Why cell wasn't chosen for Mac

[Geeforcer]

AMD could not have supplied Apple? We are talking Apple here, 2% of PC market. Considering that AMD has over 20% of the CPU market share, this is a non-issue.

Apple went with Intel because Intel can build them a chipset and a motherboard (Socket-Mac?) that will allow them to retain a closed system.

 

[wco81]

In addition to most of the reasons mentioned above, Intel has marketing clout. They spend a lot on the Intel Inside promotion as they pay for some of the advertising costs when a computer maker does a commercial, shows that logo and runs that jingle.

They've obviously also spend a lot to establish brand-awareness for Centrino.

Who knows, if Intel doesn't deliver in some ways, Jobs will turn to AMD. But Intel is not a company you easily burn.

 

[PARANOiA]

Imagine a dualboot machine between Longhorn and OS-X Liking it.

 

[jvd]

In addition to most of the reasons mentioned above, Intel has marketing clout. They spend a lot on the Intel Inside promotion as they pay for some of the advertising costs when a computer maker does a commercial, shows that logo and runs that jingle.

They've obviously also spend a lot to establish brand-awareness for Centrino.

Who knows, if Intel doesn't deliver in some ways, Jobs will turn to AMD. But Intel is not a company you easily burn.

Yea intel inside is a really big deal. When friends and family ask me to build a pc they tell me they want intel ....

 

[Brad Grenz]

Luddites!

 

[cthellis42]

Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM. Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not.

Offhand, it seems like the guy is making things up. From what info's been flying around out there, no one had "production capacity" issues... (What was IBM's statement? 2% of East Fishkill's production capacity made 50% of Apple's chips? Something like that... don't know how accurate it is in the long run.)

It seems to be much more of an "attitude" thing. IBM's designs are heading away from the PC market (they did sell that off to Lenovo, after all, after losing money on it for years) and their response time to Apple's needs and desires would be slow and shruggable. They aren't as interested at this point, and they simply don't make much money off selling to Apple anyway. IBM didn't want to do more, and wasn't willing to accede to Apple paying less, so... Apple moves on to other options and IBM gives the mighty shrug.

I'm sure AMD was considered, but in the end I think it came down more to AMD's vs Intel's performance in the lower power consumption end (Apple's laptop lines have been a big part of their sales for ages), and--likely--cash. Intel would be willing to give them a better deal to get a high-profile (if low-impact) company like Apple under their wing. Even if they took an overall loss on it, in the end it'd be worth good marketing dollars to have Apple carrying only Intel chips than losing them to AMD or leaving them free to pick and choose what'd be best for their platforms. (IMHO if Apple was making a move that big, that WOULD be their concern... Being able to put Opterons in their XServes, AMD or Intel scattered in their PowerMac lines, Pentium M's where needed in their laptops, minis, or whatever... Since that would work best for THEM, I think Intel was willing to sweeten the deal much more to get Apple wholly on their chipsets. That situation, too, might change in the years to come, though. Apple hasn't been faint of heart in that department. )

On Cell, though, I have no idea technologically. I imagine the chips would be harder to use, harder to translate old software to, and not necessarily looking good for Apple's needs... But most importantly, it would also simply be an unknown chip design, while going with Intel would give them "sales by association" from the types of (admittedly dumb) people who judge first by brand. Not to mention Apple already had years of keeping OSX up to day on x86, while Cell was still being designed. Even IF they had in mind using Cell, they wouldn't be able to make a move on it for a few more years, and if IBM continued to ignore Apple's needs in that time...

As much of an Apple fan as I am, this guy's simply being too evangelistic and tossing out commentary that's simply too retarded. "The roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not?" Feh... Apple was complaining specifically about IBM's roadmap, and there's not a chance in hell AMD would be affected by "production capacity" issues... Considering Freescale seems to be making 50% of the chips Apple needs.

 

[randycat99]

I don't buy the "production" story, either. Cell would have arrived at a decent time for a processor transition point, but I think it is just still too much of a wildcard at this point (waaaaaay too risky for Apple to jump that bandwagon). Plus, it would still be with IBM, so a rather dubious motivation to recycle a worn relationship over (if IBM isn't giving you the kind of play you desire, now, it's hardly wise to expect that will change in the future just because you want to jump on the Cell bandwagon).

