Apple to move to AMD x86 after 2003?

chemistry_geek

chemistry_geek

Registered
http://www.macosrumors.com

has a rumor about Apple switching to the AMD x86 platform after 2003. I really hope that Apple doesn't do this. Apparently the G5 produced at Motorola doesn't meet cost, speed, reliability requirements of Apple. Why doesn't Apple just build/buy a chip manufacturing facility on its own and drop Motorola? With $4.2 billion in the bank, Apple could afford to do this. Apple already selects among the most elite engineers and designers in the industry, designing a G5 chip on their own and contracting AMD or someone else to make it would make sense to me. I can NOT imagine a Mac running on x86 or some variant of it. We would lose AltiVec of course. Apple shouldn't abandon PowerPC technology. It needs to take over control of it from those slackers at Motorola. I just don't want to see this investment in hardware and software be thrown away. Bad, very bad. Unimaginable!
 
and it's pretty easy to see why...

First off, the switch would require too much recoding - not on the OS side of things, but on the Applications/ISV side. Remember, most Mac developers were not thrilled one bit to have to even tweak their applications to become Carbon compliant for OS X. They definitely are not going to jump for joy if Apple moves to x86, and they have to recompile and adjust their apps to run on the new architecture.

Second, Apple is one of the owners of the PPC designs. These chip designs can still be competitive. Apple's problem isn't so much the PPC design, as it is the manner in which Motorola, who is the primary supplier of the G4, is dragging their feet in getting decent yields. Why is Motorola not putting much energy in to this? Because they don't see as much money from the desktop/notebook market as they do the embedded market, which is where they make most of their money, and where their real interests lie.

What Apple can/should/will probably do is buy out Motorla's stake in the PPC (the option is there for approx. $500 mil), and sub contract someone like AMD, IBM, or even Transmeta to manufacture the chips for them.

Apple's got too much of an investment in PPC to just up and move to x86 processors. Plus, if Apple were building x86 boxes, it's prices would be scrutinized even more for being higher than other PPC box makers.

I just don't see it happening guys. I'm sure there is some contingency plan over at Apple that involves a move to x86, since it is feasible, but it's probably listed as their "doomsday" plan, meaning, things would have to get a whole lot worse, and other options would need to be exhausted before they travel down that road.
 
Just thought about other CPU alternatives for Apple...

First off, if Motorola gets bought out, expect to see an immediate shift to IBM's chips. IBM has the manufacturing capacity to produce G4's, and at the same or better yields as Motorola. The reason IBM isn't producing these chips now is because Motorola holds the patent/license on Altivec, and IBM would have to pay Motorola to produce Altivec enabled chips.

IBM isn't all that thrilled with Altivec, and I can understand why. It's a nice set of instructions that can speed up certain computations, but the recoding that is required to take advantage of it means that 99% of the applications out there will not see any benefit from it.

Instead, IBM has their Power4 chip. It's a PPC chip geared towards servers right now, but it is extremely powerful and could be easily adapted to be a workstation class CPU.

I'd expect a move to the Power4 chip before I'd expect Apple to bring on a manufacturing partner for the PPC CPUs...
 
I don't think it's gonan happen.
Apple is forcing its customers to switch from one platform (Classic) to another (OSX).
It would be a terrible mistake to do it all over again with the switch from PowerPC to another CPU.
BTW, macosrumors say that this is NOT gonna happen after all…
 
Agreed. RISC kicks CISC's butt.

Isn't Intel developing some sort of RISC-like processor, though? It's already got a code-name and stuff, I've heard about it through the press. It's a whole different chip architecture from CISC. Does that mean PC user would have to go through a software switch?
 
I would love to see a move to x86. However, I don't expect to see it. At least not until it becomes even more obvious that the PPC chips will not keep up.

As for people saying Apple should build the chips themselves, they are crazy. To suggest that a mere $4B is enough to keep up with Intel is off-target. Intel's R&D budget is massive. Motorola can't keep up, neither can Apple.
 
Just thought about other CPU alternatives for Apple
Click to expand...
Apple could have bought Cray off Sgi for only half a billion dollars, imagine the products we would be seeing if they had done that !!
 
Originally posted by Cord Meyer

Apple could have bought Cray off Sgi for only half a billion dollars, imagine the products we would be seeing if they had done that !!
Click to expand...

Yes, very expensive ones. ;-)
 
As for people saying Apple should build the chips themselves, they are crazy. To suggest that a mere $4B is enough to keep up with Intel is off-target. Intel's R&D budget is massive. Motorola can't keep up, neither can Apple.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm suggesting that Apple continue with designing the chips, which they have been doing for years as part of the AIM Alliance. Remember, the PPC chip itself is the intellectual property of Apple, IBM, and Motorola. All three companies contribute to the designs of the chips, and each company uses those designs (some with their own additions, ala AltiVec) in their own productions.

