Intel Mac mini at MacWorld San Francisco in January?

[williedigital]

ok i didn't read through all the posts, so forgive if this has already been stated, but i wanted to correct an error I read.

intel integrated graphics (gma 900 at least) IS core image and quartz compatible (I've got a home built gma 900 system right now that supports them, as do the dtk's). As for speed vs radeon 9200, both subjectively and in xbench graphics tests, the two seem pretty evenly matched performance-wise. Nonetheless, it seems like the wise move would be for apple to try and integrate one of the x1000 series gpu's into the mini, as it has the ability to greatly speed up h264 decoding and encoding--the one thing non-gamer end users care about in a graphics card. It's also interesting that aopen's mac mini clone is supposedly gonna be on sale this week, with a celeron m, intel gma 900, component video out, etc. All for $399 sans OS. Maybe by jan apple can release a pentium m 1.6 or so system at the same price or cheaper than they are now. That would def beat current mini's at most tasks. Or maybe they could apply some of the extra funds to a better gpu (x1000 please!) rather than soaking up a couple hundred bucks of profit on each mini as they do now.

 

[williedigital]

oh and as for pentium m vs g4, my celeron m 1.4 laptop ($399 from dell--now there is a price point to ponder) appears in tests and subjectively to be just slightly faster than my 1.5 g4 mini. Keep in mind this is with a version of osx that isn't totally done and dialed up to my machine. I image in the end osx86 on a pentium m will seem about 20% faster than on an equivalent g4 machine. As for rosetta though, it's pretty damn slow compared to a g4. People are going to be upset when they try and pull up microsoft word and it feels like you're using it on a g3. Also, itunes isn't universal yet (at least outside apple).

 

[joebells]

well one of the reasons rosetta might feel really slow for you is that you dont' have a sse3 processor which rosetta uses. They have hacked the x86 build to support sse2 and I think even sse1. Now how much of a difference that will make is unknown to me but you would think it would make a fair bit of difference.

I believe yonah will support sse3.

 

[Peace]

well one of the reasons rosetta might feel really slow for you is that you dont' have a sse3 processor which rosetta uses. They have hacked the x86 build to support sse2 and I think even sse1. Now how much of a difference that will make is unknown to me but you would think it would make a fair bit of difference.

I believe yonah will support sse3.

There is no major difference between sse3 and sse2 as far as OSX86 is concerned..

And some of the new Dothan's have sse3

<edit> The newer Dothan's are now refered too as the single core Yonah </edit>

 

[DrFrankTM]

(First post here, although I've been a reader for about a year now. Don't be hatin'... )

AppleInsider wrote: "Looking ahead, Reitzes believes it is likely Apple will announce new products and content at its January 10, 2006 Macworld expo, with a possible introduction of the first Intel-based Macs. "We note that Intel will be introducing its dual-core “Yonah” processor in January (shipping now to vendors in pre-launch)," the analyst said." http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1361

I'm not entirely sure how official the January introduction of dual-core Yonah is, but if those processors are available, might it be possible that Apple would mark the beginning of the transition in a big way with the introduction of Intel-based iBooks, PowerBooks AND Mac Minis? Say, with a single-core Yonah in the iBook and the Mini, and a dual-core in the PB...

It is pure speculation - I have no inside information -, but it seems to me that it would solve the potential problem of the iBook vs PB comparison, giving consumers clearly differentiated (and easily comparable) product lines, with a cheap desktop alternative, a cheap portable and a high-end portable. The iMac and the PowerMac are fine as they are, and I think an Intel-based Mac Mini (that can also run Windows every now and then, for those who really need it) would sell like mad independently of actual performance. [EDIT: Same goes for an iBook that is not substantially faster than the actual G4's.] Switching the three G4 machines to Intel together might help to avoid all sorts of confusions and unflattering comparisons, IMO.

With a dual-core Yonah, the hardware side of things seems ok. I just hope the software (Apple's and third parties') gets "good enough" by January to have a few new toys announced at MWSF (but shipping later?).

 

[AidenShaw]

There is no major difference between sse3 and sse2 as far as OSX86 is concerned..

SSE3 support is optional for processors running OSx86. SSE2 support is guaranteed to be there.

