Apple – Intel Inside®

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sage
  • 20 comments
  • 897 views
Sage

Sage

Staff Emeritus
Messages
12,533
United States
United States
Messages
GTP_Sage
Apple to move to Intel chips over the next two years.

Like, wholly ****.

So, which one of you is still going to complain that Apple uses slow chips? ;)

Oh, and, I thought this was kinda interesting:
Apple also confirmed that they would not stop customers from running Windows on the Intel-based Mac, although the Mac OS will not run on another PC.
Click to expand...
Cool, no more buying VPC or a headless PC – both platforms in one box!
 
Awesome. I wonder how many shrill mac obsessed fanboys will scream, moan and complain about the switch?

IBM was never able to meet the 3ghz promises they made about the PPC structure, and to be honest, there were a few applications where it underperformed compared to windows machines. Hopefully Intel will fix that for Apple 👍
 
Apple should've hopped on the Cellwagon. ;)
 
Sage
Like, wholly ****.
Click to expand...
That's nothing. I was told that Bill Gates was going to get even richer, because Apple will start running windows. :scared: Obviously he was little confused.

Omnis
Apple should've hopped on the Cellwagon. ;)
Click to expand...
Wasn't IBM one of the companies involved in the Cell Chip? I don't know much about PC industry, but could that have affected the Apple to jump ship to Intel?
 
a6m5
Wasn't IBM one of the companies involved in the Cell Chip? I don't know much about PC industry, but could that have affected the Apple to jump ship to Intel?
Click to expand...
The Cell, the chip powering Xbox360 and I'm pretty sure IBM has their hands in the Nintendo Revolution as well.

The reason Apple didn't take the Cell is probably due to the fact that It's not entirely ready to be used as an x86 chip yet.
 
emad
The Cell, the chip powering Xbox360 and I'm pretty sure IBM has their hands in the Nintendo Revolution as well.

The reason Apple didn't take the Cell is probably due to the fact that It's not entirely ready to be used as an x86 chip yet.
Click to expand...
I didn't know they were that popular. Thanks, emad. 👍
 
:rubs magic sphere:

I foresee Apple's demise. Why switch to x86 when the chip is already at the end of it's lifespan?
 
emad
The Cell, the chip powering Xbox360 and I'm pretty sure IBM has their hands in the Nintendo Revolution as well.

The reason Apple didn't take the Cell is probably due to the fact that It's not entirely ready to be used as an x86 chip yet.
Click to expand...

POWERING XBOX360?!!? ARE YOU MAD???

it's a ps3 chip, dude. what a brainfart. Sony, Toshiba, and IBM all took part in the cell production. the cell has enough power in potential to eat any x86 chip for breakfast. However, the cell is still not a general purpose processor, though its A/V capabilities are far superior. I'm really not sure why Apple jumped ship. Perhaps they know that IBM's hand is deep up the Cell's butt...and if they DO offer Cell-powered Apples, the customers will at least have a variety when choosing Apple products, and Apple won't be completely reliant on IBM if the Cell project fails. But, even if it does fail, it's a major milestone and accomplishment that will alter our future and untap major potentials in our information era.

In the end, i'd say Apple's decision was more because of market and economy reasons, rather than anything technological. They want a fail-safe.
 
Apple wanted it because at the rate IBM's going, it'll never get a G5 out that can go in a laptop. And IBM will never get the PPC architecture running at the same speed as Intel's offerings. IBM's pulling a Motorola on Apple, and Apple won't ever forget that.

And anyway, from what I've read, it sounds like the M chip is what Apple really has in mind in the long-run (don't ask me though, all I know is that it's faster and runs cooler than the P4—I'm not really qualified to talk about chips).
 
Sage
Apple wanted it because at the rate IBM's going, it'll never get a G5 out that can go in a laptop. And IBM will never get the PPC architecture running at the same speed as Intel's offerings. IBM's pulling a Motorola on Apple, and Apple won't ever forget that.

And anyway, from what I've read, it sounds like the M chip is what Apple really has in mind in the long-run (don't ask me though, all I know is that it's faster and runs cooler than the P4—I'm not really qualified to talk about chips).
Click to expand...

that too. lol.
 
Omnis
POWERING XBOX360?!!? ARE YOU MAD???
Click to expand...
The Cell and XB360, no. Xbox 360 and IBM's PowerPC, Yes. Check here: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Microsoft-Xbox-360-15016-S-4-4

Sage
And anyway, from what I've read, it sounds like the M chip is what Apple really has in mind in the long-run (don't ask me though, all I know is that it's faster and runs cooler than the P4—I'm not really qualified to talk about chips).
Click to expand...
It likely is the Pentium M. The P4 is almost as big a technological mistake as the P2 was. The Pentium 3 was new, extremely efficient, and had LOADS of potential. Intel knew this and thus went so far as to base the Pentium M around it. The suckers already tend to benhmark higher than many P4 chips as it is.

The P4 however, was a total departure from the technological superiority that the P3 had. The chip is horribly inefficient (electrical consumption vs power/heat output). It makes poor use of ram, and it's just a ****ty processor overall in terms of technological potential. It runs too hot and inefficiently for Intel to market at anything higher than 3.8ghz. It's likely that Intel will be basing the P5 around the Pentium M's.

Info on the M vs P4 here: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html
 
emad
The Cell and XB360, no. Xbox 360 and IBM's PowerPC, Yes. Check here: http://hardware.gamespot.com/Microsoft-Xbox-360-15016-S-4-4


It likely is the Pentium M. The P4 is almost as big a technological mistake as the P2 was. The Pentium 3 was new, extremely efficient, and had LOADS of potential. Intel knew this and thus went so far as to base the Pentium M around it. The suckers already tend to benhmark higher than many P4 chips as it is.

The P4 however, was a total departure from the technological superiority that the P3 had. The chip is horribly inefficient (electrical consumption vs power/heat output). It makes poor use of ram, and it's just a ****ty processor overall in terms of technological potential. It runs too hot and inefficiently for Intel to market at anything higher than 3.8ghz. It's likely that Intel will be basing the P5 around the Pentium M's.

Info on the M vs P4 here: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html
Click to expand...

Whoops. Well, that sentence sure did sound like you meant that the cell powered the xbox, which is indeed false. But, now I understand what you meant...which is indeed true. Maybe you are (e)mad after all. ;) lol.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
They should've went to AMD.
Click to expand...
Apple probably wanted to go with a more well known brand than AMD simply for marketing purposes. Outside of computer enthusiasts, not nearly as many people are familiar with AMD compared to Intel. And Apple is probably trying to target a wider market now, given the huge boost to their image thanks to the ipod.
 
Ok ok, so if you had a Mac running Windows, then what would be the point of having a Mac? Will the hardware be comparitavely more powerful or efficient or something?
Would a Mac running Windows be better than a PC doing so?
 
The point of having a Mac is to run Mac OS X, not to run Windows. ;) It's just that now the emulation layer won't be so heavy (VPC runs like crap on PPC).
 
It's a very good move on Apple's part. Intel has the best laptop chips on the market and laptops are where Apple is having the most trouble competing. This may save apple's bacon. It's a slick move because they can take advantage of the fact that intel has to compete with AMD (and so will reduce their prices and keep pumping out faster chips) - while not having to be compatible with AMD themsevles.

It's becoming more and more apparent how apple can use microsoft's investments to make it easier to compete against them.
 
donbenni
Ok ok, so if you had a Mac running Windows, then what would be the point of having a Mac? Will the hardware be comparitavely more powerful or efficient or something?
Would a Mac running Windows be better than a PC doing so?
Click to expand...

I personally don't have any experience with mac's but a friend of mine has a power book. He loves the thing, only problem is that he can't play any games on it. I can't remeber whether his reason is that he has to buy vpc or that they run poorly anyways. I just hope they Don't have "intel inside" on the oustide.
 

Latest Posts

Back