Apple Wants Intel Chips Early?

[Arnaud]

Mmm...

All in all, I never took Motorola/Freescale/PPC as the reason for all the great sides of Apple computers. Quite the opposite, I think Apple used the Motorola chips and their performances as the base of the machines, but the engineering and esthetic choices around the Motorola CPU, in addition to the Apple OS and software, brought the computers we like (or we don't, depending on who is reading). I started with the 65c02, not so much of a PPC architecture by then; later, the machines based on 68xxx were rather cool too.

I don't see why that should change with a new CPU, whatever its brand and type. I'm a consumer, and I rely on Apple to use the engineering dept to provide an efficient and comfortable computer. I don't really care about the details under the hood.

I think the result should clearly be a Mac, albeit a Mactel. If it works and feels as a Mac, I will still favour it over a Wintel machine, or another OS I'm not comfortable with. And I do like a lot the OS and all the available software, iLife and all, as they are a nice startup package - and you can always go for the professional stuff if you need to -.

Apple going to Intel doesn't mean that we will have to build our own boxes ourselves, or buy crappy machines such as the ones on the shelf of the next grocery store. (It's not either a reopening of the licensing to other manufacturers). We'll still get Apple boxes with few slots and plugs for extension, not a full choice of motherboards, fans, cards, etc... And that's what I like: a limited range of components, so that they all work together, instead of an unlimited choice between items which don't work together; I know we always miss this really cool graphic card or that really high speed bus, but well, I've got better things to do on my Sundays than fix up the clock speed / the OS / call the firemen

We'll see. Apple can make mistakes (ie, wrong choices, bad Mactel machines, unhappy customers etc...) but I hope they'll put the efforts on that one so that the global feeling of a Mac is still there. (And I guess they know there is some pressure on that new product line).

 

[BGil]

What's wrong with you.

It's more 'powerful', because it's nothing more than a desktop chip, renamed.

'Centrino' is the total chipset, designed specifically for the mobile segment.

And what does bluetooth and a DVD burner have to do with AMD being better than intel?

It's already been established that AMD based systems are less expensive (for certain configurations). And the reason they're cheaper has nothing to do with the CPUs, and more to do with the schwag motherboard and controllers being used.

At the high end, AMD CPUs are only slightly cheaper than Intel.

But the fact you have to use the expensive Intel chipsets to get the "Centrino" marketing license makes them a lot more expensive.
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/articles/42/1/1/

You may not like it but AMD has in fact passed Intel in the mobile technology race. The Turion uses less power than the Pentium M and is faster. The article above shows that and does even cover the speed increases from 64-bit (20% in many apps) or the MT Turion which uses even less power.

 

[Kelson]

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.

Look....Apple wants to announce the new PowerMac and PowerBook, they want to do it w/ the Woodcrest and Merom processors. (Yonah is for iBooks) They want a big splash, and they want it at WWDC. Which is about 1 quarter ahead of Intels schedule.

Now, based on Intel's project plan & schedule for these processors, they will be available in Q3. Apple is trying to put pressure on Intel to crash the schedule in some areas on the critical path to deliver early. I doubt Apple really thinks they could get some kinda exclusive deal on receiving the processors early. Now Intel could probably deliver early if they wanted to spend the extra money. Maybe Apple will provide financial incentive for them to do this, which will motivate Intel. In fact, Intel may be willing to let Apple announce their new Merom/Woodcrest based systems before they announce the chips officially, for the right price. But don't expect Dell to have to wait in line to get the chips, or at least not for very long.

Also, Dell won't pay for this type of schedule crashing, because they don't care about the latest chips coming out as much, they work off volume and commodity pricing. Apple works off differentiating it's product from the competition through performance and features, etc.

- Kelson

 

[wdlove]

If anyone can convince Intel to release the chips early it will be Steve Jobs. The most important thing is the Apple remains on schedule.

 

[cybermat]

My take is if Intel releases the chip earlier for Apple, Apple would have an edge over Dell or the other big players. Intel's big customers won't want that to happen because they will lose business. We have to remember that the Mactel computer can and will be able to boot Windows just like a Dell can.

 

[wnurse]

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...

Even if apple had a trillion dollars, why would they pay in cash?. Companies earn interest on their money. Why give up the earned interest just to pay a supplier in cash?. If i was CIO of Apple, i would never do that.

 

[BGil]

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...QUOTE]
1. Dell is profitable and HP uses their computer business to sells printers and ink which is unbelievably profitable. They have cash out coming out the nose.

