[World Leader Pretend]

While I watch this whole Intel transition I can't help but wonder, what if Apple abandons Intel some five years down the line in favor of the faster AMD chips? Could it be that Apple is simply using a more competitive marketplace to get their chips?
Corporate contracts and other stuff aside, I think Apple chose Intel because it was releasing newer CoreDuo mobile chips that helped Apple in the short run. But what if the new PowerMacs had AMD chips in them? Could Apple have the best of both worlds by using both chips at the same time?

I assume that AMD and Intel are basically interchangeable (besides the Mobos) and both would work with the x86 build of OS X.

Would it be beyond Apple to release a AMD version of a Mac within the next year or so???

Speculation please!

[scratt]

I would expect that Intel has already closed that loophole, probably with some kind of contractual period that Apple must continue to use Intel chips...

Heck, they got them to change the name of the PowerBook.

[World Leader Pretend]

Originally Posted by scratt I would expect that Intel has already closed that loophole, probably with some kind of contractual period that Apple must continue to use Intel chips...

I'm sure, but what if Apple didn't trap themselves into Intel? They may have sacrificed the beloved PowerBook name in order to keep their bridges from burning...

[chucker]

I'm pretty sure Apple has an exclusive contract with Intel over the next few years. In exchange, Apple probably gets massive discounts on Intel's CPUs.

[scratt]

I don't see it happening myself.. Not in any official manner..

There is also the fact that Intel are designing Apple's motherboards for them..

I think we are at the beginning of a long partnership here..

[Paranoid666au]

Was it Intels idea to change the name of the PowerBook and not Apple?

If there's no contracts in the way Apple could user whatever prossessor it likes, Intel, AMD it could even go back to using PowerPC because the OS runs on both and the Apps are universal binarys!

[World Leader Pretend]

Then did Apple make the right choice in chip manufacturers in the long run? (unanswerable question )

I was envisioning Apple in The Future to have a choice of any chip manufacturers out there based on who has the best stuff.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by scratt There is also the fact that Intel are designing Apple's motherboards for them..

Er. I'm not sure what gave you that idea. For the PowerMac, yes, Intel is heavily involved in design. But the iMac and MacBook Pro motherboards are mainly Apple's designs. The chipsets are Intel's, but Apple adds various features of their own, such as FireWire.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Paranoid666au Was it Intels idea to change the name of the PowerBook and not Apple? If there's no contracts in the way Apple could user whatever prossessor it likes, Intel, AMD it could even go back to using PowerPC because the OS runs on both and the Apps are universal binarys!

The reason behind the name change is speculation. But I for one am pretty damn sure about it.
It's the first time in history that I can remember Apple actually damaging their brand image by their own volition. There has to be a reason.

chucker is right, IMHO, about the fact that the deal involved the level of discount chip prices.

Yes... Apple could stick with PowerPC, but the reason they want to be on Intel is not just because of the 'advantages'. In a Nutshell - They are scared that they will be the only OS on a processor architecture which is becoming incresingly sidelined. Linux and M$ use Intel, and Linux is a rising force. They need to be on the same hardware to combat that threat.

However, Apple is wise to keep at least one toe in the PowerPC architecture for a few years.. There is no 100% certain way to predict the future in this industry.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by chucker Er. I'm not sure what gave you that idea. For the PowerMac, yes, Intel is heavily involved in design. But the iMac and MacBook Pro motherboards are mainly Apple's designs. The chipsets are Intel's, but Apple adds various features of their own, such as FireWire.

True. But I think we may see that change in the future...

I looked at an Intel iMac taken apart, and it looks very much like a modified PPC board at the moment.

I don't think that will last for long once they hve got rid of old stock, or finished their current contracted production run of those boards.

I am pretty sure that the new 'MacBook' motherboards will be augmented, and eventually outsourced to Intel. It's not that Apple can't do it. It's just that it's better for them if Intel help.

EDIT - And I think we are seeing the beginning of the end for FireWire.

[World Leader Pretend]

What is the thinnest case design that we can see from current designed-for-Intel motherboards? 3/4"? 5/8"?

FireWire would be a shame to loose, but it never really went anywhere...

[scratt]

Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend What is the thinnest case design that we can see from current designed-for-Intel motherboards? 3/4"? 5/8"?

No idea..

Originally Posted by World Leader Pretend FireWire would be a shame to loose, but it never really went anywhere...

Yup. I think it just lost out now that USB2.0 is around.
Personally I love FW, and will continue to use it for some years to come... But I guess eventually I am going to be using internal drives, and if I need an external with any speed USB2.0 will be the only choice.

Apple themselves, have kind of made that decision by starting to cut it out of things...
It still has a solid chance as Sony and Apple have done well with it...

Poor old Sony!

I hope they do better with their HDDVD than they did with Betamax!

[chucker]

FW is still prevalent with digital video and will continue to be for some time to come.

For external storage, USB 2.0 will be killed eventually by eSATA-, SAS- or NAS-based solutions. Just a matter of time and price drops.

[ZachPruckowski]

My thoughts:

the Yonahs in the CPUs in the iMacs and possibly the MBPs are removable, if I've heard correctly. So is there an AMD chip that fits in that type of socket? That seems to be the only way to find out.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski So is there an AMD chip that fits in that type of socket?

No. AMD and Intel always use different sockets.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by chucker I'm pretty sure Apple has an exclusive contract with Intel over the next few years. In exchange, Apple probably gets massive discounts on Intel's CPUs.

I'm pretty sure this is hogshit.

If Apple isn't satisfied with Intel they would be able to drop them at any time. A technology giant/brand like Apple doesn't endow itself to another company's future products. Not with this kind of turnover in the chip sector.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by scratt chucker is right, IMHO, about the fact that the deal involved the level of discount chip prices.

Any volume buyer will receive discounts, but I doubt Apple is receiving a sweeter deal than Dell or any other OEM.

Yes... Apple could stick with PowerPC, but the reason they want to be on Intel is not just because of the 'advantages'. In a Nutshell - They are scared that they will be the only OS on a processor architecture which is becoming incresingly sidelined. Linux and M$ use Intel, and Linux is a rising force. They need to be on the same hardware to combat that threat.

Linux runs on whatever the hell it wants. It's a moot point that Linux happens to on the most popular personal computing hardware platform. What Apple is scared of is increasingly specialized chip design by IBM. IBM has discovered the profitability in making designer processors for customers. Why compete with other semiconductor producers when they can lock in clients AND give them exactly what they want?

[ghoti]

If Intel had made Apple change the name of the PB, it would now be called "IntelBunnyMacBook" or "CentrinoBook", and you would hear the "Intel Inside" sound whenever somebody said the name (and when booting). This is just BS from people who can't accept the new name. Deal with it, guys!

Also, I think Apple should change architectures every other year. That would keep people on their toes, and make for some interesting marketing. And since everything will be universal by the end of the year, you wouldn't notice a difference. And they could even add new architectures at any time without people bitching.

[oldmacfan]

Originally Posted by chucker Er. I'm not sure what gave you that idea. For the PowerMac, yes, Intel is heavily involved in design. But the iMac and MacBook Pro motherboards are mainly Apple's designs. The chipsets are Intel's, but Apple adds various features of their own, such as FireWire.

The chip-set has FireWire in it, it is not added separately.

[scratt]

Eugene - There are a great many people of the opinion that Apple's switch to Intel is at least partly to do with them being the only OS that does not run on an Intel architecture. Frankly, I feel you are wrong. But you are entitled to your opinion. Furthermore, the deal between any compenent manufacturer and another will be far more complex than a simple price / quantity deal. Intel have already admitted that having Apple as a client is not about the size of the orders, but about the prestige and innovation at Apple. There will have been deals and compromises on both sides...

Following on from that last point, ghoti, it is stupid to assume that anyone would enforce or agree to a name such as you suggest. However, Intel will have wanted some kind of indicator that they are now in the machines that Apple makes. Part of that is removing references to the PowerPC (I am aware that PowerBook was around before the PowerPC was in it, and this has already been discussed by me and others elsewhere). Again, there will have been complex negotiations and demands on both sides, and in the end a compromise will have been reached.

