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
Merom
I for one am waiting for the Merom-based laptops. It's going to be a completely different architechture (Yonah is still based off of the Pentium-M), and it will be 64-bit (Yonah is still 32-bit), as well as dual-core. It will also run a slightly faster system bus (667 mhz, versus 533 Yonah), and have 2-4mb of L2 cache...
Yeah, Merom will RAPE Yonah... Expected Q4-2006.
Damn straight...
I for one am waiting for the Merom-based laptops. It's going to be a completely different architechture (Yonah is still based off of the Pentium-M), and it will be 64-bit (Yonah is still 32-bit), as well as dual-core. It will also run a slightly faster system bus (667 mhz, versus 533 Yonah), and have 2-4mb of L2 cache...
Yeah, Merom will RAPE Yonah... Expected Q4-2006.
Damn straight...
Umm I could be wrong but I believe that the high end Yonahs do have a 667MHz system bus.ShnikeJSB said:
polinho said:
Glad you're paying attention and welcome to Macrumors polinho, land where Powerbook whiners outstrip the average folk almost 2:1!
They probably would put the Intel in the iBook first, that makes the most sense to all but the delusional few who kept saying the G5 was around the corner. The performance hit for PPC apps using Rosetta may be pretty hefty and only the consumer apps will be ready at first to work on Intel free of it. Hence the consumer line is the logical first to get the Intel chips, only then followed by the professional models later as more of the big actual pro apps (Macromedia, Adobe, etc.) get ported to Intel to work natively, by then Powerbooks would be in the pipeline, but not a moment sooner.
Is OS X not already both 32 and 64 bit? I was under the impression that starting with Tiger it would be 64 bit compatible, so that the G5s could take advantage.mactim said:
Yes it does according to many sites: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26879
ShnikeJSB is most likely wrong.
I can't believe all the misinformation that gets spread about on this forum.
It takes *seconds* to check facts using google.
ShnikeJSB is most likely wrong.
I can't believe all the misinformation that gets spread about on this forum.
It takes *seconds* to check facts using google.
Randall said:
Apple should replace all G4 products with Intel and the iMac G5 should go Intel. Keep Xserve and the Powermac with G5s for now if they are faster.
Did you get the memo? Macromedia is pwned by Adobe. It will be interesting to see what stays, gets added, or goes away for Adobe CS3. And hopefully that will be x86 native as well.Photorun said:
No Single Cores
Unless Apple uses the worthless Dothan chip, there will be no single core Yonahs. Single core Yonahs will not be available until April, according to Intel's timeline. The later release of single cores has already been reported on PC sites.
hvfsl said:
LaMerVipere said:I agree, it would make the most sense to have iBooks single-core and PowerBooks dual-core. (assuming both lines will still be called iBooks and PowerBooks after they go Intel)
Unless Apple uses the worthless Dothan chip, there will be no single core Yonahs. Single core Yonahs will not be available until April, according to Intel's timeline. The later release of single cores has already been reported on PC sites.
The Powerbooks will most definately carry the dual core Yonah's, but It's starting to look like (since SSE3 is not required by OS X x86) that Dothan may rear it's ugly head in the mini and/or ibook.Val-kyrie said:
Tiger PPC has only limited 64-bit support, the advantage in PPC land is really just an increased address space (>4GB). But EM64T versus IA32 comparison is very different. The increased registers in EM64T give many types of code a significant performance boost. It's a shame that Apple couldn't start out with EM64T. But Intel isn't ready and OSX86 has likely been IA32 for the last 5 years.
Randall said:
Val-kyrie said:
Whoah... Whoah whoah whoah... WHOAH!
Dothan is NOT worthless! I have been running a 2.13GHz Dothan since May, and it is PLENTY fast! If it was in an iBook, people would NOT be complaining, believe me!
Oh my lord. I have already retracted that statement if you RTFT. (read the f-ing thread). I got confused with the developer kit requiring SSE3. I appoligize once again.Val-kyrie said:
If Intel ibooks get a celery M, I might have to throw a tantrum. Since single core yonahs are expected later than dual core, its hard to imagine an earlier release of consumer lappers with single core yonahs before the release of power dual cores. My prediction is a combo of the ibook and power lines into a single intel line, with the most portable laptops getting the slower dual core processors. And speed bumps as you gain in size. After all- its been pretty clear lately how limited apple is with its 12 inch enclosure... This way, no more separation of i and power. Of course for this to work they would also need a more robust BTO option list, to satisfy both the power hungry and the money concious.
Another option as someone has suggested, is Jobs announcing the dual core ibook with powerbooks blowing even those out the water. One more thing just seems too far off. I can't wait.
Another option as someone has suggested, is Jobs announcing the dual core ibook with powerbooks blowing even those out the water. One more thing just seems too far off. I can't wait.
Randall said:
Mac OS X 10.2.8 (and related Xcode / gcc) presented the ability use 64 bit general purpose math in an process when on G5 processors.
Mac OS X 10.4 (and related Xcode / gcc) presented the ability to use 64 but general purpose math when on G5 processors and additionally allow processes that link only against libSystem (no GUI, etc.) to use 64 bit addressing when on a G5 (give access to a 64b virtual address space, a HUGE address space).
Also note since the existence of G5 systems the virtual memory subsystem in Mac OS X has had the ability to work with greater then 32 bit physical addresses (starting with 10.2.8). This allows G5s to have more then 4 GB of physical RAM which is shared by all running applications and/or file cache (universal buffer cache).
Upon revealing that SSE3 is not required by OS X x86, then I will predict:TaKashMoney said:
January...
mini: Dothan
ibook: Dothan
Powerbook: dual core Yonah
June...
mini: Dothan
ibook: single core Yonah
Powerbook: dual core Yonah
Photorun said:
It doesn't matter how hefty Rosetta will be when your current processor has a 167Mhz bus and is 4 years old!
Seriously Rosetta or not a dual core 2Ghz Yonah is going to give even the PM G5 a run for its money, nevermind the current G4. Bring it on Apple!
On the other hand I bet it is gonna cost heaps.
Randall said:
Yes and No!
OS X provides only partial 64 bit support limited to non-GUI apps. It is a really lame claim to 64 bit support.
Full 64 bit support was anticipated for OS X 10.5 but Apple has not mentioned 64 bit at all since the Intel announcement. In fact, the Intel switch may have been set back OS X 64 bit support for some years to come, considering software developers would once again be forced to re-write applications for 64 bit.
I for one, am at a loss why Apple didn't have the foresite to make this a single step forward to full 64 bit x86 SSE3 OS X rather than baby steps demanding more work of the developers.
The DTK does not "require" SSE3..It just happens to be using an SSE3 CPU chipset.SSE3 isn't being used currently..
Almost all compiling is being done for SSE2..
The P4 in the DTK also has EM64T instructions..
Almost all compiling is being done for SSE2..
The P4 in the DTK also has EM64T instructions..