Apple's Move to x86: More Questions Answered
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 7, 2005 4:55 AM EST- Posted in
- Trade Shows
So, which Intel CPUs will Apple be using?
Steve Jobs stated that they'd be shipping Intel based Macs by June 2006, so let's consult the handy Intel roadmaps and see what will be available by June 2006.
On the desktop side, two new 65nm cores will be introduced in Q1 2006 - well before Apple's June 2006 deadline: the dual core Presler and the single core Cedar Mill processors.
We saw Presler running at last year's Fall IDF, albeit only at 2.0GHz. When Presler makes its debut early next year, it will be clocked at 2.8GHz at the low end and 3.4 - 3.6GHz at the high end. The chip will also feature a 2MB L2 cache per core and we're guessing that a number of architectural enhancements didn't make their way into Prescott. As is the case with the current Pentium D, Presler will not have Hyper Threading enabled by default, although the Extreme Edition based on Presler may have HT enabled.
Intel's Presler, most likely the first high end Powermac candidate for Apple next year.
With Intel's dual core processors, Apple can effectively offer the same TLP as their current dual processor G5s with only a single CPU socket in next year's Intel solutions. If you've ever looked at the cooling solutions required for Apple's 2.5GHz or 2.7GHz G5 systems, being able to cut that down by a half would definitely help lighten up and reduce the cost of producing/shipping their machines. One advantage that the G5 does currently have is that its die is extremely small, measuring only 66 mm2 compared to the 206 mm2 Pentium D die. The move to 65nm will help Intel, but the G5 definitely has a size advantage. However, with Intel's volumes, it is unlikely that the die size advantage will translate into any pricing advantage for the PowerPC chips over Intel's solutions for Apple.
The most excitement appears to be around Apple's ability to get their hands on the Pentium M next year - not to mention that in Q1 2006, Intel will begin shipping Yonah, their first dual core Pentium M processor. In our review of the PowerBook G4, we talked about the bulk of the unit and how it would be nice to get something smaller. Well, with the Pentium M, Apple will be able to produce a truly thin and truly light PowerBook without sacrificing performance.
But, let's not get caught up in the next year alone. Clearly, Apple is interested in the long haul, as you don't make this sort of a commitment without looking at the 5-, 10- and 15-year futures for your partner. Presler and Cedar Mill weren't the cores that won Apple over; it is Intel's Platform 2015 vision, the NetBurst successor and their ability to learn from their mistakes with the Pentium 4 that are what won Apple over. As many of you have pointed out, Apple may very well just skip over the NetBurst generation of desktop processors and initially begin the switch to Yonah on the mobile side - arguably where Apple needs a refresh the most. Then, in line with Intel's roadmap, introduce Intel's replacement architecture for NetBurst later in 2006 or by the middle of 2007.
Why not AMD? Much of Apple's success is due to marketing and branding, not necessarily technological leadership. That should sound a lot like Intel these days, whose processors essentially lag behind AMD in terms of technology, but outsell AMD by huge margins, thanks to strong marketing and branding. The Intel brand is much stronger than AMD's, and that is the sort of partner that Apple is interested in.
The ability to supply Apple's volumes isn't a huge deal, as many have pointed out. AMD could most definitely handle Apple's volumes. Intel's pricing to Apple is most likely far more attractive than anything AMD could put together, however, and when existing as a premium PC manufacturer is already quite difficult, any breaks on CPU pricing that you can get are definitely worth it.
So, why not support both AMD and Intel? Apple may in the future, although it is highly unlikely anytime soon - especially given whatever sort of pricing arrangement that Apple and Intel have worked out. Right now, Apple has no intentions of confusing their marketplace. Let the transition from PPC to x86 take place, and then worry about Apple supporting AMD. If Intel does indeed embrace an on-die memory controller and a Hyper Transport-like interface by 2007 in a cooler running architecture, the demand for Apple to support AMD may in fact diminish.
Intel needs a partner like Apple. For the longest time, Intel has been promising usage models and concept PCs that we all wanted, but would never surface. PC vendors focused on producing the cheapest system possible, while dealing with backwards compatibility and standards compliance with a huge install base - effectively, making change difficult. Look at how long it has taken us to transition away from the Parallel and Serial ports on PC motherboards or the move to SATA drives. With Apple, Intel finally has a partner that is willing to adapt to change at a much more rapid pace and one that can implement new technologies extremely quickly, thanks to a small, agile user base.
The Apple/Intel relationship will definitely change the dynamics of many business relationships spanning the entire PC industry. The question is no longer "if...", but rather "how...".
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
Vitaboy - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
The name for the first x86 Macs? I think it's gonna be
PowerMac X1
PowerBook X1
X "just makes it cool", right? X also continues the "OS X" meme that has shown up in the Xserve, Xsan, and XRAID products. "X" could also refer to x86.
Griswold - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
There is a worm in the apple. And the worm's name is intel.What happens with an apple when the worm is done eating? Right.
