Apple Wants Intel Chips Early?

[iris_failsafe]

Intel signed Apple because they need themn. They felt the wintel machine was stuck doe to windows..

Intel sees Apple as their partner into the Multimedia, home market.
Besides Im sure Intel offered Apple a lot of stuff even processors first than theri traditional buyers

 

[oskar]

apple probaly realizes that ppc is going nowhere and that their laptops are sorry, so now they want to pentium m in the laptops as soon as possible

I think Job's WWDC 2005 keynote said something about that. I recall hearing something about a transition as well...

 

[GregUofMN]

Always believe a news article that includes advertisements with pictures like this...

 

[DeepIn2U]

How could they??

After all that Apple have done to make fun of them? (you know... snail ad, pentium toasting ad, infamous Photoshop shoot-outs)

Haha.... I wonder....

Hmm with the current state of affairs - business practices going to court with AMD & enemies Alliances - as well as backing by RIM (Research In Motion - the BlackBerry/Crackberry creators); it IS possible Apple will get their gift just after Xmas! Especially if Intel see's drastic decline in new cpu orders as this court case progresses. Intel had publicly dissed M$; thus now M$ is now against them and their RIM alliance - remember RIM pioneered PushEmail on a global scale (licensing through another company but its theirs nothing absolutely NOTHING comes close! Canadian pride ringing here).

PS I didnt read pg 2 & 3 sorry old Windows PC habit.

3 MORE WEEKS!!!

 

[Maxx Power]

Always believe a news article that includes advertisements with pictures like this...

Have you actually tried to click on them ? They are poking fun of the marketing in the industry.

 

[sw1tcher]

why dont they burn the deal with intel and join with AMD i know they would love to Join Apple!!!

Ok, so let's say Apple went with AMD. Who's going to produce the chipsets and motherboards that Apple's going to need then? AMD's only a CPU manufacturer. Intel can provide Apple with everything they need... No need to depend on anyone else for parts. No worries about parts shortages.

 

[iJon]

You have to remember, Intel should be very gracious to Apple. It is Apple who made a bold move and took them up on their USB technology.

jon

 

[sw1tcher]

huh???

Double Huh???

 

[sw1tcher]

Intel signed Apple because they need themn. They felt the wintel machine was stuck doe to windows..

But Apple needs Intel more than Intel needs Apple

 

[Quartz Extreme]

OS X isn't the reason smart people buy Apples, it's for the superior architechture. Now that is gone.

I disagree.

Nowadays, there aren't significant speed differences between current PPC and x86 architectures. They are getting more and more alike everyday. This isn't like back in 1994 where PPC was clearly RISC and x86 was clearly CISC, and the PPC was noticeably superior due to architecture. PPC is becoming more CISC-like and x86 is becoming more RISC-like. I'm not saying that x86 is completely superior at this point, (PPC in fact has superior SIMD with Altivec) but PPC is becoming stagnant. The G5 runs way too hot, and can't reach 3GHz yet and this is because Apple is pretty much the only major PPC customer nowadays, and there isn't much motive for IBM to innovate. A switch to x86 brings access to standards used by the rest of the PC industry, which brings more competition, which brings more innovation, which means a better and faster architecture. But "more than even the hardware innovations that we bring to the market, the soul of the Mac is its operating system" (Steve Jobs, WWDC 2005) What really sets apart a Mac is the OS. Come on, what would you rather use: a G5 with OS 9 (impossible, I know, but just a scenario) or a G4 with OS X? It's a no-brainer.

 

[nagromme]

The early-2006 chips coming from Intel (like Yonah) will be just great as far as I'm concerned. No need to wait for Merom.

This "unverified" report seems pretty absurd to me. At best, a distortion of some very different info. If those chips don't exist early next year... then they don't exist! For anyone. Use what DOES exist. I doubt Apple would think Intel's just sitting on Merom and Woodcrest for half a year.

 

[bigwig]

Yeah, that whole vertical integration thing worked out great for Sun.

I hope we can all agree that SPARC, PowerPC, and (my personal favorite) MIPS are vastly superior to x86. Intel's advantage isn't in architecture or design, it's in manufacturing. That's why Sun's and SGI's vertically integrated business model failed: the megadollars needed to roll out another version of their CPUs on the "next great process" doesn't make sense at such low volume, so they're falling farther and farther behind despite architectural superiority. MIPs is popular in embedded apllications, because it's fast and low-power, but the unavailability of Windows on anything other than Intel further entrenched Intel and made them resistant to all competition.

SGI was shipping 64-bit MIPS CPUs in ~1991, which at the time kicked Intel's behind hard. The problem was that by the late 90s Intel really started increasing the clock rate, much faster than their historical mean, so the x86's high clock rate made its architectural disadvantage moot. Neither Sun nor SGI could or can afford the $100,000,000 required each new chip generation.

