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 to Adopt Alternative Chipsets for Next Laptops?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It isn't compatible with Nehalem.I would still rather have Montevina.
It already has a vastly improved IGPU. Not only that, it allows GPU switching. You can have a discrete graphics card that is used for high performance apps then switch to the IGPU to save power for the lower performance GPU apps.
Very nice chipset, available now, better than current chipsets, drop-in compatible with Nehalem CPU. Why mess with it?
My take on this? Meh.
If Apple did make a chipset they would need a license from Intel. We all know Intel doesn't do fabbing for anyone but Intel. Plus it would imply that Apple wouldn't be moving to Nehalem. Why? Because that is a separate license than the existing one.
What I suppose would be most important to me would be if these new chipsets would affect the ability to dual boot into Windows, or affected the speed of virtualisation. Any impairment of performance would make these new Macs a lot less attractive, and I guess put a price premium on the older totally Intel based Macs.
I guess we'll have to wait and see wont we.
I guess we'll have to wait and see wont we.
No, I don't think we need to wait to figure that out. Boot Camp is an advertised feature of OS X 10.5 AND more importantly a key reason why Mac sales have shot up. Apple would only be committing suicide by doing anything to negatively affect how Windows or virtualization works not to mention inviting a class action lawsuit.
You have to admit it would be a true test of OS X ability to pull people in. If they can remove Windows compatibility would they still get as many people to switch?
I think they should try it for Snow Leopard and see what happens.
You mean AMD, the almost bankrupt company? I'd rather bet my stakes in Via or some other alternative provider...although I fail to see the advantage in using ANOTHER chipset with Intel chips, when the best chipset integration possible will most probably come from Intel itself...
apple could make it's own chipset
Cell/Powerficient
Well Apple could always incorporate the Cell processor or Powerficient derivative alongside an Intel Chip.
Toshiba is doing just that.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...s-laptop-debut-in-toshiba-qosmio-but-why.html
Don't see why it wont be able to run Windows (not a big deal).
Imagine Grand Central in Snow Leopard utilizing a Quad Core Mobile Intel Chip plus an Octo Core Cell Chip. Even more impressive on a Mac Pro, add a Cell CPU via a PCI-X slot 8 cores per slot.
Doesn't sound like a bad idea. X86 and Power on 1 computer. Use Intel for integer calculations, and PowerPC for floating point. Don't know where the GPU would fit in if the Cell is used as DSP for video though I'm sure OpenCL + GPU can be used as an alternative to Cell.
But I bet it has more to do with preventing Hackintosh.
Well Apple could always incorporate the Cell processor or Powerficient derivative alongside an Intel Chip.
Toshiba is doing just that.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...s-laptop-debut-in-toshiba-qosmio-but-why.html
Don't see why it wont be able to run Windows (not a big deal).
Imagine Grand Central in Snow Leopard utilizing a Quad Core Mobile Intel Chip plus an Octo Core Cell Chip. Even more impressive on a Mac Pro, add a Cell CPU via a PCI-X slot 8 cores per slot.
Doesn't sound like a bad idea. X86 and Power on 1 computer. Use Intel for integer calculations, and PowerPC for floating point. Don't know where the GPU would fit in if the Cell is used as DSP for video though I'm sure OpenCL + GPU can be used as an alternative to Cell.
But I bet it has more to do with preventing Hackintosh.
Bah, that's bunk. Windows on a Mac has nothing to do with it. Nobody is doing that anyhow. I know a dozen people with Macs and none of them are (or have any desire) to run Windows on it. Not geeks either, I'm talking dentists, mechanics, attorneys, etc. They bought the Mac because it was easy to use, cool, etc. I don't think they could install Windows on their own if they tried. No one is going to buy a Mac to run Windows unless Apple sells it with Windows pre-installed, which we all know is never going to happen.
The fact is, if someone wants a Windows machine, they can buy one with similar specs to Apple, for $1000 less. It's idiotic to buy the Apple and then run Windows, and it has *nothing* to do with Apple's success.
Do you watch TV? Have you seen the Apple "switcher" commercials? Not a single one of them praises a Mac for its ability to run Windows - it's just the opposite, in fact - they trash talk Windows.
x2, Via chipsets are $h!t. Every machine I've owned that had via chipset has been a piece of crap with driver problems, hardware problems, etc. No thx.
I bought an iMac only after the ability to run windows natively was present. I need to use Windows for work related issues, as well as for a couple of pieces of software.
I prefer Mac, but need Windows on occasion.
So, I guess that makes me an idiot.
A lot of these features with accelerator chips or Grand Central and OpenCL will likely be heavily dependent on good compiler support. It'll be a lot more beneficial to end users, if the compiler can automatically optimize code for use with Grand Central or OpenCL then waiting for developers to learn how to use it and rewrite their code for it. That is why I'm hoping that someone would do an analysis of what was added in XCode 3.1 and the possibilities that the new LLVM compiler opens up. I'm willing to bet that the new llvm-gcc-4.2 compiler is going to be a requirement to take advantage of Grand Central and OpenCL, probably marking up the code in a way that Grand Central and OpenCL can divide up the pieces among the CPU cores, GPUs, and any accelerator chips available at runtime.
