Done Deal - Apple converts to x86 Intel

benjamindaines said:

It still doesn't make any sense for apple to switch to x86 when everything that needs a lot of power like the gaming systems are switching FROM x86 to G5. I think apple just made this up to keep us away from G5 powerbooks and its worked nicely.

Click to expand...

Huh? In terms of processing power, The 2.7Ghz G5 and 3.6Ghz Xeon are neck and neck. The most powerfull systems are built on AMD's line of processors. x86 still leads the desktop/workstation front, and no processor from IBM is going to steal that away.

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

While I still say it does not feel right, a Mac with AMD64 and C&Q would be nice.... Of course I think the next generation 970s are suppose to have frequency scaling, right?

Not that it is anything but anecdotal but if this does happen I won't be likely to buy another Mac for the next year and change. I was planning on buying a PowerMac in Q4, but if this is true I will wait for a year or so to see in what direction the wind is blowing.

Avid6eek said:

Huh? In terms of processing power, The 2.7Ghz G5 and 3.6Ghz Xeon are neck and neck. The most powerfull systems are built on AMD's line of processors. x86 still leads the desktop/workstation front, and no processor from IBM is going to steal that away.

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

Click to expand...

It is a flawed comparison with valid data. The bottleneck for OS X will not change by moving platforms and in some ways it will get worse. I like Opterons and they are fast, but for raw database performance they do not exactly pull away from P-Series systems.

EDIT: For that matter it can be argued that with altivec optimizations a 970 is much more powerful than an AMD for worksation apps. Not desktop mind you, workstation. Heck even without optimization the two were neck and neck for workstation class functions.

For all of you thinking that you can just go get a cheap X86 PC and run OS X on it if this is true you can think again. If for some stupid reason Apple does do this then you can bet your *** they will make them so only Apple hardware will run Apple software. Its not hard to do with custom firmware and such. I still think all of this is a load of crap and maybe intem is making a chip for something apple does or will be doing. You do know the ARM CPU in the ipods is made by intem right?

Kokopelli said:

While I still say it does not feel right, a Mac with AMD64 and C&Q would be nice.... Of course I think the next generation 970s are suppose to have frequency scaling, right?

Not that it is anything but anecdotal but if this does happen I won't be likely to buy another Mac for the next year and change. I was planning on buying a PowerMac in Q4, but if this is true I will wait for a year or so to see in what direction the wind is blowing.

Click to expand...

Hey, bring on a PowerMac with an AMD X2 chip inside for developers. All of those developers will need hardware platforms to port applications to and I'd expect to make the Beta OS and Development Tool free.

Kokopelli said:

It is a flawed comparison with valid data. The bottleneck for OS X will not change by moving platforms and in some ways it will get worse. I like Opterons and they are fast, but for raw database performance they do not exactly pull away from P-Series systems.

EDIT: For that matter it can be argued that with altivec optimizations a 970 is much more powerful than an AMD for worksation apps. Not desktop mind you, workstation. Heck even without optimization the two were neck and neck for workstation class functions.

Click to expand...

Intel and AMD are pulling away. You can get dual-core Pentium D's right now and you can order AMD X2s right now. Take a look at the laptop at http://www.matbe.com/actualites/10266/Computex-A64X2-dans-un-portable which is a dual-core Athlon 64 system. Screen looks like 17 inches. How nice would that be to run OSX?

With multi-core, performance improvements will be exponential. Not your ten to twenty percent from clock speed scaling. And falling behind in this race means that you fall behind quickly.

AMD and Intel have been talking about and showing their dual-core stuff since last summer or fall. I don't think that we've seen demos and betas and engineering samples of G4/G5 dual cores at trade shows.

mmoy said:

With multi-core, performance improvements will be exponential. Not your ten to twenty percent from clock speed scaling. And falling behind in this race means that you fall behind quickly.

AMD and Intel have been talking about and showing their dual-core stuff since last summer or fall. I don't think that we've seen demos and betas and engineering samples of G4/G5 dual cores at trade shows.

Click to expand...

Multi-Core CPU's do not signify an exponential improvement, not even vaguely close. No process of adding additional CPU's amounts to an exponential increase in performance. Multi core performance is closer to an N+1 problem at best. To be exponential means that a dual core 2 GHz CPU is 4 times faster than a single core 2 GHz CPU. I realize that you were probably not trying to be literal but felt the need to clarify.

