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
Check out the Wiki on it. It was from the dark and early age of computing:
Wiki on Coprocessors
Now suddenly all this OpenCL stuff makes sense. Remember, the Wiki refers to GPU chips as coprocessors. Same applies to OpenCL, which
"makes it possible for developers to efficiently tap the vast gigaflops of computing power currently locked up in the graphics processing unit (GPU). With GPUs approaching processing speeds of a trillion operations per second, theyre capable of considerably more than just drawing pictures. OpenCL takes that power and redirects it for general-purpose computing."
Well, who said that OpenCL will be limited to a GPU. Why not tack in a really souped up mobile G4 derivant (insert any other PPC chip PA Semi may be capable producing), write some really heavily RISC-optimized code and use it.
I personally think, my G4 PB still compares very well to other laptops.
I'm sure it has been mentioned by others, but if Apple is moving away from Intel chipsets, it would only make sense if they are going to design new ones themselves. ATI no longer produces chipsets for Intel processors and I don't believe they have a license to. nVidia's Intel license only currently extends to the FSB and they currently don't have one for QuickPath for Nehalem. That is why they are again letting Intel incorporate SLI in the upcoming X58 chipset for Nehalem because they don't have their own chipset. nVidia will probably eventually get a QuickPath license, but I can't see Apple switching to nVidia and risking a dead end or delays. Via also isn't a very viable option since their chipsets don't have great performance and I believe they also don't refresh their chipsets very often.
I think the most likely option is that Apple is going to design their own chipset, but with Intel's co-operation. Perhaps using standard Intel northbridges since those are probably the best optimized, but designing their own custom southbridges with features and peripherals that are unique to the Mac. Eventually with Nehalem, the memory controller will be integrated in the CPU largely taking the chipset out of the equation. Then Apple may design a completely custom chipset since it won't be as performance critical.
I think the most likely option is that Apple is going to design their own chipset, but with Intel's co-operation. Perhaps using standard Intel northbridges since those are probably the best optimized, but designing their own custom southbridges with features and peripherals that are unique to the Mac. Eventually with Nehalem, the memory controller will be integrated in the CPU largely taking the chipset out of the equation. Then Apple may design a completely custom chipset since it won't be as performance critical.
This could be coupled with the speculation to reduce the price of their laptops and to try and stop OS X on PCs. If they are Apple chipsets then they will be cheaper to produce and they will be able to lock OS X down better.
They have just bought P.A. Semi.
Interesting.
They have just bought P.A. Semi.
Interesting.
Not at all. I felt that you were trying to down play the influence and importance of the back to school time frame for Apple.
I'd imagine they plan to roll their own with PA Semi, and likely because of older news like this:
Parallels is able to run OS X inside Windows/Linux, but they're "holding off" until Apple gives them the go-ahead..how long before VirtualBox and VMware can?
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/2/9/6983
and recent news like this:
Psystar
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/08/04/14/1919237.shtml
and this:
2nd Apple Clone with a twist..
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/08/07/27/0029229.shtml
Parallels is able to run OS X inside Windows/Linux, but they're "holding off" until Apple gives them the go-ahead..how long before VirtualBox and VMware can?
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/2/9/6983
and recent news like this:
Psystar
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/08/04/14/1919237.shtml
and this:
2nd Apple Clone with a twist..
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/08/07/27/0029229.shtml
Wow, most of you guys are acting like Apple has their head in the sand and doesn't care about tomorrow. If they make any changes, it will be with a definite benefit in mind. It's also not entirely impossible that Apple is working WITH Intel to create some new chipset tech that Intel will produce for Apple. Intel has said before that they love working with the creative/innovative genii at Apple, and maybe this collaboration is going to get even deeper.
Additionally, that car analogy was a load of crap. Do you think Ford makes the aftermarket exhaust systems that INCREASE your horsepower by 5-10%? Or how about K&N's dominance in the air filter field? Maybe you've heard of people replacing their tires? The list goes on and on, from custom ECU's to flywheels to simple stuff like stereos. All parts from different companies, all working together, all increasing the performance of the vehicle. If somebody can and does make a better part, you shouldn't not use it just because it's not from the original manufacturer. That's not how innovation works.
Case in point, my dual 1.8 7448 G4 beats the hell out of the single 450 that came with my sawtooth PowerMac (yes I realize it's a little overkill, but don't tell that to the 1.5 TB RAID it's connected to), yet somehow it isn't made by the original manufacturer. In fact, as with the car analogy, most of the parts in your computer are from different manufacturers from the get-go, so your analogy was still-born. If something works better, there's no reason not to use it.
Additionally, that car analogy was a load of crap. Do you think Ford makes the aftermarket exhaust systems that INCREASE your horsepower by 5-10%? Or how about K&N's dominance in the air filter field? Maybe you've heard of people replacing their tires? The list goes on and on, from custom ECU's to flywheels to simple stuff like stereos. All parts from different companies, all working together, all increasing the performance of the vehicle. If somebody can and does make a better part, you shouldn't not use it just because it's not from the original manufacturer. That's not how innovation works.
Case in point, my dual 1.8 7448 G4 beats the hell out of the single 450 that came with my sawtooth PowerMac (yes I realize it's a little overkill, but don't tell that to the 1.5 TB RAID it's connected to), yet somehow it isn't made by the original manufacturer. In fact, as with the car analogy, most of the parts in your computer are from different manufacturers from the get-go, so your analogy was still-born. If something works better, there's no reason not to use it.
..Easily, you wouldn't notice the difference if no one told you.
AMD, Intel, Via, whatever. They all perform the same basic functions the consumer needs.