 

[Quartz Extreme]

This excerpt from WWDC 2005 from Intel CEO and President Paul Otellini is pretty relevant to this topic:

" We are so happy that the world's most innovative computer company and the world's most innovative chip company have finally teamed up. I thought I would give you my perspective on this partnership: I think that this brings together the skills and the opportunities and the engineering excellence of two great companies and they combine our strengths and they play on our respective strengths. Apple has a legendary capability in hardware and software engineering, in design and in innovation. You all know that, but what you may not be familiar with is us. Our strengths are a little bit different but they're entirely complementary. We are all about computer architectures, we're about scale and scope and being able to deliver in high volume the world's best technology and the world's best processors, and what we are most about is the relentless advancement of Moore's Law to give you better and better machines year after year. And so after almost 30 years, Apple and Intel are together at last."

I really think that Intel may go along with this. Suppling Apple with chips ahead of schedule would be a great move that would show that Intel is forward thinking, and committed to innovation, and would strengthen both companies in the short and long term. Given the tone of Apple's new relationship with Intel, I could definitely see this happening!

 

[mambodancer]

Don't forget Apple's Cash in Hand

A very important thing Apple brings to Intel is over a Billion dollars cash in the bank. Remember, aside from Dell, Apple is the only other computer company operating in the Black. Apple may only account for somewhat less than a 5% computer market share in the U.S. (though close to 20%? share in Laptops) yet they may offer Intel a deal too good to pass by. Cash on Delivery! I'm guessing that other companies probably are all on net terms with Intel and given the choice of having the money in the bank today versus 30-90 days out...

 

[ZorPrime]

I disagree.

The G5 runs way too hot, and can't reach 3GHz yet and this is because Apple is pretty much the only major PPC customer nowadays, and there isn't much motive for IBM to innovate.

Nope.

IBM’s interested in Mainframes, Super Computers and the consoles. BlueGene/L and exclusive CPU supplier to the $25Billion console market isn’t going to hurt Big Blue, thanks to the PowerPC. PPC is extremely viable but not for Apple's Computers anymore. Apple’s G5 PPC may not be @ 3GHz but who’s fault is that? As to why, Apple blames IBM and IBM blames Apple. Plenty of PPCs are faster than 3GHz and are low powered. (Yes, I know those chips aren't the same as Apple's G5 but the underlying PPC architecture and manufacturing process are) The Swiss, U.S., French, Australian, and British governments, to name a few, are pretty powerful ($$$$) PPC customers. I already mentioned Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.

 

[ZorPrime]

I really think that Intel may go along with this. Suppling Apple with chips ahead of schedule would be a great move that would show that Intel is forward thinking, and committed to innovation, and would strengthen both companies in the short and long term. Given the tone of Apple's new relationship with Intel, I could definitely see this happening!

I agree, not that my opinion makes a difference. Nicely said.

 

[Xtremehkr]

In all honesty, this would be a big ask of apple to make. But, perhaps they have something in the wings that would make it worthwhile. Apple is not stupid.

 

[840quadra]

hope its not true cuz if so that was kind of greed, apples not that big. If sure if apple had gone AMD ,intel would have been ok. Its real it the other OS and they are a great fan base. Its alot about apples name and not ther market share

post 499!!

huh???

Double Huh???

I think the

Post 499!!

Had something to do with how little sense the post made. I think someone was a bit avatar hungry ?

 

[840quadra]

I agree, not that my opinion makes a difference. Nicely said.

I totally agree as well.

I commented on this before, using Apple as a sort of R&D and giving them dibbs on the first chips could play well for both companies. Especially since Apple currently has Cash in hand (as was mentioned by mambodancer), Apple can be quite a power player in todays market. Especially with their notebook market.

 

[Earendil]

That would be heaps awesome, but intel is a large company and Apple is a smaller customer as such its just not economic sense for intel to provide chips earlier to Apple.

I'm inclined to immediately agree. However a thought occurred to me. These new Intel chips are going to be top of the line. How many Top of the line chips does Dell and cheap-shiet-crew sell? Is Apple really being outsold by a large margin in the power computing arena? Outsold I'm sure, but perhaps they pull more than a 2% weight when it comes to brand new intel chips.

Just a thought.

~Earendil

 

[Evangelion]

But Apple will sell to customers that are use to paying much more for hardware compared to other vendors like Dell. I expect Apple to have the best and latest of Intel before Sony, Dell, Gateway, and HP.

As it was said in the Inquirer story: Dell ships A LOT more computers than Apple does (that is a fact, like it or not), why should Intel screw Dell in order to please Apple? Because Apple-customers pay more for hardware? Well, that's fine and dandy for Apple, but how does it help Intel?

