Another theory about Apple/Intel

Another theory about Apple/Intel

Summary: Cringely offers an alternate theory for Apple getting in bed with Intel:Microsoft comes into this because Intel hates Microsoft. It hasn't always been that way, but in recent years Microsoft has abused its relationship with Intel and used AMD as a cudgel against Intel.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Intel
14

Cringely offers an alternate theory for Apple getting in bed with Intel:

Microsoft comes into this because Intel hates Microsoft. It hasn't always been that way, but in recent years Microsoft has abused its relationship with Intel and used AMD as a cudgel against Intel. Even worse, from Intel's standpoint Microsoft doesn't work hard enough to challenge its hardware. For Intel to keep growing, people have to replace their PCs more often and Microsoft's bloatware strategy just isn't making that happen, especially if they keep delaying Longhorn.
Enter Apple. This isn't a story about Intel gaining another three percent market share at the expense of IBM, it is about Intel taking back control of the desktop from Microsoft.

via Dan Gillmor's blog

Topic: Intel

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

14 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • A bit misinformed

    Quote from Cringely,
    "OS X 10.4 -- Tiger -- is a 64-bit OS, remember, yet Intel's 64-bit chips -- Xeon and Itanium -- are high buck items aimed at servers, not iMacs. So is Intel going to do a cheaper Itanium for Apple or is Apple going to pretend that 64-bit never existed?"

    Any body see a problem with that quote? Apparently, he thinks the only kind of 64 bit chip there is is an Itanium. That thinking would have been ok two years ago.
    george_ou
    • if you look at just how intel makes the pentium series a 64-bit machine,

      i believe you will find that cringely's quote is fair. if you put a 64-bit os on an amd processor it will scream compared to the same on the pentiums with 64-bit extensions.

      also, when i tried to put win64 on my new amd64 machine, i couldn't get drivers for all my hardware, which isn't more that 2 years old. but the linux partition either had drivers built in or were easily available (although not necessarily easily implemented).

      so i think the big hurdle here will be porting all those drivers over to the intel arch. while intel is pretty good about giving developers what they really need to do things like this, it won't be easy.

      such is life!

      yo.
      wessonjoe
  • More blatant ignorance

    Cringely wrote:
    "If Apple is willing to embrace the Intel architecture because of its performance and low power consumption, then why not go with AMD, which equals Intel's power specs, EXCEEDS Intel's performance specs AND does so at a lower price point across the board? Apple and AMD makes far more sense than Apple and Intel any day."

    Mr. Cringely, JUST BECAUSE YOU SHOUT DOESN'T MAKE YOUR ARGUMENTS ANY MORE CONVINCING! You need to first get your facts right.

    First of all, AMD does not "equal" Intel power specs on the Pentium M, not even close. The fastest single core AMD chip is about 4 to 5 times higher than the fastest 2.56 GHz Pentium M. High-end AMD single cores are around 130 watts and the Pentium M won't go above 27 watts.

    Second, the Pentium M can beat the fastest Intel or AMD desktop processor while still operating below 27 watts. Here is the proof.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html When the Intel Yonah dual-core Pentium M comes out within a year, it will operate around 25 watts at peak power levels and kill the dual core Pentium 4s and the AMDs.



    While you're welcome to speculate on a potential sale of Apple to Intel, please get your facts right.
    george_ou
  • Message has been deleted.

    doproiu@...
    • Based on what?

      [i]First of all, AMD does not "equal" Intel power specs on the Pentium M, not even close. The fastest single core AMD chip is about 4 to 5 times higher than the fastest 2.56 GHz Pentium M. High-end AMD single cores are around 130 watts and the Pentium M won't go above 27 watts.[/i]

      Are you comparing Thermal Design Power again? Since AMD and Intel define it differently, it's not exactly surprising that they come up with diffferent numbers.

      How about answering a few simple questions:
      1) What does Intel spec for the Pentium M core voltage?
      2) What does Intel spec for the Pentium M core regulator capacity?
      3) What does AMD spec for the Athlon-64 core voltage?
      4) What does AMD spec for the Athlon-64 core regulator capacity?

      Compare the product of (1) and (2) with the products of (3) and (4), then we can talk.

