Apple's Last PowerPC Temptation

by Anand Lal Shimpi on 10/20/2005 4:18 AM EST
Comments Locked

30 Comments

Back to Article

  • byrdman21 - Friday, October 28, 2005 - link

    Someone tell me why Apple didn't choose AMD's processors to power there x86 systems. Maybe you've already talked about that issue. But I'm a bit puzzled.
  • byrdman21 - Friday, November 4, 2005 - link

    Here's a comment from the "Power Mac G5 Technology Overview October 2005" - PDF

    Bidirectional Frontside Bus
    Leveraging the dual frontside bus architecture pioneered in the original Power Mac
    G5, each dual-core processor has an independent data path to the system controller
    running at up to 1.25GHz. Unlike conventional processor interfaces, which carry data
    in only one direction at a time, this dual-channel frontside bus has two 32-bit point to-point links (64 bits total): One link travels into the processor and another travels
    from the processor, which means no wait time while the processor and the system
    controller negotiate which will use the bus or while the bus switches direction. This
    enables data to move in opposite directions simultaneously—a dramatic improvement
    over previous processor interfaces.

    Seems as if this might be one of the bottlenecks in the system. It didn't say 64bit bidirectional bus - it said 64 bits total. However it is a 32bit bidirectional bus. Geuss I'm being picky. Still say Apple should've chosen AMD. Mac OS x on an X2 or Opteron; pretty sweet right?
  • kenan921 - Friday, October 28, 2005 - link

    AMD simply does not have the manufacturing capabilities of Intel. If Apple had chosen AMD, and their machine sales took off as I'm sure they are hoping they will, AMD would have to struggle to keep up with the additional demand from Apple.

    By the way, I'm not in any way anti-AMD. All of my current systems are AMD powered, from my slot A 950mhz web server, to my Gateway A64 laptop.
  • highlandsun - Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - link

    That argument sounds pretty weak. AMD has had ~16% of the x86 processor market. Apple's market share is what, 1-2% of the PC market? AMD would have no trouble supplying the paltry numbers that Apple sells.

    Personally I think Apple should be burning the midnight oil to build a powerbook around a PA Semi chip. The less x86 systems in the world, the better.

  • ceefka - Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - link

    That's a bold step Mr. Jobs.

    What PCI-E soundcards can be used on a new Mac?
    Is Apple expecting PCI-E DSP-cards anytime soon?
  • Clauzii - Thursday, October 27, 2005 - link

    On Apples website they are NOT talking about gamingrelated PCI-E stuff but RAID and Videograbbing, which is also more what I would Xpect in and for a computer like a QUAD Core G5.

    Games are played on consoles and PCs - that´s a fact.
  • mlittl3 - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link

    For all of you asking about AMD's future, here is a link to an article with leaked AMD processor pricing guide (could be fake).

    http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=1...">http://www.avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=1...

    Bascially, one can tell from the memo that the FX-60 will probably be dual core 2.8 GHz CPU (increments of 5 instead of two now to match Opteron plus two cores means +5 instead of +2) and there will be a dual core 2.6 GHz called 5000+. All of the single core Athlon 64s will be reduced in price to be below all the dual cores (except the 4000+ will be a little above the x2 3800+). All the semprons will be below single core athlons except the 3400+ sempron will be a bit above the 3000+.

    Have fun dreaming of what you are going to buy. From the looks of things, AMD will be phasing out single core high speed processors sooner than we think. That means no 3.0 GHz in '06 Q1. :(
  • born sleepy - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    y'all can yammer about hardware all day, but the reason this processor switch is a non-event in the greater scheme is the operating system. even if a future Mac can run Windows natively, I really don't care. I want OS X. I don't care what iron is powering it. the next Power Mac could be shaped like an Oompa-Loompa painted fluorescent orange with peacock feathers sticking out its ass for all it matters.

    if I have to pay another $500-1000 for the Apple tax, sign me up if it means I don't have to run that "just as good" (er, yeah, OK, whatever) OS.
  • Viditor - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link

    quote:

    I want OS X. I don't care what iron is powering it


    Fair enough...to each their own. Actually, OSX is the first Mac OS that I can deal with because they moved away from assigning ram and went to dynamically using it.
    However, to be fair you should probably check out MS Vista as well...if Mac can change for the better, I imagine that MS can as well...
  • mlittl3 - Sunday, October 23, 2005 - link

    After the hacking of gamepc.com's review of Paxville Intel CPUs, I would love to see Anandtech review these Intel's only dual-core Xeon. The CPU is absolute rubbish and should never see the light of day according to the power and performance numbers at gamepc. Another review site like Anandtech, needs to come forward and confirm these pathetic results from the Paxville CPU.

    Sorry this is a bit off topic but it does relate to dual-core CPUs and Apple's embrace of Intel marchitecture.
  • Viditor - Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - link

    quote:

    After the hacking of gamepc.com's review of Paxville Intel CPUs, I would love to see Anandtech review these Intel's only dual-core Xeon. The CPU is absolute rubbish and should never see the light of day according to the power and performance numbers at gamepc. Another review site like Anandtech, needs to come forward and confirm these pathetic results from the Paxville CPU


    I agree 100%! GamePC isn't really known for their quality reviews...unfortunately, it appears that the reason AT doesn't have a review (at least this is the rumour) is that Intel haven't sent the normal review samples to anybody...quite strange for a major launch, and it tends to add legitimacy to GamePCs review.
  • JulesLt - Saturday, October 22, 2005 - link

    AMD v Intel - I understand that the Xeon is based on their existing Pentium based designs, wheras Yonah, et al, are supposedly the work of a different design team (I'm sure someone mentioned former involvement with DEC Alpha). That's the PR anyway - we'll see. I'm sure AMD will respond, but it does look like the GHz battle is over.

    As for what will happen when people can compare the cost of Apple's with comparable PCs - is it really so different from the situation in the 80s when you could compare an Apple with other 68000 machines? I'd also have thought Anandtech readers would also be the first to acknowledge that a PC is more than the sum of it's components, and if you want a testament to Apple's engineering, just go look at an iPod autopsy.

    They will continue to be under-powered and over-priced, because they always have been - but then it took a long time for motorists to start looking at miles per gallon rather than horse-power. It's not stopped the iPod beating cheaper more-functional players either.

    Lastly - why develop software on Mac?

    It's the dominant machine in several professions.

    Because you can be a big fish in a smaller pond (how would OmniGroup fare in the Windows world).

    Because there is more to the Mac platform than transparent windows and eye candy to keep users preferring MacOS. That's why Mac specific applications can survive against cross-platform ports, and ported open-source projects (Linux HCI typically being designed to be Windows-like). Even Microsoft understand that, by providing a native Mac version of Office - and Mac users prefer that in droves to OpenOffice and even NeoOffice/J.

    Because Xcode (free with Tiger) and Cocoa make it really easy to rapidly develop a high-quality app.
    It's unbelievable how much you 'get for free' with the Cocoa framework. If you don't know Objective-C you can always use Java - or Ruby or Python - which is great for developers coming from a Unix or Java background. Apple's also getting closer to the cross-platform world wheras MS seems to be looking at everything from Java to PDF to Flash and doing their own version, regardless of demand.

    And because there's always room for a company doing a better alternative to Finder.
  • devnull - Saturday, October 22, 2005 - link

    When I read for all those updates on the Mac line, one thing came to my mind... PPC provides Apple a unified platfrom from desktop to workstations and servers. Can Intel processors offer the exact same thing?

    Let me explain myself... If Apple wants to use the latest 970 processor it can use it in iMacs, PowerMacs and XServes. It's the same chip and most probably the same chipset (at least Northbridge). This means scale economy. When Apple goes the Intel way, in order to stay competitive, it will have to use different processors to different usage computers. A derivative of Pentium-M (nomatter how we will end up calling them) will probably power desktops such as iMacs. But a Xeon derivative will have to be used for high end workstations and servers. Xeons carry a much greater price tag and usually they are accompanied by different chipsets (both North and South Bridges). So Apple will have to buy a number of different processors, a number of different chipsets and spent more money on R&D to develop different platforms.

    Another thing that troubles me is more software related... It has been suggested that Apple will prevent people from installing MacOSX to other than Mac PCs but won't stop people's attempts to install Windows or Linux on Macs. So, I'm wondering, if I had a s/w company, why on earth would I develop s/w for the Mac platform??? If I develop only for Windows/Linux I can cover almost 100% of the market, since people with Macs can always Windows or Linux on their systems and use my s/w... Why would I spent money and human resources for a Mac port???
  • slashbinslashbash - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link

    What you aren't taking into consideration is the base price of a 970 processor vs. that of an Intel chip. I'm actually thinking that IBM is probably happy about Apple's switch from PPC to x86, and here's why: with the huge numbers of Cell CPUs in the PS3 and possibly other environments, and custom PPCs in Xbox 360's, the number of PPCs being sold in Macs each year pales in comparison. It's more of a problem for IBM to manufacture this special CPU for Apple than it's worth.

    On the other hand, Apple is taking whatever off-the-shelf processors Intel already has or is planning to release. I'm sure that Apple will utilize Intel chipsets as well. The economy of scale for *any* Intel processor is inherently higher than *any* PPC, unless Apple agreed to use the Cell or the X360 chip. I doubt Apple will ever use a Xeon.

