Apple changing Processors?

[ThatRobGuy]

I heard that Apple Mac's are switching over to x86 procs...

Does anybody else besides me think that this might not be the best Idea?

If they make the switch, I'm sure glad I got my G4 iBook while they still had the PowerPC procs.

thoughts??

 

[Amitabha]

man...

the switch-over began weeks ago at the san-fran macworld expo... Steve Jobs launched two Intel macs there and then, and we now have three..

The "MacBook Pro" (replacement for PowerBook) iMac Core Duo (replacement for iMac G5) and also a new Mac Mini, which is also Intel based.

The entire Apple Computer range will have switched by the end of this year...

Personally I think it's great, the CPU speeds on these new ICBMs (Intel Chip Based Macs) are up to 4x faster than the old G4/5-Line CPUs, and we also have the possible bonus of being able to install Windows OS straight onto the machine, if we so desire.

I can't believe you didn't know all this, seeing as you seem to know enough to talk about x86 CPU tech...

 

[momalle1]

I heard that Apple Mac's are switching over to x86 procs...

Does anybody else besides me think that this might not be the best Idea?

If they make the switch, I'm sure glad I got my G4 iBook while they still had the PowerPC procs.

thoughts??

They are not x86 processors, simply processors made by Intel, they are called Dual Core, there will be a single core for budget models later. There is no reason to believe there will be any swapping between Macs and PC OS's than there was when Motorola made the CPU's.

 

[zoziw]

While I love my iBook G4 I think they did the right thing by switching.

From what I can tell the heat and power requirements of the G5 processors pretty much ruled them out for laptops and that was causing Apple to keep the Mini and iBook processors artificially low in order to justify the cost of the Powerbook line.

In addition, it appears IBM stiffed Apple on the 3.0 ghz G5's and gave the preference for those chips to Microsoft's Xbox360 (probably a lot more money for IBM with the Xbox 360 and I can't blame them for that).

The G5's heat and power requirements were hurting the low end and the 3.0 ghz barrier was hurting the high end.

My only fear was that Apple might adopt Intel's integrated graphics chip rather than keeping a separate dedicated graphics card. Unfortunately, that happened this week with the new Mac Mini line.

It isn't a deal breaker for me I just would have preferred a dedicated card.

The Mac Mini core duo is going to be an impressive machine for most things, even with the integrated card.

The big question is what the next iBooks (possibly changed to MacBooks) will have in the graphics department with many people thinking they will also have integrated chips.

 

[dclem9834]

these are x86 procs, they are the same chip in the pc's and as far as these chips being 4 to 5 times faster as some have claimed, i really doubt that is true but they are faster. and as i am a pc user i would like to state that mac must realy suck if seitching to intel made them that much faster and intel is the slower of the pc chips (as my fx-57 purrrrs every so nicely)

 

[WalksWithChrist]

I think it'll be a good thing. Just wish they had an AMD option!

 

[csheppard91]

It's an excellent idea, one that they should have implemented a long time ago.. Of course, it's like someone said, they should add AMD.... Advanced Mirco Devices all the way.

 

[Qyöt27]

these are x86 procs, they are the same chip in the pc's and as far as these chips being 4 to 5 times faster as some have claimed, i really doubt that is true but they are faster. and as i am a pc user i would like to state that mac must realy suck if seitching to intel made them that much faster and intel is the slower of the pc chips (as my fx-57 purrrrs every so nicely)

Well, from the way I understood it, PowerPC architecture allows it to more efficiently use the processor speed as opposed to x86es, so the capability and speed were somewhat comparable but the numerical value wasn't quite so high. The downside, however, is that PowerPC is more expensive than x86 or other Intel chipsets.

For instance, to play H.264-formatted High Definition video, you need over 3.0 GHz to use it effectively on an Intel machine. A PowerPC Mac could handle it at 2.4, if I recall correctly. This is for Quicktime, I know ffdshow/libavcodec could probably do it faster and with more features, but that's beside the point.

 

[zoziw]

Here are some benchmarks from the new Intel Mac Minis:

Macworld

With a choice between a 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo or 1.5GHz Core Solo processor, these new minis replace the current models built with either a 1.42GHz or 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 processor. Macworld Lab has put these two models to the test, and the results—including an updated version of our Speedmark benchmarking suite—are something of a mixed bag.

 

[kopilo]

"Intel Inside" <- the most widely distributed warning label.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I heard that Apple Mac's are switching over to x86 procs...

Does anybody else besides me think that this might not be the best Idea?

If they make the switch, I'm sure glad I got my G4 iBook while they still had the PowerPC procs.

thoughts??

I don't worry too much about intel processors. I consider microsoft software to be the main weakness of billyboxes, as opposed to the hardware.

The intel itanium processors can now run OpenVMS, one of the most reliable and secure operating systems in the world.