Conspiracy buffs, come on out...

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
Found this over @ ArsTechnica...



Did Steve actually say x86?



Quote:

I attended an Apple presentation today and the engineer and minders all were quite careful and explicit with their choice of words on this specific issue.



The keynote choice of wording as "PPC" and "Intel" were very carefully chosen. PPC is a specific family of processors, Intel is a manufacturer with many families of processors. The term "Intel" was explicitly chosen, not "x86". They explicitly stated don't infer a limitation to a specific processor family from the term "Intel". Also Apple is designing their own production boards using (an) Intel "chip(s)", not just using a standard Intel chipset. Their words, not mine.



Rest of the thread is interesting also...



While reading the above thread, I thought "What if Apple uses Intel CPUs/system chips for main operations, and still uses IBM chips as DSPs!?! Like maybe a Cell chip along w/Yohan (or something entirely different) in the next Mac mini...?!?



Speculate amongst yourselves...
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    daveleedavelee Posts: 245member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacRonin

    Found this over @ ArsTechnica...



    Did Steve actually say x86?







    Rest of the thread is interesting also...



    While reading the above thread, I thought "What if Apple uses Intel CPUs/system chips for main operations, and still uses IBM chips as DSPs!?! Like maybe a Cell chip along w/Yohan (or something entirely different) in the next Mac mini...?!?



    Speculate amongst yourselves...




    I noticed this during the keynote speech. I had hoped that Steve meant that the Mac might be powered by non-x86 Intel chips (who knows what Apple has OS X running on in addition to x86 in the skunkworks).



    However, the fact that the dev boxes are just P4s leads me to assume that it there is nothing special about the type of chips Apple will be using (except they will be based on the Pentium-M family, not the netburst P4s).
  • Reply 2 of 32
    Its a shot into the fog, but I for one still hope for altivec on those Intel chips...
  • Reply 3 of 32
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    He kept his speech to using the word intel, but for what reason other than to make public use of the brand name, rather than architecture is unknown. I think it's just because mom, and pop probably have no idea what x86 is, but do know who intel is.
  • Reply 4 of 32
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,742member
    He said Intel, because they are buying from Intel. x86 as a term, was avoided, because a)they are not limited to x86 from Intel, and one should not assume they are. They will however be using x86. b)to reinforce the relationship with Intel as a supplier.
  • Reply 5 of 32
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacRonin

    Found this over @ ArsTechnica...



    Did Steve actually say x86?







    Rest of the thread is interesting also...



    While reading the above thread, I thought "What if Apple uses Intel CPUs/system chips for main operations, and still uses IBM chips as DSPs!?! Like maybe a Cell chip along w/Yohan (or something entirely different) in the next Mac mini...?!?



    Speculate amongst yourselves...




    Oh, come on. Linking that forum as a source is like someone on the Arstechnica forum linking this forum as a source. IIRC, Apple released a footnote of sorts that made it clear that the term Intel means the family of x86-compatible processors manufactured by Intel. I believe that Apple's relationship with Intel will be further reaching than the purchase of processors. But, the implication of this "conspiracy" is that Intel will be selling processors to Apple that are not available to other Intel customers. Intel has made it clear that Apple will get virtually instant delivery of whichever processor it chooses from Intel's catalog. IBM and Freescale could not do this, but it is one of Intel's strengths. Intel is not a boutique manufacturer.
  • Reply 6 of 32
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    And we can certainly come up with more conspiracies than that. Bob Cringely has been speculating that Intel was taking over Apple because they hate Microsoft and want to OEM another OS; that the whole deal is to force people into using "Trusted Computing" (motherboard DRM); and that Apple is extracting royalties from Microsoft and Sony for PPC chips.



    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050616.html

    Also look at the previous column, which is wilder.



    Personally, I don't like the timeframe for Yonah. I should expect that the Intel Powerbooks will come out with regular Centrinos (Pentium Ms), in order to get them out as soon as possible.



