Slashdot Log In
Apple Switching To Intel Chips In 2006
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jun 03, 2005 09:40 PM
from the late-lamented-powerpc dept.
from the late-lamented-powerpc dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
April Fools? Right? (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose C|Net could be right, there's nothing technically stopping a 'switch' to Intel, but I don't see what Intel has in 2006 that IBM can't match, or AMD, or whoever.
Apple vs IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
easy to trace (Score:5, Interesting)
- IBM bends over and hands them the PPC970.
- Jobs publicly trumpets that the chip will hit 3GHz in a year's time.
- Jobs gets humiliated by the fact they didn't even come close and still aren't there after 2 years.
- Jobs throws constant fits and IBM suddenly considers using their tech for more gracious customers... say, game console manufacturers
- Jobs get jealous of the attention paid to said console manufacturers
- Jobs delivers an ultimatum, IBM calls his bluff, and Jobs is suddenly looking elsewhere for the future of his platform.
Sound crazy? Consider the Altivec debacle and how IBM backed away from the AIM alliance after that. Consider Moto's redirection to embedded processors (hello game consoles) and Jobs' resultant fishing for new tech. Jobs may be running out of corps that will put up with his, uh... particularly demanding negotiation skills. Then again, maybe Monday will bring a nice surprise... a choice of chips for the Mac platform. Here's hoping.
Parent
Re:easy to trace (Score:5, Interesting)
- IBM and Apple sign a multi chip agreement with very specific clock speed, power usage, production quantities and target dates built into the contract. the first chip is the PPC970.
- Jobs and IBM publicly trumpets that the chip will hit 3GHz in a year's time which is actually well below the contractual promises IBM made.
- Jobs and IBM get humiliated by the fact they didn't even come close and still aren't there after 2 years.
- Jobs throws constant fits and points out that IBM has missed every metric they contractually promised to meet. Jobs also points out that the way the contract is structured that Apple now has a right to a significant chunk of IBM IP and the right to shop for a manufacturer who is able to produce any and all of the chips under the original agreement.
While this is unfolding, IBM has been making the same pie in the sky promises to Sony and MS. As with Apple, IBM begins significantly scaling back the promises made to Sony and MS.
- Jobs get jealous of the attention paid to said console manufacturers
- Jobs exercises the options available and IBM gets taken to the cleaners.
I will restate. The contract Apple has with IBM has a "Moto" contingency. There are extremely tough provisions in the contract that Apple insisted upon to prevent another Motorola scenario from happening. IBM had no problem with the provisions because they were positive the could beet the goals by two in half the time. IBM fucked up badly.
Apple now owns a large amount of PPC IP and Intel will now be manufacturing and designing PPC chips.
One last comment on the Altivec "debacle." Considering that 99% of the chips IBM will manufacture over the next five years will have Altivec or a close derivative, the debacle is IBM's blindness to the importance of vector processing for so long.
Parent
Re:easy to trace (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did they outright say that Mac OS would be on x86, or just on an Intel chip? If it's on a non-x86 Intel chip, I'm thinking one of two things:
a. Intel's going to be making PPCs. Isn't PPC an open spec?
b. Apple's switching to ARM. However, could Intel get XScale to, umm, scale?
Parent
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Reading this news made me physically ill. The last time I was this nauseated after reading an article was when Microsoft bought Bungie, my favourite videogame company.
After thinking about it, I realized the same thing. TFA didn't say that apple was switching to Pentium or Xeon or any other x86 processor, just intel branded chips. It's entirely conceivable that either Intell will create a new PPC chip (although how they'll crank one out in a year is beyond me), create a new chip altogether (again, in one year?!), or simply piggyback Altivec onto one of their existing designs (i dunno how good of an idea that is).
I suppose it's most likely that Intel will pop out a mutant chip that resembles something like the bastard child of their current crop of high-performance x86 processors and the current G5; a chip with extra registers, the Altivec vector unit (or multiple units), and some extra instructions (like that spiffy sqrt instruction that the G5 has).
