Intel's 2006 Processor Roadmap

[~Shard~]

Have you noticed their new Turion 64 chipset. Similar to Intel's Centrino set, it features a mobile 64-bit processor, low-power features and wireless connectivity.

AMD's web site (see above link) has links to several laptops that are using this chipset. I've seen one of the Compaq models advertised in a local store already.

I had heard of this chip, but didn't hear much in terms of details on it - thanks for the link.

 

[lokey]

Does anyone know where we can find a roadmap for IBM's PowerPC in 2006, or has that not been released yet? I'd like to compare the two.

Regardless of this... I think the Intel move was a wise one. Overall, Intel can provide chips that Apple can use in a variety of applications, not just laptops and desktops. The PowerPC was essentially limiting Apple.

 

[~Shard~]

Overall, Intel can provide chips that Apple can use in a variety of applications, not just laptops and desktops. The PowerPC was essentially limiting Apple.

What other applications were you thinking? PPC chips are currently used in Apple's desktops, laptops and servers - what else did you have in mind, and how did/does the PPC limit Apple in respect specifically to this aspect of usability in different platforms?

 

[Village]

Nope you are right. WWDC showed us that not only was X running natively but the iApps were as well. The funny thing is he didn't demo any of the pro apps which prob means they are having more issues with those apps which makes sense since FCP and the like were optimized around the G5.

Can someone please give some insight as to how the transition to Intel will affect the OS X software industry?

Would an Intel Powerbook be a much more compelling machine to own for the next 3 years over a PPC Powerbook?

I'm not referring to the difference in power, but the available natively-compiled software for the respective architectures. Of course we can't predict the future, but would software vendors be more likely to immediately jump on the Intel bandwagon, or would they let their code run through Rosetta for a year? I'm hoping someone with a software development background could shed some light on this.

I've been considering a Powerbook purchase for well over a year, but I don't NEED a Mac in any sense of the word. That said, I wonder if I should wait nine months for an Intel machine to gain the benefits of future Intel-native code, or just bite the bullet and get a Powerbook after MacWorld Paris (in case of any bumps) because the PowerPC code will be around for at least a couple years.

 

[digitalbiker]

I agree

😎

It seems to me that it is more likely that we'll be seeing Merom based PBs in the second half of '06 as the first IntelBooks.

I seem to recall Jobs saying two things:

"I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook and we haven't been able to deliver that to you yet."

"So when we meet here again this next time next year, our plan is to be shipping Macs with Intel processors by then, and when we meet here again two years from now, our plan is that transition will be mostly complete."

Now, his "plan to be shipping" IntelMacs by June 2006 seems a somewhat reserved for Jobs if his intention is to be releasing new Intel-based products 6 months before that. This seems to imply that Q2, or thereabouts, is their target for whatever they release first.

I'd imagine that a mini would be the easiest product to redesign, its FF would likely remain identical, with only its MOBO and some internal components changing. A PB would be much more difficult, and I really don't think there is a chance in hell they could design and have the capacity ready to ship an ENTIRELY new PB in six months.

Also, Apple will obviously want to be all over the Merom when it comes out. They have been hyping 64-bit for ages and when the Windows world starts going that way (Vista), they are gonna have to be right there. I don't know the design considerations (electrical, software, physical...spiritual) when moving from the the Yonah to the Merom, but I don't imagine it's trivial.

Not to mention (although it already has been) that if Apple releases the 32-bit Yonah in the interim, they are left supporting an architecture that will only exist for 9-10 (?) months for the next 5 years. That doesn't make much sense.

If the redesign for Merom is considerable (and I don't know if it is) I don't think we are going to see Yonah-based books because you know Apple is going to want to be right there when the Merom is available.

If the design/engineering work for a 970FX is far enough along (we all know this is some cud Apple has been chewing on for more than a year) then we might see a PowerBook G5. It would sell like crazy, and that's always nice.

