Apple to dump PPC for future Macs?

[DarkHawke]

Very interesting piece  here
at OSNews (with links to the original sources) on a proposed shift of the Macintosh hardware architecture from PPC to x86-type CPUs, likely either AMD's or Intel's next-gen 64-bit chips.  An intriguing twist on the Amiga situation, no?  

Will the Mac addicts declare a non-PPC Mac bogus?  Will a big ol' online petition drive be mounted?  Or will it generally be thought of as a good thing, to try and vastly improve on the speed and value of Macs in the future while still retaining the look and feel of the machines so many have come to love?  You be the judge!
 :-D  

[Coder]

I am afraid that when they move the MacOS to the x86 platform, it will run so bad that people will abandon it. Sort of the BeOS story.

Coder

[Teemu]

Actually, this is what Steve Jobs really said:

"The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eek out a fair amountof performance from these things when all is said and done. And the roadmap looks pretty good. Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, then we'll have options and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent. "

I don't know about you, but at least I fail to see where he's saying Apple would be considering x86. Maybe they are, for all I know, but I can't see it in that quote. It seems this is a case of the WinInformant editor adding his own meanings to what Jobs said.

[Coder]

Thnx for that info Teemu.

Coder

[System]

And even though the actual chip speed is bigger for x86 it does not mean that it runs quicker. That is due to processor waitstates: If a processor is going to wait for a result (and it does that pretty often) a ppc doesn't need to wait so long time as a x86. Which means that if a ppc and x86 has the same clockspeed the PPC will be quicker.

[Tomas]

true, but the clock rate of the x86 cpus is so much higher now that they have leaved the ppc behind, even thought the ppc is a tad faster per mhz.

Also the ppc is damn overprized so you also get alot more perfomance for the bucks with a x86.

Sadly but true  :-(

[MAD]

Hoya!

Hummmm... Doesn't sound very realistic.

In its own way, the Mac is a maverick machine too which is the
mainstream counterpart of the evil peecee -the underground counterpart
being... ;-)
So, as a consequence, if Macs turn x86, they will lose a part of
their identity and become peecees.
It would be a terrible mistake from Apple, for they WOULD get
assimilated.

On the other hand, if it happens, the Aone would be the only
"mainstream-to-be" PPC computer for AOS is a marvel and it's
relatively known by many computer-users...
Moreover, G4s and G5s would be cheap! ;-)

Well, it's late and I am almost rambling...

Be funky and good night!
;-)

M A D

[Alkemyst]

"true, but the clock rate of the x86 cpus is so much higher now that they have leaved the ppc behind, even thought the ppc is a tad faster per mhz.

Also the ppc is damn overprized so you also get alot more perfomance for the bucks with a x86.

Sadly but true"
 
Not true atall
 
x86 sells in larger numbers than the PPC so that is a big factor,plus the PPC chip is newer tech than the x86 & newer tech mostly costs more.
 
how about if you turned the sales numbers around with the x86 selling in ppc amounts & the ppc selling in x86 amounts i bet the x86 would cost more then.
 
look at how much dvd players cost when it first came out & cos of the high numbers of sales it now cost the same price as vhs players

[Loki1]

how about if you turned the sales numbers around with the x86 selling in ppc amounts & the ppc selling in x86 amounts i bet the x86 would cost more then.

You just proved Tomas' point!


Loki

[Valan]

We have a PC and a new iMac in the house. They are both clocked at 800Mhz and have 256Mb. I have ran Lightwave benchmarks on both machines and the iMac is now faster due to an update for the OS.

I now know from experience that there is far more to speed than simply clock rates or propoganda. The OS optimisation and the application must also be taken into account.

The adoption of X86 would give Apple a level playing field and allow them to compete 'toe to toe' against similiar specced PCs. I expect the OS to run on  Apple only hardware as another 'flavour' rather than a sudden shift. I think Jobs' use of the word 'options' is telling in that it may be offered as a choice to buyers. After all he has slaughtered a lot of Apples sachrid cows ... and got away with it.

[KennyR]

Well, I realise that on the whole x86 might be faster than their PPC
relatives, but...

...but there's been a 1600MHz PPC machine listed on stats.distributed
net for a couple of years now - it *still* **massively** outperforms
any x86, even the highest end 2.2Ghz beasts. I'm quite sure it's not a
hoax, either.

I don't know what this machine is or its history, but its still
cracking keys. Imagine having that thing in an Amiga. It might be
expensive, sure, but it'll make even the most expensive PC look like
a pocket calculator.

The further Intel and AMD push their x86's, the more money and
resources they throw into it. x86 is a very old architecture
ill-suited for such speeds, while PPC was designed from the ground up
to be fast...bah, but you know all this. But what I'm saying is, don't
write off the PPC. It's an excellent range of CPUs and capable of many
surprises, and of competing with x86 even with a much lower clock
speed. Motorola could throw a 2GHz G6 at us next year, for all we
know.

And wouldn't that be nice? :-)

[JetRacer]

What I noticed was that bullcrap PPC vs x86 "benchmark".

They prolly used dual 333MHz FSB x86 mobos (the pricetags sure suggests so) pitted against single 166MHz FSB / 333MHz DDR PPC mobo. And the software was probably also non-altivec (G4). Or in other words: foul x86 propaganda at it's best...

It's the same old trick that Intel used (still use?) against Motorola; release first and do the benchmarks against the competitors old CPU line. Here it's Apples last years h/w against the brand new x86.

So don't worry about the 600MHz A1SE... It won't run at 75% performance of an x86 at equal MHz. Just keep those clusters coming :-)

[Valan]

Well I stopped believing the manufatures specs decades ago and only really believe what I can see from experience. A new iMac outperforms a year old PC by about 12%.

I am not interested in what Intel, AMD, Motorola, Apple or articles say. This is what I see. Lightwave on the PC and Lightwave on the iMac.

The iMac speeded up as new versions of Lightwave and OSX came out. So the performace of Amiga OS will hopefully demonstrate the true potential of todays CPUs.

[Skyraker]

Pah! This was not an article on what Steve Jobs / Apple is going to do , this was nothing short of the Authors wish list... what a wanker!

Lets ignore this before the x86 mig heads come out of the woodwork.

Skyraker.

[teo]

Tomas said "Also the ppc is damn overprized so you also get alot more perfomance for the bucks with a x86. Sad but true"

Alkemyst said "Not true at all"

What are you on? Throw all the crap about the technology is better out, beacuse it all comes down to x86 is cheaper AND faster! theres nothing more to argue about, add that motorola's own low interest in keeping ppc up to date, and add that x86 is going 64bit soon with mostly new architecture to overcome old limitations (which is the only thing ppc loyalists can actually gripe about these days)

I may not like intel, but im not stupid. Dont be blinded by loyaties to hardware, especially when software is the most important aspect by far.