And some of the new Dothan's have sse3

<edit> The newer Dothan's are now refered too as the single core Yonah </edit>

Some people are mistakenly referring to single-core Yonahs as "Dothans" then.

Dothan was introduced in May 2004, and has never supported SSE3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M

 

[Peace]

SSE3 support is optional for processors running OSx86. SSE2 support is guaranteed to be there.



Some people are mistakenly referring to single-core Yonahs as "Dothans" then.

Dothan was introduced in May 2004, and has never supported SSE3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M

I stand corrected..

Yonah is the next step in the Pentium M line and is available in single core and dual core.

That's what I meant when I said Dothan supported sse3.

 

[xejn]

I Just ordered a Mac Mini TODAY!!!! EEesshhh.

Not sure what to do now. I just ordered a Mac Mini from Apple.

I am buying it to replace a B&W upgraded to a 1Ghz G4, ram is maxed.

I could cancel and just keep limping along with the B&W, tough I really need USB 2 for my nano and the DVD drive to get some crap off my drive and do some video stuff, plus we really need a second computer in the house.

Ug.

Any suggestions?

 

[joebells]

osx86 may not require sse3 but the rosetta that they shipped to developers required it and hackers had to modify it to translate the sse3 instructions to sse2 instructions resulting in a performance penalty.

So back to the point that I was making he may have really poor performance with programs running under rosetta because of not having sse3.

 

[SiliconAddict]

After reading many posts here, I don't know why people want to run Windows on a Mac?!?!

I understand that students who have to use applications which are Windows-only would be benefited by the intel macs.. but why the people who want to use their macs just for office work?

I mean come on.. why did you switch? Also for the average joe, Virtual PC is good enough.. for running small programs etc.

Three words: Access and MapPoint

Add to that the several thousand dollars of software I have on hand that would be virtually flushed and I hope you get a small idea of where I'm coming from. And please. Please don't tell me to get a PC desktop. I do most of my work on the road. I need these tools on the road. Would you suggest I drag a PowerBook and my ThinkPad with me everywhere I go?
A dual booting PowerBook running Tiger/Leopard with Vista would rock.

 

[Peace]

Not sure what to do now. I just ordered a Mac Mini from Apple.

I am buying it to replace a B&W upgraded to a 1Ghz G4, ram is maxed.

I could cancel and just keep limping along with the B&W, tough I really need USB 2 for my nano and the DVD drive to get some crap off my drive and do some video stuff, plus we really need a second computer in the house.

Ug.

Any suggestions?

Keep the Mac Mini order.Everything here is mere speculation as to what computer comes out first on the Intel line.

Who knows maybe the Mac Mini AND iBooks AND the Powerbook will be shown at MacWorld

I strongly believe the transition is going much better than anticipated.

And I might add..Apple is telling developers to work with sse2 AND..
MMX(at one point referring to the AMD processor)
They believe there is no real advantage between sse2 and sse3 on the OSx86 port.

 

[plinden]

I stand corrected..

Yonah is the next step in the Pentium M line and is available in single core and dual core.

Not yet - the single core Yonahs will come out later than the dual cores, probably 2nd or 3rd quarter 2006.

 

[EricNau]

Why? The P4 is hot, it won't fit well into the Mini's box. And Intel are dropping the P4s anyway and moving to P-M based chips.

The P-M's are higher performance for equivalent clockspeed, and run cooler.

My predictions for the middle of 2006:
Mac Mini - Celeron-M, 1.6GHz in January, single core Yonah towards end of year.
iBook - single core Yonah, 1.8/2.0GHz (approximately, I don't think the clock speeds have been announced yet)
PowerBook - dual core Yonah, 1.84/2.17GHz

The PowerBook will move to dual core Merom in early 2007, about the same time Yonah single core will be in the Minis. I can't see either the Mini or iBook going dual core until all CPUs are dual core. The iMac will switch to dual core Merom at the same time as the PB.

This is all speculation and so I expect to spectactularly wrong, especially since the different CPUs are likely to have different sockets (Celeron-M especially) and would require a mobo redesign.

I always thought that a Pentium M was for notebook computers (doesn't the M stand for mobile)? So it just seems weird to me that Apple would put them in anything other than a Notebook.

 

[ccrandall77]

Not sure what to do now. I just ordered a Mac Mini from Apple.

I am buying it to replace a B&W upgraded to a 1Ghz G4, ram is maxed.

I could cancel and just keep limping along with the B&W, tough I really need USB 2 for my nano and the DVD drive to get some crap off my drive and do some video stuff, plus we really need a second computer in the house.

Ug.

Any suggestions?

I wouldn't cancel the order. You don't know for sure that a new Mac Mini using Intel CPUs will be announced at MWSF... and even if it is, will it be a compelling enough release to replace a current Mac Mini with for your purposes?

Just be happy with the Mini you have coming on the way. Then just wait for the Rev B Minis with Intel CPUs and upgrade then. You'll still get a pretty penny for the Mini you have coming when you eBay a year from now... or you can use it for something else.

I just got a Mini several weeks ago and I have NO intention of replacing it later. Of course, I also have a brand new iMac and plan to upgrade my Powerbook when a decent upgrade is available. But I'm using my Mini as part of my entertainment center and it'll be perfectly adequate for a long while.

If they ever turn the Mini into a true HTPC (with HD recording capability), then I'm definitely upgrading that machine!

 

[Val-kyrie]

Some people ... believe that Leopard will be for Intel only ( from posts I've seen )...

Fortunately, this couldn't be further from the truth. Apple should make this clearer - support for PPC will continue for years to come.

I agree. I think Apple will support PPC--at least for a little while, but I still fear the focus of the optimization has/will now shift to x86. I also think PPC support will be terminated by Apple, but not until X.6--the OS after Leopard.

 

[ro2nie]

He said BY June 2006.

Yes, and he also said there wasn't gonna be an iPod Video

 

[AidenShaw]

Yes, and he also said there wasn't gonna be an iPod Video

Didn't He also say that a flash-based music player was pointless?

It's pretty clear that He thinks that Mac zealots have no memory....

 

[ack_mac]

I always thought that a Pentium M was for notebook computers (doesn't the M stand for mobile)? So it just seems weird to me that Apple would put them in anything other than a Notebook.

It does. The key thing is that Pentium M processors draw much less wattage (heat) thus make them an ideal candidate for the Mac Mini. This is one of the real reasons that Apple is switching to Intel to begin with.. IBM has had a very difficult time making a cooler G5 PPC proc for the Powerbook line for some time now. So the switch to Intel will allow Apple to have much faster processors for their laptops, and ultimately the Mini as well..

There is no way they will offer a Yonah chipset for the Mini in January (Yonah single core will most likely not be available, and it would cost way too much. Unless you want to buy a $800-900 Mini).

 

[Multimedia]

Thank You For That Intel Roadmap Detail with Analysis

I stand corrected
I'll bet on the MiniMacIntel as the first....

1. Apple is telling developers to code for a Dothan system. The Powerbook would probably get a Yonah dual-core, the single-core Dothan wouldn't put the "Power" back in Powerbook in a big enough way. (The Dothan PB would look good next to the G4 PB, but not against the Dothan MiniMac or Dothan iBook.)

2. The MiniMac's target audience is more likely to be happy enough with native Intel iLife apps - the Powerbook crowd would be more likely to need 3rd party apps that wouldn't be native....


Apple is subjecting the 32-bit OSx86 to a minor handicap by using Dothan as the base system (instead of Yonah)....

Just want to thank you for this and the linked to analysis including clear explanation of the Intel processor roadmap which I had not seen elsewhere to date. This makes understanding the transition much easier.

 

[plinden]

I always thought that a Pentium M was for notebook computers (doesn't the M stand for mobile)? So it just seems weird to me that Apple would put them in anything other than a Notebook.

Why? They were designed for high performance for low power input, and are suitable for laptops. But what stops them being used in desktops? Absolutely nothing. It makes more sense than putting desktop CPUs into laptops or the P4 into the Mac Mini (if you think Mac fans are noisy, try working in my office when the P4 I have under the desk is running)

The Aopen Mac Mini clone has a Celeron M in the low end and a Pentium M in the high end.

The new mobile and desktop Pentiums are all based on the Pentium M.

 

[NewbieNerd]

Three words: Access and MapPoint

Two more words: NBA Live

Although I hate using Windows, it would be really sweet to play my favorite basketball game on a mac.