As I understand it, the BIG issue was a deteriorating relationship with IBM, and the great need for a low heat, but high performance, laptop CPU solution (which IBM was dropping the ball on). Intel has a very good laptop CPU solution, and the "full motherboard integration support and propriety" explanation (given earlier in this topic) seems to fit quite well. The issue wasn't processor performance, so much, as performance/watt. Evidently, Apple's meager volume with IBM left very little leverage to get their processors "designed as ordered", so low-heat laptop chips were simply not going to happen. Ironically, this "low-volume, low-leverage, deteriorating relationship" scenario was a big part in why Apple moved from Motorola to IBM. So now we see a move from IBM to Intel. Intel may be accomodating for new business now, but I really wonder how Apple will avoid the exactly the same situation they have now with IBM. I mean, it's not like Apple is certain to command any great percentage of Intel's production capacity, either, so when the roadmaps start deviating in the future, the leverage situation may be pretty grim...

Otoh, maybe Apple was due for a major CPU shift, anyway? Afterall, how long was PPC's run with Apple? 10-ish years? That could seem really long or really short, depending on your perspective. Maybe that is just the inherent consequence of being an industry barnstormer. Personally, the change makes me a bit edgy. I imagine Apple could only go through so many upsets in a "short" amount of time before its developer-base and users get a bit skeptical over if it really "knows" where it needs to go (and how much effort to put in to supporting the format, in the interim time that it is "figuring" this out).

 

[jvd]

well i dunno about that .

Its more believable to me that the athlon dual core would be more ideal in a laptop than the p4 d . The p4 d is a heat monster . While the athlon 64 dual chip is realtively cool (For a dual processer ) and the new venice athlon 64s are very cool

 

[Shark Sandwich]

Or if you believe this guy, it's because Intel wants to merge with Apple to form a superpower that will finally beat Microsoft once and for all.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

 

[Acert93]

Also, all the cell people and the AMD people need to be quiet. Apple evaluated both. AMD has the same, if not worse, supply problems as IBM. Their roadmap is fine, but the production capacity is not.

Offhand, it seems like the guy is making things up. From what info's been flying around out there, no one had "production capacity" issues... (What was IBM's statement? 2% of East Fishkill's production capacity made 50% of Apple's chips? Something like that... don't know how accurate it is in the long run.)

It is easy to accuse him of making it up, but there have been supply issues. Specifically IBM has not been able to provide in volume the 3GHz+ PPC chips within the timeframe they indicated to Apple. They are very late on those actually. So there is a supply issue with IBM for the chips they want. As for AMD, there is no need to comment. They are slowing inching up in the PC world and sell pretty much everything they make. For a company hovering around 14-20% of total PC sales (~200M a year), getting a 10-15% bump on already tight production could be difficult, especially if they are creating specific chips for Apple.

Intel has massive marketing power, low power consumption mobile chips, has a lot of expertise in MB chipsets, and has massive production capacity. Intel basically can provide a while array of products across the board. And with Intel on a "features over performance" quest I think the pair is right for Apple. Ironically Intel seems to have the "CELL approach" on the roadmap down the road.

 

[Carl B]

Well I think the mobile chip they're talking about jvd is the upcoming Yonah based on Pentium M, not any of this P4 junk.

By the way, some insight into the chips Apple might want to be scooping up here:

http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439&p=2

 

[Acert93]

Or if you believe this guy, it's because Intel wants to merge with Apple to form a superpower that will finally beat Microsoft once and for all.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

And break up the Wintel Duopoly? Creating instability allows for other outsiders to make a grab at power.

 

[randycat99]

well i dunno about that .

Its more believable to me that the athlon dual core would be more ideal in a laptop than the p4 d . The p4 d is a heat monster . While the athlon 64 dual chip is realtively cool (For a dual processer ) and the new venice athlon 64s are very cool

I don't believe the flagship P4 is where Apple is heading, anyway (P4 is still staring at a serious wall vs. an evolutionary deadend scenario). It's the Pentium-M that seems to be the diamond in the rough in all of this. Basically, it's the PIII reborn and worked with SotA technology (SotA meaning "state of the art", not some new buzzword feature they invented). Researcher tests have indicated it is chip that delivers mighty performance (challenging and sometimes exceeding even the best that P4 has to offer) at considerably less clockrate and an entirely different regime of heat output (much, much less).

