Processor

I know this may be an incredibly naive question but, why can't apple make their own proccessors? The G5 speed climbs have been lacking and speaking of Motorola around Mac fans is dangerous venture. After all the disapointments why can't apple spend a couple of years setting up the infrastructure to make their own chips?

Motorola does not make the G5's....IBM does

g3 and g4 were motorola

G3 was a Motorola/IBM joint venture, like the PowerPC architecture itself (IBM still makes G3 based CPUs).
Why doesn't Apple build it's own processors? Quite simple, they don't have the know-how, budget and ressources to do that.
All those companies that make CPUs are specialised in that area since a very long time. Intel, Motorola, IBM, Sun...all those companies make CPUs since the beginning of the computer aera. Apple never built it's own CPUs, like for example Commodore did. Well, we all know where Commodore did go...and we definitely don't want Apple go the same route, do we?

I realize that motorola doesn't make the G5, I was just noting how the G5 speed bumps have been lackluster along with Motorola's poor delivery history. I bit misleading I admit.

Anyways, thanks for the replies.

The whole industry has "hit the wall", says Jobs. Watch the WWDC 2004 and he'll explain. Bascily, the technology they use at the moment called 90 nanometre has stopped producing an increase in speeds. In the last year Intel's processor speeds have gone up about 12.5%, where as IBM's (the G5) processors have gone up 25%. It's better to be with Apple at the moment.

Bot Intel and AMD have both decided to get into dual-processors now because they recon it'll be easier. Umm, guess who's been doing that for the last few years...

Imagine if there were MORE than two processors per computer! Imagine the power!

Also, Microsoft doesn't make processors (and almost certainly never intends to as long as it's got Intel and American Micro Devices on its side), so why should Apple?

It's because Apple knows that IBM makes the best processors, probably. If Apple made their own processors they'd probably not be great at first, since Apple's never done that. Even if they were really good nobody would trust Apple because it's never made its own processors. So Apple sticks with what it knows, and everybody's happy.

Motorolla and IBM may not up the processor speeds that often now, but the Pentium 4's been at 3.4GHz for like a year now. So IBM isn't too bad off.

IBM's processors are the best so far. Apple may be able to make better processors, but it probably isn't willing to take that risk right now.

iSheep said:

The whole industry has "hit the wall", says Jobs. Watch the WWDC 2004 and he'll explain. Bascily, the technology they use at the moment called 90 nanometre has stopped producing an increase in speeds. In the last year Intel's processor speeds have gone up about 12.5%, where as IBM's (the G5) processors have gone up 25%. It's better to be with Apple at the moment.

Bot Intel and AMD have both decided to get into dual-processors now because they recon it'll be easier. Umm, guess who's been doing that for the last few years...

Click to expand...

Intel had a Dual Processor Pentium Pro at one point but dropped it. Sun Micro builds systems with multiprocessors and has been for a long time, so Apple is just one of those who decided to stick with it, is all.

Very few individuals need the High End power that Intel has produced. Sure it's nice to be at the head of the pecking order, but the average computer user doesn't need so much power.

Remember that AMD stopped trying to compete with Intel on raw numbers but instead built systems with compatible hardware that has met or beaten Intel, and at a lower cost.

Yeah, believe me, Intel and AMD are, besides IBM and Motorola, the only processor companies not to be taken lightly (especially AMD). While Intel still has yet to release a 64-bit processor, their Pentium 4s are still quite fast (although I don't think their Celerons and Centrinos should be taken as seriously). It's definitely a possibility that one P4 chip could beat two (that is, duel) 2.5 GHz G5s, depending on the P4's MHz. And once the Pentium 5 comes out, they will pretty much destroy the competition from both IBM and AMD.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11785

That article's a year old, but when I read it, I was trembling with fear at what this will do to the competition. Four to six months to get it to market, eh? Well, it's definitely past July 2004, so where's the Pentium 5, eh? Maybe it was just a rumor. Of course, it's not like the Pentium 5 will never exist (and it will almost certainly have be 64-bit, since both AMD and IBM are currently selling 64-bit chips), but 5 to 7 GHz!?!?!?!?!?!? THAT'S UNBELIEVABLE!!!! And they expected it to already be out!

Now, about AMD. Currently, their top processors probably pack an even more powerful puch than Intel's top processors, largely due to the fact that they're 64-bit, but also do to the fact that PCs with dual-processors run on AMD's products.

Most PC's companys don't make a processor for themselves. Usually thats Intel's or AMD's job

Wow, I read that article, and saw the "related topics" below. I personally don't believe a Pentium 6 would run as fast as 20 Ghz.

Well, if you travel back in time 20 years and tell Intel they will build a 3GHz CPU, they would probably lock you up in a psychiatric hospital...

20GHz sounds impressive, and it is with today's technology, but who knows how things will develop?

If a future CPU will work optically, not electrically, 20GHz isn't that impressive anymore...

Apple doesn't build their own processor. It's the same reason Dell, Gateway, Microsoft, Creative Labs don't build a processor. Apple is in the business of building a computer and selling software. They leave the processor business up to the pros, whether it's Intel, IBM, TI, or whatnot.