It's probably more likely, however, that Apple is going to use a G4 update to hold the line together for the next year (one update in between now and late 2006 is entirely reasonable given the recent revision cycle) be it the 7448, 8641, or whatever. It's a safer and easier solution that, unless they are REALLY far down the G5 road, makes the most sense given every consideration.

This scenario makes the most sence to me too. I guess we will find out soon in Paris.

If the PB receives a new low power G5 or Dual Core G4, new screen, faster FSB, better graphics card. You can bet the first intel based PB will be a 64 bit Merom in 2nd half 2006.

If the PB gets a minor G4 speed bump, then a Yonah PB in April looks more likely.

All good stuff, MAYBE?

 

[nagromme]

Does anyone still think that Intel Macs will use the same chips that TODAY'S PC's use? 🙄

Goodbye Netburst.

(I submitted the LaptopLogic link to MacBytes using the "PowerPC" badge... maybe it needs to become the "Processors" badge 🙂 )

 

[swissmann]

dual core mobile chips sounds cool

(pretending I know the difference between a single core and a dual core chip 😎 )

You make me laugh. I wonder how many people post like they know what they are talking about but really don't. Anyway since I'm posting I wonder what IBM will have at the time to compete. Sure these are better than what Intel has now but what about IBM in the future. I'm still skeptical that this move was the best decision.

 

[plinden]

There is a link on the Macnews.de article referenced above pointing to the Intel MOBO the developer Macs comes on:

http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/ux/index.htm

Some of the many features of this MOBO are the following:

*8 (Eight!) USB 2.0 ports
*1 Parallel port
*1 Serial port
*4 (Four!) serial ATA interfaces

Etc, etc. Eight USB 2.0 ports will rock, but there is a lack of Firewire 400 or 800 ports. The one cool thing I'm thinking will be possible is being able to connect older parallel-based printers that currently cannot be interefaced to the Mac. I'm not a tech genius by far, but anyone care to comment on this?

They are just the developer machines. You can rest assured that the eventual desktop Intel Macs will have USB, FireWire, and no parallel or serial ports.

 

[nagromme]

Can someone please give some insight as to how the transition to Intel will affect the OS X software industry?

Would an Intel Powerbook be a much more compelling machine to own for the next 3 years over a PPC Powerbook?

If you don't NEED something now, then wait. (ALWAYS a good plan with technology--later means better!)

Intel PowerBooks will be much faster per power consumption/heat than today's G4s. Today's PowerBooks are great, with a great OS and apps, but they fall short in raw speed.

Software-wise, Intel Mac early adopters will get the short end of the stick--a few apps may not be ready (or at least not running to their full potential) at first. PPC Mac owners will have no such issues to worry about. BUT I don't think it will a big issue--developers have lots of warning, and Rosetta can pick up much of the slack.

Still, it's one reason to choose PPC and be a "late adopter" of Intel Macs. It's a personal call.

 

[digitalbiker]

Look at past history

Can someone please give some insight as to how the transition to Intel will affect the OS X software industry?

Would an Intel Powerbook be a much more compelling machine to own for the next 3 years over a PPC Powerbook?

I'm not referring to the difference in power, but the available natively-compiled software for the respective architectures. Of course we can't predict the future, but would software vendors be more likely to immediately jump on the Intel bandwagon, or would they let their code run through Rosetta for a year? I'm hoping someone with a software development background could shed some light on this.

I've been considering a Powerbook purchase for well over a year, but I don't NEED a Mac in any sense of the word. That said, I wonder if I should wait nine months for an Intel machine to gain the benefits of future Intel-native code, or just bite the bullet and get a Powerbook after MacWorld Paris (in case of any bumps) because the PowerPC code will be around for at least a couple years.

Unfortunately past history has shown (68000 to PPC, OS9 to OSX), that every software vendor reacts differently.

Some jumped on the bandwagon right away. Others held out to see where everything went before they made the significant reinvestment in time and people.

Considering that a lot of vendors are just now starting to recoup lost time and money from the last switch, I bet we are looking at a bit of an uphill battle for awhile.