Intel and Apple want to work together, but both will have one eye on their own corporate stategies in any partnership.

The name was in the deal. Period.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by scratt Following on from that last point, ghoti, it is stupid to assume that anyone would enforce or agree to a name such as you suggest. However, Intel will have wanted some kind of indicator that they are now in the machines that Apple makes. Part of that is removing references to the PowerPC (I am aware that PowerBook was around before the PowerPC was in it, and this has already been discussed by me and others elsewhere). Again, there will have been complex negotiations and demands on both sides, and in the end a compromise will have been reached. Intel and Apple want to work together, but both will have one eye on their own corporate stategies in any partnership. The name was in the deal. Period.

I don't think so. The PowerBook name doesn't imply it's a Mac and now that the hardware is almost identical to PCs it would be even harder for customers to know that a PowerBook doesn't come with Windows.

[scratt]

The PowerBook name never implied it was a Mac then, by your logic...

*Honk* Wrong answer. Next...

[chucker]

Originally Posted by oldmacfan The chip-set has FireWire in it, it is not added separately.

No, it doesn't. Apple implements FireWire using one of the PCIe lanes provided by the chipset.

[ZachPruckowski]

Originally Posted by chucker No. AMD and Intel always use different sockets.

This is reaching, but maybe some sort of socket converter that goes between the chip and the socket? I don't know much about chipsets.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by ZachPruckowski This is reaching, but maybe some sort of socket converter that goes between the chip and the socket?

That might work, but then you'd still have to deal with the fact that AMD and Intel use completely different chipsets, with some different requirements. AMD, for example, would probably require (or recommend) you to have HyperTransport implemented on your chipset. Intel doesn't use that at all. Intel, on the other hand, uses quad-pumping on their FSB. AMD doesn't really do that. Etc.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by scratt The PowerBook name never implied it was a Mac then, by your logic...

No it didn't, but at least the sign in the store said 1.67Ghz PowerPC G4.

[Donm]

guys...Intel did NOT make Apple change the PB name. It was completely Apple's choice. The only time that would have come into play was if Apple wanted marketing dollars from Intel to pay for PB ads and Apple was still selling both Powerpc and Intel based PB. Since Apple chose not to use Intel marketing $, this never came up in the discussions.

[oldmacfan]

Originally Posted by chucker No, it doesn't. Apple implements FireWire using one of the PCIe lanes provided by the chipset.

Sorry to cause a confusion. I think about chipsets as all of the chips on the motherboard. Which is not the best idea.
When you look at Intel.com, you will find that since the 945 chipset that Intel is offering this Firewire on quite a few motherboards.
Intel, in my short search, offers about a dozen different boards with IEEE 1394a/b on them; all of them based on the 945, 955, 975 chipsets that I found.

[chucker]

Well, "chipset", for me, is a set of one or two (Northbridge and Southbridge) chips responsible for communication between CPU, RAM and the rest of the system, i.e. they provide services such as PCIe.

According to the information I have, which could be wrong, of course, Apple has decided to implement FireWire on their own, on a separate chip that's pretty much the same as on PowerPC-based Macs, except this time, they're connecting it via PCIe.

Of course, I haven't personally seen/dissected/examined any Intel-based Mac, so my information isn't first-hand.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by scratt Eugene - There are a great many people of the opinion that Apple's switch to Intel is at least partly to do with them being the only OS that does not run on an Intel architecture. Frankly, I feel you are wrong. But you are entitled to your opinion. Furthermore, the deal between any compenent manufacturer and another will be far more complex than a simple price / quantity deal. Intel have already admitted that having Apple as a client is not about the size of the orders, but about the prestige and innovation at Apple. There will have been deals and compromises on both sides...

I didn't even touch on the subject of removing the Power moniker, so I'm not sure why you're addressing me. I'm sure there are little things Apple and Intel may have agreed to under the table, but you're probably going to have a tough time finding this on paper anywhere.

The name was in the deal. Period.

Sweeter volume pricing than other major OEMs not in the deal. Supply priority, probably in the deal. The Power name, not in ink. Contract length, I would bet none.