I guess the only thing left to say is "don't knock them until you've got the details."
But I really don't think this is good news at all. I see dark clouds on the horizon.
Parent
April Fools: Apple raises the Itanic (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL that Stevie will put an x86 processor at the heart of a Mac because it'd basically open the door to clones and homebrews of white-boxes running MacOS. Apple wouldn't dare give its users that much freedom.
No, we're talking ITANIC, baybe!
It makes logical sense, and it's a match made in heaven. AMD64 killed Intel's Itanium game plan in the short term causing sales of the machines to make a huge belly flop, plus it killed Intel's long term plans of eventually replacing the x86 with Itanium rather than slapping on 64-bit capability to the x86 architecture, which AMD did anyway and Intel was forced to adopt.
Intel sure as hell won't let billions of dollars of R&D for this new processor to go down the crapper. The solution? Move the processor to a different platform!
Intel can simply offer its wares to other architectures like the Mac. Plus, Intel has the fabs to make sure that Apple won't be starving for chips, which is a problem Apple constantly griped about with Motorola and IBM.
It'd also give Microsoft one more reason to fear Intel. If Intel is playing both sides of the PC vs. Mac war and suddenly becomes smitten with Microsoft (as they're reported to be lately), Intel would be in a position to play dirty.
Parent
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I'm an embedded systems engineer with over 20 years of experience.
Are you suggesting that IBM is going to take money from profitable embedded processor lines and plow that into R&D on desktop PowerPC CPUs? I somehow doubt it. Most of it doesn't apply anyway. In Intel's case, many of their embedded CPUs are based on now-outdated desktop technology, so while the desktop R&D eventually benefits their embedded processors, it seldom goes in the other direction.
Also, you will find that Atmel, ARM, Zilog, Microchip Technology, Motorola, and others, who are not big players in the desktop market, have a huge share of the embedded systems market. You also have to consider the dollar figures. When Intel or IBM sells a desktop CPU, they probably get about $100 or more for it, on averate. The average embedded CPU is less than $15.
Parent
Re:April Fools? Right? (Score:5, Informative)
There's the Celeron M [intel.com], which is based on the current Pentium M core (Dothan). A quick Froogle search [google.com] will find boxed Celeron M processors selling for less than $100.
If the CNET article is correct and the Mac mini is one of the first to adopt Intel chips (in 2006), then I'm sure it will use the Celeron M. By early 2006, the Dothan-based Celeron M will be previous-generation technology, just like the G4 is today. Apple should have no problem fitting the Celeron M into the tiny form factor for less than $500.
Parent
Hello Pear! (Score:5, Funny)
The sky is falling! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The sky is falling! (Score:5, Funny)
good thing i bought armageddon insurance!!
Parent
Re:The sky is falling! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:It was only a joke (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The sky is falling! (Score:5, Funny)
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.
Parent
Re:The sky is falling! (Score:5, Funny)
And I got laid! We're all fucked!
Parent
Apple has a history of swapping enemies and allies (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:The sky is falling! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Any Evidence At All? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Any Evidence At All? (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, I have no evidence if we have Intel based Macs hiding anywhere. But, I do have evidence of the next PowerMac (yah, yah we just speed bumped them). But, it means at least one more generation of PowerMacs that are 970 based.
Now it could be we are switching to Intel chips and when I walk in Monday, I will learn all my work has been for naught. But, I think since I have access to a PowerMac unlike any other, I should also be allowed to know about a platform switch, but who knows.
Parent
I'll eat my hat... (Score:4, Funny)
Apple plans to move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007, sources said.
So Apple's going to force their Developers, the people who need to have the latest, greatest and fastest machines, to use Mac Minis to develop their software on? Not in a billion years!
