Re(2): [Ti] A different view on Intel/Apple marriage

[Yuta Hsu]

On Jun 6, 2005, at 8:38 PM, Chris Olson wrote:

> There's only two choices for 64-bit processors - Apple's G5 and  
> AMD64.  The rest are has-beens.  Jobs almost stumbled over his  
> words today during the Stevenote because Apple got caught between  
> the proverbial rock and hard place.  It's good Apple had a backup  
> plan, but the moral to this story is you NEVER trust IBM.  I think  
> SCO already found that out.

SCO being another matter altogether, IBM made a business decision.   
With the 3 next generation game consoles using IBM chips, they don't  
need many other customers (if any).  The game console market is a  
behemoth compared to Apple's market.  IBM will make more money, and  
therefore will put more resources into the game chips.  As much as  
I'd like to see the PPC prevail on the desktop & laptop, I think it's  
destined to be gaming all over the world.  Just as you mention later  
in your post.  You hit it on the proverbial head.

> The PowerPC 970 is so vastly superior to the Intel x86 processor  
> that it's a joke.  Things like the Virginia Tech supercomputing  
> cluster were made possible because of the PowerPC 970 and it's  
> power per watt allowing great savings in the cooling system for the  
> computer room.  The PowerPC 970's superior power dissipation  
> characteristics is what made it the cpu of choice (in the Xserve  
> G5) for the US Navy on their nuclear subs.

Yes.  The PPC is superior in many ways to the x86.  But Apple's  
engineering & design also play a part in the xServes being as  
efficient as they are.  If Apple went to x86 instead of PPC 10 years  
ago, I bet the xServe would still have been the server of choice for  
VT and the Navy.

> My Take:
> IBM got all the business of the three major game consoles running  
> PowerPC chips that are loosely based on the 970.  Take a look at  
> the specs on that triple core PowerPC Xbox 360 chip once.  Floating  
> point power of OVER 1 TERAFLOPS????????

Yup.  But these chips are so custom designed specifically for the  
game console application (both for the Xbox 360 & Sony's PS3), that  
trying to use either for desktop or laptop use would be a bigger  
struggle than moving to Intel I think.  Amazing chips, nevertheless.

> Apple got screwed.  Big time.  They had to revert to "plan B".  God  
> only knows why they went Intel.  AMD64 would've been a better  
> choice, IMHO.  Maybe Intel has some new tricks up their sleeve that  
> we don't know about.  But not for me.  I'm going to buy every dual  
> cpu PowerMac G5 I can get my hands on.  They're going to be worth  
> big bucks in a couple years unless somebody else starts building  
> affordable PowerPC hardware.

I'm not sure the Athlon64 would've been the better choice, as I'm not  
sure what AMD's roadmap looks like.  I think Apple has an eye on the  
laptop market, and I think Intel has a much better mobile platform  
than AMD.  I also think that there are things Intel is working on  
that will impress us, and make Apple choosing them over AMD look like  
a no-brainer.  We can hope, right? :)

Cheers,
Yuta