Each core will also be able to act on two threads at once. Think of threads as customers at a grocery store waiting in a checkout line. Each core would be like a checkout clerk who can work with two customers are once, thus shortening the wait time. Each core's ability to handle two jobs simultaneously means the chip can act like it is in fact six chips. Each core will operate at 3.2 gigahertz, which is comparable to the processing speed of Intel's fastest Pentium processor.
A tri-core chip? Each core running at 3.2GHz? The speeds obtained should be phenomenal. It's no wonder the consoles are overheating. It would be nice if these kinds of chips were released for consumer use in the next few months. But, of course, it looks like Microsoft is keeping it all to themselves. I haven't been paying particular attention to the speeds of chips lately -- that's something I only really care about when it's about time for me to get a new processor, but as far as I know AMD and Intel have dualcore chips out. If IBM's PowerPC chips were more popular then we could potentially all reap the benefits of these chips.
The Xbox 360 is only one of three gaming systems for which IBM's microelectronics group has either fully or partially been involved in chip design and development. IBM collaborated with Sony and Toshiba (TOSBF) on the development of the Cell Processor in PlayStation 3, due for release in early 2006. It has also landed a chip in the forthcoming Nintendo Revolution.
IBM sweeps the competition with the Big 3. It's a wonder that Apple decided to go with Intel chips now because IBM couldn't keep up with their demand. Was this because IBM is concentrating on the console market? Would the numbers look better on paper if PS3, XBox360, and the Revolution were all under IBM's control? I'd say that's probably the case. I'm sure the three will outsell the Apple PCs 10:1.
Intel has cornered the PC market, until recently. Many people will argue, but millions are coming around to the fact that AMD chips are cheaper and run faster than Intel chips. So where does this leave Intel? IBM has their console market, AMD is winning the PC market... Could Intel be in real trouble?
7 comments:
Apple recently started to switch to Intel from IBM because IBM couldn't get their Power PC chips to run cool enough for the G5 Powerbooks which will never come out.
IBM has had huge overheating problems with their chips and it's odd that Microsoft went with them for the Xbox. Didn't think they'd be overheating though, the Xbox should have enough internal fans to deal with it, unlike a Powerbook.
Also it's running the newer cell chip, which is supposed to run better.
Thanks for the info Jeffery! I wondered why Apple would abandon IBM after so long.
Since I know you're as close to an Apple expert that I know (of), could you tell me if, or how much cheaper the Apple computers will be after the switch? I really want a Mac for a few reasons, but have stayed away mostly because of the prices. If they come down to a reasonable price I'll get one, but until then I'll stick to PCs. I can build a PC for $350 - 400 (without a monitor), it'd be nice if Macs would come down to about double that. Even $1000.
Most likely there won't be any significant price drop following the Intel switch. Unlike other companies Apple likes to keep its margins up on hardware and unless the Intel chips are amazingly cheaper then I can't see them cutting into those margins.
Having said that I'd like to argue the "Macs cost more" myth. First off yeah you can build a PC yourself, use your old software or pirate copies and get yourself a computer for cheap. Apple will never be able to compete with that, because even Dell and other PC brands don't compete with that.
I find it better to look at Apple as a premium PC maker, in the same way you'd look at Alienware. The machines are absolutely beautifully designed and come with everything you need for use right out of the box.
Meaning you don't get a crippled version of Windows XP on it, since there is only one version of the Mac OS and not a "home" and "office" version that takes out most of the options. You get a beautiful OS, one that today is where Windows will be when Vista is finally released, and a ton of software that Apple has designed to work with the OS and let you do right out of the box some great common things with your computer (such as iTunes for music, Garageband for making music, iPhoto for digital photo management and editing, iMovie for digital film editing, iCal, Mail and Address book to replace Outlook and so forth). Apple sells it separately (for people who have older Macs) in a package called iLife for like $70 but it would really cost more if released by a third party company. So between the OS and the Apple software that's at least $200 of value. Add to that the fact that it's premium parts and you don't have to build it yourself (time is money) and you've got the warranty and it's a good deal.
Again not as cheap as building your own, but neither is Dell.
Another thing is Apple spends more than any other PC company on research and development, both for the OS and for the hardware. Dell did not invent Windows. Dell just has to slap a faster Intel chip in every six months and they've got a new computer. Apple has to keep the OS updated, Apple has had features in their OS for a year now that Microsoft will finally ad in Vista, plus design new hardware.
