nvidia, amd, and the G5

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I'd like to take a guess at what happened with the G5, and where Apple's next architecture is coming from.



In a nutshell: Nvidia and AMD.



I may be wrong, but I think there's a good case to be made that this is a real possibility.



There is an interesting <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.07/Nvidia.html"; target="_blank">piece</a>in this month's Wired about Nvidia and its CEO, Jen-Hsun Huang.



Huang believes Nvidia can topple Intel, essentially by making the GPU so powerful that it becomes the focus of a machine's design, and just "absorbs" the CPU as an afterthought.



Given the rate at which Nvidia's chips have been evolving -- doubling in transistor count every 6 months, 3 times Moore's law -- I think he has to be taken seriously.



So here's the argument:



(1) Recent rumors that 12-18 months ago there was a major "mid-course correction" in G5 development, in which Apple shelved the existing project and solicited new bids; and Motorola lost.



(2) IBM seems at first glance to be the obvious alternative, but is not a comfortable fit, because Apple's ambitions in the high-end server market overlap with IBM's own offerings.



(3) Nvidia/AMD is a comfortable fit, for the following reasons:
  • graphics from Nvidia, custom tailored to meet Apple's needs in high-end video and film processing

  • Opteron cpu from AMD, giving it parity (perhaps better) with Intel for non-graphics processing

  • If IBM could reverse-engineer Altivec, so could Nvidia/AMD (giving us an Opteron with Altivec units)

  • Nvidia and AMD, both competing against Intel, lock in 100% of a small but (with their help) potentially explosive chunk of the market (Apple)

  • Nvidia and AMD, both competing against Intel, have life-or-death incentive to innovate, follow fast production cycles, and meet production deadlines (unlike Motorola)

Finally, just a gut feeling - reading the Wired interview with Huang, I got the feeling he and Jobs would get along extremely well.



Thoughts?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 57
    arwarw Posts: 16member
    That's a good point and a great oppertunity for apple. I don't really think that it will happen anytime soon, it may be in the works for a post G5 processor, however. I think apple could benifit from this greatly and I hope to see it happen. Motorola's long rain as apple's suplier has proved inconsistant and unreliable long enough.



    -ARW
  • Reply 2 of 57
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    [quote]Originally posted by ARW:

    <strong>That's a good point and a great oppertunity for apple. I don't really think that it will happen anytime soon, it may be in the works for a post G5 processor, however. I think apple could benifit from this greatly and I hope to see it happen. Motorola's long rain as apple's suplier has proved inconsistant and unreliable long enough.



    -ARW</strong><hr></blockquote>



    and I assume you do mean rain and not reign.
  • Reply 3 of 57
    Think Quartz Extreme plus nVidia super-GPUs plus AMD Hypertransport.



    I believe this collaboration, and not the G5, will define the next few years of Mac hardware.
  • Reply 4 of 57
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by arbitrary:

    <strong>





    I may be wrong,

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Thanks to be realist.



    I doubt that AMD will make the G5, since the AIM alliance Apple have two suppliers for his chips : Mot and IBM.

    Apple will never enter in direct competition in the market of high end servers, where IBM is the king and where servers cost several dozens thousands dollars. As many geeks here have said : you can put a power4 in a mac without making him burning. The best alternative to mot is IBM. If IBM is able to make a new chip with an altivec stuff like,Apple will choose it for his high end product. IBM is the only company able know to product SOI 0,13 product with low K dielectric.



    Mot seems more interested in the embedded market : the G4 7455 was awarded best embedded chip processor of the year 2001.



    The rumors seems to say that the next chip will be made by IBM and will not be call the G5, therefore it explains why some people say that there will no G5
  • Reply 5 of 57
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    I read yesterday that NEC subcontracts out its 0.13 micron plant, and is moving to 0.11 next year.



    a) dont be so sure that its only Intel/IBM/Moto/Amd that have advanced fabs



    b) what is b?
  • Reply 6 of 57
    spookyspooky Posts: 504member
    I can't see how nVidia can have any credibility in rumors about new mac hardware - they don't even offer their Quadros etc for Macs. We just get the GForce Titanium as the top end.
  • Reply 7 of 57
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Apple still needs another 2 years at leas for OS X to mature before they can expect third party developers to be willing to migrate to another processor. The main reason for this is that software has to be OS X native to migrate, and there is a good amount of software out there that is still "clasic".



    That said, Apple has successfully changed chips once, and I think they could do it in the future when/if it is needed.
  • Reply 8 of 57
    jccbinjccbin Posts: 476member
    The processor change mentioned would NOT be a change like from 68K to PPC. Apple has rights to PPC along with MOT and IBM and may be able to license the manufacture of the G5 to whomever - with (or perhaps without) the approval of MOT/IBM.



    It is quite possible that MOT and Apple have together gone to AMD for this, and possible that Apple exercised its power in the AIM consortium to move that production to AMD/Nvidia.



    Jobs may have insisted in a clause inthe MOT contract that allows Apple to move actual production to another vendor in the event that MOT cannot get chips up to speed or to spec.



    That the new vendors may be AMD and/or Nvidia is very much up for debate. If so, then MOT is really in deep doodoo.
  • Reply 9 of 57
    spotbugspotbug Posts: 361member
    The two weeks before a MacWorld keynote sure are fun!
  • Reply 10 of 57
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    "Thoughts?"



    Compelling argument.







    Lemon Bon Bon



    PS. Hard to see...the future is...
  • Reply 11 of 57
    jdbonjdbon Posts: 109member
    Its obvious that Motorola has no real interest in competing in the high-end desktop PC/Workstation area. I know that megahertz are not the best and only measure of performance, but they are important in marketing. I don't have a problem with Apple offering machines with lower megahertz than say Intel, but the fact that they do not scale as quickly and do not offer a faster bus and memory are a problem. Apple needs a processor vendor who cares about the desktop PC market. For AMD I think that making processors for Apple would be a smart move. Having Apple basically provides an extra 5 percent in the processor market, but even more importantly gives them a premier computer maker to show off their technology. Who uses AMD these days? Not Dell or Gateway, and other vendors such as Compaq or Sony market AMD as a low end, budget alternative to Intel. Apple could license the PPC architecture to AMD, and AMD could use the Opteron as a start to design their next gen processor (it is inherently a RISC processor). Apple would not need to migrate to a new platform , and they would also get a vendor who will provide higher clocking chips that scale faster, keep up with new advancements in bus and memory technology, and in all likelyhood be able to fabricate more chips which would allow Apple to make more multiprocessor Macs.
  • Reply 12 of 57
    thresherthresher Posts: 35member
    AMD and Apple need each other.



    AMD has great processors but is not taken seriously in the business world. The upcoming Hammer line (Opteron and Athlon) will both be 64bit chips that are backward compatible with 32 bit applications. Intel has a 64bit chip (the Itanium), but it's expensive and older apps will not work on it.



    All the PC manufacturers realize that AMD offers a better price/performance ratio than intel, but they are afraid of angering the ever vengeful intel. HP/Compaq use Athlons in their bottom of the line machines, even though the AMD lines consistently beat their intel counterparts (intel has recently pulled ahead again, but the Hammer should top intel yet again). Gateway has an off and on relationship with AMD and Dell doesn't use them at all.



    Where can AMD find acceptance? In the Apple market. Apple is already in direct competition with intel, so there is no fear there. As an added bonus, AMD may be able to bring over legions of AMD fanboys to the Apple side. AMD has a loyal base of enthusiasts that almost rivals the Apple fan base. They have no love of intel or Microsoft. I myself have a homebuilt Athlon rig that is a wonderful gaming machine.



    Apple needs a higher power CPU, AMD has one. AMD needs acceptance in the market by the mainstream, Apple could provide that.



    Two things stand in the way:

    1. Creating a proprietary version of the X86-64 platform that Apple can control.

    2. Porting OS X over to X86-64 platform.



    I think these are easily surmountable. For one thing, all Apple has to do is create some motherboard specific components that would lock out other vendors. As for porting OS X, I wouldn't be surprised if that hasn't already been done.



    Will it happen? If Apple wants to gain more market share, it is vital that they do something of this sort. Apple needs horsepower desperately.



