Slashdot Mirror
Apple Switching To Intel Chips In 2006
telstar writes "According to C|Net, Apple has officially decided to drop IBM, and will use Intel processors starting in their '06 line of systems. This change was rumored last month. The announcement is expected Monday at Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference in San Francisco, at which Chief Executive Steve Jobs is giving the keynote speech." From the article: "Apple successfully navigated a switch in the 1990s from Motorola's 680x0 line of processors to the Power line jointly made by Motorola and IBM. That switch also required software to be revamped to take advantage of the new processors' performance, but emulation software permitted older programs to run on the new machines."
There's nothing to substantiate their story. It's all down to "CNET has learned..." and nothing else.
Is this yet another rumour? Is there anything to be read in Apple meeting with Intel above the idea that they might go PCIe instead of PCI-X?
Come on folks, there's a reason Via was able to enter the x86 market so easily. And there's a reason why IBM started making PPCs after Motorla. These folks know how to make computer hardware.
Would anybody be that surprised if Intel started making PPC-esque architecture chips? Don't be. Intel knows Si's at 14 as well as anyone and better than most.
Too many people have taken these rumors to mean Apple's going to release Macintosh for x86. I'm not quite ready to jump that gun just yet.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
Actually, what would be really suprising to me is if Apple moves to Intel chips rather than AMD after the recent blatant Apple-oriented attack by Intel with the Pandora PC (Mac Mini look-alike). It's the popularity of the x86 architecture that's attractive rather than Intel itself.
So unless this direct afront to Apple was mitigated with huge discounts, I doubt Intel will get the deal.
Of course none of this will be public except the choice of chip supplier. We'll have to read the spin from Apple, Intel, and makers of the Pandora like we were reading pig entrails for signs of what's really going on.
I didn't comment on the benchmarks story earlier as I was way too busy but it is now 4:40am and I have nothing better to do...
A lot has been said about the speed of various systems and benchmarks but at the end of the day the only real test for the performance of a computer is how well it runs your work. I have been developing some pretty compute intensive software for the last three months and I have to say that the G5 is a very quick processor. In my benchmarks a 2.3Ghz PPC was able to handily beat a 3.06Ghz Xeon EM64T chip with my code. This is only with gcc at the moment, I expect using the IBM compiler will make a significant difference just as using the DEC compiler on Alpha produced far faster code than gcc could. Opteron is also a very fast chip. So is Centrino. P4 and the Xeon based on it are also fast but clock for clock they are seriously underpowered.
Do not think that because some benchmarks showed what you want (that some cheap tatty Intel box is faster than a high end PPC970) that it is in fact the case. Write your own code and give it a whirl. Heck, my G4 Mac mini (1.42Ghz) is quicker than my Athlon XP 2200+ (1.8Ghz) running my code and it isn't even using Altivec yet.
As for Apple using Intel chips, far more likely it is something derived from the iPod part of their business than the Mac. The PPC970 is not underpowered, it is very quick, very efficient and easily a match for anything Intel has. AMD on the other hand has a very nice CPU in the Athlon64/Opteron and I would be torn to choose between the G5 or Opterons in a cluster as it would come down to performance running our apps as well as price.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
you know the world is coming to an end when the best golfer is black, the best rapper is white, apple goes to x86 and microsoft goes powerpc.
No, to use Apple terminology, "been there done that" . An alliance with Intel is less shocking than the alliance with IBM. How soon people forget that IBM was once the "Satan" of the Apple universe. IBM actually was a competitor unlike Intel who merely supplies competitors.
As for as MS going PowerPC, well, "been there done that" again. Windows NT 4's retail CD has x86, MIPS, Alpha, and PowerPC binaries. I remember Byte magazine comparing WinNT4 dual PPC 604s against WinNT4 dual pentiums. The verdict, dual PPC scaled better under WinNT4. The only problem was no one cared, Alpha had the performance, Intel had the price, unless you could dual boot the box into WinNT4 or MacOS there was no real point to PPC.
Are you serious? Either you completely missed the point of that post or I'm missing the humor in yours.
Intel != Pentium. The poster was just saying that because Apple now owns a big chunk of PPC IP, it will simply have another manufacturer (i.e. Intel) supply them with PPC chips. Nothing more, nothing less.