PDA

View Full Version : Speculation: Which chips will Apple use?


mac-er
Jun 7, 2005, 07:08 PM
Some speculation questions for the super-technical people. Just opinions and fun speculation...no saying, "It's too early for this"

1. Will iBooks have Celerons and Powerbooks have Pentium M?

2. Will people be able to order an iMac with Celeron to keep the price low or upgrade to a Pentium HT to boost performance (in other words, do you think this will allow more BTO options)

3. Do you think Apple will keep the G5, G6, etc naming conventions for chips? (Afterall, IBM's name for the G5 is PowerPC 970).

MacFan25863
Jun 7, 2005, 07:23 PM
I've heard mixed rumors that Intel is making special chips just for Apple (notice how Steve never specifically said "Pentium" in the keynote, only "Intel Chips")


But, please, no celerons. With P4's as cheep as they are these days, I see no reason for a Celeron in an Apple machine.


Wonder if they will use the Centrino technology (Pm with a Intel 802.11 card) instead of AE.

vouder17
Jun 7, 2005, 07:33 PM
well it is a year away...lots of things can change in one year. I actually believe that Intel has some sexy new processors up its sleeve...maybe those will be in the Mac's..who knows :confused:

Ambrose Chapel
Jun 7, 2005, 07:45 PM
2. Will people be able to order an iMac with Celeron to keep the price low or upgrade to a Pentium HT to boost performance (in other words, do you think this will allow more BTO options)

i doubt it...i think apple will offer comparable BTO options, and keep the good/better/best/ultimate model for the product lineups

trainguy77
Jun 7, 2005, 07:48 PM
I saw a picture tin he paper that had steve sitting in front of a the specs page and it was a P4 3.6 GHz so they may go with those. OR somthing along those lines.

MacTruck
Jun 7, 2005, 07:59 PM
Keep in mind that even apple will have a hard time getting the top of the line chips from intel. I bought the 2ghz Pentium M dothan with my thinkpad several months ago and had to go through corporate channels to get it. Not available on their site. Those high end chips are rare. Expect a 2ghz dothan M with 2mb cache in the 15" and maybe a 2.13ghz M in the 17" Next year. They should be at 2.3 by then. I am hoping for a dual core release but we shall see.

RBMaraman
Jun 7, 2005, 08:06 PM
I was thinking about this today and realized it would be completely stupid for Apple to go from the G5, a 64-Bit processor which they have spent the past two years bragging about, to a 32-Bit Intel Pentium chip.

So, Intel must be working on a 64-Bit chip to put in the PowerMac's and PowerBook's.

Here are my predictions for first releases:

Mac Mini - Single 32-Bit processor.
eMac - Single 32-Bit processor.
iBook - Single 32-Bit Processor.
iMac - Single 64-Bit Processor.
PowerBook - Single 64-Bit Processor.
PowerMac - Dual 64-Bit Processors.
XServe - Dual 64-Bit Processors.

nutmac
Jun 7, 2005, 08:10 PM
Most likely candidates for PowerMac and PowerBook are Presler (65-nm dual-core Pentium Extreme with shared 2 MB L2 cache) and Yonah (65-nm dual-core Pentium M), respectively.

Flynnstone
Jun 7, 2005, 08:24 PM
I was thinking about this today and realized it would be completely stupid for Apple to go from the G5, a 64-Bit processor which they have spent the past two years bragging about, to a 32-Bit Intel Pentium chip.


I agree. They will be the P4 with the 64 bit extensions or Itanic variations. I think the Itanium solutions maybe too expensive though.

edit: This looks interesting
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2003Jan/bch20030120018252.htm

I'll also say: Steve said they are going to Intel processors. (Not to x86)

slowstar
Jun 7, 2005, 08:37 PM
well it is a year away...lots of things can change in one year. I actually believe that Intel has some sexy new processors up its sleeve...maybe those will be in the Mac's..who knows :confused:

I think it's true!!
It is the next generation of Intel chips which will be used by Apple, there is no doubt about it...(just compare speed of "recompiling" the software with predicted date of Intel based MACs...)
I heard a rumor about new four-core, low consumption chips built by Intel specialy for the new "MACINTELs"...

BillHarrison
Jun 7, 2005, 08:43 PM
I was thinking about this today and realized it would be completely stupid for Apple to go from the G5, a 64-Bit processor which they have spent the past two years bragging about, to a 32-Bit Intel Pentium chip.

So, Intel must be working on a 64-Bit chip to put in the PowerMac's and PowerBook's.

Here are my predictions for first releases:

Mac Mini - Single 32-Bit processor.
eMac - Single 32-Bit processor.
iBook - Single 32-Bit Processor.
iMac - Single 64-Bit Processor.
PowerBook - Single 64-Bit Processor.
PowerMac - Dual 64-Bit Processors.
XServe - Dual 64-Bit Processors.

A couple points:

The x86 64 bit architecture is not something that can be used or not in parts. The chip must be "booted" into 64bit or 32bit mode. Nothing inbetween. This scenario you outlined would require porting the os for 64 bit chips, as the 32 bit version would not boot in 64 bit mode. Hence why you see a seperate version of windows XP for 64 bit, etc.

Also note, that the 64 "bit" ness of it means VERY VERY little in the real world.

Secondly, everyone interested in this subject should READ the developers docs on the changeover. The docs make it PERFECTLY clear that the chips will be standard issue x86 chips. They explain the instruction set, adapting Altivec to SSE, and other items. There would be no reason for this if the change was to a "custom" intel chip or whatever your all dreaming up.

Apple!Freak
Jun 7, 2005, 08:54 PM
I was thinking about this today and realized it would be completely stupid for Apple to go from the G5, a 64-Bit processor which they have spent the past two years bragging about, to a 32-Bit Intel Pentium chip.

So, Intel must be working on a 64-Bit chip to put in the PowerMac's and PowerBook's.

Here are my predictions for first releases:

Mac Mini - Single 32-Bit processor.
eMac - Single 32-Bit processor.
iBook - Single 32-Bit Processor.
iMac - Single 64-Bit Processor.
PowerBook - Single 64-Bit Processor.
PowerMac - Dual 64-Bit Processors.
XServe - Dual 64-Bit Processors.

My thoughts exactly.

I feel Intel is working on special chips for Apple that will be distributed to them, exclusively. Hopefully we will see the predictions above. I would be very happy to see an iBook with a 32-bit and a Powerbook with a 64-bit. This would really show the "professional-difference."

Even though I just purchased my G4 12" Powerbook less than a week ago, I would switch to an Intel based machine if this were to happen (what I said about), if the intel processed PB was to be released at least 12 months from now. I would like to get at minimum, a year out of my PB.

In any event, I have started to change my view on this transition deal. I am starting to think it could be a good think. After all, Steve is a brillant man and hopefully, I say hopefully, he knows what he is doing with this.

The benchmarks I have currently seen with Apple's delevoper Intel kit compared to a G5 or even G4 are laughable to say the least. However, I'm pretty sure Jobs isn't out of his conductors seat on this one.

I sincerely believe we will soon see new and innovative chips from Intel, exclusively for the Mac line.

GFLPraxis
Jun 7, 2005, 08:56 PM
A 64-bit Pentium M for the laptops AND desktops (Mac Mini and iMac would do well with a Pentium M).

Keep the G5 in the PowerMacs.


At least CNET's claim that Apple would start the transition with the low end first makes sense.

topgunn
Jun 7, 2005, 09:35 PM
A 64-bit Pentium M for the laptops AND desktops (Mac Mini and iMac would do well with a Pentium M).

Keep the G5 in the PowerMacs.


At least CNET's claim that Apple would start the transition with the low end first makes sense.
Clock for clock, the Pentium-M is faster than any AMD has to offer and its cooler, too. Intels desktop processors will be based on Dothan.

Flynnstone
Jun 9, 2005, 12:20 AM
Some are saying that OS X on Intel is going to be generic x86 code.
I don't know if this is true or not. One reason for this would be to allow AMD into the picture. Intel may prefer not.
Intel has some good ideas on where they would like to go, but Microsoft limits them understandably.
Now if OS X use some of these features ... and gets a performance boost such that OS X is faster than Windows on the same hardware ... Intel gains some leverage with Microsoft. Hence one of Intel's interest in Apple.

Just a thought. Speculation at best.

yoshi31
Jun 16, 2005, 08:36 AM
I am hoping for a dual core release but we shall see.
... do you remember the background picture shown during steve jobs' keynote when he announced the apple-intel partnership? it looks so much like the one shown here: http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/dual-core/index.htm?iid=TechTrends+technews_dualcore& here's hoping for dual-core... yoshi

themacman
Jun 16, 2005, 10:00 AM
A 64-bit Pentium M for the laptops AND desktops (Mac Mini and iMac would do well with a Pentium M).

Keep the G5 in the PowerMacs.


At least CNET's claim that Apple would start the transition with the low end first makes sense.
why keep a g5 in the pm when thats one of hte main reasons why they are switiching? Unless the can put the 970FX or hte power5 in pm

themacman
Jun 16, 2005, 10:06 AM
dual core with ht looks prety sweet if you watch the intel video about it

punkbass25
Jun 16, 2005, 10:42 AM
first off we will almost certainly not see any itanium chips in macs, as they are awful. i've installed some PC's in my work place with them as a test run, and they ****ing SUCKED. if the software is 32 bit it will MOST OFTEN cause a crash, thats just unacceptable.

but have no fear for i have heard that intel has brought on board the entire old DEC crew. these were the guys making great 64 bit chips almost 10 years ago, but sadly they went out of business due to poor 70's style managment.

supposedly they are designing a sweet new 64 bit chip, from scratch. so it will not have any of the problems intel chips have had in the past, as intel isnt really the ones dedsigning it, just manufacturing it. the tentative release date on these coincidentally is just a little while before we are supposed to start seeing intel powermacs.... hmmm... a likely candidate?

i say yes.

Flynnstone
Jun 16, 2005, 10:53 AM
I hope no Celerons make it into the Mac lineup. But I can also see them going into the consumer line.

stevep
Jun 16, 2005, 02:34 PM
Is the switch to Intel actually a move away from RISC - or to put it another way is, for example, the Pentium M a true CISC chip or does it actually have characteristics of both RISC and CISC?

panphage
Jun 16, 2005, 03:47 PM
A couple points:

The x86 64 bit architecture is not something that can be used or not in parts. The chip must be "booted" into 64bit or 32bit mode. Nothing inbetween. This scenario you outlined would require porting the os for 64 bit chips, as the 32 bit version would not boot in 64 bit mode. Hence why you see a seperate version of windows XP for 64 bit, etc.

This is just not true. Maybe bor the IA64 architecture (itanium) but for the future Pentiums (based on the Pentium-M x86) Intel is licensing AMDs 64-bit extension that runs 32-bit code just fine. In fact, I think Intel are going to be shipping chips with the 64-bit extensions very, very soon.

panphage
Jun 16, 2005, 03:49 PM
Is the switch to Intel actually a move away from RISC - or to put it another way is, for example, the Pentium M a true CISC chip or does it actually have characteristics of both RISC and CISC?
I've heard people say that current Pentiums (4's and M's and all) are just RISC chips that somehow understand the x86 instruction set. But you'd have to ask an architecture specialist. Maybe go do some reading at Ars Technica. They get way into this stuff.

mcarnes
Jun 16, 2005, 04:14 PM
Steve used to call the celerons "celery", so I doubt he wants to eat those words. No celery in macs is my guess. The macs will get the high end intel chips.

Flynnstone
Jun 16, 2005, 05:20 PM
There is an article out there somewhere about CISC vs RISC.
Basically its a frame of mind.
CISC didn't exist as a term before RISC arrived. So CISC really means "not' RISC. Since most "RISC" chips have deviated from there origins, there really isn't any RISC CPUs left.

Flynnstone
Jun 16, 2005, 05:23 PM
I've heard people say that current Pentiums (4's and M's and all) are just RISC chips that somehow understand the x86 instruction set. But you'd have to ask an architecture specialist. Maybe go do some reading at Ars Technica. They get way into this stuff.

I've heard something like that too.
My read on it is that it has a RISC like architecture under that emulates x86 instructions. Quite well I believe :)
I wonder if you could code directly to the RISC like "features"?
I wonder if this is the micro-ops thing?