    Oh, there may be a third obstacle. Will Steve ever get real and realize that Motorola is a dead end?



    [ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: Thresher ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 57
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Speed is overrated. Stability is the #1 issue affecting the majority of Computer users today.



    Analogy...ever received a speeding ticket? Bet you wished that you kept a steady and lawful pace rather than go all out for speed and pay the consequences.
  • Reply 14 of 57
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    Very interesting reading.



    AMD are bleeding cash. They need to make more money...in the high end. Apple could give them this chance.



    Why not a PPC decoder rather than the x86 32-bit decoder? If Transmeta can 'morph' code...why not AMD?



    Then again...Apple have ported to different CPUs in the past...why not a proprietary x86 board?



    The 'Opteron' is AMDs chance. Apple may only have 5% marketshare but that is '5%' AMD would surely relish?



    With Hypertransport, Motorola's ailing position in the AIM alliance...I can't help feel something's gotta give. Hypertransport...doesn't that have over twice the bandwidth of Rapid Io? OR significantly more?



    Didn't take Nvidia long to say yes to an OEM contract?



    I wonder...



    Nvidia, AMD could find a safe haven in Apple's strangehaven....and it could potentially be a strong alliance in graphics...



    Haven't Nvidia's shares taken a pounding? Doesn't AMD need the cash?



    Muse on.



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 15 of 57
    thresherthresher Posts: 35member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>Speed is overrated. Stability is the #1 issue affecting the majority of Computer users today.



    Analogy...ever received a speeding ticket? Bet you wished that you kept a steady and lawful pace rather than go all out for speed and pay the consequences.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Speed is not the only factor, but it is important. I have a Mac and 3 PCs. I love my Powerbook dearly, but it is noticeably slower than my other three computers. I'm new to the Mac, so I don't know if it's hardware or OS related, but it's definitely less snappy.



    As you say this, Apple is getting further and further behind in CPU technology. Yes, the G4 does more work per cycle than a Pentium 4 (and Athlon which is also more efficient that the intel lines), but there hasn't been much of an improvement in a few years.



    There is also the marketing perspective to be concerned about. New shopper goes into a CompUSA and has the typical CompUSidiot helping them. He doesn't really know how to sell the Mac. Shopper looks at the intel boxes, sees 2.0 GHz plastered all over and sees a fairly spiffy looking OS. Goes to the Mac, sees a slower (in clock speed) CPU, higher price (even though we all know that is misleading), and a spiffy interface. Which unit does the person buy? My money is on the intel/AMD box because all they see is that the intel is "faster" and the OS is shiny. Unless the benefits of OS X and Apple are explained, Apple doesn't stand a chance.



    I think and Apple/AMD combination would put intel and Microsoft into a world of hurt. It would allow them to have higher CPU frequencies, a built in fan base of both Apple and AMD fans, and since the underlying hardware would be similar, the real difference would be the OS. OS X would win the battle if it's brought down to that level.



    I use both. I am very proficient with WinXP and the rest of the MS junk, Linux, and I'm getting better at OS X every day. OS X beats the others HANDS DOWN. Limiting the battle to this point would be a winning plan.



    [ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: Thresher ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 57
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    "but it's definitely less snappy."



    Agreed. Quartz Extreme may go some way to addressing this. But I've noticed the latest PCs have more 'zip' with Apps etc than Apple's 'latest' kit.



    I do think Apple, AMD and Nvidia could form a significant alliance. As Nvidia competes more and more with Intel...along with AMD...these ARE companies that will have to fight for their lives! Just as Apple itself is. AMD and Nvidia would be good strategic allies...whether they are on the x86 fence or not. Especially as Nividia gets further into graphic and motherboard tech'...and there's that Hypertransport...with an Opteron? That's gotta hurt.



    I don't see a G4, even at 2 gighz say...on Rapid Io being able to counter that level of performance.



    I think if Apple are buying apps like Chalice (and no doubt have their eye on somebody's 3D high end app...) etc then they have got to be serious about what kind of hardware kit they put out.



    A modified Opteron on Hypertransport with a high end dual GPU(?)Nvidia Quadro Extreme would make the kind of killer kit Apple needs.



