Intel's Plans for Low-Power Chips [Archive]

MacRumors

Aug 23, 2005, 02:09 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Cnet reports (http://news.com.com/Intel+powers+up+plans+for+low-power+chips/2100-1006_3-5842125.html?tag=nefd.top) on Intel's road maps which were discussed at the Intel Developer's Forum today.

...the dominant theme revolves around reducing power consumption, a concept the company has hammered on since the beginning of the decade.

The newer architecture pushing the higher performance per watt appears to be targeted in late 2006. In the meanwhile, Intel has other chips coming to fill the gap in late 2005/early 2006.

Notebooks:
Yonah - notebook chip. 1st half of 2006.
Merom - notebook chip coming in the second half of 2006. 5 watts.

Desktops:
Presler - Desktop chip based on Pentium 4 line. 1st half of 2006.
Conroe - Desktop counterpart to Merom. Late 2006. up to 65 watts.

Servers:
Paxville - late 2005. Dual core.
Woodcrest - Server processor, up to 80 watts.

The newly announced chips (Meron, Conroe and Woodcrest) aimed at late 2006 will utilize the new architecture (65-nm) to replace the aging Pentium 4 architecture. Apple anticipates their first Intel-based Macs to start shipping in 2006 and the transition to be complete by the end of 2007.

capone2

Aug 23, 2005, 02:11 PM

Can not wait, its going to be amazing!!

AoWolf

Aug 23, 2005, 02:12 PM

Can not wait, its going to be amazing!!

I agree I think this switch needed to happen and will only make things better for mac users... Never thought I would say this but go intel :o

Gatorman

Aug 23, 2005, 02:15 PM

I can already see it...MWSF...me watching the live stream keynote when Steve announces the New Intel Powerbooks! It'll be just in time for me to order one when I start grad school. Oh yeah!

I know, I know...wishful thinking. But a guy's got to have dreams!
:rolleyes:

ART5000

Aug 23, 2005, 02:15 PM

FANTASTIC,

wondering if the powerbooks will have, specially made processors exclusive for apple.

could anyone put the performance bumo into perspective compared to theG4s or G5

cool

RHutch

Aug 23, 2005, 02:15 PM

I agree I think this switch needed to happen and will only make things better for mac users... Never thought I would say this but go intel :o

I think we should wait and see. IBM promised 3 GHz, which seemed like a really good thing, and everyone thought that the switch from Motorola to IBM needed to happen. I agree that it made things better, but we're still not at 3 GHz, more than a year later than we were supposed to have it. My point: Just because Intel promises great things, that doesn't mean they are going to happen. Didn't Intel also promise 4 GHz P4's?

Dagless

Aug 23, 2005, 02:15 PM

I know there are people against Mactel, but this sounds good. the next gen macs are going to be powerhouses

w_parietti22

Aug 23, 2005, 02:15 PM

Dang... I was we could have this chips right now in our Macs... I cant wait! This is the best thing thats ever gonna happen to Apple!! (besides the iMac) :D

w_parietti22

Aug 23, 2005, 02:21 PM

I think we should wait and see. IBM promised 3 GHz, which seemed like a really good thing, and everyone thought that the switch from Motorola to IBM needed to happen. I agree that it made things better, but we're still not at 3 GHz, more than a year later than we were supposed to have it. My point: Just because Intel promises great things, that doesn't mean they are going to happen. Didn't Intel also promise 4 GHz P4's?

But Intel has delivered great chips for the PC world in the past years. And IBM was basically delivering to Macs and a couple other people... which is a small business... Intel is practically delivering to the entire PC/Mac world.

Now that I think about it... that might not be such a good thing. If Intel falls (AMDs Dream) the PC/Mac world falls onto AMD and I dont think AMD is ready for taking over the PC/Mac world...

All I no is that I cant wait for a Mac with an Intel Inside Sticker on it! :rolleyes:

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 02:21 PM

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/IDF/2005/Fall/Day1/Keynote1/IMG_2595.JPG

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/IDF/2005/Fall/Day1/Keynote1/IMG_2605.JPG

More found on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2503)

geerlingguy

Aug 23, 2005, 02:25 PM

FIVE watts??? That's crazy! If that thing's as fast or faster than the current G4 offerings, that is quite a leap in terms of design...

Now we just wait and see if Intel can deliver.

untamedhysteria

Aug 23, 2005, 02:26 PM

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 02:27 PM

Cool, I submitted a similar story to MR and now I see it is posted. :)

The other thing I found interesting coming out from the IDF was Intel's statement that a new category of machines called handtops was in the works, and Intel will be introducing reference versions of these machines sometime in 2006. The return of the Newton? :eek: :cool:

untamedhysteria

Aug 23, 2005, 02:28 PM

5 watts though, seems really impressive...i'm not betting if they can get that low on watts and also deliver great speeds, but, we'll just have to wait and see.

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 02:30 PM

I cant wait! This is the best thing thats ever gonna happen to Apple!! (besides the iMac) :D

I'm sure many people said the exact same thing when Jobs announced the move to IBM chips as well. :p "Sweet, 3 GHz in a year, this is the best thing thats ever gonna happen to Apple!!" :rolleyes:

I'm excited as well as I see a lot of potential in Intel's roadmap, but I'm definitely erring on the side of being realistic as opposed to optimistic. :cool:

gkarris

Aug 23, 2005, 02:30 PM

the intels already show very promising results, according to some hackers that have hacked osx onto multiple pc's. with the speed being about the same on the specks for the yonah processors and some current p4's, i have no doubt that intel will be delivering some other great processors in 2006 to knock out what they already have.

It'll be a knockout all right! Think how fast things are going to be - and we can dual boot into Windows Vista! Enough to make any PC user envious.

I don't know why users are still touting Powerbook G5's in the forum on the upcoming September announcements (G5 Mini????). I'm not purchasing anything until the Mactels come out...

Lacero

Aug 23, 2005, 02:31 PM

Everybody beat me up when I said PPC sucks and that Intel rocks! Now I see I have been right all along. :cool:

SiliconAddict

Aug 23, 2005, 02:32 PM

wondering if the powerbooks will have, specially made processors exclusive for apple.

They won't. Period.

Eevee

Aug 23, 2005, 02:32 PM

AmigoMac

Aug 23, 2005, 02:33 PM

Amazing, from the paper point of view. Now, wait and see, I hope not to see Steve in a couple of years telling as why it's a great opportunity to have PPC again :rolleyes: RDF :) .

Handtops next tuesday in a year! :)

Eevee

Aug 23, 2005, 02:34 PM

Everybody beat me up when I said PPC sucks and that Intel rocks! Now I see I have been right all along. :cool:

We're not worthy, we're not worthy...

kenstee

Aug 23, 2005, 02:34 PM

Why would anyone get a Yonah-based laptop in 1H'06 with Merom on the way a few months later in 2H'06? This is going to be very interesting!

Spock

Aug 23, 2005, 02:35 PM

Please excuse my ignorance toward Intel chips, but are any of these 64 bit?

Lord Blackadder

Aug 23, 2005, 02:38 PM

outerspaceapple

Aug 23, 2005, 02:38 PM

how many times are these roadmap links gonna be posted!!!

:mad:

geez

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 02:38 PM

Everybody beat me up when I said PPC sucks and that Intel rocks! Now I see I have been right all along. :cool:

Well they should... PPC doesn't suck, it is generally a better ISA then x86 or x86-64.

PPC processors also have more then held their own against things from AMD and Intel in the past, currently (and near future likely).

If you mix in Power processors (Power5 in particular) then they rule the roost in performance, etc. in the server market currently.

What PPC has always suffered from is insufficient development impetus for the general purpose computer market (laptops, desktops, and workstations). So it was prone to lag behind the x86 market after leaping slightly ahead. This repeated several times over the life of PowerPC.

flotsam

Aug 23, 2005, 02:39 PM

Please excuse my ignorance toward Intel chips, but are any of these 64 bit?

They all are.

From http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2504:

the next-generation microprocessor architecture borrows the FSB and 64-bit capabilities of NetBurst and combines it with the power saving features of the Pentium M platform

Merom is not five watts, but 35W. The "5W" figure is a typo.

The Inq (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25623) has some more info and confirms the actual 35W figure.

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 02:39 PM

Please excuse my ignorance toward Intel chips, but are any of these 64 bit?

The AnandTech site implies that all of them have the 64 bit option (a member in each family has such support).

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 02:41 PM

how many times are these roadmap links gonna be posted!!!
:mad:
geez

Just enough to get you to complain then we will stop ;)

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 02:43 PM

What are handtops ~Shard~ ? Neat idea.

Handtops have been talked about for a while now - they are basically a combination of a PDA and a laptop, simplistically. Intel mentioned at the IDF that they would have reference version ready in 2006 sometime. You can find out more general info on handtops right here (http://www.handtops.com/) if you're interested!

obeygiant

Aug 23, 2005, 02:43 PM

that 5 watt vs 22 watt in the powerbook is quite amazing.
i wonder what they do with the leftover power. run a vacuum?

animefan_1

Aug 23, 2005, 02:44 PM

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/tradeshows/IDF/2005/Fall/Day1/Keynote1/IMG_2595.JPG
More found on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2503)
I wonder if Otellini used Keynote for his presentation ;) :D

SiliconAddict

Aug 23, 2005, 02:45 PM

I don't know why users are still touting Powerbook G5's in the forum on the upcoming September announcements (G5 Mini????). I'm not purchasing anything until the Mactels come out...

My theory...Because they want the platform to be updated one last time to a point that makes the PowerBook competitive to the Pentium M. Why? Because of all their PPC software. As good as Rosetta may be it WILL be slower then having PPC software run on a PPC. Also they don't want to go out and buy new software for the new hardware. People have invested thousands on software packages. As good as the PowerBook is going to be for those of us that don't have a ton of money tied up in the software its going to suck just a little for those who are. So people are praying that Saint Jobs delivers a G5 miracle that will keep them going a few more years. It ain't going to happen but well....people can hope.

PS Oh and before I forget also add the small minority of Mac zealots in the crowd that just hate Intel because...well because they are Intel and they work with Microsoft....THE HORROR!!!! :eek:

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 02:46 PM

1. What order Apple will choose to change out the PPCs for Intels (I'm guessing PowerBooks first but then what?)
2. Which CPU's Apple will choose for it's various different computers - will they focus strictly on low power consumption or will the Power Mac get Intel's fastest CPU, whatever that is in 6 months?

My guesses... (http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/archive/macosx-talk/2005-June/017121.html)

Fabio_gsilva

Aug 23, 2005, 02:47 PM

Some have said to wait and see what is going o happen in the next months. And I agree entirely. We can barely speculate what Apple and Intel will delivery next year, and we just don't know when we will see it.

We only heard that the first Mac with intel processors should be ready at june, next year...

So, let's wiat and see...

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 02:53 PM

I suggest folks watch Arstechnica (http://arstechnica.com) for information about what Intel is announcing.

Fall IDF 2005: Intel talks convergance (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050823-5231.html)

Older CPU related articles (http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu.ars)

Patch^

Aug 23, 2005, 03:02 PM

low powered processors sounds kwl =),

btw: -
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1685531#post1685531

cberic3

Aug 23, 2005, 03:06 PM

counting the days till upgrade.....! :p

JoeG4

Aug 23, 2005, 03:06 PM

The TDP on a Pentium 4 3.8 is 130 watts. This article is wrong!

X86 processors are junk. I wouldn't care if Steve Jobs himself made them, they're based on an antiquated architecture that should have died years ago.

Spock

Aug 23, 2005, 03:07 PM

They all are.

From http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2504:

Merom is not five watts, but 35W. The "5W" figure is a typo.

The Inq (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25623) has some more info and confirms the actual 35W figure.

Thanks I kinda figured Apple would not go from 64 to 32 but You never know.

d.perel

Aug 23, 2005, 03:12 PM

Merom and Yonah sound like an old married couple. Hopefully with loads of processing powerrr :p

untamedhysteria

Aug 23, 2005, 03:22 PM

X86 processors are junk. I wouldn't care if Steve Jobs himself made them, they're based on an antiquated architecture that should have died years ago.

this might be true, but it's does a better job in many areas than what is currently offered for a large market

Chef Medeski

Aug 23, 2005, 03:22 PM

Some_Big_Spoon

Aug 23, 2005, 03:31 PM

5 watts?? if that's true, that's incredible. That's practically fanless in a (fast)laptop. I'm actualy excited about Apple's portable prospects again.

minimax

Aug 23, 2005, 03:37 PM

Not producing a 4Ghz processor vs. a 3Ghz processor seems like its better to do the former.

OK comments like this just made me vote [ ] positive [x] negative on this report. Sorry, but you had it coming :rolleyes:

SiliconAddict

Aug 23, 2005, 03:38 PM

This is just enough info to cause massive speculation, but very little hard data.

I guess It will be a long wait to find out:

1. What order Apple will choose to change out the PPCs for Intels (I'm guessing PowerBooks first but then what?)

2. Which CPU's Apple will choose for it's various different computers - will they focus strictly on low power consumption or will the Power Mac get Intel's fastest CPU, whatever that is in 6 months?

My W.A.G is as such:

MWSF ‘06

-Mac Mini running ULV Celeron M's (Shipping NOW.)
-eMac running Celeron M’s as well (Shipping NOW.)
-Next Gen PowerBooks running dual core Yonah. (Shipping in 2-3 months.) (This one is up in the air. It all depends on what shows up at Apple Expo. If there is a Freescale or a G5. Little to no chance that anything will be at MWSF. If it’s a minor update Lets say 80% chance. Yah 80% sounds good. I still hold to what Jobs said at WWDC as an indicator of what may show at MW.)

WWDC
-Developer copy of Leopard is release.
-New developer boxes with dual CPU or dual core Pentium 4’s running Tiger and Leopard.
-God only knows. Would they debut the iMac for a release a few months later? They did it with the PowerMac. It would definitely get people excited for a back to school iMac. Then again there may be enough PPC speedbumps in the desktop line to allow iMacs to stay PPC until MW 2007.

Apple Expo
-The first 64-bit PowerBooks running on Merom.
-Mac Mini's upgraded to whatever is the next iteration of the low end desktop chip.
-Ditto with the eMac.

As for PowerMacs. There won't be any x86 PowerMac's in 2006. The chips they want in the PM won't be ready. Hence the reason for the 2006 AND 2007 timeframe. 2007 is when the desktop chips Apple really wants in their PowerMacs shows up.

javiercr

Aug 23, 2005, 03:54 PM

From the Anandtech presentation the Merom is a dual core mobile CPU a was running 64-bit Windows XP. Which of the other ones are dual core and 64 bits?

Also if we are looking for a Quad-PowerMac probably only the server processors will be able to do it...

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 04:00 PM

From the Anandtech presentation the Merom is a dual core mobile CPU a was running 64-bit Windows XP. Which of the other ones are dual core and 64 bits?
I believe all have 64 bit option and all have dual core option (if not all dual core).

Conroe is dual core with 64 bit support. (laptop)
Merom is dual core with 64 bit support. (desktop)
Woodcrest is dual core with 64 bit support and multiprocessor support. (server / workstation)

I should note it sounds like these CPU are "true" dual core CPU supporting some level of data cache integration between cores (unlike the current Pentium D).

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 04:00 PM

Also if we are looking for a Quad-PowerMac probably only the server processors will be able to do it...

Yep, hence why we won't be seeing these beasts until 2007. In fact, I am in agreement with SiliconAddict, we may not see any Intel-based PowerMacs until 2007 as a result. :cool:

Porchland

Aug 23, 2005, 04:02 PM

Merom and Yonah? I think they catered my bar mitzvah.

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 04:02 PM

Yep, hence why we won't be seeing these beasts until 2007. In fact, I am in agreement with SiliconAddict, we may not see any Intel-based PowerMacs until 2007 as a result. :cool:
Yup I doubt any PM with Intel before 2007 (still mostly stand by my June 2005 (http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/archive/macosx-talk/2005-June/017121.html) wild guess).

I do believe we will see quad core PM based on PPC sometime in 2006 (if not sooner).

Lacero

Aug 23, 2005, 04:03 PM

Merom and Yonah? I think they catered my bar mitzvah.Mine too. And I'm not even Jewish!

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 04:09 PM

Yup I doubt any PM with Intel before 2007

If they do, it'll be MWSF '06 - they'll release something with today's best Intel chips to tide people over until the good stuff comes in 2007. But I don't see them doing that, as today's Intel chips have been around for a while, and are nothing special IMO - the whole point of this move to Intel is to capitallize on some exciting new technologies, not adopt the current ones.

Hence why I say no Intel-based PowerMacs until 2007. Jobs mentioned there were still great products in the PPC pipeline, so I'm thinking they will be directed at the PowerMac (among other machines) to tide us over - some nice dual core 970s would do the trick. Or, perhaps in a beautiful twist of irony, Apple will unveil the 3 GHz PowerMac as the PPC's swan song. :eek: :cool:

plastique45

Aug 23, 2005, 04:11 PM

Just a-w-e-s-o-m-e

Can't wait to get rid of those retarded G5's...

macorama

Aug 23, 2005, 04:11 PM

Well, those names don't exactly sound like something Apple could slip into their marketing! The question is what will Apple rebrand them as? (http://macpredict.com/event.php?e=36&t=G5%20Successor)

Freg3000

Aug 23, 2005, 04:12 PM

My W.A.G is as such:

MWSF ‘06

-Mac Mini running ULV Celeron M's (Shipping NOW.)
-eMac running Celeron M’s as well (Shipping NOW.)
-Next Gen PowerBooks running dual core Yonah. (Shipping in 2-3 months.) (This one is up in the air. It all depends on what shows up at Apple Expo. If there is a Freescale or a G5. Little to no chance that anything will be at MWSF. If it’s a minor update Lets say 80% chance. Yah 80% sounds good. I still hold to what Jobs said at WWDC as an indicator of what may show at MW.)

You knew I was lurking in the shadows waiting for this right? I slightly disagree... :) lol

For the Mac mini and the eMac to be the first to go Intel, featuring vomit inducing Celeron processors, doesn't make too much sense to me. Especially considering both have enough time to stall for better chips; they top out only at 1.42 GHz while the more heat conscious PowerBooks are up to 1.67 GHz. They both have at least one more potential PPC upgrade.

So do the Power Macs (agreed...not going to x86 until 2007) and even the iMacs. Same for the iBooks.

PowerBooks on the other hand...I mean when we are discussing rumors about a possible 30 MHz upgrade, I don't know how much closer we can get to the wall without hitting it.

The Consumer ---> Prosumer--->Professional transition would make a whole lot more sense if it weren't for the pathetic PowerBook. If there is an update at MWSF '06, I would guess PowerBook first.

But I don't think there will be an update at MWSF, so I reiterate my vote against Intel Macs at MWSF '06. :D :P However, the roadmap does seem awfully good for the rest of 2006; the outlook is quite promising.

Edit: Another thing about your prediction, that would be one heck of a MWSF! Combined with an almost guaranteed update to iLife '06, a probable update to iWork '06, more iTunes/iPod and retail store blabbering, we're kinda pressed for time. Also, I don't know how fond Steve is of the eMac. I can't imagine him going crazy about the new Intel chips that Apple is using....in the revolutionary eMac! Has it ever gotten Keynote time? :)

JesseJames

Aug 23, 2005, 04:13 PM

So what are the next machines going to be called? Will Apple keep the "G" brand name and just call it the G6?

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 04:20 PM

Can't wait to get rid of those retarded G5's...

I think that's a bit excessive, the G5 is a fine chip. Could you please provide us with some technical insight on why you think the G5s are "retarded" as opposed to just making such a statement without any supporting reasoning? :confused:

Oh, and it's G5s (plural), not G5's (possessive). :p :cool:

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 04:21 PM

Just a-w-e-s-o-m-e

Can't wait to get rid of those retarded G5's...
mmm... yeah.... ok

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 04:22 PM

So what are the next machines going to be called? Will Apple keep the "G" brand name and just call it the G6?

I say G6 or.... I6 :eek:

sw1tcher

Aug 23, 2005, 04:27 PM

Why would anyone get a Yonah-based laptop in 1H'06 with Merom on the way a few months later in 2H'06?

because they *need* a laptop

beatle888

Aug 23, 2005, 04:27 PM

Everybody beat me up when I said PPC sucks and that Intel rocks! Now I see I have been right all along. :cool:

oh dont worry, everybodies with you 100% now. its very weird how macrumors works. at first everybody was against the intel announcement. now however you'll have a hard time to find someone to say something negative about it. its funny how easily swayed the people here are.

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 04:29 PM

I say G6 or.... I6 :eek:

What happened to "H"? :p ;)

I doubt they would do something with an "I" in it. Afterall, the "G" has nothing to do with the manufacturer of the chip (Motorola, IBM),so why use "I"? And then why would it be "I6"? Nah, Apple will come up with something else...

I suggest the "G-More Powerful Than Superman, Batman, Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk Put Together". :cool:

beatle888

Aug 23, 2005, 04:30 PM

Just a-w-e-s-o-m-e

Can't wait to get rid of those retarded G5's...

no doubt

intel rules

i cant believe you all finally see the light. thanks for completely changing your mind people. :rolleyes:

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 04:31 PM

oh dont worry, everybodies with you 100% now. its very weird how macrumors works. at first everybody was against the intel announcement. now however you'll have a hard time to find someone to say something negative about it. its funny how easily swayed the people here are.

I think there's a name for that, and I don't think it's necessarily a good thing... :o

AidenShaw

Aug 23, 2005, 04:31 PM

If they do, it'll be MWSF '06 - they'll release something with today's best Intel chips to tide people over until the good stuff comes in 2007. ...

Hence why I say no Intel-based PowerMacs until 2007.
I would expect to see some Xeon-based dual or quad (dual dual-core) PowerMacs.

I wouldn't be surprised to see both PPC and Xeon PowerMacs sold side-by-side until 2007 when the lower-power chips come along and replace both.

There are a couple of reasons.

1) Developers will want a bigger dual/quad Intel system to develop for the dual-core PowerBooks.

2) If the Intel chips are as fast as some of the reports, Apple won't want the PowerBooks beating the PowerMacs at the benchmarks :eek:

3) It's clear that a case as big as the G5 box has plenty of room to cool a couple of Xeons...

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 04:32 PM

I suggest the "G-More Powerful Than Superman, Batman, Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk Put Together". :cool:

The new Power Mac G-MPTSBSIHPT ! :p

Oh Arstechnica has an architecture article (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050823-5232.html) up now covering the stuff Intel has announced so far.

SiliconAddict

Aug 23, 2005, 04:34 PM

I do believe we will see quad core PM based on PPC sometime in 2006 (if not sooner).

Quad core? I REALLY doubt it. Now dual core dual CPU's. Yah. Bring on the warter cooling goodness.

shamino

Aug 23, 2005, 04:35 PM

Merom is not five watts, but 35W. The "5W" figure is a typo.

The Inq (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25623) has some more info and confirms the actual 35W figure.
That's not what The Inquirer wrote:
Merom is listed at 35W TDP, with a 1-2W average consumption.
TDP is "thermal design power" - the maximum amount of heat a system should ever have to dissipate. It is meant as a worst-case figure for the people designing cooling solutions. It is not what consumers should expect during normal operation.

The fact that the same sentence says that average consumption is 1-2W tells me that the 5W figure (which was on the Intel slides, not just the C|Net article) is accurate.

Given that current Pentium-M chips consume up to 22W, I don't think Intel would be trumpeting Merom as low-power if it was consuming 35W.

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 04:35 PM

I would expect to see some Xeon-based dual or quad (dual dual-core) PowerMacs.

I wouldn't be surprised to see both PPC and Xeon PowerMacs sold side-by-side until 2007 when the lower-power chips come along and replace both.

True, this could be another possibility. Hadn't actually thought of the Xeon option, was thinking more like just a desktop P4, which as I said, wouldn't make a lot of sense...

2) If the Intel chips are as fast as some of the reports, Apple won't want the PowerBooks beating the PowerMacs at the benchmarks :eek:

Good point - however the laptops have suffered so much in recent times compared to their desktop counterparts, and laptop sales are exceeding desktops sales nowadays, so perhaps it's time the laptops outperformed the desktops for a little while! :eek: ;)

3) It's clear that a case as big as the G5 box has plenty of room to cool a couple of Xeons...

Definitely. There's ample room a lot of cool stuff in there. :cool:

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 04:37 PM

Quad core? I REALLY doubt it. Now dual core dual CPU's. Yah. Bring on the warter cooling goodness.

He probably meant dual dual core, not quad core, but yes, I agree....

shamino

Aug 23, 2005, 04:37 PM

The TDP on a Pentium 4 3.8 is 130 watts. This article is wrong!
Then Intel's slides are also wrong.

TDP is a meaningless figure unless you're designing a cooling solution. It's a worst-case scenario, not a measure of normal operation.

pjkelnhofer

Aug 23, 2005, 04:38 PM

Why would anyone get a Yonah-based laptop in 1H'06 with Merom on the way a few months later in 2H'06? This is going to be very interesting!

Why would anyone ever buy a computer when there will be a faster cheaper one in six months?

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 04:38 PM

Quad core? I REALLY doubt it. Now dual core dual CPU's. Yah. Bring on the warter cooling goodness.
Actually I meant quad core as in two dual core CPUs not a single quad core CPU... sorry for the confusion :)

SiliconAddict

Aug 23, 2005, 04:38 PM

What happened to "H"? :p ;)

I doubt they would do something with an "I" in it. Afterall, the "G" has nothing to do with the manufacturer of the chip (Motorola, IBM),so why use "I"? And then why would it be "I6"? Nah, Apple will come up with something else...

I suggest the "G-More Powerful Than Superman, Batman, Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk Put Together". :cool:

Naa it will be the Apple PowerBooks running the new GSpot CPU because these chips coupled with the new laptop hardware is going to hit the mobile market just right. :eek: :eek: Yes I'm a sick sick sick little man. :D

shamino

Aug 23, 2005, 04:41 PM

He probably meant dual dual core, not quad core, but yes, I agree....
Or quad dual-core :) IIRC, Intel makes Xeon chipsets that can support up to 8 processors. Assuming Apple can cram 4 or 8 Xeons into a reasonably small case, such a system would make for a great (but expensive) server.

iN8

Aug 23, 2005, 04:42 PM

I am concerned about Intels memory controller. I hope they have some plans for that that can top what IBM/Apple have now.

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 04:44 PM

Or quad dual-core :) IIRC, Intel makes Xeon chipsets that can support up to 8 processors. Assuming Apple can cram 4 or 8 Xeons into a reasonably small case, such a system would make for a great (but expensive) server.
I would take a Power5 MCM (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12217) first thanks :D

http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/bluey.jpg (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12217)

- 144MB of cache
- 4 dual core Power5 dies (http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/nove3.jpg) (each core supporting dual concurrent threads)
- 16 concurrent threads as a result

To get the scale of this package know that the hand you see in the photo above is attached to this guy (http://www.giantsandgirls.com/images/modern/moonraker54.jpg). :D

rockthecasbah

Aug 23, 2005, 04:48 PM

mjstew33

Aug 23, 2005, 04:53 PM

according to that article it says the first generation of the mactel desktops were based off P4s, but i thought it was established that they were making all new processor designs and had nothing to do with those pieces of crap. :confused:
The Mactels are going to be different in every single way than the developer Intel Macs.

As everyone here are going to tell you ;)

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 05:00 PM

according to that article it says the first generation of the mactel desktops were based off P4s, but i thought it was established that they were making all new processor designs and had nothing to do with those pieces of crap. :confused:
No Macs with Intel processors are being shipped by Apple to customers (then don't yet exist).

All that exists is a developer transition kit (http://developer.apple.com/transitionkit.html). It is not being sold just loaned out to developers, they have to return them in mid 2006. It is not an example of what Apple has planned for Intel based Macs (hardware wise). It only exists to help developers develop and test software (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/universal_binary/) for Mac OS X running on x86.

(oh as I have said several times, I strongly believe that no P4 (NetBurst) will ever ship in a real Mac)

flotsam

Aug 23, 2005, 05:03 PM

according to that article it says the first generation of the mactel desktops were based off P4s, but i thought it was established that they were making all new processor designs and had nothing to do with those pieces of crap. :confused:

The current developer machines are transitional. They are purely to allow developers to get their x86 code up and running. Do you seriously think that the production versions will sport integrated graphics and all that nonsense?

They are hacked together to facilitate the move to Intel. They are not representative of the final products. Why do some people find this concept so difficult to comprehend?

dontmatter

Aug 23, 2005, 05:04 PM

well, I can say this for sure. Intel's events don't have nearly as pretty of graphics as Apple events. Apple had better get intel up to snuff on that one.

Hard for me to judge, relative to PPC stuff... or even current intel stuff. Would the 5 watt sublaptop be five watts and blow, or be five watts and a rocket?

I wish they gave a little more info.

Well, here's to the future, computers doing more with less, as always.

shamino

Aug 23, 2005, 05:06 PM

according to that article it says the first generation of the mactel desktops were based off P4s, but i thought it was established that they were making all new processor designs and had nothing to do with those pieces of crap. :confused:
Nothing official has been said whatsoever.

The developer kits are based off of P4's, but it's anybody's guess about what will be in the shipping systems.

Definitely P4-compatible, because otherwise the developers would revolt (could you imagine spending 18 months developing for a forthcoming chip only to be told that the work is for nothing?) Beyond that, it could be anything.

My personal opinion (and that's all it is - my opinion) is that they will be using off the shelf Intel processor chips, possibly using off the shelf Intel core-logic chips, but installed on third-party custom-designed motherboards.

deputy_doofy

Aug 23, 2005, 05:20 PM

Just a-w-e-s-o-m-e

Can't wait to get rid of those retarded G5's...

I look forward to the the new Intel line as well. However, I must defend the G5 chip for what it is. In its current incarnation, it is spectacular. What's retarded is IBM, and their lack of vision to take this chip into the future. PPC always had better potential than x86, but the developers of it didn't have the Intel drive. Sad, really.

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 05:21 PM

Naa it will be the Apple PowerBooks running the new GSpot CPU because these chips coupled with the new laptop hardware is going to hit the mobile market just right. :eek: :eek: Yes I'm a sick sick sick little man. :D

Niiice - then those systems will definitely need liquid cooling... ;)

Websnapx2

Aug 23, 2005, 05:22 PM

The developer kits are based off of P4's, but it's anybody's guess about what will be in the shipping systems.

Definitely P4-compatible, because otherwise the developers would revolt (could you imagine spending 18 months developing for a forthcoming chip only to be told that the work is for nothing?) Beyond that, it could be anything.

They are not based off of the P4, they are based off of the x86 architecture, which encompasses the P4, centrino, yonah, Merom, AMD, optron… whatever. The new chips are not available so they couldn't very well put them in to developer systems now, can they. The P4 chip design is being replaced by the chips based off of the Mobile M technology as Intel considers it to be able to harness more power. Intel is dropping the P4, so why would apple pick up a derivative of it? P4 is just what's around now, but it will not - NOT - go in to macs. Intel is phasing that design out.

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 05:28 PM

I look forward to the the new Intel line as well. However, I must defend the G5 chip for what it is. In its current incarnation, it is spectacular. What's retarded is IBM, and their lack of vision to take this chip into the future. PPC always had better potential than x86, but the developers of it didn't have the Intel drive. Sad, really.
Well said... the funny thing is Intel appears to be take a page or two from the PPC 970 (and Power5) playbook with the new stuff (of course both have similarities to Pentium M).

deputy_doofy

Aug 23, 2005, 05:31 PM

Well said... the funny thing is Intel appears to be take a page or two from the PPC 970 (and Power5) playbook with the new stuff (of course both have similarities to Pentium M).

Yes, and I'm going to give Intel the benefit of the doubt. The P4 may suck but I'm impressed with the P-M, thus far.

dizastor

Aug 23, 2005, 05:43 PM

Why would anyone get a Yonah-based laptop in 1H'06 with Merom on the way a few months later in 2H'06? This is going to be very interesting!

Why buy a powerbook now, when you can get an intel one in 11 months... why buy a computer... ever??

Seriously, if you need something you can't wait forever.

ART5000

Aug 23, 2005, 05:56 PM

what about t=he lack of a memory controller? THis will greatly affect the performance that we are all anticipating. Any comments on this?

sjk

Aug 23, 2005, 06:05 PM

how many times are these roadmap links gonna be posted!!!Speaking of unappreciated redundancy, how often is it necessary to include images with quoted replies? :rolleyes:

halse

Aug 23, 2005, 06:07 PM

They won't. Period.

that is correct, the processors will be off the shelf, but the motherboards may not be

jamesnajera

Aug 23, 2005, 06:09 PM

What happened to "H"? :p ;)

I doubt they would do something with an "I" in it. Afterall, the "G" has nothing to do with the manufacturer of the chip (Motorola, IBM),so why use "I"? And then why would it be "I6"? Nah, Apple will come up with something else...

I suggest the "G-More Powerful Than Superman, Batman, Spiderman and the Incredible Hulk Put Together". :cool:

Yeah because Apple never uses the I in anything right?
iBook
iTunes
iPod
iMovie
iLife
iPhoto
...
:)

Mass Hysteria

Aug 23, 2005, 06:19 PM

I think that's a bit excessive, the G5 is a fine chip. Could you please provide us with some technical insight on why you think the G5s are "retarded" as opposed to just making such a statement without any supporting reasoning? :confused:

yup, it's true . . . the G5 is just a brain damaged Power4 :(

.

hkhaskell

Aug 23, 2005, 06:31 PM

dongmin

Aug 23, 2005, 06:34 PM

Yonah - notebook chip. 1st half of 2006.
-->PowerBook & iBook Intels released at MWSF 2006
-->Mini Intels released at WWDC 2006

Merom - notebook chip coming in the second half of 2006. 5 watts.
-->PowerBooks move to Meroms at MWSF 2007

Conroe - Desktop counterpart to Merom. Late 2006. up to 65 watts.
-->Power Macs Intels released MWSF 2007 or WWDC 2007
-->iMac Intels released in 2007

Woodcrest - Server processor, up to 80 watts.
-->Xserve Intels at WWDC 2007, transition is complete.

It's obvious with the recent iBook and Mini updates that Apple has essentially stopped PPC development on those lines. I suspect anything with a G4 is now being moved to Intel. That's why I believe we'll see these lines move first to Intel.

mainstreetmark

Aug 23, 2005, 06:54 PM

5 watts!! That's like 0.007 Horsepower!

shawnce

Aug 23, 2005, 06:55 PM

what about t=he lack of a memory controller? THis will greatly affect the performance that we are all anticipating. Any comments on this?

As with so many things... it depends... and we don't yet have enough information to know what Intel is doing with front side bus and north bridges, etc.

Personally I am not to concerned about it.

nsjoker

Aug 23, 2005, 06:59 PM

Yeah because Apple never uses the I in anything right?
iBook
iTunes
iPod
iMovie
iLife
iPhoto
...
:)

don't forget iMac and iDVD

sjk

Aug 23, 2005, 07:13 PM

My theory...Because they want the platform to be updated one last time to a point that makes the PowerBook competitive to the Pentium M. Why? Because of all their PPC software. As good as Rosetta may be it WILL be slower then having PPC software run on a PPC. Also they don't want to go out and buy new software for the new hardware. People have invested thousands on software packages. As good as the PowerBook is going to be for those of us that don't have a ton of money tied up in the software its going to suck just a little for those who are. So people are praying that Saint Jobs delivers a G5 miracle that will keep them going a few more years.People who've invested thousands (your number) on PPC software sound like the same sort who'd be able to afford Intel-based Macs and any necessary software update fees for them. Even without a necessity for software updates they'd have to be able to afford a G5 PowerBook, if it existed.

Many people (especially in places like this) are just eager for any significant PowerBook update as the current G4 models grow longer in the tooth. Those who've been waiting and anticipating a G5 model the longest might be understandably impatient. While the transition to Intel makes things somewhat clearer it's also more painful for anyone who's still holding out for a PowerBook they'd be satisfied with.

I had doubts about a G5 PowerBook "coming soon" from the beginning and based some purchasing choices around that. Of course I've had my share of mistimed purchases based on mistaken hunches, too. 'Tis the nature of the game.

Anyway, I see what you're getting at but won't completely buy into your theory. :)
It ain't going to happen but well....people can hope.There's never a shortage of opportunity to set yourself up for disappointment, then become angry and bitter when things don't turn out the way you wanted.

sjk

Aug 23, 2005, 07:26 PM

I am concerned about Intels memory controller. I hope they have some plans for that that can top what IBM/Apple have now.I want to hear more about what's going to replace Open Firmware. Is that BIOS replacement (EFI) ready for production systems yet? Or by MWSF 2006, if indeed any Intel-based systems are announced then?

delton05

Aug 23, 2005, 07:42 PM

one thing I thought I'd never think ... I do like knowing whats coming in CPUs, unlike the agonising over hardware updates that goes on before every Macworld ... and all the Jobs brinkmanship ...

aegisdesign

Aug 23, 2005, 07:49 PM

Please excuse my ignorance toward Intel chips, but are any of these 64 bit?

Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest are. And they have improved SSE support and some of NetBursts faster memory architecture.

Those are the processors to wait for. The rest are so-so. I'd rather have PowerPC till then.

DakotaGuy

Aug 23, 2005, 07:54 PM

FANTASTIC,
could anyone put the performance bumo into perspective compared to theG4s or G5

cool

At least double the performance or possibly more.

Dr. Dastardly

Aug 23, 2005, 07:57 PM

one thing I thought I'd never think ... I do like knowing whats coming in CPUs, unlike the agonising over hardware updates that goes on before every Macworld ... and all the Jobs brinkmanship ...
I know what you mean. Even though I have learned that not to expect much from proc upgrades but extras. Not to mention that these at best just give a vauge direction on where the new Macs will be heading.

But at least its something of actual substance for the abundance of plausable rumors lately. :p

DakotaGuy

Aug 23, 2005, 07:58 PM

I look forward to the the new Intel line as well. However, I must defend the G5 chip for what it is. In its current incarnation, it is spectacular. What's retarded is IBM, and their lack of vision to take this chip into the future. PPC always had better potential than x86, but the developers of it didn't have the Intel drive. Sad, really.

I would disagree. I have two systems. An iMac G5 1.8Ghz at home and a 2.8Ghz P4 with Hyperthreading at the school. A single P4 will dust a single G5.

aegisdesign

Aug 23, 2005, 08:13 PM

Just a-w-e-s-o-m-e

Can't wait to get rid of those retarded G5's...

Oh how fickle we've become. The PowerPC architecture is 'retarded' now and the x86 architecture, which was a joke back in the 70s even compared to 6502, 6809 and 68K, is flavour of the month.

Really, there's nothing to see here till Merom and Conroe are in Macs. Yonah and Pressler are stopgaps and during that timeframe we'll still be running mostly PowerPC software on chips that aren't any faster than now. The 7448 and G5 would be a better choice for the next year, then think of switching.

Merom, at 5W will be fantastic though - 12 hour battery life out of a Powerbook perhaps? Completely silent passively cooled iMacs? Jobs would love that.

aegisdesign

Aug 23, 2005, 08:15 PM

I would disagree. I have two systems. An iMac G5 1.8Ghz at home and a 2.8Ghz P4 with Hyperthreading at the school. A single P4 will dust a single G5.

At what?

Games yes, applications no.

chaos86

Aug 23, 2005, 08:23 PM

Ghibli

Aug 23, 2005, 08:26 PM

Why would anyone get a Yonah-based laptop in 1H'06 with Merom on the way a few months later in 2H'06? This is going to be very interesting!

Maybe we'll find the first on the iBook and the second on the Powerbook?

This seems a good bet

aegisdesign

Aug 23, 2005, 08:41 PM

3 items:

1) does wattage relate to heat output? if so, is it proportional? if they produce alot less heat (a quarter if its proportional) and consume less than a quarter of the power, why couldn't we have multi processor 'books?

2) is anyone as hesitant as me to buy the first (rev. a) mactels? i mean, they had enough problems after switching the ibooks from g3 to g4 in the same architechture group, imagine the headache involved in switching from apples to oranges (excuse the accidental play on words).

3) does anyone else think that intel sucks at code/nicknaming stuff? Presler? President Chrysler? Yonah? Sounds like an icelandic barbarian to me.

1) Yep. Power used = heat/noise to be dissipated somewhere. Why not multi-CPU? Space, cost, diminishing returns on performance per CPU added with single threaded apps and do people really need more than dual core 2-3Ghz CPUs in a laptop or would they rather have smaller, lighter laptops with better battery life?

2) Depends on what they do. If the first are Yonah based I'll pass as they won't run my current software faster than a PPC. If they are heavily customized boards, I'll pass. I'll probably pass anyway until OSX 10.5, Adobe CS3 and Macromedia's suite goes Intel also. Not much point otherwise.

3) It's a disease from years of Wintel-ness. Intel probably think they are doing ok in comparison to 'Longhorn' or 'Vista'. Most of the names come out of Intel's Israeli development group where Pentium M derived.

AidenShaw

Aug 23, 2005, 09:17 PM

3) does anyone else think that intel sucks at code/nicknaming stuff? Presler? President Chrysler? Yonah? Sounds like an icelandic barbarian to me.
Only in a Mac forum would people debate about the codenames for a product "sucking"....

"Whistler", "Blackcomb", "Longhorn" - three names with a clear connection.

"Klamath", "Coppermine", "Deschutes", "Williamette", "Northwood", "Katmai", "Williamette" - again a clear commonality.

Just because there isn't a "Yikes!" in the Intel stable....

sinisterdesign

Aug 23, 2005, 09:59 PM

Definitely. There's ample room a lot of cool stuff in there. :cool:

ample room & ample heat. i store raw meat in there when i get to work in the morning & by lunchtime i have a juicy burger.

joking aside it took me a while to figure out why i was rolling up my shirtsleeves every afternoon around 3-4. the G5 under my desk is blowing out heat that comes back on me & after it's on for a few hours it gets WAAARM.

my coworker was over at my desk the other day & said, "do you have a heater on over here?" "no, just my computer...". and that's a SINGLE CPU, the slowest G5 desktop, 1.6. i can't imagine the others...

chaos86

Aug 23, 2005, 10:01 PM

"Whistler", "Blackcomb", "Longhorn" - three names with a clear connection.

"Klamath", "Coppermine", "Deschutes", "Williamette", "Northwood", "Katmai", "Williamette" - again a clear commonality.

Maybe I'm uncultured but I don't know what they all have to do with each other.

Just because there isn't a "Yikes!" in the Intel stable....
point taken. yikes! was a dumb name

digitalbiker

Aug 23, 2005, 10:04 PM

Really, there's nothing to see here till Merom and Conroe are in Macs. Yonah and Pressler are stopgaps and during that timeframe we'll still be running mostly PowerPC software on chips that aren't any faster than now. The 7448 and G5 would be a better choice for the next year, then think of switching.

I agree. I'm hoping for a decent upgrade to the PowerBook in Paris. Hopefully the display, gpu, fsb, and cpu will all get a decent bump. That will be "THE" PB to own while this whole Intel transition takes place. Next worthwhile investment will be the 2nd gen Merom PB. By that time, hopefully Leopard will take advantage of x86 fully and native Pro apps will be readily available. :D

I, for one, am not in the least interested in a Yonah PB. It will be too expensive, too hot for a real thin PB enclosure, and not have any native app support. :(

switchr92

Aug 23, 2005, 10:15 PM

AidenShaw

Aug 23, 2005, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by AidenShaw
"Whistler", "Blackcomb", "Longhorn" - three names with a clear connection.

"Klamath", "Coppermine", "Deschutes", "Williamette", "Northwood", "Katmai", "Williamette" - again a clear commonality.

Maybe I'm uncultured but I don't know what they all have to do with each other.

Whistler - ski area in Canada a few hours north of Redmond.

Blackcomb - side-shoot of Whistler, another ski area in Canada near Redmond

Longhorn - a popular bar/nightclub at the base of Whistler/Blackcomb

Klamath et al. - rivers in the U.S. Northwest

sambo.

Aug 23, 2005, 10:22 PM

they'll be here when they're here.

sjk

Aug 23, 2005, 10:33 PM

I'm curious to see if they even call these new computers Powermacs and Powerbooks at all, considering the fact that they are getting away from the PowerPC platform...Yeah. I guess it depends on how much Apple thinks the Power in PowerBook/Mac is associated with the Power in PowerPC. And there'll be overlap when both PPC and Intel products co-existSomehow I don't think they are going to bother giving the chip a fancy marketing name because the chips are going to be fairly ubiquitous, unlike the PowerPC chips where really nobody else had them.It's hard to imagine Apple using Intel chip code names in their system names. Maybe they'll just keep going with the "G" series and using PowerBook G6 for the first Intel PB. Or PowerBook I1.

Names having mattered to me since Apple decided to stick with iMac for the iMac G4 instead of giving it a new name along with the new design, then later using eMac for what looks like a bloated iMac G3.

Whatever. :)

It's obvious with the recent iBook and Mini updates that Apple has essentially stopped PPC development on those lines. I suspect anything with a G4 is now being moved to Intel. That's why I believe we'll see these lines move first to Intel.Seems like plausible speculation to me.

mccoma

Aug 23, 2005, 10:34 PM

I'm curious, does the monroe mean insane batterylife, or is it just my impression? Oh yeah, and whoever said yonah in iBooks and monroe in Pbooks is retarded, they're probably slower, if not the same spped, they are only have 5 watts, which is awesome, but not for "power" users, its a "low" power chip.

It's a component of overall life and an important one, but the screen and hard drive tend to eat power too. I would imagine that given the stats, these will be better than the G4 (finally).

I thought the commentary on 'handtops' was interesting. When OLED is actually production ready and with flash / micro-hardrives, I could have a decent subnotebook from Apple.

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 11:19 PM

Yeah because Apple never uses the I in anything right?

Yep, absolutely right - they use "i", not "I". :p :cool:

yup, it's true . . . the G5 is just a brain damaged Power4 :(

Still waiting for some real facts to back up these claims of retardation instead of general statements... :rolleyes:

~Shard~

Aug 23, 2005, 11:23 PM

Whistler - ski area in Canada a few hours north of Redmond.

Blackcomb - side-shoot of Whistler, another ski area in Canada near Redmond

Longhorn - a popular bar/nightclub at the base of Whistler/Blackcomb

You got it my friend - and all excellent areas! Can't say I've been to Longhorn myself, but have definitely been in Whistler and Blackcomb. :cool:

~loserman~

Aug 24, 2005, 12:27 AM

FANTASTIC,

wondering if the powerbooks will have, specially made processors exclusive for apple.

No offense intended here but (There is always a but when statements start off like that) We have moved into DREAM LAND now.

Apple is a very very small computer company. Their volume is tiny compared to the likes of Dell. Apple will NOT get better CPU's from Intel than Dell and others will receive. They wont even get as low prices for chips as Dell does because of the smaller volume.

Evangelion

Aug 24, 2005, 01:00 AM

X86 processors are junk. I wouldn't care if Steve Jobs himself made them, they're based on an antiquated architecture that should have died years ago.

Yet that "antiquated hardware" is faster than the "technically pure" PPC is. If PPC is so good, why do G5's run so hot? Why do they lag x86(-64) in many areas?

I don't care one bit about the architecture. I care about the features and power the CPU gives me.

Partially off-topic: it's very interesting to see the reaction in here. Not long ago everybody told how Intel/x86 sucks, and how PPC is the future. Now everyone is telling how x86/Intel kicks ass. I guess dictionarys should have an entry called "Doing a 180-degrees change in opinion in a relatively short time: see "Apple's userbase"" :).

lvnmacs

Aug 24, 2005, 01:01 AM

nsjoker

Aug 24, 2005, 01:51 AM

gio64

Aug 24, 2005, 02:00 AM

I finally read all these messages.
A few considerations:
If you want to compare processors and their architectures, you should do so comparing equal or similar MHz ratings and moreover, close-in-time releases.
Just because a 3 GHz chip is slightly faster than a different architecture 2 GHz chip, doesn't mean that it is a better processor. Higher clock speeds are closely related to die thickness (as far as I can remember).
The PowerMac G5, although arguably the fastest personal computer in the world when it came out, was still largely superior in performance to an x86 based computer with same clock speed; even if you don't buy Apple comparisons, the computer was still at par with x86 based computers running higher clock speeds. And it did that without taking advantage of the 64 bit ability.
It would be interesting to see what the G5 chips will be capable of by the time we get all these yonah and Prescott (or whatever they're called) in the Mac.
Everyone here has been ranting about the processors, but I didn't see anyone asking what follows: what exact speeds will the front bus have? And if those speeds are at par with the G5 (1 GHz front bus), what will be the overall power consumption of those boards w/ processor?
Here is a question for those that have time to check this out: how much slower is a 1.67 Powerbook G4 compared to a similarly spec'd 1.67 Centrino equipped PC Laptop?
This could be my imagination, but I believe that Mac compatible applications take up less space on a HD and in the computer RAM. Is this (very appreciated) quality going to disappear?
As far as all the enthusiasm around these upcoming releases, I would like to say this: I have been using G3, G4, Pentium and AMD PCs for the last 6 years. I have not owned/used a single Mac that did not feel perfect, reliable, smooth, rock solid, hiccup free machine. As a teacher, I wish I could say the same about the PCs. So, these great Pentium PCs are the most unreliable and annoying machines in the world. You are probably ready to jump and say that it's because of Windows. Well, I am not so sure Billy is the only one to blame. We'll see what happens.
Lastly, as many frequently like to point out, Apple is a computer manufacturer. I purchased their computers because they were made differently (and dare I say, better). Now, with Intel making their chips, boards and -for the low end, all-in- one design machines- possibly the video and the sound card, what will it really mean to have a "Mac"? Because if it is (once again, like many like to point out) to run Mac OS X, then why should I not be able to just run that OS on a PC?
And we can all say CIAO to RISC and AltiVec. Isn't that great?

Analog Kid

Aug 24, 2005, 03:41 AM

I just can't get excited about this... There's just not enough information. Speeds without power numbers and power numbers without speeds. Remember how Prescott was supposed to be this low power wonder at 90nm and wound up higher power than the previous generation? Remember the Itanic-- would have been a great architecture if it came out when it was supposed to. Intel has been stuck in the 3GHz range for as long as IBM has been stuck in the 2s.

I don't think Intel is going to change our fortunes much. What they will do though is stop all the petty bickering about whether Windows is faster that OSX or this Pentium is faster than that Gx.

The other thing this does is kill half the excitement leading up to major events. We know the roadmap years in advance. The software will still be exciting, but I'll miss wondering what the next step in hardware is.

What will be interesting is how Apple handles system design. Intel is always pushing some initiative or another and issuing reference designs for new systems that never see the light of day because Dell et. al. cut out all the new stuff to save a buck. Apple is the kind of company that could bring Intel's dreams to production.

I don't know if that's good or bad, to be honest. I think it could be good if the ideas flow both ways.

chucknorris

Aug 24, 2005, 03:45 AM

I'm not quite following the conventional wisdom (on this thread at least) that Yonahs will be the same speed as G4s...

Not only are the clock speeds faster, but they're supposed to be more efficient. Their FSB is also several times quicker, so where exactly do we draw the conclusion that they're no faster than G4s?

I don't buy it, unless somebody has an in-depth explanation.

spn

Aug 24, 2005, 05:42 AM

enoch

Aug 24, 2005, 05:52 AM

In 2007, my vintage powerbook will be a watt-guzzling monster, giving me that 'Pimp my Ride' feel.

hecaton

Aug 24, 2005, 06:43 AM

I'm curious to see if they even call these new computers Powermacs and Powerbooks at all, considering the fact that they are getting away from the PowerPC platform... Somehow I don't think they are going to bother giving the chip a fancy marketing name because the chips are going to be fairly ubiquitous, unlike the PowerPC chips where really nobody else had them.

Maybe we'll just go back to calling it a Mac and a Mac notebook... :eek:
Well, Apple has never called their laptops "notebooks". Their first was called a Portable but all other laptops has been named PowerBook. (Well except for the DuoDock.)
Regardless of the CPU.

For a great resource on all Macintosh computers, download Mactracker:
http://www.mactracker.ca/

Linh_My

Aug 24, 2005, 06:44 AM

I actually think that it makes sense for Apple to release a low volume Power Mac to iron out bugs before general release. I'm guessing that a single processor P-4 PM, essentially an upgraded developers box with a real Mac Mother Board will be released early 2006.

Hopefully it will include an exchange/upgrade program for the current developer boxes. Possible because it would only require a MB swap and some changes in the interior plastic.

PowerBook 1.0
PowerMac dual 2.0
PowerMac Cube 550 (over-clocked)
PowerMac AGP 500
Developers P-4

BillHarrison

Aug 24, 2005, 07:23 AM

What are handtops ~Shard~ ? Neat idea.

MacIntel is really exciting. But there will be bugs to fix here and there. I just know it...

There are bugs to fix here and there on MacPPC :P

AidenShaw

Aug 24, 2005, 08:19 AM

If you want to compare processors and their architectures, you should do so comparing equal or similar MHz ratings and moreover, close-in-time releases.
I disagree, if you're looking at speed you should compare the fastest chip from each manufacturer. The fastest Opteron against the fastest Xeon, the fastest Turion against the fastest Pentium M.

MHz is part of the design - some chips push the clock rate, others try to get the best IPC. The fastest POWER5 chips are 1.9 GHz, it wouldn't make sense to run a test to compare POWER5 to 1.9 GHz Xeon or 1.9 GHz PPC970.

The PowerMac G5 ... was still at par with x86 based computers running higher clock speeds. And it did that without taking advantage of the 64 bit ability.
The PPC970 is no faster at 64-bit than at 32-bit, except for one datatype that is not important for most applications.

The x64 chips, however, are quite a bit faster at 64-bit than at 32-bit. The 64-bit mode has several architectural changes beyond wider integer registers.

Everyone here has been ranting about the processors, but I didn't see anyone asking what follows: what exact speeds will the front bus have? And if those speeds are at par with the G5 (1 GHz front bus), what will be the overall power consumption of those boards w/ processor?
Don't focus on one specific attribute like the FSB - look at the overall system design.

The G5 isn't a well-balanced system - it has very fast FSB's (21.6 GB/sec for the dual 2.7) connected to a 6.4 GB/sec memory system. (http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html) Most of the FSB speed is unusable.

Even today's Centrino has faster memory - dual channel 533 MHz, as well as multiple PCI Express connections, SATA,...
http://www.intel.com/products/i/chipsets/mobile/915pm_diagram_760.gif

Here is a question for those that have time to check this out: how much slower is a 1.67 Powerbook G4 compared to a similarly spec'd 1.67 Centrino equipped PC Laptop?
How about 1.3 to 1.3?

http://www.barefeats.com/image04/al15-pc2.gif
http://www.barefeats.com/al15b.html

(Of course, the Intel laptop comparable to the 1.67 G4 would be a 2.26 GHz Pentium M with the 533MHz bus, DDR2 memory and PCI Express chipset....)

This could be my imagination, but I believe that Mac compatible applications take up less space on a HD and in the computer RAM. Is this (very appreciated) quality going to disappear?
Get your HD ready for FAT binaries, when the Mac application has to support:

32-bit PPC with and w/o AltiVec
64-bit PPC
32-bit Intel x86
64-bit Intel x64

The memory footprint shouldn't change much, and might be a little smaller (many x86 instructions are smaller than RISC instructions, and you need fewer of them). You'll be comparing OS X vs OS X, not OS X vs Windows memory footprints.

rolandf

Aug 24, 2005, 09:27 AM

It is a pity that, as it seems, the Apple-IBM partnership ended, so-far, given the
know-how of the later company.

It would have made sense for Apple to have Intel / AMD for their middle products and IBM / Sony etc.
for what one might call state of the art.

The next iteration of the Cell processor, new versions of Linux / KDE will hopefully provide an
alternative to the Mactel.

The incentive and the flair to buy a MACTEL are not very high anymore, that special thing is gone.

shawnce

Aug 24, 2005, 09:36 AM

Partially off-topic: it's very interesting to see the reaction in here. Not long ago everybody told how Intel/x86 sucks, and how PPC is the future. Now everyone is telling how x86/Intel kicks ass. I guess dictionarys should have an entry called "Doing a 180-degrees change in opinion in a relatively short time: see "Apple's userbase"" :).

Thanks for generalizing.... :mad:

Evangelion

Aug 24, 2005, 09:39 AM

Just because a 3 GHz chip is slightly faster than a different architecture 2 GHz chip, doesn't mean that it is a better processor.

All other qualities being the same, it would be better

Higher clock speeds are closely related to die thickness (as far as I can remember).

yes, they are somewhat related to the process they are made on. What's your point?

The PowerMac G5, although arguably the fastest personal computer in the world when it came out

I know few Opteron-users who would disagree with that claim. Computers based on Opteron were available long before G5 PM's were available.

was still largely superior in performance to an x86 based computer with same clock speed

Depend on the app. If the app relies lots of memory-bandwidth and low latencies, Opteron would have propably crushed the G5.

And it did that without taking advantage of the 64 bit ability.

In many cases, "64-bitness" actually slows the computer down. In some cases it speeds it up. With x86-64, the performance usually goes up, thanks to architecture-improvement that "64bits" offer (twice the number of GP-registers, twice the number of SSE-register)..

