suggest a PPC dead end. It's been over 2 years since the introduction of G5 and we are still using G4 Powerbooks. Powerbook sales have been slipping since the proclaimed "year of the laptop" by Jobs, and the performance gap is widening again. Apple is on record stating that G5 in a Powerbook is the "mother of all thermal challenges" and not to expect one anytime soon.
Now we are starting to see the introduction of dual-core Intel and AMD designs. Where is the dual-core G5? Again, IBM is letting Apple down. Although a painful transition in the short term, it could be a strategic long term move to help Apple stay on equal footing price/performance wise with the Dell's and Gateway's.
For Apple to consider such a drastic move as to switch from IBM to Intel as their primary CPU supplier says one thing: Apple sees IBM/PowerPC as a hindrance or possibly even a dead end in their ability to innovate and compete with Powerbook and Powermac product lines going forward.
I think evidence certainly suggests hindrance: Steve Jobs personally promised 3Ghz Powermacs and had to retract that statement. The product line currently tops out at 2.7Ghz and has had yield issues since the original Powermac introduction. How many quarters now have Powermac and iMac sales been "constrained" by G5 chip yeilds?
I think statements from Cupertino also suggest a PPC dead end. It's been over 2 years since the introduction of G5 and we are still using G4 Powerbooks. Powerbook sales have been slipping since the proclaimed "year of the laptop" by Jobs, and the performance gap is widening again. Apple is on record stating that G5 in a Powerbook is the "mother of all thermal challenges" and not to expect one anytime soon.
Now we are starting to see the introduction of dual-core Intel and AMD designs. Where is the dual-core G5? Again, IBM is letting Apple down. Although a painful transition in the short term, it could be a strategic long term move to help Apple stay on equal footing price/performance wise with the Dell's and Gateway's.
Snippet
That would be cool tho huh?
I mean we wake up in the morning to get coffee and toast and VOILA! a screen shows us the morning news streaming via QT 9.0
BillHarrison said:
That would be cool tho huh?
I mean we wake up in the morning to get coffee and toast and VOILA! a screen shows us the morning news streaming via QT 9.0
First of all, just cause a box has intel hardware in it doesn't make it a 'POS'.
Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, and what Apple got a long time ago, is that it's all about the software.
I think the Centrino idea someone struck is a possibility, P4's are not really currently where it's at architecture wise. Also, if Apple did that then people might actually have a clue what hardware is in the pipeline, which is not how Apple operate (witness the frenzied predictive posts on forums like this).
Um, yeah, that's all i can think of
Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, and what Apple got a long time ago, is that it's all about the software.
I think the Centrino idea someone struck is a possibility, P4's are not really currently where it's at architecture wise. Also, if Apple did that then people might actually have a clue what hardware is in the pipeline, which is not how Apple operate (witness the frenzied predictive posts on forums like this).
Um, yeah, that's all i can think of
WiMAX?
Apple and Intel talking has absolutely nothing to do with PowerPC vs. x86 and everything to do with Airport and WiMAX.
Other possiblilities:
Apple is finalizing CE-ATA chips/tech for use in future iPods.
Apple is trying to mend fences with Intel over the USB/Firewire mess that Apple created in the late 1990s.
If Apple really wants to switch to x86, AMD is the more intuitive choice at the moment.
Apple and Intel talking has absolutely nothing to do with PowerPC vs. x86 and everything to do with Airport and WiMAX.
Other possiblilities:
Apple is finalizing CE-ATA chips/tech for use in future iPods.
Apple is trying to mend fences with Intel over the USB/Firewire mess that Apple created in the late 1990s.
If Apple really wants to switch to x86, AMD is the more intuitive choice at the moment.
VicMacs said:
Because Intel Centrino chips are efficient and cool and kick ass for slim laptop designs.
By comparison, AMD laptop chips suck ass.
Intel Based Models ?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/apple_intel_dc
"Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology in what would be seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, the newspaper said."
I'ma tellin ya..Look for OSX for the PC coming to a store near you!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/apple_intel_dc
"Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology in what would be seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, the newspaper said."
I'ma tellin ya..Look for OSX for the PC coming to a store near you!
some random thoughts
- Except for the loss of classic, this can be done pretty transparently. For most apps, it would be a compiler switch and a recompile. The MacOS X package format already supports having multiple binaries inside of an app, so you wouldn't have to buy the app based on the CPU it's going to run on - just buy the app, install it, and it'll run either place.
- in theory, a translator could run once on each app - translating the binary from PPC to x86 and storing the translated binary inside the package. Having the developer do a real compile to the other architecture would give better performance, though.
