new intel chips.

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: 3rd Party Hardware
Link: new intel chips. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20050813200151)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[wiz7dome]

I saw this yesterday. I think SJ is once again ahead of the curve. The "PC box" wars are over. The battle for MHz/Clock speed is winding down. Now the race is to have a powerful overall experience when using your computer. People are starting to see that no matter how fast their computer is, Windows is STILL a problem. People also see that Intel putting out a "faster" chip doesn't make using a computer more pleasant. Now comes SJ saying that he's switching to Intel. For one, I don't understand why people assume that the chips Apple will use are slower or "at the back of the line". I would doubt that Apple premieres the MacIntel (god I hate that term) with this new architecture.

[ppc_michael]

That entire post was very well said, wiz. :)

I hate the term "MacIntel" as well. ;)

[nagromme]

I expect all Macs to be Pentium M based, but not all will be based on the mid-2006 Pentium M based architecture. Some Intel Macs will precede that--and chips like dual-core Yonah (early 2006) will be a step in the right direction.

I predict no Netburst Macs, althought that (and AMD) are always options if Apple needs them.

I would have thought that the current generation Pentium M (the beginning of Intel's future) might be a candidate for some low-end Macs... but is it true that the current Pentium M can't run Rosetta?

[BGil]

I saw this yesterday. I think SJ is once again ahead of the curve. The "PC box" wars are over. The battle for MHz/Clock speed is winding down. Now the race is to have a powerful overall experience when using your computer.


The PC box wars are far from over. AMD is finally getting a decent amount of marketshare from Intel and the lawsuit is going to help a lot.

People are starting to see that no matter how fast their computer is, Windows is STILL a problem.

"People"? Maybe Mac and Linux users are thinking that way but they are small in number. People aren't really switching in any large numbers and Apple is just now starting to sell the same number of machines that they sold in 2000.

People also see that Intel putting out a "faster" chip doesn't make using a computer more pleasant

IIRC Intel still has around 80 some percent of the desktop marketshare (not including DIYers) so obviously people aren't seeing that. Even a lot of Mac users are just clamoring for the day when Apple will switch to Intel's "faster" chips.

Now comes SJ saying that he's switching to Intel. For one, I don't understand why people assume that the chips Apple will use are slower or "at the back of the line". I would doubt that Apple premieres the MacIntel (god I hate that term) with this new architecture.

People are saying that because it follows the pattern Apple has set for the last 5-6 years. They have 2ghz G4's available but they aren't using them. Instead they're giving you e-Macs, iBooks, Powerbooks and Mini's with 3 year old technology in them. Even PowerMacs ship with bargin basement video cards and hard drives. Only recently did they start offering 512mb's of ram standard. Not too long ago the $2000 PowerMac came with only 256mb's of ram. And today, $3000 PowerMacs still come with 512mb's of ram while PC's starting in the $650 range come with 1GB. 1GB of DDR sells for less than $90 buck yet Apple hasn't moved to 1GB on any systems yet. It makes no sense to assume that Apple is going to radically slash their margins and start doubling hard drive capacity, ram outfits, and GPU's when they switch to X86. They'll still be the same Apple company just on Intel chips and their margin on computers will still far exceed that of any ofhte PC OEM.

[BGil]

I expect all Macs to be Pentium M based, but not all will be based on the mid-2006 Pentium M based architecture. Some Intel Macs will precede that--and chips like dual-core Yonah (early 2006) will be a step in the right direction.

I predict no Netburst Macs, althought that (and AMD) are always options if Apple needs them.

I would have thought that the current generation Pentium M (the beginning of Intel's future) might be a candidate for some low-end Macs... but is it true that the current Pentium M can't run Rosetta?

Newer Pentium M's can run it because they have SSE3. I doubt they'll move all Macs to the Pentium M because it's just not practical. Pentium M's are expensive and don't do well in many floating point tasks. PowerMacs will run Xeon's and iMacs will run P4's. The Mini will most likely run a Celeron D or M as will the iBook. The Powerbook will most likey run the Pentium M.