    What's weird about this whole thing is that I think it throws Apple's pricing strategy out of whack. One of the amazing things about the Power Mac line through the years (just taking Power Macs as an example) is how it consistently hits the same, or lower, price points with each new release. Apple has carefully managed their pricing to retain their value, and this has been possible largely due to the lack of a huge market for PPC CPU's. Look at "normal" CPU prices, which are pretty much insane (even though they supposedly are a result of scarcity). You'll pay 5 times as much for Intel's top processor as you will for the lowest processor. Same for AMD. It doesn't cost Intel 5 times as much to make a 3.8Ghz CPU as it does to make a 2.8GHz CPU, but they'll charge you for it.

    I actually think that Apple has done a really good job with the pricing in the past: I have always known that if I buy a top-of-the-line $3000 machine today, then a year from now when the new models are released, it will fall somewhere in performance between the $2000 and $2500 model, and I could probably sell it on eBay for that amount. Try selling a year-old Dell or HP for over 2/3rds of its initial price! Even a homebuilt high-end computer won't hold more than half its value for a year, as newer graphics cards come out, and RAM/CPU/HD/LCD prices fall. It simply ain't gonna happen. Apple's pricing strategy has always been a way of getting buyers to think of their Macs as an investment. People who have last-gen iMacs are buying new ones for $1300 and selling their year-old ones for $1000. PowerBooks have always held their value EXTREMELY well, and again I think that this is largely due to the fact that there's not a huge, competitive market for G4 processors. There IS a huge, competitive market for Pentiums.

    As for people using Windows on their Macs, I think that it will happen, but it's actually a good thing for Apple. If you buy a Mac, it *will* come with a Mac OS. You can take the time to install Windows if you want, but chances are you will at least keep MacOS around. Over time I think that many such people will gradually switch to MacOS even if they didn't plan to do so in the first place.
  • TheFuture - Friday, October 21, 2005 - link

    Who wants to bet that this time next year "the experts" will be complaining about how slow Pro MacTels are compared to the Opteron-based computers on the market? "Why buy Apple and pay a premium when you can have Windows Vista or Linux on a FAST processor?"

    The latest head-to-head benchmarks between the best that Intel has to offer and the AMD Opteron show the Intel processors taking a whipping. A severe whipping! The latest sales shown that even the Windows faithful have figured out the real performance leader. This may be the first time in history where someone (Steve Jobs) has jumped from a winning horse onto a dead horse and starting beating the crap out of it while bitching about the winning horse. (The winning horse being IBM with their IC technology and processor in every high-end entertainment device on the market.)

    Apple's hardware will be the same as everyone else's, only much more expensive. I give Apple two more years in the computer hardware business before they abandon ship and take on Microsoft heads-up in a software battle.

    "MacTel" makes my stomach churn. What a kick in the faithful's ass by Steve Jobs.

    Did I mention the Cell Processor? Which kicks every other processor on the market's ass? Steve better port MacOS X to the Cell Processor and beg IBM's forgiveness before it's too late... he better work weekends!
  • tallscot - Friday, November 18, 2005 - link

    Re: Price.

    I tried to build a dual Opteron 275 and 280 PC with similar specs as the "quad" G5 Mac for less money and I couldn't do it. A "quad" G5 with RAM from Crucial comes out significantly less than a dual Opteron 280 PC using prices from price grabber.

    Based on recent benchmarks of that "quad" Mac, I'd say that the speed of the two is very comparable. For whatever reason, After Effects 6.5 sees a huge speed increase on the G5, so I expect it to be faster on the Mac. Cinebench is currently screaming fast on the dual 280 Opteron with a score of 1,350 compared to the ~1,100 on the "quad" Mac. Lightwave should be faster on the Mac, though.

    So this new G5 looks like a very good value compared to PCs.
  • mlittl3 - Friday, October 21, 2005 - link

    Let's not kid ourselves. Apple has never had the performance throne when it comes to a majority of the applications out there. Even though Intel processors might be eclipsed by AMD, Apple doesn't give a rat's ass about the whole AMD vs. Intel Fanboyism thing. Intel is just a chip supplier to them. Just like Broadcom is just the chip supplier for video decoding in the 5th gen iPod.

    What Apple cares about is innovation. What they do with Intel processors will probably be far and above what everyone else does with their processors. Most complain about the expensive, yuppie design of most Macs but those people are just computer enthusiasts that make their own computers anyway. They hate the likes of Dell, HP, etc. as well as Apple.

    TG Daily has a good article at

    http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/21/resurgence_of_ma...">http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/10/21/resurgence_of_ma...

    that talks about where the competition really lies for Apple as well as where they are going in the future. I like the point that the analyst in the article makes about the multi-computer household. People aren't going to use the same computer to control their digital home media experiences as they use to balance the checkbook or do the kids' homework. Guess which one Apple is going for.