      Manufacturers can spec dang near anything for the "thermal design power" because if the chip tries to suck too much for more than milliseconds it goes into thermal throttling. On the other hand, that power supply [b]must[/b] provide enough juice or you get logic errors and the system goes to Yuma for the winter.
      Yagotta B. Kidding
      • Peak is peak

        Since the original quote is from my blog, I'll answer this here just like I did on my forum.

        What part of the word PEAK do you not understand?

        I?ll post this link here again.
        http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-19.html#_under_heavy_cpu_load

        Remember, those wattage numbers are for the whole computer. The computer itself takes more than 100 watts. The CPU is designed to peak out at 27 WATTS.

        Here are more specs from Intel.
        http://www.intel.com/design/intarch/pentiumm/pentiumm.htm
        george_ou
    • Don't plagiarize and don't put Ads in the forums

      First of all, if you?re going to quote me from http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=70, please don?t pass it off as your own comments.

      Second, don?t put Ads in the forum.
      george_ou
  • Interesting perspective

    I had considered the possibility of Intel's dissatisfaction with Microsoft when news of the Apple/Intel talks first broke. It seemed that AMD and Microsoft had gotten too friendly for Intel's liking.

    That said, it seems a little interesting to see where all of this will eventually lead. Will Microsoft escalate the spat by cutting off Intel support (possibly going exclusively to AMD chips, or even the Cell processor or SPARC)? Or will this be another footnote on computer history?
    Third of Five
  • Jobs laying plans for ultimate sell out.

    I think, ultimately, Jobs and a few key stockholders may simply
    be bored with the computer business and are laying the
    groundwork for a merge into the mainstream of win-tel PCs. The
    company will ultimately be sold off in a lucrative merge with an
    existing PC maker after the fashion of HP/Compaq or just enter
    the future as another brand of win-tel based PC.
    For all pure Apple fans this betrayal, par commercialism, will be
    all too obvious within the next decade if not sooner.
    technoman_z
  • Message has been deleted.

    doproiu@...
  • Apple

    Enter Apple. This isn't a story about Intel gaining another three percent market share at the expense of IBM, it is about Intel taking back control of the desktop from Microsoft.

    danni
    http://www.my-insurance-loans.com
    doproiu@...
    • Clueless babble..

      [b]Enter Apple. This isn't a story about Intel gaining another three percent market share at the expense of IBM, it is about Intel taking back control of the desktop from Microsoft. [/b]

      Um.. What the heck have you been smokin'..? Intel's NEVER had "control" of the desktop. Intel is a HARDWARE company. Microsoft (for the most part) is a SOFTWARE company. With the exception of the Xbox, and various input devices (mice, keyboards, joysticks, etc...) Microsoft doesn't do hardware.

      Intel, meanwhile, doesn't have a whole heck of a lot to do with writing software, let alone operating systems. They write the occasional driver and utility - specifically for their own hardware.

      The only "control" Intel has over the desktop is in the instruction set that Microsoft uses to write their software. And lately, Microsoft has been paying attention to AMD's designs simply because AMD's providing a platform that supports legacy 32 bit apps without compromising tons of performance the way Intel's Itanium which is NOT directly compatible with the x86 command set.

      This is purely about [b]MONEY[/b]. Intel saw an opportunity to make a boat load of it and they took it. AMD's been making inroads into Intel's traditional markets (servers). Intel needs something to make up for those losses.

      Sometimes people read far too much into a situation.
      Wolfie2K3
  • Whatever

    Maybe Intel's building Apple a new chip. I'll wait until something physical's out before worrying.


    Been Mac'ing since 1985...
    nojoeloser
    • New chip?

      I know the unit they showed at WWDC was a 3.8 GHz P4 system. And a large part of Apple's decision to go with Intel was IBM's inability to make a laptop G5 chip (or for that matter, a G5 chip above 3.0 GHz), while Intel's Pentium M, as mentioned before here and elsewhere, has very low heat dissipation. So it's likely that part of the changeover will involve the Pentium M.

      Much can happen in a year, however. As I speculated before, this could have far-reaching effects as time goes by.
      Third of Five