Intel iBook at MWSF (January) 2006?

[ccrandall77]

Well actually the Powerbook performance will be infinitely much better for any Altivec demanding application. They won't run on on Intel using Rosetta at all...

I share this concern (refer to my last post). But it didn't seem like many application were taking advantage of Altivec, sadly. I was hoping with the Intel switch that they'd add Altivec either on the processor (that's one way to distinguish it from normal x86) or as a co-processor.

From what I've heard, Altivec enabled apps will run in a "G3" mode. But how many apps will really be affected by this? And how many apps that most Powerbook owners run will be affected by this? How many by the time these machines ship?

However, as some have suggested, the hyperthreading and other architectural advantages to an Intel processor may outweigh the benefits of Altivec. And I've heard that Altivec instructions could be imitated by x86 instructions. I'm not a computer engineer, though, so...

 

[dernhelm]

I predict Apple replaces the G4 processor with a Celeron M in the iBook line, and moves to Intel Integrated Graphics.

You aren't likely far off here. One thing I'm pretty sure about. you won't see dual-core Intels in the iBook line. That'll be reserved for the Powerbook line. It's been too long now since the processor was a major point of difference between the iBook and Powerbook lines.

 

[Lurch_Mojoff]

It's kinda funny to see this kind of wish, now that we're moving to Intel...

I thought every PC user (and most Mac users in this forum) out there criticized Macs for not having the best GFX...now reality sets in...MOST PC laptops have, indeed, IIG...therefore, MOST PC laptops have worse GFX than even older iBook and PB offers...

Amen!

 

[plinden]

MWSF announcements - my predictions

Intel Mac mini solo 1.6GHz - from $399 - shipping today

No - if by solo you mean single core Yonah, that'll be too expensive for the Mini. I'm predicting a 1.6GHz Celeron-M in the Minis. That'll be plenty for it.

Intel Home Theater solo 1.6GHz CPU + HT GPU - from $599 - shipping today

12" Intel iBook solo 1.6GHz - $499 - shipping within 12 weeks

Make that $699.

13" Widescreen Intel iBook solo 1.8GHz - $699 - shipping within 12 weeks

Make that $999

14" Intel iBook solo 1.8GHz - $999 - shipping within 12 weeks

Make that $1299

15" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 1.8GHz - shipping within 12 weeks
17" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 1.8GHz - shipping within 12 weeks
17" widescreen Intel PowerBook dual 2.1GHz - shipping within 12 weeks

 

[NickFalk]

From what I've heard, Altivec enabled apps will run in a "G3" mode. But how many apps will really be affected by this?

Well as far as I know 100% of Apples Pro apps actually require Altivec to run and therefore won't run through Rosetta. Photoshop however will run but will not benefit from the speed-gains Altivec provides.

I'm no expert but as far as I understand (as a layman) Altivec is an additional "layer" with a 128 bit instruction-set. I do have a nagging feeling that I've read somewhere that Intel actually have a similiar technology, but there's no way programs will benefit from this until they've been recompiled...

 

[plinden]

You'd be surprised to know that the celeron M is essentially a Pentium M with lower l2 cache..

And minus speedstep so battery life isn't as good. But it's just as fast as an equivalently clocked P-M, and cheaper, but tops out at 1.6GHz

 

[winmacguy]

A lot of talk about Apple needing to aggressively price their laptops. That would be nice if the switch to Intel lead to decent price slashes across all the product lines.

This could be good with the only potential downside coming from not having enough Intel iBooks to meet initial demand although hopefully with Intel this wont be an issue this time round.😉

 

[Ace25]

Why not?

I don't understand why Adobe, Macromedia, etc. don't just give out free downloads of their windows software to current mac keyholders? For instance, I currently have Adobe cs2, couldn't they just give me the free compatible download for my new Mactel? Wouldn't those programs be able to run on the x86 mactels?

Plus, it would cost close to nothing form those companies to offer the downloads.

Any help here?

 

[ccrandall77]

Well as far as I know 100% of Apples Pro apps actually require Altivec to run and therefore won't run through Rosetta. Photoshop however will run but will not benefit from the speed-gains Altivec provides.

I'm no expert but as far as I understand (as a layman) Altivec is an additional "layer" with a 128 bit instruction-set. I do have a nagging feeling that I've read somewhere that Intel actually have a similiar technology, but there's no way programs will benefit from this until they've been recompiled...

What do you mean by "Apple's Pro apps"? Are you talking about stuff like iLife '05? I don't think that needs Altivec as I've seen it run just fine on stock x86 hardware (and faster than on my iMac G5-1.9). Or are you talking about FPC, Adobe, etc.?

I agree losing Altivec is sad. But I still don't feel that the iBook should get a big upgrade before the Powerbook. Even a dual-core G4 offering would at least make the Powerbook stand out against the iBook. But, I don't see this happening as it would be a very short-lived processor upgrade since the Powerbooks are going to go to the Intel CPU this year. I think it would make the most sense to get all the G4 machines onto Intel ASAP and then work on converting the G5s next. Three CPU lines I wouldn't think would be cost effective... except if they continued to put G4s in the Mini until the supply of G4s run out.

 

[Lurch_Mojoff]

I share this concern (refer to my last post). But it didn't seem like many application were taking advantage of Altivec, sadly. I was hoping with the Intel switch that they'd add Altivec either on the processor (that's one way to distinguish it from normal x86) or as a co-processor.

There is little need for adding Altivec module to x86 chips (which will cost money, precisely the thing Apple were trying to avoid by switching to Intel chips) or as a DSP chip to Intel based Macs. SEE3, although having its advantages and disadvantages to Altivec, will do pretty much the same job.

From what I've heard, Altivec enabled apps will run in a "G3" mode. But how many apps will really be affected by this? And how many apps that most Powerbook owners run will be affected by this? How many by the time these machines ship?

Actually most vector calculation aware apps use Apple's Accelerate framework, which, as surprising as it may sound 🙂, is already "translated" to use SSE3. So the "G3 mode" under Rosetta argument is pretty pointless - there are very, very few apps that use pure Altivec code - all the rest should just work, be it under emulation or not.

However, as some have suggested, the hyperthreading and other architectural advantages to an Intel processor may outweigh the benefits of Altivec. And I've heard that Altivec instructions could be imitated by x86 instructions. I'm not a computer engineer, though, so...

Yes, they can be imitated (hint SSE3 🙂). And, yes, on paper Intel's next crop of mobile cores show a lot of benefits over G4 - multiple cores, lower or same power consumption with higher clock speeds, virtualization, eventually 64bit calculation, etc. - which should result in more practical productivity.

 

[NickFalk]

For instance, I currently have Adobe cs2, couldn't they just give me the free compatible download for my new Mactel? Wouldn't those programs be able to run on the x86 mactels?

Well if the program was coded and compiled for OSX on intel it would obviously work. However there is a lot more to creating a OSX Intel-version of a program. Once again, I'm a layman, so feel free to correct me.
😉

While Macs and "PCs" will now share the same processor-architecture they will still run different OS'es from the core up. In a sense I believe this is similar to sharing an alphabet if you like. Hugo, Shakespeare and Ibsen all used the same letters but with different, I guess incompatible, languages. For an english reader Hugo's and Ibsen's works would have to be translated before they made any sense...

 

[NickFalk]

What do you mean by "Apple's Pro apps"? Are you talking about stuff like iLife '05?

iLife certainly don't come in the vicinity of being Pro apps. Sure they're good/great consumer applications but let's get real. 😉 I'm talking about Final Cut, Logic, Shake, DVD-Studio etc.

 

[dr_lha]

I don't understand why Adobe, Macromedia, etc. don't just give out free downloads of their windows software to current mac keyholders? For instance, I currently have Adobe cs2, couldn't they just give me the free compatible download for my new Mactel? Wouldn't those programs be able to run on the x86 mactels?

Plus, it would cost close to nothing form those companies to offer the downloads.

Any help here?

If they did this, they might as well drop Mac support all together, as they're basically saying: Sure our apps don't work on these new Macs under OSX, but you can install Windows on them anyway so just run our software under that.

