Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple is buyer of new IBM 64-bit processor
- Thread starter alex_ant
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is the exact article found on the USA Today site -- word for word.
I can't wait for the offiical Apple article, if there even will be one.
I guess time will tell
Chad4mac
I can't wait for the offiical Apple article, if there even will be one.
I guess time will tell
Chad4mac
Yeah, I didn't realize it was an AP article when I posted it...
I'm sure there will be an official Apple article... either at 12:00am on the morning this new chip appears in a new Mac, or 10 seconds after the keynote in which Jobs announces it.
It's deja vu all over again...
From the SFGate article linked above,
That's right, and I don't need more than 640k of memory in my PC, either.
And since when do I care whether or Windows is a 64 bit OS or not? If Microsoft can't keep up to what the people who manfacture PC's are making and Intel is incapable of making a 64-bit chip that doesn't suck all the energy out of the power grid and double as a space heater, that's their problem, not mine.
From the SFGate article linked above,
That's right, and I don't need more than 640k of memory in my PC, either.
And since when do I care whether or Windows is a 64 bit OS or not? If Microsoft can't keep up to what the people who manfacture PC's are making and Intel is incapable of making a 64-bit chip that doesn't suck all the energy out of the power grid and double as a space heater, that's their problem, not mine.
Uh. Duh. Because AMD Hammer isn't out. How hard is that?
Besides, there have been a couple of expos that have shown the Hammer running Windows XP-64. Microsoft announced support for Hammer. [http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020424/] That author was on crack when he wrote that particular section.
Hmm. Never knew it dissolved. I wonder why exactly.
1. See this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=12697
2. Since the PowerPC 970 is slated for late 2003, a year at the earliest.
Oh yes, they broke up cause they thought apple was headed for the tiolet, then cam the iMac, how they were wrong ....
Alright, so finally I went ahead and asked my friend's dad who is one of the top people at IBM Japan... and he said yeah they were providing the Power4 to Apple and they were negotiating a deal. I'm telling you, this is SOLID PROOF.
irmongoose
irmongoose
Originally posted by Mr Jobs
so is this a fact then or still a rumor i'm
well, technically, it's still a rumor because there is no press release or anything from Apple nor IBM saying that Apple is gonna use them... but, there has been so much talk about it, and now there is more solid information, so it's now safe to think that it will actually happen.
irmongoose
Sure sounds like it will be reality, but there always is that uncertainty.
It seems very logical to think that Apple would introduce a new chip to their product line with new arcitechure, instead of only increasing the processor speed much like Intel marketing has done. I have confidence that Apple really does "think different" and won't follow a incremental MHZ/GHZ increase just to satisfy the marketing hype.
Won't you be stoked if Apple was the first PC company to introduce 64-bit technology (even with less Ghz than the P4) on the bases of chip efficiency and proper arcitechture -- in all, revolutionizing the PC market rather than following a common line.
Thank God the rumors aren't following this G5 nonsense without 64-bit technology.
Think different -- and don't follow the pack!
Chad4Mac
It seems very logical to think that Apple would introduce a new chip to their product line with new arcitechure, instead of only increasing the processor speed much like Intel marketing has done. I have confidence that Apple really does "think different" and won't follow a incremental MHZ/GHZ increase just to satisfy the marketing hype.
Won't you be stoked if Apple was the first PC company to introduce 64-bit technology (even with less Ghz than the P4) on the bases of chip efficiency and proper arcitechture -- in all, revolutionizing the PC market rather than following a common line.
Thank God the rumors aren't following this G5 nonsense without 64-bit technology.
Think different -- and don't follow the pack!
Chad4Mac
AMD will beat Apple anyway. Hammer versions of Athlons are due out early next year to mid next year.
Apple is no longer the "first" to do many things. True they brought UNIX to the desktop, but seriously, how many of those grannies use UNIX? Other than indirectly accessing the extreme stability and such. I, however, congratulate Apple's efforts to "hide" UNIX to the people who don't need it yet expose it to the power users.
