Apple Switched Chips Too Soon?

Ctrl+Alt+De1337 writes "C|Net is reporting that IBM has announced a method of altering silicon that will allow its next generation of Power chips to run at speeds between 4 and 5 gigahertz, and consume less power as well. From the article: 'Instead of just making transistors smaller, IBM came up with a process to alter how silicon behaves by placing a layer of insulator underneath a layer of silicon less than 500 atoms thick ... The higher speed of the Power6 will be achieved with existing chip manufacturing technology that etches transistors only 65 nanometers wide, several hundred times smaller than a human blood cell.' These won't be out until 2007, but it still raises the question: did Apple jump the gun by switching to Intel?"

Apple too soon or IBM too late?

[imoou (949576)]

Apple switched because Intel offers a better deal right now. When IBM offers a better deal, Apple can pretty well switch to (note: switch to, not switch back) this new chip.

Apple would be silly sticking to an inferior product for 2 more years.

Unlikely they'll switch again

[sterno (16320)]

I rather doubt Apple would switch again. Intel will eventually develop a similar capability or will license the production of it from IBM. I rather doubt Windows laptops will be switching to PowerPC anytime soon so there's a long road ahead for laptop chips at Apple.

Apple didn't move because of the performance of Intel versus IBM, it was that IBM was very unresponsive when it came to making a laptop variant of the G5. Now that Apple's on the Intel ship, they'll benefit from working with a company that has a vested interest in developing laptop chips. Name me one manufacturer other than Apple that made PowerPC based laptops and you'll see what I mean.

Re:Apple too soon or IBM too late?

[shotfeel (235240)]

I agree. The tech will be available in for the expensive servers in 07? Will be ready for mass production at the level Apple would need in ??? Will be cheap enough for the PC market in ???? Will be energy efficient in ?????

Remember, IBM likes to make high-end chips where the cost of the chip is secondary to raw power for its servers. That's where the new tech generally goes first. IBMs first goal isn't cost efficient processors for PCs -which is why the IBM/Apple "breakup" can be viewed as a good thing for both companies.

Re:Apple too soon or IBM too late?

[jcr (53032)]

I seem to recall it was also a matter of supply problems

That, and the impossibility of getting a G5 into a laptop.

Apple probably lost a billion dollars or more every quarter since the G5 came out, because of supply restrictions. It's a fine CPU, but we just couldn't get enough of them.

-jcr

Re:Apple too soon or IBM too late?

[ericdano (113424)]

But right now there are applications that can run on BOTH platforms (Intel and PPC). So, why not just keep the option open and have applications be Universal and then it doesn't matter what Chip is inside. It will just simply run.

I think the dumbest thing is to get locked into a chip again. I think it would be really genius to be able to have an OS that runs on anything.

Apple Switched Chips Too Soon?

[BuR4N (512430)]

No, it was the best thing to do, instead of having one company as a supplier they now got at least 2 , AMD and Intel. I think we get better and cheaper Apple boxes out of the x86 move.

Its not all about performance either, its the ability to ship large quantities of chips also, if you want to grab a larger market share.

Re:Apple Switched Chips Too Soon?

[doormat (63648)]

Technically, didn't they have two before? IBM and Freescale?

Universal Binaries

[pq (42856)]

I thought the idea of Universal Binaries was that the packages were compiled for multiple architectures, selectable at runtime? The same binaries are now running on Macintels and G5s, so Apple should be able to continue running apps on either architecture...

Not so fast

[bratboy (649043)]

IBM was facing a pretty big loss of business, and would have let Apple know before the official announcement. Apple knew, and decided to switch anyway.

Less than 2% of one fabs capacity

[charnov (183495)]

Actually, chips for Apple accounted for less than 2% of the capacity [nytimes.com] of just one IBM fab. IBM's tech division (which does chip fabbing) accounted for less than 3% of IBM's total revenue. That's a really small piece of IBM's global business. It's kind of like an oil company losing one gas station...not really gonna hurt them that much.

Nothing new

[wiredlogic (135348)]

SOI is nothing new. It's been around for decades for radiation hardened ICs used in space and military electornics. The only news is that it is now being considered for large scale commercial production. IBM has been hinting at a transition to SOI for years and rest assured that Apple planners were well informed of this when they made the decision to switch.

No way.

[homerj79 (58075)]

No way did Apple jump the gun. Both Apple and their users wanted more speed, especially in their mobile products, and Intel delivered on that today - not in mid-2007. I see in no way how a chip process that wont be available until 2007 is compared against a decision made in 2005. I think anyone in the right mind can see why Apple made the switch in the first place.

Apple hasn't switched

[Capt'n Hector (650760)]

This is one subtle, yet important distinction. Apple has added the intel processor to their lineup, but they haven't abandoned the PPC architecture. Although Steve et al. have implied a complete switch through the various pr statements made on the subject, Apple could just as easily stick with both chips indefinitely. Or they could retreat back to PPC if intel suddenly died and IBM came out with a blockbuster. That is of course if Intel doesn't lift this technology from IBM for their own chips in the future. Which they will.

I don't see a difference

[EggyToast (858951)]

The G5 was an amazing chip when it came out. But the speeds stagnated, the heat production was incredible, and they could never design a laptop chip.

How is this chip different?

And what would it cost?

With Intel, Apple gets a low-cost chip that they can use NOW, in their laptops and desktops. They get low-power consumption today, and low-heat today. Not in 2009, when the POWER6 chip has been tamed... Or hell, maybe never, AGAIN.

So yes, this seems like a good chip. But it doesn't really affect the reasons that Apple changed. It doesn't say it's a good chip for laptops, and they would still need to change the architecture of their systems. AND they'd have to stick with a company that was creating lower yields.

