That doesn't sound like a good idea. It takes ALOT of R&D dollars to design a chip and I just don't think Apple has enough resources to spare. They'd probably be better off switching suppliers.
[quote]Originally posted by Dennis the Phantom Menace:
<strong>They'd probably be better off switching suppliers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like, whom?
IBM seems to be able to push the G3 to a GHz or maybe yet a bit more. And they have the Power(ful)4, which afaik isn't targeted at PCs (including Macs here) though. Neither has AltiVec, so Apple going the G3 way again is unlikely, since developers like AltiVec.
Motorola doesn't seem to want to license AltiVec to IBM, for whatever reason. They don't seem to make much progress with G4 and G5 either, which might leave us with a PowerMac G4 with up to thousand-something (probably around 1,300) MHz by MWNY, which isn't that good after all.
Intel? Nah, they're not into Macintoshes at all.
ARM? They only engineer embedded CPUs, afaik. Plus, they don't actually produce them.
AMD? Now that's a story. How about AMD developing some kind of emulation unit (yeah, I'm at TheRegister rumor quality now, beware...) that runs PPC binary code on their Opteron? Might at the beginning be slower than a G4, but in the long term be faster. They could call it Power5, or IntelSuckz, or... yeah.
Apple engineering their own CPUs is as unlikely as, no wait, even *more* unlikely than AMD joining the PPC alliance.
Think of Apple helping AMD develop such a unit, while IBM continues to build the low-power / low-cost G3 series for the iBook and possible further hardware.
[quote]Intel? Nah, they're not into Macintoshes at all.<hr></blockquote>
I often hear comments like this; unsupported by logic. Intel isn't "into" Macs? As in, if they had an opportunity to sell another five million Pentium processors annually, they'd say, sorry Apple - no soup for you? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Intel or AMD would surely tout such a symbolic and high-profile account to the skies. I'm not suggesting that a switch will happen anytime soon, but any psychological hurdle in the matter would largely be on Apple's part - not Craig Barrett's.
[quote]ARM? They only engineer embedded CPUs, afaik. Plus, they don't actually produce them.
<hr></blockquote>
Acorn used ARM CPUs in their computers. The Acorns were really well designed machines, actually, and had a massive hold on the British education market until recently.
<strong>I often hear comments like this; unsupported by logic. Intel isn't "into" Macs? As in, if they had an opportunity to sell another five million Pentium processors annually, they'd say, sorry Apple - no soup for you? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Intel seems to be strongly directed at the x86 market. Unfortunately, you could now say that the same applies for AMD, which is true But I feel AMD is more open to PPC than Intel is.
[quote]Motorola doesn't seem to want to license AltiVec to IBM, for whatever reason. <hr></blockquote>
You've got that backwards. IBM doesn't want to license Altivec, or do anything else that will taint the RISC "purity" of the G3. IBM is moving every bit as fast as they want to, and they're at least 9 months to a year behind Motorola, MHz wise.
[quote]Uh, like, how? <hr></blockquote>
I hate to break it to you, but Motorola is really doing quite well. From Dec. 2000 to Feb. 2002, they went from 550MHz to 1000MHz, and were getting respectable yields on 1.1GHz parts. That's a doubling of clock speed in just over a year.
I hate to break it to you, but Motorola is really doing quite well. From Dec. 2000 to Feb. 2002, they went from 550MHz to 1000MHz, and were getting respectable yields on 1.1GHz parts. That's a doubling of clock speed in just over a year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, after staying stagnant at 500MHz for over 18 months. So when you look at their progress slightly more long term not quite so impressive.
I doubt that Apple is able to develop a PPC chip alone, but considering the new book E archtitecture, it's possible that Apple will be more implicated in the G5 : choosing what features he want to see in these chips.
[quote] You've got that backwards. IBM doesn't want to license Altivec, or do anything else that will taint the RISC "purity" of the G3. IBM is moving every bit as fast as they want to, and they're at least 9 months to a year behind Motorola, MHz wise.
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly. This is why I don't understand why anyone would be excited about IBM making the G5. If you ask me, it's a BAD thing for IBM to make the G5!
Exactly. This is why I don't understand why anyone would be excited about IBM making the G5. If you ask me, it's a BAD thing for IBM to make the G5!</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's potentially bad if they design the G5, but if Apple did (which BookE makes very possible) and IBM fabbed it then it could be very good indeed as they have much better facilities than Moto.
Talking about future hardware developments and the inclusion of AMD, this came out about a year and half ago, a joint venture by AMD and Motorola, developing a new chip architecture. The joint venture is still going on but is in the process of ending.
Now AMD and UMC are creating a fabrication facility, and AMD has also been working with IBM in developing chips. Anything that was developed during the venture with Motorola could be adapted for use with the new projects.
AMD and IBM could be producing the new G5 processors for Apple not motorola.
Also about this time last year motorola was considering selling off its semi-conductor division. COO Bob Growney said that it wasn't singling out any particular division, but did say no segment is immune from being sold. Motorola still isn't doing well this year either so maybe an offer would be made to buy the division, certainly motorola wouldn't sell off they're cell phone division. If they continue to do bad it would be a sale that would bring them much needed capital. Possible buyers. AMD certainly. IBM as well, Apple is a possiblity but a semiconductor division would sell for more than what I think Apple has in they're war chest.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but let me know what you think. here are some articles as well.
[quote]You've got that backwards. IBM doesn't want to license Altivec, or do anything else that will taint the RISC "purity" of the G3. IBM is moving every bit as fast as they want to, and they're at least 9 months to a year behind Motorola, MHz wise.<hr></blockquote>
two things:
1) IBM is moving some functions into hardware in the next rev of Power
2) Don't forget, IBM just went through a painful architectural jump + process leap. They'll catch up.
Comments
<strong>what was the processor used in the neXT boxen? maybe apple can use that.
040's...
apple was using them.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: janitor ]</p>
<strong>
040's...
apple was using them.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: janitor ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now they are used in Palms. The dragonball is a member of the 040 family.
<strong>They'd probably be better off switching suppliers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like, whom?
IBM seems to be able to push the G3 to a GHz or maybe yet a bit more. And they have the Power(ful)4, which afaik isn't targeted at PCs (including Macs here) though. Neither has AltiVec, so Apple going the G3 way again is unlikely, since developers like AltiVec.
Motorola doesn't seem to want to license AltiVec to IBM, for whatever reason. They don't seem to make much progress with G4 and G5 either, which might leave us with a PowerMac G4 with up to thousand-something (probably around 1,300) MHz by MWNY, which isn't that good after all.
Intel? Nah, they're not into Macintoshes at all.
ARM? They only engineer embedded CPUs, afaik. Plus, they don't actually produce them.
AMD? Now that's a story. How about AMD developing some kind of emulation unit (yeah, I'm at TheRegister rumor quality now, beware...) that runs PPC binary code on their Opteron? Might at the beginning be slower than a G4, but in the long term be faster. They could call it Power5, or IntelSuckz, or...
Apple engineering their own CPUs is as unlikely as, no wait, even *more* unlikely than AMD joining the PPC alliance.
Think of Apple helping AMD develop such a unit, while IBM continues to build the low-power / low-cost G3 series for the iBook and possible further hardware.
I often hear comments like this; unsupported by logic. Intel isn't "into" Macs? As in, if they had an opportunity to sell another five million Pentium processors annually, they'd say, sorry Apple - no soup for you? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Intel or AMD would surely tout such a symbolic and high-profile account to the skies. I'm not suggesting that a switch will happen anytime soon, but any psychological hurdle in the matter would largely be on Apple's part - not Craig Barrett's.
<strong>what was the processor used in the neXT boxen? maybe apple can use that.
I wonder if they can scale the 68060 to 2-3Ghz
<hr></blockquote>
Acorn used ARM CPUs in their computers. The Acorns were really well designed machines, actually, and had a massive hold on the British education market until recently.
Amorya
<strong>I often hear comments like this; unsupported by logic. Intel isn't "into" Macs? As in, if they had an opportunity to sell another five million Pentium processors annually, they'd say, sorry Apple - no soup for you? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Intel seems to be strongly directed at the x86 market. Unfortunately, you could now say that the same applies for AMD, which is true
<strong>No way man, Moto is going to pull through! You'll see!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, like, how?
You've got that backwards. IBM doesn't want to license Altivec, or do anything else that will taint the RISC "purity" of the G3. IBM is moving every bit as fast as they want to, and they're at least 9 months to a year behind Motorola, MHz wise.
[quote]Uh, like, how? <hr></blockquote>
I hate to break it to you, but Motorola is really doing quite well. From Dec. 2000 to Feb. 2002, they went from 550MHz to 1000MHz, and were getting respectable yields on 1.1GHz parts. That's a doubling of clock speed in just over a year.
<strong>
I hate to break it to you, but Motorola is really doing quite well. From Dec. 2000 to Feb. 2002, they went from 550MHz to 1000MHz, and were getting respectable yields on 1.1GHz parts. That's a doubling of clock speed in just over a year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, after staying stagnant at 500MHz for over 18 months. So when you look at their progress slightly more long term not quite so impressive.
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly. This is why I don't understand why anyone would be excited about IBM making the G5. If you ask me, it's a BAD thing for IBM to make the G5!
<strong>
Exactly. This is why I don't understand why anyone would be excited about IBM making the G5. If you ask me, it's a BAD thing for IBM to make the G5!</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's potentially bad if they design the G5, but if Apple did (which BookE makes very possible) and IBM fabbed it then it could be very good indeed as they have much better facilities than Moto.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: Blackcat ]</p>
Now AMD and UMC are creating a fabrication facility, and AMD has also been working with IBM in developing chips. Anything that was developed during the venture with Motorola could be adapted for use with the new projects.
AMD and IBM could be producing the new G5 processors for Apple not motorola.
Also about this time last year motorola was considering selling off its semi-conductor division. COO Bob Growney said that it wasn't singling out any particular division, but did say no segment is immune from being sold. Motorola still isn't doing well this year either so maybe an offer would be made to buy the division, certainly motorola wouldn't sell off they're cell phone division. If they continue to do bad it would be a sale that would bring them much needed capital. Possible buyers. AMD certainly. IBM as well, Apple is a possiblity but a semiconductor division would sell for more than what I think Apple has in they're war chest.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but let me know what you think. here are some articles as well.
<a href="http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20010824S0031" target="_blank">silicon strategies</a>
<a href="http://www.ebnonline.com/story/OEG20020201S0077" target="_blank">ebnonline</a>
<a href="http://chip-architect.com/news/2000_11_25_AMD_process_tech.html" target="_blank">chip-architect</a>
Jet
[quote]You've got that backwards. IBM doesn't want to license Altivec, or do anything else that will taint the RISC "purity" of the G3. IBM is moving every bit as fast as they want to, and they're at least 9 months to a year behind Motorola, MHz wise.<hr></blockquote>
two things:
1) IBM is moving some functions into hardware in the next rev of Power
2) Don't forget, IBM just went through a painful architectural jump + process leap. They'll catch up.