Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel gives Microsoft the middle finger?

I recall reading a while back that Microsoft had began to align itself more closely with AMD; arguably ticking off Intel at the same time. Intel seems to be quite anxious to bring Apple into the fold and appears to have aggressively sought the relationship.

That begs the question "Why?"

One can certainly cross through any economic reasons, as Intel's bottom line will see little effect due to this arrangement (at least in the short-term). With that in mind, there is an important intangible that Intel is seeking: image.

I'd bet that Intel would love nothing more than to help Apple grow Mac market share. No doubt the company is tired of being paired with Microsoft ("Wintel") and the resulting negative conotation.

Looking forward, I see Apple as Intel's technology showcase. Apple has typically been among the first to adopt new standards and has arguably been the trend setter. The potential is huge for both companies, and obviously Intel sees something big resulting from the relationship.

Intel finally admitted that it had been overzealous in it's GHz ambitions, and appears to have changed its processor design philosophy. Couple this with its awesome mobile processors and virtually unlimited R&D and production capabilities, and it's not hard to see why Apple chose Intel over AMD.
 
javiercr said:
in what sense? performance? you don't know that, but i guess we'll finally find out now.
Hasn't anyone done benchmarks of Darwin on Intel vs. Windows on the same machine?

On another note, it's interesting that http://apple.com/powermac/performance/ talks about architecture but never directly says PPC G5 is better. Did that language recently change? That page does not really mention Windows at all... but does make a lot of references to the "Power Mac G5" trouncing a "Pentium 4."
 
THe reason

The reason that apple chose intel over AMD is clear. Intel has a better roadmap. Laptops are gaining marketshare compared to desktops and the pentium m is much better now and has a better road map than any AMD mobile processor. Also, in the long run intel has a better outlook on desktop chips also. The pentium 4 will die out soon in favor of a pentium m like design for desktops.

This article by Tomshardware.com explains alot of this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

(i posted this in another thread, but there are so many today on this issue that it is hard to limit it to one thread)
 
TrumanApple said:
The reason that apple chose intel over AMD is clear. Intel has a better roadmap. Laptops are gaining marketshare compared to desktops and the pentium m is much better now and has a better road map than any AMD mobile processor. Also, in the long run intel has a better outlook on desktop chips also. The pentium 4 will die out soon in favor of a pentium m like design for desktops.

This article by Tomshardware.com explains alot of this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html

(i posted this in another thread, but there are so many today on this issue that it is hard to limit it to one thread)

Yeah, to be honest it probably wasn't too tough for Apple to go with Intel. Intel has more resources, can likely win a bidding war with AMD, better roadmap, especially for Mobile solutions. All in all, I think Apple didn't have much to think about. And after all, nobody says they WON'T approach AMD at some point. I'd love an X2 running X.5
 
~~The reason Apple didn't choose AMD

The reason Apple didn't choose AMD is because AMD probably wasn't interested in Apple's business due to their requirements for the CPU. It would take a lot of time and resources to make Apple-specific changes to their chips, something that AMD doesn't have, or simply wouldn't bother with. Intel probably complied.

There's no way Apple switched to Intel to get their hands on the Pentium 4. Agreed? Its not even smart, and I'm sure many people here would tell you that. I mean, in 2 years, the P4 has gone from 3GHz to 3.6-3.8GHz. That's not much better than IBM, even when you take all the technology added to the P4 into consideration. Also, its too hot.

So Apple switches to Intel, but not the P4. There's probably something in the works, but its probably based on the Pentium-M, but not quite the same. Probably a faster Pentium-M. I mean, if Apple is going to put these into towers, Steve probably doesn't have the same heat limitations if he's putting them into huge PowerMac desktops. Maybe we'll get dual, dual-core Pentium-Ms rather than a very fast P4. I don't know.

Also, a modified Pentium M would not allow WinXP or Windows apps from being installed onto Apple Hardware. Maybe AMD doesn't have the time or resources to do something like this for one customer. Also, IBM does produce some of the chips for AMD.

Anyway, there's no way Steve made this large a change to get his hands on a Pentium M and P4s. Does anybody think we're getting something that is NOT a P4 or a Pentium-M?? Something different?
 
vouder17 said:
i dont understand why you are so negative. The PC heads run on windows. That happens to be an OS that is built on x86 architecture. Apple also has built there OS on x86 architecture and now we are gonna start using it...This isn't a blow in our faces and it definitely isn't a plus point for Windows users. i will enjoy the day when Mac OS X on Intel performs the same task as a Windows XP machine in a faster time. Then you can laugh at your PC heads..
I for one am really happy with this transition. The people i think who might be a little negative are the developers...but it seems as though apple is willing to help them out as much as possible.. i mean if Mathematica was ported to Intel in just two days..anything is possible.. :cool:

I too am happy of sorts.

Yet, I see potential problems for Apple - if their pricing isn't lowered. With the PPC chip, it was easier for Apple to claim a higher price point. Yes, the OS X factors in to it too. But for the consumer all they will see is two machines with the same Intel chip, and several hundreds of dollars more - and wonder why.
 
Applespider said:
I doubt it. Supply and manufacturing demand will be part of it; the rumours concerning WiMAX and the DRM'ed motherboard may also have played a part.

Part of me wishes I had a time-machine to hop forward 5 years and find a copy of the book outlining the 'behind the scenes' story as to why Apple are switching...

Interesting, I'll have to track down those rumors.

Steve was pretty open about why Apple is switching. Didn't I read that more than half the systems Apple shipped last year were portables? The portable market is where the industry's growth, and margins, are. Apple's portables are stuck on the G4, which still works fine but came out a long time ago. There is no G5 for portables and won't ever be one: the chip is too big and hot. Moto/FreeScale's new G4-derivative might be good enough to run PowerBooks until the Intel switch, but Apple must not think they will be a match for Intel's Pentium M.

For now, the G5 is in the ballpark on the desktop, but progress plainly hasn't been as fast as Steve had hoped. Still, if it were all based on the desktop there wouldn't be such pressure to switch. I think the Pentium M is the reason they are switching and the reason it's to Intel rather than AMD.

Crikey
 
Abstract said:
Also, a modified Pentium M would not allow WinXP or Windows apps from being installed onto Apple Hardware.
I know a decent amount about hardware, but I'm not exactly a guru. I know it is not that hard to embed a serial number or something else into the firmare of the mobo chipset or even the CPU that the OS X software could check and would not allow an install unless it was Apple hardware. I realize this might be able to be hacked so that you can install OS X on any hardware.

The flip side, as Abstract mentions, preventing the installation of Windows on Apple x86 hardware would seem a much more difficult task. Apple's hardware will have to operate like any other x86 chips and since Windows doesn't care about what x86 hardware you are using, how could Apple prevent this on the hardware side? Is there any example of this form of technology already in the market today?
 
Intel will probably make Apple DRM chips like it began doing for Microsoft.

But the Apple DRM chips will work with Windows AND Mac, but Mac OS X will NOT run on anything but these DRM chips, which can not be sold in stores.

Also, it will look cool and be called the G6... maybe...
 
Abstract said:
It would take a lot of time and resources to make Apple-specific changes to their chips, something that AMD doesn't have, or simply wouldn't bother with. Intel probably complied.


There aren't going to be any "Apple specific" chips. They are going to be the exact same chips that are in your PC.

Go buy your development kit and you will see.

I am sure AMD might be used in the future if Apple wants to.
 
Apple: Windows will run on Intel Macs

feakbeak said:
I know a decent amount about hardware, but I'm not exactly a guru. I know it is not that hard to embed a serial number or something else into the firmare of the mobo chipset or even the CPU that the OS X software could check and would not allow an install unless it was Apple hardware. I realize this might be able to be hacked so that you can install OS X on any hardware.

The flip side, as Abstract mentions, preventing the installation of Windows on Apple x86 hardware would seem a much more difficult task. Apple's hardware will have to operate like any other x86 chips and since Windows doesn't care about what x86 hardware you are using, how could Apple prevent this on the hardware side? Is there any example of this form of technology already in the market today?

Apple (Phil S.) has stated that Apple won't do anything to block folks from running windows on Intel Macs (they won't provide tech support for it, however).
 
two things that are funny...

Steve talked about performance per watt - Intel Prescotts are known for being furnaces...

Volume - Hah - like apple needs any sort of major volume. Either Intel or AMD could handle the load.

i bet it was basically a sell for the mobile parts and they just took a whole package deal from Intel to lower costs. Plus, Intel is more established.

Apple going x86 leaves the door open for AMD in the future though.
 
well the chart he put up was a future roadmap. so prescott won't be sold in retail macs, just in the dev kits.

amd looks good now, but intel looks good down the line. yonah. mmm…
 
x86isslow said:
amd looks good now, but intel looks good down the line. yonah. mmm…
Oh don't get me wrong... Intel's mobile stuff is AMAZING. But AMD's desktop stuff wins now, has won for the past couple years, and looks to continue to do so in the forseeable future.
 
spaceballl said:
Oh don't get me wrong... Intel's mobile stuff is AMAZING. But AMD's desktop stuff wins now, has won for the past couple years, and looks to continue to do so in the forseeable future.


i wouldent bet on it,once they start getting the dual core desktop pentium M's out the door AMD will be in a dust trail, for a long time competitors have only caught up with intel with a superior architecture and higher IPC, because of there thirst for clock speed and complete disregard for IPC intel has been stagnent with the P4, now this has changed and even a quick hack of a processor like the P-M is killing the competition, just you wait till a desktop version is comes out.
 
spaceballl said:
two things that are funny...

Steve talked about performance per watt - Intel Prescotts are known for being furnaces...

Volume - Hah - like apple needs any sort of major volume. Either Intel or AMD could handle the load.

i bet it was basically a sell for the mobile parts and they just took a whole package deal from Intel to lower costs. Plus, Intel is more established.

Apple going x86 leaves the door open for AMD in the future though.

Intel has changed its policy on GHz. More isn't better. In fact, look for future Pentium processors to debut at lower clock speeds than Pentium 4's top out at.

I believe the next iteration of the Pentium is the dual-core Pentium D processor. From what it sounds like, these (or possibly forthcoming versions?) will be much more thermally efficient. I guess time will tell.

This whole partnership does make for interesting speculation.
 
TIGERmac said:
Intel has changed its policy on GHz. More isn't better. In fact, look for future Pentium processors to debut at lower clock speeds than Pentium 4s top out at.

I believe the next iteration of the Pentium is the dual-core Pentium D processor. From what it sounds like, these (or possibly forthcoming versions?) will be much more thermally efficient. I guess time will tell.

This whole partnership does make for interesting speculation.

Pentium D is still based on the "Prescott" core - so it'll be great to use to heat your house during the winter months. So it won't be great.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2389

Wait until the post-Netburst cores from Intel. They'll be better.
 
Sanders testified in favor of M$ and it would still be x86.

Of course, it would still be wrong, but at least you wouldn't be helping Intel become an even bigger juggernaut.
 
Tealeaf said:
Pentium D is still based on the "Prescott" core - so it'll be great to use to heat your house during the winter months. So it won't be great.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2388
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2389

Wait until the post-Netburst cores from Intel. They'll be better.
Yeah, I'm hoping they come out with a Pentium-M based next-gen chip that runs cooler and that Intel also produces a dual-core variant that is engineered better (i.e. two cores integrated to use the same resources rather than just packaging two independent more or less independent cores on a chip ilke the Pentium D today.)
 
When Apple first switched to PPC, from the Motorola 68K, the only real PPC player was Motorola. IBM was mentioned as a technology partner, but IIRC, they weren't actually building chips.

Later on, IBM makes most (all?) of the PPCs, and Motorola is a relatively minor player.

Who's to say that Macs won't have AMDs in them in a few years?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.