I have a new Dell Alienware desktop with an i9, 32GB RAM. My MacBook Air with M2 24GB RAM will run Windows faster on Parallels than my Dell runs it natively. Also have a i7 Surface with 16GB and it runs so slow compared to my MacBook I put it in the closet. I’ll probably dump the Dell by EOY and get a Mac Studio M4 for my desktop. I use a lot of financial software with Windows only applications, so stuck with Windows, MacOS is just so much better.
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.
Five Years After Apple Broke Up With Intel, Intel is Begging for Money
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love my top spec intel iMac - I run windows with parallels to use 3DS MAX - it runs like a dream. I will be forced to get a PC next year when my iMac stops being supported by Apple. There are many people in my industry in the same boat. Apple should partner with intel on a pro system for high end 3D animation.
The first two sentences of the post: “Intel and Apple have been in discussions about how to work more closely together, reports Bloomberg. The talks started after Intel approached Apple about a potential investment, but they are in the early stages and might not result in an agreement.”
Honestly though, If taiwan does get invaded; not having the next iphone is going to be the least of our problems.
‘Only the paranoid survive’ said Andy Grove, intel’s famous CEO and co-founder.
It’s doubly sad that, fat on the profits of wintel, by the late 00s intel started to coast and completely ignored his maxim.
When the smartphone revolution started - using arm risc chains - Intel doubled down on its own x86 Cisc chips.
Where was intel’s board at this point? Were they there just to rubber stamp the bad decisions of intel’s succession of CEOs?
It’s doubly sad that, fat on the profits of wintel, by the late 00s intel started to coast and completely ignored his maxim.
When the smartphone revolution started - using arm risc chains - Intel doubled down on its own x86 Cisc chips.
Where was intel’s board at this point? Were they there just to rubber stamp the bad decisions of intel’s succession of CEOs?
I think this is one of the downsides of being a public company.
A big turnaround that takes years to bear fruit … Wall Street is focussed on the next quarter, they don’t have the patience.
It’s either cost cutting or selling things off to keep those short term results flowing.
I felt sorry for Gelsinger. He needed a supportive board with deep expertise in the chip industry.
Last I looked, intel’s board was full of people who were just dialing it in for $$.
This sounds like it was written by a low bit GPT 3 quant
Yeah like Microsoft, they were not a nice company.
But it doesn’t change the facts that making cutting edge CPU’s is a key piece of technology in the world.
For the USA to lose this capability would be a strategic failure - and intel’s fabs are the best hope here. (I’m not American btw).
But yeah, it’s hard to feel much sympathy all the same.
Unfortunately for me, I’m getting old and using terrible wintel pcs around the year 2000 - when they already seemed to be coasting on profits - was dispiriting.
Especially seeing the innovation that apple was doing on machines with obviously inferior chips (despite Steve & Phil’s attempts to show us otherwise!).
It was cool seeing a Mac immediately boot up into a high dpi boot screen whereas wintel machines still had a horrible pixelated boot up screen from the 80s.
To me that summed up the attitude of both companies - why try and make things better for users, when you’re ahead?
Just do the minimum. Pay companies to put stickers on their machines etc. And profit rolls in.
The thing is, Intel was writing checks for future foundries that its business can’t sustain. Now they are finding they are having to cancel these potential investments and scrounge for cash.
The change that Gelsinger made to open up the Intel foundries business for other clients was a good one, although it exposed how far Intel was behind TSMC in executing. They put a lot of effort into the 14A project, which was supposed to give them process leadership again, which is now due in 2026-2027.
But they have said they may cancel the 14A project and exit advanced nodes altogether if they don’t find a major outside customer for that manufacturing capacity. Apple would fit that bill nicely, I think that is more what these discussions are driving at, and whether it is strategically possible to keep this kind of manufacturing in the US.
The change that Gelsinger made to open up the Intel foundries business for other clients was a good one, although it exposed how far Intel was behind TSMC in executing. They put a lot of effort into the 14A project, which was supposed to give them process leadership again, which is now due in 2026-2027.
But they have said they may cancel the 14A project and exit advanced nodes altogether if they don’t find a major outside customer for that manufacturing capacity. Apple would fit that bill nicely, I think that is more what these discussions are driving at, and whether it is strategically possible to keep this kind of manufacturing in the US.
