Why the Switch to Intel...

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by AlbinoPigeon, Oct 10, 2005.

  1. AlbinoPigeon macrumors regular

    Jan 1, 2004
    Vancouver, BC
    Hey all,

    I was just surfing the tech news and came across the anticipated specs for the new XBOX360. Among the items included was the processor. I know most people already know what it is, a IBM 3.2 GHz PowerPC with 3 dual-threaded processor cores. Now it seems to me that this is quite the kick ass processor and it raises a few questions for me that maybe some people here could answer...

    1) I had thought that the newest processor available to Apple was the new dual core ones (the 930FX or something like that?) So is MS getting preferred treatment because of volume?

    2) This seems like a killer processor, much better than anything intel has right now...otherwise MS would have gone with Intel for the XBOX right?

    3) Is this IBM-MS deal the reason why Apple broke things off in favor of Intel? To get back at IBM for sleeping with MS?

    I dont know...but it seems that this new XBOX unit is pretty damn powerful (though not as much as the PS3). And with all the components together for about $399.99 (RAM, HD, Video Card...) they must be getting a killer price per unit. (I know, i know....gaming systems are sold as cheap as possible to make money of games and accessories...but still)

    Final note, the new Intel dual-core Xeons announced today are expected to cost $1000 each in bulk pricing.

    Comments? Thoughts?
  2. nylon macrumors 65816


    Oct 26, 2004
    It's about the future potential of both companies. Apple looked at the Roadmaps for both IBM and Intel and felt that they could only deliver the prodcuts they wanted to deliver with the Intel roadmap.
  3. strider42 macrumors 65816


    Feb 1, 2002
    1) that chip is a custom chip. its not a desktop CPU. it wouldn't be appropriate for apple's use. Start adding the stuff that makes it good for the desktop, suddently its specs would come down. And would it ever be good for mobile processors, I doubt it.

    2) Intel has some great stuff they've announced recently that will be coming aroud the time frame of the intel macs. And they are for desktops. MS went with IBM because they could offer the kind of chip they wanted. Intel apparently wasn't going to do custom chips for them. Remember the original xbox basically used off the shelf parts. The new one is much more a gaming dedicated machine.

    3) he MS deal had no bearing on the switch to intel. IBM just wasn't making the desktop and mobile chips apple needed. intel is offering a much better roadmap for desktop processor right now, the mobile technology is great, and they alos offer chips apple may want to utilize int eh future, like the x-scale. Apple is a multinational, multibillion dollar company. They wouldn't switch vendors for such an important thing like a CPU out of a grudge. And also, apple doesn't really care what MS does. why would apple get mad about MS getting chips from IBM? It doesn't make any sense.

    Seriously, you are reading way too much into it. Apple switched because it makes perfect sense to do so. There's really not much else to it.
  4. RedTomato macrumors 68040


    Mar 4, 2005
    .. London ..
    The Cell is very good at the job it was designed for, running a gamestation, however, it sucks at general purpose computing. It can't handle excuting instructions out-of-order, which is standard when dealing with the wierd and wonderful variety of software you get with PCs/Apples.

    It'll be a long time before you see a Cell in a desktop computer or laptop.

    Re Xeons, Apple won't be using them or P4's at all. Apple will go with the Pentium M's, which are generally regarded to be the best designed processers in the world. They do more per watt power than almost anything out there.

    Intel is junking its entire range of P4's and (I'm not sure about this) Xeons. All future Intel chips for the next few years will be based on the Pentium M

    Remember, over half of Apple's sales are laptops and growing (and I think the same for the entire non-corporation PC sector), so laptop chips are becoming more important (and profitable) than desktop chips.

    Some of us wouldn't mind laptop chips in desktop chassis (or rackmount) for less electricity usage and better cooling / quieter fans.

    Hope that clarifies matters :)

  5. AlbinoPigeon thread starter macrumors regular

    Jan 1, 2004
    Vancouver, BC

    Thanks for all the great info, makes way more sence now!

Share This Page