Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

If Apple stayed with IBM PowerPC

Oh, yes, we take two 7448 processors, the combined TDP is close to what single T2400 would be so we might as well use one T2400:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=T2400
http://postimage.org/image/9kuirsaoz/

EDIT: Whoah, I mean with the 1.7Ghz model it is actually much higher, 60W vs. 31W or Core Duo. Very weird ramp up in maximum power consumption.


"That's probably one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made, not going to the Intel platform,"
- John Sculley

By going with Intel, Apple could be sure it got enough processors and at promised frequencies (Motorola failed to deliver enough G4's at 500Mhz at the launch of PowerMac G4). Intel not only had great desktop chips but also notebook chips (PowerBook G5 never existed because of the chip design). The bonus was Windows -compatibility.

Apple also compiled all OS X -versions for Intel since the beginning, to me it sounds like they didn't completely trust PowerPC ?
 
Last edited:
Zotaccian said:
Oh, yes, we take two 7448 processors, the combined TDP is close to what single T2400 would be so we might as well use one T2400:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=T2400
http://postimage.org/image/9kuirsaoz/
Click to expand...

No doubt that CD has lower TDP than 2x 7448, due to smaller process (65 vs 90). But performance-wise (aside memory) 7448 still holds on quite well even vs T2400 (integer). If it would run on equal bus speed, it presumably will be closer to T2400 than it is.
But it didn't happen.

The bonus was Windows -compatibility.
Click to expand...

I've always considered this rather as purpose (one of), but maybe it's just me. Another big benefit of transition to Intel is virtualization. One reason more for undecided customers. Apple sells hardware.
 
Smithcraft said:
I'm sure we all remember AIM. Apple IBM Motorola.

When A dropped out of the equation, well before the switch to Intel CPUs, that left I and M. IBM went with customers that would pay, like Microsoft(XBox360) and Sony(PS3). Motorola went to the embedded market.

The 360 has a triple core PPC, and the PS3 is an 11 core PPC. Both run over 3 GHz.

The benefit of the PPC over the Intel chipset was price. Seemed like everyone was saying Macs would be cheaper using Intel CPUs and chipsets, but many became more expensive and suddenly had Intel chipset issues.

I'm not sure what would have happened with software development, but I think we would be getting OS X apps instead of ported Windows apps that work like ported Windows apps.

SC
Click to expand...

The PS3 doesn't have 11 cores. Just 1 core with 8 cells (1 for the system, 6 for the user, and 1 unused).

Also, the Wii has a PPC processor.
 
@666sheep

Yes it's not bad, I have to say.

But did Freescale have anything to compete in desktops? I think one benefit of Intel was that it was focused on both laptop and high power machines, one supplier for all CPUs.

In AIM, Motorola was focused on routers and stuff while IBM was focused on servers (and game consoles). I bet for IBM Apple was pretty small customer compared to Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo which I believe all used a CPU from IBM, G5 to me seems like they just looked what they had and cut some s*it off and not paying much attention of the power consumption.

Of course, in the ultra low power consuming CPU's Intel has hard time competing against ARM offerings.
 
666sheep said:
...if Apple wouldn't move to Intel, they wouldn't gain that much users from Windows side like they did.
Click to expand...

I agree, from a business point of view, switching to Intel was the best thing Apple did. It helps to convince a segment of potential buyers that it can still run Windows and Windows apps they are familiar with, so they're not going cold-turkey.

As fun as the Power PC line was/is, I don't think there are many of us that are fans of the actual chips themselves (well, OK, when these were new they did eat up the Intel chips of the day and that's the reason they are still viable everyday machines for many of us). It is neat to keep the old stuff running and productive, but at least for me, it's the design, the look, the feel of the Power PC machines. The newer stuff is also gorgeous, but since the entire lineup is machined aluminum, and looks alike, it's not as special. And since every competitor seems to have their own direct knockoff of the Apple lineup, the look is becoming more common. Power PC's always stood out, especially when most of their competitors were boring beige boxes or dark gray laptops.
 
76ShovelHead said:
I'm sure this has been discussed several times, but here it goes again.

I've been feeling nostalgic and decided to take a look at Apple.com back in 2002. I noticed it saying that the PowerPC with its AltiVec was like three times faster than pentium 3, and all other x86 processors.

My G4 1.42 is still pretty fast, far better than the old Compaq Presario V4000 (1.67 Pentium Centrino I believe) it replaced.

SO... Anyone know what's been happening over at IBM with PowerPC since the switch?
Click to expand...

We would have 64 core mac pros 32 core imacs 16 core macbook pros 8 core macbook air and NO INTEGRATED GRAPHICS.
 
Zotaccian said:
I'm not so sure about that, G3 probably fared well against Intel & AMD chips of its day but for the premium money you paid you didn't always get the premium performance:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1702
Click to expand...

We've been through this before. The G4 PowerPC chips destroyed the P4 chips of the day. The G5's started to run into some trouble because they couldn't get the heat down, and the speeds suffered when they ran into a wall, just as Intel was creating the Core lineup. Hence, Apple had no choice but to find a different chip maker. But in it's day, the G4 was a beast, as Steve Jobs, Phil Schiller, etc. showed in practical, real world tasks during Macworld 2001, etc.

----------
rabidz7 said:
We would have 64 core mac pros 32 core imacs 16 core macbook pros 8 core macbook air and NO INTEGRATED GRAPHICS.
Click to expand...

It's far more likely Apple would have either gone bankrupt and disappeared or just become an iPod or iOS maker and given up computers. The G5 turned into a disaster. No PC company could stick with a CPU maker who couldn't give them a viable laptop CPU, and the problems the desktop CPU's had as they got faster/hotter, etc.
 
76ShovelHead said:
I'm sure this has been discussed several times, but here it goes again.

I've been feeling nostalgic and decided to take a look at Apple.com back in 2002. I noticed it saying that the PowerPC with its AltiVec was like three times faster than pentium 3, and all other x86 processors.

My G4 1.42 is still pretty fast, far better than the old Compaq Presario V4000 (1.67 Pentium Centrino I believe) it replaced.

SO... Anyone know what's been happening over at IBM with PowerPC since the switch?
Click to expand...

If apple stayed with PowerPC the mac would not have experienced it's current rate of growth.

IBM has ZERO interest in making low power consumption PPC CPUs, as they are used in unix servers - and Macbooks outsell the other macs by a significant margin.

I know plenty of new mac users (myself included) who specifically didn't buy PPC previously due to the inability to run Windows natively.

This is why i don't think apple will switch to ARM in their laptops any time soon.

The rumblings are just to keep intel on their toes.


edit:
as to "liking" PPC... at a low level the CPU architecture is much cleaner than the bastard child that is x86. however, intel have been very clever and internally the CPUs are just as RISC these days as ppc was. They just have an x86 instruction decoder on the front, which (as time moves on) takes up a smaller and smaller fraction of the die....


Also... at the end of the day there is a vast population of x86/x64 developers out there who know how to optimise for intel CPUs. Running a different CPU when you have <10% of the market (as apple did back then) and expecting software developers to go to the trouble of optimising their PPC code as heavily as their x86 code is being a bit ambitious.
 
Last edited:
throAU said:
This is why i don't think apple will switch to ARM in their laptops any time soon.

The rumblings are just to keep intel on their toes.
Click to expand...

One thing that will be interesting to watch is how well the ARM based Surface sells, which so far appears to be poorly. And how many traditional Windows apps get versions for it. If that were to become popular, more ARM based Windows tablets and perhaps lite desktops might come on the market, and in the long run help lean Apple towards making their own ARM CPU's for laptops and desktops. Not saying any of that will happen, but there might be a small possibility. Personally I think the Surface is a disaster. Good product, very poor marketing (oh look! it makes a click sound!), and making two versions with two different, incompatible OS's is just going to confuse most users.
 
For all the ARM fanboyism on the internet - intel has caught up with the new ATOMs. Yes, they are built on a smaller process, but this is one of intel's advantages. It doesn't matter how they get the performance per watt that other's can't get, the fact that they can provide it is what matters.


If they can even get within 10% (and they just recently matched ARM), then there's no incentive to change your platform's instruction set, unless ARM is significantly cheaper.

Having a CPU that is instruction set compatible to an extent with the bigger desktop CPUs would be an advantage, too.

I just don't see ARM getting over the line in the notebook/desktop space just yet. Intel just woke up.


edit:
Don't get me wrong, I think ARM is cool and I've liked the CPU since back when it was used in the Archimedes (back then it was a powerhouse and kicked intel's butt :D). But intel is no slouch.
 
Intel is truly a monopoly, it controls 94 precent of the cpu market. That is why my new hackintosh is an 8 core 5 ghz overclocked AMD FX.
 
Zotaccian said:
Why people say they "like" PowerPC? What benefits does it have? Since we all know G5 ran hot and had hard time matching what Intel and AMD had to offer, AMD at the time was very strong with their Athlon 64 and Opteron offerings, nowadays Intel is course the king. PowerPC architecture brought Apple many problems before, with Motorola not being able to scale processors higher so Apple was kinda force to put dual processor models out, still those models lost to similar or even bit lower priced dual Athlon XP machines.

The only thing I can imagine people miss is Apple thinking different, having "their own" CPU. Some of the machine designs of the PPC era are of course cool as well.

Still, Macbook Air with IBM's server chip? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I liked PowerPC for those exact reasons. It was different.

Smithcraft said:
I'm sure we all remember AIM. Apple IBM Motorola.

When A dropped out of the equation, well before the switch to Intel CPUs, that left I and M. IBM went with customers that would pay, like Microsoft(XBox360) and Sony(PS3). Motorola went to the embedded market.

The 360 has a triple core PPC, and the PS3 is an 11 core PPC. Both run over 3 GHz.

The benefit of the PPC over the Intel chipset was price. Seemed like everyone was saying Macs would be cheaper using Intel CPUs and chipsets, but many became more expensive and suddenly had Intel chipset issues.

I'm not sure what would have happened with software development, but I think we would be getting OS X apps instead of ported Windows apps that work like ported Windows apps.

SC
Click to expand...

Right? Now that Skitch has gone Windows 8 the new Mac variant looks like an aqua-fied version of the Metro app. This is a program that started its life exclusively as a Mac app. Sad.

PowerPCMacMan said:
Too bad indeed :) I would have liked to see a more modern PowerPC based Mac of today try to compete with the current Intel chips. I am in no way against Intel, just don't like the monopoly they have and shutting others, like AMD out in the cold.

PowerPC was a challenge to the status quo of the day. In the end, however, PowerPC was more efficient and had less pipelines compared to Intel's architecture. While the days of PowerPC are over, the architecture is still much better in design over Intel's.

Now, if we can only get Vmware or Parallels to support a PowerPC emulated OS, this would be nice.
Click to expand...

Exactly how I feel. I don't hate on Intel, I like Intel for the most part, but a modern PowerPC stacked up against Intel would be quite interesting, especially to see how IBM would have handled its competition with the Intel and its virtualization, hyperthreading, multiple cores, and all other technology Intel is currently touting. I also dislike the monopoly they are holding in the market. Heck, it'd even be interesting to see the performance of an AMD Mac.

----------
rabidz7 said:
Intel is truly a monopoly, it controls 94 precent of the cpu market. That is why my new hackintosh is an 8 core 5 ghz overclocked AMD FX.
Click to expand...

What OS X are you running on your AMD? I thought AMD OS X kernels were no longer being made after Snow Leopard?
 
Exactly how I feel. I don't hate on Intel, I like Intel for the most part, but a modern PowerPC stacked up against Intel would be quite interesting, especially to see how IBM would have handled its competition with the Intel and its virtualization, hyperthreading, multiple cores, and all other technology Intel is currently touting. I also dislike the monopoly they are holding in the market. Heck, it'd even be interesting to see the performance of an AMD Mac.
Click to expand...
There was a Q&A session on Reddit from an Intel CPU Architect the other day – it includes some very interesting stuff with regards to why Intel has the upper hand in most areas. Amongst other things, there are three key points to pick out as to why Intel's high-end chips generally outperform AMD's offerings:
  1. They have a lot more R&D funding to play around with.
  2. They have a lot more employees than AMD.
  3. They operate their own silicon fab, thus allowing them to do things which wouldn't be possible otherwise.
 
If I recall correctly, didn't they say that the G4 was only slightly better than the G3 when no AltiVec used?
 
It would be interesting if apple had intel as the main cpu and ppc as the turbocharge like intel does with modern computers. A low power low speed ppc would be perfect for this task. If it were possible for a hybrid to work knowing they are 2 completely different architectures it would be cool to see.
 
76ShovelHead said:
So then G4 only really brought speed increases in terms of GHz, and of course Altivec.
Click to expand...

You could say that, but I think the main reason the G4 had higher clock speeds was simply because it was developed longer. Apple had a 900MHz G3, and the CPU upgrade companies had one at 1.1GHz. If the G3 was developed for and at the same period of time as the G4, it probably would have gotten similar clock speeds.
 
thekev said:
Do you remember what it was like with PowerPC? We still got ported apps. In some areas I think a continuation of PowerPC would have simply resulted in fewer apps. Games would be one area. Even with Apple's growth in recent years, I doubt it would have been enough to encourage smaller game developers. The idevices are different in that regard. Their numbers are immense.
Click to expand...

Of course I do. I remember what it was like when I was using my only NIB Mac, a IIci, and I remember being the only student that had to listen to the training tape that came with the original Macintosh. So yes, my Mac memory goes back pretty far.

I also knew several Apple developers that quit after the announcement. They had had enough of Apple switching things around after saying one thing, then changing to another.

Also, compare Apples developer support with MS developer support. How long did Apple do what they could to keep games from being written for the Mac? After all, they had the Apple IIgs for games, the Mac was for business!

----------
AnonMac50 said:
The PS3 doesn't have 11 cores. Just 1 core with 8 cells (1 for the system, 6 for the user, and 1 unused).

Also, the Wii has a PPC processor.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I was going off of memory for that. The Wii and the Gamecube both use PPCs, but I think they are based on the G3 series, and not quite indicative to me of where the PPC could have gone for a general purpose CPU.

Where as the CPU for the PS3 was heralded as the future of computing when it was demo'ed.

This shows that when IBM wanted(was paid to do it) they could do it. Since A didn't want to do anything more than tell IM to give them more, and no longer contributed, the PPC fell by the wayside.

With IBMs experience doing the work for the PS3 and X360 CPUs, what could they have done for a G6 CPU?

I also would have loved to have seen a PowerMac with the 8641!


----------
AnonMac50 said:
If I recall correctly, didn't they say that the G4 was only slightly better than the G3 when no AltiVec used?
Click to expand...

The other benefit to the G4 was that it supported multiple CPU/cores, whereas the G3 lacked that support.

----------

Another thing to consider might have been if PReP/CHRP didn't fracture and die, and if MS had continued to develop Windows NT for it.

SC
 
Last edited:
Smithcraft said:
Of course I do. I remember what it was like when I was using my only NIB Mac, a IIci, and I remember being the only student that had to listen to the training tape that came with the original Macintosh. So yes, my Mac memory goes back pretty far.

I also knew several Apple developers that quit after the announcement. They had had enough of Apple switching things around after saying one thing, then changing to another.

Also, compare Apples developer support with MS developer support. How long did Apple do what they could to keep games from being written for the Mac? After all, they had the Apple IIgs for games, the Mac was for business!

----------



Thanks! I was going off of memory for that. The Wii and the Gamecube both use PPCs, but I think they are based on the G3 series, and not quite indicative to me of where the PPC could have gone for a general purpose CPU.

Where as the CPU for the PS3 was heralded as the future of computing when it was demo'ed.

This shows that when IBM wanted(was paid to do it) they could do it. Since A didn't want to do anything more than tell IM to give them more, and no longer contributed, the PPC fell by the wayside.

With IBMs experience doing the work for the PS3 and X360 CPUs, what could they have done for a G6 CPU?

I also would have loved to have seen a PowerMac with the 8641!


----------



The other benefit to the G4 was that it supported multiple CPU/cores, whereas the G3 lacked that support.

----------

Another thing to consider might have been if PReP/CHRP didn't fracture and die, and if MS had continued to develop Windows NT for it.

SC
Click to expand...

My family had a a IIc and IIe I don't remember tapes nor do I remember the need for them. I used the IIc all the way until '92 when dad built an IBM clone because he switched from being a wood shop teacher to a tech teacher.
 
I didn't need the tape either, but I had to listen to it to get to use the Macintosh.

Basically, it just played, and I played with the Mac. ;)

If I can find it, I do have the tape case from a FatMac, and I'll try and get a picture of it.

SC
 
my macmini g4 runs way smoother than the intel counterpart, so i think it would have been possible to better the G4 chips, withouth taking into the account this whole "Thermal discussion fit-G5-to-laptop"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back