Apple to switch to Intel processors

[Doobie]

Have you seen this? Have you heard about this? When I heard Apple is dumping the PowerPC for x86, I had to check the calender to make sure it wasn't April 1.

My next thought, is Apple going to set up arbitrary barriers between their PC and the Windows PC so they can still be a hardware company with a preparatory platform? Or, is Apple going to drop the pretense of being a hardware company and try to compete directly against Windows with a PC version of OSX?

Maybe Apple is thinking that PC clone makers are idiots, as proven by the intense competition between PC makers that still failed to produce much differentiation, such as PC built with laptop parts, ala Mac Mini. Maybe Apple is thinking that they can make it big as a PC hardware company.

The PowerPC performance has always lagged behind the x86 processors. Maybe Apple is just tired of having the slower computer at any price point, and at the top end. I know speed matters to Apple because they're always pushing those photoshop benchmarks like they think they're proving something. Too bad IBM wasn't more ambitious when designing the PowerPC.

[b00zed]

I've read a lot of these reports, and I think they're all a bit silly. What I haven't seen once is "Apple is dropping PPC in favour of x86," all I've seen is "Apple to use Intel processors." There's quite an important distinction there.

Remember back before the G5 was introduced, there were rumours going around that Apple was going to replace the G4 with the Itanium? My guess is that if these reports aren't similarly complete BS, the most likely story is that Apple may be working on another ultraportable or PDA type device. The Newton ran on an ARM CPU, and Intel still manufacturers ARM CPUs for PDAs, under the xScale name.

[Neo Neko]

More than IBM developed the Power architechture. IIRC at least Motorolla was involved as well. And I don't remember reading that they were dumping power. Rather they might embrace Intel as well. Which would be nice. Perhaps we might finally get a good functional/stable/secure commercial OSfor X86. :D I will not deny that Power architechture has typically lagged a bit. But Intell is not that great either. Current gen game consoles and many next gen consoles look set to be using power architechture chips. And the IBM/Sony Cel processor (which uses power architechture) venture could hit big time. I assume there should be a reason for this. As surely a generic Intel chip would be cheaper. Right?

[SeeMoreDigital]

It even made it onto BBC News 24 a few days ago

I hope Apple don't get stuck with the old familiar PC dilemma....

More speed = more power = more heat :eek:

[lexor]

I doubt that Apple would replace G5 towers, but maybe they would stick Intel's chips into say eMac or mac mini (with Pentium M derivative for low heat) that way they can have the mass production power with lower prices to flood the low end market of ~$500 (which Dell, HP, Gateway... etc rule) while keeping the power horse G5 for higher end.

just my opinion, since that would complement the iPod boom that drove Apple's sales way up and re-ignited interest in Apple's hardware and made people buy a mac to complement it with iTunes. But not everyone wants to go for those G5 towers and iMacs, so for them cheaper mini/emac with some pentium derivative would easily match the volume productions of iPods so people can buy a mac and iPod as a matching set.

[Doobie]

I've read a lot of these reports, and I think they're all a bit silly. What I haven't seen once is "Apple is dropping PPC in favour of x86," all I've seen is "Apple to use Intel processors." There's quite an important distinction there.

Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips (http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html)

If this isn't correct, why hasn't Apple already denied that they're changing processors? I can guess that they haven't confirmed it because they want to protect the existing market for their PowerPC computers and software.

[Mr_Schizo]

The PowerPC performance has always lagged behind the x86 processors. Maybe Apple is just tired of having the slower computer at any price point, and at the top end. I know speed matters to Apple because they're always pushing those photoshop benchmarks like they think they're proving something. Too bad IBM wasn't more ambitious when designing the PowerPC.
Isn't it exactly the opposite!? PPC are RISC Chips AFAIK and x86 CISC which has to decode the input to RISC. I am pretty sure that the architecture of a PPC is superior compared to x86 .

[mpucoder]

There's more to performance than basic architecture, and there is more than one way to implement an architecture.
So if Apple really is really concerned about performance, why not switch to AMD?

[Mr_Schizo]

There's more to performance than basic architecture, and there is more than one way to implement an architecture.
So if Apple really is really concerned about performance, why not switch to AMD?
Maybe because AMD has no RISC CPU's but Intel has (XScale,StrongARM).

[mpucoder]

But the initial post says "Apple is dumping the PowerPC for x86" - not another Intel product line.

[lexor]

It's Official! :)

Apple Macintosh with Intel Inside Touted by Apple’s CEO (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050606100349.html)

[wmansir]

Does this mean Mac will be able to run WINE? Does OS X use an X-windows system or proprietary Apple libraries? This could open up a lot of Windows media backup tools for Mac users if it's possible.

[Joe Fenton]

Does this mean Mac will be able to run WINE? Does OS X use an X-windows system or proprietary Apple libraries? This could open up a lot of Windows media backup tools for Mac users if it's possible.

Yes, and Apple has X11 for OSX already. WINE was a problem for the PPC since you had to emulate the x86 code, but once moved to x86, WINE will be simple to make work on OSX with X11. I imagine then they'll work on making WINE for OSX start using more of the OSX interfaces instead of X11.

[Doobie]

Isn't it exactly the opposite!? PPC are RISC Chips AFAIK and x86 CISC which has to decode the input to RISC. I am pretty sure that the architecture of a PPC is superior compared to x86 .