When was the last time one of the big PC companies released a computer that really changed the way computers were used, looked or operated? Apple was the first company to switch to USB, the first to use Firewire, designed the original iMac which everyone copied.
Like Alienware, and if I were to buy a PC one day it would probably be an Alienware, Apple has great machine design. You pay more for an Alienware because it's pretty, and to a small degree you pay more for a Mac because they're beautiful. The Powerbooks are still now four years later the prettiest laptops around (oh I love my Powerbook), the first iMacs changed computers (no floppy drive) and the new ones are sleek as hell. Even the towers like the G5s are amazingly beautiful.
Now I'm not saying that Macs are better. You can definitely get a faster PC than a Mac because of IBM and the Power PC chip. (Though from what I hear people who've hacked the Mac OS onto a PC grey box say its screamingly fast).
What I would like to see happen is Mac start to sell its OS separately. Apple has said it's a hardware company first, so it won't do that, but it would be nice if they did. Now if you built your own machine and ran the Mac OS on it it wouldn't be as stable as on an Apple Mac (Apple avoids a lot of the problems Microsoft has because they control the hardware that their machines run on so there's no error messages like "What the fuck kind of soundcard are you using? I'm going to crash now"), but it would be better than Windows.
So umm... long answer. Sorry.
Anyway the machines will be cool, and fast. I've got a friend who works at Microsoft and has used the developer Intel Mac and says it's fast. But it's never going to really drop in price that much. At most I'd say maybe a few hundred if the chips are that much cheaper.
Jeffery said...
First off yeah you can build a PC yourself, use your old software or pirate copies and get yourself a computer for cheap. Apple will never be able to compete with that, because even Dell and other PC brands don't compete with that.
There are rumours, which I've read, that say that Apple is thinking about doing this though. I think if they let people build their own Macs, they may just grab a bit more of the market.
Jeffery said...
I find it better to look at Apple...
...Again not as cheap as building your own, but neither is Dell.
I'd really can't argue with anything you've said there, and would probably be stupid to. Strong, sturdy machines that last for a long time, and are relevant and useful for a long time. The software bundled is worth at least what you said, if not more. I purchased Windows XP Pro for $235 (full version, but OEM meaning no support (like I need support...)), but it's regularly over $500. Plus, all those programs you listed, to purchase each one seperately would be another big chunk out of the wallet. So this means that my PC, that I can build for $400, is now more like $1100.
Jeffery said...
What I would like to see happen is Mac start to sell its OS separately. Apple has said it's a hardware company first, so it won't do that, but it would be nice if they did. Now if you built your own machine and ran the Mac OS on it it wouldn't be as stable as on an Apple Mac (Apple avoids a lot of the problems Microsoft has because they control the hardware that their machines run on so there's no error messages like "What the fuck kind of soundcard are you using? I'm going to crash now"), but it would be better than Windows.
That's just funny as hell! Good one. I agree with you except on the point that it might not be as stable if you built your own. It's a variant of UNIX, just like Linux is, and no matter what hardware you use, they just don't crash. I once had a Linux server up for over 300 days, without crashing, and the only reason I shut it down was because I installed another harddrive. So, with the guts of OS X being a grandchild of UNIX, I really see no reason that a Mac machine would be any different than a Linux box.
Jeffery said...
So umm... long answer. Sorry.
It's more than quite all right. I like reading stuff like this because it only pushes me closer to that store over by Deviate to purchase my first Mac.
I was at the Apple site this morning and saw the new iMac G5s. Wow! That's about all I have to say! Wow! I might just end up getting one sooner than I think.
The sound card and stuff don't make as much of a difference on the OS, but it does help to standardize stuff for software.
I remember back in high school my friend and I would play games on his PC, like a 486 or something, and he'd buy a game and it would meet the memory specs but then we'd need to go out and buy a new sound card, or the one he had wasn't installed right. Then we'd have to fuck about in DOS for hours.
That's better now, with XP you really never have to deal with DOS. And yeah the OSX is more stable, but it does gum up at times. It's not quite perfect yet.
Ahhh! The good ol' 386 days. Dos was fun, and I still like using it for certain things, even if it is just a dos box now.
As far as sound cards and stuff goes, it helps to have standards set in place. Apple doesn't worry about device drivers fighting for space when they're the ones who set it all up. It makes sense from their standpoint, although they could potentially make a lot of money with support calls if they let the reins loose.
That being said, they'd probably lose a lot of business from MacHeads if they went that route. Like you said, part of the reason that people love the Mac is because it is the Mac. Heh...
شركة مكافة الحمام بالدمام
Post a Comment