Intel's Napa Platform with Yonah

[pgwalsh]

Sorry, just want to clarify something...What makes you think that Powerbooks are to first ones, and not Ibooks? Haven't the rumors been more incisive on Ibooks? Really, I'm just trying to figure out why are you still talking about PB's...Did I miss something...?

Why not release Intel based product across the entire line. What could be holding them back? They could offer a full line of x86 and PPC. They're keeping Tranmeta around until 2008 and obviously IBM will be manufacturing PPC chips through that period. So it makes sense that at some point they'll offer both lines in some form or another and neither one needs to be exclusive. Why not start 2006 with a bang and offer two full lines of computers.

Who knows, perhaps the whole concept of shipping both binaries is a hint that they'll support both platfroms well into the future. IBM has a new friend in the Xbox 360 which processor shares a close relation to the G5. I can see the need to keep producing G5's, at least in the scientific field.

 

[mactim]

Don't be too hard on the poor old G4!
Not everything is limited by the FSB (and DMA is at 333MHz).
Altivec is still better than SSE

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.

 

[Frobozz]

PowerBook or iBook?

I want a Yonah or similar Intel PowerBook. The only problem is that the rumor mill suggests only the iBook will be moving to Intel. I find that hard to believe.

PowerBooks are in more need of a speed boost and pro level features. This is something Napa / Yonah will offer. The iBook could simple become a rewrapped PowerBook. I just don't understand how the iBook and lower end configurations would be first. Analysts claim this makes sense because the apps that people will use most often on a consumer laptop will already be Intel based (Apple produced.) Well, this is fine, but it doesn't add up.

If Intel is to be believed, the new Napa approach will yield 68% speed increase over existing Pentium M offerings. I think we can all agree that, when speaking strictly of raw CPU power, these Pentium M is *already* at least 25% faster. Arguments of that exact number aside, we're looking at somewhere around TWO TIMES as fast as the current PowerBooks. Even conservatively we could say 75%. So if we factor in a 20% speed decrease for Rosetta emulated apps, even emulation would be around 30% to 50% faster than a current PowerBook. The speed factor that Analysts claim is not a factor at all! Most speed bumps for Apple are in the range of 12 to 16%, aside from the recent quad update which was ~70%.

So my wish is that PowerBooks come out first as the flagship Intel transition laptop. Mac Mini / Home Media Mac as the flagship desktop.

 

[Val-kyrie]

Size Matters

The previous posts about the 25-30% decrease in the size of the laptops seems even more credible in light of this article:

"Napa . . . can help cut the size of a notebook by 30 percent versus today's machines, the Santa Clara, Calif., company said.

Thus . . . Napa will make for smaller, lighter notebooks with stronger performance, . . . ."

 

[Randall]

No offense intended. I only have a modem connection so I post as I read throught the posts in my tabbed windows. No need for the vulgarity, man.

Sorry, it's just that I got 4 replies telling me how wrong I was all at once. Didn't mean to rip you apart.

 

[mactim]

This was reported for the DTK 10.4.1 because Rosetta required SSE3 (and Rosetta was required for some OS components).
I can see why some have got confused.

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..

 

[Randall]

I want a Yonah or similar Intel PowerBook. The only problem is that the rumor mill suggests only the iBook will be moving to Intel. I find that hard to believe.

PowerBooks are in more need of a speed boost and pro level features. This is something Napa / Yonah will offer. The iBook could simple become a rewrapped PowerBook. I just don't understand how the iBook and lower end configurations would be first. Analysts claim this makes sense because the apps that people will use most often on a consumer laptop will already be Intel based (Apple produced.) Well, this is fine, but it doesn't add up.

If Intel is to be believed, the new Napa approach will yield 68% speed increase over existing Pentium M offerings. I think we can all agree that, when speaking strictly of raw CPU power, these Pentium M is *already* at least 25% faster. Arguments of that exact number aside, we're looking at somewhere around TWO TIMES as fast as the current PowerBooks. Even conservatively we could say 75%. So if we factor in a 20% speed decrease for Rosetta emulated apps, even emulation would be around 30% to 50% faster than a current PowerBook. The speed factor that Analysts claim is not a factor at all! Most speed bumps for Apple are in the range of 12 to 16%, aside from the recent quad update which was ~70%.

So my wish is that PowerBooks come out first as the flagship Intel transition laptop. Mac Mini / Home Media Mac as the flagship desktop.

LMAO. Intel x86 with the help of Rosetta can emulate a PowerPC better then a G4 Powerbook can be a PowerPC. That is freaking awesome. Best post I've read today.

 

[Frobozz]

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.

The iMac G5 is already a performance leader in it's class. There is little reason, speaking strickly of speed, to move the iMac to Intel. I agree the PowerMac and xServe are also in this class.

Where Apple needs Intel, today, is in it's laptop and low end consumer lines due to power consumption and heat issues. PowerPC will continue to lead or match Intel on the high end well into 2007 if Apple needs it. Once IBM's desktop PowerPC production winds down (970 line) they will then need to move to Intel in the high end.

 

[digitalbiker]

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.

You're nuts! The PM G5 has a much faster FSB, faster processor speed, much faster floating point capability, multi-core processor, multi-processor capability. It out performs the Yonah in every way except power consumption.

Yonah is definitely a good processor but it is intended for portable use. Don't even think of comparing a portable proc to a workstation class proc.

 

[generik]

Upon revealing that SSE3 is not required by OS X x86, then I will predict:

January...
mini: Dothan
ibook: Dothan
Powerbook: dual core Yonah

June...
mini: Dothan
ibook: single core Yonah
Powerbook: dual core Yonah

When would you foresee a PM update?

 

[Peace]

This was reported for the DTK 10.4.1 because Rosetta required SSE3 (and Rosetta was required for some OS components).
I can see why some have got confused.

I see where you're coming from Tim but I guarantee you the DTK is WAY beyond 10.4.1..

I'd say more but I'd have to kill ya!

 

[generik]

You're nuts! The PM G5 has a much faster FSB, faster processor speed, much faster floating point capability, multi-core processor, multi-processor capability. It out performs the Yonah in every way except power consumption.

Yonah is definitely a good processor but it is intended for portable use. Don't even think of comparing a portable proc to a workstation class proc.

If anything, FSB means nothing really. Look at the Netburst P4s, the latest of which has an FSB of 1066Mhz! 0MFG! W7F!! G0D1Y!

Is it fast? Hell no!

Anantech recently did a review which shows the dual core Yonah going neck with neck with the AMD X2 at the same clockspeed (2Ghz). It is going to be quite interesting a fight now.

 

[Randall]

So my wish is that PowerBooks come out first as the flagship Intel transition laptop.

It's almost pre-ordained to happen that way, given the fact that the dual core Yonahs will come out first. Coincidence? Maybe...but I doubt it.

 

[maya]

So I can finally invest again in a decent spec'd Apple notebook.

 

[Randall]

If anything, FSB means nothing really. Look at the Netburst P4s, the latest of which has an FSB of 1066Mhz! 0MFG! W7F!! G0D1Y!

Is it fast? Hell no!

Anantech recently did a review which shows the dual core Yonah going neck with neck with the AMD X2 at the same clockspeed (2Ghz). It is going to be quite interesting a fight now.

Are you serious? FSB is everything!! Netburst's problem is it's design, not it's FSB.

 

[maya]

It's almost pre-ordained to happen that way, given the fact that the dual core Yonahs will come out first. Coincidence? Maybe...but I doubt it.

PowerBooks will be updated, if you look at 2005 you will see that the PowerBook like is always updated at MWSF. It happen with the PBG4 Ti in 2001 and now it will be the PB Intel at 2006.

That is sad the G4 resided in the PowerBook line for 4 years.

Apple will update the iBook in due time for school buying season, around April-Sept 2006.

 

[Peace]

Are you serious? FSB is everything!!

Amen to that! My old G5 1.6 with a 800Mhz bus runs faster than the single G5 2.0

 

[Randall]

That is sad the G4 resided in the PowerBook line for 4 years.

Talk about a dramatic upgrade. This is gonna be amazing. Finally the Powerbook will get a much needed breath of life.

 

[mactim]

This is not true! You are setting yourself up for a disappointment!
Rosetta relies upon the fact that, for a typical GUI app, the vast majority of CPU time is spent inside library calls to the OS (which will be native).

LMAO. Intel x86 with the help of Rosetta can emulate a PowerPC better then a G4 Powerbook can be a PowerPC. That is freaking awesome. Best post I've read today.

 

[digitalbiker]

It happen with the PBG4 Ti in 2001 and now it will be the PB Intel at 2006.

That is sad the G4 resided in the PowerBook line for 4 years.

Your math is off. It has been 5 years of the PB with a G4.

 

[Randall]

This is not true! You are setting yourself up for a disappointment!
Rosetta relies upon the fact that, for a typical GUI app, the vast majority of CPU time is spent inside library calls to the OS (which will be native).

So the second core can putz around with the library calls while the first core runs the application then. How come we have been hearing reports that Rosetta is fast (enough) to be comparable?

 

[Stella]

Anantech recently did a review which shows the dual core Yonah going neck with neck with the AMD X2 at the same clockspeed (2Ghz). It is going to be quite interesting a fight now.

That was a good article, but Yonah is a mobile processor whilst it was being compared against desktop processors?

Still, Yonah put up an OK show... it'll be fast enough for PowerBooks and iBooks... considering what Apple have now ( G4s ).

 

[maya]

Your math is off. It has been 5 years of the PB with a G4.

Actually no...

PBG4 Ti released Jan 2001 so lets take that:

2001-2002 = 1 year

2002-2003 = 2 years

2003 - 2004 = 3 years

2004 - 2005 = 4 years

If the PB hold the G4 chip till the end of 2006 then we can say its been 5 years.

 

[mactim]

Applications will have to be multi-threaded to take advantage of two cores.
If you have been hearing reports that Rosetta is 'comparable' then they are likely to be talking about GUI apps. Apple have said that Rosetta is not suitable for 'performance intensive' applications. Read that to mean an app that doesn't spend all its time waiting for event messages.

So the second core can putz around with the library calls while the first core runs the application then. How come we have been hearing reports that Rosetta is fast (enough) to be comparable?

 

[maya]

Talk about a dramatic upgrade. This is gonna be amazing. Finally the Powerbook will get a much needed breath of life.

Yep, Apple milked the G4 in the mobile line for far too long. And they have made a profit on it. So with mobile sales sloping I do not have any pity on Apple. They deserve it.