Apple On Track to Ship Intel Macs by June 2006

[mklos]

*pounds his head into the keyboard in frustration*

89h3e8934w2q43i8I!I*I*8IIKMUIK43I34IU,KEWR, ,. ,K K,I


God this has to be the most misunderstood "fact" ever to grace the Apple community. The chip in the XBOX is not a G5. Why do you think they can have multiple cores in the thing at such a high freq?

I think everyone is mislead about articles previously written about Microsoft using a PPC970 "varient" and instead thinking that its an actual PPC970 G5 processor. The Cell processor does have lots of power, but not for personal computing. From what I've read the Cell Processor is really fast at doing one thing at a time, but is terrible for multi-tasking. People should know by now that faster isn't always better....

 

[~Shard~]

I think everyone is mislead about articles previously written about Microsoft using a PPC970 "varient" and instead thinking that its an actual PPC970 G5 processor. The Cell processor does have lots of power, but not for personal computing. From what I've read the Cell Processor is really fast at doing one thing at a time, but is terrible for multi-tasking. People should know by now that faster isn't always better....

Yes, this is correct - you would not want a CELL in a Mac, trust me. 😎

Oh, and it's "variant"... yeah, I'm a picky bastard... 😉

 

[RobHague]

I wonder if Apple will keep the G5's in the PowerMac's for the foreseeable future.

I’m just thinking that’s all, they are 'workstations' correct. So their target market does not need low power consumption as a major feature - and their target market will have tons of PowerPC software they want running at its best. I also thought that PPC brought advantages to the kind of work that the PowerMac's were aimed at... and with Universal Binarys 'upcoming' software will work no less than current PPC titles sooo i dont see why Apple would be in a rush if they are trying to keep the campers happy. 🙂

I mean its not like its a race, they point in the direction of switching not because the PPC is 'slow' or 'bad' but because they needed the specific technology Intel were focusing on to make some products they want in future (Home Media Stations or something maybe?) and want to keep the form factor down. I read somewhere (think it was Macworld) in an Apple statement that they stated PPC was the “more elegant” architecture.

Anyhow it would be nice if they ran PPC and Intel Mac’s for as long as they could, who knows come 2 years or so I might have still bought a PPC if IBM had got their Dual Cores out and Apple were using them. ^_^ A Dual Dual Core PPC would have been quite yummy 😉

 

[ammon]

It will be interesting to see what the first Power Mac with an Intel processor is capable of. But it currently isn't looking too good.

 

[~Shard~]

It will be interesting to see what the first Power Mac with an Intel processor is capable of. But it currently isn't looking too good.

What specifically about the Conroe and Woodcrest chipsets do you have your doubts about? From what I've researched so far they seem like they will be quite impressive. Of course, being a year away, who knows what the end result will actually be. 😉

 

[lopresmb]

I tend to agree a next gen Pentium M type processor would probably scream...now if only all the software would be optimized for them.

 

[ammon]

What specifically about the Conroe and Woodcrest chipsets do you have your doubts about? From what I've researched so far they seem like they will be quite impressive. Of course, being a year away, who knows what the end result will actually be. 😉

I am going off of Intel's past track record. The only processor Intel did a good job on when released was the Pentium M. They talk big but typically fail to deliver.

The Itanium processor on paper was THE 64-bit processor. But in practice it was a flop. When the P4 first came out, the 1.6 GHz benchmarked lower then the Pentium III running at 1.0 GHz.

Instead of making the processor smarter, they add pipelines (to increase clock speed) and through on instructions like SSE, SSE2 and SSE3. Their floating-point unit has never been very efficient. Due to the depth of their pipes any kind of branch prediction has a large penalty.

I am just not a fan of Intel processors. If only we had the old Alpha chips back. Now those were some incredible chips! In fact, the AMD Athlon roots come from the Alpha chip...

 

[~Shard~]

I am going off of Intel's past track record. The only processor Intel did a good job on when released was the Pentium M. They talk big but typically fail to deliver.

Fair enough, I agree with you there. Perhaps I am simply giving Intel too much benefit of the doubt then... 😉

I am just not a fan of Intel processors. If only we had the old Alpha chips back. Now those were some incredible chips! In fact, the AMD Athlon roots come from the Alpha chip...

Ah yes, the Digital Alpha chips - I remember those! I remember when they released their first 1 GHz chip, back when Intel was sitting at about 300 MHz...

 

[progx]

since apple is done making their own hardware, i think this gives us Mac users a REAL choice on chip makers.

i have been contemplating a Voodoo laptop with an AMD 64 processor for my next machine. all that crap Apple has been spewing out, like Mac OS X won't work on non-Apple PCs (notice I called them Apple PCs, instead of Macs). Voodoo has gotten the x86 version of Mac OS X to work on one of their machines, running an AMD processor.

so Mac users who just plain do not like Intel, we're at a crossroad: buy non-Apptel hardware or take the dive with Intel's wonderful Pentiums.

 

[~Shard~]

since apple is done making their own hardware

😕 They are? Please explain, exactly what hardware are you referring to that Apple once made, but no longer does now that they announced the switch to Intel?

(notice I called them Apple PCs, instead of Macs).

Um, okay, good for you. 🙄 I prefer to call them "Happy Magic Transistor Boxes". 😛 😎

 

[beatle888]

since apple is done making their own hardware, i think this gives us Mac users a REAL choice on chip makers.

what the heck are you talking about? or should i say, hello visitor from another world. welcome to earth.

you just lost all credibility with your post.

 

[willyjsimmons]

My 2 cents

I am going off of Intel's past track record. The only processor Intel did a good job on when released was the Pentium M. They talk big but typically fail to deliver.

The Itanium processor on paper was THE 64-bit processor. But in practice it was a flop. When the P4 first came out, the 1.6 GHz benchmarked lower then the Pentium III running at 1.0 GHz.

Instead of making the processor smarter, they add pipelines (to increase clock speed) and through on instructions like SSE, SSE2 and SSE3. Their floating-point unit has never been very efficient. Due to the depth of their pipes any kind of branch prediction has a large penalty.

I am just not a fan of Intel processors. If only we had the old Alpha chips back. Now those were some incredible chips! In fact, the AMD Athlon roots come from the Alpha chip...

Luckily for you, the next gen chips are based off the M, and not the P4.

And as far as the Itanium, it failed largely due to its price point.

Clients aren't really eager to upgrade their servers, just because a new chip is available, especially if the CPU costs an arm and a leg.

Never mind the fact that there weren't a lot of 64bit apps on the market at the time, and there still aren't for many segments.

 

[~Shard~]

Luckily for you, the next gen chips are based off the M, and not the P4.

See, I thought this was the case too, but ammon indicated it was indeed the P4, which is what threw me. Can you or anyone confirm this for sure, as I had thought the new chips were not based on the P4 as well...

 

[willyjsimmons]

See, I thought this was the case too, but ammon indicated it was indeed the P4, which is what threw me. Can you or anyone confirm this for sure, as I had thought the new chips were not based on the P4 as well...

On the intel site, the press release states

'combines the strength of the company's current Intel NetBurst® and Pentium M® micro-architectures and adds new features.'

The architecture is M based, but in the future may include HT(NetBurst) capabilities.

Intel is also trying to distance itself from the P4 'stigma', by changing their naming scheme to numerals. 8xx, 9xx etc.

 

[~Shard~]

On the intel site, the press release states

'combines the strength of the company's current Intel NetBurst® and Pentium M® micro-architectures and adds new features.'

The architecture is M based, but in the future may include HT(NetBurst) capabilities.

Intel is also trying to distance itself from the P4 'stigma', by changing their naming scheme to numerals. 8xx, 9xx etc.

Gotcha, cool - thanks for the info. 😎

 

[drewyboy]

since apple is done making their own hardware, i think this gives us Mac users a REAL choice on chip makers.

i have been contemplating a Voodoo laptop with an AMD 64 processor for my next machine. all that crap Apple has been spewing out, like Mac OS X won't work on non-Apple PCs (notice I called them Apple PCs, instead of Macs). Voodoo has gotten the x86 version of Mac OS X to work on one of their machines, running an AMD processor.

so Mac users who just plain do not like Intel, we're at a crossroad: buy non-Apptel hardware or take the dive with Intel's wonderful Pentiums.

You must be a real newb.

 

[willyjsimmons]

You must be a real newb.

Add to that, AMD is crap.

 

[~Shard~]

Add to that, AMD is crap.

I've seen you make this statement in another thread. As an honest question, (not trying to be confrontational), could you please elaborate on why you feel this way, and maybe back up your claims with facts/benchmarks/comparisons to help better prove your point? Just curious, that's all.

 

[willyjsimmons]

I've seen you make this statement in another thread. As an honest question, (not trying to be confrontational), could you please elaborate on why you feel this way, and maybe back up your claims with facts/benchmarks/comparisons to help better prove your point? Just curious, that's all.

Mainly I speak from personal experience.

Most AMD based systems I've come accross have died prematurely.

I know AMD has no direct control over the quality of motherboards that support their processors, or the 3rd party controllers on those boards, but my general impression that systems designed for the sake of being 'cheaper than an intel', tend to be pieces of crap.

Secondly, most fanboys who brag up AMDs performance compared to intel, tend to overclock their systems, which is an absolute 'no-no' in my mind.

If you want to compare benchmarks, then sure, AMDs new chips outperform Intel in certain tests, but those differences aren't going to be noticable by the end user (nancy the receptionist can't tell). Never mind the fact that a lot of the benchmarks posted on AMDs own site are against Xeons, which is almost a joke in my mind considering how old the Xeon arch actually is.

And in 4 months when intel releases the next gen chips, the power usage vs. performance advantage will shift back to intel.

Add to that, the fact that the high end AMD chips are actually almost as expensive as Intel, AMDs claim for being the 'cheapest' isn't holding much water anymore.

 

[progx]

gotcha!

ah, i'm glad i finally get noticed! haha!

a lot of that was bs, i am not too fond of Intel. i am hopeful of the future, so let's see what happens! 🙂

well, the fact that Voodoo got Mac OS X to work with an AMD was true, i think i saw the story on macrumors earlier this month or last month. but i did see the pictures of a Voodoo Envy (portable) with a 64-bit AMD running Mac OS X.

apple hasn't finished innovating on hardware or software yet, but we might not see all the great hardware we are so used to getting 🙁

basically, i'm saying: "PHYSIC!" 😀

 

[~Shard~]

<snip>

Thanks for the elaboration, that's exactly what I was looking for. 🙂 I, too, am looking forward to the new Intel chips, as I think they will help break Intel's "losing streak" and set them apart once again. 😉

 

[progx]

oh yes, apple will innovate without any question. i just hope i can still mac with an ati or nvidia rather than an intel graphic chip 😕

what voodoo pc experimented, it shows that we might have options. like buying a copy of mac os x, then buying an alienware pc; of course taking windows completely off 🙂

it's worth a shot at some point 😀

so, let's hope someone will test the theory out when these intel macs roll out and see if we can actually try this.

anyone for homemade macs? lol.

 

[thogs_cave]

Never mind the fact that there weren't a lot of 64bit apps on the market at the time, and there still aren't for many segments.

Arooo? Maybe not in the consumer market, but the workstation/server market is deeply 64-bit. SGI, Sun, and DEC ..er.. Compaq ..er.. HP (to name a few) have had 64-bit going on for a decade (give or take), and 64-bit apps are several generations old on those platforms.

 

[BGil]

Mainly I speak from personal experience.

<snip>QUOTE]
I and 10's of millions of other people buy AMD systems every year. If there was some problem then we'd know about it just like how we know about iPod batteries, iBook logic problems, iPod nano problems, and iMac G5 overheating. There is no problem with AMD systems.

 

[BGil]

Intel has no direct controller over who makes chipsets for the processors either. SIS, VIA, ATI, Nvidia all make chipsets for both AMD and Intel. The only difference is Intel also makes their own chipsets.
If you don't want cheap parts then don't buy cheap parts. That's why places like Voodoo Pc allow you to choose your motherboard. Buy an ASUS, Abit, DFI, or MSI and stop complaining and spreading FUD.

You just don't like AMD because Apple is going to be using Intel.

And in 4 months when intel releases the next gen chips, the power usage vs. performance advantage will shift back to intel.

Go read the articles again, Intel's next-gen processors will still use more power than current AMD processors.

http://translate.google.com/transla...onah/&prev=/search?q=idf+benchmarks&hl=en&lr=