And what would Apple do if Intel refused? Switch to some other CPU? Again? Apple would start running put of friends really fast if they did that. Freescale doesn't really like Apple, IBM doesn't really like Apple, Intel would not like Apple...

 

[Evangelion]

Ok, do some research. AMD only makes cpu's. They couldn't provide Apple with a new hardware platform (mobo, chipset, cpu) that's the ONLY reason they went with Intel.

Sure they could! If Apple was willing to pay, AMD would provide them with a complete package. But I would think that the MoBo has been designed by Apple, or it was designed by Apple and a subcontractor. And it's the same way with AMD.

Apple did this purely for profit. They are no longer the same company that cares about their product or their customers.

So, the "old Apple" did not care about profits? Uh, OK.....

Why did Apple move to Intel? Have you seen the PowerBooks recently? Have you seen the PC-laptops recently? What does Intel bring to the mix? CPU's. While PowerBook is very good machine overall, it's CPU is substandard (1999 called, it wants its FSB back!). G5 would not help there one bit. But Intel has some very nice mobile CPU's.

Same thing with iBooks. The Mini? Same thing. what about PowerMac? It's doing better, but even there are problems. Where's PCI-Express? CPU-speeds have been standing still. Whereas on Intel-side caches have been getting bigger, clock-speeds have increased, expansion-slots have become faster and more cores are being crammed to the die, things have been relatively quiet on the G5-front.

They are just another Gateway or Dell. It's purely a business decision. Hell, I bought more Apple stock because of it but I won't buy another Apple.

So, how exactly are you (as an user) being harmed by this move? Do you feel that you are not "different" enough anymore? You are somehow polluted because future Macs will use Intel-CPU's? You are getting state-of-the-art CPU's, you are getting kick-ass mobile-CPU's. Gone are the day when Mac-users look at x86-CPU's and curse because PPC-CPU's are standing still (that has been going on for long time now. G4 PM's, PB's, G5 PM's....). What exactly is bad in this move, from your perspective? Do you REALLY think that Apple is about to turn in to "beige box" manufacturer like Dell and Gateway, just because they happen to use the same CPU?

 

[SiliconAddict]

You have to remember, Intel should be very gracious to Apple. It is Apple who made a bold move and took them up on their USB technology.

jon

 

[Evangelion]

It took you most of the night to read that? Oh ok.
That article is a bunch of crap. People that actually USE their Apples buy them BECAUSE of the cpu and NOT because of OS X. What a bunch of $&IT! OS X hasn't been around that long. Pro Tools still runs better on OS 9!

Last time I checked, Apple's sales have been doing VERY well recently. Are you suggesting that people buy the latest Macs, erase OS X from them and install OS 9 on the machine? Do they even work with OS 9 anymore?

Seriously, you are not making any sense. As far as the users are concerned, the CPU is irrelevant. If Apple could switch the CPU in your Mac during the night, you would propably not notice any difference in the next time you used the computer. Hell, people with the x86 developer-machines have commented how surprised they were because the machine is so fast! So you might actually notice a difference: the x86 Mac could be FASTER!

If people didn't buy Apples because of the CPU then why the many years of relentless x86 bashing?

because Apple's competition (Dell etc.) used x86, whereas Apple used PPC?

You'd simply have to be a complete moron not to read about x86 and RISC and think that x86 is a better cpu. Apple just pisses me off again. I know they won't switch back to RISC becuase Apple has now become ApDell.

You seriously have no clue. True, on the architecture-level PPC is better. But for users, there is no difference. You will NOT see any difference when you are using the computer! Things will work just like they did in the past. If you are a programmer, you will propably not see any difference either (unless you program in Assembly).

That superior architecture of PPC will not help it one bit, if they have to compete against CPU's that have lots and lots of cache, run very cool, have fast buses, multiple cores and reach high MHz.

My suggestion to you is this: Take few deep breaths. If that doesn't help, take some valium. This is NOT the end of the world as we know it.

 

[Evangelion]

You are correct. The majority of people are stupid. Apples work as well as they do because of the hardware architecture with the RISC processor, NOT THE OS!!!!!!!!!!! Don't believe me? You'll find out.

Seriously: you have no clue what you are talking about. No, seriously. Only people who would care about RISC vs. CISC are the programmers. And even they don't have to care about it in the end. It is not uncommon at all to have the exact same codebase running smoothly on CISC and RISC without any tweaking. It's just a recompile away.

So, users wont notice any difference. For the most part, programmers wont notice any difference. So what exactly is this "magic" quality of RISC that you are referring to here? How exactly does RISC make Macs better, when compared to CISC/x86?