aegisdesign said:
Note that Apple and Dell are prob going to get DEEP discounts on those prices. I'd expect to see the price slashed in half if not more. I still don't expect any dullies in an iBook until the trans over to Meron.
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's Napa Platform with Yonah
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Note that Apple and Dell are prob going to get DEEP discounts on those prices. I'd expect to see the price slashed in half if not more. I still don't expect any dullies in an iBook until the trans over to Meron.
Is there anyone else who is pessimistic about this switch over? I'm starting to think that Apple will end up putting cheap kit together and selling it at premium prices.
I'm also a little confused by the fact that everyone is saying the G4 is such a slow chip. I've not noticed a significant speed difference between friends laptops who are using pentium M chips running at 1.7ghz and my own 12" PB.
The final bit that baffles me is how people heralded the G5 as being significantly more advanced than anything intel was offering, and then I remember posts saying that the G4 would smoke the G5 if it had a comparable frontside bus. Now there is mention of a dual core G4 with a 667mhz frontside bus, so wouldn't this technically smoke all these intel chips ??
I don't know allot about chips, as you can probably tell, but there seems to be allot of contradictions around here on these forums.
Jason
I'm also a little confused by the fact that everyone is saying the G4 is such a slow chip. I've not noticed a significant speed difference between friends laptops who are using pentium M chips running at 1.7ghz and my own 12" PB.
The final bit that baffles me is how people heralded the G5 as being significantly more advanced than anything intel was offering, and then I remember posts saying that the G4 would smoke the G5 if it had a comparable frontside bus. Now there is mention of a dual core G4 with a 667mhz frontside bus, so wouldn't this technically smoke all these intel chips ??
I don't know allot about chips, as you can probably tell, but there seems to be allot of contradictions around here on these forums.
Jason
gnasher729 said:
Umm they aren't breaking any laws....so what they are doing isn't criminal. NDA's and EULA aren't law. You can bet that the MPAA and RIAA wish they were. Its amazing how some people miss that fact.
j_maddison said:
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Trust me. The M smokes even the top of the PowerBook line in performance. Now Altavec enhanced apps may narrow the gap but it doesn't close it. The G4 is a 4 year old CPU that has had little forward momentum in the last 3 years. Eyeballing the differences in speed is a bad way of doing it. Do you have a faster HD then him? Do you have more RAM? Does he have the SPU scaled down? What about his drivers? firmware up to date? and on and on and on. And then there is simply the, likely, fact they are running Windows.gnasher729 said:
It's misleading if you only quote part of my post. My point is, posters on this thread are starting to wish for the impossible. The G4 in the iBook costs about $50 I'd guess since it's a couple of notches down the ladder from the top 1.67Ghz 7447As. Expecting 2Ghz+ dual cores which cost over $400 to go in an iBook is insane. Even the $241 part, which is a Dual 1.66Ghz chip, you mentioned is still a lot more expensive. I think we'll be lucky to see that. I suspect it'll actually be the single core Celeron M 390 going into the iBook if we see an update in January.
The problem is, if Apple want to compete against the Acers and Dells of the world then they're going to have to trim their margins or lower the chips to match. Before, with the G4 it wasn't directly comparable. Now it is.
gnasher729 said:
No, the G4 is cheap because it has a fraction of the transistors on the die in comparison to an x86 chip. It costs a lot less to manufacture in theory. There are 30-40 million transistors in a G4. There are 150 million + in Yonah per core and they use a currently more expensive leading edge process. Freescale are still on well established 90nm.
Hi all,
Lets be serious here. I am a power user and I have a dual 2.7 G5 at the mo for my Lightwave 3D use with a Quaddie 2.5 on the way! I also do a lot of travelling for my company and I need portable power. At the moment only winblows lappies can give me the power i need i.e with a Go 7800.
Apple is never gonna wack in a hi spec Dual Core Pentium M and a Go 7800 or an X800 is it. So for now Apple is shooting itslef in the foot, as it is losing customers to Winblows as that is the only true mobile power around.
Lets be serious here. I am a power user and I have a dual 2.7 G5 at the mo for my Lightwave 3D use with a Quaddie 2.5 on the way! I also do a lot of travelling for my company and I need portable power. At the moment only winblows lappies can give me the power i need i.e with a Go 7800.
