Intel CEO hopes to win back Apple with a 'better chip'

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 55
    While I do have respect for Gelsinger and think he's a much better leader than what Intel has had for years, I also have a couple of things to note:
    1. Apple didn't leave Intel simply because they were able to make a better chip.  Apple left Intel because Intel's chips have had serious bugs and problems and because Intel has demonstrated that they are unreliable in terms of delivering on their own roadmaps in any consistent manner. Several years of Intel's failures have led to this decision.
    2. Intel was never a great chip designer.  Intel used to maintain a competitive advantage by being on the most advanced manufacturing process.  This lead in manufacturing process masked deficiencies in their chip designs.  Now they've fallen behind the industry in manufacturing process, by a considerable margin, there is no benefit at all for Intel solutions besides maintaining legacy.
    3. Apple gains great synergy by moving all of their products to the same platform.  Less codebase, better optimizations, better for users, etc.
    4. Switching platforms is a big ask from the development community.  This is something you can do every 15 to 20 years or so.  Apple is already committed to moving to Apple Silicon.  Simply offering a more competitive chip isn't going to be enough to win Apple back anytime soon.  Intel would need to absolutely crush Apple's designs and do so for many consecutive years for this to even be a consideration.  Further, there is no indication Intel is even remotely capable of doing this.
    5. Intel's pathetic anti-Mac ad campaigns aren't helping them win Apple's business back either.
    For these reasons, Intel is just wishful thinking.  The industry is moving to ARM based solutions.  Right now, Apple has a major competitive advantage over Intel based devices and companies like Microsoft are well aware of it.  They're now scrambling to compete with ARM based solutions as well.  Qualcomm bought Nuvia because they know they need to offer PC class performance with ARM based solutions as well. 

    muthuk_vanalingamDBSyncdocno42qwerty52kurai_kageviclauyycwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 22 of 55
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    lkrupp said:
    Apple is really the only OEM that can do this. For example, how could HP or Dell make a move like this without Microsoft? They couldn’t. Controlling both the hardware and the operating system.


    Then there’s the problem of Intel mocking Apple’s move to its own silicon. Remember, though, that Samsung has a long history of mocking both Apple and its users yet Apple still does business with them. Business is business.

    HP, Dell, Intel and Microsoft built themselves each other through cooperation.   I doubt that will end.   Actually, I see it getting stronger -- provided Intel can progress into modern technology.  The x86 is what?  40 years old? 
    llama
  • Reply 23 of 55
    As one commenter said - that ship has sailed - and Intel's counter-attack with the release of the M1 MacBooks is going to stay in the corporate memory for a long time. At best they may get some business back as a US based foundry if they beg enough...
    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 55
    Apple ain’t coming back and he knows that. Apple is too big and there are many advantages in having their own silicon.
    But I do understand it as a typical CEO comment; he wants his products to become better and that message is a good one of-course, it demonstrates the right attitude.
    edited October 2021
  • Reply 25 of 55
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,915member
    Not really on their roadmap, buddy.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 55
    That will never happen. Even if Intel manages to catch up, this is about way more than performance and efficiency. The M1 is able to handle Apple's machine learning and security features. Apple will never go back to a processor that can't boot the operating system before unlocking FileVault.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 55
    This guy is fighting the wrong war.
    His battle is not to win Apple back (they're gone forever from the world of x86).

    The war he is fighting is x86 versus ARM based processors.
    That's a war in which Apple will increasingly be just another player as more and more computers and servers are switched over to ARM based processors and leave the world of x86 behind.

    It's analogous to the makers of carriages after the internal combustion engine challenged the horse.   Many fought it and went out of business -- while others welcomed the change and stuck an internal combustion engine in their carriages making "horseless carriages".

    I suspect Intel is looking at all of its options right now.
    Right. The x86 architecture has scalability issues that ARM and RISC-V don't have.
    DBSyncwatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 55
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 952member
    Intel has also said it wants to again make chips in the US, and has talked of being able to fabricate Apple Silicon. That may be their only way forward, but at least doable.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 55
    TomETomE Posts: 168member
    It has to be much better & Intel has to ship in a timely manner.  And perhaps they have to Fab the chips in the US.  Then and only then will Apple consider .
    I seriously doubt that Apple will go backwards - when they are ahead and can control their Future.
    M1 is the beginning of the Future.  Wait and see what the New OS is capable of doing.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 55
    Fred257Fred257 Posts: 210member
    Fred257 said:
    ? I know three engineers who work for Intel, one of them complained to me for years that the only solution was adding more capacitors which adds more heat.  All of this was true but Apples approach wins out because the engineers I talked to at Intel didn’t see a way forward and now the CEO knows today that they’re going to be destroyed by these new chips, obliterated is a more correct term to use…
    Don't you mean Transistors?
    Yes 👍 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 55
    GG1GG1 Posts: 483member
    I only see Intel Foundry Service as the only play that Apple may be interested in for the future (at the right node, at the right time, and in the US).

    I don't see how Intel will design a custom ARM device that satisfies Apple or, more importantly, exposes some Apple IP* to Intel for the design. Plus Apple's own Srouji is pretty darn good at what he does. *For example, think of all the power modes that Apple have designed into all their ARM blocks (for power efficiency), and how intertwined they are with MacOS. I doubt Apple would want Intel to know those details.
    bsimpsenwatto_cobra
  • Reply 32 of 55
    Fred257Fred257 Posts: 210member
    elijahg said:
    Fred257 said:
    ? I know three engineers who work for Intel, one of them complained to me for years that the only solution was adding more capacitors which adds more heat.  All of this was true but Apples approach wins out because the engineers I talked to at Intel didn’t see a way forward and now the CEO knows today that they’re going to be destroyed by these new chips, obliterated is a more correct term to use…
    Of course you do. There are no capacitors in CPU (cores) for a start, and if you meant transistors you'll find that Apple's M1 has ~16bn transistors, twice as many as the 24-core Xeon 8180. That's ballooned from 3.3bn in the A10.

    Adding transistors doesn't necessarily = more heat, because they're not all constantly switching - which is the only time they are dissipating heat. Application specific silicon can reduce the heat produced but increase the transistor count because there are less total transistor flips for a particular piece of code to execute: it's more efficient. And as above, if that silicon is idle it's not using power. 

    Intel CPUs are so inefficient because they are essentially a CISC interpreter ontop of a RISC CPU. Plus due to backward compatibility, there are thousands of SIMD extensions that are used by barely anything but can't be removed due to the few customers that do need them.
    Yes, I met transistors.  And yes, that’s what they told me 10 years ago.  One engineer is from France, the other from England and the other lives here in Milwaukee.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 55
    XedXed Posts: 1,513member
    crowley said:
    dk49 said:
    These words may backfire on him if they are unsuccessful in creating a better chip.
    How?  I don't think he's suggested the task will be easy anywhere.

    Seems like a sensible and pragmatic sort, and fairly humble by CEO standards, good luck to him.
    Pat Gelsinger gave me respect for Intel and hopes for their future in a way that I hadn't had from only looking at their products. I wish we had personalities like him running corporations.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 55
    XedXed Posts: 1,513member
    This guy is fighting the wrong war.
    His battle is not to win Apple back (they're gone forever from the world of x86).

    The war he is fighting is x86 versus ARM based processors.
    That's a war in which Apple will increasingly be just another player as more and more computers and servers are switched over to ARM based processors and leave the world of x86 behind.

    It's analogous to the makers of carriages after the internal combustion engine challenged the horse.   Many fought it and went out of business -- while others welcomed the change and stuck an internal combustion engine in their carriages making "horseless carriages".

    I suspect Intel is looking at all of its options right now.
    You need to see the forest for the trees. He was asked about Apple and said what any reasonable person would say about getting back (or technically not losing out completely) an old customer.