    OK now, surely we here at AI can come up with even better conspiracies than these. How about: IBM told Apple to go away because they are being bought by Microsoft? Or, Intel, after consulting with Dell and HP, is paying Apple money under the table to license Mac OS X to OEMs, because they've all realized that Microsoft intends to make the Xbox360 into a real PC and shut them all out - or maybe Longhorn is going to involve a big price increase?
  • Reply 7 of 32
    tidristidris Posts: 214member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacRonin

    Found this over @ ArsTechnica...



    Did Steve actually say x86?







    Rest of the thread is interesting also...



    While reading the above thread, I thought "What if Apple uses Intel CPUs/system chips for main operations, and still uses IBM chips as DSPs!?! Like maybe a Cell chip along w/Yohan (or something entirely different) in the next Mac mini...?!?



    Speculate amongst yourselves...




    Anyone with doubts Apple will use X86 CPUs needs to read the developer info here:



    http://developer.apple.com/documenta...versal_binary/



    That makes it perfectly clear that Intel means X86 and that AltiVec is not going to be in the X86 CPUs Apple will use.
  • Reply 8 of 32
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    I don't think anyone is doubting that Apple will use x86.



    Rather, it's interesting to speculate whether apple will use x86 exclusively. And if so, for how long?



    Hardware independence is something apple has been shooting for from day one with OS X. If apple were to drastically increase it's market-share somehow over the next few years, I could very easily imagine selling products based on multiple platforms.
  • Reply 9 of 32
    macchinemacchine Posts: 295member
    Intel just almost silently updated most of their Pentium cheaps to 64 bit, he did not seem to know this.





    OK HERE IT IS, THE BABY IS ABOUT TO BE BIRTHED, the truth is WAY OUT THERE...



    ... and its an alien hybrid !!!



    http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

    "Intel expects Tanglewood not to consume more electrical power than current Itanium processors, the sources said, an important feature that would make it easier to design servers without the overheating that causes data corruption and crashes.



    The arrival date of Tanglewood is unclear, though it could come as soon as 2006, the year after the dual-core "Montecito" member of the Itanium family is scheduled for release. Intel has extended the current Itanium 2 designs by adding more cache memory this year and in 2004, but that approach isn't on current plans for Montecito, according to the sources.



    Brookwood said it's possible that Tanglewood would start with a four-core design that's built with a 90-nanometer manufacturing process, then move to eight- and 16-core designs with a later 65-nanometer process."



    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11685



    "Well, those ex-Alpha boys are actually doing it, Tanglewood will have 8 cores. The slidemakers must have had inside information or something, because they were dead on. The weird part is what follows, and with the sheer number of people at IDF who told me the same story, I tend to believe it.



    The weird part is that the cores on that chip are all cut down from the current one, losing a pipeline or two. Looking at the current architecture, they seem to be a bit FP heavy, and light on integer units, so I would go with down an FP pipe, or maybe a FP and an Int pipe. Either way, there will be less paths for instructions to follow.



    Those cores will all share a cache, and a relatively small one at that. The thinking now is that that will share 16MB, or 2MB per core, with 32 not being out of the realm of possibility. Not enough in my opinion, but what do I know?



    Not weird enough for you?"





    Oooooh "X alpha boys" -- is that coded jargoon for the alpha chip they are building for OS X, we are ALL entering SJ's land of OSZ !!!



    "How about slowing down the cores when you use them all? If the chip is supposed to run in the 4+GHz range with 2 cores, and you turn them all on, the 8 core beastie will shuffle along at half that, or just over 2GHz. Estimates say that if the 2 core runs at a theoretical benchmark of 500, the 8 core will double that to 1000, with heat being among the primary reasons for throttling. Another songbird says main memory bandwidth and low cache are the culprits."



    It NOT strange its BRILLIANT !!!



    If you have major multiple cores you don't need speed, you need efficiency !!!



    One core for every thread, simple and reliable execution, but cut down on ALL expensive and power costly parts of the processor so you have the greatest value good design can create !





    "That, in a nutshell is the current version of Tanglewood, or at least the version as it was last week. Since it is still three years or so out, much may change, there is no silicon yet. Tanglewood is going to be an interesting thing to watch when it gets nearer. If there is one thing we can be sure of, those Alpha guys, and their spinoffs are not ones to take the timid, safe route."