Next you are cramming 2 slower cores into one die. While this does increase the overall performance per CPU it also increases the power output. TNSTAAFL

Finally lest we all forget, IBM has been doing multi-core PPCs for a long time. They just don't have a publicly available multi core 970 (and they might never have one).

A more interesting question will be if IBM has hit a brick wall with getting Power output on the 970s down. Steve Jobs is probably at least a little upset that IBM not only did not make the 3GHz milestone in the year as promised, but still has not done so after 2 years.

24 hours and counting till we find out I guess.

mmoy said:

I don't think that we've seen demos and betas and engineering samples of G4/G5 dual cores at trade shows.

Click to expand...

Motorola demoed multi-core G4's late last year and have been selling them for a few months now, from their advertizing (yeah I know they are Freescale now) the dual core G4 is down to laptop level power usage and is pin-compatible with the single core so the only thing stopping Apple using them is will power (in theory there is nothing stopping you doing it youself of course but you would need really good soldering skills ).

As for IBM they have been selling multi-core CPUs for years. You can pick up a twin core p615 for a couple of grand and that is a really nice machine, if I could run OS X on one I'd get one tomorrow.

Amen-Moses

mogwai said:

Imagine running OS X on 3ghz pentium
that would be cool man what do you think!!

Click to expand...

I think it would look and perform exactly like a 2 Ghz iMac.


Oh and far from being cool it would probably be bloody hot!

Amen-Moses

Strider said:

Hey technologist, I see that ur signature makes sense now. It did seem stupid a few months ago, but now who's having the last laugh?!

Click to expand...

Yeah, when I saw the news, I restored the old .sig. As shocked as I am about this shift on Apple's part, I'm even more shocked that Dvorak got something right about the Mac.

technologist said:

Yeah, when I saw the news, I restored the old .sig. As shocked as I am about this shift on Apple's part, I'm even more shocked that Dvorak got something right about the Mac.

Click to expand...

How can you say he "got something right" when your sig shows he actually was wrong - by my reckoning even if Apple announce tomorow that they are switching the entire range to Intel processors next week he would still be wrong by almost a year.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses said:

How can you say he "got something right" when your sig shows he actually was wrong - by my reckoning even if Apple announce tomorow that they are switching the entire range to Intel processors next week he would still be wrong by almost a year.

Amen-Moses

Click to expand...

He got the first half right. :mac:

[EDIT: Actually, i feel the need to qualify that:
If the reports are true, he got the first half right.]

Dont count him as right just yet. We will see what Steve has to say tomorrow. I still say its not true. It makes no sense at all. My bet is on a new product from Apple using Intel chips.

What I don't understand (and maybe I am just that ignorant, ) is why some people are so upset about the possibility of Apple going to Intel. I have read the articles about this, and nowhere does it say in any of them that if Apple does go to Intel, Intel is going to make an x86 proc for Mac. Just because Intel is renowned for making x86 procs, does NOT necessarily mean they will definitely make one for Apple. Who's to say that Intel is not designing a PPC based proc? And what does it really matter anyway? Yes, part of the stability of Macintosh is the proc, but the major difference and advantage is the OS. So what if it gets coded to work on an x86? It will still be a Mac, and will still run Mac OS. I think too many are getting too caught up in a situation that:

a) we have no control over
b) is beyond the realm of understanding for many of us(I know there are some here who do know quite a bit about hardware and procs, etc...but I would not say it is the majority)
c) no one is holding a gun to your head to buy a new Mac if it is an x86 based proc

Of course, we will all know by tomorrow or the end of this week. I just don't see what the big debate is about... :black:

Because it is probably the most significant change in Apples direction since OS X, quite possibly even further back. Obviously we have no control over the matter, but I think it fair to say that this decision will effect many Mac users, including many here on the forums. It is not something I am worried about, or even object to very much. It is however something worth discussing.

If tomorrow the rumor ends up being true it will be a major topic for years to come. This effects buying decisions, software compatibility, hardware roadmaps, product placement, and a whole bunch of other things I am sure I have not thought of.