2. Apple has nowhere near 20%. Worldwide they had about 4.4% last quarter and in the US they had a bit more but nowhere near 20%.
http://www.idc.com.au/press/detail.asp?releaseid=183

As the sub-$1000 notebook market gets bigger Apple will continue losing marketshare until they release one (an no $999 is not what I'm talking about)

 

[Yvan256]

You may not like it but AMD has in fact passed Intel in the mobile technology race. The Turion uses less power than the Pentium M and is faster. The article above shows that and does even cover the speed increases from 64-bit (20% in many apps) or the MT Turion which uses even less power.

I'm too lazy to go read that page, but let's say for a second that it's true: AMD now has a better mobile CPU than Intel. It doesn't really matter. Intel and AMD have been jumping over each other for the last two decades... Intel will get better than AMD soon enough (probably even before we see all Apple computers switched to Intel).

The real problem with AMD is the manufacturing and the marketing. More people know "Intel" than "AMD" (in the mainstream, I mean). And processors supply was one of the main problem with Motorola, Freescale and IBM.

In any case, I still say that Apple will shortly announce they're not "switching", they're simply the first true CPU-independant platform. If they announce they're now SPARC-compatible in the future (I see no reason to do so, however), I wouldn't be surprised...

 

[BGil]

I'm too lazy to go read that page, but let's say for a second that it's true: AMD now has a better mobile CPU than Intel. It doesn't really matter. Intel and AMD have been jumping over each other for the last two decades... Intel will get better than AMD soon enough (probably even before we see all Apple computers switched to Intel).

It's going to take a while and it won't be before the switch. Remember, the PC industry provides roadmaps so we all know what Intel is going to have for the next few years. The best thing they can do to provide a rapid change is to makes some piss-poor hack on to their chips like EMT64 or the P4 dual core. All the major stuff is known years ahead of time.

The real problem with AMD is the manufacturing and the marketing. More people know "Intel" than "AMD" (in the mainstream, I mean). And processors supply was one of the main problem with Motorola, Freescale and IBM.

Yep. Te marketing is the big thing, AMD's processor supply is more than enough especially considering their have IBM building their chips as well.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I have feeling that Intel will be much less inclined to accomodate Apple than Moto or IBM, since they consider Apple to be "just another vendor", like Dell or HP. Oh, sure, they'll say that Apple is a special company and whatnot for the PR but behind closed doors it will be "my way or the highway".

They get little benefit for giving Apple special treatment so why would they? I hope Steve has his RDF set to stun for this one.

 

[knobsturner]

The Real Reaon that Apple just might get those chips early

Is that Apple has a small market share. For Intel to release to the likes of Dell and Taiwan, it needs millions of chips in stock. Apple, with its smaller order, higher profile, and tightly controlled manufacturing (ie compared to the guy on the corner), means that Apple can even use an ealier revision of the chip that only passes QA on an intel Mac.

--knobs

 

[stuBCN75]

Intel stickers

My only real worry is .... will we have to have 'Intel inside' stickers on the box ?

I really could not care less what is inside the computer, dual hamsters charging round a wheel would be fine ( although i would not want to clean the sh*t out every day ).

Does it really matter ? Why ? As long as the new machines are going to be quicker than the old ones, as long as the price is good. Do you use your Mac for work ? or do you just open the side and watch the fans spinning round.

Just buy whatever machine you need / want, be it Mac or PC. It really is no big deal. Not worth getting upset over.

For me it is the whole experience with Apple. Simple to buy, set-up and use. A clean(ish) OS which is not a headache to work with and Apps which run without crashing. What else matters ? And the computers look nice next to the desk, why spend lots of $$ on an ugly box. I just want to get my work done and not have to worry about the computer.

I am just about to buy a cheap PC just for checking web-sites, and also some other dull admin work. Anyhow, whatever the reason it has not been an easy thing to buy ! too many options and the sales people in the shops are no use either, they talk in acronyms and techie babble which means nothing to 99% of people.

Sorry! A bit off topic there .... Intel giving Apple chips early ? I dunno, i doubt Apple or Intel will rush anything. There is just no point. Also remember Apple is just another Intel client now and not a real big one either. I suppose they will get what they are given, Jobs RDF or not.

 

[willyjsimmons]

That's exactly what I said

Technically, "Centrino" is nothing but a marketing term. It specify the use of a certain CPU, chipset and wirless networking adapter.

