Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 01:59 PM

Some members/mods here have suggested that since Apple switched the inferior Intel chips to save money and they should pass on the savings to users. Turns out Apple may be paying 3x as much for an intel chip over a PPC one yet the computer costs have stayed the same.

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...119_311993.htm

macintologist · Jan 19, 2006, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Some members/mods here have suggested that since Apple switched the inferior Intel chips to save money and they should pass on the savings to users. Turns out Apple may be paying 3x as much for an intel chip over a PPC one yet the computer costs have stayed the same.

http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...119_311993.htm

From the article you linked

Some analysts suggest that Apple might have been paying less than $100 for the IBM single-core PowerPC 970 chip that went into the final iMac G5, which would imply an increase in materials cost of more than $200 per unit.

Wow, no definite numbers, just a guesstimate by an anonymous source?

OWNED

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

From the article you linked

Wow, no definite numbers, just a guesstimate by an anonymous source?

OWNED

Owned? No kidding it is a guess, since when does Apple release breakdowns?

Do you have brain damage?

You need to head back to that Open firmware thread, you disappeared after everyone proved you wrong

Eug Wanker · Jan 19, 2006, 02:09 PM

Agree. Pwned.

Lateralus · Jan 19, 2006, 02:11 PM

Everytime a member here claims that lowered cost is an advantage to the switch, I have corrected them by saying PowerPC chips are substantially cheaper and always have been.

"No way! Intel makes more chips, they must be cheaper!"

No, not really.

Hell, the 1.67GHz 7447A G4 used in the PowerBook is only around $80.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 02:13 PM

You guys want to see a picture of the 5 pound heatsync for ONE of the G5 chips in my 2GHz dual? It is MASIVE.

No kidding Apple couldn't put on in a laptop.

macintologist · Jan 19, 2006, 02:16 PM

What Apple-haters like Leia refuse to admit is that it's more expensive for Apple to have to develop their own IO controllers and other chips to integrate the CPU with the rest of the computer. This was most likely more expensive than simply buying them outright from Intel.

OWNED

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

From the article you linked

Wow, no definite numbers, just a guesstimate by an anonymous source?

OWNED

Wow, you can't read.

From MY post: "Apple may be paying 3x as much"

Back to grade 2 English for you.

TETENAL · Jan 19, 2006, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Everytime a member here claims that lowered cost is an advantage to the switch, I have corrected them by saying PowerPC chips are substantially cheaper and always have been.

Aren't you the moderator who constantly bitches that Apple chose "cheap over elegant"?

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

What Apple-haters like Leia refuse to admit is that it's more expensive for Apple to have to develop their own IO controllers and other chips to integrate the CPU with the rest of the computer. This was most likely more expensive than simply buying them outright from Intel.

OWNED

Apple hater? Is that why I have so many and am here? News to me.

Rolling Bones · Jan 19, 2006, 02:17 PM

Well it ain't no cheap Pentium. It's a Intel core duo. I guess some people thought they were gonna use a cheap ass Pentium. As far as I know they're gonna stop making the Pentium altogether. Yes - No?

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Aren't you the moderator who constantly bitches that Apple chose "cheap over elegant"?

I remember hearing that over and over from one of the mods as well. Don't remember which one.

Salty · Jan 19, 2006, 02:21 PM

Yah Apple hardly was looking to save money in this deal I imagine, they were more than likely looking to get the best performance. I don't think Apple really wants to be too handily associated with the "value" space.

Chuckit · Jan 19, 2006, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Aren't you the moderator who constantly bitches that Apple chose "cheap over elegant"?

I believe you're thinking of Millennium.

Lateralus · Jan 19, 2006, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Aren't you the moderator who constantly bitches that Apple chose "cheap over elegant"?

I don't think you'll find anybody claiming that since everybody who follows the microprocessor market even somewhat regularly knows that one of the main advantages to the PowerPC architecture is low cost, which is half the reason why the embedded market gorges on PPC.

I'm saying they chose old, decaying and expensive over cheap and elegant.

Kevin · Jan 19, 2006, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

What Apple-haters like Leia refuse to admit is that it's more expensive for Apple to have to develop their own IO controllers and other chips to integrate the CPU with the rest of the computer. This was most likely more expensive than simply buying them outright from Intel.

OWNED

TO further break this down.

The chips may be more expensive (Not sure at this point) But the OVER-ALL cost is cheaper.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm saying they chose old, decaying and expensive over cheap and elegant.

Like I said, there is NOTHING elegant about a giant G5 heatsync or a chip that cannot fit in a laptop.

I also never thought I would see the day Apple has to use liquid cooling.

Eug Wanker · Jan 19, 2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Everytime a member here claims that lowered cost is an advantage to the switch, I have corrected them by saying PowerPC chips are substantially cheaper and always have been.

"No way! Intel makes more chips, they must be cheaper!"

No, not really.

Hell, the 1.67GHz 7447A G4 used in the PowerBook is only around $80.

G4s are produced in massive numbers. G5s are not. G5s are nearly exclusive to Apple.

We have no idea what Apple pays IBM for their chips. My guess is that it IS relatively cheap on a per unit basis, and that Yonah Core Duo costs more, but we have no idea how much Apple pays Intel for their chips either. Furthermore, we don't know what Apple paid IBM up front either for the development work on the G5. Also, while we're guessing Core Duo may cost more, it also offers a speed boost overall, given the dual-cores, so higher cost can be justified. More importantly for us, Apple isn't charging us more.

Anyways, most people here I've come across have not argued Apple went Intel for the sake of cost. I, like many others, think that Apple went Intel for speed and speed/watt, and for the sake of peace-of-mind. It must be exceptionally irritating constantly having to swim upstream with IBM.

Lateralus · Jan 19, 2006, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Like I said, there is NOTHING elegant about a giant G5 heatsync or a chip that cannot fit in a laptop.

I also never thought I would see the day Apple has to use liquid cooling.

Didn't we already go through this in another thread?

The liquid cooling systems wasn't required. It was required for *silent* operation.

The G5 is not that hot in comparison to other processors of the same development era. Apple wanted a silent machine. It's as simple as that.

Dork. · Jan 19, 2006, 02:35 PM

sigh.... the folks in the business week article are just guessing. Nobody knows how much Apple is paying for the Intel chips, at least nobody who would be willing to tell us.

The Core Duo is a relatively new chip, yields may not be great right now, and no matter what Apple is paying for the chips right now, it's a virtual certainty that Intel will be able to manufacture them more cheaply in three to six months. I'm sure Apple and Intel have a contract worked out that benefits both sides over the long haul. Besides, the Core Duo is infinitely cheaper than a G5 that can fit in a laptop, since said G5 doesn't exist!

analogika · Jan 19, 2006, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm saying they chose old, decaying and expensive over cheap and elegant.

Old, decaying, expensive, and AVAILABLE over cheap and elegant and fictitious.

Great embedded solutions, but feel free to point out the cheap and elegant solutions for my laptop. I don't want a PDA. Laptop.

MindFad · Jan 19, 2006, 02:37 PM

Seeing as iMac prices stayed the same, and the MacBook is more than reasonably priced, do we ... really care?

Lateralus · Jan 19, 2006, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

We have no idea what Apple pays IBM for their chips.

Yes, we do.

Over the past few months I have seen $180 cited as the price for the 2.5GHz 970MP by many sources. I haven't seen an official price break down from IBM, but pricing numbers do not circulate in the industry without grounds.

Eug Wanker · Jan 19, 2006, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Didn't we already go through this in another thread?

The liquid cooling systems wasn't required. It was required for *silent* operation.

The G5 is not that hot in comparison to other processors of the same development era. Apple wanted a silent machine. It's as simple as that.

That's not entirely correct. Power density is a significant issue with the G5. While overall power utilization on the G5 isn't especially high, hot spots are a concern, and they even said this.

Intel Netburst chips of the same generation as the 970 series ran hotter, but could be air-cooled, and some machines built with said chips were actually quieter than the Dual Power Macs.

Chuckit · Jan 19, 2006, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I don't think you'll find anybody claiming that since everybody who follows the microprocessor market even somewhat regularly knows that one of the main advantages to the PowerPC architecture is low cost, which is half the reason why the embedded market gorges on PPC.

Actually, Millennium did say that. Quoth the man:
"Apple is abandoning what is good for the sake of what is cheap."

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Didn't we already go through this in another thread?

The liquid cooling systems wasn't required. It was required for *silent* operation.

The G5 is not that hot in comparison to other processors of the same development era. Apple wanted a silent machine. It's as simple as that.

Fine, I believe you. But keep in mind it had liquid cooling, massive heatsyncs AND a ton of fans.

This is ONE heatsync from my Dual G5 that I took this morning. It is not cute light fins, it is solid metal and a few pounds. It is not small and elegant in any regard. In addition to the heatsyncs the CPU has 4 fans.

Now don't get me wrong. I like the way the chip performs but it is HOT as hell and a power whore.

I would have ran to Intel in a hurry also.

I took the pic this morning with my massive hands for scale. This is not a liquid cooled system and still giant.

Dork. · Jan 19, 2006, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Anyways, most people here I've come across have not argued Apple went Intel for the sake of cost. I, like many others, think that Apple went Intel for speed and speed/watt, and for the sake of peace-of-mind. It must be exceptionally irritating constantly having to swim upstream with IBM.

I agree, especially the peace-of-mind part. I doubt Intel would ever put developing chips for consoles at a higher priority than developing low-power chips for laptops.

Intel chips do get cheap eventually, as the design matures and the chip makes it into low-price, high-volume systems. But I'll wager that Apple will always use chips that are closer to the top-of-the-line, even in their consumer models. So the price difference may not be that great.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Actually, Millennium did say that. Quoth the man:
"Apple is abandoning what is good for the sake of what is cheap."

Plus he said "savings will not be passed onto the consumer".

By this report it seems Apple is EATING the extra $200 it costs them.

Busemann · 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

I'm saying they chose old, decaying and expensive over cheap and elegant.

Seeing as a dual core G5 would never fit inside a PowerBook, it can't be that elegant. Both processors have their advantages, but it sure wouldn't be cool to be a Mac user 2-3 years from now if they had stayed with IBM.

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Didn't we already go through this in another thread?

The liquid cooling systems wasn't required. It was required for *silent* operation.

The G5 is not that hot in comparison to other processors of the same development era. Apple wanted a silent machine. It's as simple as that.

Apple forgot about loudness with the MDD PowerMacs. It didn't work out very well. Silent operation is one of the major goals with all their machines now (luckily)

Dork. · Jan 19, 2006, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

By this report it seems Apple is EATING the extra $200 it costs them.

I guarantee it's not costing them extra. Like I said, Apple and Intel likely have a contract in place that benefits both sides. I believe Apple reports their gross margins on computer sales in their quarterly report, and if margins start to dip, the stock will tank. Apple has every incentive to make sure they still make money on every sale.

Eug Wanker · 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Yes, we do.

Over the past few months I have seen $180 cited as the price for the 2.5GHz 970MP by many sources. I haven't seen an official price break down from IBM, but pricing numbers do not circulate in the industry without grounds.

Just a mere mention of a specific dollar price makes me wonder about the reliability of these numbers. Wouldn't it be more likely that Apple simply pays IBM one big lump sum for a whole range of chips? If not, that seems like a reasonable guess, but do you have a link to a reliable source? And that still likely does not include any possible/probable lump sum payments Apple made to IBM for development work on the G5 and/or chipsets.

I also wonder what the several month delay before the launch of G5 iMacs cost Apple.

BTW, I don't understand this argument about PowerPC elegance (even though I own three PowerPC Macs). As far as I'm concerned, Yonah Core Duo is one of the most elegant

chips in existence for general purpose computers. It has an excellent power/Watt ratio, not just at maximum, but also at idle, and everything in between. And just one core of the Core Duo is faster on average than the fastest G4 available. The G5 doesn't count, because it doesn't exist in a Mac laptop, and that Freescale CEO dude who used to work for IBM said IBM gave up on developing it for the laptop too.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Dork.

I guarantee it's not costing them extra. Like I said, Apple and Intel likely have a contract in place that benefits both sides. I believe Apple reports their gross margins on computer sales in their quarterly report, and if margins start to dip, the stock will tank. Apple has every incentive to make sure they still make money on every sale.

I dunno, Intel had Apple by the balls. I mean with no laptop chip who else they going to turn to AMD? That would have looked kinda bad for Apple even thought they make good chips.

It would be rather easy to find out the cost of the chips. Intel always makes it rather public how much each chip will cost manufactures.

Dork. · Jan 19, 2006, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Just a mere mention of a specific dollar price makes me wonder about the reliability of these numbers. Wouldn't it be more likely that Apple simply pays IBM one big lump sum for a whole range of chips? If not, that seems like a reasonable guess, but do you have a link to a reliable source? And that still likely does not include any possible/probable lump sum payments Apple made to IBM for development work on the G5 and/or chipsets.

I also wonder what the several month delay before the launch of G5 iMacs cost Apple.

BTW, I don't understand this argument about PowerPC elegance (even though I own three PowerPC Macs). As far as I'm concerned, Yonah Core Duo is one of the most elegant

chips in existence for general purpose computers. It has an excellent power/Watt ratio, not just at maximum, but also at idle, and everything in between.

Intel (or specifically, Intel's Israeli design team, from what I understand) has come a long way in the elegance department, indeed. When I was studying microprocessor design way back in the dark-ages of 1998, my professor put up a chart of Intel's design priorities for the Pentium Pro. Right at the top, in big bold letters, were clock speed and compatability with the rest of the Intel architecture family. At the bottom, in teeny print, was power consumption. Things have changed, apparently.

As for dollar amounts on individual chips, even if Apple pays Intel a lump sum for a range of chips, someone with knowledge of Apple's supply chain, Intel's fab costs per wafer, and their current Core Duo yield might be able to translate that into an approximate number of chips available to be sold, and an approximate price per chip. But the people with that knowledge are not likely to post here, or tell Businessweek those numbers.

Millennium · Jan 19, 2006, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Aren't you the moderator who constantly bitches that Apple chose "cheap over elegant"?

No, that would be me. And as others have mentioned, these numbers don't look even remotely realistic for a customer like Apple who buys in significant volume.

Eug Wanker · Jan 19, 2006, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

I dunno, Intel had Apple by the balls. I mean with no laptop chip who else they going to turn to AMD? That would have looked kinda bad for Apple even thought they make good chips.

Apple couldn't have gone with AMD easily anyway. AMD doesn't write compilers, and it doesn't have the breadth of chipset expertise and expertise in other technologies that Intel has either. Anyways, Jobs has long since been friendly with Intel executives. He even gave a talk at an Intel developer conference IIRC.

It would be rather easy to find out the cost of the chips. Intel always makes it rather public how much each chip will cost manufactures.

Incorrect. The pricing is for small time purchases (batches of 1000). Large purchases from the likes of Dell, HP, and Apple are significantly cheaper on a per unit basis.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, that would be me. And as others have mentioned, these numbers don't look even remotely realistic for a customer like Apple who buys in significant volume.

You really think Apple will buy more than ANY other PC manufacturer? I would think Apple would be behind most of them in terms of volume.

analogika · Jan 19, 2006, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

You really think Apple will buy more than ANY other PC manufacturer? I would think Apple would be behind most of them in terms of volume.

Apple has been in the top ten of computer manufacturers for decades now.

