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
whatever it is it will be able to run windows natively. it unlikely they would eliminate one of their selling points.
It's quite possible they will try to include a complete chipset package from multiple manufacturers to get both the performance and the pricing they want. The Intel IGP is fairly limited in what it can do, especially in terms of video, etc. Integrated Radeon GPUs have done very well. Nvidia might have been a contender in the past, but the $200 million or so that they had to set aside for repair/replacement of faulty integrated GPUs (bad packaging that broke down quickly under heat stress) makes that fairly unlikely. ATI used to produce a decent number of the chipsets for Intel both for laptops and desktop mainboards, so it is certainly possible for AMD/ATI to do so once again assuming Intel gives the go ahead...
I was thinking the exact same thing, its another apple inhouse part and would most likely lower the final price by a few dollars.
as for the pc's that run apple it would kill that off and make apple stronger in regards to their hardware and software. if they can get it right....
as for the pc's that run apple it would kill that off and make apple stronger in regards to their hardware and software. if they can get it right....
Since they bought that chip manufacturer (PA Semi) a little while back, this seems plausible. And could this make it impossible for users from making Hackintoshes because their PC standard chipset would be lacking something that is part of the Apple chipset.
Couldn't this also drive down the cost of the chipsets for Apple by not having to pay Intel a markup on them?
I'm interested to see where this whole story goes....
It would be considerably more expensive in fact due to a lack of economies of scale.
I don't mean to be mean, but it appears there are VERY few that have any idea what they are talking about. I am certainly not an expert, but it seems like many people just throw out random nonsense claiming it to be fact.
Anyways, like many others here, this rumor didn't appear to make much sense considering Intel appears to be the SOLE supplier of Intel-CPU-compatible mobile chipsets. After digging a little bit, that seems to mostly be the case, with ATI largely abandoning all their Intel compatible chipsets after merging with AMD. However, apparently, NVIDIA has actually recently announced that they are creating INTEL COMPATIBLE CHIPSETS to compete with the Centrino platform! For now all i could find related to a low power subnotebook chipset named Nvidia "MCP79": http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nvid...ipset-for-Intel-Mobile-Processors-84237.shtml I think It's doubtful to assume Apple would get their entire motherboard chipsets exclsuively from Nvidia however.
I'm unsure of what to make of this rumor. I guess I can see a few different possibilities here, but whatever it is, I don't think Apple would want to piss Intel off, considering a further strengthened relationship could bare more fruit. And whatever they are doing, it surely doesn't make sense to do anything major considering that Intel's upcoming Nehalem will completely change the chipset architecture. Most of the northbridge/memory controller functionality will be embedded in the CPU, so Intel will be moving to a new one-chip design called the the PCH (platform controller hub) that incorporates southbridge/IO hub functionality.
Heres a few ideas:
1) Apple wants to leverage PA SEMI (in conjunction with Intel) to build a new northbridge and/or southbridge chipset that is faster/more power efficient/"better" than Intel's offerings, and also perhaps decreases unit costs. In this scenario however, you would assume Intel would be best capable of creatingn and optimizing a supporting chipset for THEIR OWN CPUs! Why would PA SEMI or Apple be able to do better? And would the possible advantages offset the large development costs?
2a) Related to OpenCL and Snow Leopard, Apple wants better graphics chip performance than what Intel can provide, but wants to keep the cost, size, and power benefit of an Integrated solution. Perhaps they would use integrated graphics chipsets from AMD or nVidia to which they would add their own supporting northbridge/southbridge. Or possibly use Intel's existing chipset except with the 3rd party graphics chipset in place of Intel's integrated GMA.
3) The most likely IMO, is that Apple and PA SEMI are collaborating with Intel on some form of custom supporting chipset. What this could entail, I have no idea. Maybe some new type of integrated graphics or mobile Larabee chip or something? Or maybe it's more benign, and they are just looking to streamline and/or reduce power usage of existing platforms.
