The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    [FUD] Apple Designing Own CPU's

    Discussion in 'Apple and Mac OS X' started by usapatriot, Sep 26, 2009.

  1. usapatriot

    usapatriot Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    3,266
    Messages:
    7,360
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    206
    Just found this on another website. Thought it might be interesting.


    Source

    If this turns out to be true Apple and Intel might begin to have quite a rocky relationship...
     
    usapatriot, Sep 26, 2009
    #1
  2. usapatriot

    usapatriot Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    3,266
    Messages:
    7,360
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    206
    If this turns out to be true Apple and Intel might begin to have quite a rocky relationship...
     
    usapatriot, Sep 26, 2009
    #2
  3. weinter

    weinter /dev/null

    Reputations:
    596
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Are you seriously believing this?
    Intel who has so many years of x86 design cannot achieve this while a Company with Zero Expertise in CPU design made it?
    32MB per Core?
    The CPU die is so small it is NOT POSSIBLE!
    Come on this article should be posted on 1st of April.
    Also Apple will not have the rights to reproduce x86 technology not to mention 256bit is totally incompatible with all current software.
    6GHZ clock speed is nothing spectacular people have overclocked CPU to that number.
    For a FUD this is a lousy one done by uninformed people.
     
    weinter, Sep 26, 2009
    #3
  4. denrocks1

    denrocks1 Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    5
    The article is fake. Just about anything from Fud is fake, and the submission was rejected, so if Fud rejected something, it had to be mega fake.
     
    denrocks1, Sep 26, 2009
    #4
  5. Sonicjet

    Sonicjet Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    93
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    As rediculous as the OP post is,it has just one tiny thing that makes me go hmm.
    -Apple has been designing chips since the 80's,Power PC anyone?
    Apple would just send the schematics to Motorola and they would build the chips,thats how it worked,thats how the referenced Light peak works too.
     
    Sonicjet, Sep 26, 2009
    #5
  6. weinter

    weinter /dev/null

    Reputations:
    596
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    56
    PowerPC belongs to IBM Originally since it uses IBM design, Apple is just a name there as a customer of the chip.
    And x86 technology is propriety no company lest license by Intel can reproduce the chip instruction set.
    Apple didn't sent the schematics just the concept.
    If Apple was really capable as a hardware vendor they wouldn't need partners.
     
    weinter, Sep 26, 2009
    #6
  7. sgogeta4

    sgogeta4 Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,389
    Messages:
    10,552
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    456
    *yawn. fake.
     
    sgogeta4, Sep 26, 2009
    #7
  8. Luke1708

    Luke1708 Notebook Virtuoso NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    352
    Messages:
    3,799
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    i dont believe this.if apple drops intel, it will lose many customers, unless....there is a secret partnership with intel and this processor will be backwards compatible with the current architecture.
     
    Luke1708, Sep 27, 2009
    #8
  9. EnterKnight

    EnterKnight Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    65
    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Can't believe people are even commenting on this.
     
    EnterKnight, Sep 27, 2009
    #9
  10. mujtaba

    mujtaba ZzzZzz Super Moderator

    Reputations:
    4,242
    Messages:
    3,088
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    181
    Ridiculous, if Apple was up to that, we would be hearing lots of news about Apple hiring architects. They went through a LOT of trouble to migrate to x86, they would be shooting themselves in the foot to break the binary compatibility with x86, remember, many people actually buy Macs to run Windows OS, they even highlighted that in one of their ads.
     
    mujtaba, Sep 27, 2009
    #10
  11. wobble987

    wobble987 Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    543
    Messages:
    2,871
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    where is the link to the source?
     
    wobble987, Sep 27, 2009
    #11
  12. Greg

    Greg Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,857
    Messages:
    16,212
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Yeah, garbage here.

    32MB L2 cache per core? Not going to happen even with a 45nm or 32nm production technology. Maybe not even with 22nm technology.

    256 bit architecture? How is this useful? It isn't really...

    247W TDP...seems a bit high, don't you think? Maybe Apple products really do explode.

    Six times as fast as the i7? Okay, I'd like to know where those engineers came from. Maybe Steve Jobs trained them or something.

    Anyway, if anyone seriously believes this than I feel really sorry for you.
     
    Greg, Sep 27, 2009
    #12
  13. Luke1708

    Luke1708 Notebook Virtuoso NBR Reviewer

    Reputations:
    352
    Messages:
    3,799
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    what i find weird is how a member like usapatriot could post this....maybe his account has been hacked.
     
    Luke1708, Sep 27, 2009
    #13
  14. Greg

    Greg Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,857
    Messages:
    16,212
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Not sure. I checked some of his most recent posts and their IP addresses, they're all in the same region as his original registration IP. So either no hacker, or a hacker in the same city.
     
    Greg, Sep 27, 2009
    #14
  15. Amnesiac

    Amnesiac 404

    Reputations:
    1,312
    Messages:
    3,433
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Hmm, looks like he be turning into a troll then.
     
    Amnesiac, Sep 27, 2009
    #15
  16. mmoy

    mmoy Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    144
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Apple bought out a chip firm recently - their expertise was more in the RISC area than the CISC area. Intel's next vector model CPU will have 256-bit vectors and they will support 256-bit instructions. Current CPUs support SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, etc. which carry 128-bit instructions. These are special-purpose instructions but they are generally where Intel and AMD are adding new functionality to the x86 instruction set.
     
    mmoy, Sep 28, 2009
    #16
  17. weinter

    weinter /dev/null

    Reputations:
    596
    Messages:
    2,798
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    56
    Yes but you don't call them 256bit CPU because EAX, EBX... are still 64bit only.
    Apple did tried to develop CPU but they are RISC Embedded CPU more for iphones than Macs
     
    weinter, Sep 28, 2009
    #17
  18. mmoy

    mmoy Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    144
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Some people may confuse the bitness over instruction sets.

    There are additional costs for larger bitness such as programs using up to twice the memory and storage space on disk, larger moves to copy register sets on context switches and any additional instruction costs to deal with alignment issues. Infrastructure improvements to systems have improved considerably since x86-64 came out rendering these issues as being fairly small today.

    The GCC folks (and other open source projects) are still grappling with 128-bit issues with current compilers. Going to 256 bits will make for even more fun.
     
    mmoy, Sep 28, 2009
    #18