When intel processors are released on macs surely they wont have the same names?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by shadowmoses, Jun 6, 2005.

  1. macrumors 68000

    shadowmoses

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    #1
    Will the Intel/Mac processors be called Pentium 4/Pentium 4M/Celeron etc....?I sure hope not i am hoping they will at least be given mac exclusive names, and hopefully will be totally mac exclusive chips???
    Can anyone shed any light on this??

    ShadOW :confused:
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    #2
    Nobody knows... much like how nobody really knows if the next chips that will be used will be x86... all just assumptions and rumors. Just wait till it comes out and see what happens is your best bet
     
  3. mvc
    macrumors 6502a

    mvc

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Outer-Roa
    #3
    If Apple had the marketshare clout to demand quality exclusive chips, we would never be in this position in the first place, Motorola/IBM would have delivered more consistent results if they could sniff a decent buck in the process.

    No, at best we are going to get to keep the Intel stickers on the inside, not the outside :rolleyes:
     
  4. macrumors G3

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #4
    Who cares? Even if they were PPC. It's still Intel inside. [where's the "Yuck!" icon?]
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    Veldek

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Location:
    Germany
    #5
    I think it's clear that it will be x86 chips, because the developer kits consist of a Pentium 4. What good would they be if the real products had PPC chips?

    I really hope that there won't be an "Intel Inside" sticker on these Macs!
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 68000

    shadowmoses

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    #6
    Ye those stickers would look out of place on mac's...imagine one on a shiny new iBook or powerbook :eek:

    SHADow ;)
     
  7. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #7
    i doubt macs will use any netburst cpu's mostly p-m based cores and whatever intel has in store for the xeon
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2004
    Location:
    Deep South UK
    #8
    huh?
    :confused:
     
  9. macrumors 68030

    Les Kern

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Alabama
    #9
    Off subject:
    For the life of me I can't understand why all the hatred toward Intel... Sure there was a battle between Apple/PPC and WIN/Intel for a while, but are you directing your anger correctly? Intel is NOT Microsoft. Intel makes chips that PC-makers happen to buy. Microsoft make the abomination. Intel keeps pushing the speeds higher, while MS insists on wasting it on the likes of Longhorn. There is no guilt by association.
    And Intel isn't exclusively making chips for Bill Gates. They have their hand in lots of things. Although I'm disapponted about the "phony" dual-core tech they are trying to pass off right now, they ARE a pretty astounding company.
    On subject:
    Same names. They won't make an Apple-exclusive chip to confuse things.
     
  10. macrumors 68030

    Les Kern

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Alabama
    #10

    Apple would NEVER allow stickers on their products, rest easy.
    My big question is what the HELL am I going to do with all this "Idiot Outside" stickers? I think I'll have to quietly destroy them. Plausable deniability, that's it!
     
  11. Guest

    caveman_uk

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    Hitchin, Herts, UK
    #11
    Netburst is the architecture used by Intel in the P4. Basically it made engineering sacrifices in order to attain very high clock speeds - speed over efficiency (or marketing over good engineering - take your pick!). The 'centrino' style chips (not the right name but that's where they first appeared) are derived from the old P6 core that appeared in the pentium pro then the P2, and then the P3. It's a very well designed chip that potentially does as much as a P4 running at a much higher clock speed. The pentium-M chips based on this core generally have lower heat output and energy consumptions. The netburst P4's can use typically 60-100W a processor - pentium-M's much less - around 20-30W.
     
  12. macrumors G3

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #12
    They made all their money selling garbage and with bad business practices, like M$.

    Also, IBM is the old evil empire. And they created them. I always said they could not be trusted. [I don't have a G5]

    So now instead of just evil, you have evil+garbage.

    I knew buying Apple was wrong, ever since their Internet Explorer deal.
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2004
    Location:
    Deep South UK
    #13
    :D

    Thanks!

    --DN
     
  14. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    #14
    dual core Itanium anyone?

    I agree that it is micr$uck that is the evil one here. If an Apple with high end intel runs OSX well, who cares how it gets there. It is the OS that bogs down with swap files, the OS that gets infected with viruses, and the OS that bombs over oddball events and bad ram manipulation. (and I speak of winblows here). Forget about the 32 bit Intel "celerons". I think the desktops will have the 64 bit Itanium type chips, and I for one would love to see a smoking dual core Itanium Macintel. I have been running osx on a dual p3 (through PearPC) for almost a year now, and find even if it is a bit slow because of the emulation, it is damn stable on dual p3's. I am a bit leery of "Rosetta" but this has been in the works for some time. Am I going to buy a dual g5 before Macintel? If the price is right why not, if not then a dual macintel. As far as stickers on machines, use goo-gone.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    #15
    They will not use the Itanium. Not only is the price significantly higher, but it is not an x86 chip. My guess is that they use an x86-64 chip from Intel.
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    law guy

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    #16
    The newer Xeon MPs in the PMs, perhaps?
     
  17. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    #17
    macintel correction

    I stand corrected on Itanium...thanks.
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    James Philp

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2005
    Location:
    Oxford/London
    #18
    I don't think anyone can really speculate what chips will eventually be included in future macs. It's going to be at least a year until a Macintel comes out, and that will most likely be a PowerBook. It's going to be yet another year until the PowerMac range will be replaced, and most likely that the chip technology for a model 2 years away may be something that is new right now, or even experimental.
    The pentium M is probably going to be used in the laptop range, but beyond that, we could be looking at anything!
    There will still be PPC updates in the interim, Steve Jobs said it himself yesterday. Whether anyone will buy one is another question. (Personally
    I'm going to wait and see if the PM price comes down significantly)
     
  19. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Fresno
    #19
    I am over the initial shock of switching to Intel here, but I do have one big warning for Apple: don't get playing the processor level game! One of the biggest problems for people buying your Dell boxes is they get confused....Celerons, Pentiums, Xeons...all with markers of M and MP and blah blah all on them. It is difficult enough trying to keep it striahgt being a techie, Apple needs to exclusively use Pentiums with maybe Xeons in the Power or server level products.....don't use Celerons in Mac Minis with a Pentium upgrade option, various versions of mobile or desktop model CPUs in the mobile packages....keep it simple and straight forward.

    That being said, if we are straight taking up of current x86 processors here...I think Apple should use Penitum-M (from the Centrino package) in all it's hardware except the Power/Server level...use Xeons there. The Pentium-M is very low heat/electricity useage while still being a powerful chip.
     

Share This Page