To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apple isn't lying about their motives. IBM still isn't and doesn't plan to give them what they want and need in a chip.
And that would be?
Lets summarize their claims
- no 3GHz? Cell is 4.2
- short on supply? Do you remember one day when you couldn't buy Apple the day you decided? I sure don't. Supply trouble would mean that demand exists but there is no product
- better power consumption? Intel and 64-bit? BS. Not even worth to mention?
Did I forget something?
And yes, they are not lying, they are keeping quiet about their motives.
"Cell is a breakthrough architectural design -- featuring eight synergistic processors and top clock speeds of greater than 4 GHz (as measured during initial hardware testing)"
Yeah, this is still new technology and we don't know what it will do regarding heat output at those levels and how it will be crammed into a notebook?
What is gained/lost? Instruction set changes? Altivec? I haven't seen anything concrete addressing this? But I just may not have seen what you have seen. Whereas Mac OS X has been running on x86 architecture from day one.
:/
As far as demand/supply. Yes. My mini was a month late. That could be Apple's fault - but you asked and I answered.
Intel HAS been demonstrating better technologies (well, better rehashing of OLD technologies) in it's M and likely the M descendants.
Comparing the Cell and the PPC970 makes no sense. The Cell can run at 4.2GHz because it has extremely short, optimized circuits, as well as an 18 stage integer pipeline. Part of the reason it can have such short circuits is because it in-order schedule-execute loop is dead simple, it has limited instruction-level-parallelism, and uses static branch prediction. Meanwhile, the PPC970 does a lot of work in its 16 stages to support massively out-of-order, parallel execution. The two chips are completely different.





Member since:
2005-07-06
Eh? I echo the other two respondents. Apple isn't lying about their motives. IBM still isn't and doesn't plan to give them what they want and need in a chip.