I'm really happy that we didn't have to go with x86. Just think of the terrible transition we would've had to make. Non of your favorite Mac apps would have worked out of the box. You would've had to wait till either the software companies made a x86 Mac version or you would have had to use a awfully slow PPC emulator that would have made the G4 look like a speed king.
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.
IBM vs. Intel
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Microsoft -- Bad
Well, now that we've seen how Microsoft has SCREWED AMD,
by stalling the release of Windows64 for AMD,
I hope this finally ends the wishes to port to x86.
I don't believe you can trust Microsoft or Intel as a business partner if you might upset their monolopolistic relationship. Each one will bring significant pressure to bare to preserve their marketshare.
Well, now that we've seen how Microsoft has SCREWED AMD,
by stalling the release of Windows64 for AMD,
I hope this finally ends the wishes to port to x86.
I don't believe you can trust Microsoft or Intel as a business partner if you might upset their monolopolistic relationship. Each one will bring significant pressure to bare to preserve their marketshare.
I was watching some IBM commercial the other night, and they were talking about their Blade Servers running Intel Xeon processors. This made me wonder, why aren't they offering servers with their own processors? Does it have to do with the software involved 
?
?
Don't be so quick to compare Microsoft and Intel is equal evils. They are certainly not - MS has a dangerous monopoly. Intel has a large marketshare. IBM will bring healthy competition to Intel.
MikeAtari said:
Well, except that Microsoft has released the beta version, for free, to anyone that wants to download it. And that there are hardly any drivers, nor ANY software that is 64bit...
But the beauty of the AMD chip is not that it is just 64 bit, but also the most kick-ass 32 bit chip out there.
Microsoft would love the transition to 64 bit. It means more operating system and office sales.
iggyb said:I was watching some IBM commercial the other night, and they were talking about their Blade Servers running Intel Xeon processors. This made me wonder, why aren't they offering servers with their own processors? Does it have to do with the software involved
I think that they are. Those commercials are for the general public that sees the "Intel Inside" tag line as a good thing.
But then again INTEL didnt build ide hard drives (60/70GXP and some 120GXP)using faulty components and also knew about them at the same time, talk about being cheap.
WINXP 64 is on the way, the drivers are there allready there video/sound/scsi etc...
You also have to remember that Opteron is getting SOLARIS 10, which will in turn incur a flood of ports of the EDA tools that run on the SPARC machines. (Cadence has released a handfull of 64-bit apps allready for LINUX for Opteron) THis is good for us engineers who wanted performance but didnt want to mess with Itanium.
You also have to remember that Opteron is getting SOLARIS 10, which will in turn incur a flood of ports of the EDA tools that run on the SPARC machines. (Cadence has released a handfull of 64-bit apps allready for LINUX for Opteron) THis is good for us engineers who wanted performance but didnt want to mess with Itanium.
i dont like to give human like qualities to large organizations, but it works well when talking about these few companies in particular, mostly because we can see how active they are in the news pretty much every day, it becomes easier to build a certain type of image about a company.
dont think for a second that if it wasnt in IBMs best intrest to somehow screw Apple that they wouldnt. Its not a friendship we are talking about here. Apple happens to find itself in a good place right now, riding on the technology that IBM is capable of producing. It is very nice to see such great things coming from it, but lets face it, in the end what one of you posted was right: what we want to see here is competition.
the last thing i would like to see is a longterm switch to IBM being back on the top again.
dont get me wrong though, i am still very enthusiastic about Apple being in such a good possition right now. And given the fantastic performance of recent IBM products, i might even find myself buying up a few of these upcoming console systems.
dont think for a second that if it wasnt in IBMs best intrest to somehow screw Apple that they wouldnt. Its not a friendship we are talking about here. Apple happens to find itself in a good place right now, riding on the technology that IBM is capable of producing. It is very nice to see such great things coming from it, but lets face it, in the end what one of you posted was right: what we want to see here is competition.
the last thing i would like to see is a longterm switch to IBM being back on the top again.
dont get me wrong though, i am still very enthusiastic about Apple being in such a good possition right now. And given the fantastic performance of recent IBM products, i might even find myself buying up a few of these upcoming console systems.
w00master said:
Even more ironic was Apple's choice was between Intel and IBM
I want to see the Intel G5 prototypes in the Apple museum for sure!
Rocketman
TrenchMouth said:
I think IBM is managed as a benevolent dictator of the Skunkworks model.
Rocketman
Intel vs IBM vs AMD
Well, a look at the numbers shows IBM with $89B in revenue and $4.93 in EPS. Meanwhile AMD was revenue of $3.5B and an EPS of $0.34. Now, tell me again, who's Intel worried about? IBM is currently ahead of AMD in the fabs arena, which is why AMD is starting to partner with IBM on future chip production, as is Nvidia.1macker1 said:
IBM is not threat to INTEL, as far as it coming back on them, I dont think so. But I cant see the future.
Frisco said:
daveL said:
Nvidia?