Quanticles - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
I cant remember everything I was going to put...Apple needs to go Intel because Intel is percieved to be more reliable, and in this transition they need no points of uncertanty.
This deal does not hurt AMD since it doesnt decrease AMD's market share, and Apple's market share is only 1.5% anyway.
AMD does not have *any* production capability issues. They have deals with three other fabs to build thier chips if the need ever comes.
The biggest reason Apple should have gone with AMD (although, not better than the reason to go with intel), is that AMD is gaining popularity in the movie and music industries due to their low latency architecture. Apple's pro series of software deals in these areas I believe.
Apple makes all of their own hardware except for the components (processors, fans, chipsets, IC's).
I believe it was stated that you can dual-boot windows on a mac, but you cannot boot macintosh on any other pc. Sure it will be hacked, and someone will make it run on an AMD computer, etc, but are they *really* going to go through the effort of writing all of the necessary drivers, etc, when Apple might kill it with an update?
Most of the people who steal OS's would regardless of whatever security measures may be in place. Apple might benefit more if they dont have it since it would get more people to use it.
IBM does not want to try to compete with Intel and AMD with only 1.5% market share, that's just silly.
Apple can not have huge prices on their hardware now since it will be much easier to compare against other PC manufacturers. Previously the high price was justified by the G5 processor. Now you can go build the exact same dell computer online and see what that is priced at.
phaxmohdem - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
IMHO I believe that Intel CPU's will work best for Apple in their desktop lines for reasons stated in teh article. However, I think apple would be doing itself a huge favor if they looked seriously at the Opteron for their X-Serve line of servers. Their current ones basically can't hold a candle to a dual or quad opteron setup plus in the server market, a lot more people realize the advantages of Opteron over Xeon, and would probably be more likely to go that route at this point.nserra - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
VERY INTERESTING TO READ:"Q: When ULi was first spun off, over 80% of your revenues came from notebook chipsets. However, this year, the company expects a significant portion of revenues to come from desktop chips. Can you tell us about this transition?
A: When ULi started out, we did focus on notebook chipsets, and it was actually quite a profitable business for us. The strength of our notebook-chipset solutions was the southbridge, which had better power-saving technology than southbridges from other vendors. In addition, it was a cost-effective, integrated solution, with the graphics supplied by our partner at that time, California-based Trident Microsystems.
When Intel introduced its Centrino platform, we knew we could not focus on notebooks in the long-term.
Centrino changed the whole dynamic of the notebook market. Centrino systems require an Intel CPU, a wireless module and Intel chipsets. So, even if ULi provided a solution that supported Intel CPUs and wireless networking, we would not be able to call it Centrino. In addition, despite ULi having all the parts and better power-saving technology than Intel, some of our customers, such as Toshiba, started to worry. It was all because of naming, a marketing issue."
nserra - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
This is not bad, like someone already said here AMD is the BMW the other are not, and not everyone can have a BMW.If you look good this is not that bad, amd have the others support (nvidia, ati, sis, via, uli), and the others will support even more amd, why?
The others don’t like centrino, intel igp, ... WHY? Because they aren’t there. Where can they be? Teaming with an amd processor for example.
Besides in the future you will see MAC dual core system 80FPS, AMD dual core system 120FPS... that will look bad for who...
(Prepare to see some amd systems with 9600 cards vs sli 6800 ultras on apple benchmarks/marketing)!!!!! ;)
Intel best performance per watt...... it there where AMD in that chart was scoring what? 300 points?
erinlegault - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
Please ignore the last sentence in #39.erinlegault - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
Isn't all hardware and software developed with some form of industrial standard, i.e. USB, Firewire, Flash, etc. The drivers are simply the tool for "integrating" the hardware with software.Unfortunately, it doesn't work as it should because M$ gives hardware developers the development version of Windows and they design the drivers and hardware to support Windows. Of course new versions of Windows have to support old hardware, but we are seeing Windows dropping support for legacy devices, i.e. ISA. Soon LPT, serial/com/rs232, and floppy will be dropped as well.
Given the way the PC industry is done, it shouldn't take too long for Apple to develop a compatable OS. Just, give hardware development copies of the OS and all will be fine. It will just take some investment.
Plus, they shouldn't have too much trouble getting M$ to cooperate given they don't want another antitrust case.
Now that Apple will be getting in the PC business
nserra - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
"If Intel does indeed embrace an on-die memory controller and a Hyper Transport-like interface by 2007 in a cooler running architecture, the demand for Apple to support AMD may in fact diminish."I don’t understand these articles that say that intel will have a superb system by 2007.... 2007 is not today, and in 2007 amd will still have the same processor (amd athlon64 4000+, fx55, ....) ?!?!
othercents - Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - link
There is a simple answer why AMD was not choosen as the CPU manufacturer. Intel not only is the CPU manufacturer, but they also manufacture Motherboards and Chipsets. AMD does not. Apple was probably looking for a total solution that they can slam into their cases without have to design or develop anything else. Intel can do that and AMD can not.Other