Mac transition to Intel processors: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:07, 14 June 2005

Revision as of 08:14, 14 June 2005

Line 13:

==Reasons for the Transition==

Based on Apple's saying, IBM's failure to deliver a faster PPC chip is the main cause of the switch. However, Apple's lower-single-digit marketshare in the personal computer business also implies that Apple could not buy enough chips to support Macintosh-oriented R&D for newer PPC chips.

Two years earlier, Jobs had introduced the [[PowerPC 970|PowerPC G5]] processor and promised that within a year the [[clock speed]] of the part would be up to 3 [[Gigahertz|GHz]]. In the meantime Motorola had spun off the PowerPC production into another company, [[Freescale]], and this company had a [[dual-core]] [[PowerPC G4|G4]]-class chip in the pipeline.

Line 22 ⟶ 23:

Meanwhile the [[x86]] [[instruction set]] architecture has achieved massive market penetration, in particular at the desktop scale. Intel itself is the world's largest chip vendor and has significant [[brand]] awareness among the consumers Apple would like to target. Intel is able to provide Apple with a complete system rather than just a processor and can do this in a volume unlikely ever to be tested.

Apple has relied on two companies for its microprocessor chips and in neither case was there anywhere else to turn when they could not apparently deliver. This psychology may be reflected in Apple's choice of Intel. Although the latter is still a single company it is the largest in the sector and one whose [[Desktop computer|desktop]] ambitions are unlikely to be undermined by other market considerations. Moreover, should Intel fail to deliver, a move to an alternate supplier (such as [[AMD]]) would be an easier objective then either the 68K-PowerPC transition, or the PowerPC-Intel one.

==Benefits of the Move==