    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...428064454.html

    "Intel Tanglewood to Be 10 Times Faster Than Madison.



    Category: CPU

    by Anton Shilov

    [ 04/28/2003 | 06:46 AM ]



    Quite a lot of interesting facts were said during Windows Server 2003 launch last week. As we revealed yesterday, Dell demonstrated its first Itanium 2-based server during the event and now this web-site added that Intel?s Paul Otellini shared some information about future Itanium processors and their performance.





    According to the executive from Intel Corporation, code-named Montecito processor, Intel?s first dual-core chip, that is due in 2005, will be two or three times faster than today?s Madison CPUs coming out later this year. Furthermore, the Tanglewood processor available in 2006 or 2007 will already be ten times faster compared to this year?s most powerful IA64 processor. In fact, Otellini did not said that this would be code-named Tanglewood, but referred to it as ?future Itanium? processor, but everybody got the idea right."







    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02...nicks_tukwila/



    "Intel puts Itanium saviour on ice

    By Ashlee Vance in Chicago

    Published Thursday 24th February 2005 16:47 GMT

    Intel has plumped, constrained and then killed a future version of Itanium once meant to save the entire franchise, The Register has learned.

    The once elegant Tukwila processor with all of its eight glorious cores will now have just two or four cores, according to a source familiar with the processor's design. Intel has decided to equip Tukwila with a couple of fatter, more powerful processor cores instead of combining numerous lowered-powered parts. What was once Tanglewood - later renamed Tukwila - is dead."



    OR IS IT A STILL BIRTH !?!?!?!
  • Reply 10 of 32
    macroninmacronin Posts: 1,136member
    Jeez, you folks never cease to amaze...



    Yes, I know why Steve said Intel specifically, as oppossed to the more generic x86 phrasing... The whole branding thing...



    How do I know? Because i actually read the entire referenced thread, which clearly outlined the logic behind the whole x86 or Intel phrasing choices in relation to brand awareness and marketing hyperbole...



    Never did I say that ArsTech was any type of definative source, nor did I intend to imply the same...



    I was simply pointing out that, there could be the possibility of Apple returning to more dedicated DSPs on the Mactel MLBs...



    And maybe Cell could be implimented as a DSP for specific functions...



    As for the Conspiracy angle, I see them everywhere, and spew my translation out whenever I am given an audience...



    Lighten up folks!



    Wankers...!



    ;^p
  • Reply 11 of 32
    macchinemacchine Posts: 295member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacRonin

    Jeez, you folks never cease to amaze...



    Yes, I know why Steve said Intel specifically, as oppossed to the more generic x86 phrasing... The whole branding thing...



    How do I know? Because i actually read the entire referenced thread, which clearly outlined the logic behind the whole x86 or Intel phrasing choices in relation to brand awareness and marketing hyperbole...



    Never did I say that ArsTech was any type of definative source, nor did I intend to imply the same...



    I was simply pointing out that, there could be the possibility of Apple returning to more dedicated DSPs on the Mactel MLBs...



    And maybe Cell could be implimented as a DSP for specific functions...



    As for the Conspiracy angle, I see them everywhere, and spew my translation out whenever I am given an audience...



    Lighten up folks!



    Wankers...!



    ;^p




    Killing your own conspiracy theory, clearly THE MEN IN BLUE HAVE INTIMIDATED YOU !!!



    What's with the Wanker comment, you are getting strange on us STRAIGHTEN UP NOW, we might have to deploy the little men in WHITE on YOU !!!!!!!



    Always remember the Alpha chip is OUT TO GET YOU !



    This WHOLE CONSPIRACY is a MYSTERY WRAPPED in an ENIGMA WRAPPED in a PHENOMENAL AGENDA with a MELTED SNICKERS BAR sitting on top and making a mess all over it.



    "MULDER: This is all wrong, SCULLY. This is not how the story is supposed to end.

    SCULLY: What do you mean?