People have to remember that Intel isn't switching all their desktop chips to the Pentium M architecture for a long time, if ever. Intel is getting rid of Netburst but they have a new thing called Conroe that supposedly is somewhere between Netburst and a Pentium M. Looking at Intel's current roadmaps it seems that a Pentium M based architecture (Conroe possibly) won't start making waves on the desktop until at least the first half of 2007 if not later.

[rjwill246]

They'll still be the same Apple company just on Intel chips and their margin on computers will still far exceed that of any ofhte (sic) PC OEM.

Thank heaven's for that! It has allowed us to have some of the best software and user experience out there, and that does not even give a nod to the hardware. Having made homemade boxes (one for my home theatre) there is the damnable problem that one still has Windows running the show.

All the el cheapo Fry's stuff jammed into a Las Vegas reject of a case cannot make up for that!

[Nermal]

That entire post was very well said, wiz. :)

I hate the term "MacIntel" as well. ;)

I agree with both of these points :)

I don't really like "Macintosh" that much either - it sounds all 80s :p (I also think the same about computer "monitors" - it sounds all 60s/70s when people would "monitor" the computer, rather than the interaction we have today)

... oops, I'm getting sidetracked :rolleyes:

[Stella]

Xeon are very expensive. You'll get poor value for the price of the PowerMac.

Also aren't they 64bit processors - that don't run 32bit software too well at all ( or is this the first generation of intel 64 bit processors only that had this problem - a few years go? )

I really don't think Apple will use Xeons, at all. They are far too expensive and will represent poor value. Apple won't want to raise the price of PowerMacs because they use expensive processors.

Personally, I'd be horrified if iMacs use P4s - they aren't particularly good processors at all, they are very inefficient - less so than P3s.

Newer Pentium M's can run it because they have SSE3. I doubt they'll move all Macs to the Pentium M because it's just not practical. Pentium M's are expensive and don't do well in many floating point tasks. PowerMacs will run Xeon's and iMacs will run P4's. The Mini will most likely run a Celeron D or M as will the iBook. The Powerbook will most likey run the Pentium M.

People have to remember that Intel isn't switching all their desktop chips to the Pentium M architecture for a long time, if ever. Intel is getting rid of Netburst but they have a new thing called Conroe that supposedly is somewhere between Netburst and a Pentium M. Looking at Intel's current roadmaps it seems that a Pentium M based architecture (Conroe possibly) won't start making waves on the desktop until at least the first half of 2007 if not later.

[GodBless]

1GB of DDR sells for less than $90 buck yet Apple hasn't moved to 1GB on any systems yet.Not as the standard, but at the far low end. The configuration of 8GB of ram is out there for Macs.

The Mini will most likely run a Celeron D or M as will the iBook.You are very mistaken. Apple hasn't ever and won't ever use cheap hardware. They aren't that kind of company. I could never imagine an Apple product of any kind ever running with a Celeron processor. Apple is not a retroactive deconstructive exasperater at all.

[Squire]

Call me a lunatic but I think the new intel-based Macs will run on Pentium M's and the chips mentioned in that article (which, I believe, are M-derivatives).

;)

Squire

[greatdevourer]

People also see that Intel putting out a "faster" chip doesn't make using a computer more pleasant
I'm not so sure. The average user is just as ignorant as to what goes on inside as he always has been. Most of the people I know think that they have a Windows XP processor, and have no idea what the Intel sticker on the side of the case is for

There had to be something coming soon, as the Pentium 4 is going to die just as soon if not sooner than the G5, seeing as Intel say that it's going to 4Ghz and no further

And, BGil... go away

[treblah]

And, BGil... go away

BGil is an MS apologist who loves to post here for some reason. I think that is, how you say, ah yes, a troll. ;)

[wiz7dome]

I'm not so sure. The average user is just as ignorant as to what goes on inside as he always has been. Most of the people I know think that they have a Windows XP processor, and have no idea what the Intel sticker on the side of the case is for

There had to be something coming soon, as the Pentium 4 is going to die just as soon if not sooner than the G5, seeing as Intel say that it's going to 4Ghz and no further

I agree. Of corse there will be speed increases but the focus has shifted. No since in having a super fast chip if you cause a China Syndrome trying to use it. :p

