|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Rumor Regurge: Apple Exploring Use of Intel Chips
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-23-2005 10:11 AM
Reuters floated this news article today:
quote:
NEW YORK (Reuters)—Apple Computer Inc. has been in talks that could lead to a decision soon to use Intel Corp. chips in its Macintosh computer line, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
The report, citing two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies, said Apple will agree to use Intel chips.
Neither company would confirm the report and an Apple spokeswoman told the Journal she would characterize it as "rumor and speculation."
It was unclear whether such a move would signal a large-scale shift away from chips made by IBM, Apple's longtime supplier, the report said.
Apple could choose to add some Intel-based models to its product line or make a complete shift to Intel's chip technology in what would be seen as a serious blow to IBM's microprocessor business, the newspaper said.
Adopting Intel chips would help ensure that future Macintosh systems could meet the price and performance of products from tough rivals such as Dell Inc. Apple's pricing, which has often been higher than rivals, could become more competitive if Intel provides the kind of marketing subsidies it has given to other computer makers, the newspaper said.
Apple sells only about three million computers a year—a small portion of the estimated 200 million sold globally.
But for Intel, winning over Apple would be a prestigious endorsement from one of technology's most influential trend-setters and could associate the chipmaker with Apple's hugely popular iPod music player.
Apple's shares have nearly quadrupled since the iPod was introduced in October 2001.
Over the years I've seen previous "Apple is going Intel" rumors spreading --all of which proved to be untrue. Such rumors had been started in the past when Apple allowed clone-Macs to be made (for a brief couple years). Jean Louis Gasee put together the BeOS, which included both native Intel and Motorola versions (and may have been the successor to the classic Mac OS if Steve Jobs didn't return).
This time, I'm not sure I see what makes this latest rumor have any news-worthy credibility at all. A couple "insiders" say Apple and Intel are talking. Woo hoo...as if they haven't talked in the past. The talks could be over something completely different from the Macintosh line of computers. Just look at what Microsoft is doing with X-Box360: placing three custom 3.2GHz IBM PowerPC processors in a box previously home to a single Intel chip. For retail entertainment and gaming "appliances" one can change the architecture much more easily than changing the main CPU of a computing platform. But then maybe this switch from Microsoft for its X-Box360 may be one reason Intel is talking to Apple. Intel is effectively getting shut out of the console gaming business (both PS3 and XBox360 will have PowerPC CPUs at their cores). Maybe this is one way for Intel to hammer back at Microsoft.
Don't get me wrong, I can see plenty of giant financial advantages for Apple to consider making an Intel-based line of Macs. Apple probably sees how Dell is gobbling up more and more of the Windows PC market (meaning anything Intel/AMD based) all for itself. Dell is doing this with good reason. IMHO, its the only mainstream PC brand worth a damn. If you can't buy a Dell then you're better off building your own -or if you have a ton of money to spend you can call Alienware, VooDooPC or Falcon Northwest.
Apple could certainly wade into the PC market and knock Dell for a loop. Apple's marketability and brand identity is just as strong (if not even stronger) than Dell's. An Intel-based Mac could, in theory, dual boot the MacOS and Windows --making the "switch" campaign touted by Apple a far more realistic option.
Apple clearly has the best multimedia and video authoring environment for consumers, hobbyists and semi-professionals. Even a lot of professional video people use Final Cut Pro and its related applications for such work. I think consumer video editing is going to explode in popularity, especially when HD-capable camcorders get affordable. Apple could dominate the entire PC side of things immediately if one could install the MacOS on an Intel-based machine -or at least buy a Mac to run it that didn't cost $1000 to $2000 more than a similarly equipped WindowsPC. I think other companies see this possibility. Note how Avid bought the Pinnacle company and also Sonic for good measure. There is a lot of consolodation happening, but still there is nothing on the Windows side of the market that makes video and DVD authoring as simple and powerful as what Apple offers.
Speculation aside, as far as Apple and Intel-based Macs go, I'll believe it when I see it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-23-2005 07:23 PM
Actually, Apple had been doing nearly all of its CPU business with Motorola. In recent years, they've shifted much of their purchases to what it used to consider its arch enemy, IBM. I can still recall some of the hateful talk from those days in the early to mid 1980s. This was also when Microsoft was one of the companies that helped get the Mac platform off the ground in terms of software titles (the first version of MS Word and MS Office was Mac-based). I definitely had a "whaa?" reaction when IBM announced its copper-based PowerPC CPUs.