Intel has earned due respect by building the fastest commodity processors. You guys should check out the benchmarks at www.specweb.org. Intel processors are fast, usually faster than many of so called workstations. That's why Windows PC is so popular. Fast cheap computers.

Allthough that's true, Windows is the biggest power sucker in all this...unless Windows doesn't get rid of some very old baggage (the too vulnerable registry being the first), it will never use a CPUs power as much as it could...no matter on which CPU it runs.
The most stable and fast Windows I ever saw is Windows CE, one of the reasons being no software can mess it up.

I'm getting amazed everyday how much better my Mac at home running Panther handles so much better running multiple applications, compared to my PC at work, running Windows. And yet, the PC has a 3.06GHZ P4 with Hyperthreading turned on, which definitely, in raw power, should be faster than the 1.25MHz G4 in my PowerMac...

The best CPU is worth nothing, if the system doesn't use it efficiently...

So far everyone has given lots of reasons why they haven't, but not why they couldn't. Is it possible? Would it be potentially better for them on an image basis (Now we make the processors too! marketing) by achieving higher megahertz/ performance ratings, as well as cost effective in the long run?

First of all, Avalon, RAM and even possibly hard drive space could also affect how well each of your computers handle. What's the RAM for the G4, and what's the RAM for the one with the Pentium 4? And what's the hard drive space for each, and how much of it has been taken up?

Now, COULD Apple make processors? Almost certainly, since while they have never actually done it entirely before, I'm pretty sure people from Apple actually have assisted people from IBM or Motorola in building the processors. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. But this would be a completely new field for Apple. A completely new gamble. They would not likely be able to compete with the other companies. This would be incredibly risky, and it would be a mistake.

But probably the main reason is simply because Apple currently has a contract with IBM for them to be the ones to design the processors for the Macs. Apple also still has a bit of a contract left with Motorola, as there are still G4s out there still in production (like for PowerBooks, iBooks, and eMacs). Until these contracts expire, Apple's not gonna even think about making their own processors, and even when the contracts do expire, it's incredibly, incredibly unlikely (Apple almost certainly won't renew the contract with Motorola, even when it's time to make a G6).

If I made any factual errors above, then I apologize, and request that you correct my mistakes.

Nightblade said:

First of all, Avalon, RAM and even possibly hard drive space could also affect how well each of your computers handle. What's the RAM for the G4, and what's the RAM for the one with the Pentium 4? And what's the hard drive space for each, and how much of it has been taken up?

Click to expand...

Yes, Nightblade, I know that RAM and HD space (among other things) is crucial to performance. The P4 actually has 1GB (40GB HD, 50% used), and the G4 768MB (80GB and 120GB HD, the system being on the 80GB HD, 60% used). And, of course, the FSB of the P4 is much higher than that of the G4 (533MHz to 167MHz), which is crucial for overall performance too...
Believe me, I worked a lot with PCs, different setups, and with all Windows versions... I know what I'm talking about.
Windows XP is the best Windows so far...but still it has some major flaws that makes it slow down a system sometimes to an ammount it becomes unbearable...

I don't believe your 1.2GHz Mac is faster than 3GHz HT Intel.

I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying there might be something wrong with your PC.

Orion119 said:

So far everyone has given lots of reasons why they haven't, but not why they couldn't. Is it possible? Would it be potentially better for them on an image basis (Now we make the processors too! marketing) by achieving higher megahertz/ performance ratings, as well as cost effective in the long run?

Click to expand...

First of all, I don't think you understand the complexity of building microprocessors. There are more failed attempts than successful ones. Ever heard of NexGen, Cyrix, DEC Alpha, HP PA-RISC, SGI, and what happened to them? Microprocessor market is brutal.

Look at Motorola. The reason they couldn't build a fast processor is not because they are just a bunch of idiots. Look at IBM. They used to have the largest fabrication facility, but now they are struggling to keep up with Intel processors.

Another fact in history. Almost all companies who attempted to build their own processor for their computers went under. IBM is the only healthy example, and the reason they can keep doing that is not because of the sales of the servers, but because of service contracts. Sun Microsystem is barely hanging on, but not for long.

Computer and microprocessor are competely different business. There is no reason Apple should go into microprocessor business.

MoltenLava said:

I don't believe your 1.2GHz Mac is faster than 3GHz HT Intel.

I'm not doubting you, I'm just saying there might be something wrong with your PC.

Click to expand...

Well, it isn't generally faster, it's just that Windows often has hickups while doing simple things, which the Mac doesn't...in the last 6 months, I had 3 different PCs, 1.7GHz, 2.66GHz and 3.06GHz HT...you know what? The only difference I noticed was that, since I have the 3GHz HT, I can use my PC while I'm burning a CD. Which was simply not possible before!! Thing's haven't really become noticeable faster, while on my Mac I could do this without noticing a slow down...
Win2000 might not be the newest system, but it really sucks big time...