------------------
On a related note, Apple uses Intel's northbridge/southbridge chipset, but not their Wifi or LAN controller, right? Now I believe the Wifi is on a separate card, so it's not hard to see how they can replace that. But isn't the ethernet controller and port integrated into the chipset? I know Apple uses their own because until Montevina, Intel has only had 10/100 Ethernet instead of the Gigabit ethernet Apple has used for years. So I'm wondering what else does't Apple use from the Centrino platform? Below I have a diagram of Intel's latest mobile chipset. What else does Apple replace/not use on this diagram? Anyone know the details of Apple's motherboards?
Yes, If this has some truth to it, it will be interesting to see what they are up to. Also, I don't see why they would need their own southbridge since Intel now has Gigabit ethernet, although I'm unsure if Firewire is integrated into the latest centrino or not. I'm sure they could have Intel provide them with a customized platform for further integratation and streamlining. I have to believ that this is just going to be Apple collaborating with Intel on something, and not Apple just going alone. As you said, at least with this generation of CPUs, the Nortbridge is critical to performance since it houses the memory controller, among other things. How could Apple possibly make a better/faster/more power efficient one than Intel?
Anyways, like many others here, this rumor didn't appear to make much sense considering Intel appears to be the SOLE supplier of Intel-CPU-compatible mobile chipsets. After digging a little bit, that seems to mostly be the case, with ATI largely abandoning all their Intel compatible chipsets after merging with AMD. However, apparently, NVIDIA has actually recently announced that they are creating INTEL COMPATIBLE CHIPSETS to compete with the Centrino platform! For now all i could find related to a low power subnotebook chipset named Nvidia "MCP79": http://news.softpedia.com/news/Nvid...ipset-for-Intel-Mobile-Processors-84237.shtml I think It's doubtful to assume Apple would get their entire motherboard chipsets exclsuively from Nvidia however.
I'm unsure of what to make of this rumor. I guess I can see a few different possibilities here, but whatever it is, I don't think Apple would want to piss Intel off, considering a further strengthened relationship could bare more fruit. And whatever they are doing, it surely doesn't make sense to do anything major considering that Intel's upcoming Nehalem will completely change the chipset architecture. Most of the northbridge/memory controller functionality will be embedded in the CPU, so Intel will be moving to a new one-chip design called the the PCH (platform controller hub) that incorporates southbridge/IO hub functionality.
Heres a few ideas:
1) Apple wants to leverage PA SEMI (in conjunction with Intel) to build a new northbridge and/or southbridge chipset that is faster/more power efficient/"better" than Intel's offerings, and also perhaps decreases unit costs. In this scenario however, you would assume Intel would be best capable of creatingn and optimizing a supporting chipset for THEIR OWN CPUs! Why would PA SEMI or Apple be able to do better? And would the possible advantages offset the large development costs?
2a) Related to OpenCL and Snow Leopard, Apple wants better graphics chip performance than what Intel can provide, but wants to keep the cost, size, and power benefit of an Integrated solution. Perhaps they would use integrated graphics chipsets from AMD or nVidia to which they would add their own supporting northbridge/southbridge. Or possibly use Intel's existing chipset except with the 3rd party graphics chipset in place of Intel's integrated GMA.
3) The most likely IMO, is that Apple and PA SEMI are collaborating with Intel on some form of custom supporting chipset. What this could entail, I have no idea. Maybe some new type of integrated graphics or mobile Larabee chip or something? Or maybe it's more benign, and they are just looking to streamline and/or reduce power usage of existing platforms.
------------------
On a related note, Apple uses Intel's northbridge/southbridge chipset, but not their Wifi or LAN controller, right? Now I believe the Wifi is on a separate card, so it's not hard to see how they can replace that. But isn't the ethernet controller and port integrated into the chipset? I know Apple uses their own because until Montevina, Intel has only had 10/100 Ethernet instead of the Gigabit ethernet Apple has used for years. So I'm wondering what else does't Apple use from the Centrino platform? Below I have a diagram of Intel's latest mobile chipset. What else does Apple replace/not use on this diagram? Anyone know the details of Apple's motherboards?
Yes, If this has some truth to it, it will be interesting to see what they are up to. Also, I don't see why they would need their own southbridge since Intel now has Gigabit ethernet, although I'm unsure if Firewire is integrated into the latest centrino or not. I'm sure they could have Intel provide them with a customized platform for further integratation and streamlining. I have to believ that this is just going to be Apple collaborating with Intel on something, and not Apple just going alone. As you said, at least with this generation of CPUs, the Nortbridge is critical to performance since it houses the memory controller, among other things. How could Apple possibly make a better/faster/more power efficient one than Intel?
Well, what doesn't make sense is Nehlaem isn't far away. Why would Apple put any effort into a new chipset solution when the architecture is going to be chaning so drastically in just 6 months?
Except, if Apple designs the chipset inside-out, what impetus is there to include good drivers -- if any drivers at all? Part of the reason they moved towards Bootcamp was because hackers were already using existing drivers for much of the Intel hardware (it was a surprising move, but I guess they thought they may as well meet them full way). If Apple does something crazy with the chipset, they have no obligation to actually ship drivers (and you won't be able to use Intel's). That's the real danger here.
I doubt there is ANY danger that Apple wouldn't continue to support dual booting Windows. The ability to run XP/Vista is a major selling point, although I'll concede that with virtualization, it may not be necessary for most people. On a similar note, with future x86 processors from both Intel and AMD, virtualization applications will be able to assign physical hardware (think graphics cards) devices directly to individual virtual machines! This will enable a Windows/Linux virtual machine to actually detect and use the native graphics card of the machine at full speed instead of a generic emulated video Adapter! Now you can play DirectX games without having to dual-boot into XP!
It's not a bad idea, but I don't know how that would work considering they couldn't just adopt all of AMD's chipset since Intel's CPUs use a different northbridge/memory controller architecture. Wouldn't they have to somehow integrate an ATI/AMD integrated graphics chip into their existing motherboard that uses the Intel's northbridge/southbridge.
Considering the fact that "switchers" were few and far between up until the Intel conversion, I'd say you are wrong on that one.
Absolutely wrong. Having the same chipset as the CPU ensures an optimum level of support, performance and economies of scale that you cannot have with separate makers...
...If you are referring to GPU acceleration or parallel processing, fine...for everything else a single, all-inclusive maker is better. It's like using spare parts for a car that are not supported by the original maker. In other words, NO THANKS...
Nah. Nvidia and ATI have historically made motherboards for AMD and Intel's processors, and they worked just as well as the native boards in most cases. Also, AFAIK Apple already doesn't use the entire Centrino platform since they use different WiFi and ethernet chips, among other things. And even if this rumor has some truth to it, Apple wouldn't be moving away from x86 for god sakes, just reworking the supporting logic. Running Windows WOULD NOT be affected, especially in a virtual machine!
Certainly not cheaply! Or even competitive with modern x86 processors. Thankfully, they are NOT developing their own CPU -- the article is talking about the chipset.
Yea, because what developer couldn't wait to write code optimized for a hybrid x86 platform with a custom PowerPC-variant co-processor?
Best post on the thread!Actually, the more this thread continues, it becomes more obvious, that NONE of us, myself especially, has the slightest idea of what this means. So maybe we should just all kick back and make posts about G5 powerbooks, Snappier Safari, etc, and wait and see what ACTUALLY is in the offing, here! But then, i guess, this IS a rumour site after all...
Grand central is more of an abstract concept for how to componentize computing tasks versus the traditional threading model. I don't think it's going to require any one speciifc CPU. Also, other than controlling FSB/memory speed, the northbridge/southbridge "chipset" really has nothing to do with actual computation. You are talking more along the lines of some special integrated co-processor. I doubt they would do anything like that, as current graphics chipsets play the role of the "highly parallel co-processor" for OpenCL.
