• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Apple to start using Intel chips?

I think Steve Jobs is doing the right thing for his company. Lets face it Apple is almost out PC market and over the long term they will lose against x86. If you can't beat them join them. Yeah its a gutsy move but there is just way more money if they go down that road. Heck apple might again play as world leader rather then a follower. MS made their fortune on OS and productivity software I think that Apple can do the same. Sure they will most likely have a closed platform for their hardware but I bet Apple might just come up with special addin cards for normal PC that enable them to run MAC OS. Every one says that PPC is so much better and OSX is supperior, but sadly they are not because only 1.8 of the world use them. What is the number 1 complaint about MAC stuff? No software if they switch to x86 this will open a floodgate of interested developers. Porting is not cheap but if you can offer relatively same hardware and then provide the right software compiler this will entice so many software companies to develop for the MAC. Also I think its about time that MS got some competition from a good OS company. IBM did the same transition it use to be a hardware company and now its a Consulting company and its profits are higher then ever before.

Or Apple's choice might be just a retaliation against MS for deleoping an OS for the PPC.
 
esr2 said:
There will not be any G6 unless GM drops pontiac and the rights to the name which they currently own.
Click to expand...
What about the PowerShot G5 and PowerShot G6 that exist?



You really think IBM would let Apple take their (IBM's) processor to be fabbed by Intel......uh no.
Click to expand...
IBM doesn't own PowerPC. It's an open architecture. Anyone can build one, and according to IBM they should.



Lets face it Apple is almost out PC market and over the long term they will lose against x86.
Click to expand...
Yes, as the next-generation consoles have proven, PowerPC doesn't have a future. :rolleyes:
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Yes, as the next-generation consoles have proven, PowerPC doesn't have a future. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The reason why PowerPC is used over X86 isn't because it's better. There's a lot of other reasons why to go to PowerPC.

For example AMD would be a better choice for Xbox 360 but AMD could never produce the amount of X86 CPUs needed. AMD would have been better for backwards compatibility as well.

A lot of companies go to IBM when it comes to chip fabrication, even Nvidia.

If PowerPC was better for gaming then why is it that Doom 3 doesn't perform well on the Mac? PowerPC is a better architecture but since there isn't competition in the PowerPC architecture against IBM, then what motivates IBM to create a better chip?

X86 is an inferior architecture but because of the competition between AMD and Intel it motivates them to create a better chip. Regardless of architecture X86 is currently better for gaming.
 
Did anyone else notice that Apple will be moving the low-end machines to Intel FIRST? Doesn't that seem a little backwards? If this is the case, then I can't imagine Intel making a PowerPC CPU for Apple, as they'd likely be the only customers for such a chip. So wouldn't an Intel PowerPC chip would be really expensive, since there would be so few sold? Why would they want to put an expensive chip into the low-end machines first?

If Apple goes the x86 route, the cost of CPUs would be very cheap. I don't think keeping a closed platform would be all that hard either. This would make sense as to why they'd move the low-end machines first. I don't think you can really say they're going back on their claims of PowerPC's superiority- their flagship systems will still be G5 based until 2007 or so.

One interesting thing that could come of a shift to x86 CPUs- emulation. If anyone here has ever used WINE on Linux, they'll know its possible to run windows software on another OS if you have an x86 CPU. There's already a project called darWINE, and the use of an x86 CPU (coupled with some investment by Apple) might enable OSX to run some Windows applications.
 
psxpaul said:
Did anyone else notice that Apple will be moving the low-end machines to Intel FIRST? Doesn't that seem a little backwards? If this is the case, then I can't imagine Intel making a PowerPC CPU for Apple, as they'd likely be the only customers for such a chip. So wouldn't an Intel PowerPC chip would be really expensive, since there would be so few sold? Why would they want to put an expensive chip into the low-end machines first?
Click to expand...

Apple was the only customer for the PowerPC chip until Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft got their hands on it. Also consider that Intel does make other chips such as Itanium which isn't really X86.

