Wondering if there could be any chance of a come back from Pat Gelsinger.

Paul Otellini has actually brought x86 to Apple Desktop.

I think one of the important thing Apple sticks to ARM is more about control then saving money. No longer would a change of leadership in Intel has any effect on Apple's major business which is the mobile devices.

I just hope a change of management would bring Intel's Fab to Apple.

According to the Otellini in Isaacsons' bio, it was partially about the high price which let Apple to not use an Intel processor in the iPad:

"Since the Macintosh computers were now using Intel chips, Jobs initially planned to use in the iPad the low-voltage Atom chip that Intel was developing. Paul Otellini, Intel's CEO, was pushing hard to work together on a design, and Jobs's inclination was to trust him. His company was making the fastest processors in the world. But Intel was used to making processors for machines that plugged into a wall, not ones that had to preserve battery life. So Tony Fadell argued strongly for something based on the ARM architecture, which was simpler and used less power. Apple had been an early partner with ARM, and chips using its architecture were in the original iPhone. Fadell gathered support from other engineers and proved that it was possible to confront Jobs and turn him around. "Wrong, wrong, wrong!" Fadell shouted at one meeting when Jobs insisted it was best to trust Intel to make a good mobile chip. Fadell even put his Apple badge on the table, threatening to resign.
Eventually Jobs relented. "I hear you," he said. "I'm not going to go against my best guys." In fact he went to the other extreme. Apple licensed the ARM architecture, but it also bought a 150-person microprocessor design firm in Palo Alto, called P.A. Semi, and had it create a custom system-on-a-chip, called the A4, which was based on the ARM architecture and manufactured in South Korea by Samsung. As Jobs recalled:
At the high-performance end, Intel is the best. They build the fastest chip, if you don't care about power and cost. But they build just the processor on one chip, so it takes a lot of other parts. Our A4 has the processor and the graphics, mobile operating system, and memory control all in the chip. We tried to help Intel, but they don't listen much. We've been telling them for years that their graphics suck. Every quarter we schedule a meeting with me and our top three guys and Paul Otellini. At the beginning, we were doing wonderful things together. They wanted this big joint project to do chips for future iPhones. There were two reasons we didn't go with them. One was that they are just really slow. They're like a steamship, not very flexible. We're used to going pretty fast. Second is that we just didn't want to teach them everything, which they could go and sell to our competitors.

According to Otellini, it would have made sense for the iPad to use Intel chips. The problem, he said, was that Apple and Intel couldn't agree on price. Also, they disagreed on who would control the design. It was another example of Jobs's desire, indeed compulsion, to control every aspect of a product, from the silicon to the flesh."

Hey Forstall, here's a job opening for you. They could use someone young who has an intimate knowledge of how computer software works and direct the hardware to suit. If that means fabricating ARM chips, make it happen.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2011/05/intel-to-fab-arm-chips-for-apple-its-possible/

I'd hope that Intel focuses more on graphics going forward and stops making so many chip variations:

http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/29900/Sandy-Bridge

 

Intel published prices:

- Intel Core i3 processor: $117

- Intel Core i7 processor: $999

 

iSuppli estimate:

- Apple A6 processor: $17.50

 

Full Forbes.com article:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/10/22/could-apple-use-intel-for-arm-chips-instead-of-samsung/

 

 

Judging by how well Apple has engineered AX performance, while reducing power consumption, while keeping heat production to a minimum, I'd say Steve was right.  Meanwhile, Microsoft is struggling with the Surface for Windows 8 Pro, with its red-hot Intel CPU that requires a fan and "Perimeter Venting" all around the edge of the Surface tablet.  

 

That $278 million purchase of PA Semi followed by $121 million for Intrinsity, specifically for the development of the AX SoC line, look like brilliant moves in comparison.  Especially since Apple appears to be on track to have a 64-bit A7 processor in two years.  It's possible that the iPhone and iPad will have duo-core 64-bit A7 SoCs in 2014 and MacBook Air will have quad-core 64-bit A7 SoCs by around 2015.  Macs of their own design, running an OS of their own design, on CPUs of their own design, is certainly Apple's "holy grail."  That would keep their hardware costs down, allow them to undercut Intel-based PCs with $1000 Intel CPUs, and allow Apple to optimize their hardware and software for each other.

 

I also have read this quote from SJ bio, but I find difficult to believe it was a cost issue that prevent to use an Intel processor within the iPad.

 

No x86 chips as ever had an TDP below 5watts, even today Atoms are still rating at 10watts where all CPU Apple has ever use on the iPhone and iPad got a TDP around 1watt. 

 

Let's face it the legacy x86 architecture is way behind ARM processors in term of power efficiency and there is no way to fixe it without a major redesign.

They were right to stay the hell away from Atom. It was a crappy mobile processor and the iPad would have totally sucked as a result.

Intel has already got x86 chips in phones:

http://download.intel.com/newsroom/kits/ces/2012/pdfs/AtomprocessorZ2460.pdf

That's in the Motorola Razr i XT890, which costs $555 on Amazon. The older Motorola XT910 is about $355 with an ARM chip. The spec seems to be roughly the same besides the CPU but the XT910 is the older model so that has to be factored in. It's possible the Intel Atom is expensive but I imagine the price will vary based on who's selling it. Apple would sell over 100 million units, so they should get it cheaper than Motorola.

But even if it's $50 as opposed to $25, that's significant enough a cost to avoid using it if it doesn't offer a significant benefit. It could run the desktop OS when plugged into a dock and offer better performance than a G4 laptop but it would have to be a main feature to be worthwhile.

Would we want to see the same thing happen with the iPad/iPhone as the Ivy Bridge chips this year though and the Xeon chips? Delay after delay, fairly weak GPU again, processors running hotter than they should. I think they made the right decision with ARM - good job Fadell for sticking to it.

I wonder if Intel will end up purchasing AMD for its GPU tech, as its an area the company seems to be still quite weak in. AMD's on a road to nowhere anyway. And Paul Otellini have a good retirement.

 

Given that Intel and AMD are literally the only names in computer CPUs, it won't be happening.

 

Purchasing ATI away from them? Eh... MAYBE. 

Wow. Will we really need 64bit on a smartphone? I wonder what that feature will be useful for.

I agree, some stories in that bio are hard to believe. Did like the fact that Steve met his dad at his restaurant without either one of them knowing the family tie. Yep, even the non tech stuff was good; think I'll re-read it next year.