Apple Looking For Ways To Ditch Intel?

Wouldn't Apple be kissing the enterprise environment goodbye with a move from Intel ... Enterprise is very focused on x86 compatibility and legacy software ... two things they would loose if Apple cuts loose Intel
 
kbrickley said:
Wouldn't Apple be kissing the enterprise environment goodbye with a move from Intel ... Enterprise is very focused on x86 compatibility and legacy software ... two things they would loose if Apple cuts loose Intel
Click to expand...
Apple has little to no presence in enterprise markets. Thus, they have nothing to lose.
 
This came in response to someone at apple that said something along the lines of possibly placing arm in a mba, I doubt apple ditches intel on the imac or mbp.

I have little faith arm will compete with any x86 even in the future.
 
ferzerp said:
Part of the reason the swp to intel happened was performance. If, in 2006, the performance of 2006 intel cpus was needed, then why do people think that 6 years later, something equivalent to 2000-2002 intel tech in performance is magically now good enough? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Stoly said:
Maybe because IT IS good enough. for the casual user...
Click to expand...

Good enough for the casual user.. riiigggghhhhtttt.

2002
November 20, 2002
Intel® Celeron Processor
2.20 GHz, 2.10 GHz

November 18, 2002
Intel® Xeon™ Processor
2.80 GHz, 2.60 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 2 GHz

November 14, 2002
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
3.06 GHz with Hyper-Threading Technology

November 4, 2002
Intel® Xeon™ Processor MP
2 GHz, 1.90 GHz, 1.50 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
September 18, 2002
Intel® Celeron® Processor
2 GHz

September 16, 2002
Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
1.80 GHz, 1.70 GHz, 1.60 GHz

Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
733 MHz, 700 MHz

Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor-M
1.33 GHz, 1.26 GHz

Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor-M
1 GHz

Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor-M
866 MHz
133 MHz system bus

Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor-M
850 MHz
100 MHz system bus

Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor-M
2.20 GHz


September 11, 2002
Intel® Xeon™ Processor
2.80 GHz, 2.60 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
August 26, 2002
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
2.80 GHz, 2.66 GHz
533 MHz system bus

Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
2.60 GHz, 2.50 GHz
400 MHz system bus


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
July 8, 2002
Intel® Itanium® 2 Processor
1 GHz, 900 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
June 25, 2002
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor for Applied Computing
2.40 GHz

Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor-M for Applied Computing
1.70 GHz


June 24, 2002
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor-M
2 GHz, 1.90 GHz

Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
1.50 GHz, 1.40 GHz, 1.33 GHz


June 12, 2002
Intel® Celeron® Processor
1.80 GHz
0.18-micron


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
May 15, 2002
Intel® Celeron® Processor
1.70 GHz
0.18-micron

Intel® Celeron® Processor
1.40 GHz
0.13-micron


May 6, 2002
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
2.53 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 2.26 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
April 23, 2002
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor-M
1.80 GHz, 1.50 GHz, 1.40 GHz

Intel® Xeon™ Processor
2.40 GHz


April 17, 2002
Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor-M
800 MHz
133 MHz system bus

Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor-M
800 MHz
100 MHz system bus

Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor-M
933 MHz

Low Voltage Mobile Celeron® Processor
733 MHz

Mobile Celeron® Processor
1 GHz


April 3, 2002
Intel® Xeon™ Processor
1 GHz


April 2, 2002
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
2.40 GHz, 2.20 GHz, 2 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
March 12, 2002
Intel® Xeon™ Processor MP
1.60 GHz, 1.50 GHz, 1.40 GHz


March 4, 2002
Mobile Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor-M
1.70 GHz, 1.60 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
February 25, 2002
Intel® Xeon™ Processor
2.20 GHz, 2 GHz, 1.80 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
January 21, 2002
Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Pentium® III Processor-M
750 MHz

Low Voltage Mobile Pentium® III Processor-M
866 MHz, 850 MHz

Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Celeron® Processor
650 MHz

Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
1.20 GHz, 1.13 GHz, 1.06 GHz


January 9, 2002
Intel® Xeon™ Processor
2.20 GHz, 2 GHz, 1.80 GHz


January 8, 2002
Intel® Pentium® III Processor for servers
1.40 GHz


January 7, 2002
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
2.20 GHz, 2 GHz


January 3, 2002
Intel® Celeron® Processor
1.30 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
2001
November 13, 2001
Ultra-Low Voltage Intel® Pentium® III Processor 512K
700 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
October 2, 2001
Intel® Celeron® Processor
1.20 GHz


October 1, 2001
Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor-M
1.20 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
September 25, 2001
Intel® Xeon™ Processor
2 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
August 31, 2001
Intel® Celeron® Processor
1.10 GHz, 1 GHz, 950 MHz


August 27, 2001
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
2 GHz, 1.90 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
July 30, 2001
Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor-M
1.13 GHz, 1.06 GHz, 1 GHz, 933 MHz, 866 MHz


July 2, 2001
Pentium® 4 Processor
1.80 GHz, 1.60 GHz

Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
850 MHz

Intel® Celeron® Processor
900 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
May 29, 2001
Intel® Itanium™ Processor
800 MHz, 733 MHz


May 21, 2001
Intel® Xeon™ Processor
1.70 GHz, 1.50 GHz, 1.40 GHz

Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor
600 MHz

Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor
750 MHz

Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
600 MHz

Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
600 MHz

Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
800 MHz

Intel® Celeron® Processor
850 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
April 23, 2001
Pentium® 4 Processor
1.70 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
March 21, 2001
Pentium® III Xeon™ Processor
900 MHz

March 19, 2001
Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor
1 GHz, 900 MHz

Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor for Applied Computing
700 MHz

Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
750 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
February 27, 2001
Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor
700 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
January 30, 2001
Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor
500 MHz

Ultra Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
500 MHz


January 3, 2001
Intel® Celeron® Processor
800 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
2000
November 20, 2000
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor
1.50 GHz, 1.40 GHz


November 13, 2000
Intel® Celeron® Processor
766 MHz, 733 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
September 25, 2000
Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor
850 MHz, 800 MHz

Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
700 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
June 26, 2000
Intel® Celeron® Processor
700 MHz, 667MHz, 633 MHz


June 19, 2000
Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor
600 MHz

Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor
750 MHz

Low Voltage Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
500 MHz

Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
650 MHz, 600 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
May 24, 2000
Intel® Pentium® III Xeon™ Processor
933 MHz

Intel® Pentium® III Processor
933 MHz


May 22, 2000
Intel® Pentium® III Xeon™ Processor
700 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
April 24, 2000
Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor
700 MHz

Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
550 MHz


April 10, 2000
Intel® Pentium® III Xeon™ Processor
866 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
March 29, 2000
Intel® Celeron® Processor
600 MHz, 566 MHz

March 20, 2000
Intel® Pentium® III Processor
866 MHz, 850 MHz

March 8, 2000
Intel® Pentium® III Processor
1 GHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
February 14, 2000
Mobile Intel® Celeron® Processor
500 MHz, 450 MHz


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to top
January 18, 2000
Mobile Intel® Pentium® III Processor
650 MHz, 600 MHz


January 12, 2000
Intel® Pentium® III Xeon™ Processor
800 MHz


January 4, 2000
Intel® Celeron® Processor
533 MHz
Click to expand...

That is from Intel's web site:
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickrefyr.htm

If you think that high end performance of a P4 3.06Ghz and low end of a Celeron 533Mhz is good enough for casual users, then you might as well crawl back under the rock you have been hiding under for the past 5 years.
 
When all your customers are blown away from simple little apps that run on battery constrained mobile CPUs why wouldn't you switch?

A MBP or iMac could run a 2.0+ GHz Snapdragon Quad and a suped up desktop-like GUI iOS with bigger, more powerful apps.

Then they could tell the world they invented a laptop with a 40 hour battery and a desktop thinner than a Big Mac patty then people would line up around the block to buy them.

Why would Apple bother with x86 anymore? Their customers don't look at photoshop filter benchmarks. Smart if you ask me.
 
Why would they? Intel CPU's buoyed their products to begin with. It's not like their margin is hurting, why try to fix something that isn't broken?
 
The difference is computational ability per watt is only in favor of arm on the low end. However, the need for computational ability is still not sufficient for hand held devices to replace a PC. If you look at ARM's power draw it is no longer what they hoped. Intel has decided to now go after more of the low end market and they already own the high end market. If Haswell pans out coupled with how well WintRT appears to be doing..the little merry prance that ARM has been doing may come to a polka instead.
 
This is going to happen. Here's why:

1. Apple is the king of forced obsolescence. Got a Macbook that's two years old? OH SORRY, THIS NEW OS WON'T WORK ON IT, AND NEITHER WILL ALL THE NEW VERSIONS OF THE APPLICATIONS YOU ALREADY PAID FOR.

2. iDrones rarely give a shit about power and utility, but rather what the logo on the back of their product says. They don't care that it does less than their old Macbook, the only thing they care about is that it's new and it's got an Apple logo.

3. Apple has got this great little pattern of shitting in their mess kit lately, doing moves that directly benefit their competition. See: Apple's ditching of Samsung; the iPad Mini presser; the iPad 4.
 
kbrickley said:
Wouldn't Apple be kissing the enterprise environment goodbye with a move from Intel ... Enterprise is very focused on x86 compatibility and legacy software ... two things they would loose if Apple cuts loose Intel
Click to expand...

As a Apple admin at a University they already are.... The app store was the beginning of the end.

The yearly OS updates don't help either. Not saying that they are making me upgrade every year but over 4-5 year life of a machine I'm having to update them at least once to keep them in a support OS. I'm still chasing down 10.5 clients.....
 
I still think ARM, from an architectural perspective, has a pretty fair shot at 'dethroning' x86 within the next several years (think ten years). Foundationally, what ARM is doing is sound. Whether Intel or AMD have an answer to that in the future is what's key, though. Neither are standing still.

People who predict ARM dominance within the next three to five years believe Intel exists in a vacuum. It might happen eventually, but 3-5 years is a longshot in my opinion. Suffice it to say, though, that companies that aren't looking toward a potential ARM future are acting shortsightedly. Apple's simply wise to be looking very seriously at ARM, just as Microsoft's wise to have already invested in it.
 
Trepidati0n said:
The difference is computational ability per watt is only in favor of arm on the low end.
Click to expand...

Is there a report showing it won't scale? ARM designing for a 100W TDP is going to be harder than Intel designing for 5W?
 
Just scrap OSX and put iOS on your laptops...

Yeah, I can see people getting tired of re-buying all their apps over and over each time apple changes processors... They are probably waiting to see how windows turns out on arm..
 
MRAB54 said:
Why would they? Intel CPU's buoyed their products to begin with. It's not like their margin is hurting, why try to fix something that isn't broken?
Click to expand...

This is my thought... Apple has huge margins, trying to make them bigger is a losing bet.

The only thing I can see is that Apple is now going to try and merge desktop and mobile, like MS (even though they said MS was confusing and it can't be done).
 
So in the long run - their already laughable "professional" desktop line would morph into just a big big version of an ipad?

Any business that embraces 100% Apple these days is just going full retard. It looks cool, and is slick, but at the end of the day isn't a proven workhorse for massive business scale.

They want to cut out the middle man Samsung (and now intel?) There is such a thing as too greedy -- if 100% profit margin isn't enough then fuck you Apple.

Side note: i always get a special tingle of laugher when I hear some mac retard telling me "how its built so much better" than my PC or laptop... gee, same CPU, slower memory, less hard drive space, soooo much better right?
 
Sounds about right given their recent activity. Consumer shit all the way. iOS all the way.

OSX went stale years ago.
 
Fuck yes!
Apple will no longer be a "PC" and will truly be Apple proprietary hardware without junk x86! :p

No RISC, no reward.
 
Stoly said:
Apple couldn't care less about old programs. They have an app store. Your old x86 app doesn't work? get a new and improved with extra hocus pocus.

The mac pros could still be x86, but I can see ARM based macbooks and low end imacs.
Click to expand...

This.

I can see Apple eventually replacing the intel based iMac's and other consumer systems with a multi core ARM CPU, all locked into thier App store. This way Apple not only profits on the hardware, they get a cut of each application sold. Plus, no more Hackintosh, as the systems will be locked down and non-authorized system will be blocked from the App store.
 
nutzo said:
This.

I can see Apple eventually replacing the intel based iMac's and other consumer systems with a multi core ARM CPU, all locked into thier App store. This way Apple not only profits on the hardware, they get a cut of each application sold. Plus, no more Hackintosh, as the systems will be locked down and non-authorized system will be blocked from the App store.
Click to expand...

And if Windows 8 is supposed to make the case for Macs, I think this would make the case for Windows 8.
 
heatlesssun said:
And if Windows 8 is supposed to make the case for Macs, I think this would make the case for Windows 8.
Click to expand...

You know, for all the shit you give me by bringing Linux into your precious Windows threads, you sure were fast to bring Windows into an Apple thread. ;)
Also, if Microsoft and Apple start to gear more and more towards ARM chips, and less with x86 chips, I'll be happy with both.
 
Red Machine D said:
This is going to happen. Here's why:

1. Apple is the king of forced obsolescence. Got a Macbook that's two years old? OH SORRY, THIS NEW OS WON'T WORK ON IT, AND NEITHER WILL ALL THE NEW VERSIONS OF THE APPLICATIONS YOU ALREADY PAID FOR.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, I can load Windows 7 (32 bit) on an 8 year old PC, and it runs better than XP.
I even have a couple 16 year old apps (custom business apps that are not worth the cost to replace) that still run fine on Windows 7.

This is why Apple will never make significant inroads into most businesses.
 
apple has 100billion or so in cash and what not on its books, this would be a fantastic way to piss it away
 
In short:

If you want a glorified picture frame? Buy Apple.

If you want a REAL computer? Buy Intel or settle for AMD.
 
nutzo said:
This.

I can see Apple eventually replacing the intel based iMac's and other consumer systems with a multi core ARM CPU, all locked into thier App store. This way Apple not only profits on the hardware, they get a cut of each application sold. Plus, no more Hackintosh, as the systems will be locked down and non-authorized system will be blocked from the App store.
Click to expand...

And yet, they'll still be allowed to use Safari as the default browser, while Windows8 ARM gets sued for having IE built in.
 
Mr. K6 said:
Why not? You need some powerhouses for Photoshop, 3D Rendering, etc. but the majority of Apple's customers look at photos, browse the web, and listen to music. The more they keep in-house, the higher their profit margins. Seems like a smart business decision.
Click to expand...
Funny how editing and rendering used to be major driving reasons for using Macs. Talk about a change in core audience.
 
Cheetoz said:
Is there a report showing it won't scale? ARM designing for a 100W TDP is going to be harder than Intel designing for 5W?
Click to expand...
It has to do with the principles of the architecture. ARM just lends itself to lightweight workloads. x86 puts out a much higher IPC when doing heavyweight processing but is harder to scale back to get a fully loaded execution core to sub 5W targets.
 
wonderfield said:
I still think ARM, from an architectural perspective, has a pretty fair shot at 'dethroning' x86 within the next several years (think ten years). Foundationally, what ARM is doing is sound. Whether Intel or AMD have an answer to that in the future is what's key, though. Neither are standing still.

