So what Intel CPU's will Apple be using?

Good article here. It lays out some thoughtful presumptions about the switch -- including information on Intel's roadmap and how that affects Apple, what processors Apple will couple with what hardware, and when. It also explores the thinking behind Intel vs. AMD.

Some excerpts:

The second reason why it makes sense to introduce x86 via the portable and low-end Macintosh lines is that neither of those lines have any need for a 64-bit processor. Yonah (see below), which is the dual-core Pentium M derivative that Apple will probably put in its first x86-based PowerBooks and Minis, will not support x86-64. By the time x86-64 has spread widely throughout the Pentium desktop line at the end of 2006, Apple will be ready to introduce 64-bit Pentium-based PowerMacs.

In this respect, Apple's x86 platform shift strategy is deliberately the reverse of Intel's 64-bit platform shift strategy. Intel is introducing 64-bit support into its products from the top down, with the mobile processors not getting 64-bit support until late 2006/early 2007. Apple, for its part, already has just such a 64-bit workstation/32-bit mobile split with the 970/G4 pairing. So Apple can swap the 32-bit G4 for Intel's 32-bit Yonah, and gain an instant performance boost where they need it most without sacrificing a prominent feature like 64-bit support. Later, as Intel moves to 64 bits across its entire desktop line, Apple will upgrade its existing 64-bit PPC parts with higher-performing 64-bit Intel parts. The end result is that as Intel makes the transition to 64 bits, Apple will make the transition to Intel.

Speculative adoption of the Intel processor.
roadmap.jpg
 
*humps SSE3* Agree with you there Kunal, P-M's are nice :)

People keep wondering why Apple aren'tjumping on the 64-bit bandwagon from the off, and thinking about it, it makes sense really.

Over the past 5 years, Apple has maintained OS X on x86, and PPC, they need time to port x86 up to x86-64, just as Microsoft did with Windows XP. The implementation of Intel chips into lower-end machines first off means that 64bit doesn't need to be an immediate product, much like the current line up.

I just know in my mind that as Intel release newer/greater chips, they will make their way into Macs. I can't wait for all of this to kick-in now :D
 
I only hope they can come up with a AMD alternative. I won't be buying a Intel Mac box. It not only goes against Apple's way, it also gives the customer less bang for the buck. All around very poor decision.
 
Xie said:
I only hope they can come up with a AMD alternative. I won't be buying a Intel Mac box. It not only goes against Apple's way, it also gives the customer less bang for the buck. All around very poor decision.
How on earth do you work that out ?

"Apples way" is simply to provide the customer with that they believe to be best, and due to IBM's shortcomings with the PPC chip, and the active maintenance of Intel OS X they believe the best to be to finally hand over the Intel version of OS X to their users.

Also, whilst I personally still believe that PowerPC is a superior architecture over x86/Intel, IBM have hit a wall on development and things are slowing down, whilst Intel have hit the same wall (I think it was 90nm? Don't quote me on that though), they appear to be advancing further and at a better rate. I honestly think that by the time Intel Macs are shipping, and by 2007 when we have a complete range, that Intel models will be outperforming PPC models.

I really don't see why people want AMD chips in Macs, I know the performance is better, but Intel realise this and are working on the whole "Mhz Myth" scenario to bring more speed, and more power with lower consumption to their chips at the same clock speeds.

I also don't understand people saying that Apple shouldn't use Intel due to them being "evil" (not saying that's what you're implying), and I mean "evil" in the same way that Microsoft supposedly are, not that they kill kittens for fun. Because did no one ever realise the G5 was made by IBM? They're hardly the most innocent company out there...
 
Big blue could sue the collective asses out of anyone in the world with the huge patent arsenal that they own.
 
SPeedY_B said:
How on earth do you work that out ?

"Apples way" is simply to provide the customer with that they believe to be best, and due to IBM's shortcomings with the PPC chip, and the active maintenance of Intel OS X they believe the best to be to finally hand over the Intel version of OS X to their users.
Apple has always seemed like the "rebel" to me. The underdog that did things different. I think going with Intel for cleary nothing but the kick back (as by going Intel they have passed on quality, performance, and cost).
I really don't see why people want AMD chips in Macs, I know the performance is better, but Intel realise this and are working on the whole "Mhz Myth" scenario to bring more speed, and more power with lower consumption to their chips at the same clock speeds.
Thats part of the thing. Intel is only NOW working on the "Mhz Myth" while thats always been AMD's way of going about things. They have been about making sure you get the most bang for your buck. You get a chip @ lower Mhz that can do more then similiar chips (Intel) who are just playing the numbers game.
 
X-Istence said:
I just love Mac OS X. It's all about the software for me.
I love OSX also. But I can't back a move like this one. :( They could have picked ANYONE and they went Intel, sad day.
 
X-Istence said:
Why? If their roadmap is going where Apple wants to go, then why is it a loss?
I just feel AMD and others are already there. Intel is just a big name trying to play catchup at this point. They over charge for mediocracy. AMD64's were a perfect fit ...
 
Xie said:
I just feel AMD and others are already there. Intel is just a big name trying to play catchup at this point. They over charge for mediocracy. AMD64's were a perfect fit ...

Excerpts from the article I linked to before...

Why Intel and not AMD?

AMD has the dual-core, 64-bit x86 performance crown at the moment, but there's more to the Apple-Intel transition than just the CPU. Intel is very aggressively pushing a comprehensive platform strategy that AMD cannot currently match. What started with Centrino, which is a combination of a CPU and a feature-rich chipset, is moving across Intel's entire line. Intel has long made their own chipsets, and now they're making their own platforms by building chipsets that support a variety of I/O (networking + graphics) options and advanced software functionality.

Considering that Apple makes the whole widget, their decision to go with Intel makes sense in terms of Intel's platformization approach. Intel can give Apple a package deal that includes a feature-rich chipset and a competitive CPU, and they can do it in volumes and at prices that are beyond AMD's capabilities.

See, there's often a difference between what a company sells and what consumers actually get when they purchase the product. Apple Computer, Inc. has "sold" slightly exotic, "technically superior," performance-oriented hardware for years, regardless of where the company's products have actually stood vis-à-vis the PC on the performance ladder. Or, to put it differently, the "RISC" PowerPC architecture has been a core part of the Apple brand and the overall "mythology" of the Mac platform since the 68K transition, even if that architecture rarely delivered on company's promises with benchmark numbers. So what Apple fans are mourning right now isn't the loss of some actual technical superiority of the Mac hardware, but rather the loss of the perception of that hardware's "technical superiority." Even more importantly, Mac enthusiasts are also mourning the loss of that perception's role in the ongoing maintenance of the myth of Apple and of the Apple brand in the form in which these two have coexisted in the PowerPC era.

Full Article
 
So, according to the article, Apple will instead of getting a solid and cheap CPU from AMD will be getting a more expensive and mediocre bundle from Intel? I'd stick w/ AMD. :)

*edit* - sorry for off topic but reminds me alot of the "console wars" .. people are willing to settle with mediocre because it comes with more stuff, used or not.
 
We'll have to wait and see if it is mediocre. Hopefully it won't be. :)
 
Intel's CPU's a year and a half from now are going to be mediocre.
The gaming experience on the yet to be released Xbox360 and PS3 is going to be mediocre.

Apparently Xie can see things in the future none of us can. :p
 
I don't care what chip they use, since whatever it is, cherry is going to port it over to my amd 64 bit pc, and then I will get my chips performance on the apple os.

they will only charge a few dollars for their software, and I will be given a trial of 90 days...this is going to be sweet

of this I am certain
 
Wow, some serious AMD fanboying going on here.

If you look back two years, the AMD 3000+ couldn't hold a candle to the P4 3.0 with the 800MHz FSB. You can't predict where these things lead.
 
j79zlr said:
Wow, some serious AMD fanboying going on here.

If you look back two years, the AMD 3000+ couldn't hold a candle to the P4 3.0 with the 800MHz FSB. You can't predict where these things lead.
/agrees
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,621
Latest member
naeemsafi
Back