SO far its only the so called lowend chips that IBM will be fabbing, a GPU isnt the same as a CPU in terms of manufacturing (50M transistors VS 200M), IBM doesnt have the experience to produce the top of the line GPUS. Its still TSMC that are producing the NV30-NV38 and the new NV40-NV48 not IBM as people think.
I'm not sure what you mean? IBM's revenue and EPS are in the post, as1macker1 said:
are AMD's. Did you mean I left out Intel's numbers? If so, I didn't consider them to be relevant. Your original post was about who Intel should be worried about: IBM or AMD. AMD has always been struggling to stay alive. IBM is the largest computer company in the world and isn't going to be declaring bankruptcy any time soon
For completeness, INTC's revenue is $30.1B and EPS is $0.85. Although, INTC has a pile of cash ($15B) after taking into account a small debt load. IBM actually has more debt than cash.
Anyway, I just feel that IBM is a very formidable opponent, with many more weapons at their disposal, compared to AMD. If Intel isn't worried about IBM, then they're being arrogant and shortsighted, IMO.
INTELS so called bread and butter is in the enterprise sector not the consumer, they are a big player as they provide the bulk of the CPUS used in most of the servers in the world and I should note that IBM also uses them in thier servers hence that also provides IBM with alot if not most of thier revenue. I dont see Power4/5 machines matching xeon servers on price or volume do you?
I agree IBM is a company to watch out for. But not just on the fact that they make fast chips. They are the number 1 computer company because they have other goods besides computer chips. I think Intel will stay ahead of the game due to the fact that they concentrate soley on chips.
I really wish you would look beyond your nose before you post. IBM makes most of its revenue from services, not HW or SW, so making the statement: "...I should note that IBM also uses them [Intel CPUs] in thier servers hence that also provides IBM with alot if not most of thier revenue" is simply not true. Also, Intel processors are a commodity and don't have anything close to the margins that Power4/5 servers maintain. Intel ends up in a large number of small boxes with equally small margins. Power4/5, UltraSPARC3/4 and PA-RISC end up in a significantly smaller number of larger machines with correspondingly large margins. IBM, Sun and HP don't pour money into developing their own server processors simply for the hell of it. The fact of the matter is Intel CPUs still don't scale well beyond dual CPU configurations. That's not to say 4 CPU Intel boxes don't exist, it just means the competing Power4/5 and UltraSPARC3/4 blow them away. Not to mention the power budget problems Intel has in larger SMP systems and blade configurations, compared to the competition. You may not believe this, but data centers care about power consumption, floor space and A/C loads.army_guy said:
MikeAtari said:
What the heck are you talking about?!?!!? You can get Windows64 right now from Microsoft for free for 1 year. Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 It may not be 100% ready for prime time but neither is OS X 64bit
That and consider the fact that AMD's 64-bit processors accounts for a miniscule part of the market. Of course they aren't going to push a 64-bit OS. There's next to NO demand for it!!! God I'm sick of people talking out of their butts as if its fact.Linux-64
Also, I couldn't agree more about people talking out the wrong orifice
Let's not forget about 64-bit Linux. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that there are a lot more Opteron servers out there running Linux-64 than XP-64, and I don't expect that that will change in the future.SiliconAddict said:What the heck are you talking about?!?!!? You can get Windows64 right now from Microsoft for free for 1 year. Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 It may not be 100% ready for prime time but neither is OS X 64bit
Also, I couldn't agree more about people talking out the wrong orifice
daveL said:Let's not forget about 64-bit Linux. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that there are a lot more Opteron servers out there running Linux-64 than XP-64, and I don't expect that that will change in the future.
Also, I couldn't agree more about people talking out the wrong orifice
XP64 is a consumer OS, I assume you were mentioning Windows 2003 server (64-bit Opteron)
Lets also not forget SOLARIS 10.
Frisco said:
Sure, you don't want to get too complacent considering they had to re-adjust their quarterly forecast revenue.
But I doubt Intel are too worried. When Londrawn rears it's bad-ugly head I'll expect an inrease in hardware sales of PCs which averyone out in the chip market will milk.
yeah really. IBM's commitment to Apple is only five years. who knows what will happen after that. don't be so quick to dismiss intel.
This always worries me, w/ Apple being a niche computer company, in terms of incentive and leverage for getting chip manufacturers to provide viable products...Apple was stuck with Motorola(generally bad), now w/IBM(seems great)...what in the future...I guess I am a pessimist, is all...if ppc is the minority in the computer world, this seems the reality, if somehow it wasn't(or we were all x86), then Apple could no longer differentiate its' hardware (or pricing)...ramble...sorry
This always worries me, w/ Apple being a niche computer company, in terms of incentive and leverage for getting chip manufacturers to provide viable products...Apple was stuck with Motorola(generally bad), now w/IBM(seems great)...what in the future...I guess I am a pessimist, is all...if ppc is the minority in the computer world, this seems the reality, if somehow it wasn't(or we were all x86), then Apple could no longer differentiate its' hardware (or pricing)...ramble...sorry