AMD was popular with gamers back in the time of the P4 vs the Athlon 64/X2 because they were cheaper and faster. Intel's Core 2 lineup is now the top dog, and it doesn't really matter too much anyways, considering the CPU plays a minor roll in gaming performance. If Apple wanted to play in that market, they would just simply make better graphics cards available. (Say a 8800/9800 in a Macbook Pro and/or iMac).
Neither of them make Intel compatible chipsets so if they are using such things they won't be using Intel chips and it will be a cold day in heck before I use a craptastic AMD chip. Their wares suck with the intensity of a black hole. And VIA is worse.
And building their own chipset. Yah right. first gen MBP's. They couldn't even get that right without a whole mess of bugs. I don't even want to think what a new chipset from scratch would lead to other then Apple trying to cut expenses even further. Because of course this would drop the price of the laptop if they aren't licensing the chipset from Intel.....without passing on those savings to the customer might I add. Apple is worse then MS.
And building their own chipset. Yah right. first gen MBP's. They couldn't even get that right without a whole mess of bugs. I don't even want to think what a new chipset from scratch would lead to other then Apple trying to cut expenses even further. Because of course this would drop the price of the laptop if they aren't licensing the chipset from Intel.....without passing on those savings to the customer might I add. Apple is worse then MS.
Athlon 64. Opteron. Onboard memory controller 4 years before Intel will have it with Nehalem.
While Intel's integrated video is still lowest-of-the-low for 3D graphics, the latest G45 chipset (the one in the "Montevina Platform",) has full HD acceleration. It does just as good a job accelerating HD (including Blu-ray) as ATI and nVidia chipsets.
And a quick check of AMD/ATI's mobile integrated graphics solutions show that they suck.
nVidia is better, and has the wonderful benefit: "Hybrid SLI". You get low-energy-usage onboard graphics that is competent at 3D (not going to threaten discrete graphics, but better than even Intel's latest.) But you also get the ability to use SLI with a discrete chip. Thus, you use the integrated graphics alone when doing non-GPU-intensive stuff; and crank on the discrete GPU when you need the GPU power.
AMD/ATI has announced a product like this, but it looks like nVidia beat them to the punch.
(Of course, Intel's G45 supports this, too. G45 integrated graphics when you don't need GPU power, switches to a discrete ATI or nVidia GPU when you need it, if installed.)
The nVidia solution would make for more easy cross-model similarities (just have integrated-only on the MacBook and MBA, and have integrated plus discrete on the MBP.) It could also, unfortunately, signal that a discrete GPU would become an option, not standard, on even the MBP. (Of course, the converse could also be true: A discrete GPU might become an option on the MB/MBA, where it hasn't been available before.)
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that they had used hardware lock-in previously to deny clones. I meant that they have used in the past, as many other companies do, lock-in to limit competition.
Well, they would have to start at some time wouldn't they? They don't have to lock everyone down immediately. It could just be over the long term. As macs get increasingly older and are not supported they are dropped from being supported by future OS. It could be a gradual lock-in over time, these new macs with updated chipsets would then be in the future the oldest macs that could support a future OS.
Another angle is that the chips might not prevent you from running a future OS, but they would be necessary to take advantage of added features. So yes your current Intel imac will be able to run OSX Ocelot (lol) in the future and you might get a Hackintosh to run it, but it might be more like running Vista Basic as opposed to Vista Super-super Supreme.
I'm not saying this is the only possibility, the chips could be something totally different, but I wouldn't put it past SJ to order something like this.
I think Apple realizes that the next generation Intel GPU will make the Macbook a 'more' reasonable alternative to the MBP for those that want some 3D graphics capability and the only way to avoid that conflict of interests (they WANT you to spend over $2000 REAL BAD) is to NOT USE the GPU and find some 3rd party piece of junk that won't do anything but 2D and call it better because of power consumption or some other nonsense to keep milking those MBP sales. Really, I didn't consider the new GPU a threat (it's still going to be way underpowered), but you have to admit it's convenient to change the chipsets now.
Just because Apple might not implement Montevina chipsets doesn't mean they won't be Intel chipsets. The CPUs in the latest iMacs are custom chips by Intel. Maybe Intel will help Apple make a custom chipset.
I think this rumor is just a misinterpretation, though. The last notebooks weren't necessarily Santa Rosa notebooks because they didn't use the Intel 4965 WiFi AIC. They used the Santa Rosa chipset, but weren't fully Centino.
Maybe whoever started this rumor misinterpreted that same sort of information for Montevina. The next Macbooks could have a Montevina chipset, but not necessarily everything to certify it as a Montivina (Centrino 2) notebook, so they became confused.
I think this rumor is just a misinterpretation, though. The last notebooks weren't necessarily Santa Rosa notebooks because they didn't use the Intel 4965 WiFi AIC. They used the Santa Rosa chipset, but weren't fully Centino.
Maybe whoever started this rumor misinterpreted that same sort of information for Montevina. The next Macbooks could have a Montevina chipset, but not necessarily everything to certify it as a Montivina (Centrino 2) notebook, so they became confused.
Intel's chipsets have had "integrated" Gigabit Ethernet for a few revisions.
But, the circuitry built-in to the chipset isn't a full Ethernet controller. It still requires an add-on chip.
So it makes perfect sense for Apple to just go with whoever they feel like. If they can get a "full" Gigabit Ethernet controller cheaper than Intel's add-on chip, so be it.
Not enough production volume to amortize development costs. I went through the same thing at SGI. Even though MIPS kicked Intel's $&#*%$ and left them bleeding in the streets, there just weren't enough units being built to make the huge fixed costs of developing a new CPU worthwhile.
The Reason for this Change
Intel updates their motherboards / chipsets every 6 months which is forcing Apple to update their product line at a pace they don't want to support.
Apple is doing what other companies have done by designing long lifetime motherboards. These boards use Intel CPUs along with custom chipsets to produce a motherboard that will not be obsoleted by Intel in 6 months. To the typical user, the motherboard will look and perform just like the Intel motherboard. Apple will be able to control their own hardware design and just have to purchase the CPU from Intel.
This is actually a good thing although the motherboard cost should be more then the Intel board.
Intel updates their motherboards / chipsets every 6 months which is forcing Apple to update their product line at a pace they don't want to support.
Apple is doing what other companies have done by designing long lifetime motherboards. These boards use Intel CPUs along with custom chipsets to produce a motherboard that will not be obsoleted by Intel in 6 months. To the typical user, the motherboard will look and perform just like the Intel motherboard. Apple will be able to control their own hardware design and just have to purchase the CPU from Intel.
This is actually a good thing although the motherboard cost should be more then the Intel board.
Well the idea was they would actually adopt AMD CPU's for the Puma chipset, since that's the only way it would work. Turion's aren't bad at all, but Core 2 just sounds better these days.
Athlon 64. Opteron. Onboard memory controller 4 years before Intel will have it with Nehalem.
And look where AMD is. On the verge of bankruptcy
Don't get me wrong, AMD had a great run with a lot of innovation and always have but Intel's muscle and power has always dominated even in times when they were struggling (netburst)
And now that they're back with a vengeance, they're on the verge of killing off AMD. And my main point anyways was that Intel has long dictated what route hardware and software goes with the ownership of x86 as well as setting standards such as ATX and other standards we don't hear about a lot of, but they run.
if i were you i still wouldnt buy a vaio...while vaios are still decent pc's it is still a pc. i bought my mbp last year and i have never been happier...if i were you use ur schools computer lab for a month or so and then buy the new one
I cant really believe that apple would be moving away from the montevina platform from everything i read its going to be a great processor and chipset and i cant believe that they would change the chipset and not the processor, whats the advantage to that, and also i cant believe NVIDIA isnt mentioned, apple should just stick with the intel chips and chipset, and give us all the multitouch mb and mbp that we want
Society gets dumber with each decade
It's rather clear that the massive consumers of today's computers know jack about Motherboards, ICs and how Chipsets outside of Intel are often far superior to Intel.
Texas Instruments comes to mind as being part of this future contribution. AMD could be and they make some fantastic ASICs and much more.
I'm expecting these changes to effect and target Apple's HD markets.
It's rather clear that the massive consumers of today's computers know jack about Motherboards, ICs and how Chipsets outside of Intel are often far superior to Intel.
Texas Instruments comes to mind as being part of this future contribution. AMD could be and they make some fantastic ASICs and much more.
I'm expecting these changes to effect and target Apple's HD markets.
SIGH
it's so bad reading dedicated apple users comment on a statement like this. it's obvious many dedicated users have little knowledge of tech that happens outside of that adopted into apple, and in some cases the technology inside apples. hardware knowledge has always been my gripe with apple users, especially blackshirts
customers "do does this mbp have centrino technology"
blackshirt "well it doesn't matter you want a computer that works" *avoided answering because (he admited to me) that he knows noting about tech. and truth is, it does not, as apple don't use intel wireless cards.*
first, i don't like the front page post, where it says "they will be functionaly the same" what exactly are you refereing to. when nvidia, amd and intel make chipsets they all add different features, including sata, networking etc, and although they mostly have the same functions, when u are overclocking and you start to see differences in the chipsets. so yes you may not see the differences of the surface (functionally the same) the functions they come with may vary.
within the overclocking CPU communities all chipset manufacturers have had success at different points. early on Via had massive success, mostly with early athlons, while the nvidia chipsets have always been pretty popular, as have intel.
i can say if they are opening to other chipset manufacturers, they may have a greater abililty to move other processors than being stuck with intel cpus. hence i wouldn't be surprised if they are giving tehmselves flexibility to change in the future.
additionally, i think that the possibility of moving to other chipsets is being able to have an integrated gpu with cuda functions, hence basically wedgeing a third cpu onto the mother board. so i would be surprised if this change was leading into better integration and support for snow leopard, especially in low powered macs (mini, macbook)
it's so bad reading dedicated apple users comment on a statement like this. it's obvious many dedicated users have little knowledge of tech that happens outside of that adopted into apple, and in some cases the technology inside apples. hardware knowledge has always been my gripe with apple users, especially blackshirts
customers "do does this mbp have centrino technology"
blackshirt "well it doesn't matter you want a computer that works" *avoided answering because (he admited to me) that he knows noting about tech. and truth is, it does not, as apple don't use intel wireless cards.*
first, i don't like the front page post, where it says "they will be functionaly the same" what exactly are you refereing to. when nvidia, amd and intel make chipsets they all add different features, including sata, networking etc, and although they mostly have the same functions, when u are overclocking and you start to see differences in the chipsets. so yes you may not see the differences of the surface (functionally the same) the functions they come with may vary.
within the overclocking CPU communities all chipset manufacturers have had success at different points. early on Via had massive success, mostly with early athlons, while the nvidia chipsets have always been pretty popular, as have intel.
i can say if they are opening to other chipset manufacturers, they may have a greater abililty to move other processors than being stuck with intel cpus. hence i wouldn't be surprised if they are giving tehmselves flexibility to change in the future.
additionally, i think that the possibility of moving to other chipsets is being able to have an integrated gpu with cuda functions, hence basically wedgeing a third cpu onto the mother board. so i would be surprised if this change was leading into better integration and support for snow leopard, especially in low powered macs (mini, macbook)