    And it's also not about x86 v ARM, but that's another discussion.
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 55
    Come back or we will run lots of anti-apple ads.  Great strategy!
    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 36 of 55
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,729member
    techconc said:
    Switching platforms is a big ask from the development community.  This is something you can do every 15 to 20 years or so.  Apple is already committed to moving to Apple Silicon.  Simply offering a more competitive chip isn't going to be enough to win Apple back anytime soon.  Intel would need to absolutely crush Apple's designs and do so for many consecutive years for this to even be a consideration.  Further, there is no indication Intel is even remotely capable of doing this.

    You raised many good points but I think this one is key and deserves to be stated again.  They are going to have to stay ahead of Apple for years, not just one flash in the pan, if they ever hope to catch Apple's gaze again.  I have zero doubt that the purchase of PA Semi was as much about Intel as it was about having control over the chips for the iPhone.  For years there have been the exact same vibes from Intel that Motorola/IBM were giving off towards the end of the PowerPC era.  How many times do you have to have partners leaving you high and dry before you decide "screw it, I'll just do it myself".  

    Which makes his comments about the x86 ecosystem even more hilarious.  If having a large ecosystem was so beneficial where are the high performant/low power mobile chips, Intel?  Why didn't Atom live up to the hype and why haven't you come out with something better?  

    He's saying the right things - but at the end of the day can his company deliver?  They haven't for the last decade :tongue: 
    techconcwatto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 55
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,842member
    The only thing that would get Apple to switch to a new architecture is, a new architecture. It will take another group of geniuses like we saw at PA Semi to come up with a new way forward, either on ARM or something new altogether - not ARM, not Intel, not AMD. A total fresh start CPU seems unlikely, but a new way of improving ARM like Daniel W. Dobberpuhl and his team did is certainly possible.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 55
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,251member
    "you know, they did a pretty good job" - funny way of putting it. Apple Silicon is a smoke show...the power per watt is unrivaled as far as I know
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 55
    techconc said:
    While I do have respect for Gelsinger and think he's a much better leader than what Intel has had for years, I also have a couple of things to note:
    1. Apple didn't leave Intel simply because they were able to make a better chip.  Apple left Intel because Intel's chips have had serious bugs and problems and because Intel has demonstrated that they are unreliable in terms of delivering on their own roadmaps in any consistent manner. Several years of Intel's failures have led to this decision.
    2. Intel was never a great chip designer.  Intel used to maintain a competitive advantage by being on the most advanced manufacturing process.  This lead in manufacturing process masked deficiencies in their chip designs.  Now they've fallen behind the industry in manufacturing process, by a considerable margin, there is no benefit at all for Intel solutions besides maintaining legacy.
    3. Apple gains great synergy by moving all of their products to the same platform.  Less codebase, better optimizations, better for users, etc.
    4. Switching platforms is a big ask from the development community.  This is something you can do every 15 to 20 years or so.  Apple is already committed to moving to Apple Silicon.  Simply offering a more competitive chip isn't going to be enough to win Apple back anytime soon.  Intel would need to absolutely crush Apple's designs and do so for many consecutive years for this to even be a consideration.  Further, there is no indication Intel is even remotely capable of doing this.
    5. Intel's pathetic anti-Mac ad campaigns aren't helping them win Apple's business back either.
    For these reasons, Intel is just wishful thinking.  The industry is moving to ARM based solutions.  Right now, Apple has a major competitive advantage over Intel based devices and companies like Microsoft are well aware of it.  They're now scrambling to compete with ARM based solutions as well.  Qualcomm bought Nuvia because they know they need to offer PC class performance with ARM based solutions as well. 

    Absolutely right!
    So many times Apple was forced to delay the release of a new Mac, just because of Intel
    techconcwatto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 55
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,700member
    Fred257 said:
    ? I know three engineers who work for Intel, one of them complained to me for years that the only solution was adding more capacitors which adds more heat.  All of this was true but Apples approach wins out because the engineers I talked to at Intel didn’t see a way forward and now the CEO knows today that they’re going to be destroyed by these new chips, obliterated is a more correct term to use…
    Don't you mean Transistors?
    MOSFET transistors are in effect capacitors.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.