It would be interesting to see what the G5 chips will be capable of by the time we get all these yonah and Prescott (or whatever they're called) in the Mac.

Well, there would propably be dual-core G5's, running at about same clock-speed as G5 is running now. But if single-core G5 doesn't destroy it's single-core x86-counterparts, I fail to see how dual-core G5 could destroy it's dual-core x86-counterparts.

Everyone here has been ranting about the processors, but I didn't see anyone asking what follows: what exact speeds will the front bus have?

AFAIK, Conroe will have 1066MHz bus, Merom will be somewhat slower.

And if those speeds are at par with the G5 (1 GHz front bus), what will be the overall power consumption of those boards w/ processor?

Considerably less that with G5 ;). No, make that "humungously less than with a G5".

Here is a question for those that have time to check this out: how much slower is a 1.67 Powerbook G4 compared to a similarly spec'd 1.67 Centrino equipped PC Laptop?

Quite a bit slower.

This could be my imagination, but I believe that Mac compatible applications take up less space on a HD and in the computer RAM. Is this (very appreciated) quality going to disappear?

Uh, I don't think there's any notable difference.

As far as all the enthusiasm around these upcoming releases, I would like to say this: I have been using G3, G4, Pentium and AMD PCs for the last 6 years. I have not owned/used a single Mac that did not feel perfect, reliable, smooth, rock solid, hiccup free machine. As a teacher, I wish I could say the same about the PCs. So, these great Pentium PCs are the most unreliable and annoying machines in the world. You are probably ready to jump and say that it's because of Windows. Well, I am not so sure Billy is the only one to blame. We'll see what happens.

Macs will still be Macs, that will not change. The CPU might be different, but it will still be a Mac.

And we can all say CIAO to RISC and AltiVec. Isn't that great?

For the most part, RISC and Altivec were just buzzwords that were thrown around. Your computing-experience is not magically better because the CPU you use is a RISC CPU. And for all intents and purposes, modern x86-CPU's ARE RISC-CPU's. As to Altivec... Well, Intel has SSE, SSE2 and SSE3, so it's not that bad.

What differences will you notice when using Macintel? Well, it will be faster. It might consume less power and run cooler. That's about it. Are those BAD qualities in your book?

Evangelion

Aug 24, 2005, 09:42 AM

Thanks for generalizing.... :mad:

Do you dispute my claim? Yes, SOME people might still think that PPC is the best thing since sliced bread. But before the Intel-announcement, just about ALL mac-users thought that PPC rules, and x86 sucks. And now everyone (excluding few exceptions) is raving how x86 kicks ass and how they can't wait to get their hands on some "Intel Inside" Macs :).

Yes, that is a complete 180-degrees change in opinion. And the speed and totality of that change is downright humungous.

Yes, RDF is strong with Steve Jobs :).

shawnce

Aug 24, 2005, 09:53 AM

The G5 isn't a well-balanced system - it has very fast FSB's (21.6 GB/sec for the dual 2.7) connected to a 6.4 GB/sec memory system.
This first PM G5 was generally a well balanced system. The FSB bandwidth is generally inline with memory throughput and other data targets connected to the "north" bridge (including the other CPU). As CPU clock rate have increased to 2.7 I agree that things have grown a little unbalanced, at least on paper. I have not found a good test that shows the PPC970 running at 2.7GHz to be badly memory bandwidth starved (not factoring in other data sinks). In general it may be little of an issue and so Apple has decided not to bump things up much.

Keep in mind that the FSB of G5 is bidirectional so the bandwidth listed is divide between up and down. So for a 1GHz FSB (2GHz CPU) you get 4GB/s up and 4GB/s down (due to overhead you get around 80-90% of that maximum). On a 2.7GHz system you get 5.4 GB/s up and 5.4GB/s down. That is per CPU of course.

PowerMac G5 first generation...
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/PowerMacG5_Aug03/art/q37_01.gif

PowerMac G5 current generation...
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/Developer_Notes/Macintosh_CPUs-G5/PowerMacG5/Art/050378001703_01c.gif

More found on this page (http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Hardware/hardware2.html).

shawnce

Aug 24, 2005, 10:08 AM

Do you dispute my claim?
I dispute the "claim" that all have acted as you implied. I don't like generalizations.

For one I doubt many Mac users even know what CPU is in the system they buy... (based on relatives I would say less then 50%)

gio64

Aug 24, 2005, 10:20 AM

Ok, ok, I understand.
Steve Jobs (which makes more money than all of us put together 1000 times over) is a flippin' idiot. All these years he could have had this great system architecture, but as always idiots do, continued to use crap. Makes sense. It also makes sense that the switch came after having introduced a new chip just a couple of years back (when the switch would have been certainly more timely). I think you should all call him up and give him: a) some hints on how to make these new machines, b) some crap for all these years that he has made us use this garbage.

Finally, I see that nobody answered my last question.
If Apple makes PC...

BTW, I won't go back and argue about some statements that I saw (RISC being more instruction that x86... good one).

I just hope somebody figures how to use OS X on a regular PC, so I don't have to spend top dollars to buy just another PC with a pretty logo on it.

SiliconAddict

Aug 24, 2005, 11:02 AM

Do you dispute my claim? Yes, SOME people might still think that PPC is the best thing since sliced bread. But before the Intel-announcement, just about ALL mac-users thought that PPC rules, and x86 sucks. And now everyone (excluding few exceptions) is raving how x86 kicks ass and how they can't wait to get their hands on some "Intel Inside" Macs :).

Yes, that is a complete 180-degrees change in opinion. And the speed and totality of that change is downright humungous.

Yes, RDF is strong with Steve Jobs :).

Maybe its because in the past 5 years Pentium's have sucked booty in a big way. I'm sorry but the P4's the first and second iteration
sucked. ( When benchmarks prove that clock for clock the P3 kicked the snot out of the P4 something is smelly in Intelville.) Only now is Intel getting the P4 to be a somewhat OK chip with Prescott. It wasn't until the Pentium M came onto the scene that anything out of Intel really hit the sweet spot. Why do you think Apple will be waiting until 2007 to release some of their wares. Current desktop chips don't get the job done. The P4 with its netburst microarchitecture is NOT where Apple want to go with their wares. Who would want to go with a CPU that was designed around marketing which is the only real reason to have such insanly large pipelines. (e.g. You can ramp up the clocks on the chip.)
Review again what the next gen desktop line of chips is doing and compare it to the P4. Its like night and day. I do believe that the G3/4/5 all kicked the snot out of the Pentium at certain points in time. But as always Moto couldn't keep up or at the very least didn't want to dump the $$$ into R&D to keep up. Many things can be said about x86 but the biggest is that Intel vs. AMD keeps the market fresh. Well burp the tupperware Flo. Apple's about to get a kick in the pants in the freshness department and all I can say is WOOT!

Of course Apple users are going to go nuts now. What happens now if Apple releases updates in a more timely manner? It would be like The Simpsons episode where Mayor Quimby turned up the city's lights so it was day 24 hours a day. Drove all the animals insane. Apple users are use to mild to moderate updates. Slow and steady. I fear for Apple user's sanity if Apple updates their wares once every few months. :eek: I think a 10 step program will have to be started by Apple for people who can't take that their laptop is not the latest greatest 4 months after they get it. ;) J/King guys.

digitalbiker

Aug 24, 2005, 11:08 AM

I just hope somebody figures how to use OS X on a regular PC, so I don't have to spend top dollars to buy just another PC with a pretty logo on it.

I'm afraid this will be the principle attitude once Apple has migrated to Intel.

In the past, Apple had unique hardware, unique design, and unique OS.

After the switch, Mac users really will get to compare Apples to Apples, and Oranges to Oranges. The specs and hardware Apple sites for their latest Intel PB will be the same specs and hardware that Dell sites for it's Inspiron.

The principle difference will be price and OS. If the OS becomes available on x86 or people like the features of Vista near the same as Mac OSX, then the only difference will be price.

I'm sorry, I like Apple, but they will never be able to compete with Dell solely on price. I also don't think Mac fans will pay 30 to 40% more for a prettier package, logo, and form factor.

:confused:

AidenShaw

Aug 24, 2005, 11:11 AM

This first PM G5 was generally a well balanced system. The FSB bandwidth is generally inline with memory throughput and other data targets connected to the "north" bridge (including the other CPU)....
Thank you for a nice *system* view of how the components work together.

There's a lot of "FSB MHz myth" floating around these parts! :rolleyes:

BTW, I wonder if the Intel switch means the end of HyperTransport on Apple motherboards. My guess would be yes - it would be rather strange to glue an AMD HT Tunnel off the Intel chipset - especially since Intel is putting PCIe off the northbridge!

SiliconAddict

Aug 24, 2005, 11:16 AM

This first PM G5 was generally a well balanced system. The FSB bandwidth is generally inline with memory throughput and other data targets connected to the "north" bridge (including the other CPU). ...................Blah blah blah

It boils down to this. The G5 platform didn't expand in any meaningful way after the first itteration. This isn't new for Apple. The same thing happened to the G4. Apple has this wonderful ability to leave things hanging on the tech vine slowly withering. They pluck it literally moments before it spoils and really hurts the bottem line. (In the case of the G4 PowerMac I think it not only spoiled but really started to stink up the place but what recourse did Apple really have?) Apple really doesn't STAY at the cutting edge of tech. And please guys. Don't give me the same old line about what about fiber optic keyboards in the PowerBook or dual layer burners and such nonsense. Its no different then Ford adding bling bling hubcaps to last years Focus. In the end its the same old car warmed over. Now WHY this is the case. *shrugs* Who knows. It really doesn't matter at this point does it?

As for the person saying the G5 system isn't balanced. Wow. What are you huffing? The G5 had one of the most balanced systems out there with very few real bottle necks anywhere in the system. The G5 was a peice of art tech wise AFAIC. If only IBM and Apple could have continued to push the system. It really is too bad. Every time I look at the diagrams of the G5 I really think Apple and IBM did one heck of a fine job on that system.

shawnce

Aug 24, 2005, 11:48 AM

It boils down to this. The G5 platform didn't expand in any meaningful way after the first itteration. This isn't new for Apple.
Agreed (however I believe the next PM using PPC will bring things current-ish, god I hope!... please at least PCIe for video adapter).

Why it happens... well likely as long as things sell well enough from Apple's point-of-view why not ride the gravy train using an existing chip set as long as you can. It isn't cheap to develop chip sets and mother boards (chips set development and production startup is the larger cost, the biggest cost for Apple).

Now with the Intel switch I believe development/production of chip sets will be removed from the equation (at least to some extent). This will likely help accelerate Apple's revision rate (what they bump in a revision) but again it depends on sales and costs.

Personally that is why I usually buy the first generation systems (possibly waiting for the first revision) of any new architecture from Apple since it likely bring up close to parity in the market and you can ride that system for at least a couple years until the next major overhaul since often the interim releases don't track the current tech in market well.

Again the Intel switch will likely change this some... which is a good thing. :)

The G5 was a peice of art tech wise AFAIC
Agree. It was one of the better overall system designs at the time and one of the best Apple has ever released IMHO (putting EE hat on).

Platform

Aug 24, 2005, 12:33 PM

Oh I can't wait for Apple to get this going..........c'mon........speed things up a little "excuse the pun" :D

gio64

Aug 24, 2005, 12:38 PM

shawnce

Aug 24, 2005, 12:43 PM

I don't know if this is old/off topic, but those Steve Balmer videos are all you need to convince yourself that a Mac is better than a Windoze PC.
Thanks for making them readily available, they are empowering.
How can anything good come from a company that has guys like that running the show?
LOL they are scary aren't they ;)

(think the remix one is the best)

Like Chris Farley (while on drugs and still alive...) running your multibillion dollar company. :p

MarkCollette

Aug 24, 2005, 01:53 PM

Why would anyone get a Yonah-based laptop in 1H'06 with Merom on the way a few months later in 2H'06? This is going to be very interesting!

How else could Apple cripple the iBook and mini?

MarkCollette

Aug 24, 2005, 01:55 PM

djeddiebear

Aug 24, 2005, 02:49 PM

I agree. I'm hoping for a decent upgrade to the PowerBook in Paris. Hopefully the display, gpu, fsb, and cpu will all get a decent bump. That will be "THE" PB to own while this whole Intel transition takes place. Next worthwhile investment will be the 2nd gen Merom PB. By that time, hopefully Leopard will take advantage of x86 fully and native Pro apps will be readily available. :D

I, for one, am not in the least interested in a Yonah PB. It will be too expensive, too hot for a real thin PB enclosure, and not have any native app support. :(

That's exactly how I feel about the Paris Expo and about the PowerBook all together. I hope we are right. :)

Ghibli

Aug 24, 2005, 03:07 PM

I also don't think Mac fans will pay 30 to 40% more for a prettier package, logo, and form factor.

Many said this about the iPod, when it came out some years ago...

MarkCollette

Aug 24, 2005, 05:12 PM

Oh, and it's G5s (plural), not G5's (possessive). :p :cool:

Unless he's just venting his anger at the retarded elipses, which the G5 possesses... ;)

Oh wait, that's still not funny :o

Hattig

Aug 24, 2005, 05:17 PM

FIVE watts??? That's crazy! If that thing's as fast or faster than the current G4 offerings, that is quite a leap in terms of design...

Now we just wait and see if Intel can deliver.

It has probably been pointed out already, but Merom is a 35W processor, not a 5W processor.

However its typical power consumption is 3-5W or thereabouts. I think the current Pentium M has an average power consumption of around 10W and it idles at 5W whilst the TDP is 21W or 27W depending on the speed and FSB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M

Note that the AMD Turion is a 25W processor at 2.2GHz at the high end, but probably also has an average power consumption of around 10W. AMD will be releasing dual-core Turion processors next year too.

shamino

Aug 24, 2005, 05:37 PM

They are not based off of the P4, they are based off of the x86 architecture, which encompasses the P4, centrino, yonah, Merom, AMD, optron… whatever...
You need to read what you reply to before firing off knee-jerk reactions.

The developer kits absolutely have P4 chips in them. Photos have been published. The Apple System Profiler (and Windows, when installed on those boxes) report a 3GHz Pentium 4.

If you think all these sources are lying, then please post your proof.

And as I said, we know nothing about what the commercially shipping systems will be based on.
Intel is dropping the P4, so why would apple pick up a derivative of it? P4 is just what's around now, but it will not - NOT - go in to macs. Intel is phasing that design out.
Your statements might be true. But unless you're privy to inside information (that you would be contractually forbidden from disclosing), your absolute assertion is simply wrong. You don't know any more than the rest of us.

And one more thing - P4 is a brand name, not an architecture.

Intel is moving away from the NetBurst architecture. Merom, Yonah, and the rest are internal code names. When they ship in various packages, they will almost certainly be called "Pentium 4", "Pentium-M" and "Xeon". (Unless they decide to start calling them "Pentium 5", but so far, there's no rumor of that.)

pjkelnhofer

Aug 24, 2005, 05:41 PM

I'm afraid this will be the principle attitude once Apple has migrated to Intel.

In the past, Apple had unique hardware, unique design, and unique OS.

After the switch, Mac users really will get to compare Apples to Apples, and Oranges to Oranges. The specs and hardware Apple sites for their latest Intel PB will be the same specs and hardware that Dell sites for it's Inspiron.

The principle difference will be price and OS. If the OS becomes available on x86 or people like the features of Vista near the same as Mac OSX, then the only difference will be price.

I'm sorry, I like Apple, but they will never be able to compete with Dell solely on price. I also don't think Mac fans will pay 30 to 40% more for a prettier package, logo, and form factor.

:confused:

They will still have unique hardware, unique design, and unique OS.

I think most Mac users bought them because of the OS and the applications it supported. The actual chips inside the box were not important. All that time Mac fans paid more for a prettier package, logo and form factor because of the OS not the processor inside.

If people like Vista more (and the applications that it supports) they are going to continue buying non-Apple hardware whether Macs have PPC or Pentium inside them.

shamino

Aug 24, 2005, 05:48 PM

Just because a 3 GHz chip is slightly faster than a different architecture 2 GHz chip, doesn't mean that it is a better processor.
Depends on what you mean "better" for.

If you're talking about whose architecture is more efficient, then you have a point. If you're talking about what will render my video faster, then you're flat out wrong.

The most efficient architecture in the world is useless if it can't also scale up to clock speeds high enough to run applications at their proper speeds. And when your applications involve audio/video work, the "proper speed" is "as fast as possible".
...And it did that without taking advantage of the 64 bit ability.
64-bit computing has nothing to do with performance. And it never did.
It would be interesting to see what the G5 chips will be capable of by the time we get all these yonah and Prescott (or whatever they're called) in the Mac.
Assuming, of course, IBM gets off its duff and actually bothers to ship a processor with similar clock speeds.

The theoretical capability of an architecture is meaningless if they won't actually make chips that live up to the claims.
Here is a question for those that have time to check this out: how much slower is a 1.67 Powerbook G4 compared to a similarly spec'd 1.67 Centrino equipped PC Laptop?
Aside from theoretical curiosity, why should anybody care?

The question of interest to consumers is "how much faster/slower is a $1500 Powerbook compared to a similarly priced PC laptop".

Consumers care about performance per dollar, not performance per clock cycle.
As far as all the enthusiasm around these upcoming releases, I would like to say this: I have been using G3, G4, Pentium and AMD PCs for the last 6 years. I have not owned/used a single Mac that did not feel perfect, reliable, smooth, rock solid, hiccup free machine.
And this has what to do with the choice of processor?

Do you seriously think that Apple's software will suddenly become buggy, crashing and virus-laden simply as a result of recompiling the code for x86?

Whatever you may think about the chip, it still executes the code it is given. The x86 architecture doesn't go executing random instructions when you try to run well-written code on it.

shamino

Aug 24, 2005, 05:52 PM

I disagree, if you're looking at speed you should compare the fastest chip from each manufacturer. The fastest Opteron against the fastest Xeon, the fastest Turion against the fastest Pentium M.
Depends on what your goal is. If you're trying to see who has made the fastest chips, yes.

If you're a consumer deciding what to buy, or a system integrator deciding what to build, no.

Price is a critical part of any purchasing decision, whether by consumer or manufacturer. If my chip performs at 90% of the speed of your chip, but costs 50% less, whose is "better"? (This, FWIW, is the core of most Intel-vs-AMD debates.)

Hattig

Aug 24, 2005, 05:57 PM

Hi, I'm a new Mac user and forgive my naiveness. The best thing so far I love about my Powerbook is when I wake it up from its sleep, it responds really quick. Will it be the same with the Intel based processors? :confused: Thanks in Advance
If it is a software issue, it'll be about the same. Considering my iBook is ready to use but the time I've moved my hand back down from opening the lid, there isn't going to be any benefit to faster speeds. Certainly you won't notice it, ignore the sheeple 'omg jobs is god, now Intel is god and G5 is teh suxs' people*.

If it is hardware, then pray that Intel have sorted their stuff out, because I've had no end of crap from x86 based notebooks and sleep.

* I'm really unimpressed with the ability to think of some of the people who have posted in this thread. Suddenly x86 is god and G5 sucks, etc etc. That's a load of crap. The Apple system controller for the G5 sucks, that's about it. Altivec will still beat out whatever floating point capabilities these new processors have. I think Jobs has been suckered by Intel personally, and will get a solution that is roughly the same, power-wise, as staying with PowerPC. Some applications will benefit, others will lose. Until Merom is out, a 7448 is a better choice than a Pentium-M in terms of power consumption, and a G5 is reasonable, and would be great with a better system controller. I'd like to see how a 65nm dual-core 8641D compares against Yonah or Merom as well, but I guess we will never find out. I don't think it will be a step back necessarily, I just don't think it is as amazing a move as people here think it is. It isn't as if Intel is a master of delivering on time either - where're the 5GHz+ Pentium 4s? I hope Jobs isn't doing this out of some personal vendetta against IBM...

shamino

Aug 24, 2005, 05:57 PM

Steve Jobs (which makes more money than all of us put together 1000 times over) is a flippin' idiot.
My, you're incredibly angry about this. Perhaps you should have your bipolar medication adjusted.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe Jobs was telling the truth when he said why he decided to transition Apple to x86? Because IBM was not able to sell them 3GHz processors and Intel's power-consumption roadmap looks better than IBM's?

Has it ever occurred to you that products and companies change? Or that the company previously making the best chips is no longer?
I just hope somebody figures how to use OS X on a regular PC, so I don't have to spend top dollars to buy just another PC with a pretty logo on it.
Why don't you wait and see what Apple's x86 systems actually have in them, what they cost, and how they perform before you go on making statements like these. You don't accomplish anything except sound like someone who enjoys getting angry in public for no good reason.

jouster

Aug 24, 2005, 08:08 PM

FANTASTIC,

wondering if the powerbooks will have, specially made processors exclusive for apple.

It's surprising how often this is asked. It seems to show something of a misunderstanding of the point of this switch. Two important considerations show that it won't happen:

- Apple wants to benefit from the economy of scale savings that come with buying an off the peg processor that PC manufacturers buy in spades.

- Apple wants to avoid being marginalized by specially designed processors that have a relatively small market and provide few financial incentives for further development.

pubwvj

Aug 24, 2005, 08:15 PM

Hi, I'm a new Mac user and forgive my naiveness. The best thing so far I love about my Powerbook is when I wake it up from its sleep, it responds really quick. Will it be the same with the Intel based processors? :confused: Thanks in Advance

That's not really a processor issue. It is more an issue of the OS and support hardware, but primarily the OS.

What is most interesting is how power conservation is done. The processor could be run at many speeds: Full power for when plugged in, 50%, 25%, 12%, etc. Then halt for sleeping. This can be accentuated with good programming and OS by slowing down and speeding up the processor based on demand. Furthermore, individual parts of the processor and parts of the supporting hardware can be put to sleep when not needed and then brought back on line when needed. This saves power and reduces heat. Lastly, by having dual- and quad-, etc core processors you can accentuate this even further. This means devices that can last a long time on battery doing low power tasks (e.g., word processing, email, etc) as well as doing great at processor intensive tasks when the power is available (e.g., gaming, simulations, and er, work like in Photoshop. :) ).

All of this is possible with Intel or PPC.

The thing that is sad about the switch to Intel is Apple is dropping support for legacy software that runs under Classic. There is still a huge amount of software and related data that only runs under Classic and which will never be updated by the developers who nolonger exist or care.

AidenShaw

Aug 24, 2005, 08:33 PM

Depends on what your goal is. If you're trying to see who has made the fastest chips, yes.

If you're a consumer deciding what to buy, or a system integrator deciding what to build, no.

Price is a critical part of any purchasing decision, whether by consumer or manufacturer. If my chip performs at 90% of the speed of your chip, but costs 50% less, whose is "better"? (This, FWIW, is the core of most Intel-vs-AMD debates.)
I agree completely.

Comparing performance per euro, or performance per watt, or absolute top performance, is perfectly reasonable.

Note, however, that the post that I was replying to (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1686930&postcount=128) said:

If you want to compare processors and their architectures, you should do so comparing equal or similar MHz ratings and moreover, close-in-time releases.
I still disagree with that position.

~Shard~

Aug 24, 2005, 09:18 PM

Unless he's just venting his anger at the retarded elipses, which the G5 possesses... ;)

Oh wait, that's still not funny :o

My point exactly. ;)

Evangelion

Aug 25, 2005, 02:34 AM

Maybe its because in the past 5 years Pentium's have sucked booty in a big way. I'm sorry but the P4's the first and second iteration sucked.

I didn't talk about Pentium, I talked about x86. There has been kick-ass x86-CPU's in the past 5 years.

Who would want to go with a CPU that was designed around marketing which is the only real reason to have such insanly large pipelines. (e.g. You can ramp up the clocks on the chip.)

Where exactly have I been talking about Pentiums? Yes, P4 sucks. Xeon sucks. But that doesn't mean that x86 sucked. AMD had very very good chips out there.

I do believe that the G3/4/5 all kicked the snot out of the Pentium at certain points in time.

FYI: there are other CPU's besides Pentiums out there.

Evangelion

Aug 25, 2005, 02:47 AM

The G5 had one of the most balanced systems out there with very few real bottle necks anywhere in the system. The G5 was a peice of art tech wise AFAIC.

Well, no. It was good, but it wasn't THAT great. Clock-for-clock G4 was faster, and G4 had a better Altivec-unit. And G5 had longer pipeline, making it resemble P4 more. True, G4 was crippled by the FSB, but that has been fixed in the later versions.

Yes, G5 has a fast FSB. But what for? If you want to look at really well-designed and balaced system, I suggest that you look at K8. It has fast FSB. And that FSB is 100% dedicated to serving PCI, PCI-E, AGP, IDE, USB and the like. Each CPU has a dedicated memory-bus, increasing bandwidth and lowering latencies. Add more CPU's to the system, and the memory-bandwidth doubles.

And thanks to having intergated memory-controller, the northbridges are really simple and straighforward. Designing the motherboards is very easy when compared to other system (memory-routing is easier on A64/Opteron-systems).

And in addition, the CPU runs cool. No need for liquid cooling ;).

truly, with K8 AMD "Did Things Right" (tm)

heisetax

Aug 25, 2005, 09:20 AM

Dang... I was we could have this chips right now in our Macs... I cant wait! This is the best thing thats ever gonna happen to Apple!! (besides the iMac) :D

Since the chips havn't been made yet we may see Steve Jobs outsold by Intel. I would be more apt to trust Steve Jobs if he was a Computer Engineer rather than a salesman.

It will be 2 years or so before the PowerBook/PowerMac is to be changed to Intel. That is without counting any delays in production. We won't be able to compare Intel with the PPC as both Motorola & now IBM has found that it is easier, more fun & probably more profitable to work in the embedded processor area rather than make a cpu that is only used by Apple. Remember the PPC started as a joint effort between IBM, Motorola & Apple.

It is still too soon to accept the idea of having Intel cpus in the Mac. It will be 2007 before there will even be a product in the PowerMac line. So any comparison can only really begin at that time. At present I believe that my computer system can wait until 2015 to be replaced. I will not use the term upgraded until there is actual products that are shipping. Then we';ll see their real speed & usability compared to the PPC.

There's one person on these web sites that uses the quote, "Intel inside not a mark of excellence, but a warning label." That could have begun from an AMD supporter just as well as a Mac supporter. In the future it will only be AMD supporters & die-hard Motorola/IBM processor supporters. This will divide the Mac market for a while. We won't be able to say, "Think different, buy a Mac." They'll just be another Intel machine.

Bring on the Intel-Mac clones whether they're authorized or not. And Steve Jobs will not authorize any. He doesn't want us to open our Macs, just like when the first Mac 128 came out in 1984. It wasn't long before the Macs were opened to be upgraded by third parties. Remember that this voided your warranty. My 17" PowerBook is not designed to be easilly taken apart & needed to change items like the hard drive be done without doing some damage easilly. I use to change my hard drive at least once a year. In that way I always had my first line unit fresh, i.e. no worn-out hard drives, & have a drive that has a back-up system on it. I now have 5 extra 2.5" hard drives all ready & capable to run my 1.67 GHz 17" PowerBook. They just are used as externals now.We'll see how long this PowerBook lasts. Until this one I ran my PowerBook 20+ hours a day 7 days a week. They have all held up very well. Will the Intel Macs hold up as well as the Motorola & IBM Macs have in the past? Or we start having Macs that fail on a regular basis as many Intels units are reported to do. Or was this just a salesman talking about the competition. My wife's company uses only Gateway computers & they don't seem to have any units that stop working or break down. It may only be 100-150 units.

Buy your PPC Mac while you have a chance then you can easilly wait until 2009 or later to need a replacement. By that time the bugs should be basically out & there may even be some Clones out there that are like the Mac Clones of old, they worked better, cost less & were available on a more timely manner.

To me Intel is just like Microsoft, a bad word that should not be spoken. Will this prove to be a 3 strikes & you're out deal though. First Motorola was basically given their wa;king papers, then IBM is to be next, & finally Intel. We still don't know if the Intal Mac will work as advertised. Will the speeds be as fast as the current PPCs in the PowerMac. Most information seems to say no. Will it be able to do as much work or more work than the current PPC Mac. They say it will, but remember they are comparing a product that is at least 2 years off with one that is shipping now. Two years is a long time when you're talking about computers. Since I have no plans to purchase any more new software, my hardware will be able to keep operating until the end of it's electronic life. The purchase of new software is why many of us have to purchase a new computer.

Bill the TaxMan

shawnce

Aug 25, 2005, 10:13 AM

And that FSB is 100% dedicated to serving PCI, PCI-E, AGP, IDE, USB and the like.

Yes but DMA is usually used for those types of things so IO flow usually goes from memory to the devices directly. In the case of the G5 the U3 (and U3H) acts as a crossbar switch with DMA programability (and DART remapping). So data flowing from memory to AGP doesn't involve the CPU buses at all, just the memory bus and AGP bus. This is the same for K8 except the memory controller lives on die with the CPU cores. So your point above isn't really a win.

Also look at the size of the U3 (U3H). It is rather large, why? Well it has a rather capable cross bar like implementation allowing many to many communication to be taking place.

The K8 on the other hand has a limited transistor budget because they also have to fit the CPU cores on the same die. So the implementation of the interconnect isn't as capable.

Finally the K8 is tied to a given memory bus technology and a limited range of data rates. You have to spin the K8 to change memory technology. (FB-DIMM may change that)

Also adding more K8 CPUs requires either fancier multi-ported RAM and related management or separate RAM banks, one per CPU with the use HT to share data from banks among CPUs.

The K8 has low latencies and generally good bandwidth characteristics thanks to the location of the memory controller but as you see above drawbacks exist.

It isn't always a WIN WIN type of situation, each has strengths and weaknesses.

It comes down to how you want to spend you transistor budget for CPU dies: more compute units, more cache, more OOE management, etc. or more system on chip type of thing.

Freescale is taking system on chip thing to an extreme with the MPC8641/D (http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?nodeId=0162468rH3bTdG7249).

shamino

Aug 25, 2005, 10:50 AM

Note, however, that the post that I was replying to (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=1686930&postcount=128) said:
If you want to compare processors and their architectures, you should do so comparing equal or similar MHz ratings and moreover, close-in-time releases.
I still disagree with that position.
I would tend to agree with you. It's not a useless comparison, but it does not reveal any facts that consumers will care about.

Performance-per-clock is a measure of efficiency. It says things about the architecture and hints at peak performance levels, if the manufacturer can make the chips with clocks just as fast (or faster) than the competition. But as far as a user is concerned, it doesn't matter. Efficiency alone won't make videos render faster or games play better.

shamino

Aug 25, 2005, 10:54 AM

... IBM has found that it is easier, more fun & probably more profitable to work in the embedded processor area rather than make a cpu that is only used by Apple. Remember the PPC started as a joint effort between IBM, Motorola & Apple.
Don't forget that IBM's POWER chips (based on the same architecture as PPC) are being used extensively in their big-iron.

You're right that they're not interested in customizing a roadmap for Apple, but they aren't dedicating themselves solely to embedded apps either.

willyjsimmons

Aug 25, 2005, 10:56 AM

For the 1000th time, Celeron is just a name for Intel's lower end CPUs.

Usually running at the lower FSB speed. Which is currently 533.
And with a smaller cache L1/L2 cache.

Their clock speeds overlap with regular P4s at the low end, 2-2.4ghz.

And they are non Hyper-Threading.

Also, don't expect an intel ibook or powerbook until Q3 2006 at least.

But a Dual-Core/64 bit, low end Power Mac is a real possibility.

The chips are already available.

Or even a Dual - Dual-Core. With Hyper-Threading at the high end.

Think about that.

2 x 2 x 2.

sjk

Aug 25, 2005, 01:13 PM

If people like Vista more (and the applications that it supports) they are going to continue buying non-Apple hardware whether Macs have PPC or Pentium inside them.Not necessarily. New buyers may be attracted to Intel Macs if they're capable of running Windows (and Linux) in addition to OS X and competitively priced compared with the alternatives. That could end up being part of Apple's future marketing strategy for selling their computers. Why buy a Dell that only runs Windows (and Linux) when you can buy a Mac that runs those OSs and OS X? :) If future Intel Macs do indeed have that kind of multi-OS support it's one reason I doubt Apple will license OS X for Intel to other vendors, at least not immediately. If hardware sales turn unprofitable then they'd have more reason to consider licensing OS X but otherwise it doesn't make much sense (to me) for them to do it and risk killing their own profitable computer business.

Sorry for any redundant speculation. I haven't kept up with every post in this thread.

dglsmhn

Aug 25, 2005, 02:12 PM

...which means there is a good chance we will see an intel PowerBook at MacWorld SF...

http://news.com.com/2061-10791_3-5842839.html?part=rss&tag=5842839&subj=news

shawnce

Aug 25, 2005, 02:23 PM

...which means there is a good chance we will see an intel PowerBook at MacWorld SF...

http://news.com.com/2061-10791_3-5842839.html?part=rss&tag=5842839&subj=news

...or an Mac mini, eMac, even possibly iMac.

VicMacs

Aug 25, 2005, 02:56 PM

...or an Mac mini, eMac, even possibly iMac.

here dies the powerbook G5 :(

Ghibli

Aug 25, 2005, 04:04 PM

here dies the powerbook G5 :(

Hmmmm, I tought it was dead a LOOOOOOOng time ago...

~Shard~

Aug 25, 2005, 04:15 PM

here dies the powerbook G5 :(

It was alive to begin with? :p :cool:

shamino

Aug 25, 2005, 04:52 PM

Not necessarily. New buyers may be attracted to Intel Macs if they're capable of running Windows (and Linux) in addition to OS X and competitively priced compared with the alternatives.
I've written about this several times before.

Dual-booting should be possible. Assuming that Windows itself runs on the box (it does on the developer models), a boot loader shouldn't be a difficult thing to develop. I wouldn't be at all susprised to see a port of GRUB (http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/) for the platform.

As for whether this ability will affect the market any, I have strong doubts. I have used dual-booting systems many times in the past. I've older Macs that can boot two different Mac OS's (an SE that can boot 6.0.8 or 7.5.5 and a Quadra that can boot 7.6.1 or 8.1), and several different dual-boot PC's (a 486 that boots DOS, Win95 or Linux, a dual-PPro that boots DOS, Linux or Win2K).

It's been my experience that it is just too much of a pain to work this way. Every time you need to switch OS, you must quit all your apps, do a full shutdown, and then reboot. After a short while, you get tired of all this and you pick one OS to work with and ignore the others.

Back in the days of DOS and Mac OS 6, it was different. You tended to reboot quite a lot anyway, so switching OS's was only slightly more annoying than switching apps. But today, when people typically leave systems running for weeks at a time without rebooting, it's no longer something you want to do a lot.

IMO, if Apple started marketing Macs as dual-boot systems, the market will split into two groups. Those who run Mac OS all the time, and those that run Windows all the time. Those in the first category won't care about dual booting. Those in the second category will ask themselves why they bothered buying a Mac in the first place when they could've spent the same (or less) on a PC designed for Windows.

IMO, the best way to give customers the best of both worlds is to give/sell them Virtual PC or some equivalent. When the different apps can all run at once, you will use them all.

sjk

Aug 25, 2005, 06:32 PM

I've written about this several times before.I never doubted someone hadn't and even apologized for any redundancy... I can only read so many posts in a day. :)

As for whether this ability will affect the market any, I have strong doubts. [...]

It's been my experience that it is just too much of a pain to work this way. Every time you need to switch OS, you must quit all your apps, do a full shutdown, and then reboot. After a short while, you get tired of all this and you pick one OS to work with and ignore the others.Same conclusion here with my brief dual-booting experience.

What could make it more tolerable is a system suspend/resume capability, like hibernation on Windows or sys-suspend on Solaris. There are other useful reasons for having that feature, like saving/restoring your environment when moving your Mac mini or iMac to another room. Once I ran sys-suspend on a Solaris system, moved it to my new house, and booted it back to where it had been... it even reconnected to the internet audio stream I'd left playing. :)

IMO, if Apple started marketing Macs as dual-boot systems, the market will split into two groups. Those who run Mac OS all the time, and those that run Windows all the time. Those in the first category won't care about dual booting. Those in the second category will ask themselves why they bothered buying a Mac in the first place when they could've spent the same (or less) on a PC designed for Windows.Maybe.

I'd think certain business and schools that want to run both OS X and Windows might find advantage to using the same systems for both. Apple could sweeten the deal for those buyers.

IMO, the best way to give customers the best of both worlds is to give/sell them Virtual PC or some equivalent. When the different apps can all run at once, you will use them all.That would be ideal for some of us even if it's messy from a usability perspective (which nagromme pointed out in some other thread).

Ghibli

Aug 25, 2005, 06:34 PM

IMO, if Apple started marketing Macs as dual-boot systems, the market will split into two groups. Those who run Mac OS all the time, and those that run Windows all the time. Those in the first category won't care about dual booting. Those in the second category will ask themselves why they bothered buying a Mac in the first place when they could've spent the same (or less) on a PC designed for Windows.

IMO, the best way to give customers the best of both worlds is to give/sell them Virtual PC or some equivalent. When the different apps can all run at once, you will use them all.

I'm with you for this one, but I think that there will be some interesting possibilities: just imagine running Windoz apps INSIDE Mac OSX.. seems weird? maybe not. See

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2005-08-11/

and

http://www.codeweavers.com/about/general/press/?id=20050809

Probably there could be some slowness deriving from the emulation, but this should be a one-shot just when you just do not have a mac equivalent ready.

I think it sounds promising.

VicMacs

Aug 25, 2005, 08:22 PM

It was alive to begin with? :p :cool:

so it's NOT coming?
:o :D

digitalbiker

Aug 25, 2005, 09:12 PM

here dies the powerbook G5 :(

Not really. Most people who think that a G5 PB may materialize in Paris, also believe that the first Intel based PB will use the Merom chip which won't be released until late 2006.

The January release of the Yonah processor has been well known for awhile now but I think many feel it would be better suited for the Mac Mini at MW 2006. ;)

~Shard~

Aug 25, 2005, 11:47 PM

so it's NOT coming?
:o :D

Sorry to kill the dream... :cool:

Lacero

Aug 25, 2005, 11:49 PM

here dies the powerbook G5 :(I wonder what's gonna happen to this guy?

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8304

~Shard~

Aug 26, 2005, 12:14 AM

I wonder what's gonna happen to this guy?

Ah yes, PowerMac G5 - I haven't seen him around much anymore, and he hasn't posted since June I believe. Perhaps all this Intel news has made him distraught and he is contemplating a name change. ;) Wherever he is, I wish him well. :cool:

Evangelion

Aug 26, 2005, 03:12 AM

Yes but DMA is usually used for those types of things so IO flow usually goes from memory to the devices directly. In the case of the G5 the U3 (and U3H) acts as a crossbar switch with DMA programability (and DART remapping). So data flowing from memory to AGP doesn't involve the CPU buses at all, just the memory bus and AGP bus. This is the same for K8 except the memory controller lives on die with the CPU cores. So your point above isn't really a win.

I know that AGP's etc. mem-access doesn't use the FSB. But CPU's mem-access does. And not only does it eat in to the FSB, it has to go through a detour. In Pentium, G4, G5 and the like, the CPU's access to the RAM first goes to the northbridge, then it goes to the RAM. Then it returns to the northbridge, and it then goes back to the CPU. That is slow. In K8 it goes straight to the RAM, eliminating that detour. So there is an advantage, a clear one

The K8 on the other hand has a limited transistor budget because they also have to fit the CPU cores on the same die. So the implementation of the interconnect isn't as capable.

What makes you think that? The interconnect is HyperTransport on both. And many of the stuff traditional northbridges to, are still done by the northbridge in K8-systems. K8-northbridge is just simpler because it doesn't have to handle RAM-access, since that is handled by the integrated mem-controller on the CPU.

Finally the K8 is tied to a given memory bus technology and a limited range of data rates. You have to spin the K8 to change memory technology. (FB-DIMM may change that)

That's not really a problem. There are no real valid alternatives to DDR right now that would offer significantly better performance. DDR2 offers more bandwidth, true, but it has higher latencies. And DDR-RAM is still widely available, so AMD is not handicapped because they focus on DDR. And you CAN use faster RAM than AMD has specced on the K8. Many people overclock their RAM.

Also adding more K8 CPUs requires either fancier multi-ported RAM and related management or separate RAM banks, one per CPU with the use HT to share data from banks among CPUs.

Each CPU usually has a RAM-bank of it's own. So the bandwidht doubles with each CPU (altough in some cases there is only one RAM-bank), but latency increases a bit.

The K8 has low latencies and generally good bandwidth characteristics thanks to the location of the memory controller but as you see above drawbacks exist.

There are some drawbacks. But those drawbacks are mostly theoretical, and I would say that the positives clearly outweight the negatives. People were worried that they have to replace their CPU's if they want to use different RAM. True, but is that REALLY a problem? People don't seem to be lusting after DDR2, they are doing fine with regular DDR.

hjhhjh

Aug 26, 2005, 09:20 AM

why was conroe running on linux , while all the others were using a form of windows. does this mean it wont work on windows? possibly windows will use the pentium line continued , while apple use conroe , what u think?

rickag

Aug 26, 2005, 11:39 AM

Err

Aug 26, 2005, 12:06 PM

I for one welcome our new Intel overlord

now maybe ported apps wont be such a joke, with macs userbase growing rapidly maybe some forword thinking developers will drop direct x and support openGL making porting apps to mac simple, things like Doom3 benchmarks on dual G5's hurt, thats our pride and joy, and mid level win boxs eat it up in gaming. I think the switch to intel coupled with a slew of bad hype around windows vista could turn the tides....... IMHO

disclamer - written under the influence of redbull, which tastes..... bad...

madmaxmedia

Aug 26, 2005, 02:19 PM

Apple has this wonderful ability to leave things hanging on the tech vine slowly withering. They pluck it literally moments before it spoils and really hurts the bottem line.

Like the current PowerBooks...I own one and love it, but when they finally come out with a upgraded CPU PowerBook they will definitely make hay for a few quarters. It feels like 3 out of every 10 MR forum posters are still using their TiBooks waiting for a G5 (now Intel) PowerBook.

lightsout

Aug 26, 2005, 02:44 PM

64-bit computing has nothing to do with performance. And it never did.

For PPC, SPARC, etc. Sure, it doesn't as the processors behave the same way.

For x86, it isn't the case. More registers, you can assume the processor has SSE2 (MMX, SSE1, etc) at least rather than making it i386 compatabile, the memory space is flat, etc.

I've got an Opteron box at work which speeds-up 25% when running the x86-64 binary over the i386 binary.

heisetax

Aug 28, 2005, 02:51 AM

If it is a software issue, it'll be about the same. Considering my iBook is ready to use but the time I've moved my hand back down from opening the lid, there isn't going to be any benefit to faster speeds. Certainly you won't notice it, ignore the sheeple 'omg jobs is god, now Intel is god and G5 is teh suxs' people*.

If it is hardware, then pray that Intel have sorted their stuff out, because I've had no end of crap from x86 based notebooks and sleep.

* I'm really unimpressed with the ability to think of some of the people who have posted in this thread. Suddenly x86 is god and G5 sucks, etc etc. That's a load of crap. The Apple system controller for the G5 sucks, that's about it. Altivec will still beat out whatever floating point capabilities these new processors have. I think Jobs has been suckered by Intel personally, and will get a solution that is roughly the same, power-wise, as staying with PowerPC. Some applications will benefit, others will lose. Until Merom is out, a 7448 is a better choice than a Pentium-M in terms of power consumption, and a G5 is reasonable, and would be great with a better system controller. I'd like to see how a 65nm dual-core 8641D compares against Yonah or Merom as well, but I guess we will never find out. I don't think it will be a step back necessarily, I just don't think it is as amazing a move as people here think it is. It isn't as if Intel is a master of delivering on time either - where're the 5GHz+ Pentium 4s? I hope Jobs isn't doing this out of some personal vendetta against IBM...

Jobs can act like a baby with companies that do not do exactly what he wants. Remember the lact of ATI video cards from Macs for some time after they talked about a possible new Mac just hours before Steve Jobs did. IBM made him look bad when they could not ship a 3 GHz G5 when Steve had promised.

Just remeber that Steve Jobs is a salsman, not a computer engineer. Because he is such a good salesman piople be him when they really shouldn't. It will take a few years before I will be able to begin to believe in an Intel Mac. Noting said yet means anything as it will be a couple of years before there will be an Intel Mac that I would think about purchasing. Then it would be another year or two bfore there was a track history to know whether the Intel Macs will work as promised.

As far as hardware goes.Apple will loose some sales as people wait to purchase an Intel Mac as they don't want to have an architecture that Apple has quit using. Those that don't trust Steve & want to insure that their future Mac experience is as nice as it has been will purchase the current Macs. But these people will not replace these Macs for a long time.

A lot of what goes on because so many Macs supporters believe that Steve Jobs is a god. Thus they willbelieve that the formaerly best PPC is now inferior to the formerly worst Intel processor.

I wonder how long, if ever before we see a 3 GHz Mac. Remeber that the Pentium M comes in 1.6 & 2.1 Hz ranges. They are advertising the new models to not being as fast with clock speeds as before, but doing more work than the faster clock speed models do. This seems like what we have been told of the PPC in the past. Steve will keep the same ads as before, only he will change Intel rather than IBM & x8l rather than PPC. We'll be told that he was promised 3 GHz, but because of greater than expected problems with going to the 65nm chipe size, clock speeds are actually slower than before, thus we will have to wait until 2010 for a 3 GHz model.

It will be the same story, just different names to learn.

Bill the TaxMan

deejemon

Aug 28, 2005, 09:24 AM

JFreak

Aug 28, 2005, 11:24 AM

Many people overclock their RAM.

yes. and even more people don't know how much heat those overclocked ram modules generate...

chaos86

Aug 28, 2005, 02:00 PM

yes. and even more people don't know how much heat those overclocked ram modules generate...

and even more still of those people dont realize how much jeopardy they are putting their hundreds or even thousands of dollars worth of equipment in order to get an extra 5 FPS in WoW.

newsflash: overclocking gives you very little in return for the time, effort, and potentially dollars in replacement parts.

madmaxmedia

Aug 28, 2005, 04:52 PM

I think Jobs has been suckered by Intel personally, and will get a solution that is roughly the same, power-wise, as staying with PowerPC.

Well, you'd think that Jobs and the best Apple engineers did do their homework on this, considering the ramifications. How likely is it that MR posters have more foresight into Intel's and IBM's upcoming CPU's than Apple?

That being said, no one knows exactly what will happen for sure (including Apple.)

On the desktop side, I cam imagine Intel and IBM being actually relatively close in performance. But where would Apple go with their PowerBook? 3 more 167MHz speed bumps in the next 2 years?

VanNess

Aug 28, 2005, 06:10 PM

Not necessarily. New buyers may be attracted to Intel Macs if they're capable of running Windows (and Linux) in addition to OS X and competitively priced compared with the alternatives. That could end up being part of Apple's future marketing strategy for selling their computers. Why buy a Dell that only runs Windows (and Linux) when you can buy a Mac that runs those OSs and OS X? :) If future Intel Macs do indeed have that kind of multi-OS support it's one reason I doubt Apple will license OS X for Intel to other vendors, at least not immediately. If hardware sales turn unprofitable then they'd have more reason to consider licensing OS X but otherwise it doesn't make much sense (to me) for them to do it and risk killing their own profitable computer business.

Sorry for any redundant speculation. I haven't kept up with every post in this thread.

I think it would be more accurate to speculate that some buyers may be attracted to Intel Macs if they're capable of running Windows (and...Linux?) in addition to Mac OS X.

If I had to guess how many buyers, I would say not very many. It may have obvious geek appeal, but not much real world interest beyond that. There is at least empirical evidence (lol) that the majority of average, bread and butter OS X users choose OS X because they want Windows off their machine (and thier lives), not to have Windows back on it again - like some nagging in-law that just won't go away.

And I think Apple would prefer to address Windows compatibility by designing OS X to be easily interoperable with existing Windows systems as opposed to having Apple users install a competing OS (and given the present state of Windows, the security risks and extra OS management that come with it) on an Apple box along side it's flagship OS. And who is going to offer support for Windows on a Mac? Apple? Not a chance. If you go out and buy a Dell box, you can at least get support for Windows by calling Dell. A Mac user with Windows installed on his Intellimac is going to be an orphan; no one to turn to for support should something go wrong with Windows - which is all but guaranteed these days if it's hooked up to the net. Not a good state of affairs for the average user.

Putting Windows (or Linux) on an Apple Intellimac just doesn't jive with Apple's "it just works" mission for the Mac platform, which is a major reason why folks use OS X. And they are Windows-free at last.

deputy_doofy

Aug 29, 2005, 08:39 AM

But where would Apple go with their PowerBook? 3 more 167MHz speed bumps in the next 2 years?

This is so true. Also, what good would a 2GHz G4 be running on a 167MHz front-side bus (or a 200MHz front-side bus)?
The G4 was a good chip but it is time to put it to rest.

The G5, if it were given the attention it deserves, could probably destroy most of the x86 line in performance, but IBM refuses to put their energies into it. Hell, I still think the G5 is nothing more than IBM's "version" of the G4. A PPC chip based off the Power-5 would probably be amazing, but alas, we can only hope that Intel has gotten their own sh...tuff together and stop cranking out nuclear chips that need to go 5,000,000,000 GHz to prove their "superiority" to PPC.

rolandf

Aug 29, 2005, 11:31 AM

As we don't know the exact reason behind the move from IBM to Intel, a lot remains speculation.

But, certainly, serving MS and Sony, it is hard for Apple, to be the third (if we neglect Nintendo). Therefore,
for IBM it makes sense to push Apple to use one of the chips, the others use.

The change to Intel probably will not remedy the situation, as there is already a lot of potential
conflict between the two parties.

First, there are much bigger Intel customers than Apple, e.g. Dell, and so to develop and produce
special chips for Apple alone will imply the same difficulties as with IBM.

Second, Intel is pushing itself into the home-entertainment market, copying the Mac Mini, and probably
equip them with MS software.

So, a close look reveals, that at the moment, MS the best positioned company, as they have PPC and Intel based
platforms for their software.

I can just repeat, it would make sense for Apple to serve the AMD / Intel platform for the low-mid end, and use
Cell for the high-end.

Anyway, as so often, IBM has been at the forefront of chip design developments, that have been copied several
years later by others, e.g. dual-core processors. The Cell will be no exeption, but with the difference, they already have it.

shamino

Aug 29, 2005, 11:57 AM

For x86, it isn't the case. More registers, you can assume the processor has SSE2 (MMX, SSE1, etc) at least rather than making it i386 compatabile, the memory space is flat, etc.

I've got an Opteron box at work which speeds-up 25% when running the x86-64 binary over the i386 binary.
Comparing Opteron-optimized code against 386-optimized code isn't fair. There are huge architectural differences that have nothing to do with being 64-bit.

How about comparing Pentium-4-optimzied code against Opteron-optimized code. At least that would be close.

Or even better, compare Pentium-4-optimized code against 64-bit Intel x86 code. (I realize that this may be a hard test to run before the Intel 64-bit systems become more commonplace.)

clownie

Aug 29, 2005, 03:25 PM

The graph says 5x more performance per watt. That could be five times the performance at same watts, or same performance at 1/5 the watts, or anywhere in between.

sjk

Aug 29, 2005, 04:27 PM

I think it would be more accurate to speculate that some buyers may be attracted to Intel Macs if they're capable of running Windows (and...Linux?) in addition to Mac OS X.Okay, I thought "some" was implied in what I wrote. :)

If I had to guess how many buyers, I would say not very many. It may have obvious geek appeal, but not much real world interest beyond that. There is at least empirical evidence (lol) that the majority of average, bread and butter OS X users choose OS X because they want Windows off their machine (and thier lives), not to have Windows back on it again - like some nagging in-law that just won't go away.I agree it wouldn't interest most "typical" home computer buyers but could attract certain businesses and schools (which I mentioned) and geeks (which you mentioned). But support-related complications could nullify the advantages.

And I think Apple would prefer to address Windows compatibility by designing OS X to be easily interoperable with existing Windows systems as opposed to having Apple users install a competing OS (and given the present state of Windows, the security risks and extra OS management that come with it) on an Apple box along side it's flagship OS.That may be Apple's preference but if they're profitably selling computers to customers running Windows, et.al. on them (without Apple's support) I doubt it would matter. That's coming from the current perspective of Apple still doing very little (if anything) to make some key advantages of OS X over Windows clearer to the average public.

And who is going to offer support for Windows on a Mac? Apple? Not a chance. If you go out and buy a Dell box, you can at least get support for Windows by calling Dell. A Mac user with Windows installed on his Intellimac is going to be an orphan; no one to turn to for support should something go wrong with Windows - which is all but guaranteed these days if it's hooked up to the net. Not a good state of affairs for the average user. I've speculated elsewhere that there could be new business opportunities for supporting Windows on Apple hardware (scary as that sounds ;)). Still, the negatives of multiple OS support (excluding self-supporting geeks), even with a single OS running on each box, might overwhelm any benefits.

Putting Windows (or Linux) on an Apple Intellimac just doesn't jive with Apple's "it just works" mission for the Mac platform, which is a major reason why folks use OS X. And they are Windows-free at last.Yep, plenty of "switchers" we know and have heard about are relieved if/when they can completely abandon Windows.

Personally, the idea of Apple knowingly selling Intel-based computers to customers who intend to run Windows on them seems unappealing (even appalling) on the surface but I could accept that as a necessary evil if it were part of a longer-term OS X migration strategy. Sell enough OS X compatible hardware and people will eventually figure out the best OS to run on it. :)

heisetax

Sep 6, 2005, 06:23 PM

I think we should wait and see. IBM promised 3 GHz, which seemed like a really good thing, and everyone thought that the switch from Motorola to IBM needed to happen. I agree that it made things better, but we're still not at 3 GHz, more than a year later than we were supposed to have it. My point: Just because Intel promises great things, that doesn't mean they are going to happen. Didn't Intel also promise 4 GHz P4's?

Remember that the speeds of these new processors will not be as fast as the old P4s. The Pentium M tops out at 2.1 GHz now. The indications to me are that the new chips will come in at those speeds or slower. Right now they are concentrating on power usuage & not MHz speed. We still won't see 3 GHz until 2008, if even then.

Bill the TaxMan

Mitch1984

Sep 25, 2005, 01:26 PM

Wanted to Post This in a New Thread But the forum wouldn't let me.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26433

THE POPULAR MEDIA KEEPS reporting that Apple plans to release its X86 based Macs in June next year, probably with a big fanfare and many black turtlenecks.
So far so good. The problem is that the chips that Apple is going to base its systems on - Woodcrest and Merom - are not due until the third quarter of next year.

This would make it hard for Apple to release computers if there are no CPUs for them, unless it has decided to use Yonah processors. Apple is big, but not nearly big enough to bully Intel, unless it has to do with iTunes DRM. So just what can Apple do? It could attempt to put pressure on Intel to give it the necessary chips early. So Apple is doing just that, and sources claim that it isn't flying as well as it had hoped. Any tale of cool, need or woe won't fly very far against the argument of "Dell sells 20 times what you do, why should we give you preferential treatment again?". Those same sources claim that this what Intel is saying.

RobHague

Sep 25, 2005, 01:47 PM

Hmmmmm

What would happen if Intel turned around and said "Stuff you Apple"? They won't but just hyperthetically speaking... they already cut ties with IBM.... where would there be left to go. :confused:

But im thinking, Apple must have known about the Intel Roadmap, they must know the timing of the Intel CPU's... they didnt just decide "Oh! Lets go to Intel" one day. It says "unless it has decided to use Yonah processors" so thats probably what they are going to do then.

Edit:

However since INTEL are in PC's and as they say, DELL sell 20x more at least than Apple's 'nitch' market at the moment... its if Intel will think its worthy of special treatment (as in the longrun will it benifit Intel). It's said that IBM didnt make much profit from the G5 from Apple... if that profit was 'small' to IBM then what of it to Intel??? Hmmm thought provoking stuff.

ScubaDuc

Sep 25, 2005, 02:17 PM

~Shard~

Sep 25, 2005, 03:26 PM

That is why everybody is speculating that the first intelmacs will be the mini/i-Book using a Yonah processor.

Which makes sense. The iMacs are arguably the strongest in the Mac line-up right now when considering power, features and price, so there is no need to update them to Intel in the near future. As for the PowerMacs, they will no doubt be the last Mac to go Intel, as Apple will be waiting for the Conroe/Woodcrest chips, which aren't out until later in 2006.

Powerbook are expected come later with a dual-core Merom, except in those PB G5 threads where it is expected for ......yesterday????

Oh, it was due long before yesterday according to some people, trust me... :rolleyes: ;)

I'm not sure what Apple is going to do with the PowerBook, but if it, too, will be receiving an Intel chip later rather than sooner, i.e. the Merom, then Apple needs to release a substantial PPC upgrade to the line to tide people over - none of this 32.8 MHz speed bump crap. ;) If this is the case, then I would see the next PowerBooks having a Freescale 7448 in it, or something like that, with better video cards and HDs as well. :cool: