i agree, tiger. i would have thought that AMD's chips would be faster and better chips, but i guess not. perhaps they don't have quite the "performance per watt" that Steve was looking for. at this point, i think we just have to trust Steve's judgment, theres not a lot we can do about it now. hopefully everything works out for the better and we get some SWEET machines in the future. and dual-boot is sounding increasingly good. hard to argue with the best of both worlds.
the POWER5 solves one of the biggest problems with the G5- memory latency, because it has an integrated memory controler. a derivation of the POWER5, i.e. PPC980 w/ 90 nm shrink would be a very fast CPU and possibly scale better than the 970.
yonah is only supposed to be in the 1.6 ---> 2.2 GHz range. how does this compare with what freescale had planned in their iteration of the G4, but dual-core ??
i think the reason that we arent seein AMD is because of their ties to IBM as far as process technology (dont they fab their processors in the same place now???) and also AMD's CEO is a former Motorola guy. seems to me that steve isnt the most level-headed person and tends to hold grudges. he doesnt always think rationally, look at the whole ATI fiasco before MW a few yrs ago.
what i think apple should have done is keep its options open and not severe all ties from PowerPC. if they could get intel on board, use them for the future technology and keep IBM on-board in order to have the best CPUs to choose from. since apparently mathlab only took a few code changes and was done for x86 in 2 hrs, it shouldnt be too hard keep things runnin...especially since we know rosetta existed all this time. apple obviously felt cornered with IBM/freescale & PPC.
guess we can kiss photoshop bake offs goodbye!
dual-boot doesnt really interest me because i use macs to use os x, not windows.
what i dont understand is ok Apple wants to go x86....but why Intel??? AMD produces better chips that are closer to RISC architecture anyway. what does AMD's roadmap look like compared to Intel?? if OS X is going to run on x86 anyways, why would they keep their products amalgamated with Intel? im not a big fan of the monopolizing companies, i think it discourages technological advancements. if Intel has the Mac market as well as PC what's goin to spawn development interest??
I think Intel's roadmap differed from AMD in that Intel had more of a focus wattage. AMD wants to produce big bad muther f*ck'n powerhouses. Intel does too, but they also have a new found focus on efficiency of the CPU. The future for comsumer computers is in the portable market. in the x86 world, AMD just isn't there. Apple historically has had powerful laptops in their Powerbook lineup. G4 PowerBooks just were not cutting it anymore.
Quote:
Originally posted by TigerWoods99
apple just becomes another OEM, and IMO they cant survive as simply that. could apple survive as a software company?? maybe. you see what happened with itanium, so why is intel all of a sudden barred from any possibility of stalling?
Based simply on CPU, how does being with Intel make them more of an OEM than being with IBM? You are right, they probably could not survive as an OEM. Just as they couldn't have survived as an IBM OEM. They had to add value above the CPU. That hasn't changed. Now, however, they won't be kneecapped when trying to design their future portables, which is currently, and for the forseeable future, where the money is at.
Apple went with Intel over AMD for a few very good reasons.
Right now, nobody can touch the Pentium M. It provides great performance at very, very low power levels. Right now, Powerbooks get somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4 hours on a charge. Pentium M based chips at a comparable performance level are getting around 8 hours. This is a big, big deal. Especially since notebook sales are now higher than desktop sales. AMD isn't really even in the game.
AMD is currently designing great desktop chips, but they're having supply troubles. Think Motorola before it turned into Freescale. Apple doesn't want to repeat that nightmare.
Also, Intel supposedly gives DEEP discounts to suppliers who use Intel chips exclusively. I'd be willing to bet then even went a bit further to woo Apple.
Finally, Intel's roadmap appears to be stellar. AMD may be the speed king right now, but Intel isn't sitting on their heels. It looks like some kick ass Intel processors are going to come out around the time the PowerMacs get switched over.
Remember, Intel is no slouch. They had a little blip on the radar with the NetBurst architecture, but their overall track record is incredible. As I recall, they've beaten everyone else to each die shrink mark in the last couple of decades. Sure the mhz race stagnated too, but it did so across the entire industry.
