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
Theres something to that. But at the same time, I am "waiting" for there to be a 17" MacBook Pro with a Merom chip in it, and I am going to get one once they have that.
The day it is announced.BurtonCCC said:
Lenovo/HP/Dell/Asus will have them on the day that they're announced.
'nuf said.
LOL. OSX is 32-bit, by any reasonable interpretation of the word.crainial said:
Darwin has 64-bit memory handling, and there's a 64-bit libSystem - so if you want to ignore all that is really OSX you can run a 64-bit terminal app.
No Cocoa, no Carbon, no GUI, no frameworks - 64-bit on OSX is like a throwback to the punched card days.
Ummm, Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are EM64T.crainial said:
There are no "current" 32-bit chips from Intel, except for Yonah.crainial said:
AidenShaw said:
You're correct,but you could sure use a little tact in your post......try it sometime.
I thought that I exercised enormous tact by not starting my post withiRepublican said:
"You incredible clueless newbie #$$hole..."
His claims are so ludicrous ("now that Intel is using AMD64 instead of EM64T") that they invited derision. When someone writes three sentences with four fundamental errors....
C'est la vie...
Cranial did not say Intel is "using" AMD64, only that they are "copying" it. You quoted him correctly in your first reply, but you twisted it in your second. The value of this forum, for me at least, is when we post our reactions to news and rumor stories and those more knowledgeable in certain areas chime in from time to time to help everyone out. If you're an expert in certain areas and you're easily irritated by statements from those less well versed as yourself in those areas, you should probably ignore this forum and make better use of your time.
AidenShaw said:
On the G5 it makes no sense for the UI (et al) to be 64bit. All it means is almost everyone's apps will run more slowly. For the fraction of a percent of apps that needed the address space or the numerics that 64bit provides, the Apple approach was smart. Why penalise the overwhelming majority of apps and users.
Since then a lot has changed. OS X is now on Intel. On Intel, 64bit does make a positive performance difference. But is it because it is 64 bit or because of other architectural changes such as more registers. You could split hairs and spin that either way...
On Intel it does make sense to switch everything (eventually) to 64bit.
Just because there will be a faster model 6 months after you bought yours, doesn't mean yours get bad. It is still as good and fast and vivious as when you bought it. You might even be able to upgrade it. Unless you insist on having the 100% newest, you can easily keep a Woodcrest PowerMac for 4-5 years, berfore it is being a bit too outdated. There are many people who still use G4 PowerMacs, which are already 6 years old, some even older. I would liek to buy a very expensive computer, with lots of posibilities to upgrade it. This would keep it up to date for mnay years to come, and saving me money in the future, not having to buy a new laptop every 2 years. This is why I so much would like an Intel PowerMac with a good ACD. I have a budget of $2400. Is there any chance I could get a low-end Intel PM with 4 GB RAM and an ACD?
Higher prices
The 17" Mac portable went from $2,499 to $2,799. Sounds like a $300 increase to me. Same with the better 15" model. Intel still means more dollars for the models that I would be interested in purchasing. Also the Apps that I must run are not Universal nor will they be for another year. This would mean a slow down for any work I would do.
Everyone has their own set of needs. Many still find the Intel Mac to be less for more for the near future. By time the Intel Mac is more for more we may be two generations ahead of where we are now. This would make any new Mac one or two generations behind their $ price point.
Only those that can run native Intel Mac applications can use most of the changes in the new Intel Mac.
Just because Steve Jobs says something is twice as fast dos not mean that all or even anyone can achieve that doubling of speed. Remember that Steve Jobs is a salesman & tells us his information from the salesman's point of view. This is not always correct for most users. Being a salesman he will take one special group, which may not really exist & use that as his example for others.
For the next year or two the change in performance between an older PPC Mac and & Intel Mac will depend on the programs & versions of those programs that each has to use. Like many people that still must run their favorite application in Classic, or maybe even be able to boot into OS9 to be able to run a multithousand $ program that is just too expensive to upgrade. Now many people will be faced with this same problem a second time. Only now their old Classic Apps will no longer run.
Everyone will have to decide when a change in their Mac makes sense. A new Mac is not always going to be an upgrade. For many the term will be changed to new Mac.
Where did your information come that you would disagree on the prices of the 17" model. A 17" Intel MacBook "Pro" is still $300 higher than the old model. That's what my checking with Apple's web sight says. $2,499 old to $2,799 new. That's still more to me.
Bill the TaxMan
milo said:
The 17" Mac portable went from $2,499 to $2,799. Sounds like a $300 increase to me. Same with the better 15" model. Intel still means more dollars for the models that I would be interested in purchasing. Also the Apps that I must run are not Universal nor will they be for another year. This would mean a slow down for any work I would do.
Everyone has their own set of needs. Many still find the Intel Mac to be less for more for the near future. By time the Intel Mac is more for more we may be two generations ahead of where we are now. This would make any new Mac one or two generations behind their $ price point.
Only those that can run native Intel Mac applications can use most of the changes in the new Intel Mac.
Just because Steve Jobs says something is twice as fast dos not mean that all or even anyone can achieve that doubling of speed. Remember that Steve Jobs is a salesman & tells us his information from the salesman's point of view. This is not always correct for most users. Being a salesman he will take one special group, which may not really exist & use that as his example for others.
For the next year or two the change in performance between an older PPC Mac and & Intel Mac will depend on the programs & versions of those programs that each has to use. Like many people that still must run their favorite application in Classic, or maybe even be able to boot into OS9 to be able to run a multithousand $ program that is just too expensive to upgrade. Now many people will be faced with this same problem a second time. Only now their old Classic Apps will no longer run.
Everyone will have to decide when a change in their Mac makes sense. A new Mac is not always going to be an upgrade. For many the term will be changed to new Mac.
Where did your information come that you would disagree on the prices of the 17" model. A 17" Intel MacBook "Pro" is still $300 higher than the old model. That's what my checking with Apple's web sight says. $2,499 old to $2,799 new. That's still more to me.
Bill the TaxMan
heisetax said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 17" model previously 2999?
But I have to admit, even the price increases brought on by the Intel switch fails to justify such a price increase. Think about the features we've lost on the 15" model, right now they are getting away with using a cheapskate single layer drive (yeah right, I believe the "for the sake of thinness" reasoning alright, my bet is making it thin to eliminate the DL drive has cost cutting motivations), no FW800, no optical audio ports, and all this because of a processor that's a mere $200 more than a G4 on the lower end model? Doesn't add up to me.. especially considering that Dell can deliver a similar machine specwise for virtually 1/2 of what Apple is charging after you've tacked on various rebates and coupons...
The Intel Duo is a good chip, but the "value" aspect of the current MBPs generally doesn't quite cut it. Oh and btw, while MacOS is nice I don't consider it to be stellar even, I've spend this weekend on my Windows box after my Mac got sent back in for some major servicing and I have to say for some tasks MacOS barely scratches the surface of Windows.
tonyl said:
Except more often than not most changes are only evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I have been putting off getting an Appl portable since.. let's see.. 2 years ago when the 1.5Ghz model first got released? But back then I couldn't bring myself into shelling out that much for such a pokey CPU and went with a Thinkpad instead. Say what you will about virii and spyware, but that 1.8Ghz machine was blazing with 2GB of ram. I've subsequently owned a 1.67Ghz G4 and even at the pinnacle of PPC development on the mobile platform, let's just say I'm not remotely impressed even with the fully tricked out system.
My take on this is that the Yonahs are definitely stop-gap machines. Even the early Meroms will be stop gap. However the time to seriously consider buying would be MWSF next year, when hopefully MBPs with the Santa Rosa chipset are unveiled. Those would feature 801.11n wireless cards and Robson caching, 2 features which I do believe will bring about a revolution in mobile computing.
Currently what have we got? An extra core.. more cache, faser FSB. But apart from that, there is nothing special. Heck, even the Yonah is really 2 Pentium M cores stitched together. Talk about lack of originality!
macgeek2005 said:
Absolutely. Everyone has to make the individual choice of how long to wait. I just take issue with the notion that Merom is such a huge step that anyone who buys yonah instead of waiting is a fool.
devman said:
I don't think you understand how it works. It's not that the UI isn't 64 bit, it's that *apps that use the GUI* can't be 64 bit. Only command line apps can be 64 bit. For a GUI app to be 64 bit, it has to use the hack of running separate 64 bit processes in the background.
It's a terrible approach, and the result is that virtually no apps are 64 bit, which is a shame because there are apps that could really benefit from it.
heisetax said:
Bill, you need to read more carefully. I specifically said the 15 is the same price, not the 17.
The base 15 was $1999 before, now you can still get one for $1999. You haven't explained how that's a price increase. There's also a new second configuration available for $2500, there isn't really an old model to compare this to since the G4 wasn't available in a choice of speeds.
ksz said:
The full quote is "Now that Intel is copying AMD64, it will be much better that Intel's EM64T, which sucked."
The mistake, of course, was to not understand that "EM64T" is just Intel's name for the *copy* of "AMD64". In my paraphrase, the important word is "instead" - the notion that Intel is switching from the EM64T ISA to the AMD64 ISA.. The words "copying" and "using" aren't really that different.
(And to imply criticism of Intel for copying AMD is amusing, since just about everything else about the AMD architecture is an exact copy of Intel's x86 architecture.)
Ciao.
You clearly understand the difference between architecture and implementation, but you've misused "EM64T" in your first sentence.generik said:
A better statement would have been:
Correct, and the Netburst implementation of EM64T does suck as compared to AMD's implementation.
It's still debatable, however, that any current advantage that AMD has is due to the implementation of the 64-bit extensions on Netburst.
I would think that a more common view is that AMD's on-chip memory controller is more important, as well as less power consumption. We all know that the power advantage won't last for long....
milo said:
I understand how it works. I think you should re-read what I said. In the context of a G5 (there was no Mactel when this was done) a switch to 64bit is a performance loss for the overwhelming majority of users and apps. Because it is fraction of a percent of users and apps that needed the address space for a process or the numerics, it is a good approach when all apps and users are considered.
a better approach...
A better approach is one like Windows, Linux, Solaris... use - support 32-bit APIs for the apps that don't need performance or large memory, and support the full set of APIs for 64-bit apps that do.
A 64-bit clean app can be compiled for either 32-bit or 64-bit by changing the build settings only.
This penalizes the apps that need 64-bit - they have to be re-engineered into pieces if they need anything more than a terminal window.devman said:
A better approach is one like Windows, Linux, Solaris... use - support 32-bit APIs for the apps that don't need performance or large memory, and support the full set of APIs for 64-bit apps that do.
A 64-bit clean app can be compiled for either 32-bit or 64-bit by changing the build settings only.
generik said:
Both MPB's have optical inputs and outputs. And from what I've seen, dells that have similar specs to the 17 aren't anywhere near 1/2 the price, more like 25% cheaper ranging to about the same price and even higher. I'll admit, the dells do offer the option to strip out many of the pro features and save money. And the 15 isn't as competitive as the 17 is, I expect it will have a feature bump or price drop soon.
If there's a dell 17 with the same specs for $1400, I'd love to see it.
generik said:Currently what have we got? An extra core.. more cache, faser FSB. But apart from that, there is nothing special. Heck, even the Yonah is really 2 Pentium M cores stitched together. Talk about lack of originality!
Originality? Who cares about originality, I just want a machine that performs well. And that extra core you dismiss provides *double* the processing power. I'm pretty darn happy with that.
I don't see what Merom will provide that's a more radical change than the ones in Yonah. With Yonah, the second core doubles the speed. What's the speed boost in Merom, 20-30% at the same clock speed?
devman said:
But wouldn't it be possible for OSX to enable 64 bit features so that apps that need 64 bit could take advantage, and apps that don't need it could continue running in 32 bit? Best of both worlds. As it is, it's pointless to have a 64 bit chip if you're not going to actually take advantage of it. It's crippling any possibility the machine has of really being a pro machine. Why even make the chip 64 bit if it's going to hurt performance on most apps?
I don't buy that argument, apple dropped the ball on 64 bit software support.
