- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Posts
- 2,164
Apple to use Intel CPU's - it's official :s
- Thread starter smuf
- Start date
kobylka68
Basara's Blade Keeper
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2003
- Posts
- 3,666
smuf said:
wasn't one of the reasons that Apple switched because with IBM making processors for all the next generation systems that Apple was put at the bottom of the list for processors? Apple was a very small slice of IBM's money and thus a small priority.
BBC NEWS ARTICLE
Last edited:
PinkPeach said:think differenti guess that won t be pentiums they ll put in there.
I doubt apple to want x86 compatibility , at least not bi-directionnal
x86 Mac OS development kits are 3.6Ghz P4's running Mac OS 10.4.1
On one hand when the rumors came up about this happening, I was wrong in saying it was false.
On the other hand, every Macphile who went on and on about how PPC and RISC was so much faster than Intel/AMD's offering, well we have this:
genjiglove
So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2003
- Posts
- 15,080
JHendrix said:x86 Mac OS development kits are 3.6Ghz P4's running Mac OS 10.4.1
On one hand when the rumors came up about this happening, I was wrong in saying it was false.
On the other hand, every Macphile who went on and on about how PPC and RISC was so much faster than Intel/AMD's offering, well we have this:
I can't find the humor in that. Not because I'm a big Mac supporter or anything, I just don't get it.
Mushiki said:
Ye know not of which ye speak on this subject.
If RISC was better, why aren't Macs staying with a RISC CPU? Why did Jobs say in his keynote that Intel chips have the performance advantage and a higher performance/watt ratio?
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Posts
- 11,434
JHendrix said:
Because they are tired of building complex compilers?
Maybe because Intel processors are cheaper to manufacture? Issues with IBM or Motorola?
I wouldn't know - I don't know much about the latest Intel/AMD processors really, I would bash them for being CISC, but they aren't completely... I just know HyperThreading isn't really that good either... and well, some other things.
Why do you like Intel over PPC?
ferrarimanf355
Bullets QB
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2004
- Posts
- 4,724
It's official. Hell hath frozen over. 
JHendrix said:
They're switching because IBM's chips run too hot and because IBM is too busy to up their production.
RISC can be better, but if your chip manufacturer can't deliver what's better won't matter, now will it?
Use your head, Mr. Big Business. You should know this stuff.
Or are you just too busy trying to be smug?
Good then, with some hope they will release OSX on PC now
There has been a time when i prefered OS2 to windows 3.1 so maybe a shift will be possible with something more pro than linux (beeing a heavy photoshop cs and maya user and having a HDD wiped by a bug of mandrake linux partition tool some years ago, linux is a no thanks for me).
There has been a time when i prefered OS2 to windows 3.1 so maybe a shift will be possible with something more pro than linux (beeing a heavy photoshop cs and maya user and having a HDD wiped by a bug of mandrake linux partition tool some years ago, linux is a no thanks for me).
You all apparantly didn't actually follow the news.
The Mac Transition development kit is running on a 3.6Ghz P4 with OS 10.4.1, and is available to developers for $999.
"RISC can be better" is just like saying "CISC can be better", and it doesn't mean anything since what's better is what's out and is actually performing at the highest levels.
Is Steve-o lying in his conference now by saying that that Intel offers more perfomrance? Or what about every other benchmark that shows G5's trailing x86 CPU's in performance in every cross compatible benchmark that we've got? Even on server ended stuff, G5's get killed compared to x86 chips from Intel and AMD.
See it makes sense from not only a buisness point of view, but a technical one as well.
And yes, I will enjoy every moment of the lamentations of the Macphiles who espoused how great their chips were compared to the PC stuff.
The Mac Transition development kit is running on a 3.6Ghz P4 with OS 10.4.1, and is available to developers for $999.
jethrek said:They're switching because IBM's chips run too hot and because IBM is too busy to up their production.
RISC can be better, but if your chip manufacturer can't deliver what's better won't matter, now will it?
Use your head, Mr. Big Business. You should know this stuff.
Or are you just too busy trying to be smug?
"RISC can be better" is just like saying "CISC can be better", and it doesn't mean anything since what's better is what's out and is actually performing at the highest levels.
Is Steve-o lying in his conference now by saying that that Intel offers more perfomrance? Or what about every other benchmark that shows G5's trailing x86 CPU's in performance in every cross compatible benchmark that we've got? Even on server ended stuff, G5's get killed compared to x86 chips from Intel and AMD.
See it makes sense from not only a buisness point of view, but a technical one as well.
And yes, I will enjoy every moment of the lamentations of the Macphiles who espoused how great their chips were compared to the PC stuff.
JHendrix said:
Wel, at least your PC can now handle running for six months without crashing.
Assuming OSX is made to run on just any PC (I suspect it will still be Mac-specific somehow)
As for the performance thing...WHO just switched to IBM chips in theirt console? A company with more bargaining power than Apple was it?
MSOWNED