• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
hmm....I guess IBM is having more trouble than we thought in terms of processor yields. My suspicion is that Apple plans to use the successor to Sonoma in their systems. It's what I would do in their shoes anyhow.
 
How does this change affect the architecture that Apple uses in it's computers? Does this mean that x86 will be the only main architecture used in computers? How do you predict this will change Apple's prices?

Looking forward to hearing more insight into this topic.
 
NO APPLE.

**** no.

worst mistake ever. It's gonna ruin them.

The horror. The pure, unadulterated PG-13 horror. ALL the re-development.

:cry:
 
Agreed SolidxSnake, but if IBM can't supply them G5 CPU's effectively, then what other options do they have?
It really does hurt Apple in the long run though. This decision, if it means using x86, definitely makes it easier for hackers to use stock components and make their own Apple systems very easily; it's going to be very difficult for Apple to keep their same place in the market because of this.

Also, as Padawan mentioned on our sister forum www.mac-forums.com, it doesn't necessarily mean that Apple will be using x86. They could easily commission Intel, a huge company in their own right, to make a PPC CPU and protect Apple's markets.
The article (if true), did say that Intel CPU's would appear in Apple systems by mid-2007, and this would give Intel plenty of time to develop something for Apple.
 
Uh guys. Apple is part of the A.I.M. alliance which produced the Power PC core (Along with IBM and Motorola). They own enough of the technology to licence it out to Intel. More than likely, Intel will just begin producing PowerPC chips for Apple, rather than Apple making the stupid mistake of switching to an x86/Pentium platform.
 
See, if Apple switches to x86, that means that all third-party programs and drivers will be rendered unrunnable on new x86 Macs. Apple faced the same problem when they went from 68k to PPC, and from the G4 to the G5, but they added backwards-compatible emulation. It's just not feasible to put PPC emulation in an x86 processor.
 
Ryan0rZ said:
Uh guys. Apple is part of the A.I.M. alliance which produced the Power PC core (Along with IBM and Motorola). They own enough of the technology to licence it out to Intel. More than likely, Intel will just begin producing PowerPC chips for Apple, rather than Apple making the stupid mistake of switching to an x86/Pentium platform.


That I didn't know. If Intel makes PPC Chips for Apple, then I'm all for it.

IBM: Finish the cell and DIE!! (LMAO j/k)
 
Personally, I would like to have seen Apple go with AMD. Both Apple and AMD are not mainstream companies, so their combined strengths could be formidable. AMD's pricing also would be a plus along with their lead in dual core. A mac powered by a dual core 64 bit AMD chip running an Apple operating system optimized to take advantage of that architecture would prove to a force to be reckoned with by Microsoft and Intel. I doubt that would happen though because of AMD's ties to IBM.
 
Just read that they ARE going X86. One of 2 things will come of this. Either 1 Microsoft will get a run for its' money and possibly beaten in the OS market or 2. Apple is doomed to only making MP3 devices and such.
 
Last edited:
theMonster said:
Just read that they ARE going X86. One of 2 things will come of this. Either 1 Microsoft will get a run for its' money and possibly beaten in the OS market or 2. Apple is doomed to only making MP3 devices and such.


their goes apples market - since now 3rd party clones will come out of the wood work for likley FAR less - unless apple slaps together some type of licensing system...
 
Last edited:
I love how it seems apparent that no one on this thread read the anandtech articles 'n clearly this entire thread is speculation. If you want an informed opinion, keyword INFORMED, read the anandtech articles
 
I can thinkof a few reasons for this move.

Everyone is blaming IBM for not developing the CPU's fast enough for apple. I'm looking at it from the other way around. Why should IBM put all this R&D into a chip for a company that has barely 3% market share. I'm sure if apple were moving tons of units IBM would have been keeping up with the development.

Apple is finally making money from something other than their PC's If they wanted to try something radical then now is the time to do it as they have money coming in from a source that would not be touched from this change.

Since apple is doing this now, before dual cores come into the main stream they have a chance to REALLY be faster than a PC. Since the whole OS needs tobe re-written anyway, if they optimized their OS for true parallel processing they would really have an edge over windows while MS is still getting it right.


On the bad side

More people will have access to MAC OS. Now we will really see if its more secure. Was is secure because it was a superior OS or just because nobody in the underground wrote any virii. trojans etc... for the OS. We will find out.

Now that the OS will be opened up to more companies will the OS be as solid as it is now. Apple will not have an iron grip anymore. Will the OS handle poorly written drivers as we in the PC world are forced to do time after time.

It looks like apples time in the sandbox is over. They are joining the real world.
 
Last edited:
Despite the restriction on publishing benchmarks, the the first Xbench benchmarks are trickling in.

There is one XBench screenshot showing the developer 3.6GHz Pentium 4 PowerMac running Xbench under the Rosetta emulation.
Check this out:
http://www.macrumors.com/
 
This is what I have said many times that apple should do, at least at a start. Unless they do some very good work with the hardware, OS X will probably be an option on most x86 computers, or at least newer ones. Apple is a huge winner in making this transition, ultimately making their life easier by lowering R&D costs and allowing them to focus more on software and other hardware items like the iPod.

The big loser is Microsoft. Apple can gain some serious market share, especially if they can offer their computers at a lower cost than they currently can, and this will hurt Microsoft quite a bit, especially if Longhorn isn't up to OS X standards, which I doubt it will be.

I don't think this hurts desktop linux as much as some people have thought. Desktop linux, at least in my view, is still a long way off for a lot of reasons. Usability is better, but its still not where Windows and certainly Apple are currently at, and they probably will getting better. This might also help server side linux as the Microsoft stranglehold gets more tedious.

And with this news, I wll just go ahead and say it. I will buy an x86 mac as soon as its offered. My objection to apple was their control over every aspect of all things Apple, and with this they are giving up a sizable chunk and becoming a sort of Dell-Microsoft hybrid company (in concept, not size). Thats fine, I didn't like the Intel-Microsoft-Dell supercompany idea much.
 
Back