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 Powerbook and iMac in January?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sol said:
Right...
Because in a year Intel's disastrous roadmap is going to magically be better and won't continue to have cancelations and product slips.
The reports of Apple begging Intel to rush out the door the chips that are currently due for late next year should be a clear indication of just how bad things are for Apple's chip future.
Mac users should just get used to the fact that they are stuck with the last place chip vendor no matter what now. IBM gave Apple the boot and there is no going back no matter how bad the Intel chips are and AMD can't supply enough chips for even for Apple's tiny marketshare.
Sol said:
with the possible exception being H.264 support. Simply we have no idea what Apple has planned beyond hardware in 2006. There could be something that warrants a quick transition to Intel. Who knows. I wouldnt dismiss it so fast. What with the Shuffle, Mac Mini, Intel Transition, etc. Saying Apple wont do something is down right stupid at this point. They could do anything at this point.
rlwimi said:
Warning! warning! Fanboy alert! Fanboy alert!
Detecting high reality distortion fields ahead. Please do us all a favor and drop the complete and total anti-Intel theme. Just about every post you've made since joining has been Intel sucks this. Intel sucks that. The rest of us who know better are getting really sick of it. Esp when you don't backup ANY of your comments with proof or facts. But what am I saying. That requires someone to stop talking crap for 30 second to put up a clear and coherent argument. Something you haven't done yet.Except that if something happens to make the Apple-Intel relationship to go south, transitioning over to an AMD-based Mac will be trivial, especially in comparison to the PowerPC to Intel transition.rlwimi said:
So even though one can argue that AMD is manking the faster processor these days (which I don't want to do here), the fact that Apple has decided to throw their lot in with Intel does not mean that Apple is stuck in any way.
memos said:ok, now i am truly pissed off!
if they do introduce the mentioned products, when will they ship them?
i was about to get a new powerbook because my titanium powerbook is becoming unbearably slow and I simply refuse to upgrade it in any way, what am I supposed to do?
I would buy a new PB now rather than wait. The possibility of Intel PBs coming so soon isn't a given and is def just speculation. Even if they do come out with new ones you could always resell on ebay the PB you buy now and still possibly break even or come close. And in the meantime you'll be using a faster and newer machine instead of suffering for another 4 months.
I thought they were expecting iBooks to be out in January.. Here's me hanging onto my dollars. What a bummer!!!
Staffroomer said:I thought they were expecting iBooks to be out in January.. Here's me hanging onto my dollars. What a bummer!!!
Hi. welcome to MacRUMORS Enjoy your stay.
rlwimi said:
Anyone else look at this newbiees other posts...not one positive thing, all bashing...listen, Bill, you mind if I call you Bill? No? Ok, Mr. Prince of Darkness, you mind if I call you Mr. Prince of Darkness? No? Ok, well, anywho...SHUSH!
Intel
I'l buy a mini for TV use the first day the intel version with frontrow hits the market.
My son wants a new iMac and i'm willing to help pay for it but its not going to be an Intel iMac, thats for sure. Just a safety measure he won't be running Windblows, he won't have as much games but hec, 3 major game consoles get updated the next year. Maybe Apple wants to be ahead of these consoles, a lot of money is going to be spent on hi tech gear next year.
I'l buy a mini for TV use the first day the intel version with frontrow hits the market.
My son wants a new iMac and i'm willing to help pay for it but its not going to be an Intel iMac, thats for sure. Just a safety measure he won't be running Windblows, he won't have as much games but hec, 3 major game consoles get updated the next year. Maybe Apple wants to be ahead of these consoles, a lot of money is going to be spent on hi tech gear next year.
So, Apple is about to launch Intel based hardware as early as January? Has anyone even thought that this may be academic if the OS is not ready yet? As of now, both are at 10.4.3 as far as features go, but spend even a second at the relevant forums and you can see that there is still a lot of work to do to get OS X86 ready for the market. iTunes is rumoured to have been ported to Intel, but apart from iPhoto, the rest of the iApps are still PPC, to say nothing of the rest of Apple's stable of applications.
