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
Misconceptions
1. The news was reported by the Wall Street Journal, so cracks about FOX news are irrelevent.
2. Chips made by Intel are not necessarily x86 or x86-64's. As a full partner in the original PowerPC AIM alliance, Apple has a lot of rights to that chip design. In addition, Intel makes ARM and Itanium processors.
3. Likewise, even if they are x86's, a computer with an x86 processor doesn't necessarily look anything like a PC clone... it's just a processor. It executes instructions. It's not a soul. The soul of Macs lies elsewhere.
4. x86 does not automatically imply Windows compatibility, and an Intel version of MacOS X does not automatically imply compatibility with any of the other x86 machines out there.
5. Software will NOT have to be re-written. Altivec code, assuming it can't be recompiled into Intel's SIMD, would, but the bulk would be a re-COMPILE not a re-WRITE. It means work for QA teams, not engineering teams.
6. Intel processors are faster. Intel mobile processors are faster for the heat dissipation. Intel processors are cheaper. Intel processors are always available in large enough quantities so they will never be a gating factor for a new Apple release.
7. The real challenge is marketing. Macintosh users have been suckered into believing that PowerPC chips are good chips, and now it's an emotional issue. They would much rather have a slow, out-dated PowerPC Mac than admit they may be wrong about modern Intel CPUs.
8. Apple has to get developers on board. Thus, we'll know for sure at the WWDC next month. If it's not announced there, it's just hot air.
1. The news was reported by the Wall Street Journal, so cracks about FOX news are irrelevent.
2. Chips made by Intel are not necessarily x86 or x86-64's. As a full partner in the original PowerPC AIM alliance, Apple has a lot of rights to that chip design. In addition, Intel makes ARM and Itanium processors.
3. Likewise, even if they are x86's, a computer with an x86 processor doesn't necessarily look anything like a PC clone... it's just a processor. It executes instructions. It's not a soul. The soul of Macs lies elsewhere.
4. x86 does not automatically imply Windows compatibility, and an Intel version of MacOS X does not automatically imply compatibility with any of the other x86 machines out there.
5. Software will NOT have to be re-written. Altivec code, assuming it can't be recompiled into Intel's SIMD, would, but the bulk would be a re-COMPILE not a re-WRITE. It means work for QA teams, not engineering teams.
6. Intel processors are faster. Intel mobile processors are faster for the heat dissipation. Intel processors are cheaper. Intel processors are always available in large enough quantities so they will never be a gating factor for a new Apple release.
7. The real challenge is marketing. Macintosh users have been suckered into believing that PowerPC chips are good chips, and now it's an emotional issue. They would much rather have a slow, out-dated PowerPC Mac than admit they may be wrong about modern Intel CPUs.
8. Apple has to get developers on board. Thus, we'll know for sure at the WWDC next month. If it's not announced there, it's just hot air.
Evangelion said:
You are correct. Intel is the oddball with 20 stage pipelines but to win the GHz war they had to do that to manage the time of flight of an instruction.
Actually multi-threading has nothing to do with pipelines, threading is more of a software issue than hardware issue and Intel has figured this out with their recent discussions on dual core it is immediately followed by 'let us teach your programmers how to thread more'
Dual core is going to be a huge pain in the ass for people with benchmarking tools. You're not going to see a 2.0x performance improvement when you swap out a single core proc with a dual core proc. Worst case it'll be 1.3x and best case it'll be 1.5x. You're putting two mouths on your dog and not giving it a bigger throat, stomach, or butt. Just cuz he could theoretically eat faster doesn't mean he'll be able to do more than choke on it. It's not going to be as bad as hyperthreading where in some instances it'll be slower than with it off, but the software guys
Power5 is to G5 as Itainium2 is to Xeon. The G5 was based on the Power4 architecture. Power5 is a different monster.
cube said:
you're right and i'm wrong..Feel better?
The bottom line is Apple is a corporation that looks at the bottom line.When Steve Jobs re-took over Apple a few years ago Bill Gates chippped in money.
Apple's gonna do what's best for their bottom line and If adding OSX to an Itanium platform is what does it then so be it..
I wouldn't mind playing around with Tiger on a Itanium..
It's surely not for the PowerMac, PowerBook, iBook, iMac, eMac or Mac mini, forget this idea now. The xserve?! a PCIX card that could emulate X86 in XServer or PowerMac would be really cool, but I don't think it's that. There should be something Apple is building with ARM or centrino technology as mobility device (only CPU from Intel that worth any effort). But on the other hand it can be no CPU, but some bridge or like mention before, a hardware raid chip. So my mind is direct to iPod or Xserve, or a complete new device.
I would prefere see them use the Cell chip architecture. I know it's a hard task already to move to this, saying it's optimize only to do multimedia or game aren't that true. The main processor (a PPC) in Cell Chip can be change for an another one probably or use a Normal 970MP with a cell chip would be a killer machine no doubt, in floating point.