I really think this is a good move. Apple is moving from a processor that has a single market and single supplier to a processor achitechture that exists in a highly competitive market with two very good suppliers. In other words, there's a lot more incentive for Intel and AMD to advance x86 and to do it cheaply.
Comments
the POWER5 solves one of the biggest problems with the G5- memory latency, because it has an integrated memory controler. a derivation of the POWER5, i.e. PPC980 w/ 90 nm shrink would be a very fast CPU and possibly scale better than the 970.
yonah is only supposed to be in the 1.6 ---> 2.2 GHz range. how does this compare with what freescale had planned in their iteration of the G4, but dual-core ??
i think the reason that we arent seein AMD is because of their ties to IBM as far as process technology (dont they fab their processors in the same place now???) and also AMD's CEO is a former Motorola guy. seems to me that steve isnt the most level-headed person and tends to hold grudges. he doesnt always think rationally, look at the whole ATI fiasco before MW a few yrs ago.
what i think apple should have done is keep its options open and not severe all ties from PowerPC. if they could get intel on board, use them for the future technology and keep IBM on-board in order to have the best CPUs to choose from. since apparently mathlab only took a few code changes and was done for x86 in 2 hrs, it shouldnt be too hard keep things runnin...especially since we know rosetta existed all this time. apple obviously felt cornered with IBM/freescale & PPC.
guess we can kiss photoshop bake offs goodbye!
dual-boot doesnt really interest me because i use macs to use os x, not windows.
Originally posted by TigerWoods99
what i dont understand is ok Apple wants to go x86....but why Intel??? AMD produces better chips that are closer to RISC architecture anyway. what does AMD's roadmap look like compared to Intel?? if OS X is going to run on x86 anyways, why would they keep their products amalgamated with Intel? im not a big fan of the monopolizing companies, i think it discourages technological advancements. if Intel has the Mac market as well as PC what's goin to spawn development interest??
I think Intel's roadmap differed from AMD in that Intel had more of a focus wattage. AMD wants to produce big bad muther f*ck'n powerhouses. Intel does too, but they also have a new found focus on efficiency of the CPU. The future for comsumer computers is in the portable market. in the x86 world, AMD just isn't there. Apple historically has had powerful laptops in their Powerbook lineup. G4 PowerBooks just were not cutting it anymore.
Originally posted by TigerWoods99
apple just becomes another OEM, and IMO they cant survive as simply that. could apple survive as a software company?? maybe. you see what happened with itanium, so why is intel all of a sudden barred from any possibility of stalling?
Based simply on CPU, how does being with Intel make them more of an OEM than being with IBM? You are right, they probably could not survive as an OEM. Just as they couldn't have survived as an IBM OEM. They had to add value above the CPU. That hasn't changed. Now, however, they won't be kneecapped when trying to design their future portables, which is currently, and for the forseeable future, where the money is at.
Right now, nobody can touch the Pentium M. It provides great performance at very, very low power levels. Right now, Powerbooks get somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4 hours on a charge. Pentium M based chips at a comparable performance level are getting around 8 hours. This is a big, big deal. Especially since notebook sales are now higher than desktop sales. AMD isn't really even in the game.
AMD is currently designing great desktop chips, but they're having supply troubles. Think Motorola before it turned into Freescale. Apple doesn't want to repeat that nightmare.
Also, Intel supposedly gives DEEP discounts to suppliers who use Intel chips exclusively. I'd be willing to bet then even went a bit further to woo Apple.
Finally, Intel's roadmap appears to be stellar. AMD may be the speed king right now, but Intel isn't sitting on their heels. It looks like some kick ass Intel processors are going to come out around the time the PowerMacs get switched over.
Remember, Intel is no slouch. They had a little blip on the radar with the NetBurst architecture, but their overall track record is incredible. As I recall, they've beaten everyone else to each die shrink mark in the last couple of decades. Sure the mhz race stagnated too, but it did so across the entire industry.
I really think this is a good move. Apple is moving from a processor that has a single market and single supplier to a processor achitechture that exists in a highly competitive market with two very good suppliers. In other words, there's a lot more incentive for Intel and AMD to advance x86 and to do it cheaply.
Edit: Tulkas covered it pretty well.
Ill lock it up now and everyone can use the other million threads in here to discuss why Apple is switching to intel.
b.