Im really a novice when it comes to computers. I've played around with the Terminal, X11, Xcode etc. I can do this because the Mac environment is very inviting. I can try just about anything without screwing up anything. I think people make the mistake of not taking SJ seriously when he talks about the user experience. This is at the root of the iPod Halo effect. The iPod does what it says it does, and does it pretty well. Sure there are players with longer battery life, bigger HD's blah, blah,blah. But the minute you make those arguments you begin to take yourself out of the "user experience" frame of mind. Defenders of cheep PC's fall right into this category. Thus, the fact that people are willing to pay for an iPod is beyond their comprehension. As much as they hate the "It just works" mantra, it's an accurate one. It's true that PC's can do the same thing, but people are tired of the "I need get it to do this before I can work" PC mindset. This, for us mac users, is a very close to a foreign concept. If I want to edit video I can open iMovie or FCE and have at it. If I want to get better acquainted with the Terminal I can just do it. If I want create an app, I can install Xcode and do it. There's no need to purchase a "PRO" version of OS X. Its all available at once, there's little damage that can be caused, the OS doesn't bother you or think it knows better.


And, BGil... go away

Well said.
:p

[solvs]

Since the MacIntels (yer right, that's a crappy name) won't be out for awhile, and won't be in the entire line until sometime around 2007, I don't think we need to worry about current chips. You probably will not see a P4 or Celeron (at least not like the ones today) in any Macs. For those who actually read the article, that seems to be the consensus. It's the future chips that are the ones we need to be looking at.

And for those annoyed by trolls, the ignore feature works great. ;)

[SiliconAddict]

Xeon are very expensive. You'll get poor value for the price of the PowerMac.

I was going to say the same thing until a few things hit me.

1. We don't know where the Xeon will be in two years in terms of hardware.
2. We don't know ehere the Xeon will be in price in two years time.
3. We don't know what Apple plans for their top of the line PowerMac. Maybe they will have one uber model that has the Xeon?

So...
-Top of the line dual core dual CPU Xeon PowerMac that is there uber workstation system.
-Second and third tier Pentium D PowerMacs.
-Pentium D or Pentium M iMac.
-Celery M Mac Minis and eMacs.
-Pentium M PowerBooks
-ULV Pentium M iBooks.

Or maybe not. My point being that Apple is going to be like a kid in a candy store now. The possible options they have are huge and varied.

PS. For the person who said they will stick with the PPC for their low end stuff. Not a chance.

[dubbz]

Also aren't they 64bit processors - that don't run 32bit software too well at all ( or is this the first generation of intel 64 bit processors only that had this problem - a few years go? )

You're thinking of the Itanium. That one used emulation when running 32-bit Windows applications.

The Xeon run 32-bit apps just fine. But it's in the same boat as P4, so I doubt Apple will use 'em.

[nagromme]

... I doubt they'll move all Macs to the Pentium M because it's just not practical. Pentium M's are expensive and don't do well in many floating point tasks. PowerMacs will run Xeon's and iMacs will run P4's. The Mini will most likely run a Celeron D or M as will the iBook. The Powerbook will most likey run the Pentium M.

But we're talking about future machines--so current chips and their pricing are not going to be the same next year.

People have to remember that Intel isn't switching all their desktop chips to the Pentium M architecture for a long time, if ever. Intel is getting rid of Netburst but they have a new thing called Conroe that supposedly is somewhere between Netburst and a Pentium M. Looking at Intel's current roadmaps it seems that a Pentium M based architecture (Conroe possibly) won't start making waves on the desktop until at least the first half of 2007 if not later.

Conroe and Sossaman are both M-derived, as I understand it--and Sossaman is coming sooner. What I've read leads me to believe that Intel IS switching their desktop chips over by 2007.

If Apple switches pretty much their whole line next year, then I agree that they might have to use Netburst in the PowerMacs. But Conroe seems to be expected late next year or early-07, and that's the time frame for completing the transition. So I can see PowerMacs waiting for Conroe.

In may in part depend on where the G5 goes next year.

Intel-Mac roadmap discussion:
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars