Intel is now too powerful

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by firstly, Jun 22, 2008.

  1. firstly macrumors newbie

    Jun 18, 2008
    Today, I just knew that SGI, SUN have all used its cpu, and APPLE has done too. In the market of cpu, no one is more powerful than Intel, even in the market of HPC.
  2. ihabime macrumors 6502

    Jan 12, 2005
    Actually I think right now Intel is in the most danger it's been in years. It's been caught flat footed by the MIDs, phones, net-tops and smaller handhelds. They have nothing that can compete watt for watt with xscales. The Atom has been widely lauded, but it seems like a stop gap measure to me, A line in the sand to keep these other low power processors from creeping up into bigger devices. Atom works fine for Net-tops, but it's way to hot and power hungry for the growing smart phone and mid market.

    Interestingly the same market is where windows is the weakest, so we could see some real shakeups in the near future.
  3. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    Sun uses Intel, AMD x86, but they also use Fujitsu SPARC and they still design their own SPARCs.

    Sun does not use Itanium.
  4. firstly thread starter macrumors newbie

    Jun 18, 2008
    In fact, I knew a few news about Intel, for instance, I just heard Xscale from you, then I searched it by google. The result let me be more surprised.
    I don't want to see only a big one in the market, ( for example, many years ago, when AMD and VIA were very weak, I remembered clearly that we had no ways to choose the cpu of PC, on the other hand, we have to choose Intel) others get weaker, such as SGI.

    SGI to me is a great story. Why the result of its cpu was over? And yeas ago, the cpu of Sun was better than Intel in the market about server. However, their results are all the same that they have to use Intel's cpu.
  5. Mord macrumors G4


    Aug 24, 2003
    When they stop making top notch processors someone else will take over, AMD is showing no sign of falling over any time soon.
  6. hiimamac macrumors 6502a


    Jun 7, 2007
    Can't remember what its called, but AMD is supposed to have a new chip coming soon, very powerful. Hope so as if it wasn't for AMD, INTEL would still be charging $800 US dollars for a .200 hz upgrade, something they used to be able to get away with before AMD came out with the first 1 Gigahertz Athlon.
  7. jf8 macrumors regular

    Aug 8, 2007
    Perhaps you're thinking of Intel's Nehalem, which is expected to show up in servers and workstations by the end of this year. In the limited previews so far, Nehalem has been found to be significantly faster than Intel's current CPUs. AMD's Shanghai is also supposed to show up in servers and workstations by the end of this year, and is expected to reach the level of Intel's current products.

    Intel still charges hundreds of dollars more for marginal increases in performance. And people still buy the CPUs.

    Back when AMD's CPUs were superior, AMD charged more. Intel's Pentium D (dual-core) chips started at around half the cost of AMD's Athlon 64 X2 CPUs.
  8. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    Different CPUs are better for different things on Sun servers. For integer and few threads it's Xeon; for floating point and few threads and better efficiency it's Opteron; for many threads, throughput, and maximum power efficiency it's CoolThreads.
  9. firstly thread starter macrumors newbie

    Jun 18, 2008
    You are right. But I just have some thoughts about other kinds of cpu, when I use Mac, I always think about it that why is it that Apple is better than Intel and Miro, but the market of Apple is less than them. Mac to me is Art, Windows is Machine. Even SGI is better than Mac in graphical area, I hope SGI continues to use its cpu, at least in graphical area, SGI's cpu is better than Intel, although I know that SGI never goes back.
  10. Wotan31 macrumors 6502

    Jun 5, 2008
    The DEC Alpha was *waaaay* faster than anything from Intel for many years. That would still be the case today had Compaq & HP not deliberately killed it off. :mad: Remember, Alpha was fully 64-bit starting in 1993 - that's 15 years ago.

    Even today, the latest GS1280 model scales to 128 CPU's, 256 GB of RAM, and 128 PCI slots with more than 200GB/s of I/O capability. There is no intel system on this earth that can match that kind of power and scalability, not even close. But this is a large NUMA system intended for scientific applications, not a workstation or peecee.

    HP sold the Alpha chip technology to intel a few years ago, and along with it all the Alpha chip engineers. Why do you think intel has made such huge strides in chip design the past couple of years??? It's Alpha re-incarnated.
  11. Wotan31 macrumors 6502

    Jun 5, 2008
  12. kabunaru Guest

    Jan 28, 2008
    People can only dream of having this chip in their Macs, at least the Mac Pros. :D
  13. Rivix macrumors 6502a


    Oct 13, 2005
    I think Intel deserves their high market share. It was really an impressive turn-around they've done and flew past AMD. Intel has never let me down personally. My Pentium4 is still speedy.
  14. superman193 macrumors regular

    Apr 15, 2008
    IMHO, If it wern't for apple. Intel would be nothing of what it is today...
  15. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    This makes no sense to me.

    Intel is used by so many manufactures for laptop, desktop, and servers. They have been the dominate CPU maker for years. Apple is a latecomer Intel customer.
  16. superman193 macrumors regular

    Apr 15, 2008
    no offense but before apple intel was crap - pentium 4? pentium D all little power hogs apple helped them design the Core architecture didnt they? (i think so sorry if im wrong) Like do you see dell or Microsoft going and helping develop the processors that go into there computers? NO! they dont give a crap they just want to make money, but apple cares, apple wants the user to have a decent machine.
  17. dukebound85 macrumors P6


    Jul 17, 2005
    5045 feet above sea level
    im fairly certain apple did not help with the core microarchetecture. intel was going to release it with apple or not lol
  18. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    Apple worked with Motorola and IBM on the PowerPC architecture.

    Unfortunately, the architecture stagnated. Reasons vary. Nonetheless, at the WWDC 2005, SJ announced the change. Rumor has it that SJ made the decision the Friday before based upon a conversation with IBM. It appeared to him, that Intel's long term processor development plan was better.

    You might find this articles interesting:

    Apple-Intel Transition.

    Over the years, Intel has had numerous and very successful processor designs. Here is a partial list of Intel processors:

    80586 (Pentium 1)

    The Pentium designs such as:

    - Pentium Pro
    - Pentium II, Pentium II Xeon
    - Pentium III, Pentium III Xeon
    - Pentium 4, Mobile Pentium 4, Mobile Pentium 4 M, Pentium 4 Extreme Edition
    - Pentium M
    - Pentium D, Pentium Extreme Edition
    - Pentium Dual-Core

    And of course other processors.

    Not all of these processors have been great. Intel has made some missteps along the way -- but not too many though. And recently, Intel has been firing on all cylinders.

    So no, while Apple has contributed to Intel's bottom line, Intel is doing what it always has done and that is trying to make good processors. AMD, and others keep Intel on their feet.
  19. superman193 macrumors regular

    Apr 15, 2008

    What i ment by core architecture is lets say there's an intel processor called the Core 2 duo 00001 now the 00001 you get off the shelf in a retail store for your pc is different the the 00001 that comes in your imac, because apple helped design a 'special version' for your mac. sorry for any confusion
  20. sushi Moderator emeritus


    Jul 19, 2002
    I believe the only one that was created for Apple, per se, was the CPU for the MBA. The CPU was repackaged into a smaller form factor for the MBA.

    The only other special situation involves the MacPro. It has Intel Xeon Quad-Core x 2 processors. As I understand, Intel gave Apple exclusive use for 6 months (?) before releasing to the general market. However, the Xeon processors were not designed exclusively for Apple, or with Apple's help.

    While not 100% sure, I think that I am in the ballpark. I haven't been following processor development as of late like I did before. Someone might chip in, no pun intended, to add clarification. :)
  21. superman193 macrumors regular

    Apr 15, 2008
    No Pun taken if indeed that comment was directed at me! :D Also please anyone whos going to tell me im wrong please dont be harsh! :p haha!
  22. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Jul 20, 2008
    The "Sandtiger" processor based on the "Bulldozer" core and the "M-SPACE" design methodology. Sandtiger will have 8-16 cores on a 32 nm process, likely with higher clocks than current AMD processors. It also has a new set of instructions called SSE5. It was originally scheduled for 2009 on a 45 nm process, but it appears to have been delayed until 2010 to 2011.

    Compared to a K10 (Barcelona) core, Bulldozer is expected to be 30% faster in general applications and twice as fast for HPC tasks. That would make it at least as fast as a Nehalem core.

    Not now, but by 2010 (when the POWER7 is released), Intel will have a processor codenamed Sandy Bridge. Sandy Bridge will have 4 to 8 cores at 4 GHz, for up to 224 GFLOPS (compared to POWER7's 256 GFLOPS). And it has been hinted that that Sandy Bridge won't even be the MP server version.

    If you're talking about the 3.0 GHz quad-core, that was actually released to places other than Apple as well, but it wasn't widely adopted due to its high TDP (150 W).

    I can also recall the "Santa Rosa Special" processors used in the latest iMacs.

Share This Page