People who predict ARM dominance within the next three to five years believe Intel exists in a vacuum. It might happen eventually, but 3-5 years is a longshot in my opinion. Suffice it to say, though, that companies that aren't looking toward a potential ARM future are acting shortsightedly. Apple's simply wise to be looking very seriously at ARM, just as Microsoft's wise to have already invested in it.
Click to expand...

Why in God's name would anyone want this?

As the desktop becomes more and more of a niche product it will become much more of a performance product which pretty much locks it into the Intel space. Although I am willing to play games using a tablet occasionally I still prefer the power of a full featured desktop and full featured games. :cool:

If laptops start going ARM only then you totally abandon your link to legacy software and gaming as the ARM RISC chip only has so much under the hood for powerful tasks. Most enterprise users use their laptops as desktop replacement machines. I run 2 monitors and typically have 8-10 applications open at any given time. You can't tell me that ARM could handle this even in a couple of years :eek:

The server space is all about profit and performance ... no way that Intel and AMD give that space up without a fight ;)
 
for apple to be able to move away from intel, they'll need to figure out a way to run their OS (not iOS) to required as much less cpu power as possible. i can see this going for Macs, but for macbooks/pros it'll probably be end of the line if they let ipad/ipod evolve.
 
Unfortunately I know more than one person that uses an iPad as their primary computing device. These same people would likely invest in a desktop solution offering the same functionality and UI experience. I hate to say it, but that means an ARM platform on the desktop is likely coming.
 
evilsofa said:
ARM is going 64-bit in 2014.

Also, some of you seem to be forgetting why Apple switched from PPC to Intel: IBM utterly failed to develop a 3GHz version of the PowerPC G5... for two years.
Click to expand...

This and power consumption. The PowerPC was horrible for mobile systems and Apple wanted to push their closed in little hot boxes (the same reason they'd never go with AMD as suggested earlier in the thread.

I can easily see them ditching Intel in the next five years if it increases their profit and locks everyone into Appstore. You have to remember that Apple never cares about function over form. They'd rather have a completely closed in system with no cooling and less performance than have a fast system.

Of course Intel is really doing a great job pushing down their power draw (can't wait for Haswell), but that still represents probably the largest cost to Apple in making each product. I'm sure they'd love to cut it out.
 
I see this is nothing more than a power move to get better pricing from Intel.

It might (might) make sense to use some AMD processors, but converting the OS (again) over to a new processor is just plain stupid.

We've lived through that once, and they got away with it because they went towards industry standard. People put up with it because it was a change for the better.

This time would be totally different. A move from industry standard to proprietary. Their Laptop/Desktop business would never survive it, and I think Microsoft would finally throw in the Office Towel over it.
 
I hope they do so... Because of what members said Apple fans do not care about the hardware, right now they said Mac are faster but how? A similar price pc compare to a Mac has better cpu, video card, everything is better. About Win 7 i'm running it with a old Dell Laptop and it runs better than XP... Do that in a Mac, my moms Macbook it has a Core 2 Duo is newer than my Dell and i can't install the lastest Mac OS X.
 
I could see this happening. Software-wise, Apple has NEVER given a shit about backwards compatibility. This allows them a lot more freedom to make huge ecosystem altering changes like this without taking too much backlash. An ARM powered Macbook Air and Mac Mini (you remember the Mac Mini right?) are VERY likely.
 
TechLarry said:
I see this is nothing more than a power move to get better pricing from Intel.

It might (might) make sense to use some AMD processors, but converting the OS (again) over to a new processor is just plain stupid.

We've lived through that once, and they got away with it because they went towards industry standard. People put up with it because it was a change for the better.

This time would be totally different. A move from industry standard to proprietary. Their Laptop/Desktop business would never survive it, and I think Microsoft would finally throw in the Office Towel over it.
Click to expand...

Both Intel and AMD are x86/x64. Why would switching to AMD require anything other than a few tweaks? And that is even if they bothered to do any tweaking since it would run fine as-is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top