http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.htmlApple's press release said:
i never thought i'd see the day.
Apple switches to Intel
- Thread starter Toshi
- Start date
i never thought i'd see the day.
I don't know if its a bad thing. the OS isn't changing. It also doesn't necessarily mean that apple is changing the box - as much as I like the look of the apple designed hardware, its all about performance and price. Maybe apple will still be releasing hardware, but can do it at a lower price... only time will tell!
My brother was on the developement team for the original power PC processor. At least back in the day he claimed it had huge advantages over intel processors. Has the playing field been levelled?
MtnBikerNJ said:
I think its the laptop issue that forced the change. They just can't put the hot G5 processor in a 1/2 thick case.
yeah, steve jobs admitted that apple hasn't been able to put the G5 in the powerbook (which is long overdue!) since it's too thirsty for power. i guess this is a good thing, especially since SJ also revealed that all versions of OS X have been secretly developed for Intel in parallel for the last five years. sneaky, sneaky, and may just be the kick in the pants to really boost up apple's marketshare.Ridemonkey said:
Bout dam time they give up and stop tryin to meet the performance of Intel and AMD.
yeah, back in the day of the powerpc 601, 604, 604e motorola did have the upper hand. current G5s are pretty slick, too, about as fast as the fastest intel/amd offerings, but the G5 doesn't work in laptops: too power hungry and too hot. this is unacceptable.Westy said:
I have to say about his "revelation"........
BFD.
Maybe now I'll be able to run OS-X.
-S.S.-
BFD.
Maybe now I'll be able to run OS-X.
-S.S.-
Huh?sanjuro said:
I don't see the problem with this switch. All it means is that more money will be dumped into Intel instead of having an entirely seperate chip to support a relatively small market share. That could bring down chip prices for everyone (hey, we can dream, right?), but at the very least, will make it cheaper for Apple to produce a computer. Not to mention, more money for Intel means a bigger R&D budget.
I'm not a big fan of Apple computers, but competition is always good, and if Apple can lower their operating costs and the price of their computers, that makes them more competitive.
What about software? If someone currently has a Mac and they want to upgrage to a new machine after the new chips are out, will they need to buy all new software?
A lot of designer dudes are in an uproar about this but I dont really see a problem. So what if the chip changes. OSX is the stable thing about Mac, not the hardware. Take the OS, put it on cheaper hardware that has similar performance and you have one helluva stable machine with a low price tag.
Besides... I have a G5 and about 1/2 of the box is devoted to moving air for cooling that fireball of a chip.
What i'd like to know is how does a dual processor machine with intel's hottest chip compare with a machine running dual G5's. And I dont give a crap about marketing numbers I want to hear data crunching numbers. Intel has come a long way, I bet the numbers are comparable.
Besides... I have a G5 and about 1/2 of the box is devoted to moving air for cooling that fireball of a chip.
What i'd like to know is how does a dual processor machine with intel's hottest chip compare with a machine running dual G5's. And I dont give a crap about marketing numbers I want to hear data crunching numbers. Intel has come a long way, I bet the numbers are comparable.
Damn fine question right there.pixelninja said:
I dont feel like buying $3-4k worth of new software.
My office has a budget for a new machine next year (was going to be a 2nd G5), but software isnt in that budget.
Peastout
I disagree. A low level approach means there will be a totally different processor instruction set from PowerPC to Pentium. The o/s programmers and designers will endeavor to change the low level code to work with the new instruction set, which should hopefully include all the performance tweaks to make this a fast running o/s.golgiaparatus said:
From a high level perspective, if the processor instruction set change-over is successful, then there is no difference. However, if there are any burps in the o/s changes, then there could be a long delay in issuing pentium chips.
So, does anyone have any more information about this? Like, will they be running stock Intel Pentium/Celeron chips or will there be some amount of customization for Apple instruction sets?
It doesn't say anything about using Pentium processors. It says they are going to use Intel. I'd bet Intel is going to make a processor for the Mac. It will cost less and work better, and it won't be a Pentium. Intel makes lots of microprocessors besides the Pentium and Celeron.
I dunno, Ive been a PC guy from the begining, but lately I have been lusting after this
http://www.apple.com/imac/
http://www.apple.com/imac/
Right, that's what I'm wondering. Apple is a pretty large customer and I'm sure it'd be worth Intel's while if Apple wanted a new chip.Echo said:
Ahh... Right.
'cause, you know, they have the capabilities to make a cheaper, better chip right this minute, but it's not like something cheaper and better would actually sell well, so they just aren't bothering.
That's why AMD is in businessbinary visions said:Ahh... Right.
'cause, you know, they have the capabilities to make a cheaper, better chip right this minute, but it's not like something cheaper and better would actually sell well, so they just aren't bothering.
And demand sets the price, not Intel per se.
They do?Echo said:
Desktop
Intel® Pentium® Processor Extreme Edition
Intel® Pentium® D Processor
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor Extreme Edition supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
Intel® Celeron® D Processor
Intel® Celeron® Processor
Notebook
Intel® Pentium® M Processor
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor supporting Hyper-Threading Technology
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor-M
Intel® Celeron® M Processor
Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
Server
Intel® Itanium® 2 Processor
Intel® Xeon Processor
Intel® Xeon Processor MP
I should also point out the Xeon is a Pentium design but the Itanium is different processor but capable of running the Pentium instruction set.
Or maybe Intel will create a whole new chip design for production, in what, a half year? It could be a 4th year ECE student project...
Well, that's a whole other argument... AMD is not cut-and-dry better than Intel, each system has its merits.Echo said:That's why AMD is in business
Sort of. Cost of manufacturing certainly has a big impact, though. If you go with the demand aspect, though, how do you expect a smaller market share, especially one that has historically paid much higher prices, to cause Intel to manufacture something cheaper and better than a Pentium?
binary visions said:
Good point, perhaps the historic willingness of apple's customers to pay a higher price will allow designers greater freedom to make a better product? In actuality, it probably will not wind up being much different, I suspect part of the reason for the move is to bring down apples prices to a level that is acceptable to a wider audience.
From a consumer perspective, that would be fantastic - since better products, even if they are initially more expensive, eventually trickle down into the cheaper models.Damn True said:
My guess is that you're right, though, they'll end up with something comparable to existing offerings (if not exactly the same - this still is a big question mark) at a comparable price.
Comperable?binary visions said:
-S.S.-
You should try OSX Tiger. You hit f12 and the dictionary widget pops right up.binary visions said:
Alright, ya' bastids, I fixed it and freely admit that I deserve being called out for all of my bitching about spelling and grammar in the past.
Now let's go back to the topic at hand - which is much more interesting than my occasional spelling mistakes
Now let's go back to the topic at hand - which is much more interesting than my occasional spelling mistakes
Thats why when 2007 rolls around... which is about how long this should take to have the bugs worked out. I'll still be running the same G5 that I'm posting from. However, I'm sure the next Mac I buy will have an intel chip in it.sanjuro said:
The people that will be screwed in this transition are techno geeks that MUST have the latest and greatest as soon as it comes out.
Maybe your custom title should become "The voice of comperability".......binary visions said:
-S.S.-
Ahh, poor S.S.SkaredShtles said:Maybe your custom title should become "The voice of comperability".......
I hope, one day, someone finds you funny. In the meantime, I hope you keep cracking yourself up!
My gravestone will probably say something to that effect.binary visions said:Ahh, poor S.S.
I hope, one day, someone finds you funny. In the meantime, I hope you keep cracking yourself up!
"He died happy, but nobody can quite figure out why"
-S.S.-
sanjuro said:
Looks like they make a lot more than Pentium Processors.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436 is kind of a flaky test but it shows that they're in the same ballpark, with opterons leading the pack.golgiaparatus said:
and no, you won't have to buy new software: there's something called rosetta that will translate between the instruction sets. most software won't require much more than a recompile to run natively.
i don't think intel will be making a new line of chips for apple. i bet they will use standard xeons or itaniums or whatever's current. the whole point is to get on the same page (and stay there!) as the pc makers. besides, ibm is a powerhouse in its own right (Cell processor for PS3, processor for XBox 360, POWER processors used in many top 500 supercomputers) so i don't see any inherent reason why Intel could do the PowerPC design any better than IBM is doing.
Yes they do. Do you think a motherboard will fit into a processor slot? Or a handset? Maybe software will fit into a processor slot?Echo said:
Looks like they make a lot more than Pentium Processors.
Or possibly a Pentium processor will fit into a processor slot?
Echo has a point: intel owns ARM, no? my theory _was_ that this brouhaha was about apple using a StrongARM chip in a video ipod, but this really looks like apple will be using pentium type chips in standard desktops/laptops.sanjuro said:
can intel make a better battery for my iPod?
According ARM's website: creates high-performance RISC CPU cores and microprocessors for low-power applications, like Ipods not computers.Toshi said:
My whole point about processor changes, is from a high level view of computers, it is a simple thing because a high level view has no idea about instruction sets, processor design and testing, and low level o/s programming.
It is like saying, "Oh my car needs a new transmission. Since I don't even know how to change my oil, how hard could it be to put in a new transmission?"
Not that I am some type of o/s programmer or processor engineer. I am a computer administator so I know well about processor failures and release delays.