"'Centrino' is the total chipset, designed specifically for the mobile segment."

That's EXACTLY what I said.

 

[willyjsimmons]

Know this

IBM doesn't make laptops nor any other personal computer anymore.

Yes, they sold their computer division.

But go to their web site, and you can still purchase them directly from IBM.

The point STILL stands.

If IBM really cared about PPC, they would fund their own R&D for it, and put it in their 'IBM' branded laptops, but they don't.

How come people keep nitpicking?

 

[Lord Blackadder]

No one else finds it ironic that IBM uses intel chips in their laptops?

And have done so for a LONG time.

IBM's bread and butter has been large scalable systems for coporations; they're more in the business of offering a "solution" that includes hardware, software and service than a home PC.

Competing in the consumer PC market requires volume and IBM simply decided it was cheaper to source Intel chips for it's PCs while focusing it's own semiconductor resources on the big business computers which can still be profitable at lower volumes (International Business Machines sticking to its roots).

from IBM's perspective, Apple was low-volume and low profit margin, so they felt that it wasn't worth a big R&D push to make chips that could compete with Intel in the consumer market.

 

[greenstork]

Is that Apple has a small market share. For Intel to release to the likes of Dell and Taiwan, it needs millions of chips in stock. Apple, with its smaller order, higher profile, and tightly controlled manufacturing (ie compared to the guy on the corner), means that Apple can even use an ealier revision of the chip that only passes QA on an intel Mac.

--knobs

This would piss off Dell who is a direct competitor of Apple, albeit in a slightly different product niche. And Intel does not want to piss off their largest client, it's just bad business. I can see your point that it might be possible, just not prudent IMO.

 

[AidenShaw]

Just watched a Yonah demo - with integrated graphics

I just left a demonstration where Intel was showing a dual-core Yonah laptop (a Fujitsu prototype) compared to Dothan single-core systems. The chips are sampling....

The most interesting demo was a FPS 3D game - the Yonah with the integrated graphics 3D ("Calistoga" is the codename) creamed the Dothan with a discrete graphics chipset. (the discrete chipset wasn't identified)

Maybe some MacIntels will have integrated graphics after all - and why not if the Yonah/Calistoga combination can beat other "cards"? Reduce cost, reduce size, reduce power consumption....

Note that this isn't a fair graphics test - the Yonah has two processors with better floating point performance (and SSE3) compared to the Dothan - but in the end does it matter where the frames-per-second come from?

The Calistoga is also reported to support up to 4 GiB of DDR2 667 MHz memory, on a 667 MHz bus.

 

[willyjsimmons]

You too?

IBM's bread and butter has been large scalable systems for coporations; they're more in the business of offering a "solution" that includes hardware, software and service than a home PC.

Competing in the consumer PC market requires volume and IBM simply decided it was cheaper to source Intel chips for it's PCs while focusing it's own semiconductor resources on the big business computers which can still be profitable at lower volumes (International Business Machines sticking to its roots).

from IBM's perspective, Apple was low-volume and low profit margin, so they felt that it wasn't worth a big R&D push to make chips that could compete with Intel in the consumer market.

You've just repeated what's already known.

You missed my point entirely.

If IBM, has this chip, that's soooooo much better than an x86, and has soooooo much potential in devices other than just PCs and laptops (gaming consoles, etc.), don't you think IBM would have continued it's development (in a timely manner)?

Why in the world would Apple give IBM money for R&D, when IBM uses the chips in their servers?

That would be like DuPont asking NASA for R&D money, so they could turn around and profit from the results, and cut NASA out of the financial picture.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The most interesting demo was a FPS 3D game - the Yonah with the integrated graphics 3D ("Calistoga" is the codename) creamed the Dothan with a discrete graphics chipset. (the discrete chipset wasn't identified)

Maybe some MacIntels will have integrated graphics after all - and why not if the Yonah/Calistoga combination can beat other "cards"? Reduce cost, reduce size, reduce power consumption....

"Integrated graphics" generally means "crap", but if the upcoming integrated graphics can compete with current cards then obviously they are viable.

I recently saw the new integrated ATI PCI Express GPU, the Xpress 200m being discussed. might that be what the Yona prototype contained? That would be a good iBook GPU, but I think that a Mobility X600/X700/X800 GPU would be more appropriate for the Powerbook line.

 

[willyjsimmons]

Duh, to you too.