Obviously Apple will go native first, Then probably Adobe and a few other majors, then there will be a slow long line of trickeling vendors converting to native intel over time.

If your software is converted early on then "no problem" however if a critical piece of software takes years to convert then you might as well stick with PPC since it will be the dominant platform for several years to come. 😎

 

[plinden]

Will this mean that there will be some modification of basic board from Intel for Apple? Some uniqueness tailored specifically for Apple by Intel? I ask as it's a strong story in posts that Intel will not do anything special for Apple as they are just another customer and they have bigger mouths to feed with bigger customers. I'm not aware of any Intel boards that have the Apple mods you mention (there probably out there somewhere though!)

They don't have to use Intel motherboards. Probably use Intel chipsets, but Apple can easily redesign the motherboards to not have serial, parallel or ps/2 ports. It's not rocket science.

 

[jdechko]

It's probably more likely, however, that Apple is going to use a G4 update to hold the line together for the next year (one update in between now and late 2006 is entirely reasonable given the recent revision cycle) be it the 7448, 8641, or whatever. It's a safer and easier solution that, unless they are REALLY far down the G5 road, makes the most sense given every consideration.

While I hope that apple makes the last g4 rev as fast as possible, i do not forsee a g5 powerbook, even if they are ready. With the way that Apple's rev a products have flaws, i think that the g5 book would be a mistake. I also cannot see apples R&D dollars continuing down a path (IBM) that will not be around for too much longer. i think that the PowerBook G5 will never exist, and has been scrapped since before the announcement to move to intel. It just doesnt make sense that apple will pursue it any further. I think that the last "updates" to the current PowerBook will be at 1.8GHz with the same old 133 FSB that has been in use with maybe a better Superdrive (Maybe 16X DL) and a newer video card, thats it. Again, I think there's little incentive for them to innovate much more than that... much of their development is going to the Intel PB's, id be willing to bet (no numbers or figures, just a theory)

 

[SiliconAddict]

Have you noticed their new Turion 64 chipset. Similar to Intel's Centrino set, it features a mobile 64-bit processor, low-power features and wireless connectivity.

AMD's web site (see above link) has links to several laptops that are using this chipset. I've seen one of the Compaq models advertised in a local store already.

Yah I have. some of the first laptops with this chip show underwhelming benchmarks and underwhelming battery life. go to computers.com and search for Turion. Granted this is first gen but even first gen isn't all that impressive.


Oh and if you want a good overview of the Turion vs Pentium M check out this link: Efficient 64-Bit Mobile Computing : AMD’s Turion64 Processor

 

[manu chao]

Nope you are right. WWDC showed us that not only was X running natively but the iApps were as well. The funny thing is he didn't demo any of the pro apps which prob means they are having more issues with those apps which makes sense since FCP and the like were optimized around the G5.

To throw in that link again http://www.macnews.de/news/69855 and cite from it: "The font rendering in OS X still runs via Rosetta as well as iTunes".

Even if most of the OS, the Adobe apps and MS Office are native by January, which is not at all given, there will be for most people a couple of (semi-)important apps that will run noticeably slower than on high-end G4s now (not to speak of G5s). Anybody who is buying an IntelBook in January is brazing itself for both speed gains and losses.

Looking how long it took for some apps that are essential to me (Endnote, Matlab, Veritas Netbackup) to make the jump from 10.2 to 10.3 and 10.4, i.e several months to up to a year (Veritas is still not on 10.4 officially) I doubt that I could switch to Intel before the end of 2006.

 

[LionMage]

wouldnt it make the most sense for apple to wait until mid-2006 for the merom chips for laptops, ensuring that their entire lineup uses EM64T? They could introduce consumer macs earlier using current EM64T Pentiums and (uggh) Celerons, but having one model of 32-bit intel processors holding back programming for the next 5 years just to get powerbooks out a few months earlier seems like a really bad trade to me. I think apple should go straight 64bit with intel.

