I'm not sure consumer is the right word, maybe enthusiast. I'm talking about CPUs like the Intel and AMD ones anyone can buy from newegg and such. I mean they DO make processors...
Is there any reason why IBM doesn't sell 'consumer' CPUs?
- Thread starter GeneralOreo
- Start date
Apple canceled their contracts with IBM and switched to Intel. IBM doesn't make cpus anymore. Apple switched to get better performance. IBM cpus couldn't match Intel's performance.
Indeed. It hasn't been all that long since the launch of POWER6. IBM certainly does still make processors. In fact, PowerPC sales are probably not that much lower since Apple flew the coop, given its presence in the embedded market. Additionally, I would note that Apple's switch to x86 was probably driven not by performance but by power use: they never did manage to shoehorn a G5 into a laptop, and by that time the Core Duo had to look very attractive.
@OP: A few reasons. First, I don't think they have an x86 license. Apple was the only "mainstream" OS maker supporting PowerPC (Linux has PowerPC support), which IBM does make and sell, and of course Apple is now x86-only. There's no real demand in the consumer market for what they have to sell.
Secondly, IBM has a very strong partnership with AMD (IBM helped enormously with AMD's transition to 90 nm production, for example), and IIRC at one point IBM was in fact manufacturing some CPUs for AMD. AMD would not appreciate IBM moving in on their turf.
Thirdly, IBM has been making a major effort to divest themselves of all their "consumer" products. They sold off all their consumer PC business, for instance, to Lenovo. They want to be mostly a services provider, with some manufacturing capability to support the hardware that they sell to businesses (servers). Those are more stable markets.
I'm sure that right about now they're quite glad not to be in the consumer CPU market. After watching the huge swing in momentum from AMD to Intel, and Intel's brutal price war, it must look like a very inhospitable place. But even in good times, it's a challenging market. The needs of the different market segments can be very much at odds with each other, competition can be fierce, and to survive you either need a fat marketing budget (Intel) or a very loyal following (AMD, VIA to a lesser extent).
Funny how all the newest consoles have IBM processors (Wii, X360, and I think IBM worked on Cell) but all the PC games run on Intel or AMD CPUs. 
I read that that is partially what prompted Apple's transition to Intel. IBM was diverting too many resources into its console processor business, and as a result, Apple wasn't happy with the pace of innovation with the PowerPC.Originally posted by: GeneralOreo
Funny how all the newest consoles have IBM processors (Wii, X360, and I think IBM worked on Cell) but all the PC games run on Intel or AMD CPUs.
Game consoles turned out to be a pretty lucrative business to be in for IBM, so they may not be particularly interested in competing with Intel/AMD in the CPU market.
Originally posted by: GeneralOreo
Funny how all the newest consoles have IBM processors (Wii, X360, and I think IBM worked on Cell) but all the PC games run on Intel or AMD CPUs.
You are correct, IBM (and Sony, and Toshiba) worked on the development of Cell. Production of Cell processors for the PS3 has been done at Sony's Fab 2 in Nagasaki and a Sony line in Toshiba's Oita fab (figure that one out), both of which are now being transfered so that they will be owned by Toshiba and operated by a joint Toshiba/Sony venture.
Sound complicated? You bet it is!
IBM and IIRC Toshiba are angling to produce Cell hardware for the supercomputer/HPC market.
For some reason, inherent in their culture perhaps, Japanese compines have these complex cooperative/competitive relationships. Sony makes most of the CCD's for P&S cameras, Sony used to be #1 in P&S sales, now Canon is. Yet Sony still makes all of Canon's CCD sensors. Seems to work well for both companies.
Ibm is mostly out of manufacturing anyway. I lost my IBM manufacturing job in the 90's along with about 160k other employees.
Because intel/AMD has a stranglehold on the consumer market with the x86 ISA, and IBM doesn't make x86 CPUs. POWER6 CPUs would run Windows if MS made a version for it that's optimized for it, but even then it would be near impossible to get half the people to use them. Just look at DEC Alpha CPUs.
Because there's no money in consumer-grade? All the profit-generation is in the business-end (Opteron, Xeon) and the high-end. Low-end consumer chips are just something Intel and AMD crank out to burn through high-spec rejects and to keep the manufacturing lines busy.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
well, I beleive IBM is one of the four companies who are legally allowed to make x86 processors. (64bit is still an x86 processor, not an x64)
But they don't HAVE an x86 processor... and they are not in a position to realistically develop one from almost scratch and have it comparable in performance to AMD or Intel (ie, to have it worth selling)...
AMD only broke into this market due to intel pursuing the netburst architecture. Resulting in LOWER performance per MHZ but increase MHZ (ie, they were trying to sell people on crap)... a P3 1.7GHZ had the same power as the first model P4 2GHZ for example... they entire architecture was meant solely to increase the max MHZ and not the actual real performance.... Thats when AMD smashed in.
The market now though, is with both intel and AMD heavily invested in real life performance and innovation AND in a price war... so you are looking at really cheap really advanced tech being churned out ASAP by those two companies... Not a situation where an upstart can just waltz in and take the crown.
Asking this is like asking why can't american companies make a car as good as a Honda... the answer to that is because american companies were enjoying protective tariffs and for about 20 years didn't research innovate at all.... and when they were gone it couldn't compete... they are now working hard to catch up and are estimated to catch up within 5 more years...
But they don't HAVE an x86 processor... and they are not in a position to realistically develop one from almost scratch and have it comparable in performance to AMD or Intel (ie, to have it worth selling)...
AMD only broke into this market due to intel pursuing the netburst architecture. Resulting in LOWER performance per MHZ but increase MHZ (ie, they were trying to sell people on crap)... a P3 1.7GHZ had the same power as the first model P4 2GHZ for example... they entire architecture was meant solely to increase the max MHZ and not the actual real performance.... Thats when AMD smashed in.
The market now though, is with both intel and AMD heavily invested in real life performance and innovation AND in a price war... so you are looking at really cheap really advanced tech being churned out ASAP by those two companies... Not a situation where an upstart can just waltz in and take the crown.
Asking this is like asking why can't american companies make a car as good as a Honda... the answer to that is because american companies were enjoying protective tariffs and for about 20 years didn't research innovate at all.... and when they were gone it couldn't compete... they are now working hard to catch up and are estimated to catch up within 5 more years...
Where did you read this? There are a lot of different sources saying a lot of different things. I try to read as many of them as I can.
No, it was an Intel processor. IBM has a x86 license, but has never actually produced an x86 processor. The license probably is a CYA (Cover Your Ass) move in case some architectural aspects of their Cell processors violate Intel's x86 license.
It is quite common for companies to license technology they never intend to use just in case they accidentally incorporate some aspects in their design.
IBM's x86 license was part of their work and deals with Cyrix.
I'm fairly certain that once Cyrix went defunct (and ended up in the hands of Via), IBM no longer had an x86 license.
VIA is still producing ultra low power x86 chips.
Intel doesn't like license transferals and these days is against companies working with an x86 license holder to create their own x86 chips.
Licensing was why they pushed Itanium so hard, so they could be the sole provider. Good thing Microsoft wasn't having any of it.
amd6502
Senior member
- Apr 21, 2017
- 971
- 360
- 136
The 'B' stands for business. That's where their focus is.
If x86 had completely dropped the ball, and another ISA like Risc-V or or Acorn failed to fill the vacuum, I think IBM could have very well adapted Power to fill the void. In the late 90s and early 00s PowerPC chips actually were in consumer computers (eg. Apple, Atari, Amiga, NeXT).
But since this hasn't happened I think they're completely happy focusing on banking and business.
If x86 had completely dropped the ball, and another ISA like Risc-V or or Acorn failed to fill the vacuum, I think IBM could have very well adapted Power to fill the void. In the late 90s and early 00s PowerPC chips actually were in consumer computers (eg. Apple, Atari, Amiga, NeXT).
But since this hasn't happened I think they're completely happy focusing on banking and business.
Last edited:
bbhaag
Diamond Member
- Jul 2, 2011
- 7,096
- 2,532
- 146
Nice thread necro.....12 years and some rub decides to revive it. Anyway, like it's already been said IBM lost their X86 license and that was the end of it for them.
Personally I always enjoy the irony of it. They kicked off the dominance of the x86 instruction set but never got the chance to enjoy it. Intel and Microsoft shut them down hard.haha
Personally I always enjoy the irony of it. They kicked off the dominance of the x86 instruction set but never got the chance to enjoy it. Intel and Microsoft shut them down hard.haha
DrMrLordX
Lifer
- Apr 27, 2000
- 22,522
- 12,388
- 136
Hey you can buy OpenPOWER systems now, and run Linux on them! That's consumer hardware, right? right?
raptorcs.com
Hope you got at least $3k sitting around.
Raptor Computing Systems::Talos™ II Secure Workstation
Talos™ II is the world's first EATX-compatible, workstation-class mainboard for the new, free-software friendly IBM POWER9 processor and architecture. POWER is the only open, owner-controllable architecture that is competitive in performance.
Hope you got at least $3k sitting around.
amd6502
Senior member
- Apr 21, 2017
- 971
- 360
- 136
Some probably do and I bet there are quite a few here that blow 3k on a high end PC setup with a top of the line GPU and mobo.
It's a rich man's alternative (proper modern day alternative) to a FX 83xx secure computing setup and could be used as an actually a real server. 4c/16t at that. For enterprise that's top dollar value.
It's a rich man's alternative (proper modern day alternative) to a FX 83xx secure computing setup and could be used as an actually a real server. 4c/16t at that. For enterprise that's top dollar value.
SarahKerrigan
Senior member
- Oct 12, 2014
- 735
- 2,035
- 136
Neither Atari nor NeXT ever used PPC, and NeXT never made consumer computers. The NeXTStation started at US$4995, and that was the low-end system - that's equivalent to $9800 today. The Cube was about double that.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 19K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter