Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips **Updated 6/7** x86 Mac systems *should* run Windows

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Darien

Originally posted by: Nitemare
When has Jobs ever made an intelligent decision?

Look at Apple before Jobs came back in, and look at it now. I think he's made a few good decisions.

QFT :thumbsup:

 

[imported_Phil]

One thing I keep coming back to when thinking about this, is why not AMD? I mean, look at the latest AT article re. G5 vs x86 - the Opteron is the better performer when compared to the Gallatin-core Xeon, over and over again.

It just doesn't make sense that Apple will want a P4/P-M/etc chip in their machines when they have a better architecture with the AMD offerings. The only possible advantage over the Athlon/Opteron that I can see is the SIMD/video performance of the P4, which has been reduced down to "not a lot" with the later revision AMD cores.

Still, Apple will do what Apple want to do.

One other thing puzzles me though- with the problems pointed out in the AT article with OSX, isn't Apple going to have to do a lot of work anyway to "clean" (for want of a better word) the OS up anyway? Surely this plus porting to x86 (which may or may not be a difficult task based on some of the posts in this thread from Apple-knowledgeable people, of which I am not one) = a lot of time for not a huge amount of difference?

OXS on my PC would be niiiice though

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
If this new CPU isn't unique they are fvked. The PC market has such a massive volume that without those two Apple has no chance of survival.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Apple's marketing savvy. If nothing else, Apple has proven that they are fully able of carving and enforcing a very lucrative niche for themselves.

This deal gives them room to price their products more aggressively, meet production requirements reliably, and gives them a much more predictable roadmap for the future.

It's a good move for Apple. It's a good move for Intel.

I think Apple willl shine once again after this transition. :thumbsup:

 

[clarkey01]

I can just see Intel slapping Itanium in an apple LOL.

Are they going X86 or what?

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Phil
One thing I keep coming back to when thinking about this, is why not AMD? I mean, look at the latest AT article re. G5 vs x86 - the Opteron is the better performer when compared to the Gallatin-core Xeon, over and over again.

My gut feeling is that Intel will be developing variants of its flagship product lines to meet Apple's hardware needs. AMD might not be able/willing to accommodate Apple's need to enforce the proprietary nature of its hardware at an architecture level.

Remember, Apple is more concerned with marketability and maintaining its proprietary niche, rather than achieving best price/performance.

 

[imported_Phil]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Phil
One thing I keep coming back to when thinking about this, is why not AMD? I mean, look at the latest AT article re. G5 vs x86 - the Opteron is the better performer when compared to the Gallatin-core Xeon, over and over again.

My gut feeling is that Intel will be developing variants of its flagship product lines to meet Apple's hardware needs. AMD might not be able/willing to accommodate Apple's need to enforce the proprietary nature of its hardware at an architecture level.

Remember, Apple is more concerned with marketability and maintaining its proprietary niche rather than achieving best price/performance.

Ah, now, this is true. I'd overlooked that aspect of things.
Hmm, so Apple may be wanting to integrate some of the nicer parts of, say, Altivec into a P4 core, and of course AMD would probably be unable to do this...

Interesting.

 

[clarkey01]

Apple Chooses Slowest, Hottest Running CPUs

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2981

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
Apple Chooses Slowest, Hottest Running CPUs
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2981

Nonissues for reasons described above.

Apple has been proving for years that:

Marketing Savvy > Price/Performance

 

[Rock Hydra]

I doesn't matter. The performance avdantage from one to the other is going to teeter back and forth from both AMD and Intel...So, maybe they did go with AMD, Intel comes out with a chip that smacks around a new Athlon, like they are doing the the crappy Prescotts. On the other hand, that may not happen for a while, if at all. I think its' advantageous for Apple to go with Intel since they have huge fab plants and would be able to have both CPUs and chipsets available in large quantities to sell to Apple. Although, AMD seems to be a better bargain...I'm sure it woud be put under a lot of strain to produce all those CPUs...and then who will produce the chipsets? AMD?...I doubt they have the capacity do so, and I don't think Apple wants to wait around for say, a VIA or nVIDIA product to be ready.

 

[SouthPaW1227]

All I know is that I'm in favor of this decision.

 

[dman]

My Theory:

Apple will be working with intel on a proprietary chipset / DRM / custom-apple bios combo that will prevent running MacOSX on any hardware then what they've blessed. That's why they are 'working' with intel versus just releasing Mac OSX for x86 architecture. This will minimize the amount of hardware driver support they'd need from vendors to just who they've partnered with. (Having it open to all x86 means people buy the OS and bitch when stuff doesn't work because it's unsupported... anyone remember/ever use OS2?)

So, based on that, I'd wager it won't be supported to run OSX on an AMD Processor system or even on a non-intel (NForce/Via/SiS) chipset. They'll implement security to ensure OSX will only boot on the Intel Chipset boards with a custom Apple Bios and the DRM will make hacking it very difficult (without access to the source)

All the above is just theory. Time will tell.

 

[ToeJam13]

Originally posted by: Adul
hell hath frozen over.

that explains the cool temps in phoenix

Tell me about it. First it was hotter than heck a few weeks ago, now its almost Spring-like weather.

Its going to be cold enough tonight that I may have to bundle up for my evening walk.


But yes, this is nuts. I expect cats and dogs to suddenly start talking and for penguins to launch a coordinated attack against Argentina.

 

[ToeJam13]

Originally posted by: Phil
One thing I keep coming back to when thinking about this, is why not AMD? I mean, look at the latest AT article re. G5 vs x86 - the Opteron is the better performer when compared to the Gallatin-core Xeon, over and over again.

It just doesn't make sense that Apple will want a P4/P-M/etc chip in their machines when they have a better architecture with the AMD offerings. The only possible advantage over the Athlon/Opteron that I can see is the SIMD/video performance of the P4, which has been reduced down to "not a lot" with the later revision AMD cores.

Simply because the next generation of Intel chips based on Pentium-M processors will most likely run past K8/K9 processors.

A recent article over at Tom's Hardware shows how well the Pentium-M does against the Pentium4EE and the Athlon64FX processor when pushed to comparable clock speeds. In specific, when overclocked from 2133MHz to 2560MHz and installed on an i875P mainboard, a Dothan core was able to outrun Prescott, Gallatin, Clawhammer and Newcastle cores in many benchmarks.

If you raised the FSB from 133MHz to 200MHz, intergrated a low latency onboard FB-DDR2 memory controller and added a second core, Intel would have a real prize for the desktop.

Such a beast would take at least 12-18 months to put into full production. That's roughly the amount of time that it would take Apple to shift from PPC to x86-64.

 

[BRObedoza]

Originally posted by: Darien
Pentium M PowerBook = sex

yah seriously. think i'll hold off on buying a new powerbook until this is all sorted out

 

[Staples]

But at least they will pull in 3 times the profit now.

If they do get cheap like PCs, I can see myself buying one.

 

[AnImuS]

Intel to Apple: Only through me can you become more powerful then Dell.

Apple to Intel: touché


Weird that(if true) MS moves away from Intel to IBM(xbox 360) and Apple does the opposite.

Though IBM will be very busy suppling the chips for the next 3 consoles.

PS2 has just reached 90million units shipped since 2000.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ToeJam13
A recent article over at Tom's Hardware shows how well the Pentium-M does against the Pentium4EE and the Athlon64FX processor when pushed to comparable clock speeds. In specific, when overclocked from 2133MHz to 2560MHz and installed on an i875P mainboard, a Dothan core was able to outrun Prescott, Gallatin, Clawhammer and Newcastle cores in many benchmarks.

after suffering through that article i came to the realization that tom's should have tested the san diego core, rather than the old newcastle core.

 

[ironcrotch]

There is no way in hell that Steve Jobs would port Apples os x to x86, IIRC Apple owns the rights to the PPC stuff so most liked Intel will probably just start fabbing those instead of IBM.

 

[Chode Messiah]

exactly. Why switch to x86 now?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
ahhh.. NO. Their profits would go through the roof. Hardware cost money to reproduce. Software is just copy... copy... copy... and rakes in the money. Hence why MS makes so much.

A major reason why Apples have the reputation for being more stable is that they can control the hardware. It's MUCH easier to make a stable OS when you only have to run it on a limited range of quality stuff.

 

[Sureshot324]

Lol i can already see apples next marketing campaign

Apple version of pentium 4 2x faster than pc version!!! Proven with benchmarks!

And the apple fanboys will believe it too

 

[aswedc]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
ahhh.. NO. Their profits would go through the roof. Hardware cost money to reproduce. Software is just copy... copy... copy... and rakes in the money. Hence why MS makes so much.

A major reason why Apples have the reputation for being more stable is that they can control the hardware. It's MUCH easier to make a stable OS when you only have to run it on a limited range of quality stuff.

They may have that reputation but they're not. Just like the G5 isn't really all that super fast. Who says Apple can't continue by saying they make better motherboards or something?

 

[Gibson486]

Whoa.....Apple will switch to a CISC based system? Or will Intel finally take their CISC to RISC conversion out of their chips?

 

[Pandaren]

There's little difference between what used to be RISC and CISC chips. Most of the design techniques like reservation stations, uops, register renaming etc. are used in designs for both POWER and x86/x64 processors.

Removing the front end of an x64 processor would probably not be worth the investment. Besides, x64 gives you 16 GPRs plus more SSE/2 registers. While this isn't as nice as the 32 GPRs and Floating point registers in many traditional RISC chips, it's still not too bad. Plus, the vast majority of developers don't work at the assembly level.

Originally posted by: Gibson486
Whoa.....Apple will switch to a CISC based system? Or will Intel finally take their CISC to RISC conversion out of their chips?

 

[bleeb]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
First we have Roger Waters getting together with a united pink floyd, then we have this!!!!????!!

WHAT IS NEXT???? SKYWALKER66 GETTING A GIRLFRIEND?

hahah where is young Skywalker?