• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

So what Intel CPU's will Apple be using?

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#3
NetRyder said:
Here's a nice read on AnandTech:
http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439&p=2

He also mentions a few very plausible reasons why Apple decided to go with Intel rather than AMD. :)
hehe

the first reason;

[snipppet]

Why not AMD? Much of Apple's success is due to marketing and branding, not necessarily technological leadership. That should sound a lot like Intel these days, whose processors essentially lag behind AMD in terms of technology, but outsell AMD by huge margins, thanks to strong marketing and branding. The Intel brand is much stronger than AMD's, and that is the sort of partner that Apple is interested in.

[/snippet]

in other words, they are looking for hype over performance.

this is opposite my impression of what this company stands for
 

muzikool

Act your wage.
Political User
#4
Here's a good (and amusing) FAQ that I found here. It's mostly speculation, but still interesting.

Q: Will x86 Macs be cheaper than today's Macs?

A: A better question would be, "Will x86 Macs be cheaper than 'equivalent' PowerPC-based Macs would have been had the IBM relationship not gone south?" My answer is "no." Expect Macs to remain more expensive than PCs.

Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?

A: No.

Q: Try and stop me!

A: Apple most assuredly will—try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (thanks to the Mac OS X EULA or the DMCA) or at least "technically complex and/or annoying" to run Mac OS X on non-Apple x86 hardware, Apple will be able to absorb any loss in hardware sales attributable to geeks and hardware hackers.

Q: Will future Macs use Pentium 4 CPUs like Apple's x86 developer kit announced today?

A: Probably not. I expect Apple to start with Intel's next generation of multi-core CPUs. Hannibal will have more to say about this issue.

Q: Will I be able to run Windows applications on an x86 Mac?

A: Not unless you also run Windows on it.

Q: Okay, will I be able to boot an x86 Mac into Windows?

A: No.

Q: Try and sto—

A: See earlier answer about running Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC. Update: I missed this quote from Phil Schiller. "That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that." My reaction to this new information can be found in the article discussion thread.

Q: Will I be able to run Windows on an x86 Mac?

A: With something like Virtual PC, yes. (Well, VMware, really.) Only it'll actually be fast now, close to native speed if all goes well.

Q: Will Apple provide a VMware-like environment to run Windows applications at near-native speeds on x86 Macs running Mac OS X?

A: No.

Q: Okay, then will someone other than Apple provide one?

A: Yes.

Q: Will Apple continue to design its own motherboards, or will it use commodity PC parts?

A: I think Apple will continue to produce custom designs, or will "bless" a particular PC motherboard/chipset maker (like Intel, for instance...) and contract them to build boards/chipsets that suit Apple's needs.

Q: Will Apple's planned emulation of the PowerPC ISA on an x86 chip really work?

A: It'll be "good enough," but not nearly as good as 68K emulation was on the PowerPC.

Q: Will developers get onboard with such a big change, or will they revolt and abandon ship?

A: If history is any indication, enough developers will ride out the storm to maintain the life of the platform.

Q: Will porting Mac OS X applications to x86 really be easier than porting classic Mac OS applications to Mac OS X was?

A: Yes.

Q: Will Apple maintain an internal PowerPC build of Mac OS X even after moving its entire product line to x86 processors "just in case" they ever need to switch back?

A: I hope so, if only to continue to enforce the discipline of portability.

Q: Is Microsoft worried that every Windows user is suddenly a potential Mac OS X user if Apple ever decides to give up or de-emphasize its hardware business?

A: You bet your ass they are. Don't believe the hype. Microsoft worries about everything, and this is more than a little blip on their radar.

Q: Would Apple ever do that? You know, sell Mac OS X to current Windows users to install on their existing PCs?

A: Someday, maybe, but not soon, and probably only after Apple is convinced that such a market exists and is big enough to be worth sacrificing their own hardware business. How will Apple be convinced of this? Why, by the number of people "illegally" installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, of course. Multiply that number by the the inverse of the ratio of geeks to "normal" people and you get a rough estimate of the total number of potential software-only Windows-to-Mac OS X switchers. Then comes an awkward call to Michael Dell...

Q: Will x86 Macs come with a two-buttons mouse?

A: Hey, we're just taking about moving an entire platform to a new CPU architecture (again). Let's not get crazy!

Q: Did you notice that none of the pictures of PowerPC chips shown in the slides during the WWDC keynote presentation had the "G5" logo on them? Instead, they all had a generic purple badge with "PowerPC" written on it.

A: Yeah, I noticed that too. Steve angry! Steve smash IBM!

Q: Can you wrap this thing up already?

A: Sure.
 

muzikool

Act your wage.
Political User
#5
perris said:
hehe

the first reason;

[snipppet]

Why not AMD? Much of Apple's success is due to marketing and branding, not necessarily technological leadership. That should sound a lot like Intel these days, whose processors essentially lag behind AMD in terms of technology, but outsell AMD by huge margins, thanks to strong marketing and branding. The Intel brand is much stronger than AMD's, and that is the sort of partner that Apple is interested in.

[/snippet]

in other words, they are looking for hype over performance.

this is opposite my impression of what this company stands for

Apple is a marketing machine. I don't think that can be denied.

I bet Apple knows something about Intel's roadmap that the public doesn't. ;)

Intel needs a partner like Apple. For the longest time, Intel has been promising usage models and concept PCs that we all wanted, but would never surface. PC vendors focused on producing the cheapest system possible, while dealing with backwards compatibility and standards compliance with a huge install base - effectively, making change difficult. Look at how long it has taken us to transition away from the Parallel and Serial ports on PC motherboards or the move to SATA drives. With Apple, Intel finally has a partner that is willing to adapt to change at a much more rapid pace and one that can implement new technologies extremely quickly, thanks to a small, agile user base.
Great point.
 
Last edited:
#7
I'm no programmer and make no claim on understanding x86 architecture, but would it be that much harder to make OSX run on both AMD and Intel? Apple would be shooting themselves in the foot if they only made their OS run on Intel processors, at least as it appears to me.

Like Muzikool said though, maybe Intel has something on their roadmap we don't know about yet.
 

SPeedY_B

I may actually be insane.
#8
TittleBitties said:
Looks like a bunch of stupid questions to me :dead:
*resists comment*

I love all this speculation and guessing. It's great, it only fuels the hype machine Apple have done so well in creating.

Personally, I'm happy with the Intel move, I'm happy with my current mac, I'll be happy with my next one, and I really don't care about the Intel based macs until I have one in front of me, or at the very least their are some cold hard facts available (ie: units shipping, the dev machines mean **** at the moment).
 

SPeedY_B

I may actually be insane.
#9
Unwonted said:
I'm no programmer and make no claim on understanding x86 architecture, but would it be that much harder to make OSX run on both AMD and Intel? Apple would be shooting themselves in the foot if they only made their OS run on Intel processors, at least as it appears to me.

Like Muzikool said though, maybe Intel has something on their roadmap we don't know about yet.
They're not making it run on off-the-shelf Intel chips, you wont be able to home-brew a machine and just install OS X on it. Apple is a hardware retailer, they're not going to lose revenue by essentially killing their hardware off.

As muzikool's above post mentions though, it's likely someone will hack things up and get OS X running on a Dell, or something equivalent, but only slashdotters and forum junkies will really care.

You need to remember that a CPU isn't the only component in a computer, other components can prevent things from running and create a lock-down.
 

Tittles

Dabba Dooba
Political User
#10
SPeedY_B said:
*resists comment*

I love all this speculation and guessing. It's great, it only fuels the hype machine Apple have done so well in creating.

Personally, I'm happy with the Intel move, I'm happy with my current mac, I'll be happy with my next one, and I really don't care about the Intel based macs until I have one in front of me, or at the very least their are some cold hard facts available (ie: units shipping, the dev machines mean **** at the moment).
I ment as in the stupid question that were pretty pointless to add. A cheap way to add humor to it all. I like the idea of the whole Intel move but i would of rather it be AMD but like mention they are going for marketing push and what not.
 

muzikool

Act your wage.
Political User
#12
SPeedY_B said:
*resists comment*
I did the same. :laugh:

SPeedY_B said:
I love all this speculation and guessing. It's great, it only fuels the hype machine Apple have done so well in creating.

Personally, I'm happy with the Intel move, I'm happy with my current mac, I'll be happy with my next one, and I really don't care about the Intel based macs until I have one in front of me, or at the very least their are some cold hard facts available (ie: units shipping, the dev machines mean **** at the moment).
Looks like we've got about the same point of view. Have you thought at all about how this affects your future purchase of a G5, since you were waiting for the dual 3GHz?
 

SPeedY_B

I may actually be insane.
#13
muzikool said:
Looks like we've got about the same point of view. Have you thought at all about how this affects your future purchase of a G5, since you were waiting for the dual 3GHz?
Well we're never going to see them, or if we do they will be the last of the PowerPC's... in my mind anyway.

I'm thinking of waiting for a second revision of the Intel-Based PowerMacs (whatever they'll be called
) just so I can get an idea of how the Intel machines will work first.

Like many, as powerful as they are, I don't see the point in buying a G5 based Mac, I know they will be supported etc, I'd just rather have an Intel machine at this point in time.
 

SPeedY_B

I may actually be insane.
#15
I waited long enough to get my PowerMac, and I've upgraded it enough to last me a couple more years. I may update the iBook to a nice PowerBook in a year or two to tide me over, but the PowerMac has a lot more life left in it yet :)
 

muzikool

Act your wage.
Political User
#17
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ has posted information on the Mac X86/Pentium 4 Development system.

A tidbit...
First, the thing is fast. Native apps readily beat a single 2.7 G5, and sometimes beat duals. Really.
(I asked about real-world apps - if any were already available in native code-Mike)
All the iLife apps other than iTunes, plus all the other apps that come with the OS are already universal binaries....

They are using a Pentium 4 660. This is a 3.6 GHz chip. It supports 64 bit extensions, but Apple does not support that *yet*. The 660 is a single core processor. However, the engineers said that this chip would not be used in a shipping product and that we need to look at Intel's roadmap for that time to see what Apple will ship.
 

SPeedY_B

I may actually be insane.
#18
nix said:
with all that storage i should hope so Dave :eek:
Storage, Memory, Connectivity, Optical Writers, Video Card, USB2.0, BlueTooth, iSight... and probably more :p

muzikool said:
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ has posted information on the Mac X86/Pentium 4 Development system.

A tidbit...
Very interesting, I really think that these Intel chips are going to give Macs a well deserved kick up the arse with relation to speed, and I really think that Apple know something about Intel's roadmap that the public do not, as of yet. Intel may of used it as bait for the deal.

Either way, it's all good, I can't wait for the forthcoming PowerPC lines, and the Intel lines. It's all fun :)
 

gonaads

Beware the G-Man
Political User
#19
ming said:
Not surprised if they take something like a Intel P4 650 and rename to the ABC123. lol :p

Naaaa, they'll name it the "grannysmith" or the "golden delicious"... Or fuji (for them high temp ones). :p
 

X-Istence

*
Political User
#20
As for the AMD question, i don't think AMD has to worry. Their low power chips are being used in a lot of Apple products:

Wireless base station
Airport cards

And probably more that have not been taken apart yet.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,961
Messages
673,239
Members
89,017
Latest member
bettyicrewsi