Intel, AMD, Motorola? All bets are off
Just read an article in the British MacWorld magazine, it was about which chip Apple will choose for the next Powermac.
It's all speculation but it comes to the conclusion that Apple will use both the Motorola G5 and IBM 970 chipset, and even though OS X could be ported to the Intel processor and it would probably make the most sense, it says Apple won't use it because they will not be able to justify the increased price of a Powermac with the same chips as less expensive PC's.
It's all speculation but it comes to the conclusion that Apple will use both the Motorola G5 and IBM 970 chipset, and even though OS X could be ported to the Intel processor and it would probably make the most sense, it says Apple won't use it because they will not be able to justify the increased price of a Powermac with the same chips as less expensive PC's.
Comments
This article is undoubtedly fictional in every aspect.
Moto is gone as the high end Proc producer. Apple may continue to utilize the G4 but it's PCC 970 from now on.
Intel processors make no sense whatsoever. No Altivec, huge code rewirte for performance that is not substantially superior. It actually make less sense to go Intel now that we have information on the PPC 970.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Why would Apple use two distinct processors?
Because every processor has different engineering tradeoffs and every machine has slightly different requirements? I'm not saying the G5 exists, but having multiple kinds of processors to choose from would be very good for Apple. Look at Intel's line up -- desktop, notebook, hand-held, and server.
Originally posted by Programmer
Because every processor has different engineering tradeoffs and every machine has slightly different requirements? I'm not saying the G5 exists, but having multiple kinds of processors to choose from would be very good for Apple. Look at Intel's line up -- desktop, notebook, hand-held, and server.
I guess I should have been more clear. In which way does this article suppose that a Motorola G5 would offer any benefits to Apple?
Currently I see the most efficient use of processors to be G4 Low end for 2004 and 970 Midrange to High End.
Originally posted by coolmac
it says Apple won't use it because they will not be able to justify the increased price of a Powermac with the same chips as less expensive PC's.
the reason they cost more isn't the hardware well not all the hardware but the software
It is obvious the 12" PowerBook is the prototype for the next iBook G4.
But what do I know!
Originally posted by MacAficionado
Well, it makes sense, it is a lot like right now, G4's for the high end and G3's for the low end.
It is obvious the 12" PowerBook is the prototype for the next iBook G4.
But what do I know!
ibooks wont have g4's till powerbooks have g5's ibooks are supposed to be low end laptops
Perhaps Apple was choosing wisely in this regard. Leverage IBM's expertise in powerful chips for PowerMacs and work stations, but encourage Motorola to continue the G4 and future PowerPCs for portable computing solutions. Their expertise in embedded low power processors should blend well for this task.
Now if Motorola can ever deliver on their 7457 chip.
As for OS X on Intel, that one won't happen anytime soon. Why would Apple abandon years of developer work on the PowerPC when IBM has a worthy processor waiting in the wings? What might be feasible would be to develop a PCI based Centrino processor card that could plug into a slot to allow folks who still need to use Windows the opportunity to do so at reasonably good native speeds. The 970 might still make such a solution moot however, even if running emulated x86 code.
Could Motorola perhaps shrink the die on the G4, rework the memory bus and give us a very low power chip ideal for laptops?
Yes they probably could be IBM already has a 970 aimed at low power implementations. It's 1.1 volts and dissipates 19watts @ 1.2Ghz. So you have to ask yourself ..would Moto go through the effort to redesign the MPX bus just to run smack dab into stout competition from IBM?
but encourage Motorola to continue the G4 and future PowerPCs for portable computing solutions. Their expertise in embedded low power processors should blend well for this task.
I think that makes sense. The G4/MPX Bus architecture is mature and reliable. Apple is going to want to stick with this architecture for any Price Sensitive markets(read...consumer) they wish to compete in. I see 2004 as the G4's swan song.
IBM has spent 2.5Billion+ on the Fishkill plant and the Linux PPC initiative. They have no room to be timid. They must get design wins and they must crank out chips like mad. Should that happen not only will IBM be happy but Apple will be a huge beneficiary. I just don't see that sort of opportunity on Intel chips. Computer users tend to be fair weather fans for the most part. A person may purchase an AMD system one year and Intel the next. The talk about OSX on intel is the Mac version of Processor Envy. Everything however is cyclical. Apple will have comparable speeds THIS year which will cause PC Weenies to move to the next complaint which is price. Fine with me as long as I'm satisfied with the hardware.
Motorolas time as a CPU supplier to Apple is drawing to an end. The only viald reason to use "G5" is if they offer more or less drop in replacement of old G4s. If they have to do substantial design changes and there are 970 CPUs compatible with the task they might as well use them as that is were Apple is heading.
Apple need to invest in the future CPU partner (IBM) and not the past Motorola.
With the vast performance lead of the 970 (way more than the 604 had to the 601 or the G3 had to the 604)were even a CPU at half the top speed, 900 MHz beat the current top of the line 1.42 GHz G4, I can only see two reasons no to use the 970 across the line.
1. Poor yields of the CPU
With prototypes at 2.5 GHz and IBM doing the manufacturing I have a hard time imagine that making CPUs in the 900 MHz to 1.5 GHz range would be that hard.
2. Severe problems with the Motherboards, heat and support chip issues.
The 970 is not a CPU for watercooled mainframes were cost of support chips and heat is a non issue. Linux based blade servers is a market were both cost and heat matters. I do not see any intrinsic reason why the 970 could be difficult to implement in the iMac and the portable