- Joined
- 27 Dec 2001
- Messages
- 7,626
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:
Speculative adoption of the Intel processor.
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.