Comments on: Hell Freezes Over: Evaluating the Move to Intel

By: Jeff Harrell

Jeff Harrell — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:59:47 +0000

Scott, I’m sure there are folks out there who enjoyed your comment, but the people who run Apple have a legal responsibility to their shareholders not to get lost in abstract, pie-in-the-sky BS. They have a responsibility to think in the zero-to-five-year time scale, not the ten-to-fifty-year time scale.

In other words, Scott, if I had a nickel for every time somebody said “Tiny microprocessor innovation X is the start of something monumental,” I’d be a rich man.

By: Scott

Scott — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:53:43 +0000

Jeff,
Look to the future man, look to the future. I know that Apple does not make supercomputers or game consoles. What I am saying is that I believe that the Game Consoles’ PPC chips along with the new first gen Cell chip coming out soon will be the start of something monumental. With this insane chip technology by IBM these processors are going to allow users to do much more then what we can do with computers today…stuff we can only dream of. (and perhaps ways we haven’t even dreamed of yet) It’s H.A.L all over brought to you by the folks who inspired HAL. For novices spell out HAL and use the letter after each letter in HAL. Cowinky dink…I think not dear Watson. Think Different Man!

By: The Apple Blog » Dispelling a few Intel Myths

The Apple Blog » Dispelling a few Intel Myths — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 23:26:45 +0000

[...] for at the end of the day, even if perhaps AltiVec may have been technically superior. In my previous post, I noted how the better state of the GCC compiler on x [...]

By: Jeff Harrell

Jeff Harrell — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 20:21:25 +0000

Scott, Apple’s not making supercomputers or game consoles. They’re making laptops and Mac minis.

By: Rich Trouton

Rich Trouton — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 19:34:05 +0000

Scott,

If it turns out that Apple’s made a mistake, here’s the beauty part: They’ve got at least a year to recognize that and fix it.

Also, with the FAT binaries, Apple can always move back to PowerPC. They’ve already got the support for it built into the OS.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:17:59 +0000

Read this article. IBM Dual core…try 7 core coming out next year. IBM already has dual core chips out including the xBox’s 3 core. IBM’s Power is THE Chip and Apple made a mistake: [LINK]

By: Jeff Harrell

Jeff Harrell — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 02:44:14 +0000

I’m always vaguely amused when people tell me that the PowerBook isn’t competitive because of its CPU. Believe me when I tell you that for all but the most trivial compute-bound tasks, the PowerBook is more constrained by the operator than by any of its components. And even if you ignore the user for purposes of discussion, the speed (or lack thereof) of laptop-style hard drives has more of a direct impact on user experience than CPU speed does.

By: Gareth Potter

Gareth Potter — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:03:49 +0000

Scott,
But the roadmap is precisely the reason for the switch. Where’s IBM’s rumoured dual core chip? Where’s something Apple can shove in a PowerBook? These are very serious problems - especially the PowerBook one - because Apple has an ultra-desirable laptop, one which is selling well in spite of its lacklustre processor.

I’d also say that GHz do still matter to a degree. Granted, most people don’t need a 2.7GHz G5 or a 3.8GHz P4 to surf the Internet and read e-mail, but aspects of software are progressing and these can and do use the extra muscle - games would be the most obvious example, because we’re by no means “there” yet.

But you’re certainly right on one point though - it’s not all about GHz, as Intel have found. Chip design matters too, which is why the PowerPC has traditionally been so good and why AMD manages to get such good performance out of slower clocked chips. But Intel is making inroads in this area too, viz. x86-64, multicores, etc., and at the end of the day is the safest horse for Apple to bet on given its status as the premier CPU manufacturer.

Technically crude though the x86 is, it has managed to survive for a remarkably long time. Do not underestimate its versatility.

There is no rational reason for PC manufacturers to switch to the PowerPC, and a tonne of reasons why they wouldn’t.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:35:15 +0000

I see your point on the PCs but when does the GHZ speed stop mattering in PCs….I thought it already did. I also thought Intel’s chip process has “maxed” out and Moore’s law was almost a dead theory….hence the need for dual processors and different conventions of chip manufacturing..ala IBM. Apple commented on the roadmap of IBM’s Power PC looking weak. I highly doubt that’s the reason for the switch. I’m sticking with my theory.

By: Gareth Potter

Gareth Potter — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:23:10 +0000

Scott,
I don’t think IBM actually does want to wage war against Intel in microprocessors, and this is the main reason that Apple is making this switch.

IBM’s customers - Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo - will each demand quite customised processors tailored for their specific needs, and IBM can and will deliver on this. It stands to make an enormous amount of money by powering the three games consoles. But these customers do not demand regular increases in clock speed - instead IBM has to make a very good chip and push it out in volume. (Whether it will be able to produce in volume is another matter.)

Apple wanted regular speed bumps to their PowerPC, but didn’t and won’t get them because at IBM the above agenda is always going to take priority. So they move to Intel. In the end, it makes a lot of sense.

And you won’t see PPC-based PCs for the very same reason - they’d be moving to an architecture which isn’t keeping up in the clock speed battle. Add to that the fact that there is such a huge installed base using x86 and that Windows is not particularly easy to port and it makes little sense.

In IBM’s POWER servers and such, the PowerPC makes great sense, as it does in these consoles. But in that random beige box in your bedroom/study/workplace? Nah.