There's no way in Hell that Apple could ever get away with switching low-end Mac Minis first and then top of the line Power Macs a year later. No developer is going to torture himself on a Mac Mini when they could be developing on a Dual 2.7 GHz (or higher) G5. Sure there are those that will say that Apple will let you compile on a G5 and then just test on a Mini - that will never happen either. It would increase development time by at least a factor of 2 and probably more. This would effectively kill the Mac platform.
If Apple would ever consider this (which I doubt, AMD is far better than Intel and I believe the PPC platform has a far brighter future than the x86 platform, just look at all the next-gen gaming consoles) then they would need to transition their high-end machines first if not at the same time as everything else.
Not to mention the fact that SSEx pales in comparison to Altivec. Why does this matter? Because Apple has invested heavily in vectorized libraries, especially CoreImage. CoreImage & Quartz 2D Extreme rely heavily on Altivec when you don't have a graphics card capable of running them. SSE just wouldn't be able to cut it. Also, what's Apple to do with all their engineers that have so much experience with PPC and Altivec? I could go on and on.
It would take 4-5 years or more for Apple to make the transition and optimize OS X on Intel to where it is today (Apple might have a version of OS X running on x86, but I'm sure that it's nowhere near as optimized as Tiger is for PPC). Does Apple really want to give Microsoft that much time to catch up? I think not! They'd much rather run circles around Microsoft. It will be a cold day in Hell before this happens.
Parent
Re:Any Evidence At All? (Score:4, Interesting)
The technical issues really aren't that insane. Most high-level code PPC is only a recompile away from working on an x86. Development tools could easily support compilation to some sort of fat-binary (see: 68K-->PPC transition) or dual-binary scehe,.
The only technical sticking point would be Altivec code. Lot of manual work to translate it to SSE1/2/3. However, if Intel could support the Altivec instruction set in hardware... it could be a fairly seamless transition for developers. The technical aspects of supporting it in hardware wouldn't be too hard; I think the only challenges would be legal (patents, etc).
If
Parent
MacOSX on x86? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:MacOSX on x86? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:MacOSX on x86? (Score:5, Funny)
if Apple get's it's own chipset
ERROR: unnecessary apostrophe overflow
Parent
Re:MacOSX on x86? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe the DRM was the clincher for Apple.
Parent
eWeek says the Intel rumor is wrong. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1823282,00.a
Analysts: Dual-Core PowerPC G5s Due for Apple
Building a G5 PowerBook could be an aesthetic challenge for Apple. The G5 chip tends to consume more power and produce more heat than the G4. Hotter, more power-hungry chips tend to require a thicker, more spacious chassis and larger, higher-capacity batteries--all of which might lead to a more portly PowerBook.
But, analysts say, versions of the 970FX technically already fit into the power envelope needed for Apple to offer a mid- to full-size laptop in the 5-7 pound range. At the moment, two of its three PowerBook G4 portables weigh in at over 5 pounds.
Aiding portability, IBM has also added a power-management feature to the PowerPC 970FX. Called PowerTune, it can cut the chip's clock speed, therefore lowering its voltage, in order to save on power.
Therefore, a 1.8GHz PowerPC 970FX would be a good choice--it would top the current G4 processor--but power management might still be an issue in some other ways.
The 1.8GHz chip "might be 35 watts or something like that. There are plenty of 35-watt [notebook] processors out there. The big problem is you want to get average power [consumption] to be a lot lower. That relies to a large degree on software management," Glaskowsky said. "If I had to pick a reason why it hasn't shown up yet
Still, not everyone believes that the Power PC 970FX makes a great notebook chip.
"Right now, from IBM's perspective, the [PowerPC] 970 is a pretty competitive part, but they definitely lack a low-power version," said Kevin Krewell, editor-in-chief of the Microprocessor Report, in San Jose, Calif. "The question is, can you get it low enough--25 watts to 35 watts--in order to get it into something sleek enough for Apple?"
To arrive at the right mix of frequency and performance, Krewell suggests that IBM and Apple might need to consider creating a new G4-G5 hybrid instead of delivering a low-power 970.