Great rumor! Apple used to design it's own chipsets. This would be a welcome move back into that direction...and further differentiate Macs from regular PC's. I really hope this happens.
Don't you guys remember when the move to Intel was announced, Apple said they would temporarily be adopting Intel's platforms/chipsets during the transition period and then possibly move back to their own custom designs? I remember something along those lines.
Don't you guys remember when the move to Intel was announced, Apple said they would temporarily be adopting Intel's platforms/chipsets during the transition period and then possibly move back to their own custom designs? I remember something along those lines.
We have a winner
I don't know if it has been mentioned in the other pages, but
Regular intel CPU + regular intel chipset + custom IC from recently acquired PA Semi = no more EULA headaches, no more Psystar and OpenTech "Mac clones".
Still 100% Windows-compatible.
Apple wins and the OSX86 hackintosh personal-use home tinkerers lose simply because Psystar and OpenTech pushed things too far.
I don't know if it has been mentioned in the other pages, but
backdraft said:
Regular intel CPU + regular intel chipset + custom IC from recently acquired PA Semi = no more EULA headaches, no more Psystar and OpenTech "Mac clones".
Still 100% Windows-compatible.
Apple wins and the OSX86 hackintosh personal-use home tinkerers lose simply because Psystar and OpenTech pushed things too far.
Of course no one buys a mac to only run windows. But, having the ability to run windows makes buying a mac a less risky proposition for the average consumer. Lots of people wanted to buy macs before, but not being able to run windows was a big barrier. The only idiotic thing is thinking that the ability to run windows has *nothing* to do with Apples success. If that's the case then why are programs like Parallels and Fusion so popular? Why does apple keep maintaining boot camp? By your definition bootcamp is a waste of Apple resources since no one runs windows on their mac.
IIRC, one of the switch commercials made a point to say that macs also run windows. I don't believe it was the main point of the commercial but it was mentioned.
I don't know why, but I don't have much faith in Apple. Every time something "great" and "revolutionary" is to be released by Apple, it falls short of that (usually).
All I wanted for this update was to see a aluminum laptop, more ports (USB, Video, a PC card slot etc) , cheaper pricing (by 100-200$ or so), no more combo drive in any of their laptops, user accessible HD for the MBP and a frigging dedicated graphics card in the MB.
But no... we have to thin the computer down, create a needless new something to put into the computer and have a glass trackpad... so very
and so very useless...
I hope to that they do what I want (sounds selfish) as opposed to what is just trendy/that will set them apart from PC's in a way that won't much matter. When they are done adding standard hardware to their computers (like a third USB on a 1400$ laptop), then they can aim for being trendy...
All I wanted for this update was to see a aluminum laptop, more ports (USB, Video, a PC card slot etc) , cheaper pricing (by 100-200$ or so), no more combo drive in any of their laptops, user accessible HD for the MBP and a frigging dedicated graphics card in the MB.
But no... we have to thin the computer down, create a needless new something to put into the computer and have a glass trackpad... so very
and so very useless... I hope to that they do what I want (sounds selfish) as opposed to what is just trendy/that will set them apart from PC's in a way that won't much matter. When they are done adding standard hardware to their computers (like a third USB on a 1400$ laptop
), then they can aim for being trendy...
Very well said. I dare say that a very big part of Apple's market share is due to this very reason. I for one MUST have windows for work, do I like it? No but that doesn't change the fact. I love my MBP and use Leopard 99% of the time and use Fusion and/or Bootcamp. If Apple removed virtualization altogether I would bet they would decrease market share.
Apple are not stupid, the more I thought about this (I posted earlier in the thread about what a terrible idea this was for Apple) but after more thought it maybe a very smart thing to do. If they move to a 'custom' chipset they could once and for all likely remove the ability to run OS X on X86 platforms. I would bet that the Psystar debacle had some influence too if this comes to market soon or perhaps just coincidental timing?
This is great news, I think.
I'm sure that Intel is cool with whatever Apple does, as Apple is probably still a great customer to Intel not to mention the fact that by including Apple, Intel effectively has a hand in 100% of the large companies that make up the consumer PC market (note that I didn't say they provide 100% of the chips). Intel couldn't really care less that Apple doesn't participate in the Centrino/Centrino2, Intel Inside or whatever other discount programs Intel has to offer. What matter's most to Intel is that Apple is using their CPU's.
By using their own chipsets, Apple now can use integrated graphics from nVidia or ATI in the MacBooks and the Mini. I believe that the PA acquisition plays to this strength and now Apple can produce a more efficient chipset. They are able to tweak it as they see fit and modify the software to work better with the hardware. I'm also hoping that with future developments that they will be able to blow us away with battery life: Intel processor improvements + Sony Battery Improvements + Apple Chipset Improvements + Software enhancements could equal 10+ hours on a MBP with wi-fi. No one would complain if that came about.
And honestly, people are angry with Apple about what? We all complained when they dropped PPC, but our slowest Intel Macs are on par with some of the fastest PPC Macs. In the end, what makes our computers different is the OS and the overall experience, not who made the transistors that are on the logic board. Come on people.