Nuts! Nuts! Nuts! I was all excited that my 20" iMac had just left Anchorage, AK, on the way here, and now I'm wondering whether to send it right back where it came from!
According to this site, the 2.1 ghz G5 in the 20" iMac is roughly real-world equivalent to a 3.2 ghz Pentium 4, which is nice, and adequate, but I have no problem believing that Apple could drop a 2.4 ghz Pentium-M, or even a dual-core 3.0 ghz Pentium-D into the iMac's svelte little case, leaving me with a serious performance defecit on a computer I will have had in my posession for just couple of months.
[Edit] Oh, duh, the new iMac will likely use a dual-core Yonah, as described here. So, to quote from that article:
[/Edit]
I KNOW the standard argument, "if you need it, buy it; if you don't, wait", but I am operating on some strict financial limitations, and while I could survive on a computer that is slower than it needs to be, it will only serve to be an annoyance over the several years I will use the machine before I am able to purchase again. The dismal Windows laptop I'm using right now (a P4 1.8) is just about dead (physical damage due to demanding field work in my previous employment) and I'm anxious to switch before it blows up in my face, but after waiting almost a month for the 20" iMac, I've grown hardened to waiting, and could manage a while longer if I had to - even if the computer does die.
Frankly, this puts me in a foul mood. Sure, it's just a question of being envious of the better computer that someone else buys, but with the substantial investment that this purchase means to me, I would like to have had at least some accurate information upon which to make my decision. I had decided that 8 months of extra use was worth the earlier purchase of the last G5 iMac; I am not at all convinced that 2 months is worth the same premium.
If anyone has any further informtion on this story, I'd love to hear it, since obviously it affects my purchase plans directly.
Anik
According to this site, the 2.1 ghz G5 in the 20" iMac is roughly real-world equivalent to a 3.2 ghz Pentium 4, which is nice, and adequate, but I have no problem believing that Apple could drop a 2.4 ghz Pentium-M, or even a dual-core 3.0 ghz Pentium-D into the iMac's svelte little case, leaving me with a serious performance defecit on a computer I will have had in my posession for just couple of months.
[Edit] Oh, duh, the new iMac will likely use a dual-core Yonah, as described here. So, to quote from that article:
So, great; perhaps a 20% increase in raw performance. Ideally no change initially, but the new iMac would get 'faster' as the software evolved for the new processor platform. Obviously, that 20% would help a lot in mantaining my conjectural new Mac's usability over the coming years.
[/Edit]I KNOW the standard argument, "if you need it, buy it; if you don't, wait", but I am operating on some strict financial limitations, and while I could survive on a computer that is slower than it needs to be, it will only serve to be an annoyance over the several years I will use the machine before I am able to purchase again. The dismal Windows laptop I'm using right now (a P4 1.8) is just about dead (physical damage due to demanding field work in my previous employment) and I'm anxious to switch before it blows up in my face, but after waiting almost a month for the 20" iMac, I've grown hardened to waiting, and could manage a while longer if I had to - even if the computer does die.
Frankly, this puts me in a foul mood. Sure, it's just a question of being envious of the better computer that someone else buys, but with the substantial investment that this purchase means to me, I would like to have had at least some accurate information upon which to make my decision. I had decided that 8 months of extra use was worth the earlier purchase of the last G5 iMac; I am not at all convinced that 2 months is worth the same premium.
If anyone has any further informtion on this story, I'd love to hear it, since obviously it affects my purchase plans directly.
Anik
alexandr said:ok, so i have the new imac on its way right now...
what should i do? i tend to not trust first releases of anything made by apple. so perhaps this falls under that category.
does anyone think it's worth returning the imac for? i mean is it really going to make a huge difference at this point.
you think it's wise to wait and see how this whole intell thing works out?
I guess the question to ask is...(if you believe the rumour)...do you need (want) an iMac between now and early 2006?
My iSight iMac has endured Shanghai, Anchorage, Memphis, Mississauga and is likely soaring over the "true north strong and free" and I can't wait to cut the seal on the box and plug it in...in other words, I don't believe the rumour.
You knew Intel was coming before you ordered your G5...what is different now?
Anik said:
They cannot put a Pentium-D in the iMac because the chip is too hot.
The 2.4 Pentium-M would be a 15% speed boost over the current 2.1 GHz G5, according to the chart you link too.
There are no other radical technologies they could put into the rumored iMac that would increase performance.
Your iMac purchase will serve you well for several years and should retain its value if you wish to sell it and will be a collector's item anyway.
If the iMac is the first to get an Intel processor, it would be a surprise to everyone because the model just introduced was not a typical speed bumped upgrade but a more exhaustive redesign with PCI Express and DDR2.
Still, if the iMac does get an Intel processor in January, I suspect it will be a dual-core Yonah. I cannot imagine Apple incorporating any Pentium 4 processor, and that includes a Pentium D. A low-power Yonah at 2.16 GHz would be a virtual clock-for-clock replacement to the 2.10 GHz PPC G5, yet offer 2 cores and less heat dissipation, allowing it to run comfortably inside the iMac enclosure.
Finally:
However, this means that the new quad-core G5 will also be replaced by some badass configuration. Let's hope all the Mactel machines turn out to be seriously good upgrades from the old.
Still, if the iMac does get an Intel processor in January, I suspect it will be a dual-core Yonah. I cannot imagine Apple incorporating any Pentium 4 processor, and that includes a Pentium D. A low-power Yonah at 2.16 GHz would be a virtual clock-for-clock replacement to the 2.10 GHz PPC G5, yet offer 2 cores and less heat dissipation, allowing it to run comfortably inside the iMac enclosure.
Finally:
If the transition to Intel is completed by fall of 2006, it is really good news for all Mactel buyers because it will accelerate the release of universal binaries. Developers will have good motivation to finish their transition as well.
However, this means that the new quad-core G5 will also be replaced by some badass configuration. Let's hope all the Mactel machines turn out to be seriously good upgrades from the old.
Thanks for your reply Hiroshige, but I remain as concerned as before. As ksz says below, and I realized and edited above, the likely processor choice for the i(ntel)Mac is the dual-core Yonah; as reported on this site (English translation of German original courtesy of Google) we can expect the dual core 2.0 ghz Yonah to roughly equate to dual core Pentium-D 3.2 ghz in this particular benchmark.
Granted, this is a single projected benchmark, with a few assumptions in it, but it nevertheless reports a fairly major performance difference.
I'm not interested in resale value; when our computers have outlived the ability to perform the functions we need, we hand them down to family members with less demanding computing requirements (and sometimes fewer resources) and we certainly don't have the money to buy a computer because it might one day be a collector's item. What I need is the best possible computer I can get within a reasonable (six month) window, because I won't be able to just sell and upgrade any time for the next few years, unless something truly startling happens in my current finances.
Other information would be welcome.
Anik
Granted, this is a single projected benchmark, with a few assumptions in it, but it nevertheless reports a fairly major performance difference.
I'm not interested in resale value; when our computers have outlived the ability to perform the functions we need, we hand them down to family members with less demanding computing requirements (and sometimes fewer resources) and we certainly don't have the money to buy a computer because it might one day be a collector's item. What I need is the best possible computer I can get within a reasonable (six month) window, because I won't be able to just sell and upgrade any time for the next few years, unless something truly startling happens in my current finances.
Other information would be welcome.
Anik
Man Issues
I should imagine that there are many issues that Apple needs to consider:
Just a few thoughts
I should imagine that there are many issues that Apple needs to consider:
- Marketing: Ultimately what they update first needs to be a 'best seller' so as to establish a foothold in the market for Intel-Mac.
- Chip Architecture: what are the best processors available and what machjienes do they suit best. Latest Intel chips, not yet ready for shipping, will suit the smaller powerbooks etc and perhaps may come later.