Plus, this writeup makes it sound like IBM didn't tell Apple that they were about to make POWER6 chips. I'm sure they knew, and I'm sure they realized the advantages and disadvantages.

Not really.

[CerebusUS (21051)]

The Power6 chip will compete against offerings from IBM rivals such as Intel, Advanced Micro Devices and Sun Microsystems...But the process also tends to make chips run hotter

So these are server chips. The area of Apple's lineup that was suffering the worst was their laptop line. These breakthroughs from IBM don't address that at all.

Reasons for switch...

[PaulBu (473180)]

Of course it was reported all over that the reason for Apple switching to Intel processors was because of speed and power consumption -- this is what makes consumer happier ("Hey, an extra GHz!".

But another reason was that Apple was VERY unhappy for a while with the rate IBM produced PPC processors and their rather poor chip yields. Introducing more exotic SOI process would not help keeping these yields up, for sure!

We will see if IBM will be able to fulfill demand for PS3 Cell processors -- I wish them best, but...

Paul B.

No.

[qwertphobia (825473)]

No, Apple did not switch too soon.

Remember, we (the loyal Apple customers) have been waiting for a significant increase in computing power within the portable market.

IBM made promises to Apple but were unable to deliver on those promises. Remember the statements about 3 GHz within a year? [pcworld.com] Apple couldn't sit by while IBM broke promise after promise on upcoming product lines.

If Apple had waited any longer, they would have lost momentum in the portables market, and in turn the desktop computer market, eventually pulling down the servers and everything else with it.

On the other hand, Apple could always keep their servers on the IBM product line. I doubt they would, but it's always a possibility. Apple might just not be done with the PPC for good.

the switch was about money not technology

[Shivetya (243324)]

I work in a world where a variation of the PowerPC drives a business. From iSeries (AS/400 new name) to xSeries and eventually the pSeries. The processor and the technology behind it are simply amazing. We went from 48bit to 64bit computing in the late 90s without recompiling or any such nonsense because iSeries engineers separated the processor from the OS. The tech has always been there. We have PowerPC powered thin clients as well - fanless to boot!

Switching to the Intel platform allowed Apple to get those sitting on the fence waiting for the next greatest thing to have a reason to buy a new Apple computer. It will even garner more buyers from the previously Intel-Only world in the form of linux and windows geeks. Continuing the PowerPC line would not generate the boost in revenue Steve needed. There are only so many variations of the iPod they can crank out before someone either starts to truly compete (overseas the iPod saturation level is only near 40%) or the market moves to further integration perhaps out of Apple's area of expertise.

I know its working, almost everyone of my friends who have Macs are going to buy into the new machines. The laptops are where its going to be the biggest until the mini comes out intel flavored. After that IntelMini comes out I expect another surge once someone shows Linux and Windows running on it easily.

Two things:

[Senjutsu (614542)]

One) It doesn't "beg the question". Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which you assume, implicitly or explicitly, the very thing you are trying to prove.

Two) Apple primarily switched because the laptop-suitable G4 line speeds had been stagnant forever. Freescale's 7448 is over a year late and counting. PA Semi's everything and the kitchen sink promises are still vapour-ware. And IBM couldn't provide a G5 that ran cool enough to put in a laptop.

This technology won't be out in the Power6 until 2007 if everything goes as planned, a never-safe assumption when it comes to IBM's fabs. Add more time to that for them to retool the Power6 into a desktop-suitable G6. So in return for not switching, Apple would have to leave their desktop speeds stagnant for another year, and still have no guarantee of any new chips to offer in their laptop line.

Selling 1.42 Ghz, 133 Mhz front side bus iBooks is tough enough now. They'd have had to be absolutely suicidal to stick to IBM's roadmap and the near certainty that they be trying to sell the exact some mobile processors in late 2007.

it's not like Apple didn't know this was coming...

[SuperBanana (662181)]

Does CNET really think that in private meetings with IBM, this technology wasn't discussed months if not over a year ago, with Apple? I love how the press thinks that when THEY find out about it, the rest of the world is first hearing about it too...

"Stupid Apple", they chant. Except:

• IBM has said they can do it, but not for over a year. Intel is here, now, shipping.
• IBM has historically had problems meeting supply. Intel doesn't.
• IBM has made it clear they don't care about Apple- they were running around telling everyone how Apple represented a single-digit percentage of their output of PPC's. Not a good sign when your supplier is dismissing how 'trivial' you are.

Maybe these Power chips will end up in Xserves or something...seems fairly unlikely though.

Re:Both supported

[John Napkintosh (140126)]

Doesn't mean Apple can't rethink and switch back

Don't you mean "think different"?

Re:Both supported

[psycho8me (711330)]

Grammer nazi says, "think differently".

Re:Both supported

[jcr (53032)]

Spelling Nazi says "Grammar".

-jcr

Re:Both supported

[weileong (241069)]

Actually. Considering the installed base of PPC Macs, it's likely that universal binaries are going to be the standard release from here on out - *universal* binaries, not "intel-only" binaries. So this will really give Apple a lot of freedom to "switch back" from a technical perspective.

Of course, considering what must have happened in the background when Apple did the switch - I've heard rumours IBM found out about the switch the same as all of us from the announcement at WWDC - whether IBM will be interested in Apple's business again in the future is a separate matter. It's entirely possible the only G5s Apple has are ones being delivered under the pre-WWDC contracts and that the iMac G5 is being retired so soon not only because they WANT to switch over to Intel ASAP, but because they don't have the G5s to put in 'em. IBM's probably been busy retooling the fabs to make Cells for Sony et al and won't be switching them back anytime soon...

Re:Begs the question?

[mopslik (688435)]

Yes, just like "hacking" and all the other words people have taken over to mean something different.

For all intensive purposes, I could care less.