 

[SuperThread]

many Dothans died to give us this information....

This is the funniest thing I've read in a long time (or maybe it's just my lack of sleep talking–either way, I found that hilarious).

 

[EricNau]

It does. The key thing is that Pentium M processors draw much less wattage (heat) thus make them an ideal candidate for the Mac Mini. This is one of the real reasons that Apple is switching to Intel to begin with.. IBM has had a very difficult time making a cooler G5 PPC proc for the Powerbook line for some time now. So the switch to Intel will allow Apple to have much faster processors for their laptops, and ultimately the Mini as well..

There is no way they will offer a Yonah chipset for the Mini in January (Yonah single core will most likely not be available, and it would cost way too much. Unless you want to buy a $800-900 Mini).

Why? They were designed for high performance for low power input, and are suitable for laptops. But what stops them being used in desktops? Absolutely nothing. It makes more sense than putting desktop CPUs into laptops or the P4 into the Mac Mini (if you think Mac fans are noisy, try working in my office when the P4 I have under the desk is running)

The Aopen Mac Mini clone has a Celeron M in the low end and a Pentium M in the high end.

The new mobile and desktop Pentiums are all based on the Pentium M.

Thanks
I guess it makes sense.
I know this isn't the right thread to ask, but, what will be in the higher-end Macs (such as iMacs & Powermacs) - will them be Pentium M's also, or PD's, what about itanium 2's?
PS - I will barf if the answer is Celeron!

 

[jhu]

osx86 may not require sse3 but the rosetta that they shipped to developers required it and hackers had to modify it to translate the sse3 instructions to sse2 instructions resulting in a performance penalty.

So back to the point that I was making he may have really poor performance with programs running under rosetta because of not having sse3.

i doubt the performance penalty is due to sse3 -> sse2 since the instructions replaced are equivalent. and then there's the emulated instructions. i wonder how many of those are used in rosette. but the real performance penalty is having to decode and execute another instruction set.

see the following:


Description for SSE3->SSE2 Solution

This is a hybrid solution for running Mac OS X/Intel and especially Rosetta under SSE2-enabled CPUs. You don't need SSE3 anymore.

Technical Info

It is hybrid, since it uses a three-fold approach:

1. Rosetta's SSE3 instructions (MOVDDUP) are patched at runtime to more-or-less equivalent SSE2 instructions (MOVQ).
2. Relevant system files (CoreGraphics, oah750, libSystem.B.dylib) are pre-patched to enable fast execution speed (emulation is always slow!). I replaced SSE3 instructions (FISTT) with their more-or-less equivalent SSE2 analog (FIST).
3. SSE3 instructions, which raise an "Illegal Instruction" exception are specially treated:
1. FISTT instructions are 100% emulated by the kernel.
2. All other (unknown) SSE3 instructions are skipped.

Please note 3.1): This is rather important, since 2) "Pre-patched files" did not contain all files with SSE3 FISTT instructions in it. So 3.1) ensures that these will be handled, too.

 

[AidenShaw]

"new" as in "future"

The new mobile and desktop Pentiums are all based on the Pentium M.

These chips are not yet available on the market (although the next-generation Yonah chips are now sampling (low volume pre-production)).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_m and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conroe for more info about these upcoming chip families.

what about itanium 2's?

It's very unlikely that Apple will sell Itaniums - it is a different ISA which is not binary compatible with x86. Itanium would require another transition as serious as the PPC->x86 transition. The only way that this would happen would be if the x64 architecture hits a stone wall in a few years, and a radical change is required.

PS - I will barf if the answer is Celeron!

On your next plane trip, grab and save the barf bag - you may need it!

A Celeron would make a lot of sense for low-end Apple products. The Celeron M is the same chip as the Pentium M, just with smaller L2 cache and usually a lower range of FSB speeds.

Just perfect for Apple to use to put a real differentiator between lower end and mid-range models - while keeping the margins high by using the Celeron on the low end....

The "gack - Celeron" attitude around here is rather misinformed, Celerons offer good value and more than adequate performance. They're a bit slower, but quite a bit cheaper.

Why do you think that BMW sells a new 3-series with a 2.0 Litre engine?

Why shouldn't Apple put a Celeron M in an entry MiniMac or iBook?