Well, we already have a mixed 32-bit / 64-bit product line. After all, everything G4 is essentially 32-bit, and only the G5 is a true 64-bit processor. Furthermore, many aspects of the OS (especially the GUI) are 32-bit bound; only non-GUI processes, such as daemons and background/concurrent processes spawned by GUI apps, can be 64-bit enabled. I wouldn't sweat the presence or absence of EM64T technology in the first batch of chips... Just as long as I get a dual-core Yonah processor in my PowerBook, I really don't care how wide the registers are.

My guess? You'll probably see the EM64T chips from Intel show up in desktop and server Macs first, where 64-bit computing makes more sense.

 

[oskar]

[EDIT]

It boils down to this: As long as Apple doesn't do some half assed update that leaves something off for later so they can get people to shell out cash for a feature that could have easily been in this model. People will stop bitching. Apple plays games with their wares. We will soon see if this transitions over to the Macintels. If it does expect the bitchfest to continue in mass.

The bad thing (relating to the forums) is that we probably won't be seeing completey new x86 PowerBooks until the next WWDC. At least that's what I'm betting on. Meanwhile there has to be an update to the PowerBooks, and no matter how good the update is everybody's gonna be saying they'd rather wait for "Intel PowerBooks". (They are Apple PowerBooks, people.)
I wonder, and maybe someone could respond to this, could the current PowerBook have everything SilliconAddict listed:

-Dual core around 2Ghz.
-Newer screen
-PCI-Express graphics
-DDR2 RAM up to 2GB.
-SATA hard drives.

Except the 2Ghz processor of course?

 

[LionMage]

They don't have to use Intel motherboards. Probably use Intel chipsets, but Apple can easily redesign the motherboards to not have serial, parallel or ps/2 ports. It's not rocket science.

There are already legacy-free motherboards on the market that have no legacy connectors (e.g., parallel and PS/2 ports). Of course, I imagine Apple will probably manufacture or at least design their own custom motherboards, if for no other reason than they'll want to include FireWire 800 and a couple other things that don't come standard on most motherboards on the market.

Incidentally, the only really goofy thing with legacy-free boards is the emulation of a PS/2 keyboard, which is usually done in the BIOS; a lot of low-level utilities and older operating systems sometimes assume that the PS/2 keyboard adapter is there, so most modern BIOSes contain code to make a USB keyboard act like a PS/2 keyboard. It's just that this emulation isn't perfect. But for an Intel-based Mac, this won't be a concern.

 

[beatle888]

w_parietti22
I find it so funny that before Apple said they were switching to Intel everone was like "Intel sucks!" and now that Apple is moving to Intel everyone is like "Intel Rocks" 🙄 🙂

If Apple said they were going to blow up the world with a PowerMac G5 everyone would say "Apples going to blow up to world!" jumping for joy. Ok maybe not... its more likely that MS will blow up the world when Apple takes over.


w_parietti22
I find it so funny that before Apple said they were switching to Intel everone was like "Intel sucks!" and now that Apple is moving to Intel everyone is like "Intel Rocks" 🙄 🙂

If Apple said they were going to blow up the world with a PowerMac G5 everyone would say "Apples going to blow up to world!" jumping for joy. Ok maybe not... its more likely that MS will blow up the world when Apple takes over.


w_parietti22
I find it so funny that before Apple said they were switching to Intel everone was like "Intel sucks!" and now that Apple is moving to Intel everyone is like "Intel Rocks" 🙄 🙂

If Apple said they were going to blow up the world with a PowerMac G5 everyone would say "Apples going to blow up to world!" jumping for joy. Ok maybe not... its more likely that MS will blow up the world when Apple takes over.


w_parietti22
I find it so funny that before Apple said they were switching to Intel everone was like "Intel sucks!" and now that Apple is moving to Intel everyone is like "Intel Rocks" 🙄 🙂

If Apple said they were going to blow up the world with a PowerMac G5 everyone would say "Apples going to blow up to world!" jumping for joy. Ok maybe not... its more likely that MS will blow up the world when Apple takes over.

