What effect will Apples choice to go Intel have on the cell?

[ralexand]

Jobs just announced they are moving to intel.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000137045772/

 

[Carl B]

Well it'll ensure that Cell doesn't power any Apple computers in the future, that's more or less for certain:

LINK

 

[Shifty Geezer]

No idea what this has to do with the Console forum, but while I'm here, will this mean OSX for PCs? Does that explain the shift?

 

[koldfuzion1]

Xbd, do you think this may have any impact at all on production costs for the chips IBM is producing for M$ and/or Sony? I would think totally separate processes, so probably not, but I was just wondering. The only thing I can think of is maybe IBM would take a hit on R&D costs on a go-forward basis, since they would have a smaller semiconductor business to spread costs around, but that's all I can imagine at the moment.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I would most definatley get OSX if they shifted to Intel based systems. I want to jump ship from Windows but don't want to use Linux for casual regular everday things (I use Fedora Core 3, thinking of going to Gentoo). I've been thinking about getting a MAC but after hearing this I think i'll hold off....

We'll thats IF this means OSX for PCs...which seems most likely....I wonder how Driver support will be?

 

[EpicZero]

So I guess all those Sony/Apple rumors were just that?

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

Mmm...is this a shift for Apple to get their OS to the mainstream? Was this a part of a deal with MS or is this a sign that Wintel is on shaky ground? Was Apple miffed because IBM is partners with Microsoft and is Intel mad that Microsoft snuffed them in favor of IBM?

I have my Orville Reddenbacher in the microwave cuz this is indeed eeeeeeeeeeenteresting.

 

[Fafalada]

You people are missing the big picture here

OSX on x86
=
Apple -> 3rd party
=
OSX on Any PC
+
PS3 = Media PC
=
OSX on PS3/Cell

 

[loekf2]

You people are missing the big picture here

OSX on x86
=
Apple -> 3rd party
=
OSX on Any PC
+
PS3 = Media PC
=
OSX on PS3/Cell

Not sure... I'm more thinking that with both PS3 = Media PC & Xbox 360 = Media PC, both based on PPC, Apple was basically Intel's last chance to get into the living room. Personally I don't take efforts from companies like Dell or HP very seriously...

Jobs went for a good deal, good prices etc, CPU support etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if the deal consists of an off the shelf CPU plus dedicated chipsets, if not even production support (motherboard ??) as well.

 

[Guden Oden]

I don't think it will have any effect whatsoever. Why would it? Apple was never involved in its development, and it hasn't been a partner on any other level either.

 

[Carl B]

You people are missing the big picture here

OSX on x86
=
Apple -> 3rd party
=
OSX on Any PC
+
PS3 = Media PC
=
OSX on PS3/Cell

Uhhh.... Well let's just wait first to see if they DO go third party before we go down that train of thought.

 

[Carl B]

Xbd, do you think this may have any impact at all on production costs for the chips IBM is producing for M$ and/or Sony? I would think totally separate processes, so probably not, but I was just wondering. The only thing I can think of is maybe IBM would take a hit on R&D costs on a go-forward basis, since they would have a smaller semiconductor business to spread costs around, but that's all I can imagine at the moment.

Hmmm... well, at this point the architectures of Cell and Power4 are different enough that I don't think future R&D will feel much *direct* impact. Also, Apple wa sa low-margin crew for IBM anyway, so shouldn't be a huge hit financially either. I definitely think it was smart for Sony to build their own fab for Cell though - the entire IBM semiconductor division is on shaky ground within IBM; they're not making the money they should be it seems.

We'll see what happens. But the Cell line at Fishkill I believe is semi-dedicated and partly owned and operated by Sony themselves, so I see where you're going with the reduced economies of scale thing, but I have a feeling that even though produced at the same site, they were semi-insulated from each other to begin with.

I think the damage will be more to IBM directly than it would be to Cell.

 

[PC-Engine]

So according to Falalada, Apple will stop making thier own computers and sell their OS for Wintel PCs and PS3 and eventually CELL computers? Please excuse me while I go look up the phrase wishful thinking.

 

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

What I find most interesting is the reason why Apple is switching. Jobs basically said:

1. PowerPC is currently good, but its future is not
2. Performance per watt going forward is crap (hence no 3GHz and G5 Powerbook)
3. Intel's future road map offers performance per watt that's mulitples better than IBM's roadmap

What's interesting is that it's Intel who's nortorious for hitting the power wall and not delivering the 4GHz Pentium 4. Based on what Jobs said, Intel's future roadmap must be drastically different. PPC970 somehow has provided a very short road map for Apple. Intel's future processors must be heavily multi-core and very, very cool.

 

[Saem]

Intel's new cores will be based on it's mobile line which has excellent performance to wattage ratio.

 

[Killer-Kris]

What's interesting is that it's Intel who's nortorious for hitting the power wall and not delivering the 4GHz Pentium 4.

Just for the record up until Prescott (and to some degree Wilamette) Intel has been historicaly better in the power consumption realm.

Intel's future processors must be heavily multi-core and very, very cool.

Yup, just imagine a multi-core dothan with a beefed up FPU, and you have the whole future line of Intel desktop processors.

 

[incurable]

Re: What effect will Apples choice to go Intel have on the c

What effect will Apples choice to go Intel have on the cell?

I hope it does away with the 'the' in front of 'Cell'. 8)

Anyways, I don't see one having much effect on the other.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

What's interesting is that it's Intel who's nortorious for hitting the power wall and not delivering the 4GHz Pentium 4.

Just for the record up until Prescott (and to some degree Wilamette) Intel has been historicaly better in the power consumption realm.

This doesn't seem to be particularly true looking at sandpile.org. The P4 vs K7 processors seem to show the intel processor only being more efficient if you compare the power draw at the same clock speeds. That's not really reasonable though, given that ATI chips tend to be faster clock for clock.

Nite_Hawk

 

[Fox5]

What's interesting is that it's Intel who's nortorious for hitting the power wall and not delivering the 4GHz Pentium 4.

Just for the record up until Prescott (and to some degree Wilamette) Intel has been historicaly better in the power consumption realm.

Intel's future processors must be heavily multi-core and very, very cool.

Yup, just imagine a multi-core dothan with a beefed up FPU, and you have the whole future line of Intel desktop processors.

Better than what in power consumption? Maybe better than AMD, but G4 processors used much less power than P3s or P4s, and I think the lower clocked G5s do as well.