I'm sure that Intel is cool with whatever Apple does, as Apple is probably still a great customer to Intel not to mention the fact that by including Apple, Intel effectively has a hand in 100% of the large companies that make up the consumer PC market (note that I didn't say they provide 100% of the chips). Intel couldn't really care less that Apple doesn't participate in the Centrino/Centrino2, Intel Inside or whatever other discount programs Intel has to offer. What matter's most to Intel is that Apple is using their CPU's.
By using their own chipsets, Apple now can use integrated graphics from nVidia or ATI in the MacBooks and the Mini. I believe that the PA acquisition plays to this strength and now Apple can produce a more efficient chipset. They are able to tweak it as they see fit and modify the software to work better with the hardware. I'm also hoping that with future developments that they will be able to blow us away with battery life: Intel processor improvements + Sony Battery Improvements + Apple Chipset Improvements + Software enhancements could equal 10+ hours on a MBP with wi-fi. No one would complain if that came about.
And honestly, people are angry with Apple about what? We all complained when they dropped PPC, but our slowest Intel Macs are on par with some of the fastest PPC Macs. In the end, what makes our computers different is the OS and the overall experience, not who made the transistors that are on the logic board. Come on people.
I won't have any prob with Apple IF their own chipset means better graphics for future Macs (that are on par with comparably priced PC's), I don't loose the ability to have windows on my computer (you CAN game on a MB, just not very well) and there is some additional hardware added to their computers that catches up with hardware PC manufactures have on their computers. Also on top of that a price decrease would be nice.
But I really doubt any of that will happen except for the better graphics, but how much better they will be is the question. Knowing Apple, they are going to push their products for looks, style, coolness and simplicity, and not necessarily what is under the hood just like they have with all their previous computers. Therefore, I don't believe that there will be any real ups that the consumer will notice performance wise. But one can hope...
Add me to the idiot list along with 40 other people in my company. We all prefer OS X and use macs but our company requires some windows software.
We also have a $250,000 software package that only runs under linux. I run it in VMware.
If Apple screws up intel compatibility, no new macs for our company.
Don't be ridiculous. Hackintoshes, even Psystar, are small potatoes to Apple, not something that would cause them to redesign their hardware and incur massive development costs.
I disagree. When I worked for a small software company that did Unix OS and UI work on x86-based systems, Intel came and talked with us about what features we would like to see in future Intel processors. If Intel would do that with even a small company, I have to think they have a pretty strong desire to accommodate a company with the market strength of Apple.
I agree with that; Apple is not going to dump the ability to run Windows now.
Apple fought it for a considerable time though; they wanted people to buy Macs for OS X and it took a long while before they embraced Windows compatibility as a marketing advantage. But now that they see it is a significant advantage they won't throw it overboard.
Gee, I guess the dozen people you know don't encompass the entire Mac customer base.
Another idiot here, then. I was quite happy with my iBook G4 for personal use but wanted a machine that could run both so I bought the Macbook. I have a need to run Windows for work and wasn't happy with the used Lenovo my employer provided me, plus I didn't want to carry two laptops around. Now I'm planning to buy another Macbook for my wife, who also needs Windows in her profession but prefers to use a Mac when she can.
Well the fact that old PPC chips can still keep up to the current Intel chips shows how great PPC chips are. I'm sure if IBM and Apple were still working together they would have something blowing Intel out of the water. The PPC ISA is much cleaner then the X86 instruction set, not to mention Apple has had to release specific security updates for Intel based Macs, they just don't affect the PPC.
There's really no reason Apple can't have both chips on the same logic board, and really differentiate themselves from the rest. Hardware also comes into play, its not just the OS.
Look at Microsoft's Component model. What differentiates HP from Dell etc... Not the OS. Maybe HP offers an integrated Card reader n Dell doesn't for example.
Perfect example of this is what Toshiba is doing by integrating Cell into their laptop. They are differentiating themselves and trying to improve the user experience with hardware not software. The iphone differentiates itself with hardware as well. The iphone has multi touch in the touchscreen versus other touch screens that only accept one finger input. Why do you think Apple is patenting all the mul-touch on the hardware side?
So its not just the OS, the hardware does matter. Its 50/50.
That's why we get June -> July -> August -> September/October.
But I think that when the expected announcement date moves forward, then an update is imminent.
And it's 16:9 as well. I don't want the resolution going down to 1280*720.
UP to 1440*810 please. Yeah but Isaiah's TDP is supposedly 20~25 W while Atom's TDP is ~ 2 W.
Very fair.
No it's not. Nehalem will use Calpella, not Montevina.
Power Mac G5 vs. Mac mini? The real comparison is between the Power Mac G5 and the Mac Pro, which the Mac Pro wins. A Pentium M could keep up with a G5.
But Montevina is still pin compatible with Nehalem CPUs. Just like SR was able to accept penryn cpus but Montevina is a better platform for penryn.
Montevina will accept Nehalem but Calpella is the preferred platform.
Calpella will accept the second iteration of Nehalem CPUs out Q3 2009. The first iteration will work in Montevina.