If it ends up being partially true, what parts are true can be discussed ad nauseum.

If it ends up being false, it will be forgotten in a week, but at least it kept my attention for a few days.

Kokopelli said:

Because it is probably the most significant change in Apples direction since OS X, quite possibly even further back. Obviously we have no control over the matter, but I think it fair to say that this decision will effect many Mac users, including many here on the forums. It is not something I am worried about, or even object to very much. It is however something worth discussing.

If tomorrow the rumor ends up being true it will be a major topic for years to come. This effects buying decisions, software compatibility, hardware roadmaps, product placement, and a whole bunch of other things I am sure I have not thought of.

If it ends up being partially true, what parts are true can be discussed ad nauseum.

If it ends up being false, it will be forgotten in a week, but at least it kept my attention for a few days.

Click to expand...

I believe this will be the biggest change for Apple since OS X --- And a change that is just as critical for Apple !!!

Face the facts that IBM has told Apple:
- You will not be getting the frequencies / performance we promised
- You will not be getting the range of new processor flavors you want
- By the way, You're at least number 2 on our list of priorities as we're focused on PPC X-Box / gaming consoles


If Apple wants to remain competitive in any way (on the HW side) they are going to have to DO SOMETHING !!!

And the fact that Intel has turned a corner and seen the light that unlimited power consumption for performance is not acceptable.

And Intel is the largest manufacturer of silicon on the planet ... so Apple will have its work cut out for it to make this transitiion as smooth as possible to keep existing G4/G5 customers happy now -- and will probably have a "trade-in / upgrade" special for G4/G5 owners in the future (hold on to those reciepts)

I see this as an inevitable step for Apple

- With OS X they made a key switch to a "real" OS
- With x86 they will have an unlimited access to CPUS for desktops - laptops - servers - work stations.

I think its a double upside for Apple and Intel

D3v1L80Y said:

What I don't understand (and maybe I am just that ignorant, ) is why some people are so upset about the possibility of Apple going to Intel.

Click to expand...

Because it would be a step backwards. Apple has always been a cutting edge company if they want to stay that way then they have to stay where the really cool stuff is happening and that has never been at Intel. If Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are going with IBM why on earth would anyone want to pick now to go with Intel? Surely Microsoft and Sony aren't stupid!

Now if they were having discussions with AMD I might think something really cool was in progress, i.e that AMD had bought into the PPC architecture (Intel have XScale, AMD really need something similar to play around with) and were planning to make PPC chips themselves - that would be cool.

Personally I am really looking forward to a dual core G4 laptop, a multi-processor cell powered PowerMac and possibly an XScale powered video iPod sometime in the next 18 months, only the last of those make sense with Intel involvement.

Amen-Moses

Another couple interesting write ups:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67750,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

AMD's chip in the low-power space is the Geode which is where XScale plays.
Microsoft sells Windows on Itanium, Xeon, Pentium 4 and Pentium M. That's a pretty healthy endorsement of Intel.

Amen-Moses said:

Because it would be a step backwards. Apple has always been a cutting edge company if they want to stay that way then they have to stay where the really cool stuff is happening and that has never been at Intel. If Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are going with IBM why on earth would anyone want to pick now to go with Intel? Surely Microsoft and Sony aren't stupid!

Now if they were having discussions with AMD I might think something really cool was in progress, i.e that AMD had bought into the PPC architecture (Intel have XScale, AMD really need something similar to play around with) and were planning to make PPC chips themselves - that would be cool.

Personally I am really looking forward to a dual core G4 laptop, a multi-processor cell powered PowerMac and possibly an XScale powered video iPod sometime in the next 18 months, only the last of those make sense with Intel involvement.

Amen-Moses

Click to expand...

Murlyn said:

Another couple interesting write ups:

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67750,00.html?tw=rss.TOP

Click to expand...

Thanks for the articles. They did give a little more info on what was going on, and kinda confirmed the idea that Apple is infact switching to x86, and Intel will not be making any type of PPC related processor for them. Tomorrow should be an interesting news day.

The information I'm most looking for is how Apple is going to prevent OS X from being installed on just any PC. No matter who they do it, if OS X can run on an x86 processor, it'll be cracked and running any any PC in no time at all.