Dork. · Jan 19, 2006, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

You really think Apple will buy more than ANY other PC manufacturer? I would think Apple would be behind most of them in terms of volume.

Apple, as a Personal Computer vendor, is something like second or third on the list in terms of units sold. Yes, Apple buys in significant enough volume to warrant a steep discount!

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 03:23 PM

Dell is Intels biggest customer and they are thinking about selling AMD. Even Dell must not get that huge of a cut in that case.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chi...9246997,00.htm

Eug Wanker · Jan 19, 2006, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Dell is Intels biggest customer and they are thinking about selling AMD. Even Dell must not get that huge of a cut in that case.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/chi...9246997,00.htm

If there is any real discussion between AMD and Dell, you can be damn well sure AMD would be offering deep cuts too. Furthermore, it can be argued that AMD has superior server chips, so there are good reasons to be in discussion. In the very least, it keeps Intel on its toes.

The difference here though is Dell isn't transitioning from PowerPC. Everything is already in place. Using AMD chips really just means changing suppliers essentially.

Apple NEEDs Intel. Dell doesn't (anymore) as much. The beauty about this switch for Apple though is that in 5 years, Apple wouldn't NEED Intel as much anymore either because everything will be in place for Apple on x86 too. If Intel's chip designs tank in 5 years, Apple can fall back on AMD. In IBM's chip designs tanked in 5 years, who are they going to fall back on? Freescale?

That's what I was talking about before when I said peace-of-mind.

Kevin · Jan 19, 2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

You really think Apple will buy more than ANY other PC manufacturer? I would think Apple would be behind most of them in terms of volume.

He didn't say the will but MORE than ANY other PC manufacturer.

He said "Apple who buys in significant volume"

mduell · Jan 19, 2006, 04:32 PM

I have a feeling these analysts are using the 1Ku tray prices... and I can't imagine Apple is actually paying those prices.

1.67Ghz G4s may only be $80, but there is no $300 G4 chip that Apple could buy even if they wanted to. Ditto for the reported $180 2.5Ghz PPC970MP.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is paying more for Intel's laptop chips than they were paying for the G4. That's the price (oh the pun) of using the market leading low-power chip.

goMac · Jan 19, 2006, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Some members/mods here have suggested that since Apple switched the inferior Intel chips to save money and they should pass on the savings to users. Turns out Apple may be paying 3x as much for an intel chip over a PPC one yet the computer costs have stayed the same.

It's too bad then. We won't have those cheap Powerbook G5's. Instead we're stuck with these stupid Intel based laptops.

Oh wait. No amount of money could buy a Powerbook G5. :-\

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

It's too bad then. We won't have those cheap Powerbook G5's. Instead we're stuck with these stupid Intel based laptops.

Oh wait. No amount of money could buy a Powerbook G5. :-\

And obviously no amount of R&D or money could put a big hot power hungry chip like the G5 in the powerbook either.

Ghoser777 · Jan 19, 2006, 06:19 PM

I predict that half the people posting in this thread will have no clue what they're talking about.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ghoser777

I predict that half the people posting in this thread will have no clue what they're talking about.

Does that include yours?

Chuckit · Jan 19, 2006, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, that would be me. And as others have mentioned, these numbers don't look even remotely realistic for a customer like Apple who buys in significant volume.

Apple was also buying in volume from Moto and IBM. Unless Intel's volume discounts are a much higher percentage, it seems like you should still wind up with a similar increase.

Ghoser777 · Jan 19, 2006, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Leia's Left Bun

Does that include yours?

Yes, I enjoy contributing to the majority.

Leia's Left Bun · Jan 19, 2006, 06:53 PM

I don't understand how members here GUESSES are any better than an Educated guess from research firms.

Salty · Jan 19, 2006, 06:55 PM

Again, it doesn't matter that much if Apple is paying more than they were for the PPC chips. They can't pass that price hike to the consumer because people are only going to pay so much more for a Mac than a PC that has nearly identical specs. I mean yah you or I might but Apple needs to keep bringing in new customers.