The Apple and x86 Rumor -- Finally Done?
From MacRumors:
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/...12124002.shtml
"Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base. Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple's short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term."
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/...12124002.shtml
"Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base. Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple's short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term."
Comments
Originally posted by Bigc
I'm sure it will arise from the ashes of FH...
"
Originally posted by joek
From MacRumors:
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/...12124002.shtml
"Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base. Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple's short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term."
Hmmmmm .... "Obituaries Today" ... lesseee ...
Johnny Cash ...
John Ritter ...
John C. Dvorak ...? Nope ...
'fraid that rumor ain't dissappearing anytime soon folks ...
[edit: lame-ass grammar, yet again!]
Originally posted by joek
From MacRumors:
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/...12124002.shtml
"Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base. Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple's short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term."
But it doesn't explicitly state that Apple wasn't considering it all along. Heck, maybe IBM was their Plan B.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Gosh, ya think. The G5 does put an end to the performance gap too. Times, they are a changin'.
1. The G5 has not put an end to the performance gap. The gap is still substantial and it will get wider with Prescott later this year.
2. These IBM statements do not preclude the possiblity of an x86 Mac. Like it says, the transition form PowerPC to x86 will take a while. Introducing an x86 at MWSF concurrently with PowerPC machines will smoothen the transition over 3-5 years.
3. Pentium-M is still far ahead of anything Apple has. A 1.25GHz PowerPC 7457 PowerBook will do nothing to the huge gap that exists today. Dothan, a 90 nm Pentium-M with 2MB of on-die L2 cache is also due later this year.
And Apple's portables suck performance wise, period. Hopefully this will change.
Originally posted by Existence
1. The G5 has not put an end to the performance gap. The gap is still substantial and it will get wider with Prescott later this year.
Spoken like someone who has never had his hands on either of these chips. Prescott isn't actually a marvelous chip and I'd be more worried about AMD's offerings if you wanted performance crowns
Originally posted by Existence
3. Pentium-M is still far ahead of anything Apple has. A 1.25GHz PowerPC 7457 PowerBook will do nothing to the huge gap that exists today. Dothan, a 90 nm Pentium-M with 2MB of on-die L2 cache is also due later this year.
I wouldn't count on Dothan appearing this year.
Originally posted by Existence
1. The G5 has not put an end to the performance gap. The gap is still substantial and it will get wider with Prescott later this year. . .
With benchmarks indicating otherwise, could you explain why a substantial gap still exists? I agree Prescott will alter the picture, but so will the 970+ on 90 nanometers, and the mini-Power5, which may be discussed next month at the Microprocessor Forum. For now, it is my impression that the G5 is doing well in the performance department.
Originally posted by Existence
1. The G5 has not put an end to the performance gap. The gap is still substantial and it will get wider with Prescott later this year.
2. These IBM statements do not preclude the possiblity of an x86 Mac. Like it says, the transition form PowerPC to x86 will take a while. Introducing an x86 at MWSF concurrently with PowerPC machines will smoothen the transition over 3-5 years.
3. Pentium-M is still far ahead of anything Apple has. A 1.25GHz PowerPC 7457 PowerBook will do nothing to the huge gap that exists today. Dothan, a 90 nm Pentium-M with 2MB of on-die L2 cache is also due later this year.
Which rock did you crawl out from? Stand back and take a few deep breaths. The light must be bothering you.
Originally posted by jwdawso
Which rock did you crawl out from?
The real world where Apple has dwindling marketshare and revenues.
Originally posted by Existence
The real world where Apple has dwindling marketshare and revenues.
Transitioning to x86 wouldn't do anything to counter this. Companies which have tried that either curled up and died or gave up and went back to their core competancy. The effect of the G5 on Apple's PowerMac sales will be very interesting to see, and will be an indicator of the future.
Originally posted by Existence
1. The G5 has not put an end to the performance gap. The gap is still substantial and it will get wider with Prescott later this year.
If you mean clock for clock performance, you're right, the G5 is substatially faster and it's unlikely any Intel x86 architecture will approach this level of efficiency.
2. These IBM statements do not preclude the possiblity of an x86 Mac. Like it says, the transition form PowerPC to x86 will take a while. Introducing an x86 at MWSF concurrently with PowerPC machines will smoothen the transition over 3-5 years.
Nonsense. In that timeframe Intel might be transitioning to manufacturing PPC chips.
3. Pentium-M is still far ahead of anything Apple has. A 1.25GHz PowerPC 7457 PowerBook will do nothing to the huge gap that exists today. Dothan, a 90 nm Pentium-M with 2MB of on-die L2 cache is also due later this year.
And a 90 nm PPC970 is due at the end of this year as well. What's your point?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jwdawso
Which rock did you crawl out from?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real world where Apple has dwindling marketshare and revenues.
Oh, please.
Note:
Existence hasn't provided any evidence supporting the "Huge" performance Gap
Intel is not the way to go. AMD's 64bit offering may be pretty nice. I've bought my last Intel product with my P3. I think I'm going to build an AMD box after purchasing a new Mac next year.
However as for PPC970 we're looking good. Funny...do a search I bet PC Dreamers like Ex were claiming Intel would be at 4Ghz now. LOL...800Mhz off fellas. Put down the crackpipes.
The current G5s basically pull even with x86 at 1.8 and Duallies put us ahead at 2x 2Ghz. Show me benches to support otherwise.
We're still weak at the lowend but first things first let's get caught up with the high margin units.
If PCs are so good nonExistence then why do you hang out here
Originally posted by Existence
The real world where Apple has dwindling marketshare and revenues.
ROFL!!!!
apple has been going UP!!!!
it was reported at 1.5% of the market in 2001, and in first quarter 2003 its back up to 3.5%!!!!
W00T KEEP IT UP APPLE!!!
Originally posted by Wireless
ROFL!!!!
apple has been going UP!!!!
it was reported at 1.5% of the market in 2001, and in first quarter 2003 its back up to 3.5%!!!!
W00T KEEP IT UP APPLE!!!
Uh Huh.