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.
Intel CEO Hopes to Win Back Apple by Making Better Chips Than Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
hahahahahhahahaha. Its the design that is hot, not the fab plant
Smart. Obviously the PR firm they hired told them to make the narrative about 'winning and success' instead of what they really are; sorry losers.
Then again, i'm certain they will produce great stuff. I have two machines with 11gen, and they are excellent.
Then again, i'm certain they will produce great stuff. I have two machines with 11gen, and they are excellent.
Quote: "And, you know, they did a pretty good job" ... NO ... FAIL ... if you think like this Pat, you will continue to fail. Own your failures - hit them head on & get working.
If I was the CEO this is what I would say ..."Apple did an incredible job, they knocked it out of the park, they embarrassed us, they taught us a lesson and we need to get back to the engineering led, great innovator that we were in the past. Thank you Apple for knocking some sense in to us. We are humbled and we will put every bit of energy into creating a next generation processor that will run faster and more efficient with the latest cutting edge die sizes. We will design and build that technology in the US and we will deliver it to our customers (hopefully to one day again include Apple) at a cheaper cost and as fast as humanly possible."
If I was the CEO this is what I would say ..."Apple did an incredible job, they knocked it out of the park, they embarrassed us, they taught us a lesson and we need to get back to the engineering led, great innovator that we were in the past. Thank you Apple for knocking some sense in to us. We are humbled and we will put every bit of energy into creating a next generation processor that will run faster and more efficient with the latest cutting edge die sizes. We will design and build that technology in the US and we will deliver it to our customers (hopefully to one day again include Apple) at a cheaper cost and as fast as humanly possible."
Good luck to Intel for future business. But I think it will take a long long time before Intel chips will be more powerful than Apple Silicon. Besides I don’t think Apple will ever switch back to Intel. It is only going to be Apple Silicon going forward.
Sounds to me like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing at Intel. Maybe thats why they are falling behind lately. Sounds like they really need to get it together if they want to continue to compete. I think Intel has made some incredible chips but they have been skating on that success and allowing themselves to fall behind.
I think Intel would be better served coming up with a strong ARM solution for existing customers and have some innovation that would attract Apple. The problem is the advantage Intel would need would have to be significant in order to relinquish control that Apple now has over its own product development through insourcing of chips.
Intel better hope Apple does not take an ownership position in TSMC. Then Apple becomes a direct competitor - not a customer.
It might be a little too late for that…
Even assuming that it’s possible for Intel to make processors that perform better and more efficiently than Apple Silicon there’s something that Apple values even more than bragging about how powerful their stuff is and that’s vertical integration.
If Apple had the chance they would have never depended from Intel to supply their CPU’s. Hell, not even IBM or Motorola for that matter.
They just didn’t have the option to use their own stuff and now they do, there’s no way they’re going to go back to “off the shelf” CPU’s now.
Even assuming that it’s possible for Intel to make processors that perform better and more efficiently than Apple Silicon there’s something that Apple values even more than bragging about how powerful their stuff is and that’s vertical integration.
If Apple had the chance they would have never depended from Intel to supply their CPU’s. Hell, not even IBM or Motorola for that matter.
They just didn’t have the option to use their own stuff and now they do, there’s no way they’re going to go back to “off the shelf” CPU’s now.
Pretty in here are so god damn scary.
The comment section gives me the indication that if Intel actually ended up making a chip that was twice as great any thing that Apple could produce, you still wouldn't pick it just because it says Intel?
Go with what is best, which currently is what Apple produces, but who is to say that won't change?
Let's be civilized and not so sheepy, please.
The comment section gives me the indication that if Intel actually ended up making a chip that was twice as great any thing that Apple could produce, you still wouldn't pick it just because it says Intel?
Go with what is best, which currently is what Apple produces, but who is to say that won't change?
Let's be civilized and not so sheepy, please.
Little awkward right after that agressive anti-mac advertising campaign eh
i have nothing against intel it was just a joke. actually i prefer intel way over AMD for my Servers
I think Apple is gone, and Intel's handling of the situation didn't make it any more recoverable. They tried to beat Apple like a rented mule, and I'm sure that was noticed in the ring. You don't win back a partner by flailing them in public. Sure the business world is different, but I don't think that different. Maybe Intel could be trusted to turn out Apple chips as a subcontractor, but who knows if Apple/TSMC feel they could trust Intel. Intel certainly pooped the bed over this whole thing...