I don’t know much about chip design or fabrication but I understand it’s one of the most complex things that humankind makes.
I think the ethos of ‘creative destruction’ works when it’s say, canned goods, real estate companies etc. These are easy to understand assets.
If a company creates and then badly manages its assets, sure let them fail and let the market allow those assets to be sold to someone who will (hopefully) utilise them better.
Maybe though, Qualcomm or nvidia would be better placed to take over the x86 chip design?
At this point does x86 even have much of a future? (genuine question).
Maybe that’s been the strategy all along.
But the foundry business needs to be stabilised and to get some customers first.
So many be what you want has been the plan all along.
ARM as a desktop was a joke at the time.
In fact PowerPC was the closest thing you could get to ARM as a RISC architecture on the desktop, it was born as the AIM Alliance (Apple, IBM, Motorola) to take down the big bad Wintel monopoly.
It was supposed to change the world and then underdelivered so spectacularly that it can't be put into words.
John Sculley was CEO at the time and he admitted it as one of his biggest mistakes.
PPC was hailed as the performance king for part of the 90s, x86 was supposed to die before year 2000, but then Intel reinvented it with the Pentium Pro (1995) and history inverted its course from there.
Apple was able to develop Apple Silicon because they acquired PA Semi in 2008 and also because they were able to bring high volumes with the iPhone and iPad themselves, which made them big enough to play as a standalone chip manufacturer.
Something they could never have done in the early 2000s.
But to give you some credit, they really should have launched Apple Silicon 5 years earlier or so.
Their turning point was the A7 in iPhone 5S, that was the point in which analysts started to see them as a serious chip maker, in fact they constantly outperformed other ARM chips (Qualcomm) starting from 2013.
The first 12" Macbook (2015) would probably have been an amazing candidate as the first Apple Silicon Mac ever.
Instead they believed Intel and their Core M which didn't really live up to the expectations in Intel's roadmap.
Last edited:
My guess is Apple will continue to make the investment noises. The Orange Lump bought 10% of Intel last month. It’s vindictive nature means that Apple is being strong armed into supporting Intel.
There’s no other viable reason for these discussions. Night follows day.
After almost bankrupting it by stealing IP‘s.
I will never not hate Microsoft for this, I will never not hate Bill Gates for this.
I will also never not hate Windows probably, but that’s for different reasons.
I think Intel only really got succeeded once Apple announced their departure and started releasing their own silicon Macs with unparalleled watts per hour, that’s what woke up the user base and the industry.
Intel doesn’t even hold a candle to Apple Silicon. When I upgraded from my 2019 16” MacBook Pro i9 to my 2023 14” MacBook Pro M3 Max, it was like an entirely different experience on a new class of device: No fans blasting, no scorched balls, no battery death and throttling. Just a chilly slab of aluminum that wrecks through my arduous multitasking no problem and lasts all day on battery. All of that in a smaller form factor! The smaller Intel MacBook Pros were always so limited.
I see a Bloomberg, **** u bloomberg
(c) Gamer Nexus
Nvidia invested bunch of money to the crappie Intel. I remember the news 14+++++ nano process and after it marketing department just renamed process itself 🤣 - this is how modern Intel works) Also cuz AMD did a punch in a face with RYZEN…
Duck tape doesn’t help if your ship is sinking
(c) Gamer Nexus
Nvidia invested bunch of money to the crappie Intel. I remember the news 14+++++ nano process and after it marketing department just renamed process itself 🤣 - this is how modern Intel works) Also cuz AMD did a punch in a face with RYZEN…
Duck tape doesn’t help if your ship is sinking
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that, if Intel were to go bust, we'd end up with two effective monopolies - NVIDIA for high end GPUs and AMD for x86x64 CPUs. No competition, which, in capitalism's terms, is bad.
Less fan noise for me, but a connected problem - Intel-chip based systems just guzzle far too much power. The cost of electricity might be an issue if you live somewhere where it is cheap, but, in many parts of the world, power prices are ballooning.
The heat and fan noise are just symptoms of Intel's problem - a terrible power to performance ratio.
Replacing intel-based desktops and small servers with Mac minis looks more attractive the higher electrify prices climb.
Last edited: