“According to sources close to the heart of the matter, Apple allegedly refused to adopt Intel’s Arrandale and the Calpella platform in its default form. In order for Apple to implement Calpella design with their next refresh of Mac mini / MacBook / MacBook Pro lines, Intel will have to provide Apple with the 32nm version without the integrated graphics part,” Valich report.
Valich report, “Again, we cannot confirm the information about the replacement CPU, we only know that Apple rejected Arrandale.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
Intel graphics suck. Phlegm at 11.
I wonder what will Apple use?
Good question.
I’m all for dumping Intel’s crappy integrated graphics, but what choice does Apple have? If Intel says no to dropping the integrated graphics, that means Apple doesn’t get to use the latest processors. Then what? Intel is the only game in town. AMD is a non-factor.
Apple won’t be commoditized by anyone!
Why is AMD a non factor?
Apple’s business is too big and too prestigeous for Intel pass up on. They’ll accommodate an important customer.
Develop your own processors. Vertical Integration is the way to go!
If you build a product, control it throughout the process!
For the life of me, I do not get the idea of buying any more components or elements from an outside party. Everyone imagines that there is some advantage to this.
Show confidence in the abilities of your own people, and you can get it. Outside supplier? You may or may not get what you want, and you may never know if or why you are or are not getting it.
I know this is theoretical. But I do know this. I am no longer in the auto business but was there on the manufacturer level. I have been out of it for about 20 years now.
But at that time, only about 5 manufacturers built all of their own engines. They did buy components, but were solely responsible for the final product. Mercedes, BMW, Nissan, Honda, Toyota. that I know of. There may have been others. Maybe Subaru now, but at the time they bought a lot of drivetrain stuff from Nissan.
Who still has the best quality engines in general? Guess who, it is the same list.
Hmmmmmm………maybe something to that idea?
“For the life of me, I do not get the idea of buying any more components or elements from an outside party. ” should have added: “than absolutely necessary”
My proofreading department is asleep.
@kenh
Are you kidding me? Do you how much it would cost Apple to develop their own processors? Far more than they get in revenue each year for sure.
Apple’s recent success has been largely due to adopting the Intel processors and motherboards. They significantly lower their costs by using industry standard components. They have experience no delay in obtaining materials and have been able to keep up with all the advances in multicore processors.
Compare that with the PowerPC days where production issues produced delay after delay in product releases.
Apple have not adopted the integrated graphics option for some products and chosen alternative graphics chips instead.
So … Apple tells Intel “Integrated Graphics are unacceptable on Pro machines, and on higher-end consumer machines as well”. What’s Intel gonna do? There are really three choices: a) design the chip sets Apple wants, b) tell Apple to use the chip sets they sell and add in their own graphics cards, or c) tell the biggest purchasers of their high-end models to go suck eggs. OK, there’s little difference between b and c, mostly the attitude thing.
Now, if Apple went back to designing their own chips, that might be a great solution. Or (G5) not. Not that the G5 was terrible, but where was the G5 laptop? Or Apple could chose to do business with AMD. Might propel that maker ahead of Intel … but not for a year or two. No great solutions here. I’m expecting the “b” option.
Do I misremember or did Apple not too long back already buy a chip company?
Apparently Apple wants the ability to pick and choose the integrated graphics they deem optimal in price and performance.
I wonder if it is an issue of Intel’s integrated not working well with NVIDIA’s discreet graphics, such as in the scenario of the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M integrated and NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT discrete graphics in the MacBook Pro models.
Or, maybe it’s just a control kind of thing.
Apple did buy a chip company, PA Semi, buy they currently make only ARM variants for mobile devices. Any idea what they might use those for?
apple is is a sound financial position and can demand concessions from Intel. suspect this is not even newsworthy.
@HGWells: PA Semi is a semiconductor design company. is does not fab.
agree w/DogGone, except it’s way more trouble than even that. why don’t we suggest apple buy a lumber company so they can make the paper for their boxes?
apple today is about doing smart things way ahead of others. “others” is chosen because using “competitors” would be inaccurate. they are transforming markets. there are no competitors in that space. Intel has a few smart people as well, they will not allow apple to drift too far away from them.
as processors become more powerful, they need a company like apple to figure out requirements for all that excess power, or they will have invested R&D;for nothing.
Actually the divide between Apple and Intel isn’t wider than ever. There was a time when Apple didn’t even use Intel processors (remember?)
Intel graphics sucks! It doesn’t worth my bucks!
Intel CPU + NVidia GPU = AWESOME MBP
Maybe there will be a Arrandale-based CPU
but with replaced integrated graphics and cutted (!) price
I hate integrated graphics. Good for Apple for not using it.
“integrated graphics” ….sharing memory is a poor design!
Apple to Intel: “We don’t want your crappy integrated graphics in our Pro line. These are professional machines and our customers expect more.”
Apple to customers: “The Mac Pro comes standard with the powerful NVIDIA GeForce GT 120.”
Ha-ha.
Perhaps it has to do with Grand Central.
“Are you kidding me? Do you how much it would cost Apple to develop their own processors? Far more than they get in revenue each year for sure.”
You design them, and either contract with a builder, or a better option: buy a processor plant. The infrastructure is there, and can be bought for a lot less than Apple’s cash position, I’ll bet.
“Compare that with the PowerPC days where production issues produced delay after delay in product releases.:
Exactly the reason that they should think about finding a way to build their own.
Henry Ford had the right idea. Go so far as to own the iron ore that makes your steel.
I do agree that Apple should have the strong position when it comes to asking for concessions for Intel.
Yes, I am a control freak. If you treat your employees well and make them part of the picture, I don’t need to actually control them. They do it themselves if they agree we are doing the right thing.
Again; never put yourself in a position where you are overly dependent on someone else for something that you need for survival. True 20,000 years ago, true today.
@jocknerd:
Good point. In fact, since the March ’09 refresh, the top iMac is the fastest Apple computer you can buy at the Apple store.
@ Ken
I really have to disagree. Apple have got a good balance between leveraging their own skill set (OS, software and design) and implementing them into current hardware.
They still modify the motherboards and implement independent GPUs when they need to but their goal is to provide products that can increase their share steadily without sacrificing too much margin.
They have done this very successfully and in recent years tripled their sales of Macs in doing so.
Sure Apple can build a plant, make processors but really do they have the right skill set for that. The acquisition of SemiPA was clearly for the mobile market and will probably be used for iPods, iPhones and similar devices.
Ten years ago, Apple built their own machines and had a hard time managing production. They have since transferred production elsewhere and have managed demand very well. They have been able to focus on designing and planning for new products which is what they should be doing rather than waste their time controlling every aspect of the product.
I don’t think the car industry is a good example of success since they have been struggling to survive in recent years. Having to control every part of the process takes up a lot of resources and slows down the rate of innovation. This is why the US car industry can never make a modern, reliable advanced car. They spend forever churning out the same old crap that only old men or muscle freaks go for.
Apple need to stay focused on what they are good at so that they can stay ahead of the competition.
It will be interesting to see what happens anyway. The situation is not easy because Apple is in the middle of a legal dispute between Intel and Nvidia.
But AMD is on the same tendency (an integrated GPU inside consumer CPU processors. That was the idea behind ATI acquisition). But their first incarnation may not be that great, its still behind schedule and it will mean Apple going to the AMD side?. The industry is going to the integrated CPUs/GPUs anyway.
NVIDIA cancelled their new chipset designs (because of legal battles with Intel), so no life after the N9400 inside manny Macs. Unless NVIDIA will provide a last generation of chipsets with improved performance (?). I don’t know if this is possible. Consider the 9400 NVIDIA chipset a fortunate exception in Apple Macs. But what’s next? No more NVIDIAs integrated GPUs! in the future.
So. Apple may not be willing to go with Intel integrated GPUs until they catch up in performance. The integrated Intel GPUs in the Arrandale processors may be just an improved 4500 GPU. Thats going to be an involution for Apple products.
Maybe Apple will ask Intel to at least deactivate the integrated GPU inside Arradale, so it wont consume any additional energy (at what cost in money?). And it will be up to Apple to talk to ATI or NVIDIA for discrete GPUs for all the Macs lines. Or Apple itself will need to somehow bypass the Intel integrated GPUs. But this solution will mean discrete GPUs for every Mac. Yoohoo!!. We will have additional performance. But it will be more expensive and will consume more battery life (yikes).
If I where in Apple strong position (yeah! of course) I will put pressure on Intel for custom chips (remember the MacBook Air custom chip). Now is that really possible?. Will Intel let Apple go away again as a customer with custom processors. For sure Intel doesn’t want another N9400 in their history where they lost completely the MacBooks chipset to NVIDIA. But what solution in Intel’s current position could Intel provide to Apple?. Larrabe is not ready.
Apple may be fighting with Intel right now to keep the NVIDIA N9400 chipset inside their Macs until Intel produces a powerful enough integrated GPU to replace them. And that is embarrassing for Intel. How come they will reach an agreement where everybody wins?. And How will Apple sell their next MacBooks, Pros, Minis and iMacs: 2 or 3 times less powerful graphics for the next generation???