"The best route would be to develop a new [processor] core that's somewhere between the G5 and the G4," Krewell said, "But that's a significant design undertaking
Apple could also adopt a multicore G4 derivative from Freescale Semiconductor Inc., once the chip arm of Motorola Inc., for its portables, Krewell said.
"That's still a 2006 thing
Representatives from Apple and IBM declined to comment for this story. A Freescale spokesman did not return a call.
Editor's Note: This story was updated to reflect the fact that an Apple representative returned a phone call to eWEEK.com but declined to comment.
Parent
Re:MacOSX on x86? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Must be a slow news week at CNET... (Score:5, Funny)
68k emulation easy, but what about PPC emulation? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is NOT official (Score:5, Informative)
New device (Score:5, Interesting)
Even that seems like a bit of a stretch to me as I suspect the reality is more like Apple will be using Intel chips in a potential variety of new areas. Chips for networking and WIMAX for example. Or.....given the performance of Intel mobile chips relative to Motorola chips, perhaps as a warning shot across the bow of IBM, Apple will announce that Apple portable systems like Powerbooks will move to Intel chips. Even though I am quite the Apple aficionado, I have to admit that Intel is doing some pretty impressive portable CPUs. Near future plans for Intel portables include built in WiFi and dual cores. However, I realize that this would introduce more than a little difficulty for developers who have a "portable OS" and a "desktop OS" which would suck.
So....perhaps what is really going to happen is that Intel will produce a "portable" PPC chip for something new? Something like a new Newton? If I recall correctly, my Newton 130 ran an ARM chip, and I believe that Intel has the license rights to develop ARM based CPU cores..... Oh please oh please oh please.....
Transitive Technologies (Score:5, Interesting)
If the claims about Quick Transit are true, and there is no reason to believe that they are false as evidenced by the product's success runix MIPS code on Itaniums (see here [intldeveloper.com]), then we should actually see a performance increase for PPC applications (not recompiled) running on OS X x86.
If you were Steve and your apps (as well as everyone elses) ran unmodified on intel hardware faster than it ran on your own, you would probably build some boxes based on intel as well.
There may actually be no need for developers to recompile anything. With Quick Transit built into the OS (let's assume it becomes part of OS X), it would be possible to target x86, PPC or even other architectures and yet run at essentially full speed on any deployment architecture. I know this sounds a bit wicked. It did to me as well. I am sure there will be a bit of a performance and memory hit when your applications are not native, but those hits may be completely overwhelmed by silicon horsepower.
If done properly, this could be a very good move for Apple.
Parent
Re:Transitive Technologies (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
This obviously means no Powerbook G5s (Score:5, Informative)
It also occurs to me - another point that I'm sure others have already thought of - that this may be why they are forced to switch to Intel. They can't get chips small enough for a Powerbook G5 line.
Re:This obviously means no Powerbook G5s (Score:4, Insightful)
Looking at the iMac G5, I can't see why not. I mean, that things almost a laptop already! I'm really surprised there are no laptops with G5's yet. I thought it was the next step from that iMac...
Parent
Overlooked points... (Score:5, Interesting)
2) Apple will never let MacOS run on an open platform/commodity hardware again.
3) AMD has virtually no non-x86 CPU tech.
I predict that Intel will either manufacture a Cell derivative or a big-endian, possibly non-x86 propreitary CPU and chipset.
Intel knows how to make chips, not just x86 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Intel knows how to make chips, not just x86 (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
OH GOD FUCK YES MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Well spank my ass and call me Judy! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm scared. Hold me.
Re:Well spank my ass and call me Judy! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Spin Control (Score:4, Informative)
Apple has used IBM's PowerPC processors since 1994...
Nitpick: More accurately, "Apple has used PowerPC processors since 1994." The way C|net wrote it, it sounds like IBM is the only game in town until you make it halfway down the page.
The earliest PowerPC chips were from IBM, the G3s were from either Moto or IBM, and G4s were from Moto (and now Freescale). Only with the G5 has it come back to IBM's PowerPCs in a big way.