    G4 on Rio all the way up to Macworld New York next year kind of makes me nervous...



    Having said all that...I can't help but think that Apple will have taken steps to sort out the Moto debacle some time ago and the 'G4' fiasco is merely being 'played out'...the question is, for me...just how long is it going to be played out before we get the really exciting stuff...



    Having seen all the excitement over 'X', style and design of Apple computers...and the innovative Apple stores...the great strides made in games, a super website...a nifty 'switch' campaign...an aggressive 'high end' software aquisition policy...great consumer iapps, adopting other standards in a compelling 'apple' way...the one thing that seems to come up short...is the actual tech specs of their machines.



    Average...to be polite about it. Given the superb Apple strategums outlined above...doesn't it seem rather odd to think that the same 'radical' and 'aggressive' Apple doesn't(?) have similar aggressive plans regarding the specs of their machines?



    ie a 'power'Mac worthy of the name 'Powermac'?



    Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />



    [ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]



    [ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 57
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    all things will change with time, nothin' remains the same.



    so quit whinin'
  • Reply 17 of 57
    jdbonjdbon Posts: 109member
    Its funny in a way that Apple is constantly flip flopping between having the best hardware and having the best software. In the Late 90s the G3 destroyed the Pentium II, but ran a less robust OS (no flames please) . By the time OS X shipped, those fast G3s were very antiquated and did not run Os X as well as many expected. Apple now has a great OS, great Apps (with more to come) they just need another "G3" that is significantly faster than the x86 competition (remember the snail add?). Once Apple gets there hardware at least on par with the x86 world I think that Apple could potentially gain another 3-4% market share gain, which is fairly substantial taking all factors into consideration.
  • Reply 19 of 57
    lemon bon bonlemon bon bon Posts: 2,383member
    "so quit whinin' "



    So...who's whining?



    Mr. Big 'C'...?



    (Do you ever have anything useful to say above your usual one and a half sentence of 'C...'?)



    Lemon Bon Bon
  • Reply 20 of 57
    If the rumors of a "mid-course correction" in G5 development are true (G5 shelved, Apple solicits new bids)... just imagine Steve Jobs, Avie Tevanian, the whole crew, sitting there trying to decide whether to



    (a) stick with Motorola

    or

    (b) go with IBM or AMD/Nvidia.



    What was their thought process? Were they thinking short term or long term? Play it safe, or take a chance? Just try to survive, or go after a serious chunk of Intel/MS marketshare?



    On the one hand, SJ has said that "in this business, success is spelled survival". On the other hand, you know it has to be eating him up inside (and Tevanian) to see such a beautiful OS, innovative applications, and killer marketing, barely moving the marketshare needle. What's missing?



    Killer hardware, that's what. Apple is getting it's ass kicked on raw hardware speed (except for a few lucky apps that can make heavy use of Altivec), and they know it. They can't say it in public, but they sure as hell know it. They're not stupid. And it must be gnawing away at them.



    So what do they do? Motorola has no compelling incentive to produce a high performance desktop/workstation cpu. None. They make gear for routers and such. If it happens to also be serviceable for desktops, great, but the vast bulk of their profits are elsewhere.



    If you were Jobs and Tevanian, would you want to handcuff yourself to Motorola for another 3-5 year cpu cycle?



    Not unless there was no alternative.



    So there they are, sitting around the table. They have 3 bids in front of them. Motorola (G5). IBM (Power4 Lite). AMD/Nvidia (Opteron, plus custom Nvidia GPU). Where do they want Apple to be, in 5 years?



    Which would you pick? If it was me... no way I'd stick with Motorola. They are an anchor around Apple's neck, and have little incentive to improve. IBM would be better, but IBM will not hand over the real crown jewels (uncrippled Power4 derivatives), because they don't want Apple and OS X anywhere near their own turf.



    Which leaves AMD/Nvidia. Both are aggressive, hungry, and have the looming specter of Intel to keep them aggressive and hungry.



    Steve looks at Avie. Avie looks at Steve.



    Which one do they pick?



    [ 07-05-2002: Message edited by: arbitrary ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.