Sometimes companies introduce new technology in low end hardware. For example ATI tends to introduce new designs in lower end hardware like the Radeon 9000 and Radeon 9600. From there the 9000 evolved into the 9700 and the 9600 evolved into the X800.
 
DukenukemX said:
Apple was the only customer for the PowerPC chip until Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft got their hands on it. Also consider that Intel does make other chips such as Itanium which isn't really X86.
Click to expand...

That's true, but computer prices are dropping. Was there ever a Mac priced at $500 before the Mac Mini? I think it would be hard for Apple to stick a newly designed Intel PPC chip into a computer, and still retail it for around $500.

DukenukemX said:
Sometimes companies introduce new technology in low end hardware. For example ATI tends to introduce new designs in lower end hardware like the Radeon 9000 and Radeon 9600. From there the 9000 evolved into the 9700 and the 9600 evolved into the X800.
Click to expand...

That's actually a good point. I could see intel releasing a lower clocked PPC chip for the Mac mini, and then releasing a more advanced one (dual cores or more cache?) later.
 
There have been rumors that IBM has been having trouble with fabbing lately, esp. in the moves to smaller processes...since PowerPC is an open architecture, it could be that Intel is just fabbing for Apple this new PowerPC chip.

This makes sense for a few different reasons. As someone said above, companies frequently try out new hardware designs in lower-end hardware (again like ATI did with the Radeon 9600)...the people that would be apt to jump on a cheap Mac normally aren't the same people that would jump on a Powermac, Apple is trying to open themselves up to more business - but, if things don't work out great, these people won't be a huge loss to the core Apple market already in place.
Also, you know Intel has to be giving Apple one hell of a deal on those chips, I mean, look at Dell...you know Dell is essentially the retail arm of Intel, all this would be is essentially the same deal as they have with Dell, but getting themselves into a new market. I mean, I don't even have a Mac yet, but its obvious to me the superiority of OSX vs. Windows in basic usability, stability, and security. So look at what happens here - Intel gives Apple a hell of a deal on some not X86 chips, and they get themselves in on both sides of the fence in the Windows/Mac debate. Once Mac becomes cheap and widely available, people will almost certainly switch, so Intel has money rolling in there, and those that don't switch (or if the massive swing never happens), Intel will still have most of the PC market.

This is a win/win for Intel, and a pretty smart move for Apple too IMHO. We'll see how the chips fall when its over though (no pun intended).
 
I've read a couple articles on the switch to Intel and all of them mention Intel chips. Not once in any of the articles do they mention considering x86 architectures. While it would be logical to assume that they would go x86 if Apple switched to Intel, why is everyone so sure that they will do so rather than use an Itanium or other non-x86 technology?
 
I'm pretty sure Apple isn't making a move to X86. Would be kinda silly after all this Altivec and PowerPC hype. What is Steve Jobs going to do in his next keynote? He'll say, "turns out Intel X86 and SSE is way better then any PowerPC with Altivec"?

Everyone is jumping to conclusions. Besides X86 Intel also makes Itanium and Xscale. Both non X86 based CPUs. More likely Intel will make a cheap PowerPC chip with Ativec and 64-bit capabilities. Apple probably saw it and it must have been one hell of a chip.

Why move to Intel? Probably because IBM wanted to make Mac OS X clones. Also it may have to do with the high demand from Sony and Microsoft.

Why introduce it into low end machines? Not to make the PowerMac users feel behind in tech. The Intel chips maybe a cheap low cost, low power G5 that'll probably find it's way into even the Mac Mini. Maybe more powerful then a G4 but not an IBM G5.

I'd believe Cell still may have a future with Apple.
 
DukenukemX said:
Apple was the only customer for the PowerPC chip until Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft got their hands on it.
Click to expand...


For the sake of clarification, Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft are NOT using the powerPC chip. At least not the one that's used in the Macs.
Sony is using the cell processor, part of which contains a PowerPC execution unit, which isn't a full-fledged PPC processor. It's stripped for racing.... er, gaming. Microsoft doesn't use cell but it uses three of the PPE units.

Since they are simpler chips than the G5, they are able to run at faster clock speeds, but they do not have the full PPC instruction set or Altivec. That's my understanding of it at least, I could be horribly wrong.
 
