Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Chip Delivery Moving Up?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Photorun said:MrCrowbar said:If this means one could upgrade their current MBP... THIS WOULD BE HUGE!!!
I was referring to the iMac.
worth the wait
I will, and am ready to wait out for the new Intel Procs that are true 64bit. OSX is a 64bit OS and to take advantage of it I can wait. Now that Intel is copying AMD64, it will be much better that Intel's EM64T, which sucked. The MacPro/Intel PowerMac would have been at a disadvantge if it used current 32bit Intel procs, or EM64T technology. One caveat is that with Intel rushing out Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest, is the tech behind it complete? I worry that it will be like the original Pentium all over again. All to play catch up with AMD?
I will, and am ready to wait out for the new Intel Procs that are true 64bit. OSX is a 64bit OS and to take advantage of it I can wait. Now that Intel is copying AMD64, it will be much better that Intel's EM64T, which sucked. The MacPro/Intel PowerMac would have been at a disadvantge if it used current 32bit Intel procs, or EM64T technology. One caveat is that with Intel rushing out Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest, is the tech behind it complete? I worry that it will be like the original Pentium all over again. All to play catch up with AMD?
If succeeding processors are pin-for-pin compatible and Apple provides a socketed processor a la iMac and Mac mini, then it makes the whole proposition much more enticing. When was the last time you could swap out a processor on an Apple motherboard?mutantteenager said:
Of course, Intel will only be able to maintain backwards compatibility for a short time, but that window of opportunity prolongs the perceived lifespan of the computer.
crainial said:
Actually OSX is not a 64 bit OS. Most apps can't use 64 bit functionality without hacks and kludging. That's why the vast majority of OSX apps can't access more than 4 gigs of ram.
64 bit hardware is nice but doesn't give you much if the software doesn't use it. That's the case with the G5's, the hardware isn't being used to its fullest potential and at this point I doubt apple will ever make the updates to the PPC version of the OS.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what do the 65nm and 45nm processes mean? What do they refer to? I get that 45nm is somehow better than 65nm, but I'm a bit in the dark.
And I would love it if I could swap out the processor on the iMac that I might buy after WWDC (just incase Jobs announces a transition to AMD or something drastic like that). Either than or a MBP, which *tear* can't be upgraded.
And I would love it if I could swap out the processor on the iMac that I might buy after WWDC (just incase Jobs announces a transition to AMD or something drastic like that). Either than or a MBP, which *tear* can't be upgraded.
regre7 said:
It is the size of the processor. Smaller size generally means less power usage and more stuff crammed in the same spot.
It deals with the size of the actual silicon used to lay out the processor. By decreasing the to 45nm you do a few things. 1) Decrease power consumption, 2) Increase clock speeds, 3) Increase the number of dies (processors) that can be fabricated on one wafer, which means your production increases and the cost decreases.regre7 said:
I don't think that anyone outside of intel or under an NDA knows the answer to that yet... I would suspect though that there will not be pin compatibility across processors that add DP or MP support, as that will add aditional pins to support those features. There may be between for example conroe->kentsfield (both processors for Single Socket mother boards), or woodcrest->cloverton (both processors for DP configurations).milo said:
Actually the Prices have increased!!!
I thought that all of the prices have increased. The Mac Minis are up a $100 or more. The MacBook 15" SemiPro & 17" MacBook Pro are up $300. That sounds like Intel has added to the price of the Macs. This is what has been expected by me.
Bill the TaxMan
amac4me said:
I thought that all of the prices have increased. The Mac Minis are up a $100 or more. The MacBook 15" SemiPro & 17" MacBook Pro are up $300. That sounds like Intel has added to the price of the Macs. This is what has been expected by me.
Bill the TaxMan
daveL said:
Thanks Dave. Ya know, I read that article a while back and was too interested in the Merom gains and didn't even catch the mobo changes. Soooo, a faster FSB will also increase the number crunching--we may be looking at 30-40% gains with Merom + Santa Rosa. I was always a hardcore PPC advocate, but the excitement that Intel has brought to our platform has replaced my disappointment in the Power PC's demise. Intel + Apple are delivering on their promise--at least in my eyes.
B
Macrumors said:
The Inquirer reports Of additional interest, Intel also has over 1000 people working on next generation Handheld devices with consumer pricepoints. The goal will be an "always on" architecture consuming only 1/2 of a watt. Apple has no announced plans to again enter the handheld market, but rumors of an Apple tablet or handheld regularly recur.
This makes me think back to SJ comments from the intel announcement keynote. He spoke of having to make the transition to intel because their road map was the only way to get to the future products that apple wants to bring to the market. I interpreted that to not be limited to the desktop or laptop computer line. I think this would play into those comments well for portable devices from apple.
If you look at the surface of a computer motherboard or any other printed circuit board, you will see thin lines running from the output pin of one component (chip, resistor, capacitor, etc.) to the input pin of another component. The lines are the wires that connect components together. Although they look thin, they have a definite width and a minimum spacing between them.regre7 said:
Now when you look at a highly magnified view of the surface of a chip, you see a very similar thing. The "components" of a chip are the transistors and they are etched into the substrate of the wafer. All the transistors are laid out first on one and only one layer. This is called the "front end" of the manufacturing process. Next, the transistors have to be connected to each other. Because there are so many transistors and they are all on one layer, there isn't enough space on one layer to connect them all. So the "wires" are built on several layers on top of the buried transistors.
One layer of wires makes one set of connections. Another layer of wires makes another set of connections. Wires can tunnel through layers by virtue of small holes drilled between layers. These holes are called "vias". So a wire goes from one layer to another layer via the hole between the layers.
All of the wiring is layered on top of the transistors. This is called the "back end" of the manufacturing process. Much of the development cost of a chip comes from the Number of Layers because each layer needs its own "reticle" or lithography glass plate. Reticles (or masks) have soared in price to between half-million to a million dollars each.
The wires (in the back-end layers of a chip) have a minimum width and a minimum spacing between them. If the minimum width and space are 65nm, we say that the chip is a 65nm design. If the min width and space are 45nm, we say it's a 45nm design. Going from 65nm to 45nm takes a lot more than merely scaling (demagnifying) the design! It often takes new materials and new processing techniques to deal with the increases in lithography difficulty, increases in electrical parasitics (such as heat density, leakage current, stray capacitance), and increases in the fragility of the printed pattern.
Nevertheless, the combination of new materials, new processing techniques, and smaller dimensions leads to a faster and cooler chip, one that operates on lower voltage (less power).
Finally, you might wonder how the industry picks the minimum width/space. For example, the industry went from 180nm to 130nm to 90nm to 65nm to 45nm. The answer is that the industry strives to halve the area of a chip with each successive generation. If you start with a 1 micron x 1 micron square and you want to reduce the area by one-half, you must multiply each side of the square by 0.707 (square root of 1/2). If you do this several times, you get the following (in nanometers or 1/1000th of a micron) -- this is "classical scaling":
1000.00 (1 micron square)
707.11 (.7 micron)
500.00 (half micron)
353.55
250.00 (quarter micron)
176.78 (rounded to 180nm)
125.00 (rounded to 130nm)
88.39 (rounded to 90nm) <--- currently in widespread use
62.50 (rounded to 65nm) <--- current state-of-the-art; Intel Yonah
44.19 (rounded to 45nm) <--- next generation Intel processors
31.25 (rounded to 32nm)
22.10 (rounded to 22nm)
15.63
11.05 <-- classical scaling may stop here
heisetax said:
The 15 is the same price, it was $1999 before and is still $1999. I'm not sure why so many people have that misconception.
The others are more expensive although in some cases they're comparable or a better deal when you BTO the previous versions to be more comparable to the ones shipping (add BT and airport to base mini).
Thanks ksz, that really helped. Maybe I'll actually be able to contribute with a bit of informed opinion now.
Half Watt by Half Wit
Hmmm think about it this way... a half watt processor 500 - 600 mhz range, coupled with a low voltage codec = apple has an ipod that runs just about all week before needing recharge....
that being said a 1/2 watt processor would also make an awsome always on media device, 600mhz would run linux just ducky, or some kind of embedded OS (does apple have an embedded OS group?) Interesting thought!
Or maybe just maybe they really cram some technology in there and get it all the way up to 700mhz pushing the wattage barrier but its been a while since I had to compute core voltage consumptions... but still 700mhz intel class chip with a gig of ram would run OSX... stuff it all in a waffer thin case and you've got the eBook, slap an eink display on the front... you could blue tooth to your phone, get the NYTIMES page, download it to the eInk buffer, turn off OSX and read the news on your way into work... all week... on a single charge!
Ok I need to turn my brain off now...
Hmmm think about it this way... a half watt processor 500 - 600 mhz range, coupled with a low voltage codec = apple has an ipod that runs just about all week before needing recharge....
that being said a 1/2 watt processor would also make an awsome always on media device, 600mhz would run linux just ducky, or some kind of embedded OS (does apple have an embedded OS group?) Interesting thought!
Or maybe just maybe they really cram some technology in there and get it all the way up to 700mhz pushing the wattage barrier but its been a while since I had to compute core voltage consumptions... but still 700mhz intel class chip with a gig of ram would run OSX... stuff it all in a waffer thin case and you've got the eBook, slap an eink display on the front... you could blue tooth to your phone, get the NYTIMES page, download it to the eInk buffer, turn off OSX and read the news on your way into work... all week... on a single charge!
Ok I need to turn my brain off now...
Endow said:
Nope, just that maybe it *could* be out in august. We're all just guessing at this point. My guess is that apple will ship merom laptops as soon as the chips are available in quantity, about the same time that everybody else ships merom laptops.
WAHOO!! Um, yeah guys....I love Intel. I don't see any downside to switching over from IBM (not that I ever did)
Wait for this one
The Merom I thought is to be 64-bit. With the future being 64-bit why would you purchase a stop-gap computer? I'd do everything I could to wait for this big of a change.
Also much of the needed software will not even be available until next year. This makes waiting for Rev B even a more sensible thing to do.
I'll be waiting until all of the needed software is in place & my current Macs do not run fast enough to handle these programs. If I purchase no new software then that time could be measured in years. Then I could use the excuse that I was just waiting for the 128-bit AMD/IBM/FreeScale Mac. This is after the god Steve Jobs tells us that Intel is too slow, uses too much power & is all around bad again. This will mean that we will have to use a new 128-bit chipset make by a joint effort of AMD, IBM & Freescale. That way AMD can see that it will not be out front of everyone after joining with IBM Freescale & Apple.
Now for ones that believe in only one God, then we don't believe what the salesman Steve Jobs says & purchase what we think is best for us. The fact that it usually ends up being a Mac may not be what you think it is.
Bill the TaxMan
nagromme said:The elephant in the room:
If you wait for Merom, you'll be in the same boat as Yonah buyers are today: something new will be coming in less than a year. Not a whole new chip design, but better and faster Meroms.
There's always something better coming--that won't change by waiting for Merom. When you need to buy, buy... but if you don't need to, then wait like me
That it is
The Merom I thought is to be 64-bit. With the future being 64-bit why would you purchase a stop-gap computer? I'd do everything I could to wait for this big of a change.
Also much of the needed software will not even be available until next year. This makes waiting for Rev B even a more sensible thing to do.
I'll be waiting until all of the needed software is in place & my current Macs do not run fast enough to handle these programs. If I purchase no new software then that time could be measured in years. Then I could use the excuse that I was just waiting for the 128-bit AMD/IBM/FreeScale Mac. This is after the god Steve Jobs tells us that Intel is too slow, uses too much power & is all around bad again. This will mean that we will have to use a new 128-bit chipset make by a joint effort of AMD, IBM & Freescale. That way AMD can see that it will not be out front of everyone after joining with IBM Freescale & Apple.
Now for ones that believe in only one God, then we don't believe what the salesman Steve Jobs says & purchase what we think is best for us. The fact that it usually ends up being a Mac may not be what you think it is.
Bill the TaxMan
heisetax said:
Because EVERY computer is a stop-gap. There are always ones in the future with more cores, more bits, higher clock speeds, etc. If you're fine with keeping your current machine forever, there's nothing wrong with that.
Some of us have work we need to get done. Today. And for me, the advantage of having a machine today outweighs the possibility of a 64 bit machine down the road with modest enhancements (not to mention that I have a machine with a socketed processor that will let me upgrade to that 64 bit chip if I want it).
And I'm still wondering how a $1999 MPB is a price raise from a $1999 powerbook? Do you have a reason for saying that or were you just mistaken?