Intel's 2006 Processor Roadmap

[jdechko]

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.

Actually, Tiger for Intel will ship with the first Intel Macs, not Leopard. But Tiger for Intel will not be commercially available, save when purchased with an Intel Mac. Leopard will be the first Mac OS to hit shelves with both a PPC and Intel version.

 

[eXan]

So if you're waiting for a new powerbook... January might be worth waiting for!

Ah dont be so excited yet. January is only the time when these CPUs will be announced, so WWDC is the earliest time of introduction of new Macs

 

[LSlugger]

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.

On PowerPC, the benefit of a fully 64-bit O/S is debatable. On x86, the advantage of AMD64's extra registers generally outweighs any disadvantage of its larger pointers, so there's no need for a 32-bit GUI.

Other x86 operating systems have to support IA32 as a legacy architecture. The Intel version of OS X is coming out fully three years after the introduction of AMD64. It has no IA32 legacy, so it has no excuse.

Think about it: in a very short period of time, OS X has gone from one architecture (ppc) to four (ppc, ppc64, i386, x86_64). The average ISV who drinks the universal binary kool-aid will deliver a ppc/i386 app. As Windows makes the 64-bit transition (SuSE, et al., have been shipping solid 64-bit Linux distributions for a while), Mac apps. will be at a competitive disadvantage. Two years from now, Tom and Anand will be putting footnotes in their benchmarks explaining why Photoshop CS3 and LightWave 9 are so much faster on Vista than Leopard.

Given OS X's "secret double life," and Intel's lack of 64-bit low-power products, the four-architecture strategy may be a necessary evil. For the ISV and the customer, however, it sucks.

 

[SiliconAddict]

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.

Leopard won't be out til 2007. Take that statement to the bank and cash it. Apple has stated they are going into longer periods between releases. Averaging out to 18 months. For Leopard it will prob be longer since Apple still has some polishing to do on Tiger. And the first Macintels won't be running Leopard. It will be Tiger that as compiled and cleaned up for x86. We already know that Tiger runs on x86 NOW since all those dev boxes are shipping with it.
My WAG is developer preview at WWDC next summer with a first half 2007 release date possibly to coincide with the release of the first x86 PowerMac. Why wouldn't I be surprised if Apple shoves it in IBM's face by marking the 5 year anniversary of the G5 at WWDC in 2007 with the release of the dual core dual CPU GX or whatever they call it.
"Five years ago I stood on this stage an introduced you to an evolutionary jump in the PowerMac. Today marks the next leap forward. *Leopard rumble as the the OS X.5 logo comes on screen with the new PowerMac*

 

[oskar]

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.

I think Mighty Mac mini would sound awesome! 😱
Nah, just kidding.

I would expect Apple to remove the processor name for a while from the iBook. They could keep on calling the mini just mac mini as they do now and get a "G-whatever" PowerBook and PowerMac later. I agree that they wouldn't call a new mini a G6 or any other name that would make it sound faster or better than G5's, but mostly because it most certainly will not have the same processor as upcoming PowerBooks and/or PowerMacs. Maybe the mini was never called a G4 because of that... 😕

 

[Yvan256]

Looks like Intel is trying hard to expand and support apples needs.

Nope. Intel are simply trying hard to expand and support everyone's needs. And also trying to keep AMD far behind. AMD processors are great, but they suck power like there's no tomorrow. Last time I checked anyway.

 

[46and2]

Could we see single core Sonoma announced in Paris, shipping in Oct/Nov? Yonah announced at WWDC 06, and Merom announced MWSF 07. That spaces out nicely bewteen updates and matches pretty well with Intel's map.

 

[Mav451]

Nope. Intel are simply trying hard to expand and support everyone's needs. And also trying to keep AMD far behind. AMD processors are great, but they suck power like there's no tomorrow. Last time I checked anyway.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx57_3.html

...I guess you haven't checked in a long time 😀

Since A64 was released (think Aug '03 following the G5 release), A64's have been not only faster, but also cooler than Intel's offering.

*Pay special attention to the E-cores. They further put to shame the thermal inefficiency of the P4's. FX-57's 79W vs. P4 XE 3.73's 155W? Or how bout the 3800+'s 59.6W vs. the 670 (3.8Ghz)'s 162.3W

 

[sluthy]

Yeah, if only it would run on Athlon X2's. They ALREADY have quadruple-core Athlons in the pipeline for release next year!

Anyway, I predict there will never be a PB G5 - isn't there an upcoming Apple event soon, with a 'big' announcement? I'm predicting they'll go the Freescale dualcore G4 (I bags rights to the 'PowerBook 2G4' trademark 😎 ) before a June 06 x86 release. Then iBooks and Mac minis, then after a little while release the big momma whatever Intel chips in the PowerMacs. (questions - didn't the Power in PowerMac refer to the PowerPC? Can they technically continue the G* badging as it's no longer referring to PowerPC generations?)

 

[windmaomao]

long battery?

i assume lower power assumption equals to longer battery usage.

I hope it'll be as fast as the PB, since my PB is the fastest compact laptop I ever used so far.

 

[pubwvj]

This is very good news indeed, part of what I want to see is dual-core and lower power consumption in the PowerBooks, but I doubt we'll be seeing it in January of '06. More likely early summer. Even then I wouldn't buy because it will be version 1.0 and we know what that is like! Also I want to see MacOSX completely native with support for legacy applications - very necessary. e.g., Classic!

 

[delton05]

I just hope Apple don't call the Intel CPU, the G6...I'd cop lots of ridicule from my PC mates on that!

Yah! Mac on X86 ... barf...

 

[TheMasin9]

yes they are

Heh I don't think they're making these chips specifically for Apple 🙂

apple isnt going to just stick an ordinary run of the mill chip in thier boxes to get them out the door. they did that with the dev kits, but when we see a real intel mac, it is going to have some sweet intel apple only processor in it, its bad enuf seeing a g5 with all that empty space and a crappy looking intel board in it. steve wont stand for it, and niether will consumers.

 

[bentoon]

They will also need to redesign the Powerbook before the chips go in so it will be a while after January before we see these.

Unless they have already and steve will announce these in a few weeks - shipping in the first quarter of 2006

 

[SiliconAddict]

apple isnt going to just stick an ordinary run of the mill chip in thier boxes to get them out the door. they did that with the dev kits, but when we see a real intel mac, it is going to have some sweet intel apple only processor in it, its bad enuf seeing a g5 with all that empty space and a crappy looking intel board in it. steve wont stand for it, and niether will consumers.

Empty space. Are you dense? That means they can shrink down the bloody computer! And the average consumer isn't going to know jack about what is inside their computer. talk to your average Mac user. Those that don't come to boards like this. they probably don't have a clue as to what chip is in their system and that's the way it should be. Its a Mac. It runs OSX. It just works. And its fast. That's all that matters to most people.

*sighs* I still see people are stuck in the denial phase still. Read the following and accept it:

APPLE WILL BE USING STANDARD INTEL CPU'S FROM 2006 AND 2007

I will bet my savings, stocks, and 401K on this. Why? Apple is trying to get away from proprietary implementations. Apple is probably spending an arm, leg, and torso on funding R&E at Moto and IBM and probably not enough for IBM to put out a G5 PowerBook. You will NEVER get me to believe they have a G5 ready to go for Apple now. Amazing how this announcement occurred mere months after apple said screw you to IBM. If they had it Apple would have released it. It's really that simple. No Apple moved to x86 for two simple reasons
1. AMD vs. Intel guarantees that both companies will throw butt loads of cash at R&D without Apple needing to pay out; leaving them to use their money on other projects. (Start salivating here guys.)
2. Intel has massive fab capabilities large enough to handle any orders from Apple. (Once they ramp up production that is. Initially any new chip is going to be pined over by the likes of Dell, Toshiba, Gateway, HP, etc.)
3. Intel vs. AMD guarantees that the people providing the chips to Apple won't ever have a laid back approach to their chips.

pay close attention to that last point. The reason Moto and IBM may have not cared about apple that much is simple ROI. Are they really making a ton of money on a company that comprises at best 5% of the market. The transition to x86 and using "standard" chips guarantees that apple will never again need to worry that their chip manufacturer is going to get pissy about 5% when Intel and AMD provides (WAG here -->) 95% of the chips in the desktop\laptop market. Apple nor Intel will EVER go with a proprietary implementation of an Intel CPU because they will be back in the same boat as they were in with IBM and Moto. It’s not going to happen. Now chipsets are another matter. Apple could take Intel’s chipset designs and roll it into a proprietary board that they call their own. But for the CPU. Not a chance in heck of them getting a custom CPU. Get over it already. Its Intel Inside for the Mac and in the long run this is going to be good for the platform. Gah. I should have just done a search on one of my previous posts and just cut and paste. 🙄

 

[dombi]

Talking about PowerBooks, Apple and new design... have you guys read this yet?

"Apple recruiting Sony VAIO engineers to build the first Intel PowerBook?"
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000537052498

 

[lorenz]

INTEL is known for promissing a lot and deliver less.

Don't forget that on PC field the INTEL is not the faster,cheaper,innovative...
It's AMD.