Motorola could not deliver some of the newest G-series CPUs in volume. So they had to go with IBM. Lately IBM has had problems delivering new PowerPC CPUs for the G5 Macs. The 3GHz single core PowerPC has been scrapped. The Powerbook line cannot go G5 due to heat and power use problems (the current max is a 1.67GHz G4). Now Intel and AMD are locking horns with new dual core designs (and AMDs new one really kicks some ass). Intel is doing very well in the notebook market with its Centrino platform. AMD is coming out with a low voltage "Turion" line to compete.
quote: Joe Redifer
Let's face it, Intel makes crappy chips. If you have an Intel in your computer, you are less than a human being. PowerPC roolz Intel droolz.
I think the CPU in my new notebook is pretty damned nice (a 1.86GHz Pentium M with 2MB of L2 cache). I've got all the performance I need and battery life of nearly 6 hours.
Quite honestly, I couldn't give a shit how much better a PowerPC chip is than an Intel chip or an AMD chip. Most new CPUs have more than enough horsepower for most any task. In areas like gaming, graphics and multimedia authoring the bigger performance factors will be determined by your amount of RAM, type of hard discs and graphics accelerators.
The only thing that makes a computing platform great or not is the software available to it. The hardware really doesn't mean all that much. The software is what makes the hardware take off. Apple clearly has the edge on the video thing by virtue of their software, and not at all in how much faster the floating point performance is of a PowerPC chip.
Take a look at Linux. Years ago, many computer experts were predicting everyone would be using Linux -especially since it could run on Intel and AMD processors. Well, none of the big software companies, such as Adobe, etc. ever bothered making commercial applications for it. As a result, Linux is pretty much stuck in the affordable server computing market and as a platform of choice for hardcore computer programming types. But it sure has never gone mainstream. Even with as little as 3 million Macs sold per year, the Mac platform is quite a bit more "mainstream" than Linux. At least they have product that is ready to run.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 05-24-2005 02:12 PM
I agree Linux has lots of uses in professional/commercial areas, particularly where a business is developing its own custom software. The latest "Star Wars" episode was put together mainly on a fleet of Dell PCs running Linux. But again, they were running custom made software. Linux is great for people who know how to compile their own code.
However, Linux is not a realistic option for people who simply want to run already established applications like MS Office, Adobe's graphics apps or even a lot of home entertainment titles and games. I'm not going to ever use Linux unless Adobe and other major graphics app developers port over versions of their apps to it. I really don't have any loyalty to any platform, CPU or any nonsense like that. I only care about being able to get my work done using the best applications available to me.
Back to the hardware thing, sure Intel's desktop CPUs may be "inferior" to a 2.5GHz PowerPC G5 or the latest SunSPARC chip and yadda yadda yadda. And everyone would love to tool around in a $250,000 Lamborghini as well. I'd like to have a new dual processor Mac. But I don't like the idea of having to spend a few thousand dollars on top of the expensive hardware price just to switch platforms. This is the main deal breaker for Apple's pleas for Windows users to switch.
Apple is going to get absolutely nowhere with all its "your PC sucks" negative advertising. The point they miss with such an angle of advertising is 95% of computer users really don't care. They're getting their work done using those inferior chips and inferior operating systems. They're not going to pay a giant price premium just to do the same shit on a machine that looks different.
This is why Apple has to sell people on its software rather than hardware. This is where Apple can actually make real claims of helping people get work done faster and more efficiently, particularly when it comes to editing home movies or producing a DVD with professional quality results. Apple has some killer applications not available on the PC platform. This was originally how they grabbed much of the graphics industry for itself. When companies like Quark, Adobe, Macromedia, etc. made Windows versions of all their apps, there was no longer any reason to spend the huge premium for a Mac system.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-04-2005 06:04 PM
Going to bump up this thread.
CNet posted a report on June 3, claiming Steve Jobs will "drop a bombshell" during his speech Monday, June 6, at the WorldWide Developers Conference. The bombshell is that Apple will switch from IBM PowerPC chips over to Intel processors, starting in 2006 with the MacMini and iMac and then finishing the transition in 2007 with the PowerMac line. Not sure where the Powerbook line would fit in with this schedule.
I'm still a bit skeptical about this rumor. You know the saying, "I'll believe it when I see it." But if there was any good time for the switch to happen -now is as good a time as any.