The Wall Street Journal reported last month that Apple was considering switching to Intel
No, the Wall Street Journal did not. The Wall Street Journal's rumor page -- on par with such publications at The Sun and the National Enquirer, and not intended to be taken as factual -- printed this as a rumor. Not that this stopped Reuters or anyone else from reporting it as fact.
Keep also in mind that the shadowy mystery figures in the rumor are "two industry executives with knowledge of recent discussions between the companies" -- not Apple or Intel employees. Maybe it's Darl McBride and one of his other personalities!
"I don't know that Apple's market share can survive another architecture shift. Every time they do this, they lose more customers" and more software partners, he said.
Apple has changed architectures once, from the 68K to PowerPC. This change was, for the most part, completely transparent to users and developers. Why would they lose customers over something so painless? Next thing you know Detroit will be losing customers because their latest cars have a V8 and anti-lock brakes where last year's models had a V6 and a dashboard Jesus.
Even if you count OS 9 to OS X as an "architecture" change, nobody was forced into it and OS X did and does still run OS 9 -- and earlier -- apps.
Apple shipped 1.07 million PCs in the first quarter, and its move to Intel would likely bump up the chipmaker's shipments by a corresponding amount, McCarron added.
In other news, transferring $1.07 from your checking account to your savings account is likely to raise your savings balance by $1.07.
WiMax? Sure. ARM? Sure. Hell, might Intel even be getting into the PPC biz? Stranger things have happened.
If Steve Jobs stands on the stage at the Worldwide Developers Conference and announces Apple's moving to x86, Satan will rise up from the underworld and devour the souls of every innocent puppy and kitten. And then emit the fart that ends the world. This is, of course, completely unlikely to happen, as we all know Satan prefers chunky peanut butter to the souls of small animals.
Re:You heard it here first (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for the insight. Did you happen to miss the entire point of this slashdot post?
Parent
Re:AMD (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:AMD (Score:4, Interesting)
This is of course only my opinion but here's how I'm thinking.
1) AMD has the performance edge for x86
2) I _think_ they are more 64 bit centric than the Intel afterthought 64 bit processors (but don't quote me on this).
3) AMD has 64 bit laptop chips (I think).
4) AMD are more energy efficient, at least on the desktop.
5) AMD is not Intel and therefor has less "Wintel" over itself. AMD is "different". Apple likes being different.
Parent
Re:The Desperate Need For Validation In The x86 Wo (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Or not (Score:5, Interesting)
The mathematical number 9533.24 cannot be represented exactly as a double-precision number, because 9533.24 expressed in binary has a repeating string that goes on forever. It is 10010100111101.00111101011100001010001111010111000 01010001111...
When you round it after 53 bits, you have 10010100111101.00111101011100001010001111010111000 0101, or 81889908046875/8589934592 or about 9533.2399999999997817.
Similarly, 215.10 is 11010111.00011001100110011001100110011001100110011 00110011001...
Rounded to 53 digits, that is 11010111.00011001100110011001100110011001100110011 0011 or 7568158436307763/35184372088832 or about 215.09999999999999432.
The difference is exactly 327852904935829005/35184372088832 or 10010001100110.00100011110101110000101000111101011 1000001101 or about 9318.1399999999997874.
However, you cannot represent the difference in double-precision, because it requires too many bits.
The result of a subtraction instruction is rounded, and you get 640337704952791/68719476736 or 10010001100110.00100011110101110000101000111101011 1 or about 9318.1399999999994179.
(Caveat: I produced the above numbers with some quick Maple commands. They could be off a bit, but the concepts are correct.)
It might be nice if calculators intended for the general public used decimal arithmetic internally. (But it still would not be able to exactly calculate 1/3 * 3. There will always be limits to mathematical correctness.) But that is an issue of application design; it has nothing to do with correct floating-point results, as mentioned in the post you responded to. The floating-point arithmetic here is correct.
Parent
Re:Giving up on hardware? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent