Forums | MacLife

That is quite true, with one fatal flaw. Intel will be producing the same chips for standard PC manufacturers as it will for Apple. Apple nolonger needs to source a custom chip manufacturer, it can just use whoever is the leader at at any given point in time. It is a shame to see PPC dying at such a promising time, however the benefits of the Intel switch are yet to become apparent. All will be known with the first of the Mactels.

Daniel888 wrote:

...But we have seen from two chip manufacturers that they don't want to put in the effort to R&D new chips effectively enough for such a small partner and small return. 
<crop>

What is going to happen when Intel decides that Apple is not worth it?  Who will they go to?  AMD?  And then where to after that?   Soon all the chip companies will realize Apple's game....

Apple's "game" is finding a chip manufacturer that can keep up with the production that they need for their products while developing new chips to increase speed.

As far as the manufacturers having to put in R&D for such a "small return", I don't see your point. Intel is not developing chips specifically for Apple. Apple will be using the chips that Intel develops for everyone, thus benefitting from the economy of scale in that situation. Apple stands to benefit the most from this deal because they will get less expensive, faster chips in a time line that allows them to turn orders around much faster. Remember the backlogs of orders every time there was a bump in processor speed from Moto or IBM? That won't happen if Apple uses the same chips every other computer maker is using.

I'm curious as to how the switch the Intel architecture switch will affect peripheral and hardware costs like graphics cards. Will ATI and nVidia still have to develop for Mac at a higher cost than Intel? I would think that the change in architecture would allow them to combine the development efforts, making Mac card prices in line with PC prices.

Hey, I may end up being able to afford BOTH... if the switch to Intel brings about a significant reduction in manufacturing costs, that is... then there is the hallowed student discount...

Cheap video cards are always good, too.

I'm not terribly opposed to the Macintel idea, so long as PPC software will continue to be supported by the machines, whether it be in emulation mode or other, somewhat faster means. I'd also still like to see the PPC platform supported by software companies too.

As I have mentioned before, the most recent Intel processors are good in themselves... It's the software ie. Windows, that sux. Now if the Intelized OSX is optimized for the Intel chips as well as Panther is for the G4, then I think we have the makings of a cost effective, stable and wicked fast Mac.

Mind you, I'm thinking Pentium M/HT/Xeon here, not any of these crummy, bog-standard 478 Pentium 4's... and I NEVER wan't to see a Mac with a Celeron in it... EVER!

Last edited by SchmoBurger (2005-06-25 7:28 pm)

2 160GB HDs

I'm hoping apple bypasses the current x86 line altogether. Anyone got a link to Intel's future roadmap?

http://www.intel.com/products/roadmap/ - Intel Roadmap

I'll be happy if, like in the article, netburst is completely avoided. The yonah pentium m will be great in future powerbooks.

Padon my ignorance, but does this mean Macs will suddenly keep up with gamers' ambitions for a PC to perform in the Quake realm?

"finishes"? Does that mean "gets rid of" or "is too slow in implementing" ?

reece_james wrote:

Hmm, I guess Jobs saw something that isn't up on Intel's roadmap. Or he's pissed at IBM...

Basically, instead of using electricity in the chips they're going to use light. This is the technology Steve is referring to when he emphasizes the dramatic decrease in power usage.

Intel has been working on fiber-optic technology for quite a while now. The materials have just hitherto been too expensive.

Here's an article from 2003 in PCWorld about a new technology that Intel was going to release by 2007.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,113278,00.asp

And here's a 2004 article from the NYT specifically mentioning fiber-optics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/techn … ;position=

I'm trying to find the most recent article that I read a couple weeks ago. I'll add it here in an edit if I find it soon.

[Edit: Hmm, I guess I confused that with an article about Intel using carbon nanotubes 20 years from now... but I'm not sure. I know I read it somewhere. In any case here's Intel's page on silicon photonics. Not ready for release yet, but definitely part of the roadmap Steve was talking about.]

http://www.intel.com/technology/silicon/sp/index.htm

Last edited by Phong (2005-07-23 12:23 pm)

knobtwirler wrote:

Padon my ignorance, but does this mean Macs will suddenly keep up with gamers' ambitions for a PC to perform in the Quake realm?

It will in terms of processor stuff.  In the world of gaming, 1 GHz is 1 GHz, regardless of processor architecture (and Altivec doesn't save the Mac on gaming either).  In terms of graphics cards, you'll still need the latest and greatest (which is true in the PC world too) in order to keep a great framerate.