As I said, Apple can continue the R&D of the PPC (along with IBM) without Motorola. Apple can then either contract IBM to manufacture the chips (the most likely scenario, since they already have the experience doing so), or they can contract a company like AMD or Transmeta solely for the manufacturing process. Hell, they could even contract Intel to manufacture the chips if they wanted.

The point is this: Apple has lots of options in this area - the most unlikely one is a complete move to x86. It just doesn't make good business sense....
 
i actually posted something about this a long time ago.. very old rumor

if apple were to use an AMD product, it would use the Itanic chewing AMD Hammer Architecture, and x86-64 variant

amd also takes the view of motorola = clock speed isnt everything

i believe at 1.6 ghz, an amd hammer can achieve the same performance of a p4 clocked at 3.4 ghz. its all about instructions per clock, not clock cycles

performance is enhanced more with the new hammer architecure with an ON DIE memory controller, thereby reducing memory access latency, use of high speed DDR PC3200 memory, even DDR-II in the future, an 800 mHZ hypertransport FSB, agp 3.0 with a 6.4 gb tunnel from the processor to the agp controller AND memory (which is upgradable because of the processor), and so on and so on.. oh yeah SMP scalability at super high bandwidth, pci-x to boot

btw all new gen AMD chips are risc, with instruction conversion registers, which translates cisc commands to risc chunks

intels itanium uses VLIW (Very Long Instruction Word) instructions, or EPIC, which is their variant of risc, and its purely 64 bit, but it isnt really doing good in the sector its supposed to compete in; hi end servers and workstations. it cant even run x86-32 legacy code as well as current chips, because it runs in emulation mode
 
and actually it's the OTHER way round, MOSR is saying they *don't* believe anything like a switch to the x86 platform would happen before the end of 2003. if people don't even read what's exactly stated in rumours, how can they ever believe to know what'll happen?

well... it's been discussed up and down. we're talking 2004 in this not-even-a-rumour case. we (the consumers) don't know when to expect the G5 processor family in Macintosh computers. we 'know' that there'll be PowerPC 7470 and 7500 processors at some point in time.

whether RISC or CISC rules doesn't really matter any more, as the 'x86' architectures of today contain parts that are RISC, too. but why should apple choose a platform that is old even as of today? both intel and AMD want to move on to 64bit processor lines in the next months and years. it's a transition for them like os 9 > os X for apple. it'll take some time, but the x86 architecture will eventually die (i.e. it has no future).
 
When and if the G5 sees the light of day, is it going to be able to compete with AMD and Intel's 64-bit offerings? Not just performance but pricewise as well?

If their yeild is so terrible, the first thing they will do is lower the clock speed hurting performance and second, jack up the price, killing demand. This is exactly what happened to the Intel Itanium 64-bit processor. Luckly, it didn't do too much damage to Intel because they had their x86 architecture that was still booming to fall back on.

Are people going to pay a$700 markup per G5 in the next PowerMacs especially when their clock speed will likely be less then the G4? Are they going to want to fall back to the G4 when the G5 can't deliver? MHz aren't everything they they sure account for something.

Moving to AMD x86 technology would be wonderful for Apple. The beauty of UNIX is that programs can be easily ported to different architectures with minimal difficulty. AMD could make a proprietary CPU and motherboard for Apple that would only run OS X. Apple would have a proven leader in CPU technology and be able to stay ahead of today's ever changing market.

The G4 beat the Pentium II, faired against the Pentium III and now is getting clobbered by the Pentium IV. How much longer is this CPU design expected to last Apple? Until 2003-4? Think of all the lost potential Apple could have had in the market had it kept up with Intel and AMD.

If the G5 can not deliver on it's initial offering, I fear it'll sink Apple. I don't think it's going to be able to either. I think it's going to take years to develop it after it's release and in that time, AMD and Intel are going to be going places with their processor designs that only Apple and Motorola could dream about.

Apple can't afford to buy the G5 from Motorola. They don't know the first thing about developing processors. Apple hires other people to do the thinking. Just like with the iPod. They have a lot of input but the end product is efforts of undisclosed companies.

They only way they'll ever be able to compete and gain market share is they can compete with the PC at it's core, the processor. OS X, iTunes and everything else is really nice, but it's the power to run it all that makes your offering worth something.
 
wouldnt it be hard for the industry to just ditch x86, or PowerPC altogether? on the x86 side of things, AMD is going a good job with adding 64 bit registers with full accleration and execution of 32 bit instructions. to the regular user, 32 bit programs and the power and scalability of x86 isnt gonna leave anytime soon due to the overhead needed to just change technologies.

hey, and maybe added compatibility with software titles to boot

=D
 
MOSR Update...

http://www.macosrumors.com

has a possible explanation for this "AMD" thing... Here's a quote from MOSR:

Also, Apple sources have recently told Rumors that when Apple ships computers branded as PowerMac G5s next year, they will almost certainly not include Motorola PowerPC 8500 processors, which are the G5 as we know it today -- they will be IBM-built chips based on its Power4 architecture, and may even include multiple cores on a single chip. More on this after Macworld....
Click to expand...

Now this is much more comforting news. I'd rather see Apple and IBM snuggle up together than for Apple to migrate towards a 64-bit x86 variant. It's about time Apple dumps Motorola. I don't think we'll ever see a Power4 processor in a Mac, they're simply too power hungry. I know that Apple supports vector processng and IBM has been playing around with it. Let's hope they come up with something that blows away Motorola's AltiVec. I think this is the best solution for both companies. Apple gets the fastest chips from a motivated supplier (and developer of the technology) and IBM gets to flex its muscles by getting its Power4-based processors running on the most widely distributed UNIX variant. Cool cool cool.

The only problem with these rumors is that they can never be validated. Steve has quashed many of the rumor leaks at Apple. IBM is so large and secretive that no one knows what's going on there.

Who knows... if Apple stops buying G4's from Motorola and its revenues decrease significantly, Moto's microprocessor division just might go up for sale and be a real bargain.
 
I would prefer to keep RISC than x86 or IA-64 bits. Intel and AMD been struggle with marketing right now. I noticed that IBM still bold and strong. It would be nice if Apple buy out Motorola's PowerPC Divison and team up with IBM to foucs on new Power2 or Power4. So we have option to have Dual or Quad for our machines. Will whipped SGI and SUN's a$$!
:D
 
From http://www.osnews.com/printer.php?news_id=1357

According to a brief paragraph on MacOS Rumours [http://www.macosrumors.com/] Apple may be switching to IBM POWER4 CPUs instead of the Motorola G5 for future Macs.

Editorial notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com

The quote reads:
"Also, Apple sources have recently told Rumours that when Apple ships computers branded as PowerMac G5s next year, they will almost certainly not include Motorola PowerPC 8500 processors, which are the G5 as we know it today -- they will be IBM-built chips based on its Power4 architecture, and may even include multiple cores on a single chip. More on this after Macworld...."

With constant complaints about the performance of the current crop of G4 CPUs a new faster CPU is needed and soon, while a speed bump to the current top end PowerMacs is due soon they will still be outperformed by the current top end x86 CPUs from Intel and AMD.

Apple appear to be looking to take ground from UNIX vendor SGI in the Audio / Visual fields however SGI use MIPS 64bit Rx000 CPUs for which the G4 is likely not a match, especially on intensive floating point which workstation CPUs specialise in.

If Apple have chosen instead to use IBMs POWER4 [http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/pseries/hardware/whitepapers/ power4.html#intro] CPUs in the future they couldn't have made a much better choice if they want performance.

Currently the POWER4 ships in a multi-CPU module consisting of 4 chips and a separate L3 cache. Each chip contains 2 individual POWER4 CPUs. They don't however need doubling up to provide performance - In Spec SFP2000 benchmarks a single POWER4 CPU at 1.3GHz outperforms Pentium 4 at 2.53GHz by about 40% (1266 Vs 901).

IBM have already announced they plan to make single chip POWER4s available in their own workstations, Apple using the chip isn't surprising, It uses the same PowerPC instruction set and IBM have been making G4s since 1999/2000.

It won't all be plain sailing though - The POWER4 is a big expensive chip although a shrink to 0.13um will help here along with providing a significant frequency boost (2GHz+ is already on IBMs roadmap). POWER4 also consumes copious amounts of power unlike the current G4. Just don't expect a POWER4 notebook any time soon...

What remains to be seen is how will the Altivec vector instructions be used? This is a big selling point for Apple so it's possible IBM may be planning to include a vector unit in a future version of the POWER4.

So what of the Motorola G5? The 8500 is really only an enhanced G4, the "real" G5 is the 7500 with an extended 13 stage pipeline and already rumoured to reach 2.5GHz. Motorolas main market is Embedded CPUs so it's likely the chip will still come to market but if the above story is true it may not appear in Apples flagship products. However that wouldn't rule it out from appear in lower and mid range products at some point in the future.

About the Author:
Nicholas Blachford is a Software Engineer / Architect currently living in Amsterdam. He has numerous geeky interests [http://www.blachford.info] including CPUs.

( Original Story URL at http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1357 )
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top