I think IBM was not wanting to put too many of its eggs into the PPC basket so its design, while better than the x86, is not as ambitious as it should have been. For example, they should have had more registers. Also, the updating of the PPC isn't as aggressive as it could be. For example, compare transister counts between PPC chips and x86 chips. The bottom line is that PowerPC chimps are slower than x86 chips.

On performance grounds, Apple should have moved to x86 long time ago. It would allow them to build faster computers, probably for less money. My only question is without sabotage of PC compatibility of Apple's hardware, how is Apple going to anything other than a clone vender pushing their own OS?

On the other hand, with such things as the Cell processor, we're starting to see some serious performance from the PowerPC.

[wmansir]

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

Of course that was to be expected. Apple's business strategy has basically been using software/customer service/design to sell overpriced hardware. Of course, depending on your needs the entire product package might not be overpriced, and someone has to pay for those addon services. It would be nice to have a platform independent OS X, but I doubt Mac could compete head to head with MS if their hardware profits were seriously eroded.

[MacAddict]

Intel seems to have beennehind the 8 ball for awhile now playing catch up to AMD in regards to performance. I fail to understand why Apple would choose Intel over AMD for price and perfromance.

[wmansir]

Because Apple had 2 main problems with IBM: 1. They can't scale the PPC like they (meaning both IBM and Apple) promised they would. 2. They weren't able to meet Apples demand for chips. Moving to x86 nullifies the first problem entirely and moving to Intel addresses the second.

Intel has plenty of fab facilities and can easily deliver x86 chips to meet whatever Apples demand is. AMD is already at full capacity and couldn't sell to Apple without significantly cutting into it's PC supply.

[lexor]

Intel has plenty of fab facilities and can easily deliver x86 chips to meet whatever Apples demand is. AMD is already at full capacity and couldn't sell to Apple without significantly cutting into it's PC supply.

just to throw a few numbers in the ring, Intel has got 11 fabs, 7 of which cranching out P4's. AMD has got a whooping grand total of 2 fabs, only one of which (german one) is fully stocked to output 90nm cpu dies, and the other one (somewhere in asia) is being refurbished from 130nm to 90nm right now so isn't working 100%, but even when it does, that's 2 fabs for Athlons vs 7 for P4's (all which have already been converted to new die size production).

[sillKotscha]

I doubt that Apple would replace G5 towers, but maybe they would stick Intel's chips into say eMac or mac mini (with Pentium M derivative for low heat) that way they can have the mass production power with lower prices to flood the low end market of ~$500 (which Dell, HP, Gateway... etc rule) while keeping the power horse G5 for higher end.

today on my way to work, I've read that apple/intel thing on the economic site of my newspaper...

that's why I think lexor is right. It really makes sense for apple to "flood" the laptop market with their mini's and intel offers them cheap chips (with low heat).
On the other hand apples cash-cow - the i.pod - is in some way stagnating. The Storage halls are full of i.pods ready to be sold... but they sell less then they could. That's why apple/ Steve Jobs was/is searching for new sales markets. Stock exchanges won't honor 1 product as long as a company offers more than just one product (the i.pod). And he has to do something for his shareholders... hence, new possibilities to earn/make money. In this respect he is doing it right. Intel is a well known name for shareholders. And a common shareholder isn't interested about a mac/powermachine performance... just the stock exchange performance ;)

IMO, you will see apple will grow very fast in the next 2 years and with this new alliance.


(my [business] english sucks badly, hope everyone understood what I wanted to tell)

Sill

[Doobie]

Intel seems to have beennehind the 8 ball for awhile now playing catch up to AMD in regards to performance. I fail to understand why Apple would choose Intel over AMD for price and perfromance.

Apple is admitting that they're switching because Intel offers more performance per watt than PowerPC. But, AMD offers yet more performance.

It's not a question of supply. AMD could meet demand. And, even if not, Apple could use both Intel and AMD chips.

MacAddict, the answer to you question is: Apple has never been a value company. Their business is based on image. They're using Intel because the Intel name has more perceived cachet than AMD. I've never owned an Apple because I prefer value and performance over style. Likewise, the only Intel-based PC I ever bought was the first PC I ever bought.

[ppera2]

Of course that was to be expected. Apple's business strategy has basically been using software/customer service/design to sell overpriced hardware. Of course, depending on your needs the entire product package might not be overpriced, and someone has to pay for those addon services. It would be nice to have a platform independent OS X, but I doubt Mac could compete head to head with MS if their hardware profits were seriously eroded.

I just read somewhere that Apple plans secretly, for some 5 years OS X for PC's.

Don't know how serious is source, but I think that if it is not true, it is too bad.
I don't like that MS has no serious competence. Plus, I think that Apple looses big money. Perhaps they have some deals with M$ ?

[lexor]

I just read somewhere that Apple plans secretly, for some 5 years OS X for PC's.
not secretly, basis of OS X is open source OS called Darwin, and Apple has maintainded x86 version of Darwin ever since they acquired the tech for their own OS, so Apple has the kernel and some GUI stuff ready for x86 platform they just need to port the remaining GUI code.

[Neo Neko]

Portin' was done a long time ago. Now all they need to do is build their new Mac. Tie the os to it so we all have to hack it to run on other machines. And release their new PC and OS at the same time. I have already read there is a version of OSX for X86 already floating around P2P. What's more is it is X86 agnostic.