would you buy a mbp with Apple-made, non-intel processors?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by gothamm, Feb 28, 2010.


would you?

  1. yes

    25 vote(s)
  2. no

    62 vote(s)
  3. depends

    45 vote(s)
  1. gothamm macrumors 6502a

    Nov 18, 2007
    like what they have done with the ipad.

    just curious.
  2. MacDawg macrumors Core


    Mar 20, 2004
    "Between the Hedges"
  3. cube macrumors G5

    May 10, 2004
    I don't like crappy x86 processors. New gen Macs have a bad taste.
  4. Bill Gates macrumors 68020

    Bill Gates

    Jun 21, 2006
    Only if they had a competitive advantage relative to Intel's offerings. Nothing like the iPad would suffice.
  5. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem


    Feb 19, 2005
    Well I bought a PowerBook but Apple didn't make the processor. Personally, I'd like to stay away from Apple making processors.
  6. MagicMacMan macrumors newbie

    May 12, 2009
    I don't think Apple would put a processor into their computers they make if they don't do something special and they were really good. I'm sure it's far off, but if they keep investing into processors they could develop something that would actually be quite an asset in their computers. Either way.. a processor switch in their Macs would be years away.
  7. Gomff macrumors 6502a

    Sep 17, 2009
    Nope, unfortunately I need to use Windows for work sometimes.

    I can see Apple slotting their own chips into their intel machines in order to make OSX somehow dependent on it, and thus cut out Hackintoshes. But to lose the "also runs windows" proposition would hit their sales figures too hard I imagine.
  8. Gabriel GR macrumors 6502a

    Gabriel GR

    Jul 12, 2009
    Athens, Greece
    x86 is the dominant architecture, even in servers.

    And you can probably blame the Intel Itanium for that since it was so full of promises that nice projects like SPARC, RISC etc failed to compete with its hype and got abandoned.

    ARM could end up providing such a custom chip for Apple (as they probably do with the ipad) but they are doing greatly in the mobile device CPU department and I don't know why they would sacrifice so much money and time to get into the desktop/laptop CPU market, especially seeing AMD's last couple of years.

    For one, I am happy Apple made the switch. Before everything seemed too proprietary. The switch coincided with making parts like HDD and RAM user upgradeable and the mac platform more "open" in general.

    Apple sells much more computers now, and for most consumers this is a great thing.
  9. polotska macrumors 6502

    Sep 23, 2007
    I answered no, because right now the ability to easily/natively run Windows is very useful to me. I also have considerable faith in Intel's ability to deliver ever-faster CPUs and wouldn't want Apple to get stuck the way they were with the stagnant G4 and G5.
  10. jawa12083 macrumors member

    Feb 9, 2010
    Wirelessly posted (iPod Touch 2G 8GB: Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

    Unless it's an 8 core beastly beast, no.
  11. ThirteenXIII macrumors 6502a

    Mar 8, 2008
    i hope not, not yet atleast.

    as thatd be alot of architecture to get support for...i mean itd be interesting to have seamless application front if you could run apps form the iphone/ipad line up under it if there was a way to run iphone os under osx would be interesting.

    but alot of pro apps, idk seems like a huge headache right now..but maybe theyre looking into it with these new ipads?
  12. Sneakz macrumors 65816


    Jul 17, 2008
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Many new Mac converts switch because Windows in there in the worst case scenario. With a Mac that doesn't run on an x86 processor, that would no longer be the case. I think Apple possibly would lose marketshare. If I can't run OS X and Windows on one machine without emulation, I wouldn't buy a Mac.
  13. Erasmus macrumors 68030


    Jun 22, 2006
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    Intel makes CPUs, Apple makes aluminium boxes.

    Might as well expect a boat hull manufacturer to make an IC engine better than Ferrari.
  14. StuddedLeather macrumors 6502a

    Apr 20, 2009
    Brooklyn, NYC
  15. apw100 macrumors regular

    Jan 24, 2010
    Jacksonville, FL
    Its not going to happen. Ever. End of thread. ;)
  16. Pentad macrumors 6502a


    Nov 26, 2003

    Amen Brother!
  17. acurafan macrumors 6502a

    Sep 16, 2008
    they already went through that w/PPC...remember their minuscule market share? apple who? ;)
  18. iBunny macrumors 65816

    Apr 15, 2004
    Finally, a decent thread here in the MBP section.

    My answer is no. Because I would fear too much Incompatibility with certain Windows Applications etc.

    I made the switch to Apple for every computer in my household once I could dual boot and/or virtualize Windows on my Macs. While I spend 80% of my time in OSX for my everyday tasks, there is still that time I need full speed and compatibility in Windows. And I dont want to own 2 seperate machines.

    So Apple is a clear winner with Intel x86 chips, and the ability to boot both OSX and Windows on the same machine is a gaurentee that :apple: will get my money from now on.

    So no. No Intel Chips, No go. Same goes for AMD however. I dont want current AMD chips, even though they are 100% compatabile with Intel Chips. But if AMD gets off their ass and takes charge again like they did in 1999-2005 before the Core/Core 2... I would not mind a AMD chip.
  19. DarthSnuggles macrumors member


    Feb 10, 2010
    Unless they buy AMD with that $40 billion they have laying around, no. But I strongly doubt that would happen. That would be a very interesting move, but it seems very un-Apple to take on someone else's business, especially when that revenue comes from supplying competitors.

    But is this really a serious question? There was a reason Apple stopped doing this less than 5 years ago. Those circumstances that prompted the decision would have to reverse. They have not. In fact, if anything it's more true. x86 is the only real general purpose architecture game in town. Everything else is either specialized, not performant or embedded/mobile. Apple is doing the right thing by investing in that space, but there is no way that an ARM-based CPU is close to being able to run FCP.
  20. Buzz Bumble Guest

    Oct 19, 2008
    New Zealand
    Everyone is assuming the Apple-made CPU would be a separate chip architecture, but Apple could make an "Intel-clone" chip that is (almost) 100% compatiblem just like AMD already does in teh Windoze world. I can't see any good reason why they'd bother though, other than to drop Intel and any associated problems with chip supply.
  21. mac88 macrumors 6502

    Aug 7, 2008
    Boston, MA.
    I would have to see the specs. but I went with no.
  22. Erasmus macrumors 68030


    Jun 22, 2006
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    And waste a whole lot of money in development, and Intel licences.
  23. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604


    May 28, 2005
    Yes. Could you imagine the battery life on a MBP using an ARM processor?!
  24. iBunny macrumors 65816

    Apr 15, 2004
    Could you imagine the performance? No, you cant because there wouldnt be any performance.
  25. jimbowdang macrumors newbie

    Jan 23, 2010
    Not to mention licensing x86-64 from AMD. Even if Apple somehow acquired the right to develop x86 processors it would mean 4+ years of development only to constantly play catch up with Intel, go ask AMD how profitable that is.

Share This Page