Last edited:
You've been left behind by both AMD and Apple, I hardly think anyone is going back. Zen 4 on TSMC's N5P process will be crushing win on the x86 front and Apple is only going to increase its lead.
I'm firmly of the belief that ARM64 and RISC-V are the future. x86 will remain around for a long time but its' market share will steadily shrink as the giant cloud providers move to ARM or RISC-V for the performance and energy savings.
I'm firmly of the belief that ARM64 and RISC-V are the future. x86 will remain around for a long time but its' market share will steadily shrink as the giant cloud providers move to ARM or RISC-V for the performance and energy savings.
Seriously? The only time I consider buying Xeon is if I can't get my hands on Epic chips. Intel is being embarrassed in the server market to the point where it's not even seriously competing anymore. They lose in both perf/watt and core count (badly) and then there's price. You can buy a 64 core Epic CPU for less than a 28 core Xeon.
Intel is here making me think of Jeff Bezos. In the telecast of Shatner's suborbital joyride, his shills touted Blue Origin vaporware as being the best--and, of course, the biggest.
Why would Apple want to rely on an outside vendor, who likely will never be able to catch up on efficiency/performance, for a chip, rather than their own customized/optimized in house processors? Never say never, but this will never happen.
I still think there's room for both types of processor. Apple silicon is the ultimate evolution of Steve Jobs' "performance per watt" metric, which at the time was a huge reason for the Intel transition. It's one of the same reasons they're citing for the ARM transition.
But raw performance, or even raw performance per watt, isn't the only metric that matters. As far as I've read, Apple silicon still limits users to a single external display. A lot of software is still not ARM compatible (and, just like with the PPC transition, some will never be) - I'm not sure how long Rosetta 2 will hang around, but there's still plenty of things depending on the translation layer. Of course, the simple fact that running Windows on M1 is still a hodgepodge of "maybe things will work, maybe they won't", and at least I personally know of many Mac users who heavily depend on a Windows VM for important tasks.
If you seek pure raw performance and/or maximum battery life, M1 is a win. But for all the talk of how fast M1 is, we mustn't forget the challenges users face with practical day-to-day usage. The fastest chip in the world means nothing to a user if the software that user needs to run either doesn't run at all or runs through a translation layer which makes it slower than a native Intel CPU.
The Intel transition at least brought Boot Camp with it, allowing native x86 OSes to boot on the bare hardware. I'd argue the Intel transition actually made Macs even more attractive, because now you didn't have to choose - you could dual-boot Windows on your Mac, or shortly thereafter, boot a VM with near-native performance. Windows on ARM stil has a way to go before it'll be truly on par and competitive with x86-64-based Windows. The same applies to M1.
But raw performance, or even raw performance per watt, isn't the only metric that matters. As far as I've read, Apple silicon still limits users to a single external display. A lot of software is still not ARM compatible (and, just like with the PPC transition, some will never be) - I'm not sure how long Rosetta 2 will hang around, but there's still plenty of things depending on the translation layer. Of course, the simple fact that running Windows on M1 is still a hodgepodge of "maybe things will work, maybe they won't", and at least I personally know of many Mac users who heavily depend on a Windows VM for important tasks.
If you seek pure raw performance and/or maximum battery life, M1 is a win. But for all the talk of how fast M1 is, we mustn't forget the challenges users face with practical day-to-day usage. The fastest chip in the world means nothing to a user if the software that user needs to run either doesn't run at all or runs through a translation layer which makes it slower than a native Intel CPU.
The Intel transition at least brought Boot Camp with it, allowing native x86 OSes to boot on the bare hardware. I'd argue the Intel transition actually made Macs even more attractive, because now you didn't have to choose - you could dual-boot Windows on your Mac, or shortly thereafter, boot a VM with near-native performance. Windows on ARM stil has a way to go before it'll be truly on par and competitive with x86-64-based Windows. The same applies to M1.
Yup. Apple first tried to make their own chip for the Mac in the Sculley days with “Project Aquarius”. It failed, of course. So Apple ended up switching to IBM. And then IBM decided they didn’t care about PCs and Apple had to switch to Intel. And then Intel completely dropped the ball and Apple had to switch to Apple Silicon, which is what they wanted in the first place. Apple was failed by their chip partners three times. They never want to go back to that situation ever again.