 

[cthellis42]

Its more believable to me that the athlon dual core would be more ideal in a laptop than the p4 d . The p4 d is a heat monster . While the athlon 64 dual chip is realtively cool (For a dual processer ) and the new venice athlon 64s are very cool

Um... Why are you talking about EITHER of those chips in that respect? The "desktop replacement" laptops that use those kind of chips are pretty huge and ungainly, and nowhere NEAR the kind of designs Apple looks for. Laptop-wise, I imagine they're looking precisely at what they can get the Pentium M (and future chips based on it) to do. Which, considering the difficulty AMD's been having at getting their chips into smaller laptops, is something that probably makes a lot of difference to Apple.

Their desire (and lack of necessity) in putting a dual-core behemoth in a laptop is pretty low, and if they still have problems getting a SINGLE G5--of any suitable speed--into their laptop designs, they will really see no future in chips like that.

IMHO it's access to the Pentium M line and its future derivatives that made them look in Intel's direction first, and likely good pricing deals that would keep them with Intel alone. (Else they'd indeed be better off pulling some AMD chips for PowerMacs and XServes and the like.)

But when we're talking notebooks, they're looking for acceptable power in small and classy designs, extending battery life, and trying to halt any heat problems before they start. (They've certainly had their fair share before.) And at the moment (and likely the next few years at least), the best options are going to come from Intel.

It is easy to accuse him of making it up, but there have been supply issues. Specifically IBM has not been able to provide in volume the 3GHz+ PPC chips within the timeframe they indicated to Apple.

IMHO, that is exactly what "roadmap difficulties" points to, though. As far as I can tell, and any chip fab worth its salt could whip up a design to fit "XYZ specifications" and toss them out at horrible yields, and that would lead to--yes--"supply issues." (And likely not even that. Just "expense issues" as they COULD spit enough chips out, but would charge unbelievably more to do it those yields--which Apple would not be willing to pay for.) So when one is specifically mentioning "roadmap" it's because they're unhappy with how the chip designs will fit their specifications, when, and when at acceptable yields and volumes. IBM seemed both unwilling to put enough effort to develop in Apple's direction, and was unwilling to drop their prices until they could get there, so Apple was left to determine if now was the time to shop around.

But basically, the guy say "their roadmaps were fine." And no, they weren't. Roadmaps were a major point in Apple's rift with IBM, and likely AMD's roadmap didn't synch with their needs as well as Intel's, and Cell's would be an anomaly they'd be unwilling to make such a major transition to right now.


It seems Cringely has other ideas, though.

 

[AlNom]

Its more believable to me that the athlon dual core would be more ideal in a laptop than the p4 d . The p4 d is a heat monster . While the athlon 64 dual chip is realtively cool (For a dual processer ) and the new venice athlon 64s are very cool

How about Dual Centrinos 8)

 

[wco81]

Interesting. Some of the other posts in the thread surmise that Altivec experts could ply their trade with X360 and Cell, now that Apple has orphaned them.

http://www.simdtech.org/altivec/arc...vec&monthdir=200506&msg=msg00037.html

 

[Magnum PI]

Apple went with Intel because Intel can build them a chipset and a motherboard (Socket-Mac?) that will allow them to retain a closed system.

AMD happens to make chipsets from time to time...

 

[Magnum PI]

the transition is at its beginning, only the mini and the notebook are concerned for now.

for these products intel make very good processors, pentium M and the likes, which are much more efficient than the netburst ones.

later when they'll migrate their performance parts, they'll probably won't use processors based on netburst marchitecture.

 

[jvd]

Um... Why are you talking about EITHER of those chips in that respect? The "desktop replacement" laptops that use those kind of chips are pretty huge and ungainly, and nowhere NEAR the kind of designs Apple looks for. Laptop-wise, I imagine they're looking precisely at what they can get the Pentium M (and future chips based on it) to do. Which, considering the difficulty AMD's been having at getting their chips into smaller laptops, is something that probably makes a lot of difference to Apple.

Sorry didn't know apple droped thier desktop pc line too

 

[crystalcube]

Apple went with Intel because Intel can build them a chipset and a motherboard (Socket-Mac?) that will allow them to retain a closed system.

AMD happens to make chipsets from time to time...

And probably Apple was looking for someone who doesn't build chipsets part time.
wrt AMD vs Intel, chipset seems to be an important factor. Intel can provide Apple with main CPU + Chipset now. At this time if Apple decides to go with AMD it might have to negotiate chipset with VIA/Nvidia/whoever, which Apple probably doesn't want to do...atleast not at this time.