- MacOS X itself was built on cross platform technology - I'm sure they've kept cross platform support alive.
- IBM has let Apple down - Steve is nearly a year late on his promise of 3 GHz.
- IBM has let Apple down on the issue of bringing high performance chips to laptops
- IBM sells computers that use Intel processors and runs ads pointing this out. How upset could they really be if Apple does the same?
- supporting Intel chips doesn't have to mean no longer shipping PowerPC based machines.
- what do you think it'd do for Apple's market share if they had a version of the mini that not only ran OS X, but also ran windows in a window without the performance hit of an emulator. People coming to the mac from a windows machine don't need classic.
People today can largely buy servers and not care what CPU is inside. There's no real reason why the same can't be done with desktop computers. Let Intel and IBM (and AMD) fight head to head to get their chips into each model of the mac and let Apple have the flexibility to go either route with little impact on users.
- Except for the loss of classic, this can be done pretty transparently. For most apps, it would be a compiler switch and a recompile. The MacOS X package format already supports having multiple binaries inside of an app, so you wouldn't have to buy the app based on the CPU it's going to run on - just buy the app, install it, and it'll run either place.
- in theory, a translator could run once on each app - translating the binary from PPC to x86 and storing the translated binary inside the package. Having the developer do a real compile to the other architecture would give better performance, though.
- MacOS X itself was built on cross platform technology - I'm sure they've kept cross platform support alive.
- IBM has let Apple down - Steve is nearly a year late on his promise of 3 GHz.
- IBM has let Apple down on the issue of bringing high performance chips to laptops
- IBM sells computers that use Intel processors and runs ads pointing this out. How upset could they really be if Apple does the same?
- supporting Intel chips doesn't have to mean no longer shipping PowerPC based machines.
- what do you think it'd do for Apple's market share if they had a version of the mini that not only ran OS X, but also ran windows in a window without the performance hit of an emulator. People coming to the mac from a windows machine don't need classic.
People today can largely buy servers and not care what CPU is inside. There's no real reason why the same can't be done with desktop computers. Let Intel and IBM (and AMD) fight head to head to get their chips into each model of the mac and let Apple have the flexibility to go either route with little impact on users.
After studying the articles a bit, it seems that the folks who wrote the articles didn't look very far beyond Intel's chip production factories. The insiders just said "Intel Chips", not "Switch to Pentium", or even "Intel CPU", they said "Intel chips." As I have said before, WiMax is a chip, it's wireless, and Apple probably will adopt it. EVERYTHING that was said in the Retures article is hearsay and total speculation of a market analsys who is interested in the bottom line rather than Apple's interests. I'd say look at the insiders remarks more, and less into the remarks made by the market analsysts.
minimax said:
just because P4 has "hit a wall" (and it certainly has), it doesn't mean that x86 in general has done so. AMD seems to be doing just fine. Power-leakage is a problem with ALL major CPU's. Some CPU's have real problems with it (like P4), whereas others don't have as much (Athlon64, G5 etc.), but they all have it.
How so? If Microsoft wanted to, they could make that version RIGHT NOW. They do not need Intel's blessing for it. And just because Intel made PPC-CPU's does not mean that Microsoft would be following them with Windows.
DStaal said:
That was the first thing I thought of when I read this rumor, too. Apple and Intel can be "talking" about all sorts of chips other than the CPU.
But I'd like to add an "out-there" idea: what about *Windows* emulation? A card or other add-on that includes an Intel chip, that makes use of Mac OS X's ability to use multiple processors to specifically run Windows software?
They've already done this once, with 68k applications. (And somebody, it may even have been Apple, did this a long time ago already--an x86 card for the Mac, I mean.)
Jerry
SiliconAddict said:
You are downright contradicting yourself here. So the Pentium M is fabulous whilst the G4 is pathetic? Let's look at the basics. WHY is the G4 exactly pathetic in your account and what exactly makes the Pentium M so great?
The operations per clock of a G4 are actually higher compared to the G5 due to it's shorter pipeline, just as a Pentium M performes better per clockcycle then the P4. and while it only has a slow 167 Mhz bus memory te Pentium operates on 4x100MHz, not 400 Mhz. Extra bandwith is nice but it doesnt solve the latency problem.Also in the G5 the memory latency seriously limits the fast FSB. Not much use to a fast bus when your memory is the real bottleneck.
