Intel Experiencing Shortages of Notebook Chips?

[CountSessine]

If AMD had Apple's market share, their numbers would instantly improve to profitability. Big picture here mags...big picture.

Big picture - let's use Apple's 40% profit margin to pointlessly fund the development of an alternative x86 line that is unlikely to ever match Intel's in performance.

AMD has to wait for Intel to make a misstep like Netburst before they regain the performance crown. And until then they'll occupy the 'value' end of the market.

 

[lazyrighteye]

While not connected to Apple in any way, I feel pretty certain we will not see MacBook Pro updates until a few weeks after the iPad launch. At which time, I will be ready to pounce on a 15" MBP.

Apple knows users waiting on MBP updates are chomping at the bit. They also know many of that same target market are more likely to fill their "shiny new Apple thingy" void with an iPad before a MBP refresh rather than after.
Once again, Apple has us right where they want us.

 

[M.Fantastique]

They do have the resources;

No, they don't.

they could develop their own chip;

Yeah, but then again, I wasn't contradicting that, was I now? They could develop _a_ chip, just not one that could compete with what Intel has. If you think they could, than you have absolutely no clue whatsoever as to how much effort and resources that would take.

 

[mflender]

faulty assumptions

You know, if all you MB-Pro people had all just bought one back when you needed it months ago you could have been enjoying a laptop for the last 5 or 6 months. Instead, you've been sitting around, laptopless, wondering what to do.

This is getting kind of funny now...I'm assuming you're all just posting from iPhones, getting madder and madder every day?

You assume I don't already have a macbook pro. I do, but I am due for an upgrade. Since I have a MBP I am waiting for the new revision to come out so I'm not on here whining that "I just bought a MBP and Apple releases the new one."

 

[JGowan]

You know what happens when you assume...

I've been waiting for a couple years now to get a new mbp and I'm at the point where this is the update I pretty much need to pull the trigger before my current laptop dies. I'm excited for the updates but can probably wait it out until the summer or fall if they are released then. What's a few more months in the grand scheme of things? Maybe that'll mean a more significant update than just processor upgrades.

btw, I'm posting this from a 5 year old powerbook g4.

Exactly. Preach.

I'm sporting Apple's first 17" Laptop (1Ghz G4) -- I've upgrade the battery once, the Hard Drive to 320GB, the Ram to 2GB and replaced the power cable/supply brick.

It does ok (battery is pretty bad [again]) and although I manage from day-to-day, I really want a new machine, but with this many days since the last revision, I really have to wait to get the most from my money. My current machine cost me about $4000 by buying the most ram, HD space, paid taxes and bought a few perifs. Back in early 2003. And that was hard-to-get money. Money on a credit card that was paid back slowly. I'm doing better now and the money I need is just sitting in the bank. No interest. Yeah!

But I know whatever I buy now will need to last me awhile so I want the best machine possible. With an upgrade this close, only a moron would go out and buy a MBP today, having a fairly capable machine already. I'm certainly not talking about those whose machine just died and they HAVE to get a replacement. But I know this,... it will truly pain them in a month or three when updates come out and see the new hotness they could've had if their machine could've held out just a little longer so they could've waited.

 

[dollystereo]

The Core i5 is SOOOOOO much faster than my last gen p8600 core 2 duo.
Why this is such a big updrage?
Look at this graph!
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5+M+430+@+2.27GHz

 

[sticky.chicken]

Instead, you've been sitting around, laptopless, wondering what to do.

This is getting kind of funny now...I'm assuming you're all just posting from iPhones, getting madder and madder every day?

No, just on my old powerbook g4

 

[Robert M.]

I just want dedicated graphics for the 13" so I can enjoy some left 4 dead 2 next month

Left 4 Dead 2 runs surprisingly well on my Oct 2008 MacBook! But dedicated graphics would be awesome! I just want the update to be worth it. Not just new processors, I want some other new features.

 

[djellison]

As much as I want to believe this.

This isn't a faith based issue.

http://www.dabs.com/products/hp-dv7...gb-windows-7-premium-692K.html?refs=440880000
In stock

http://www.dabs.com/products/sony-v...ndows-7-home-premium-6KSW.html?refs=440880000
In Stock

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=LT-054-DE&groupid=959&catid=1441&subcat=
In Stock

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/17-M...Mem-640GB-HDD-Blu-ray-HDMI-Webcam-Win7-HP-Bag
In Stock

http://www1.euro.dell.com/uk/en/hom...aspx?refid=laptop-studio-1555&s=dhs&cs=ukdhs1
"Why wait? Get your Studio 15 with Intel Core i3 processor and 15 month McAfee protection. Ships in 48 hours!"

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/acer-5740-04292082-pdt.html
In Stock

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/packard-bell-easynote-lj75-jo-080-04133662-pdt.html
In Stock

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/toshiba-satellite-l505-144-04127246-pdt.html
In Stock

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/acer-aspire-5740-333g25mn-04153088-pdt.html
In Stock

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/dell-inspiron-1564-04127313-pdt.html
In Stock


Seriously - Dell, Acer, Toshiba, Acer, MSI, Sony, HP.... available right now.

 

[jimmyjoemccrow]

I understand that battery life from the current set of Intel chips takes a nose-dive. I thought this was why Apple hadn't refreshed yet.

 

[mags631]

If you think they could, than you have absolutely no clue whatsoever as to how much effort and resources that would take.

I assert they do. I offer Apple's history in designing chips. Other than "strong words" what do you offer?

 

[dollystereo]

Look at the T9800 in the graph (core 2 duo 2.93GHZ) is waaaay below the M430 2.27ghz core i5.

 

[M.Fantastique]

I assert they do. I offer Apple's history in designing chips. Other than "strong words" what do you offer?

What part of "competitive" do you not understand?
Or are you from the fanboi-crowd, who believed that "toast the pentium" myth?

 

[mags631]

What part of "competitive" do you not understand?
Or are you from the fanboi-crowd, who believed that "toast the pentium" myth?

You ignored my question about what evidence you have and you seem to be stuck on using ad hominems to make your point.

In any event, I said nothing about being competitive, you did.

Bravo on using "fanboi" -- it gives your argument the credibility it was missing.

 

[M.Fantastique]

You ignored my question about what evidence you have and you seem to be stuck on using ad hominems to make your point.

In any event, I said nothing about being competitive, you did.

Bravo on using "fanboi" -- it gives your argument the credibility it was missing.

Yes, exactly, I said something about being competitive, that is the whole point of the argument. To help you with your inability to follow discussions in a logical way, here is a short recap:

Someone said: Apple is probably designing their own chip for macbooks.
I said: No way, they don't have the resources to offer something that could compete with Intel.
You said: They could, they have the resources, but they shouldn't.
I said: No they couldn't, they don't have the resources to offer something competitive.
You said: Yes they do, cause they designed chips in the past.
I said: What part of competitive did you not understand?

Are you following now? The discussion is indeed about competitive chips, and if you fail to understand that, I would recommend you go talk to your wardrobe first before trying to argue with humans.

 

[Niccha]

Frustrated, but in no hurry

btw, I'm posting this from a 5 year old powerbook g4.

I'm in the same exact boat. Although I've been saving and now have the money to buy a new MBP, what's another 2-3 months? My trusty old PB G4 has made it this far (well, new hard drive in there) but it runs like a champ. OF COURSE, I'd like a new one, but you know what, I'll live longer if I don't freak out about it. For those of you that "can't wait" 'cause you have a mac that's horribly out of date at "2 years old," come on now. 2 years and you think you need a new mac? Really?

And for those of you that "can't believe" Apple is focusing more on the iPad and the iPhone these days... seriously? You're faulting a company for investing in the technology that is making them profitable? Without the iPhone, iPod and iPad, our favorite company likely wouldn't exist anymore. They certainly wouldn't be nearly as well capitalized. More capital = more money to invest in research = better products in the future. So, stop whining about how you wish they'd stop focusing so much on the things that are their core business and move on. Waiting an extra 3 months for something really isn't that bad.

 

[boonedigg]

delay theory

I get the feeling that since they want to put that nvidia switchable on the fly graphics chip in the new books and intel is getting the chips to those who will use their integrated gpu first. When does the lawsuit end so we can get better nvidia chipsets with intel silicon?

 

[cvaldes]

I assert they do. I offer Apple's history in designing chips. Other than "strong words" what do you offer?

Apple's own VLSI team wasn't sufficient to optimize ARM, so they picked up P.A. Semi.

Optimizing a RISC-based ARM design is a heck of a lot easier than optimizing a full-blown x86 design.

Apple is indeed very thin on resources. For its revenue size, the company payroll is quite small (34K full-time employees). Go ahead and do the revenue per employee calculation yourself and compare it to their competitors.

Again, the discussion is moot since Apple is not an Intel licensee.

 

[M.Fantastique]

Apple's own VLSI team wasn't sufficient to optimize ARM, so they picked up P.A. Semi.

Optimizing a RISC-based ARM design is a heck of a lot easier than optimizing a full-blown x86 design.

