Apple Sticks with PowerPC for Now

Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Apple Sticks with PowerPC for Now

I just read an article here:

In its recent release of its new Power Mac G5 line, Apple Computer (Nasdaq: AAPL - news) has shown that it will rely on the dual-core PowerPC processor for at least a few years longer. [...] Although it is expected that Apple will transition all of its computers, both desktop and laptop, to Intel chips eventually, for now it is likely that the computer maker will use PowerPC chips for as long as they make sense for Apple's efforts. [...] Most likely, the Intel chips first will begin to appear in laptops because Intel has been focused on building chips that work more effectively in portable devices.
[...]
The use of PowerPC chips for at least another year also should give software developers time to make adjustments to applications and other products that will be affected by the chip switch. [...] Apple has noted that it will use dynamic translation software called Rosetta to transition applications designed for PowerPC chips to run on Intel systems, but many still expect that there will be some potholes in the road to switching. Analysts have noted that, despite Apple's transition plans, companies do not need to refrain from buying Power Macs.

So, it looks like the switchover won't be quite as rapid as was first assumed. This would seem to be good news for anyone who recently bought a PPC Mac for developing BlitzMax titles (like, um, me - a cheap G4, but I'd still like to get some use out of it <g>).

Kanati

they realized they were losing sales because people didn't want to buy a ppc mac only to have it obsolete in 6-9 months.

FlameDuck

Go figure.

Warren

Eh, at some point they'll have to cut their losses and make the switch but I imagine they'll want to seed the market for a few years first. A wholesale, 'burn the bridgges' switch to intel isn't really realistic.

John Galt

Good news from my personal perspective (I own a Mac Mini) - but there's no way I would buy a Mac now in the atmosphere of if/when/maybe.

Loonie

You guys don't get it. The CPU is irrelevant for Apple as it should be for the rest of us, and that's the message they're sending out.

FlameDuck

The CPU is irrelevant for Apple as it should be for the rest of us, and that's the message they're sending out.

No they aren't. "We can't make up our mind / don't know what we're doing, please be our friend" is the message they're sending...

The CPU is the core of any computer, and just because Apple has a clever little emulation layer thing going, doesn't make the CPU irrelevant - except on iPods.

Loonie

The emulation thingie is for people that are not working on Xcode and haven't done the universal binary thing. But anyone workin on Xcode spits out binaries for both CPUs....so, not a real big deal.

See it as buying a dell with Intel or with an AMD CPU. I know it's not really the same, but do you get my point?

smilertoo

The cpu IS irrelevant, its the OS and known hardware you buy when you get apple.

teamonkey

#10

I think the idea always was that they were going to hang on to PPC for a while anyway. The swap to Intel begins with laptops in the next year or so because the G5 isn't suited for laptop use and the G4 can't go much further. Probably an upgrade for the Mini too. A year or two later the G5 ends its desktop lifecycle too and they switch to Intel on desktops - the iMac and finally the big multi-core desktop machines. So we'll have new macs coming out, some will have Intel CPUs, some will have PPC.

xlsior

#11

Apple supposedly switches to Intel because they didn't believe that the PowerPC architecture could scale to the same levels as easily.

However, judging by some other info floating around the last couple of days, Intel seems like a pretty poor choice as well -- AMD latest chips are beating Intel's by leaps and bounds:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=paxville

Dual core AMD's are running in circles around Intel's dual core offerings. Intels performance is lagging behind *spectacularly*. If you check out the link above, you'll see some benchmarks -- Intel loses every single test by a landslide, most of the time with AMD's lowest offering beating out Intel's highest speed CPU's by quite a margin.
And on top of Intel being so much slower, they also use up a LOT more power and run significantly hotter than the AMD's.

Intel better still has something up their sleeves, or they will be left out to dry pretty soon -- they latest releases simply won't cut it.

LarsG

#12

wow.. if those tests are correct, then it looks like the 2.4GHz AMD CPU is almost twice as fast as the 2.8GHz Intel CPU, and even at a lower power consumption...
Looks like Intel has got some serious trouble..

Dreamora

#13

At the moment, dual cores are the "slower cpus" anyway ... compared to the fastest P4 or AMD FX-55 / FX-57, even AMD64X4 4800+ is a kiddies play toy ...

So focusing around dualcore won't be of much use until devs get all their stuff done in multithreaded way ...
For Blitz Products for example they are completely useless at the moment.

FlameDuck

#14

The cpu IS irrelevant, its the OS and known hardware you buy when you get apple.

Please. That's like saying the graphics card is irrelevant. So what made you buy an nVidia or ATi card and ditch the on-board Intel or VIA POS your computer undoubtedly came with? No the components that make up your computer are far from irrelevant.

But anyone workin on Xcode spits out binaries for both CPUs....so, not a real big deal.

Except not everyone is "working with XCode". Like people who develop games for instance. Like Blizzard.

At the moment, dual cores are the "slower cpus" anyway

Yes. But that's a pretty short-sighted perspective on technology. Once the next generation Multicore consoles hit the streets, and/or PPU's are more commonplace, you'll see a dramatic rise in multithreaded games. Certainly anyone starting the AAA title today would want to plan for a multithreaded environment. Most applications are already multithreaded.

teamonkey

#15

No the components that make up your computer are far from irrelevant.

But if you're programming on the Mac then it doesn't matter what CPU you're developing for because XCode handles it more or less transparently. Likewise, if you're a Mac user then it doesn't matter what CPU you use - you'll either be using a dual-binary build or an emulated PPC build, but it's completely transparent to the user.

Except not everyone is "working with XCode". Like people who develop games for instance. Like Blizzard.

Of course they are, and obviously there'll be dual binaries for a high-profile Mac game.

WendellM

#16

anyone workin on Xcode spits out binaries for both CPUs....so, not a real big deal.

if you're programming on the Mac then it doesn't matter what CPU you're developing for because XCode handles it more or less transparently.

Xcode 2.1 creates universal binaries that run natively on Intel and PPC CPUs, but it requires OS X 10.4. The used G4 system that I bought has only 10.3.9, so I'm limited to Xcode 1.5, meaning native binaries for PPC only.

I guess if I get enough Mac game sales - which should start in early 2006 - to justify the ~$120 upgrade to 10.4, I'll get it (assuming that a BlitzMax update is released that allows universal binary compilation). However, by that point, 10.5 "Leopard" (possibly coming out in late 2006) might be worth waiting for.

However, that's a year or more in the future. By that point, my Mac will be so outdated that the slowest "Macintels" might run my PPC executables faster under Rosetta emulation than they run natively on mine, so I won't have to worry about it <g>.

Right now, Mac development is a much lower priority for me than Windows development. It was worth $250 to get a Mac to play around with, but sufficient sales will be required to justify expense beyond that. I'll be in "wait and see" mode for a while....

FlameDuck

#17

But if you're programming on the Mac then it doesn't matter what CPU you're developing for because XCode handles it more or less transparently.

I know. That doesn't make the processor irrelevant. For starters PowerPC is a RISC processor with 32 general purpose registers, the Intel is a CISC chip with only 4. Thus some things will be inherently faster on the PPC, due to it's RISC architecture, Altivec extensions, and ample supply of on-die registers, while other things will be faster on an Intel chip, which has more available clock cycles.

Of course they are, and obviously there'll be dual binaries for a high-profile Mac game.

No they aren't they're using CodeWarrior (the cross platform development tool of choice for professionals) and unless CodeWarrior can produce Intel universal binaries, you'll be running WoW on Rosetta for a long time.