Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Does anyone have the Intel Roadmap?

M

modernpixel

macrumors member
Original poster
As a Mac user, I have not at all kept up with Intel technologies. I've spent my time drooling over dual-core PPCs and, above all, the Cell Processor - which I was sure would wind up in a mac. We are hearing about Intel having the best "roadmap" what is it?

What new technologies do they have up their sleeve? And since Apple is moving specifically to the ancient x86 -- will the new technologies even apply (without everyone porting everything over again, yikes!)?

Let's talk Intel. Anyone?
 
kingjr3 said:
Could probably start here
http://www.intel.com/products/roadmap/

Although it doesn't address to much in the long term.
Click to expand...

I was looking at that yesterday evening and noting that the second half of the year is essentially the same as the first half with "or greater" after some of the specs - sort of sets out a general ambition, but doesn't pin anything down too much.

Folks should note the tabs for the desktop, notebook, server, and workstation lines.
 
That was not informational, nor reassuring...

What I really would want to know is which chips Apple are intending to use in respectively laptops and desktops... That would be interesting...
 
Intel Roadmap Possibilities

Hello,

First post here guys,

According to Anandtech.com you can expect Single and Dual core Pentium 4 code name: "Presler" running at 3.6 GHZ and 65nm process - with both cores supporting EM64T, meaning that Apple will still support 64-bit memory addressing and execution on their Intel platforms. This is of course on the desktop front.

On the the Mobile front which Apple might use for ibooks, powerbooks or minis check this out: (available early 2006)

Yonah will be made on the 65-nm process and contains 151.6 million transistors compared to current Pentium M, which has about 140 million transistors. It will have two cores and share a 2MB cache since sharing the cache will significantly boost performance. A single-core version of Yonah will also come out for budget notebooks. Yonah will come with improved technology for curbing power consumption and heat dissipation. Yonah will sport La Grande security technology but won't be EM64T as initially planned since 64-bit will consume more battery life. The footprint on Yonah notebooks will be up to 31 percent smaller than those of existing notebooks. The chip will be paired with a chipset, called Calistoga, and a Wi-Fi module, called Golan, that will receive and send 802.11a, b and g. Later versions will come with 802.11n, the so-called MIMO technology. Wimax will start to be added in notebooks as an option around 2007. Source: ZDNet

As far as 2007 and beyond... this is the real reason that I feel Apple has gone with Intel:

Pentium 5 -- not based on current Pentium 4 design ...but on Pentium M technology with some of the good lessons learned on P4
-- Quad core and dual core Merom (after Yonah) for Mobile and its twin desktop version called Conroe ... from what I read somewhere the quad core will only consume under 160W for all four cores! and each core will share 2Mb cache .... should be a rocket!

SO APPLE WILL HAVE LOTS OF CHOICES FOR LOW END & HIGH END MACHINES! THE FUTURE LOOKS BRIGHT FOR APPLE! 🙂
 
Yes it is

Yes these are "X86" technologies but its next generation stuff, specially the Pentium 5 **** one more important thing that I read is going to happen is that Intel will join the HyperTransport Consortium by 2007! This is really not a big surprise ... specially now that Apple (already a member) is on board.

All in all fantastic news!

P.S. Imagine "Rosetta" using 1 of those cores just for emulation... should really be fast.
 
One More Thing

Intel's Hyperthreading technology is also available for Apple to use. Linux apparently gets up to 60% performance gains for some applications... so 1 cpu core could be viewed as 1.6 cpu's.

Now imagine a dual core Pentium M running at 2.5GHZ + the 2MB cache and through in Hyperthreading in there and walla .... kick ass performance!
With the multitude of "threaded" applications on OSX ... this could mean a significant boost over Windows XP or whatever .... not to mention a good way for Apple to keep their High End customers happy by differentiating between their desktops (or Powerbooks) and the lower end ones (Imacs, Minis, Ibooks)


Again, Steve J. knows what he is doing and I believe 10 years from now Apple will have at least a 20% marketshare .... I better save up and get some stocks ... NOW!
 
Thanks for the info Silver Apple and the research! And everyone else as well.

Sounds like power and speed won't be a problem. Now I think the hardest part for most hard-core Mac fans will be accepting that all of the selling of the PowerPC as being intrinsically better than Intel -- which fans of the Mac often took to the streets and shared as gospel -- has turned out to be marketing bologna.

Apple has put itself in a tough position by having to slap a lot of its core fan base in the face. I'm not one of them - I love the Mac OS and make no secret of it, but have never preached.

I always keep in mind that Apple is a corporation, and I think this is the first obvious time that hard-core mac lovers have been forced to face this fact. There is little to no such thing as corporate loyalty -- it's about money in the end, and consumers should treat companies as companies, and expect that they make great products - and scream at them over the phone when they don't. 🙂

Emotionally investing in Apple is unwise at this point, they are growing up and with that growing out of their grass-roots niche. The iPod has put them on the consumer map, and I don't think Jobs wants them to be the little company that could anymore. He wants another Pixar, and who can blame him?
 
modernpixel said:
Now I think the hardest part for most hard-core Mac fans will be accepting that all of the selling of the PowerPC as being intrinsically better than Intel -- which fans of the Mac often took to the streets and shared as gospel -- has turned out to be marketing bologna.
Click to expand...

Not really. Today the G5 is still better, but it has a weak a future roadmap and seemingly lack of commitment from IBM. With that said, the G5 wont be better than Intel's offerings 1-2 years from now when the transistion will be well underway.

Its very easy to look down to see where you are, but you also need to look down the road to see where you are going.
 
kingjr3 said:
Not really. Today the G5 is still better, but it has a weak a future roadmap and seemingly lack of commitment from IBM. With that said, the G5 wont be better than Intel's offerings 1-2 years from now when the transistion will be well underway.

Its very easy to look down to see where you are, but you also need to look down the road to see where you are going.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it isn't that the PowerPC can not out perform Intel or compete down the road. It is that they have shown very little interest in providing solutions for Apple. I think Apple is getting tired of trying to push CPU development all on their own. At lesat with Intel we have a company that is a known producer and apparently Apple likes the direction they are heading. Obviously, they would have to actually tell Apple about what their future plans are so they know more about what's coming than those of us reading a roadmap published on their website.
 
Cell looks like an awesome processor.. but here's the problem. It's designed for a game console.. and over the lifetime of a game console, how many revisions of cell do u think IBM will make? I bet ONE at the most. If anything, they might shrink it and work on it using less power. Other than that, the same CELL in the PS3 in 2006 will be the same CELL in the PS3 in 2009. IBM will still sell tons and not have to spend much more money on R&D than if they were working on a desktop cpu. So if Apple went with something like CELL, PowerMacs will not go anywhere for a long time.
 
Guys am I missing something here, I thought the P4 chip competed against the G4 and it was the Dual Xeons that competed agasint the G5??

When ever I've seen group tests online comparing Apple hardware with PC/Microsoft hardware, its always been the Dual Xeon that has been compared to the Dual G5 powermacs. The P4's always performed quite poorly.

My understanding is that the Intel offerings for apples product lines would look as follows, for direct comparision purposes:
Powermac = Dual Xeon
Imac = P4
mac mini = P4
Powerbook = Pentium M
Ibook = I have no idea, slower Pentium M maybe??


So why would apple put a P4 into a system that currently costs as much as a dual Xeon?? Any one have any ideas on this??

Personaly i worry that Apple will try charging us an arm and a leg for hardware that is a whole lot cheaper to buy from elsewhere

Jay
 
j_maddison said:
Guys am I missing something here, I thought the P4 chip competed against the G4 and it was the Dual Xeons that competed agasint the G5??

When ever I've seen group tests online comparing Apple hardware with PC/Microsoft hardware, its always been the Dual Xeon that has been compared to the Dual G5 powermacs. The P4's always performed quite poorly.

My understanding is that the Intel offerings for apples product lines would look as follows, for direct comparision purposes:
Powermac = Dual Xeon
Imac = P4
mac mini = P4
Powerbook = Pentium M
Ibook = I have no idea, slower Pentium M maybe??


So why would apple put a P4 into a system that currently costs as much as a dual Xeon?? Any one have any ideas on this??

Personaly i worry that Apple will try charging us an arm and a leg for hardware that is a whole lot cheaper to buy from elsewhere

Jay
Click to expand...

I think we will see the higher end machines with more cores and only single or dual in the bottom line. Does anyone know if they will be using intel motherboards for these? if so that means ddr2 and pci express
 
chibianh said:
Cell looks like an awesome processor.. but here's the problem. It's designed for a game console..
Click to expand...
No, it's not:
Cell provides a breakthrough solution by adopting a flexible parallel and distributed computing architecture consisting of independent floating point processors for rich media processing. Cell supports multiple operating systems, including PC/WS operating systems, as well as real-time CE/Game operating systems. In addition, the Cell processor is scalable and can be utilized in a variety of applications — from small digital CE systems within the home to entertainment applications for rendering movies, to scientific applications, such as supercomputers.
Click to expand...
...and back in December 2004 reports of a running Cell based workstation emerged, with quite high expectations...
 
Supposedly Intel is going to make chips specifically for Apple, and they won't use the ones that you'd find running in Windows machines. So any road map would only be a guideline. What we need to find is an Apple/Intel Roadmap.

D
 
barneygumble said:
I think we will see the higher end machines with more cores and only single or dual in the bottom line. Does anyone know if they will be using intel motherboards for these? if so that means ddr2 and pci express
Click to expand...


Yeah I agree with you abou the cores, if they had stayed with the PPC line I would have said that dual and single cores between the consumer and powerlines would be the way to go. My point is though, surely they will use a derivetive of something that is Xeon based or designed to replace the Xeons, and not a P4 based chip.

My understanding is that the P4 is not a pro chip?

Jay
 
You are correct

The future is Pentium M technology with 64 bit support and dual/quad cores.

According to Intel's roadmap, quad cores will be available in 2007!! With all the powersaving technology learned from the Pentium-M .... eventually (within 5 years) Intel will have only one architecture regardless of desktop or mobile.

For 2006:
"Presler is a 65 nanometre dual core processor, as is its sister chip Yonah on the mobile front, and reliable sources tell the INQ that Intel already has early samples of these chips up and running in the fabs." Source: The Inquirer.net

* On the Desktop Preslers will clock at 3.6 to 4.0 GHz and on the Mobile side the Yonah's probably 2.5 to 3GHZ !!! (very nice for a powerbook eh?) By the way, these CPUs are already running in Intel's lab according to insiders.


*** The differentiation of future apple products could come down to number of cores.
 
More Info On Intel's Plans

Check this out:
http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/48477.htm

This gives you a good idea on what's coming up in the near future as well as longer time frame.

* Look specially at Presler, Cedar Mill (65nm, dual core starting @ 3.6Ghz )
Perfect for like the Imac or Emac

and Yonah for Powerbook - Dothan for ibook and Mac Mini

* Also the Xeon MP - DP could be good for high end Powermac
 
Silver Apple said:
Check this out:
http://linuxbusinessnews.sys-con.com/read/48477.htm

This gives you a good idea on what's coming up in the near future as well as longer time frame.

* Look specially at Presler, Cedar Mill (65nm, dual core starting @ 3.6Ghz )
Perfect for like the Imac or Emac

and Yonah for Powerbook - Dothan for ibook and Mac Mini

* Also the Xeon MP - DP could be good for high end Powermac
Click to expand...


Thanks for replying to my points. I guess what i still dont understand is why do people think apple will put a P4 into a powermac? I might be completely wrong, but isnt the P4 a weak processor when you compare it to a dual G5? The tests I've seen have basically shown that hte P4 gets toasted, and its only the dual Xeons and Dual Optrons that give Powermacs a run for their money and edges them out on some tests

jay
 
isn't cell as different from today's powerpc as intel? If so, it's a totally new animal and would require a similar (or even greater) port as the change to intel.

Which makes me wonder, why wouldn't apple have a fine line of high performance intel processors, dual core etc., and then have a $4000 supercomputer running cell as it's high-end freak machine? Or do people here get the feeling that bridges have been burned?

Isn't the point to keep options open?
 
modernpixel said:
As a Mac user, I have not at all kept up with Intel technologies. I've spent my time drooling over dual-core PPCs and, above all, the Cell Processor - which I was sure would wind up in a mac. We are hearing about Intel having the best "roadmap" what is it?

What new technologies do they have up their sleeve? And since Apple is moving specifically to the ancient x86 -- will the new technologies even apply (without everyone porting everything over again, yikes!)?

Let's talk Intel. Anyone?
Click to expand...

Just so you know- Cell would be basicly useless in a Mac.

It's much more expensive than a normal processor. The SPE's lack branch prediction, making them basicly useless outside of rendering and that kind of stuff.

Cell would be useful in a speciailized video editting machine...and thats it.
 
metrobot said:
isn't cell as different from today's powerpc as intel? If so, it's a totally new animal and would require a similar (or even greater) port as the change to intel.

Which makes me wonder, why wouldn't apple have a fine line of high performance intel processors, dual core etc., and then have a $4000 supercomputer running cell as it's high-end freak machine? Or do people here get the feeling that bridges have been burned?

Isn't the point to keep options open?
Click to expand...


The Cell is a standard PowerPC core (whatever the manufacturer wants) with a bunch of SPE's attached.

The SPE's do ONLY floating point calculations and don't have branch predictions, so they're only good in very certain types of work.

Fine for a game console, but useless in a desktop. It's like using a GPU or PPU as the CPU...
 
Benchmarks

Sometimes you have to take the benchmarks with a grain of salt. In real world tests I doubt the average user you will be able to tell the difference for most things. Yes, there are some things that can be fine tuned on a platform. (eg. photoshop filters, renderers, etc..) This will skew the results a bit. Also notice that usually everytime they show a benchmark against an intel machine they have a Dual top of the line G5 against a single P4. The reason for this is that if they comparted the lowest G5 (1.8 single) it probably wouldn't look too good. Another thing, OSX is unix like Linux, far more streamlined than Windows .... This could and most likely will be a speed boost
right there. * I have seen optimized linux running circles around a similar equipped Windows machine (same software)

Just a side note:
In Steve Job's Keynote where he is using "Rosetta" on the P4 3.6 machine he has all those programs running at fairly decent speeds (including photoshop)
** I believe that you can expect at least that from the cheapest IntelMac that will be released next year... especially the dual core ones!

The Next generation of Xeons (dual, quad cores) will make very powerful OSX workstations that will make you forget about the G5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back