    Read the story and stop worrying about which company has the best processor performance or the best fps in every game. Apple has never been about that and never will.
  • TheFuture - Saturday, October 22, 2005 - link

    Apple and the Macintosh has been about NOT Intel, NOT Microsoft. For those who really do think different. All that Steve Jobs has told the faithful about PPC has turned out to be a big lie. Why believe him now?

    As for innovation, Apple didn't invent USB, Ethernet, SATA, PCI Express, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, DDR2 SDRAM or ANY of the technologies that will be in their MacTel hardware. Their one innovation, FireWire, will eventually give way to USB or even UWB wireless for multimedia. Onto the trash heap with their contribution to the PPC ISA.

    If Apple's computers use Intel processors, Intel chip-sets, and industry standard interfaces, memory and media, then what does Apple really bring to the table other than MacOS X? Are people really willing to pay an extra $500 or more for an Apple logo and access to MacOS X?

    Apple's Intel hardware will have NO distinguishing features at the end of the day. At least with a different processor ISA, the faithful could rationalize their expensive Apple hardware. Now this rationalization is not only gone, they have to submit to the indignity of being an Intel lemming.

    The ONLY advantage I see in moving to Intel will be to allow Windows Vista to run side-by-side with MacOS X for business and engineering application support. To eliminate the argument that Apple hardware can't run critical applications. I suspect this may backfire on Apple, exposing Mac users to Vista which may turn out to be "just as good" as MacOS X and able to run a much broader range of software - on the same ole Intel processor. Mac users may just boot into Vista one day and never go back...
  • michael2k - Saturday, October 22, 2005 - link

    Apple would not complain if everyone bought Macs to boot Vista.

    Likewise neither would Microsoft.
  • jkresh - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    Will Apple be willing to step down when going x86 (ie go from 2 dual core g5's to a single dual core intel?) or are they expecting dual processor intel systems or one 4 core (which I didnt think would be available on the home side that fast?)
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    Almost all of Intel's CPUs by the middle of next year will be dual core. I don't see why apple won't put two of those puppies in their high end systems. You can make a dual dual-core Intel system now but you will be hotter than the sun and slower than a 486.
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    Correction. You can build dual dual-core intel systems once motherboard support is available (about 2-3 weeks) for the Paxville 2.8 GHz Xeon.
  • Viditor - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    BTW, are we going to be seeing a Paxville review on AT at all? The GamePC review was absolutely damning, but I have frankly not trusted their reviews all that much.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    Or using Sossaman: dual dual-core Yonahs

    Take care,
    Anand
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    I really think the new Powermacs are superb machines. Apple did a good job with their supposedly last PowerPC update. It goes without saying that the new Powerbooks are a let down. I wish they could have used the new Freescale cpu that uses pci-express and 200 MHz bus. Oh well. I heard they had problems with it so they had to keep delaying to cancelling it.

    I can't wait to see what Apple does with tried and true x86 hardware. Since Dell is being religated to "also ran" status with no significant products and Apple is being considered an innovator with the ability to surprise, I think those Mac platforms based on Merom, Woodcrest and Conroe with be kick ass. :)
  • icarus4586 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    quote:

    One thing that truly surprised me was the lack of two x16 (electrical) slots, meaning that these G5s aren't exactly configured for SLI.

    Aren't most current SLI implementations based on two 8x slots anyway? I'd think that Apple's PCI-E configuration would be fine...
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    The main requirement from NVIDIA's standpoint is that you have two equal bandwidth/latency links, which today is either two x8 or two x16 slots. The majority of SLI configurations are attained by splitting a single x16 electrical connection into two x8 connections.

    The closest thing Apple has at this point (unless the x16 slot is dynamically reconfigurable) are the two x4 slots on the motherboard.

    Take care,
    Anand
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    "The new G5s are offered in one 2.3GHz configuration and two 2.5GHz configurations, all of which are based on dual-core 90nm PowerPC 970MP CPUs."

    I think the offerings include one dual-core 2GHz, one dual-core 2.3GHz and dual dual-core 2.5GHz plus an additional offering to buy the old dual single-core 2.7GHz PCI-X model. Just thought I would point that out.
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    Woops :) Thanks for pointing that out, it's what happens at 4AM :)

    Take care,
    Anand
  • ksherman - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    quote:

    It is also interesting that none of Apple's performance comparisons are against x86 processors anymore :)


    Yeah, they compare it to the old G5's... probably will do that when they officaly release the x86 processors next year, and MAGICALLY the x86 will be faster! *gasp*

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now