    MULDER: Dr. Frankenstein pays for his evil ambitions, yes. But the monster's supposed to escape to go search for his bride.

    SCULLY: There's not going to be any bride, MULDER. Not in this story.

    MULDER: Well, where's the writer? I want to speak to the writer."
  • Reply 12 of 32
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Well, it's x86 because the test machines are x86 and people are testing their apps on the test machines.



    If it were anything else, that would be the single dumbest thing I think I've ever seen.





    IT IS NOT GOING TO BE EPIC (itanium).
  • Reply 13 of 32
    macchinemacchine Posts: 295member
    Scully: Mulder, please just keep reminding him you were drugged.

    Mulder: Will you stop that!

    Scully: It couldn't hurt.

    Mulder: Stop it!

    Skinner: Scully? Mulder?

    Mulder: I was drugged!
  • Reply 14 of 32
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by slughead

    Well, it's x86 because the test machines are x86 and people are testing their apps on the test machines.



    If it were anything else, that would be the single dumbest thing I think I've ever seen.





    IT IS NOT GOING TO BE EPIC (itanium).




    It will be EPIC eventually surely? For top-end servers and workstations the chips Apple is likely to use in 2 -3 years time will be Itanium derivatives non?



    Anyway, this is a pointless discussion.
  • Reply 15 of 32
    cubistcubist Posts: 954member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by vinney57

    It will be EPIC eventually surely? For top-end servers and workstations the chips Apple is likely to use in 2 -3 years time will be Itanium derivatives non?



    Anyway, this is a pointless discussion.




    Pointless indeed. EPIC (itanic) is dead in the 2-3 year timeframe. I personally think VLIW will make a comeback but in a different form and not for a relatively long time. In the meantime, the Windows/X86 dark ages are still upon us; this has been stifling innovation in many areas of technology, but there are glimmerings of a renaissance to come.
  • Reply 16 of 32
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Ok, you want a conspiracy theory. I got the best one. But it's out there. Like years away out there. Apple using intel makes Mac OS Market share grow beyond Apples expectations. Hardware Hax0rz eventually figure out ways of running OS X on any PC box. Mac OS is on 100% of Mac's, and 85 to 95% of PC's, and has become the most popular OS nation wide (probably world wide) Steve Jobs eventually steps down from CEO of Apple computer. Avi Tevanian is appointed CEO of Apple computer. (<- I like that idea) PPC has never looked so good in 2011. IBM realises with Apples new market share they can make what ever processors Apple wants and will be able to meet all demands, and deadlines. Apple CEO Avi Tevanian switches back to PPC at WWDC 2012. You heard it here first!
  • Reply 17 of 32
    hattighattig Posts: 830member
    If anything it will be to try and distance Apple computers from PCs.



    They might soon be powered by the same processors, and most probably chipsets, but Apple don't want to be sending out the message that this is a PC that just happens to run OS X. They still want it to be Apple all over.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    macchinemacchine Posts: 295member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hattig

    If anything it will be to try and distance Apple computers from PCs.



    They might soon be powered by the same processors, and most probably chipsets, but Apple don't want to be sending out the message that this is a PC that just happens to run OS X. They still want it to be Apple all over.




    Now that Apple does not have to spend much resources on mother board design, maybe those people can build HOT graphics cards instead !!!
  • Reply 19 of 32
    macroninmacronin Posts: 1,136member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MACchine

    Now that Apple does not have to spend much resources on mother board design, maybe those people can build HOT graphics cards instead !!!



    Careful, onlooker, I think he is trying to bait you here...
  • Reply 20 of 32
    macchinemacchine Posts: 295member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacRonin

    Careful, onlooker, I think he is trying to bait you here...



    Or maybe they will build my WAY Advanced Touch-ME pad !!!



    It SHOULD DEFINITELY vibrate as it passes over things on the desktop for example.



    Or finish up the SkyMac.



    Or solve global warming at the quantum level !!!!!!





    What IF the Apple campus became a strictly clothing optional campus -- WORK IN THE NUDE !!!



    Little handy wipe disinfectant dispensers all over the place...
Sign In or Register to comment.