The PowerPC 970 processor is definitely better than any Pentium 4. The chip architecture is so good that all three next gen gaming consoles are using CPUs based on the architecture. However, I don't see this as a good thing for Apple.
IBM is already making more money selling PowerPC chips in gaming consoles than in Macs. Sony PS2 sales have topped 90 million units -90 million consoles using the same identical CPU. Hundreds of millions of next gen consoles will be sold and IBM is only having to help develop 3 CPUs for them. The Apple platform needs at least several different speeds of G5 and G4 processors -all for a product line that sells 3 to 4 million units per year.
IBM has stated it doesn't see much of a business model in making several different PowerPC CPU models for what it considers a niche market. If I was an Apple executive I would be very concerned about being treated like a second class citizen by IBM. I would have concerns about more chip shortages and chip model cancellations in the future.
With Intel, Apple wouldn't be getting the fastest chips known to man. But Apple would have a partnership with a company whose business model is more tailored to making a wide range of CPUs for personal computers, notebooks and servers. Such a partnership may also allow Apple to get much more competitive in pricing.
This Apple CPU transition would come at a time when the entire PC platform is beginning a major transition itself. Windows applications, device drivers and more will have to be recompiled for 64-bit code to take advantage of new 64-bit CPUs and the 64-bit version of WindowsXP. This unstable time would give Apple more of a marketing opportunity to get PC users to switch platforms.
Rumors have persisted that Apple already has a working Intel-compiled version of MacOSX. The FreeBSD OS, of which OSX is a variant, already has an Intel version.
Apple has another trump card in the issue of computer security. New Windows-based viruses are even holding data hostage, presumably in return for payment. Identity theft is another growing problem. Everyone wants a secure computing environment. But few customers want to learn lots of IT stuff to be able to do it. Apple could make the process much more simple.
The biggest challenge to Apple, if this Intel rumor is true, will be getting its software developers to do what they did in the early to late 1990s -compile two different versions of their applications for OSX. Remember those days where apps had to have both "040" and PowerPC versions? I think Apple will have an easier time with such a deal if their Intel-based Macs can dual boot OSX and Windows. It would make it far easier for a PC user to "switch" and still be able to use his legacy software.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 06-04-2005 08:03 PM
Interesting comparison of G5 vs. x86, OS X vs. Linux here. There are chinks in Apple's armor.
From the final summarization page:
quote:
Workstation, yes; Server, no.
The G5 is a gigantic improvement over the previous CPU in the PowerMac, the G4e. The G5 is one of the most superscalar CPUs ever, and has all the characteristics that could give Apple the edge, especially now that the clock speed race between AMD and Intel is over. However, there is still a lot of work to be done.
First of all, the G5 needs a lower latency access to the memory because right now, the integer performance of the G5 leaves a lot to be desired. The Opteron and Xeon have a better integer engine, and especially the Pentium 4/Xeon has a better Branch predictor too. The Opteron's memory subsystem runs circles around the G5's.
Secondly, it is clear that the G5 FP performance, despite its access to 32 architectural registers, needs good optimisation. Only one of our [8] flops tests was " Altivectorized", which means that the GCC compiler needs to improve quite a bit before it can turn those many open source programs into super fast applications on the Mac. In contrast, the Intel compiler can vectorize all 8 tests.
Altivec or the velocity engine can make the G5 shine in workstation applications. A good example is Lightwave where the G5 takes on the best x86 competition in some situations, and remains behind in others.
The future looks promising in the workstation market for Apple, as the G5 has a lot of unused potential and the increasing market share of the Power Mac should tempt developers to put a little more effort in Mac optimisation.
The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic. When we asked Apple for a reaction, they told us that some database vendors, Sybase and Oracle, have found a way around the threading problems. We'll try Sybase later, but frankly, we are very sceptical. The whole "multi-threaded Mach microkernel trapped inside a monolithic FreeBSD cocoon with several threading wrappers and coarse-grained threading access to the kernel", with a "backwards compatibility" millstone around its neck sounds like a bad fusion recipe for performance.
Workstation apps will hardly mind, but the performance of server applications depends greatly on the threading, signalling and locking engine. I am no operating system expert, but with the data that we have today, I think that a PowerPC optimised Linux such as Yellow Dog is a better idea for the Xserve than Mac OS X server.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
One could argue the PowerPC is a AMD CPU with a different Core Instruction set(as opposed to x86-64 Instuction sets of the Operteron/A64 lines).
Printer-friendly view of this topic