I would prefere see them use the Cell chip architecture. I know it's a hard task already to move to this, saying it's optimize only to do multimedia or game aren't that true. The main processor (a PPC) in Cell Chip can be change for an another one probably or use a Normal 970MP with a cell chip would be a killer machine no doubt, in floating point.
ogminlo said:
Why? If PowerPC is superior, why do they need to cover their bases. WHy is IBM running ads that end with "intel inside"? And if there is nothing wrong with IBM doing that, what would be wrong with Apple doing the same.
Windows software already does run on a mac. It's called Virtual PC. There is no technical reason you couldn't eliminate the processor emulation and do virtual PC like product on an x86 based mac and get better performance. It's already possible to do something like that to run one version of windows inside another version of windows with Virtual PC for Windows.
Who knows if this is really going to happen - MacOS X for intel processors - it's certainly technically feasible, though, to move everything except classic support to machines built on other processors. If a Mac Mini can be done that uses the x86 and runs the same OS and same software (minus classic) and has an Apple developed equivalent to VirtualPC so people could migrate to the Mac without having to replace all of their software right away, where is the problem?
minimax said:
Minimax, you should replace "especially gaming" above with "only gaming." There seems to be a general misunderstanding in this forum as to what the various platforms in the computing landscape today consist of. A dual core processor is essentially two single core processors that are conveniently located on the same chip. Intel's and AMD's solutions differ drastically in the way they address the two cores, so making any generalizations beyond that is impossible. Nonetheless, a PowerMac with a dual core G5 would be highly analogous to the dual-G5's sold today. And as Apple has long offered dual-processor machines, their operating system and apps are already highly threaded. Just launch Activity Monitor and take a look. Apple made the dual-core software migration 10 years ago.
Peace said:you're right and i'm wrong..Feel better?
The bottom line is Apple is a corporation that looks at the bottom line.When Steve Jobs re-took over Apple a few years ago Bill Gates chippped in money.
Apple's gonna do what's best for their bottom line and If adding OSX to an Itanium platform is what does it then so be it..
I wouldn't mind playing around with Tiger on a Itanium..
The point is that non-techies think Itanic will be good to the bottom line, when it won't. Just look at SGI and HP.
Evangelion said:
Because this is what Apple does.
1. When they intro'd the iMac G4, Steve said vertically mounting the optical drive sucks because it slows down the drive...then we have the iMac G5.
2. Steve said the CRT was dead at Apple...then we have the eMac.
Other sources I have read said this is the real deal this time...it's happening.
I talked about the mac mini earlier to gain market share. The perhaps easier place to switch CPUs is in the servers Apple sells. It really wouldn't matter AT ALL if apple put different CPUs in their servers. Take the best server chips in the world, no matter who makes them, and put Tiger Server on them.
BornAgainMac said:
This may be the issue. However, what I suspect it is more likely is the fact that like Motorolla, IBM has dropped the ball right on Apple's big toe. Apple is on the verge of kicking some real butt in gaining market share and IBM is holding them back with limited supplies of slow chips. The last PowerPC upgrade was a joke.
I hope this puts some real pressure on IBM to get its house in order and deliver what they promised.
One option is for Apple to port OS X SERVER to Intel. That would require a LOT fewer developer issues (as Apple produces the majority of the sw for that). In that case, Apple would be going after the LINUX/UNIX server market. I think that could be a viable market--corporations that don't want to use MS, but also want an easy-to-use variety (instead of the knowledge of UNIX that LINUX requires). Apple could have XServes and Intel servers. That would be a doable transition and an interesting market. That would also help Apple's desktop business--if IT buys an Apple (even if Intel underneath) server, they'd be much more likely to buy the boxes that connect to the server
sparky76 said:
That was my thought also, that this is a mis-rumor based on discussions with Intel on ancillary chips for various hardware management tasks.
Alternately, Apple could simply be maintaining its normal process of doing long range research (ref. various reports of products seen at Cupertino that were never actually released) which would allow a switch to a different processor if it ever became necessary. I'm sure Apple did this prior to making the decision to go with the IBM chip.
Trekkie said:
Where exactly did I claim that it has something to do with pipelines?
It will be about as painful as multiprocessing is
Of course not! Same thing with "real" SMP!
SMP can give you about 1.8x improvement. Dual-core can achieve the same
If the system is bandwidth-starved (like Intel-CPU's are, due to their crappy FSB-design), perhaps. But AMD has no real problems there.
I only read the first three pages, so forgive me if these links have already been posted:
Apple Denies Intel Rumor
Apple denies eyeing Intel chips
Apple denies the report
Apple Denies Intel Rumor
Apple denies eyeing Intel chips
Apple denies the report
ecsslo said:
I don't think so: Apple wants to control the hardware side for economic reasons but also because of the nightmare of supporting all those 3rd party products. I have a Hewlett Packard PC and it won't reliably use my Hewlett Packard printer. Routinely takes 3 hours to get support for the problems. Apple would be crazy to jump into that sea. I'm amazed they can handle iTunes for Windows.
Second: so much of Apple's software is now optimized for Altivec, and this doesn't exist to speak of on the Intel side. They would throw away all that work and advantage moving to intel (I know, I know, what about OpenDoc, etc...)