Apple is indeed very thin on resources. For its revenue size, the company payroll is quite small (34K full-time employees). Go ahead and do the revenue per employee calculation yourself and compare it to their competitors.

Again, the discussion is moot since Apple is not an Intel licensee.

Full ACK, but try to tell a fanboi that there is something Apple can't do, and they'll just lough at you, for you shall not doubt the mighty Apple.

 

[mdatwood]

I assert they do. I offer Apple's history in designing chips. Other than "strong words" what do you offer?

ROFL, building and optimizing and ARM chip is very different than an x86 chip. Even if we ignore the fact that Intel holds nearly every patent involved with efficiently building and optimizing an x86 chip I still don't think Apple could build something to the level of the Core architecture. One of the biggest challenges of building a chip is mass producing them at high yields. Intel is a master at that part of the equation.

 

[zMudvayne]

You ignored my question about what evidence you have and you seem to be stuck on using ad hominems to make your point.

In any event, I said nothing about being competitive, you did.

Bravo on using "fanboi" -- it gives your argument the credibility it was missing.

Seriously, your bantering is pathetic given the argument you've chosen. There is no way Apple has the resources or time (at this moment) to compete with Intel. Any deviation or attempt to produce their own CPU's would be a disaster, especially in their pro lines. Apple does not have tremendous history with producing CPUs and even the A4 isn't amazing. Firstly, There would be serious lag between updates as Apple attempts to gain even nearly the same technology as Intel, Secondly Intel would stiffle Apple in the same way they bully NVidia. Do you really think in the time of 9 months since the last MBP
update Apple has been able to (SECRETELY NO LESS!?) research, develop and produce a piece of silicon which even remotely compares to
the iX Series? No.

 

[mags631]

Yes, exactly, I said something about being competitive, that is the whole point of the argument. To help you with your inability to follow discussions in a logical way, here is a short recap:

Someone said: Apple is probably designing their own chip for macbooks.
I said: No way, they don't have the resources to offer something that could compete with Intel.
You said: They could, they have the resources, but they shouldn't.
I said: No they couldn't, they don't have the resources to offer something competitive.
You said: Yes they do, cause they designed chips in the past.
I said: What part of competitive did you not understand?

Are you following now? The discussion is indeed about competitive chips, and if you fail to understand that, I would recommend you go talk to your wardrobe first before trying to argue with humans.

But I do understand. Your point is they can't compete. My point is that they have the resources to design a chip -- I think your point about competition is perfectly moot: Apple owns the platform which the chip would supply. So there's no competition to be had.

uhm...wardrobe? You're funny.

 

[mags631]

Seriously, your bantering is pathetic given the argument you've chosen. There is no way Apple has the resources or time (at this moment) to compete with Intel. Any deviation or attempt to produce their own CPU's would be a disaster, especially in their pro lines. Apple does not have tremendous history with producing CPUs and even the A4 isn't amazing. Firstly, There would be serious lag between updates as Apple attempts to gain even nearly the same technology as Intel, Secondly Intel would stiffle Apple in the same way they bully NVidia. Do you really think in the time of 9 months since the last MBP
update Apple has been able to (SECRETELY NO LESS!?) research, develop and produce a piece of silicon which even remotely compares to
the iX Series? No.

So why couldn't Apple license the necessary technologies and patents from Intel?

Finally, be clear I don't think Apple should do this -- I only took issue with the assertion that they can't.

 

[zMudvayne]

But I do understand. Your point is they can't compete. My point is that the resources to design a chip -- I think your point about competition is perfectly moot: Apple owns the platform which the chip would supply. So there's no competition to be had.

uhm...wardrobe? You're funny.

There's competition against Sony, Asus, Dell and every other PC Company which will still be using Intel's chips... Is Apple so unfallable that even with terrible chips they'll still win customers orders? Competitiveness is NEVER a "moot" point.

 

[M.Fantastique]

But I do understand. Your point is they can't compete. My point is that the resources to design a chip

Well, if you agree with me, then I would recommend you don't say you don't.
If I say "Apple does not have the resources to produce a competitive chip" and you answer that with "Yes they do", then what you're saying is that "Apple does have the resources to design a _competitive_ chip". That's not so difficult, is it?

-- I think your point about competition is perfectly moot: Apple owns the platform which the chip would supply. So there's no competition to be had.

uhm...wardrobe? You're funny.

Oh? Macbooks would sell just as well if a $ 2000 Macbook offered the performance of a $ 500 netbook, you think? It's not necessary to be competitive as far as performance is concerned? Right.