Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel's Plans for Low-Power Chips

Lacero said:
Everybody beat me up when I said PPC sucks and that Intel rocks! Now I see I have been right all along. :cool:
Click to expand...

Well they should... PPC doesn't suck, it is generally a better ISA then x86 or x86-64.

PPC processors also have more then held their own against things from AMD and Intel in the past, currently (and near future likely).

If you mix in Power processors (Power5 in particular) then they rule the roost in performance, etc. in the server market currently.

What PPC has always suffered from is insufficient development impetus for the general purpose computer market (laptops, desktops, and workstations). So it was prone to lag behind the x86 market after leaping slightly ahead. This repeated several times over the life of PowerPC.
 
Spock said:
Please excuse my ignorance toward Intel chips, but are any of these 64 bit?
Click to expand...

They all are.

From http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2504:

the next-generation microprocessor architecture borrows the FSB and 64-bit capabilities of NetBurst and combines it with the power saving features of the Pentium M platform
Click to expand...

Merom is not five watts, but 35W. The "5W" figure is a typo.

The Inq has some more info and confirms the actual 35W figure.
 
Spock said:
Please excuse my ignorance toward Intel chips, but are any of these 64 bit?
Click to expand...

The AnandTech site implies that all of them have the 64 bit option (a member in each family has such support).
 
Eevee said:
What are handtops ~Shard~ ? Neat idea.
Click to expand...

Handtops have been talked about for a while now - they are basically a combination of a PDA and a laptop, simplistically. Intel mentioned at the IDF that they would have reference version ready in 2006 sometime. You can find out more general info on handtops right here if you're interested!
 
shawnce said:
IMG_2595.JPG

More found on AnandTech
Click to expand...
I wonder if Otellini used Keynote for his presentation ;) :D
 
gkarris said:
I don't know why users are still touting Powerbook G5's in the forum on the upcoming September announcements (G5 Mini????). I'm not purchasing anything until the Mactels come out...
Click to expand...


My theory...Because they want the platform to be updated one last time to a point that makes the PowerBook competitive to the Pentium M. Why? Because of all their PPC software. As good as Rosetta may be it WILL be slower then having PPC software run on a PPC. Also they don't want to go out and buy new software for the new hardware. People have invested thousands on software packages. As good as the PowerBook is going to be for those of us that don't have a ton of money tied up in the software its going to suck just a little for those who are. So people are praying that Saint Jobs delivers a G5 miracle that will keep them going a few more years. It ain't going to happen but well....people can hope.

PS Oh and before I forget also add the small minority of Mac zealots in the crowd that just hate Intel because...well because they are Intel and they work with Microsoft....THE HORROR!!!! :eek:
 
Lord Blackadder said:
1. What order Apple will choose to change out the PPCs for Intels (I'm guessing PowerBooks first but then what?)
2. Which CPU's Apple will choose for it's various different computers - will they focus strictly on low power consumption or will the Power Mac get Intel's fastest CPU, whatever that is in 6 months?
Click to expand...

My guesses...
 
Some have said to wait and see what is going o happen in the next months. And I agree entirely. We can barely speculate what Apple and Intel will delivery next year, and we just don't know when we will see it.

We only heard that the first Mac with intel processors should be ready at june, next year...

So, let's wiat and see...
 
The TDP on a Pentium 4 3.8 is 130 watts. This article is wrong!

X86 processors are junk. I wouldn't care if Steve Jobs himself made them, they're based on an antiquated architecture that should have died years ago.
 
Merom and Yonah sound like an old married couple. Hopefully with loads of processing powerrr :p
 
JoeG4 said:
X86 processors are junk. I wouldn't care if Steve Jobs himself made them, they're based on an antiquated architecture that should have died years ago.
Click to expand...

this might be true, but it's does a better job in many areas than what is currently offered for a large market
 
RHutch said:
I think we should wait and see. IBM promised 3 GHz, which seemed like a really good thing, and everyone thought that the switch from Motorola to IBM needed to happen. I agree that it made things better, but we're still not at 3 GHz, more than a year later than we were supposed to have it. My point: Just because Intel promises great things, that doesn't mean they are going to happen. Didn't Intel also promise 4 GHz P4's?
Click to expand...

Not producing a 4Ghz processor vs. a 3Ghz processor seems like its better to do the former.
 
5 watts?? if that's true, that's incredible. That's practically fanless in a (fast)laptop. I'm actualy excited about Apple's portable prospects again.
 
Chef Medeski said:
Not producing a 4Ghz processor vs. a 3Ghz processor seems like its better to do the former.
Click to expand...

OK comments like this just made me vote [ ] positive [x] negative on this report. Sorry, but you had it coming :rolleyes:
 
Lord Blackadder said:
This is just enough info to cause massive speculation, but very little hard data.

I guess It will be a long wait to find out:

1. What order Apple will choose to change out the PPCs for Intels (I'm guessing PowerBooks first but then what?)

2. Which CPU's Apple will choose for it's various different computers - will they focus strictly on low power consumption or will the Power Mac get Intel's fastest CPU, whatever that is in 6 months?
Click to expand...

My W.A.G is as such:

MWSF ‘06

-Mac Mini running ULV Celeron M's (Shipping NOW.)
-eMac running Celeron M’s as well (Shipping NOW.)
-Next Gen PowerBooks running dual core Yonah. (Shipping in 2-3 months.) (This one is up in the air. It all depends on what shows up at Apple Expo. If there is a Freescale or a G5. Little to no chance that anything will be at MWSF. If it’s a minor update Lets say 80% chance. Yah 80% sounds good. I still hold to what Jobs said at WWDC as an indicator of what may show at MW.)


WWDC
-Developer copy of Leopard is release.
-New developer boxes with dual CPU or dual core Pentium 4’s running Tiger and Leopard.
-God only knows. Would they debut the iMac for a release a few months later? They did it with the PowerMac. It would definitely get people excited for a back to school iMac. Then again there may be enough PPC speedbumps in the desktop line to allow iMacs to stay PPC until MW 2007.


Apple Expo
-The first 64-bit PowerBooks running on Merom.
-Mac Mini's upgraded to whatever is the next iteration of the low end desktop chip.
-Ditto with the eMac.


As for PowerMacs. There won't be any x86 PowerMac's in 2006. The chips they want in the PM won't be ready. Hence the reason for the 2006 AND 2007 timeframe. 2007 is when the desktop chips Apple really wants in their PowerMacs shows up.
 
From the Anandtech presentation the Merom is a dual core mobile CPU a was running 64-bit Windows XP. Which of the other ones are dual core and 64 bits?

Also if we are looking for a Quad-PowerMac probably only the server processors will be able to do it...
 
javiercr said:
From the Anandtech presentation the Merom is a dual core mobile CPU a was running 64-bit Windows XP. Which of the other ones are dual core and 64 bits?
Click to expand...
I believe all have 64 bit option and all have dual core option (if not all dual core).

Conroe is dual core with 64 bit support. (laptop)
Merom is dual core with 64 bit support. (desktop)
Woodcrest is dual core with 64 bit support and multiprocessor support. (server / workstation)

I should note it sounds like these CPU are "true" dual core CPU supporting some level of data cache integration between cores (unlike the current Pentium D).
 
javiercr said:
Also if we are looking for a Quad-PowerMac probably only the server processors will be able to do it...
Click to expand...

Yep, hence why we won't be seeing these beasts until 2007. In fact, I am in agreement with SiliconAddict, we may not see any Intel-based PowerMacs until 2007 as a result. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back