 

[maxigalaxy]

Apple is gonna show something that will amaze us !
And that will be a BIG step ahead of PPC.
Be confident!

 

[willyjsimmons]

Intel will not build a custom board just for Apple sans PS/2 etc.

Not gonna happen.

Will Apple have to build a custom board for the mini, yes.

Intel just doesn't make a board small enough for a mini form factor.

Never has, and won't for a machine with such a small market share.

Mini x86s have been available for years.

As the article states, the mini will probably feature the Yonah CPU, and a custom board featuring the intel M chipset.

The built in wireless, and low power consumption, just makes perfect sense for the mini. The perfect entry level, home user PC.

Will it debut in Jan?

I doubt it.

More than likely you'll see an ibook or Powerbook with a single-core Yonah CPU.

Anyting else would just be a 'teaser', if Jobs is serious about a 1st half Intel based Mac.

For desktops, we could see a Pentium EE CPU system.

That's 'bleeding edge' Intel.

A modest roadmap for Jan would be:

ibook/powerbook with Yonah.
eMac with Yonah
iMac with Yonah.
Powerbook with Pentium D. Just like a Dell Dimension XPS Gen 5. Dual-core/64bit, PCI/x.

The Dell price $1385 after rebate.

 

[sjl]

Rosetta for apps with very little altivec code is about as fast as current G4s. For altivec code Rosetta is very slow (factor 10 or more).

Uh ... that would be because Rosetta doesn't grok Altivec. In essence: any PPC app running under Rosetta is essentially running on an emulated G3 CPU, not a G4 or G5. Go back and re-read the announcements pertaining to Rosetta; you'll see that it won't do 64 bit apps, and it won't do Altivec. ==> G3.

So an Altivec-optimised app will be forced to use its non-vector code path when executing under emulation on an x86 CPU. Of course it'll be slow!

 

[outerspaceapple]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think its time macbytes.com added an "Intel" avtar in addition to the "PowerPC" avtar. I mean comeon guys, really.

 

[Stridder44]

I'll second this. I must say though, that this is exciting and it will be nice to see some Apples with truly top of the line hardware. Is anyone else pumped about this whole intel thing?

YES!

 

[faintember]

I'll second this. I must say though, that this is exciting and it will be nice to see some Apples with truly top of the line hardware. Is anyone else pumped about this whole intel thing?

When i see a rev b Macintel PB running all of the specialized audio software that i use natively, effectively, faster than ever and cheaper, yes. Until then i am upgrading the ram on my current PB in an attempt to give it a few more years of vitality.

The switch is going to be great initially for the average mac user; the person who surfs the net, listens to itunes, writes emails, etc. The people that are going to suffer are the professional level user's that require fast cpu speeds that are a necessity for their fields, not to mention all of the specialized software that may, or may not be ported to x86 in a timely matter (without bugs!)

I remember how long it took some of my audio software to make the switch from OS 9 to OS X. If a major OS upgrade took almost a year, then how long will the upgrade to a major chipset take?

 

[SiliconAddict]

Huh?

Intel will not build a custom board just for Apple sans PS/2 etc.

Not gonna happen.

Will Apple have to build a custom board for the mini, yes.

Intel just doesn't make a board small enough for a mini form factor.

Umm while Intel doesn't a number of vendors are releasing Pentium M boards onto the market some are available NOW and some are as small or smaller then the board found in the Mini. To name two off the top of my head....ASUS and Abit.

As for PS/2 Ports. Do you have any idea what you are even talking about? My Dell Optiplex doesn't even come with PS/2 ports and in fact the Vista logo program requirements say that the ports have to be gone to get certed. Ditto with serial. I haven't read anything about parallel ports but I'm guessing that will remain.
The point is the tech you are talking about is already on the way out or just plain out already. Hell if Apple wanted to they could have boards that have SCSI, SP/2, Serial on it and simple disable the hardware in the firmware and ship it without the connectors and you wouldn't even know there was anything on there. (Which they have done in the past. Witness the mini's spare firewire port contacts on the mainboard that is sitting there without anything connected to it.)

 

[Marx55]

Documents seen by Tom's Hardware Guide now indicate that the new processor architecture code-named "Conroe" and scheduled for the second half of 2006 will deliver on this promise. If we believe our sources, then Intel is targeting a power consumption of about 60 to 70 watts per processor - or 30 to 35 watts per core.

Yes, but what are the specs of current PowerPC chips?

Numbers mean nothing without a reference to compare them!

As far as I know, only microprocessors requiring less than 10 W do not need fans.

I want a fanless Mactel! - No fan: no noise. Quiet...