It's not about being the first these days. It's about doing it and doing it well.
"AMD will beat Apple anyway. Hammer versions of Athlons are due out early next year to mid next year"
As you well know, Apple is not competing directly with AMD. Apple is competing with the PC manufactures (Dell, Gateway, etc.) using 64-bit AMD chips and OS's that would utilize 64-bit technology from say, Microsoft.
There definitely is a Hammer chip, but which manufactures are vowing to use it, and will there be a Microsoft OS 64-bit compliant Windows -- all complete and ready by the time the AMD chip is released. In addition, are these companies looking to produce Desktops with this technology, or more primarily focusing on server use. Do these manufactures even have incentives to upgrade to 64-bit technology when they have 3+ Ghz intels, and AMDs? For all lmarketing purposes, they would be downgrading (1.8 ghz (64) compared to 3+ ghz (32)).
I wouldn't count Apple out on this one -- them being first and doing it well. I would say they have incentives to integrate this 64-bit tech for the pro side -- the side of their product line that might be hurting. How do we know that Apple hasn't been colaborating with IBM and configuring OS X Panther (or whatever) to run spanking fast with the new chips? And have PowerMacs already working at headquarters?
And
The unique thing about Apple is that in order for this 64-bit thing to take hold, it needs to colaborate with two people: itself and IBM.
With other manufactures, they have to colaborate with: themselves, Microsoft, and the Chip maker.
Maybe Apple can be first?
I don't know, it is just a brainstorm...
As you well know, Apple is not competing directly with AMD. Apple is competing with the PC manufactures (Dell, Gateway, etc.) using 64-bit AMD chips and OS's that would utilize 64-bit technology from say, Microsoft.
There definitely is a Hammer chip, but which manufactures are vowing to use it, and will there be a Microsoft OS 64-bit compliant Windows -- all complete and ready by the time the AMD chip is released. In addition, are these companies looking to produce Desktops with this technology, or more primarily focusing on server use. Do these manufactures even have incentives to upgrade to 64-bit technology when they have 3+ Ghz intels, and AMDs? For all lmarketing purposes, they would be downgrading (1.8 ghz (64) compared to 3+ ghz (32)).
I wouldn't count Apple out on this one -- them being first and doing it well. I would say they have incentives to integrate this 64-bit tech for the pro side -- the side of their product line that might be hurting. How do we know that Apple hasn't been colaborating with IBM and configuring OS X Panther (or whatever) to run spanking fast with the new chips? And have PowerMacs already working at headquarters?
And
The unique thing about Apple is that in order for this 64-bit thing to take hold, it needs to colaborate with two people: itself and IBM.
With other manufactures, they have to colaborate with: themselves, Microsoft, and the Chip maker.
Maybe Apple can be first?
I don't know, it is just a brainstorm...
Not sure, but I'm sure a couple are.
Of course. Windows XP-64bit is already running on Hammer.
There are two verisons of the Hammer. One for servers, the Opteron. One for desktops (aka 8th Generation Athlon [886]; Athlon was 786), which uses Hammer technologies.
Why of course they do have incentives. One, 64bit sounds good. Two, faster. I'm not sure what you're smoking about 1.8GHz thing (I dunno the exact starting speed, but I do know it's supposed to be rated at "3400+", so perhaps it's indeed 1.8GHz, but labelled 3400+. Don't assume because PPC970 is coming with 1.6 to 1.8GHz that Opterons have to be the same; but feel free to correct me wrong and I'll admit to 1.8GHz).
I wouldn't count them out for being one of the first. I'm sure Apple has been colloborating with IBM. I didn't state that they weren't.
Well gee, they've been doing that for a long time. So what?
As stated, AMD is coming out with Hammer much earlier than IBM's PowerPC 970. I know Apple isn't in direct competition with AMD, but the PC manufacturers USE AMD processors.
With the way the PC market is turning over right now, I'm not quite sure that Microsoft, PC manufactures and chip designers are willing to change the format of their sales pitches -- especially AMD. There are a lot of analysis out there (SSB, Schwab, BofA Securities) predicting a very slow turn-around for AMD, and branching out into a new unproven market (i.e., 64-bit technology on the consumer side) would be a big risk, especially when their cash and cash equivalents are low -- can't bail themselves out if they get in trouble. IF anything, I feel they will be months behind IBM -- a much stronger/risk adverse company in this market.
64-bit sounds good? What, at under 2.0 GHz? Try and sell that to the consumers who are used to -- and don't tend to quickly flock to new technology -- 3-4+ Ghz. I don't know, it sounds like a risky thing to do. Does the consumer really know that it is faster? \
If Dell -- the fastest growing PC manufactor -- wants to incorporate this 64-bit into the consumer side, they have to make sure that, one, Microsoft is willing to supply the software (not just on the cutting board), and, two, that they give up Intel contracts (which is quite a big pull). Once again, the three comapnies have to work together (which will cause conflict), as opposed to only two.
I see where you are going, and logically I tend to agree with you. It might be the case that AMD will come out/release the 64-bit chip, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they sell the chip to the consumer (maybe server) at great volume -- based in the market factor.
Apple/IBM on the other hand have great incentive to get this chip out. One, any increase in Mhz/Ghz on the Apple side of things is a good thing. Right now you could release the lower end model of the IBM chip and still make Apple users (pros) see the MHZ/GHZ increase -- not on the PC side. Factor in the 64-bit technology -- and you have a faster pro model, with the idea that the chip with grow and expand. You got a lot of Apple users out there just waiting for that "G5". IBM's incentive is Apple, they could dominate the Apple market for years to come. I just don't see that on the PC side. I think that PC manus will stay with high Ghz compared to the low ghz 64-bit chip from AMD.
Just an opinion...
Uhm. I never said it was at 3-4+GHz. I said it was rated at 3400+ on the AMD scale. Like Athlon XP 2600+, Athlon XP 2000+, etc.
Uh. Microsoft already has the software. Why would three companies cause conflicts? Even two companies can cause conflicts (Apple & Motorola [was never AIM since 1998, so IBM is out of Apple & Motorola mess since 1998]). Besides, Dell would need little involvement from Microsoft, maybe a little bit customization of software, drivers, etc. Little involvement with AMD too. They just need the processor, documentation on processor, PCI, etc. (to design mobo), and more. I'm sure they work together more than I've impressed upon in this post.
If one thing Apple still hasn't learned, the freakin moral lesson of the Motorola screw up was: don't depend on one CPU supplier. Go with processors that *HAVE* competition. You don't see IBM PowerPC 970 based computers competing with Power Macs.
And why in the world does it have to be Dell. You know, HP and Compaq exist both of whom already have AMD based computers.
You fail to recognize that there is a 64bit Athlon based on Hammer. That's the *DESKTOP* one. Opteron, the server Hammer, is for, gasp, SERVERS.
That's not true... The G3s are coming from IBM since Motorola introduced the G4s. And they did a fantastic job on designing a processor with low "fuel consumption"...
groovebuster
"Uhm. I never said it was at 3-4+GHz. I said it was rated at 3400+ on the AMD scale. Like Athlon XP 2600+, Athlon XP 2000+, etc."
The 3-4+ Ghz I was refering to are the Intel chips. When AMD releases their new 64-bit chips, they will be directly competing with Intel's high, multithreaded P4's -- and also trying to draw sells (to manufactures) based on the new arcitechture. Intel is not to worried about these new chips coming into the market. AMD will have to do some serious campaning to get this chips to sell to the manufactures, and prove they are better/cheaper than the Intel chips -- when the Ghz are lower than the main competition (refering to the Hammer consumer model, considering that it will be considerably lower in Ghz than the Intel P4's).
It is not that I fail to reconginze the consumer 64-bit Hammer, it is that I fail to see the large pull from Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc. to adopt these chips into their professional, business and home model PC's. This is based on the fact that the PC users (both business and consumer) are not quite ready for this technology, while P4's are still coming out. Maybe later...
And the wide scale release of Windows Xp 32/64-bit hybrid, only for AMD in the first quarter on 2003 is very small scale. I think that Intel would have to enter the 64-bit market (which they are, but later) for sure in able for Microsoft to 100% commit a release a new XP edition (I know Microsoft has commited to developing 64-bit XP, but without Intels backing?).
Apple on the other hand loves this $#@%. So do its buyers. It's a totally different market that the PC market. New technology -- which would benefit data intense processing like video editing and photo enhancement -- is a concept that Apple consumers, I think, would eat up. I can hear Steve now, "our new processors are 64-bit for the PowerMac and PB, utilizing totally different technology than the current P4's..."
There is a Hammer consumer and server processor. But I am scetchy to commit that this chips will enter the market and be utilized by whatever PC manufactoring company, using 32/64-bit XP, and selling on a profit making basis (pulling AMD out of @#$% creek) -- especially first quarter 2003.
I tend to believe:
The Gartner Group has stated that it believes that there is not a market for the Opteron, heavly favoring Intel's IA-64 architecture later in 2003. Further, "their predictions indicate that there is no market demand for the hybrid 32/64-bit architecture such as Opteron, and that computing markets will either go all 64-bit or remain at 32-bits."
-adapted from, http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Oct/gee20021015016808.htm
-there also is a rebuttal...you might like it
I might be completely wrong, but only time will tell.
The 3-4+ Ghz I was refering to are the Intel chips. When AMD releases their new 64-bit chips, they will be directly competing with Intel's high, multithreaded P4's -- and also trying to draw sells (to manufactures) based on the new arcitechture. Intel is not to worried about these new chips coming into the market. AMD will have to do some serious campaning to get this chips to sell to the manufactures, and prove they are better/cheaper than the Intel chips -- when the Ghz are lower than the main competition (refering to the Hammer consumer model, considering that it will be considerably lower in Ghz than the Intel P4's).
It is not that I fail to reconginze the consumer 64-bit Hammer, it is that I fail to see the large pull from Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc. to adopt these chips into their professional, business and home model PC's. This is based on the fact that the PC users (both business and consumer) are not quite ready for this technology, while P4's are still coming out. Maybe later...
And the wide scale release of Windows Xp 32/64-bit hybrid, only for AMD in the first quarter on 2003 is very small scale. I think that Intel would have to enter the 64-bit market (which they are, but later) for sure in able for Microsoft to 100% commit a release a new XP edition (I know Microsoft has commited to developing 64-bit XP, but without Intels backing?).
Apple on the other hand loves this $#@%. So do its buyers. It's a totally different market that the PC market. New technology -- which would benefit data intense processing like video editing and photo enhancement -- is a concept that Apple consumers, I think, would eat up. I can hear Steve now, "our new processors are 64-bit for the PowerMac and PB, utilizing totally different technology than the current P4's..."
There is a Hammer consumer and server processor. But I am scetchy to commit that this chips will enter the market and be utilized by whatever PC manufactoring company, using 32/64-bit XP, and selling on a profit making basis (pulling AMD out of @#$% creek) -- especially first quarter 2003.
I tend to believe:
The Gartner Group has stated that it believes that there is not a market for the Opteron, heavly favoring Intel's IA-64 architecture later in 2003. Further, "their predictions indicate that there is no market demand for the hybrid 32/64-bit architecture such as Opteron, and that computing markets will either go all 64-bit or remain at 32-bits."
-adapted from, http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Oct/gee20021015016808.htm
-there also is a rebuttal...you might like it
I might be completely wrong, but only time will tell.
Yes it's true. I was referring purely to the G4, which is a Motorola design and product. Since there is no competition on the manufacture of faster G4s, Apple has sunk in a bad hole. I hope IBM won't sink another hole in Apple. Apple seems to prefer a single company to do a single type of processor.
True that IBM did manufacture some G4s when Motorola couldn't supply enough. But IBM wasn't allowed to produce faster G4s. That was my point.