Apple is never gonna wack in a hi spec Dual Core Pentium M and a Go 7800 or an X800 is it. So for now Apple is shooting itslef in the foot, as it is losing customers to Winblows as that is the only true mobile power around.
ZorPrime said:I think you have a really keen point.
I know it’s not logical
I’m going to wait out the intel transition until Apple starts developing its own custom/kick-rear chips with intel, that will only be used on Macs.
Customized Mac-Specific CPUs will totally kick bottom and Mac will have unique guts again.
https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/11/20051122092351.shtml
I understand completely how you feel. But you could look at it as BMW having a superior car, then choosing/unable to update the model for 5 years. Meanwhile the Honda Accord has been revolutionising their cars, and they have boatloads more coming along the way. The most recent model has 2x more horsepower and gas milage then the 5 year old BMW you love. What would you do? Pshycologically you still feel the BMW is better because of it's brand name and reputation... but in the meantime they've let all of that slip to ****.
AidenShaw said:Yes, and under the same rules the Sony Playstation 2 was also embargoed from certain countries! (http://news.com.com/Life+imitates+art+for+Apple/2100-1001_3-259224.html)
The US govt "supercomputer" definitions are antiquated, and the MTOPS ratings used in them have nothing to do with actual system performance. (The "T" means "Theoretical".)
But, good ads for the people who don't understand how little they matter! "Being a supercomputer" and "meeting the US govt definition of a supercomputer" are two very different things.
Oh sure make a better reply to that post then mine, and you even included links!
I shall try harder next time
Randall said:
I don't agree with you at all on that, but to debate this topic go to Bimmerforums
.That being said, I am finding out more and more that car analogies don't work when talking about computer hardware / equipment. And I am a car/ IT guy!
Cold_Steel said:
See thats my worry. If i'm looking at a wintel machine with much higher specs for a simular cost, then I worry that I'll end up finding a hacked copy of OSX and shove that on the windows lappy.
Now I know alot of people will say thats illegal, but I'm sure I'm not the only person whos thinking it.
I think Steve might be about to make a big blunder with this switch.
Jason
Is that any different from the G4 laptops they are trying to sell you at the moment? In all fairness, they used to be top knotch machines, but recently they have allowed an old and tired chip to remain in the lineup for far too long.j_maddison said:
Motorola fanboys should give it up, The G4 is an old chip that Moto has a had a very hard time getting more out of it. Lets not talk paper please. Intel is about to ship these things and i have seen benches that put these next to my Athlon 64 which matches up well to dual 2.0 G5s.(except in games, in games those G5s are hammered) So you will have that kind of performance in books. Im sure Apple is looking at the low end Yonahs. They could intro a 1.6 and not only would it be a faster clock but a much faster chip then G4. Just use the faster Yonahs or even dual cores in the powerline, use the singles in the consumer line. Also iMac is primed and ready for the new CPU with its new bus. PowerMac I bet gets a brand new design. Apple could shock everyone with a faster then expected switch of all models this year to the Intel platform kick out that that odd dog!
kick out that that odd dog!digitalbiker said:
I totally agree.
It is a historical fact:
Adios 680x0 architecture = adios software that required Mac OS 8.1 or earlier.
Adios G3/G4 architecture = adios software that required Mac OS 10.2.6 or earlier.
Buenos dias MacIntel architecture = Buenos dias software that can run on "Intel Inside".
Steve Jobs was really happy about the software develpers who transitioned their software to OSX. He kept a running count as to how many developers made the transition.
In a few weeks, he will keep us informed as to how many developers have made the transition to MacIntel.
Today: Dec 15, 2005:
Top of the line 17 inch PowerBook: 1.67 ghz processor, max ram (2 gig), 100 gig 7200 rpm hard drive, 128MB video card (upgrade not available) and NO extended AppleCare = $2999 USD.
Equivalent Dell: XPS M170 17 inch: 2.0 ghz processor (not the upgrade-choice of two: 2.13 & 2.26), max ram (2 gig), 100 gig 7200 rpm hard drive, DVD burner (extra), full wireless (extra), 256MB video (not the upgrade from geforce 6800 to 7800), and no extended warranty: $3117 USD.
Extra $118 to buy a virus prone machine.
... but it's faster and it has more video ram.
Either way, MacIntel or WinTel, you gotta buy a whole new suite of software.
=-=-=
JJ Tiger
SiliconAddict said:Then you haven't been paying attention.
The Pentium M only really smokes a G4 in integer based benchmarks and anything very memory intensive that has to go through the CPU. That 2MB cache comes in handy. I've a 1.7Ghz Pentium M laptop and it's a lot slower at encoding in iTunes and transcoding video than a G4 and much slower than a G5. AltiVec makes a difference there and in some Photoshop filters at least until you get bandwidth bound instead of CPU bound.
It'd be interesting to see how the new Powerbooks do versus a Pentium M as they now run the Intrepid2 controller at 333Mhz instead of the previous 167Mhz direct FSB 1:1 lock. In theory since a lot of the time the CPU isn't involved with moving data about, the 333Mhz Intrepid2 has twice the memory access bandwidth available so is able for instance to DMA data off disk to memory twice as fast as the old controller.
Where the Pentium-M Windows laptops score well though is in graphics performance and in particular OpenGL. And that says more about Apple's slow OpenGL implementation than the processor. I'd be surprised if that changes with a MacIntel so expect us to still lose miserably in Cinebench. Dissing Windows performance is going to come back and haunt us if given the same hardware Windows is faster.
Of course the 1.67Ghz G4 v 1.7Ghz Pentium-M comparison is academic as there's a dual core 2.16Ghz Pentium-M in January and more to follow and no faster G4s or a laptop G5 on the horizon.
Cold_Steel said:
Apple had better be providing an option of a top-end Yonah and a top-end graphics chip with their next updates, because they're going to be compared directly to PC notebooks now. If Dell has a 2.2+GHz laptop and Apple doesn't, then it looks bad for Apple.
I suspect that Apple may now offer processor upgrades on their laptops, if you want to pay the extra money. For example, the 15" might come with a 1.8GHz Yonah by default, but for an extra $200 you can have a 2GHz Yonah, and for an extra $500 a 2.2GHz Yonah.
PS: It's 'Gloucestershire'.
All this less watts/heat issue is BS, the X86 architecture is archaic. The PowerPC uses less watts/heat NOW. Stick 2 Intel chips in a tower and see how much heat they produce and how many watts they used. Once PPC goes 65nm you'll see. Face it Apple is TOO cheap to pay IBM to develop the PPC. They make billions and can't spare a couple million come on!
j_maddison said:
The difference is that your friends are running Windows and you are running MacOS X. Now if they are running the whole range of virus checkers, malware checkers, anti-sypware that you need on Windows, then that Pentium M probably spends more processing power on that alone than your poor slow G4 has available to do everything!
That is a good post. Should speak volumes to people that still think G4 can hold a candle to the latest x86 laptops. I am sure Apple will be rolling out the x86 version of Tiger that has been co-developed along with the PPC version since OS X 10.0. Let's hope it will be a seamless transition and the general public with no knowledge of the switch will not have too much to think about.JJTiger1 said:
LMAO....AMD isn't slated to intro 65nm tech till q3 06 at the earliest. What happens beyond that? Intel is the ONLY company with enough resources to comfortably move beyond with further transistor shrinkage. Talented as AMD is, they just don't have the capital to compete with intel in the long run imho. Look at the pentium-m for example. Intel saw a problem, and threw a couple billion dollars to a fab team in Israel to fix it. Their doing the same thing with their upcoming desktop architecture, after the disaster that was prescott. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge AMD fan but realistically speaking, in the long run I believe Intel is a much wiser choice.backdraft said:
too much hyperbole
Sure, the occasional full scan puts a load on a system, but the real-time stuff that's always on is virtually unnoticeable.
It's interesting to see the myth about how malware tools slow the system down turning into "accepted fact" on these boards....gnasher729 said:
Sure, the occasional full scan puts a load on a system, but the real-time stuff that's always on is virtually unnoticeable.
AidenShaw said:
Of course these tools slow the system. While you are correct that these items have an impact of a varying nature, the impact is still there. The effect is most pronounced when tools are utilized that perform "real time scanning", as these tools recheck system components each time a new process is started or a new file is installed.