People I believe all of you are WAY off base here. Apple's not going to radically change their architecture, they have a good thing going. What they're doing is creating a platform that developers are goign to start moving to and here's my theory.

Intel has already announced they are incorporating DRM into their newer chipsets and will support DRM in the newer line of processors. IBM will probably NEVER support DRM as it will severely cripple their Open Source devisions as well as make it much harder to develope "home brewed" solutions. The Linux comunity has long feared DRM as most of the proposed technology would make it impossible to run any OS that was not certified DRM compliant.

Now take a look at these facts from Apple's perspective. They've already begun to embrace a form of DRM (iTunes, HELLO!!!!!) and have tightly integrated it into popular devices. You buy a song from iTunes, you can play it in, iTunes, or your Apple designed-certifed-manufactured iPod or on a PC with iTunes. You CAN'T play it in another music device unless you burn it to a CD and re-rip it (time consuming, not something the average user would do) or crack the DRM (not exactly legal. Updated versions of iTunes can sense this and delete the cracked files to boot).

Their hardware isn't exactly open, it's proprietary. You can't get any old PCI card and expect it to work, some do, most don't. You can't slap in any AGP video card either. They have to conform to Apple's specifcations. Conversely in the PC world, this type of control doesn't exist. A Dell computer will work with a video card pulled from an HP computer just fine.

Combine these already existing facts with a new chipset and/or proc that requires all software to support DRM and you have a plaftorm that is locked down to running only "approved" programs. Think of it this way, OS X is a nice OS, it's easy to use and has a low learning curve. It will NEVER see x86 for use on a PC, it will always be an Apple product. OS 10.9 suddenly has DRM integrated, it will only run on a machine that has DRM implemented in the chipset, which *shock* only the new G6 has. That means you MUST buy a G6 to use it or purchase one of Apple's "upgrade kits" to put the necessary DRM on a pre-existing machine. With DRM integrated in the core, Apple no longer has to worry about projects like Pear PC as the necessary DRM hardware to run the OS won't exist.

Sure, someone could probably crack it and emulate it but at a cost of speed and Apple's not stupid, they'll find a way to lock it down. Look at your average iTunes music file, it's just a music file. Who has succesfully found a way to play that file UNMODIFIED without having to pay Apple royalties and/or follow their DRM specifications? I have yet to find anything.

In the eyes of developers, this is Nirvana. Imagine a platform that software you write for it only runs on it. You don't have to worry so much about people altering your program since the embeddged DRM code will reject those modifications and prevent the modified program from running or being redistributed. Licensing? Easy, write an activation method that pulls a random sequence from the DRM tags of the machine the program is installed on and use that along with a product key for the unlock code (think Microsoft Activation).

The pieces are in place and connecting rapidly. Microsoft never realy invested much time and energy into researching DRM. If they had, why would their much touted Activation process be crackable?

I don't think the move to Intel chips is about getting market share as it is attracting developers and ushering an era of copyright protected platforms. Why else would they be rolling it out in low priced machines that, by their very nature, are meant to attract consumers and impluse buyers. If they can flood the market, other companies will follow after seeing the success. iTunes was the first successful online music store that the music industry embraced, now how many are there...
 
esr2 said:
There will not be any G6 unless GM drops pontiac and the rights to the name which they currently own.

I still think we should consider the possibility of intel producing the chips as opposed to IBM, such a huge shift like the old one to IBM back in the day would be a bit much for the apple loyal at current.

-esr
Click to expand...
A non-issue unless Apple decides to start making cars.

Remember IBM's new $3billion Fishkill plant built just to keep demand on the new PPC fabs? IBM would not let Apple just throw that away. There would be deals made to keep Apple. Also IBM is making some good changes to their processor team:
http://thinksecret.com/news/0506quasar.html

Bottom line: there will be no switch to X86 platform. Period.
 
This is pure speculation and rambling on my part.

Given a choice, I'm think that Apple will probably go with Intel over AMD because of costs and capability to produce. But this begs the question, how many G5's does apple sell that AMD couldn't meet the demand? Is it because AMD is seemingly putting out better chips than Intel that is giving Apple more leverage with them in prices?

I have often been frustrated at time with XP and Windows and have thought about just buying a G5 and getting it over with (I'm an artist). There are only a couple apps that I use that keep me on the PC. But not only would I have to deal with a price premium of paying for more expensive hardware, I would also have to convert all of my software to Mac. It's these costs that kept me from switching.

Now if Apple goes with Intel, then the prices might drop a bit, which could influece more people to switch. Now if a top tier G5 costs about $3000. If Apple were to put out OS X for the PC platform, it would only have to sell 20 copies at OEM of $150 to equal the cost of a G5. I think Apple would have an easier time selling 20 copies of OS X at that price than G5's.

If Apple were to come out with OS X for the PC, I'd defintely buy it at least to check it out. I'd bet a lot of enthusiast types would. It could be very profitable for OS X to be released for the PC. But this would begin to turn Apple into a software company rather than a hardware company. Personally, I don't care what OS my machine uses as long as I can get my work done. I seem to remember someone getting an OS X to run on an Xbox. So it is possible to run OS X on PC hardware.

IBM sold off their PC division to Lenovo. If it was profitable for them they probably wouldn't have sold it. So seemingly they're not intersted in desktop PC's as there's a lot of competition out there. Or there's something that they know about the Cell processor that we don't and they want to focus on it.

I'm betting this could be a negotiation tactic. It's probably going be a big logistic pain in the ass for Apple to switch to Intel, so maybe they're leaking this story to the press to light a fire under IBM's ass to tell them, "Hey, get your shit together or we're switching to Intel." To me this seems like a more likely scenario given Steve Job's personality. Then again IBM may call his bluff and he'll actually have to pull the trigger on it.

Just speculating.
 
Well this just sucks...I was thinking about buying a Power Mac and possibly the 30" LCD around February or so. Guess I'll have to hold out longer now :( And I just bought the Mini two months ago
 
DukenukemX said:
For example AMD would be a better choice for Xbox 360 but AMD could never produce the amount of X86 CPUs needed. AMD would have been better for backwards compatibility as well.
Click to expand...
Why would an AMD be better?

If PowerPC was better for gaming then why is it that Doom 3 doesn't perform well on the Mac?
Click to expand...
How about "the port fucking sucks"? It's not PPC that's the problem, it's a code base written from scratch to run well at single-processor x86 boxes, not multi-processor PPC boxes. Many of the optimizations and design choices in the engine made it better for x86.
 
It's Official: (lifted from macaddict.com front page)

Apple and Intel? Yes, it's true; Steve Jobs made it official at the keynote to the Apple World Wide Developers Conference today. Apple will be using Intel CPUs starting next year.
 
I doubt it would be a pure x86 switch. Most likely the reasons I have read are that the lower end consumer market machines are being stripped of their efficiency and over clocked to produce more speed. Centrino is most likely the first "target" with battery life being the primary concern. Next I think you can probably see the top end models and the server models moving to cooler chips to prevent the ginormous towers and mad venting they use for the PowerMac and the blower units they use on the xserves. Its doubtful for business reasons you will be able to buy OS X and slap it in your current rig. REmember Apple still has a proprietary "BIOS" that would most likely keep the system "indoors". However, if they go for a regular x86 BIOS, you most likely will see them not aggressively maneuver that way, but the hacks and hype to get it to do just that? Can you say unbelieveable free marketing? If they were crafty, they would let leaks like that happen, then make moves to keep ahead of the hackers and what you have then is an unbelieveable hype machine that costs no money to produce ;)
 
"IT'S TRUE . . . APPLE + INTEL: Apple will get a "brain transplant"; the developer kit will include a 3.6G Pentium 4 chip in a Mac. $999, developers only. Developer tools should help ease the transition; Apple's software will run immediately on the new platform, but some "tweaks" will be required for other apps. See CDM's separate story, also being updated live during the keynote."

from: http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=591&Itemid=44
 
If apple is switchng to x86 intel chips it says they won't be until mid-2006. Meaning that they will not be shitty P4 based but the nice Pentium M derivatives: Cedar Mill and Presler.

Also, if apple made OSX available to x86 machines then much of the advantages of OSX would disappear, such as the lack of security threats and spy/adware. This would also slow down development since they would have to make security patches just like Microsoft does...

Oh, and the new powerbooks would be based on Yonah, the new Pentium M :D
 
Max Power said:
If apple is switchng to x86 intel chips it says they won't be until mid-2006. Meaning that they will not be shitty P4 based but the nice Pentium M derivatives: Cedar Mill and Presler.
Click to expand...
Cedar Mill and Presler are Netburst (P4) cores.

Yonah and Conroe are Pentium M derivatives. Merom is going to be the next generation core not based on either Netburst or Banias. Most likely Apple's first Intel systems will be Yonah.

Funny that Jobs demonstrated OS X 10.4.1 today on a P4 3.6GHz. :D

Can we laugh now at the people who believed this wasn't going to happen? LOL @ suggestions that Intel would manufacture PPC chips or that this was a wireless announcement (yeah, at the developers conference :rolleyes: ). :D :D
 
So, are we one step closer to Apple becoming just a software / iPod company?
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Why would an AMD be better?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen many benchmarks where AMD doesn't outperform. Plus AMD has certain features no other chip has.

For example AMD Athlon 64s have a built in memory controller. Also AMD systems have hypertransport which G5 systems have recently just recieved. It's AMD tech.


Black Morty Rackham said:
How about "the port fucking sucks"? It's not PPC that's the problem, it's a code base written from scratch to run well at single-processor x86 boxes, not multi-processor PPC boxes. Many of the optimizations and design choices in the engine made it better for x86.
Click to expand...

ID software said they optimized the Mac OS X port all they could. Out of all companies who would create a game port I'm sure ID software would do the best.

I don't know if John Carmack had a hand in it. If he did then I'm sure it was ported to it's best.

Besides ID had Doom 3 running on the Mac first. You'd think they know something about it?
 
Nasty_Savage said:
I doubt it would be a pure x86 switch. Most likely the reasons I have read are that the lower end consumer market machines are being stripped of their efficiency and over clocked to produce more speed. Centrino is most likely the first "target" with battery life being the primary concern. Next I think you can probably see the top end models and the server models moving to cooler chips to prevent the ginormous towers and mad venting they use for the PowerMac and the blower units they use on the xserves. Its doubtful for business reasons you will be able to buy OS X and slap it in your current rig. REmember Apple still has a proprietary "BIOS" that would most likely keep the system "indoors". However, if they go for a regular x86 BIOS, you most likely will see them not aggressively maneuver that way, but the hacks and hype to get it to do just that? Can you say unbelieveable free marketing? If they were crafty, they would let leaks like that happen, then make moves to keep ahead of the hackers and what you have then is an unbelieveable hype machine that costs no money to produce ;)
Click to expand...


Steve Jobs demonstrated Tiger running on a Pentium4 3.6GHz machine at the conference. If that isn't an x86 switch, I don't know what is.
 
DukenukemX said:
Sometimes companies introduce new technology in low end hardware. For example ATI tends to introduce new designs in lower end hardware like the Radeon 9000 and Radeon 9600. From there the 9000 evolved into the 9700 and the 9600 evolved into the X800.
Click to expand...

:confused: The 9700 was an original design, the 9500 and 9600 were scaled-down versions of that design. The 9000 (and 9100 and 9200) had nothing to do with the rest of the 9xxx series, they were really scaled-down 8500s. The X800 is essentially a scaled-up 9700.
 
Thud said:
Steve Jobs demonstrated Tiger running on a Pentium4 3.6GHz machine at the conference. If that isn't an x86 switch, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

I would still think the motherboards and BIOS would be proprietary as an essential part of Apple's hardware business. I doubt very much you'll be able to pick up a copy of Tiger and install it on your current PC. But who's to say? Eventually, someone will figure out a way around it if that's the case, i guess...
 
Nasty_Savage said:
I would still think the motherboards and BIOS would be proprietary as an essential part of Apple's hardware business. I doubt very much you'll be able to pick up a copy of Tiger and install it on your current PC. But who's to say? Eventually, someone will figure out a way around it if that's the case, i guess...
Click to expand...

Apple Senior VP Phil Schiller confirmed after Jobs' keynote that you won't be able to run Mac OS on a non-Apple PC and you will be able to run Windows on an Apple PC. Here's the quote from news.com:

-----
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
-----

I bet Apple will include a ROM chip or something in their PC that Mac OS needs to see in order to run. I for one an very happy at the thought of running Windows and Mac OS on a single computer. Think of the amazing looking PC Apple will design! I just bought a Falcon Northwest Mach V, which is nice and all, but I can't wait to see what Apple comes up with.
 
Max Power said:
If apple is switchng to x86 intel chips it says they won't be until mid-2006. Meaning that they will not be shitty P4 based but the nice Pentium M derivatives: Cedar Mill and Presler.Oh, and the new powerbooks would be based on Yonah, the new Pentium M :D
Click to expand...


So much for 64-bit, then.
 
ddarko said:
I bet Apple will include a ROM chip or something in their PC that Mac OS needs to see in order to run. I for one an very happy at the thought of running Windows and Mac OS on a single computer. Think of the amazing looking PC Apple will design! I just bought a Falcon Northwest Mach V, which is nice and all, but I can't wait to see what Apple comes up with.
Click to expand...


If windows will run on mac hardware, then OSX will run on standard PC hardware. Somebody will find a way around the "protection" and it won't take long for a "patch" to be available on the net that lets OSX install on any x86 system.
;)

In fact, I wouldn't mind running OSX on my Athlon64.
 
apple probably isn't foolish enough to try to protect their platform with a simple chip.

You can bet their motherboards will be unique. They will have cash to splurge.

Intel has got to be doing them some sort of favor. it hasn't been said yet, but there has got to be a reason amd was completely left out. intel could make a mac-northbridge or take care of the platform protection via chip hardware.... Or a different processor package...?
 
DanK said:
:confused: The 9700 was an original design, the 9500 and 9600 were scaled-down versions of that design. The 9000 (and 9100 and 9200) had nothing to do with the rest of the 9xxx series, they were really scaled-down 8500s. The X800 is essentially a scaled-up 9700.
Click to expand...

The Radeon 8500 and Geforce 4 Ti graphic cards were a 4X2 pipeline setup with 2 shader pipes. The Radeon 9000 is a 4X1 setup with one tweaked shader pipe. The Radeon 9700 is a 8X1 pipeline with 4 shader pipes. ATI got the idea of only using one texture pipeline from the 9000 design.

The Radeon 9500 and Radeon 9600 don't have any similarities. The Radeon 9500 is a scaled down 9700. Both 9500 and 9700 cards used the R300 chip. Some of the 9500 cards could be modded into a 9700. The Radeon 9600 is a totally new design which used the low-k dielectric 0.13 micron process. The Radeon 9000, 9500, 9700, and 9800 all used 0.15. Plus the Radeon 9600 is a 4X1 pipe just like the 9000. Not a 8X1 design like the 9700/9500.

If you knew anything about the Radeon X800 it's really four Radeon 9600 cores stuck together. 4X1 * 4 = 16 pipelines. If one core fails in the manufacturing you have a X800 Pro. If two fail you have a Radeon X800 regular.

//edited by methodical for flaming.. Great info though.
 
ryanrule said:
software is where the $$ is at. just ask the consoles.
Click to expand...

Considering I was planning on plunking $6000 for a G5 and 30" LCD, I think Apple wants the hardware sales :D Now I have to wait and see what happens :(
 
westrock2000 said:
Considering I was planning on plunking $6000 for a G5 and 30" LCD, I think Apple wants the hardware sales :D Now I have to wait and see what happens :(
Click to expand...
why buy an overpriced apple lcd? they dont even make the lcd screen itself.
 
I just want a copy of osx and final cut pro to run on it, thats all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top