You may not like it but AMD has in fact passed Intel in the mobile technology race.

And guess what, in 4 months, intel will be at 65nm and AMD will still be at 90nm.

6 months after that, intel will be 65nm and 64bit.

And yes, for the 1 millionth time, AMDs are cheaper than intels.

No need to repeat that again.

The reason being, is that AMD is SUPPOSED to be cheaper than intel, otherwise, they wouldn't be in buisness at all.

AMD boards use schwag controllers, that have crap drivers, and a short lifespan.

Furthermore, with Dell selling laptops for under $500, the fact that AMD is 'cheaper' means very little at that price point.

 

[willyjsimmons]

My 2 cents

"Integrated graphics" generally means "crap", but if the upcoming integrated graphics can compete with current cards then obviously they are viable.

New intel graphics chipset is configurable up to 128MB.

Over 200MB (dynamically allocated) in dual-display configuration.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma900/

 

[Lord Blackadder]

You've just repeated what's already known.

You missed my point entirely.

If IBM, has this chip, that's soooooo much better than an x86, and has soooooo much potential in devices other than just PCs and laptops (gaming consoles, etc.), don't you think IBM would have continued it's development (in a timely manner)?

Why in the world would Apple give IBM money for R&D, when IBM uses the chips in their servers?

That would be like DuPont asking NASA for R&D money, so they could turn around and profit from the results, and cut NASA out of the financial picture.

I don't understand your "point" ....unless you are trying to point out the well established fact that IBM was not interested in developing the PPC 970 to the level Apple desired.

The 970 was designed for use in large scalable servers, not laptops. The existing G5 CPUs are simply not suitable for a mobile computer as Apple sees it. The design could be adapted to mobile use but IBM dragged its feet, not willing to commit to the substantial development required since it had no plans to make the 970 mobile for itself or any other vendor besides Apple. Meanwhile Freescale was struggling to get it's PPC mobile chips up to snuff, leaving Apple without a good mobile PPC roadmap. Intel already had suitable hardware, and Apple had maintained development of the x86 version of OS X, so the switch was made.

 

[Kelson]

If IBM, has this chip, that's soooooo much better than an x86, and has soooooo much potential in devices other than just PCs and laptops (gaming consoles, etc.), don't you think IBM would have continued it's development (in a timely manner)?

Why in the world would Apple give IBM money for R&D, when IBM uses the chips in their servers?

Because IBM only uses the chip in a small subset of servers. They build most of their PPC servers off the POWER chips, not the PowerPC. The main customer of the PPC970 is Apple. The mobile varieties of the PPC970 would have been almost exclusively for Apple, because no one else sells any PPC systems in enough volume to be a factor.

IBM told Apple that if Apple wanted the chips designed to their specs, to co-fund the R&D. If IBM absorbed the entire cost, then Apple decided they were not interested, IBM is left holding a very expensive bag. They insisted that Apple get some skin in the game.

- Kelson

 

[BGil]

And guess what, in 4 months, intel will be at 65nm and AMD will still be at 90nm.

Great, but it makes no difference. Intel's power consumption at 65nm will be more than current AMD power consumption at 90nm.
Intel's own IDF slides say so.

6 months after that, intel will be 65nm and 64bit.
And yes, for the 1 millionth time, AMDs are cheaper than intels.

At which time AMD will have already made the move to 65nm, 64-bit is a given. So at no time during the next two years will Intel chips perform better than AMD ones, according to Intel's own product maps. Remember what happened when Intel last tried to move to anotehr process? Heat production went up. AMD made that same move and heat production went down. You figure it out.

No need to repeat that again.

The reason being, is that AMD is SUPPOSED to be cheaper than intel, otherwise, they wouldn't be in buisness at all.

AMD boards use schwag controllers, that have crap drivers, and a short lifespan.

Doesn't even need to be addressed

Furthermore, with Dell selling laptops for under $500, the fact that AMD is 'cheaper' means very little at that price point.

Have you looked at the proc in that sub-$500 machine? It ain't a Centrino machine, nor does it have a DVD drive or CD burner or 512 mb's of ram. If you wanna talk about short lifespan then go buy one of those it's got those "schwag controllers" you've been talking about.

 

[BGil]

AMD boards use schwag controllers, that have crap drivers, and a short lifespan.

Please feel free to elaborate on hot "schwag" Nvidia Nforce 1, 2, 3, and 4 systems are. They are the market leader on the AMD side so it's only right that you start with them.