SiliconAddict said:
This must be one of the most ridiculous and uninformed statements i have read on MR. Nowhere in your post did you come close to support such an opinion.
jthrasher said:
FOX NEWS! If it's on TV then it must be true!
Seriously, you can't believe a word that you hear on FOX news or any of the other major news networks for that matter.
scem0 said:
Ah but thats Faux news for ya! An Apple rep DID respond to the rumour.she said it was all rumour and speculation.
jbh001 said:
Take a deeper look into a Mac and you will discover that lets say half of the chipset already comes from Intel, or is licensed by them.
Intel makes quality motherboards. Apple could leave the whole board design to Intel and focus on design and software.
The Powerbook is an endangered species. The truth of the G4 is, that it is a still a G3. A G5 mobile is nowhere near. Centrino M is the only way out. Desktop sales are declining, still. Best market share is with the mobiles and they have to find a QUICK solution not to loose it. And that MEANS transition to i386 and if so, why not go all the way. It'll mean every choice for Apple and could only come out very positive. I've been waiting for that since years.
Let't not get ahead of ourselves
I take sick pleasure in watching Intel fans get their hopes up every time Apple talks to Intel about using a controller chip. Notice the quote. It says nothing of CPU's. There's absolutely NO advantage to going Intel, anyway.
Even if Apple was to go to an x86 architecture (which is NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER going to happen) they would more likely use AMD chips. HyperTransport consortium, anyone?
Apple already uses Intel "chips" in their xServes. They're just not CPU's.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
I take sick pleasure in watching Intel fans get their hopes up every time Apple talks to Intel about using a controller chip. Notice the quote. It says nothing of CPU's. There's absolutely NO advantage to going Intel, anyway.
Even if Apple was to go to an x86 architecture (which is NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER going to happen) they would more likely use AMD chips. HyperTransport consortium, anyone?
Apple already uses Intel "chips" in their xServes. They're just not CPU's.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
How about a Dual Proc PowerMac.
1 - 3 Ghtz G5 and
1 - 4 Ghtz P4
You could run the best of both worlds.
1 - 3 Ghtz G5 and
1 - 4 Ghtz P4
You could run the best of both worlds.
bbyrdhouse said:
How about an Intel Itanium2 1.6Ghz based OSX PC in the sub $2000 market and a duel core 3.2Ghz for the top of the line ?
Makes business sense to me..
I agree it's a problem with all major architectures but PowerPC is much better equipped to deal with leakage as it already has more emphasize on parallel processing with relatively short pipelines as opposed to the more serial type of x86 instruction architecture. Just read the three excellent articles on it at Anandtech by Johan de Gelas who is very sceptical about multi-threading and sees more fundamental opportunities still with an integrated ILP / SMT approach as in Power5, which leaves room for more flexibility, design enhancements and does not throw all burden of technological improvement on the software community. Only problem with it, is it isnt as easy to market, as opposed to the dualcore hype. x86 has turned the way of dualcore simply because they have no room for much improvement on a structural level. But both CELL and Power5 show there are many possibilities still to improve on Instruction level parallism.Evangelion said:
Evangelion said:
If Intel developes a PPC it WILL NOT be only for Apple, or Apple would be willing to accept an even higher premium then they are paying IBM right now.
The reason Apple would want to switch to Intel would be because Intel would be able to produce it cheaper then IBM, and that would only be possible if it is produced in high volumes. And high volumes are just not possible without Microsoft being onboard, those are just market fundamentals.
muffler said:
The Centrino M is not the only way out. Intel did the same thing with the Centrino Mobile that Apple is doing with the G3/G4 in the Powerbook. Neither company (IBM or Intel) can put a desktop CPU in a laptop anymore and make it reasonable.
Furthermore, Apple had it's strongest marketshare increase, in DESKTOPS, in years this past quarter. So let's not get all doom and gloom on Apple's situation. They're doing just fine.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/20/marketshare/index.php
I've got enough faith in Apple to do the right thing. Whether that be using new Intel PPC chips, Intel x86 chips, Cell chips or just developing what they've got. It's not like Apple to take a step backwards (350MHz G4 Power Macs notwithstanding ).
).
Every time this rumor surfaces it's always the same thing:
a newspaper/magazine/website trying to stir things up just for the sake of getting increased readership so they can sell more ads.
Apple is not going to switch from PPC to Intel. This is just a rumor, there is nothing to see here, move along.
a newspaper/magazine/website trying to stir things up just for the sake of getting increased readership so they can sell more ads.
Apple is not going to switch from PPC to Intel. This is just a rumor, there is nothing to see here, move along.