- Apple's Internal Situtaion: From a business organisationalo perspective I am sure that Apple would love to phase out its relationship with one of the other chip maker companies, just from a sheer managerial perspecitive. Having three suppliers, two of whom you are trying to make redundant is not good business.
- Powerbooks and Mac mini really need to leave Motorola behind, so do ibooks. However, when Apple upgrades one line you can bet that the sales in other non updated lines willl nose dive. How many people do you expect do shell out a fortune for a computer only to know that it has a increasingly shortening tech-life.
Just a few thoughts
If there's one thing we should have learned by now, it is that Apple's strategy is definitely not as predictable as we think it is!generik said:
If the iMac goes to an Intel processor, it will most likely incorporate Yonah. However, Yonah comes in both single core and dual core varieties, so Apple may well put a single core Yonah in the new iMac as you suggest. (I hope they put a dual core Yonah in the top end.)
PowerMacs are about expandability and power. They will sport faster buses and may move up to dual dual-cores across the board.
Makes sense; same argument put forth by the AppleInsider article.Bye Bye Baby said:
This might be interesting. I cannot imagine Apple using the highly superscalar Pentium 4 that manages to advertise high clock speed, but not high performance on a clock-for-clock comparison, and which dissipates considerable heat.
This leaves us with standard 90nm Pentium-M (dothan) and the new 65nm Yonah. I have no idea whether Intel has managed to ramp up yields of this processor particularly because 65nm process is challenging, but is already ramping up very nicely at various other fabs.
Incidentally, each process technology generation (180nm, 130nm, 90nm, 65nm, 45nm, 32nm, 22nm, ...) represents one-half the area of its predecessor. If you start with a 1micron x 1micron square and want to reduce the area by one-half, you multiply each side of the square by 0.707 (square root of 0.5) -- hence:
1000nm (1 micron)
707nm (0.7 micron)
500nm (half micron)
353nm
250nm (quarter micron)
176.77nm (rounded to 180nm)
127.27nm (rounded to 130nm)
90nm
63.64nm (rounded to 65nm)
45nm
31.82nm (rounded to 32nm)
22.5nm (rounded to 22nm)
15.91nm (rounded to 16nm) <<-- probably the end of classical scaling.
Another good point.
This Makes Sense
The biggest issue with the Mactel transition is not the hardware. It is the availability of native Mactel software.
So, releasing Mactels ASAP would accelerate the release of native Mactel applications. And meanwhile you have Rosetta to run at decent speed legacy PowerPC code. No problem.
So, think different!
All Mactels are coming in 2006 or not later than January 2007.
The biggest issue with the Mactel transition is not the hardware. It is the availability of native Mactel software.
So, releasing Mactels ASAP would accelerate the release of native Mactel applications. And meanwhile you have Rosetta to run at decent speed legacy PowerPC code. No problem.
So, think different!
All Mactels are coming in 2006 or not later than January 2007.
gammamonk said:
Just AFTER christmas is the best time to release stuff. Apple's a hot brand, people want it, and are going to get it for christmas sales. It's always a strong quarter. You can sell the same old thing, as long as it's still considered OK, at maximum profit margin. But as soon as christmas is done, wallets become tight... introducing a new product opens them up, gives you a major edge in the quarter when everybody else is hurting. Also, Apple has the power to make people buy on an update, whereas the cycles are far less important on PCs. Also, apple always has trouble ramping production up fast enough, so starting that time of year ensures that you still get the buzz, but most people don't buy until spring, when things are all up and running.
Remember last year? The mini, the shuffle, iwork, several other software bits, I believe?
Notice-there are sales, on almost everything, almost every time of year. But leading up to christmas? Full retail, because people are willing to pay it. As soon as it's done, sales go on, to boost numbers. Apple's working that.
It sounds like a great plan to me, though I'm not sure they should leave the iBook until after the imac-seems to me like their most popular portable, though consenus seems to be that the powerbook is.