 

[hyperpasta]

What's In A Name?

I know this is the stupidest thing to be thinking about, but I can't think of what the chips are gonna be called. I hope Apple doesn't do te obvious and call them "Powerbook with Intel Pentium 4 900" or something. For years, lots of people have reffered to Mac by their chips, like "My G4" or "Mike's G5". I hope that the Intels stay "G". I love the ring of "G6". But then the PowerMac G5 will look stupid compared to the "G6" Mac mini.

 

[Kelson]

or does 'low end' mean G4? becasue then you can add powerbooks to that list...

Low end is consumer line. Alot of people using the pro line require more third party applications, while a higher percentage of people on the consumer line will rely more on Apple software. Think iLife, Mail, Safari, etc.

You step into the pro line, you need the third party apps to be converted, such as Quark, Photoshop, Office, etc. We rely to much on these applications to trust our jobs and daily productivity to translation.

- Kelson

 

[SiliconAddict]

I find it so funny that before Apple said they were switching to Intel everone was like "Intel sucks!" and now that Apple is moving to Intel everyone is like "Intel Rocks" 🙄 🙂

In point of fact the P4 does suck....like a blackhole......badly.....I really mean it. There are only a few notable exceptions in Apple's recent history of good chips. the Pentium Pro and Mobile Pentium III (which the M is loosely based off of.) are pretty good chips. But by and large that's about it. Their celeries? suck. Their Mobile P4's? OK but IMG the battery life sucked and blew at the same time. The desktop P4 of which I'm typing on right now... (What can I say. I got a referbed system for 450 on Dell's referb site which included my company's 15% off.) sucks compared to the competition. the Performance is only so so but that blowing sound on the back of the system isn't from the fan its from the CPU.
Then there was the whole Rambus FUBAR incident where Intel systems skyrocketed in price because Intel was pushing Rambus's RDRAM which was bloody expensive vs. DDR and then DDR2.


Simply its taken years for Intel to grow a clue and in that time AMD has handed Intel this butt minced and served on crackers on a silver platter. There is a reason why Apple is going with Intel now. Not 3 years from now. Not 2 years ago but now. They are back in the game and all I can say is its about damn time. I have no love for Intel or AMD. All I want is them to batter each other over the head with kick butt chips and I WIN. Woot!

 

[Kelson]

I second that emotion, with maybe the Minis receiving Intel chips on or about the same time.

However, didn't Steve also say that Intel was going to start at the "low-end" first? I suppose this has many connotations, but to me it means iBook/Mini and maybe eMac and not PowerBook, iMac and PowerMac first...

Also, not knowing a nickel's worth about Intel chips - are all of these going to be 64-bit chips? Presumably Apple is going to keep the pace with a 64-bit CPU/(mostly) 64-bit OS, yes?

Yonah is 32-bit, Merom is 64-bit. Expect Yonah in ibooks, initially single core, then when Merom comes out and they go into the power book, the ibook gets an upgrade to dual core yonah. Figure WWDC '06 for Powerbook and dual core ibook.

- Kelson

 

[SiliconAddict]

I know this is the stupidest thing to be thinking about, but I can't think of what the chips are gonna be called.

Oh that's easy. Apple has been talking to General Motors and licensing their name.

Steve steps on stage and introduces the new 15 and 17 inch PowerBook GM's. 😀 😉

 

[Ups85]

I highly doubt we will see any intel macs before june of next year. Don't forget, you need an OS to run on these machines! I highly doubt they will be releasing leopard before next june. My guess is that in January they will preview the new features in Leopard, and in June announce its release along with the first wave of intel macs.

 

[jdechko]

All I want is them to batter each other over the head with kick butt chips and I WIN. Woot!

Here, here. You are right in that it doesn't matter what chips our Macs are running, or will run. Apples attention to detail and their control over all aspects of the computing experience, both hardware and software, make a Mac a Mac. IN the end, if apple gives us the best chip, we win.