If Apple stayed with IBM...

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by heedree, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. heedree macrumors newbie

    Dec 21, 2005
    it would be sooooooooooooooo awesome.

    Just think what an mac could do with a Cell Processor :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
  2. Airforce macrumors 6502a


    Jan 12, 2006
    You do know the cell is a specialized processor. right?
  3. maya macrumors 68040


    Oct 7, 2004
    somewhere between here and there.
    If Apple stayed with IBM...

    ...we would get our beloved and long awaited 3GHz G5 in 2010. :eek: ;) :D
  4. wPod macrumors 68000


    Aug 19, 2003
    Denver, CO
    . . . apple would become a server only company, and all the PowerBook G4s would be made by lenovo. . . and maybe they would turn black, since it appears that the lenovo line of laptops is going to turn titanium color!!!!
  5. Sideonecincy macrumors 6502

    Sep 29, 2003
    We would be seeing Powermac g5 2.8.5
  6. Chundles macrumors G4


    Jul 4, 2005
    Sweet diddly squat. The Cell is too specialised a chip to be any good for personal computing needs. It's great in a gaming console but a waste of time in a regular computer.
  7. heedree thread starter macrumors newbie

    Dec 21, 2005
    true but that doesnt mean that cell technology can't be expanded upon. It doesnt have to be "special". at this point in time it's special because the only customer for it is Sony with their ps3.

    I should have said Cell Processor Technology, because I wasn't trying to point directly at the cell processor being developed for the ps3.

    Is cell chip technology only limited to consoles? hmmm... maybe... maybe not...
  8. savar macrumors 68000


    Jun 6, 2003
    District of Columbia
    I wish we could vote on threads like this. I'd give it a -2 on a scale from 1 to 10.
  9. Will_reed macrumors 6502


    May 27, 2005
    If youve actually looked at what IBM have in the pipelines with Power6 and Power7 I guess 2006 might look a little dry for the mac at first but it wouldn't stay this way.
  10. ksz macrumors 68000

    Oct 28, 2003
    San Jose, CA
    IBM and Motorola had a long time to deliver on new technology and quantity in a timely manner. They failed for whatever reasons. Some of the blame lies with Apple in its heavy-handed treatment of suppliers. Some of the blame lies with the suppliers themselves as, for example, the highly publicized yield-ramp fiasco at IBM's 300mm Fishkill Fab.

    However, the switch to Intel concerns *much more* than the switch from PPC to x86. Apple needs NAND Flash memory chips, and it needs them in large volumes and low prices. Apple needs chipsets that support the latest emerging standards including SATA-II, PCIe, etc. Apple needs low-power embedded CPUs for its iPod and future video-based devices.

    The solution: Intel. From NAND Flash to x86 processors (including mobile versions) to low-power high-performance embedded CPUs to component chipsets, Intel is a virtual one-stop shop.

    To address the NAND Flash supply issue, Apple is investing $1.25 billion now to guarantee supply until 2010, including a $500 million investment in Intel and Micron's new "IM Flash Technologies" joint venture, a new fab dedicated to NAND Flash production.

  11. bigfib macrumors regular

    Jan 14, 2006
    Plus, Microsoft is IBM's boss now...

    I reckon that the real problem for apple is that when ms moved the xbox over to the powerpc G5 processor they became bigger clients for IBM than apple... Hey maybe part of Bill's IBM deal was even that IBM would inexplicably "fail" to deliver the low power G5 chip they promised apple....
    Still, it's a funny world, with gates moving to Power and Apple moving to Intel... Personally, I trust apple to do it properly. Can't wait for my intelimac to turn up.
  12. DVK916 macrumors regular

    Jan 5, 2006

    Xbox360 isn't going to sell enough to be IBM biggest client. If anything Sony will be with PS3 and cell. Also Apple move to Intel was probably due to IBM not willing to be bossed around by Apple. Apple tends to make outragous demands with its supliers and IBM wouldn't cave in.
  13. Morn macrumors 6502

    Oct 26, 2005
    The problem with the cell is that it's harder to program for, programmers really have to worry about multithreading or the cell is pretty much useless.
    Not wise when you have 4% of the market, intel will be much better for expanding the mac marketshare. Cheaper costs for developing the logic board, easier for developers.
  14. law guy macrumors 6502a

    law guy

    Jan 17, 2003
    Western Massachusetts
    Perhaps we'd all be on AMD macs in a few years given the past technology sharing and announcements that the IBM work will continue for AMD into the future. http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3412251. AMD seems to have benefitted from that relationship: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1909497,00.asp That said, I'm excited about the future as I've noted a few times elsewhere with the toms hardware link, (again: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/04/top_secret_intel_processor_plans_uncovered/) Intel is supposed to ship their 64-bit dual cores later this year, with quad and 8 core chips expected in 2007 on the 45nm process.

Share This Page