Vulpinemac said:
Right.On.The.Dot. I like you.
Which is why Apple offers free iPods during the summer.
A very small percentage of college users need top of the line specs for a computer. A much larger percentage want free iPods
That is not the point. Apple has unprecedented opportunity to move a lot of machines during this time frame. The best marketing is word of mouth. Apple is the "culture of cool". You don't think that Apple having a large presents in higher education has an effect on their bottom line? An attractive new design would absolutely drive even more college students to MBP or MB. Time to market is absolutely key to a products success.
just so everybody knows apple have NEVER!!! had intel chipsets in the mbp, macbook pro, and the imac. they only used the intel processor. they use a dedicated graphics card (not intergrated) and they used their own wifi card. the only change would still use the intel processor but change other things. you can still run boot camp and virtualization.
an advantage to this could be a better graphics card for the macbook and mac mini.
an advantage to this could be a better graphics card for the macbook and mac mini.
No guarantee of that. Going to Intel may have just been an interim step due to the loss of Motorola as a design and manufacturing partner for the PPC chip.
Which has been cracked and has allowed at least one startup to try and sell Mac 'clones,' something Apple definitely doesn't want.
My guess is that it didn't, though I admit I could be wrong.
But don't think this is the only reason Snow Leopard will be faster. Apple has always demonstrated superior performance when compared to equivalent machines by other manufacturers, but where Apple was once more than twice as fast with the combined hardware/software solution, currently the difference is less than 10%. Snow Leopard will stretch that lead maybe another 30-50%, the chipset may up the game to 100% again.
I'd suggest waiting until about 2 days before the announcement... the numbers may be even lower than your guess. If Apple proves the new technology to be significantly superior again, the stock should skyrocket the day after the announcements.
Maybe, but it would be strange to plan to stop Hackintoshes four years from now and not sooner.
Apple would have to provide Windows drivers, similar to the way they provide drivers for specific HW (iSight, bluetooth, etc.) now. It would be a development expense for Apple, but it seems that supporting Windows is now a part of the marketing strategy (unlike the original Windows support, which was merely ad hoc). So I think they would continue to support it.
Yes, no doubt that off-the-shelf parts help lower costs. But this may be part of the concall announcement that new products will have lower margins. In other words, they'll be sold at the same price but Apple will make less. It's not clear to me how Apple would benefit though. Could custom chipsets provide sufficient feature/performance enhancement to justify lower margins?
No, there were (at one time) clones, but they were licensed by Apple, so Apple provided proprietary firmware that allowed the other companies to build conforming machines.
The story specifically discussed Apple not going to the Montevina platform, not Nehalem. So it is a rumor about the next product rev, the one coming in the next month or two.
chipset !=integrated graphic card, (it can include it)
MBP is using intel chipset.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro
thats what is called cutting off your nose to spite you face...
I would prefer to use a iBook G3 running 10.2 rather than use Windows.
Apple bought PA Semi for a reason, and the reason is not to serve the government contracts they held. They acquired them because PA Semi designed "low-power" chips. These were not necessarily processors to replace existing Intel's, but perhaps to design lower-power chips throughout laptops to offer more and extend battery life as well.
Apple thinks everything they do through before they make a move. Also, during the quarterly results, it was stated that Apple was designing products other PC manufacturers could not match. This could be clear support for Apple designing some of their own chips, from their own designers (PA Semi), which would not be made available to other PC manufacturers.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
All of Apple's Intel based computers to date use the primary components (north and south bridge) of Intel's laptop and workstation class chipsets (former for all Mac other then Mac Pro). Additionally they use a handful of other Intel chipset related supporting chips.
So it looks like Apple is once again searching for a single chip solution to the current 2 chip North South arrangement.
Cannot see this as being bad, since this would allow Apple to put in a GPU in the MacBook and still run the same chip in the iMac and MacBook Pro while using different GPUs and port configurations.
Cannot see this as being bad, since this would allow Apple to put in a GPU in the MacBook and still run the same chip in the iMac and MacBook Pro while using different GPUs and port configurations.
Hi
I see this as being kind of arrogant if true but just like the initial Apple PowerPC to Intel switch, we don't know what details are unveiled behind closed doors. Granted it took quite some time but when Apple joined Intel is when they ( Intel ) finally started to get their s**t back together. Montevina sounds like a great mobile chipset. Maybe a little power hungry but I don't foresee any other manufacturer doing any better. I'm a big AMD fan as well but let's be honest in the fact that Intel has hammered the competition in manufacturing, can anyway say 45nm or even 65nm before most even dreamed of bringing it to market. Oh well...
I see this as being kind of arrogant if true but just like the initial Apple PowerPC to Intel switch, we don't know what details are unveiled behind closed doors. Granted it took quite some time but when Apple joined Intel is when they ( Intel ) finally started to get their s**t back together. Montevina sounds like a great mobile chipset. Maybe a little power hungry but I don't foresee any other manufacturer doing any better. I'm a big AMD fan as well but let's be honest in the fact that Intel has hammered the competition in manufacturing, can anyway say 45nm or even 65nm before most even dreamed of bringing it to market. Oh well...
You miss out on something though. Why would Apple want to compete with Intel on production volume? I mean, Apple has less than 10% of the personal computer market while Intel has almost 100% of the microprocessor and integrated chipset markets since they effectively drove the other manufacturers into bankruptcy. Apple may well be able to handle ramping up manufacture for their own needs with the purchase of PA Semi.
Oh, and Intel at one time had the reputation as the worst chip in town, not the best. That's how AMD took so much of its market back in the late 90's early 00's.