 

[ccrandall77]

There is little need for adding Altivec module to x86 chips (which will cost money, precisely the thing Apple were trying to avoid by switching to Intel chips) or as a DSP chip to Intel based Macs. SEE3, although having its advantages and disadvantages to Altivec, will do pretty much the same job.

Actually most vector calculation aware apps use Apple's Accelerate framework, which, as surprising as it may sound 🙂, is already "translated" to use SSE3. So the "G3 mode" under Rosetta argument is pretty pointless - there are very, very few apps that use pure Altivec code - all the rest should just work, be it under emulation or not.

Yes, they can be imitated (hint SSE3 🙂). And, yes, on paper Intel's next crop of mobile cores show a lot of benefits over G4 - multiple cores, lower or same power consumption with higher clock speeds, virtualization, eventually 64bit calculation, etc. - which should result in more practical productivity.

That is good to hear. However, there are certain types of operations that require vector processing that I believe SSE3 cannot do... and those are the ops that are important to me in my numerical modeling. But, I understand that type of programming is not what most Apple customers are going to be concerned with, so I don't think it should influence architectural decisions in upcoming products. Still, it would've been nice to have had Altivec in the new machines (particularly the PowerMacs and XServes)... at least for me.

 

[ccrandall77]

iLife certainly don't come in the vicinity of being Pro apps. Sure they're good/great consumer applications but let's get real. 😉 I'm talking about Final Cut, Logic, Shake, DVD-Studio etc.

That's what I figured, but since you said "Apple's Pro Apps" I thought you might be referring to applications actually created by Apple... and when I responded I was thinking FPC was not created by Apple. My bad.

 

[NickFalk]

...and when I responded I was thinking FPC was not created by Apple. My bad.

Well you're not too far off. Originally FCP started life as a Macromedia application I think, but they abandoned it, Apple bought it, cleaned it up, continued to develop it into the jewel in their software-crown. (As far as I'm concerned). 😉

 

[Yebot]

I don't understand why Adobe, Macromedia, etc. don't just give out free downloads of their windows software to current mac keyholders? For instance, I currently have Adobe cs2, couldn't they just give me the free compatible download for my new Mactel? Wouldn't those programs be able to run on the x86 mactels?

Plus, it would cost close to nothing form those companies to offer the downloads.

Any help here?

You wont be able to run a Windows app on an Intel-based Mac. (Unless the rumors about being able to run separate Windows environment on the same machine are true.)

 

[AUBPsych]

Maybe its just me but doesn't it seem like the rumor sites are "covering all bases" like they did earlier this year?

Agreed.

 

[Ace25]

Well if the program was coded and compiled for OSX on intel it would obviously work. However there is a lot more to creating a OSX Intel-version of a program. Once again, I'm a layman, so feel free to correct me.
😉

While Macs and "PCs" will now share the same processor-architecture they will still run different OS'es from the core up. In a sense I believe this is similar to sharing an alphabet if you like. Hugo, Shakespeare and Ibsen all used the same letters but with different, I guess incompatible, languages. For an english reader Hugo's and Ibsen's works would have to be translated before they made any sense...

Got it, thanks. That makes sense. Good explanation.

 

[Lurch_Mojoff]

What do you mean by "Apple's Pro apps"? Are you talking about stuff like iLife '05? I don't think that needs Altivec as I've seen it run just fine on stock x86 hardware (and faster than on my iMac G5-1.9). Or are you talking about FPC, Adobe, etc.?

I agree losing Altivec is sad. But I still don't feel that the iBook should get a big upgrade before the Powerbook. Even a dual-core G4 offering would at least make the Powerbook stand out against the iBook. But, I don't see this happening as it would be a very short-lived processor upgrade since the Powerbooks are going to go to the Intel CPU this year. I think it would make the most sense to get all the G4 machines onto Intel ASAP and then work on converting the G5s next. Three CPU lines I wouldn't think would be cost effective... except if they continued to put G4s in the Mini until the supply of G4s run out.

"Apple pro apps" = Final Cut Studio, Shake, Logic Pro, Aperture
"Apple prosumer apps" = Final Cut Express HD, Logic Express
"Apple consumer apps" = iLife, iWork

Anyway, as I said a couple post above, if a program uses Accelerate framework it should Just Work™. And so should programs that use Apple's Audio Units and Image Units. And vector code is just a small part of most programs, so ultimately they should work faster on faster chips.

I agree with you that Apple should move all G4 products to x86 and then go on moving G5 ones. G5 is a very good at what it is designed to do and in its recent dual version it will continue giving enough performance for at least 18 months. Nothing in Intel's current lineup can top with big enough margin G5s, especially when it comes to 64 bit calculations. In 18 months however...

G4 on the other hand is a terminal patient. It's been agonizing for way too long now. It's for the best if Apple lets it go. I doubt, however, that Intel's Yonah will be in high enough supply so early after its debut, for Apple to replace G4 with it in all product lines. By mid 2006 - maybe, but earlier, I'm not sure.

 

[Lurch_Mojoff]

That is good to hear. However, there are certain types of operations that require vector processing that I believe SSE3 cannot do... and those are the ops that are important to me in my numerical modeling. But, I understand that type of programming is not what most Apple customers are going to be concerned with, so I don't think it should influence architectural decisions in upcoming products. Still, it would've been nice to have had Altivec in the new machines (particularly the PowerMacs and XServes)... at least for me.

You are right, in some rare cases, especially some scientific computations, the Altivec instructions cannot be translated to SSE. That is really unfortunate and I personally hope Intel will address these cases in a future version of SSE.

However, most of these instruction are not in G4's implementation of Altivec (actually, I'm not sure if there are any at all). And for "the rest of us" there are still G5 Powermacs and Xservs.

 

[toneloco2881]

"Apple pro apps" = Final Cut Studio, Shake, Logic Pro, Aperture
"Apple prosumer apps" = Final Cut Express HD, Logic Express
"Apple consumer apps" = iLife, iWork

Anyway, as I said a couple post above, if a program uses Accelerate framework it should Just Work™. And so should programs that use Apple's Audio Units and Image Units. And vector code is just a small part of most programs, so ultimately they should work faster on faster chips.

I agree with you that Apple should move all G4 products to x86 and then go on moving G5 ones. G5 is a very good at what it is designed to do and in its recent dual version it will continue giving enough performance for at least 18 months. Nothing in Intel's current lineup can top with big enough margin G5s, especially when it comes to 64 bit calculations. In 18 months however...

G4 on the other hand is a terminal patient. It's been agonizing for way too long now. It's for the best if Apple lets it go. I doubt, however, that Intel's Yonah will be in high enough supply so early after its debut, for Apple to replace G4 with it in all product lines. By mid 2006 - maybe, but earlier, I'm not sure.

Good post! I don't think intel's sampling of Yonah is going to be a problem here. From all accounts yields are going great at the moment, and shipments may actually be supplied to manufacturers before the close of the year. It's official introduction is probably going to be at CES early in january, so a MWSF introduction is HIGHLY likely.

 

[generik]

You wont be able to run a Windows app on an Intel-based Mac. (Unless the rumors about being able to run separate Windows environment on the same machine are true.)

Google for Darwine on this

 

[kenaustus]

"We'll hit 3 Ghz by next summer," Steve Jobs, WWDC 2004.

Right after Steve said that an IBM VP walked on stage and said exactly the same thing.

IBM's (not Apple's) failure to deliver the 3 Ghz is probably one of the reasons why Mactels are in the future.

 

[jade]

It makes perfect sense to start with Intel iBooks. I aslo imagine they will be significantly faster for Standard apps than the G4 iBooks and PBs. (Mobile intels perform comparative to 1.5-2 times their clockspeeds to translate to desktop units. The ratio of mobile P4 to G4 more like 1.25-1.5:1. Apple should have also finished the iApps by this time. There will not be much cannibalization since the "pro users" need theis apps native, and those people shopping for "looks" will buy or wait.

The fence sitters will probably take the plunge. The chip and component pricing should still make it possible for a similarly speced ibook with a P4 to drop in price significantly (memory, hard drives, video cards, wireless chipsets) have all come down in price as of late.