LOL they are scary aren't they 😉gio64 said:
(think the remix one is the best)
Like Chris Farley (while on drugs and still alive...) running your multibillion dollar company. 😛
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 Plans for Low-Power Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
(think the remix one is the best)
Like Chris Farley (while on drugs and still alive...) running your multibillion dollar company. 😛
MarkCollette
macrumors 68000
MarkCollette
macrumors 68000
SiliconAddict said:
I don't think that history supports your views. Didn't Apple go straight from the 68040 to the PPC 601, skipping the 68060? They didn't put out the best of the 68k line, to encourage people to upgrade and migrate over to PPC.
digitalbiker said:
That's exactly how I feel about the Paris Expo and about the PowerBook all together. I hope we are right. 🙂
MarkCollette
macrumors 68000
~Shard~ said:
Unless he's just venting his anger at the retarded elipses, which the G5 possesses... 😉
Oh wait, that's still not funny 😱
geerlingguy said:
It has probably been pointed out already, but Merom is a 35W processor, not a 5W processor.
However its typical power consumption is 3-5W or thereabouts. I think the current Pentium M has an average power consumption of around 10W and it idles at 5W whilst the TDP is 21W or 27W depending on the speed and FSB. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M
Note that the AMD Turion is a 25W processor at 2.2GHz at the high end, but probably also has an average power consumption of around 10W. AMD will be releasing dual-core Turion processors next year too.
shamino
macrumors 68040
You need to read what you reply to before firing off knee-jerk reactions.Websnapx2 said:
The developer kits absolutely have P4 chips in them. Photos have been published. The Apple System Profiler (and Windows, when installed on those boxes) report a 3GHz Pentium 4.
If you think all these sources are lying, then please post your proof.
And as I said, we know nothing about what the commercially shipping systems will be based on.
Your statements might be true. But unless you're privy to inside information (that you would be contractually forbidden from disclosing), your absolute assertion is simply wrong. You don't know any more than the rest of us.Websnapx2 said:
And one more thing - P4 is a brand name, not an architecture.
Intel is moving away from the NetBurst architecture. Merom, Yonah, and the rest are internal code names. When they ship in various packages, they will almost certainly be called "Pentium 4", "Pentium-M" and "Xeon". (Unless they decide to start calling them "Pentium 5", but so far, there's no rumor of that.)
pjkelnhofer
macrumors 6502a
digitalbiker said:
They will still have unique hardware, unique design, and unique OS.
I think most Mac users bought them because of the OS and the applications it supported. The actual chips inside the box were not important. All that time Mac fans paid more for a prettier package, logo and form factor because of the OS not the processor inside.
If people like Vista more (and the applications that it supports) they are going to continue buying non-Apple hardware whether Macs have PPC or Pentium inside them.
shamino
macrumors 68040
Depends on what you mean "better" for.gio64 said:
If you're talking about whose architecture is more efficient, then you have a point. If you're talking about what will render my video faster, then you're flat out wrong.
The most efficient architecture in the world is useless if it can't also scale up to clock speeds high enough to run applications at their proper speeds. And when your applications involve audio/video work, the "proper speed" is "as fast as possible".
64-bit computing has nothing to do with performance. And it never did.gio64 said:
Assuming, of course, IBM gets off its duff and actually bothers to ship a processor with similar clock speeds.gio64 said:
The theoretical capability of an architecture is meaningless if they won't actually make chips that live up to the claims.
Aside from theoretical curiosity, why should anybody care?gio64 said:
The question of interest to consumers is "how much faster/slower is a $1500 Powerbook compared to a similarly priced PC laptop".
Consumers care about performance per dollar, not performance per clock cycle.
And this has what to do with the choice of processor?gio64 said:
Do you seriously think that Apple's software will suddenly become buggy, crashing and virus-laden simply as a result of recompiling the code for x86?
Whatever you may think about the chip, it still executes the code it is given. The x86 architecture doesn't go executing random instructions when you try to run well-written code on it.
shamino
macrumors 68040
Depends on what your goal is. If you're trying to see who has made the fastest chips, yes.AidenShaw said:
If you're a consumer deciding what to buy, or a system integrator deciding what to build, no.
Price is a critical part of any purchasing decision, whether by consumer or manufacturer. If my chip performs at 90% of the speed of your chip, but costs 50% less, whose is "better"? (This, FWIW, is the core of most Intel-vs-AMD debates.)
If it is a software issue, it'll be about the same. Considering my iBook is ready to use but the time I've moved my hand back down from opening the lid, there isn't going to be any benefit to faster speeds. Certainly you won't notice it, ignore the sheeple 'omg jobs is god, now Intel is god and G5 is teh suxs' people*.lvnmacs said:
If it is hardware, then pray that Intel have sorted their stuff out, because I've had no end of crap from x86 based notebooks and sleep.
* I'm really unimpressed with the ability to think of some of the people who have posted in this thread. Suddenly x86 is god and G5 sucks, etc etc. That's a load of crap. The Apple system controller for the G5 sucks, that's about it. Altivec will still beat out whatever floating point capabilities these new processors have. I think Jobs has been suckered by Intel personally, and will get a solution that is roughly the same, power-wise, as staying with PowerPC. Some applications will benefit, others will lose. Until Merom is out, a 7448 is a better choice than a Pentium-M in terms of power consumption, and a G5 is reasonable, and would be great with a better system controller. I'd like to see how a 65nm dual-core 8641D compares against Yonah or Merom as well, but I guess we will never find out. I don't think it will be a step back necessarily, I just don't think it is as amazing a move as people here think it is. It isn't as if Intel is a master of delivering on time either - where're the 5GHz+ Pentium 4s? I hope Jobs isn't doing this out of some personal vendetta against IBM...
shamino
macrumors 68040
My, you're incredibly angry about this. Perhaps you should have your bipolar medication adjusted.gio64 said:
Did it ever occur to you that maybe Jobs was telling the truth when he said why he decided to transition Apple to x86? Because IBM was not able to sell them 3GHz processors and Intel's power-consumption roadmap looks better than IBM's?
Has it ever occurred to you that products and companies change? Or that the company previously making the best chips is no longer?
Why don't you wait and see what Apple's x86 systems actually have in them, what they cost, and how they perform before you go on making statements like these. You don't accomplish anything except sound like someone who enjoys getting angry in public for no good reason.gio64 said:
ART5000 said:
It's surprising how often this is asked. It seems to show something of a misunderstanding of the point of this switch. Two important considerations show that it won't happen:
- Apple wants to benefit from the economy of scale savings that come with buying an off the peg processor that PC manufacturers buy in spades.
- Apple wants to avoid being marginalized by specially designed processors that have a relatively small market and provide few financial incentives for further development.
pubwvj
macrumors 68000
lvnmacs said:
That's not really a processor issue. It is more an issue of the OS and support hardware, but primarily the OS.
What is most interesting is how power conservation is done. The processor could be run at many speeds: Full power for when plugged in, 50%, 25%, 12%, etc. Then halt for sleeping. This can be accentuated with good programming and OS by slowing down and speeding up the processor based on demand. Furthermore, individual parts of the processor and parts of the supporting hardware can be put to sleep when not needed and then brought back on line when needed. This saves power and reduces heat. Lastly, by having dual- and quad-, etc core processors you can accentuate this even further. This means devices that can last a long time on battery doing low power tasks (e.g., word processing, email, etc) as well as doing great at processor intensive tasks when the power is available (e.g., gaming, simulations, and er, work like in Photoshop. 🙂 ).
All of this is possible with Intel or PPC.
The thing that is sad about the switch to Intel is Apple is dropping support for legacy software that runs under Classic. There is still a huge amount of software and related data that only runs under Classic and which will never be updated by the developers who nolonger exist or care.
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
I agree completely.shamino said:
Comparing performance per euro, or performance per watt, or absolute top performance, is perfectly reasonable.
Note, however, that the post that I was replying to said:
I still disagree with that position.
SiliconAddict said:
I didn't talk about Pentium, I talked about x86. There has been kick-ass x86-CPU's in the past 5 years.
Where exactly have I been talking about Pentiums? Yes, P4 sucks. Xeon sucks. But that doesn't mean that x86 sucked. AMD had very very good chips out there.
FYI: there are other CPU's besides Pentiums out there.
SiliconAddict said:
Well, no. It was good, but it wasn't THAT great. Clock-for-clock G4 was faster, and G4 had a better Altivec-unit. And G5 had longer pipeline, making it resemble P4 more. True, G4 was crippled by the FSB, but that has been fixed in the later versions.
Yes, G5 has a fast FSB. But what for? If you want to look at really well-designed and balaced system, I suggest that you look at K8. It has fast FSB. And that FSB is 100% dedicated to serving PCI, PCI-E, AGP, IDE, USB and the like. Each CPU has a dedicated memory-bus, increasing bandwidth and lowering latencies. Add more CPU's to the system, and the memory-bandwidth doubles.
And thanks to having intergated memory-controller, the northbridges are really simple and straighforward. Designing the motherboards is very easy when compared to other system (memory-routing is easier on A64/Opteron-systems).
And in addition, the CPU runs cool. No need for liquid cooling 😉.
truly, with K8 AMD "Did Things Right" (tm)
They don't make production models yet!
Since the chips havn't been made yet we may see Steve Jobs outsold by Intel. I would be more apt to trust Steve Jobs if he was a Computer Engineer rather than a salesman.
It will be 2 years or so before the PowerBook/PowerMac is to be changed to Intel. That is without counting any delays in production. We won't be able to compare Intel with the PPC as both Motorola & now IBM has found that it is easier, more fun & probably more profitable to work in the embedded processor area rather than make a cpu that is only used by Apple. Remember the PPC started as a joint effort between IBM, Motorola & Apple.
It is still too soon to accept the idea of having Intel cpus in the Mac. It will be 2007 before there will even be a product in the PowerMac line. So any comparison can only really begin at that time. At present I believe that my computer system can wait until 2015 to be replaced. I will not use the term upgraded until there is actual products that are shipping. Then we';ll see their real speed & usability compared to the PPC.
There's one person on these web sites that uses the quote, "Intel inside not a mark of excellence, but a warning label." That could have begun from an AMD supporter just as well as a Mac supporter. In the future it will only be AMD supporters & die-hard Motorola/IBM processor supporters. This will divide the Mac market for a while. We won't be able to say, "Think different, buy a Mac." They'll just be another Intel machine.
Bring on the Intel-Mac clones whether they're authorized or not. And Steve Jobs will not authorize any. He doesn't want us to open our Macs, just like when the first Mac 128 came out in 1984. It wasn't long before the Macs were opened to be upgraded by third parties. Remember that this voided your warranty. My 17" PowerBook is not designed to be easilly taken apart & needed to change items like the hard drive be done without doing some damage easilly. I use to change my hard drive at least once a year. In that way I always had my first line unit fresh, i.e. no worn-out hard drives, & have a drive that has a back-up system on it. I now have 5 extra 2.5" hard drives all ready & capable to run my 1.67 GHz 17" PowerBook. They just are used as externals now.We'll see how long this PowerBook lasts. Until this one I ran my PowerBook 20+ hours a day 7 days a week. They have all held up very well. Will the Intel Macs hold up as well as the Motorola & IBM Macs have in the past? Or we start having Macs that fail on a regular basis as many Intels units are reported to do. Or was this just a salesman talking about the competition. My wife's company uses only Gateway computers & they don't seem to have any units that stop working or break down. It may only be 100-150 units.
Buy your PPC Mac while you have a chance then you can easilly wait until 2009 or later to need a replacement. By that time the bugs should be basically out & there may even be some Clones out there that are like the Mac Clones of old, they worked better, cost less & were available on a more timely manner.
To me Intel is just like Microsoft, a bad word that should not be spoken. Will this prove to be a 3 strikes & you're out deal though. First Motorola was basically given their wa;king papers, then IBM is to be next, & finally Intel. We still don't know if the Intal Mac will work as advertised. Will the speeds be as fast as the current PPCs in the PowerMac. Most information seems to say no. Will it be able to do as much work or more work than the current PPC Mac. They say it will, but remember they are comparing a product that is at least 2 years off with one that is shipping now. Two years is a long time when you're talking about computers. Since I have no plans to purchase any more new software, my hardware will be able to keep operating until the end of it's electronic life. The purchase of new software is why many of us have to purchase a new computer.
Bill the TaxMan
w_parietti22 said:
Since the chips havn't been made yet we may see Steve Jobs outsold by Intel. I would be more apt to trust Steve Jobs if he was a Computer Engineer rather than a salesman.
It will be 2 years or so before the PowerBook/PowerMac is to be changed to Intel. That is without counting any delays in production. We won't be able to compare Intel with the PPC as both Motorola & now IBM has found that it is easier, more fun & probably more profitable to work in the embedded processor area rather than make a cpu that is only used by Apple. Remember the PPC started as a joint effort between IBM, Motorola & Apple.
It is still too soon to accept the idea of having Intel cpus in the Mac. It will be 2007 before there will even be a product in the PowerMac line. So any comparison can only really begin at that time. At present I believe that my computer system can wait until 2015 to be replaced. I will not use the term upgraded until there is actual products that are shipping. Then we';ll see their real speed & usability compared to the PPC.
There's one person on these web sites that uses the quote, "Intel inside not a mark of excellence, but a warning label." That could have begun from an AMD supporter just as well as a Mac supporter. In the future it will only be AMD supporters & die-hard Motorola/IBM processor supporters. This will divide the Mac market for a while. We won't be able to say, "Think different, buy a Mac." They'll just be another Intel machine.
Bring on the Intel-Mac clones whether they're authorized or not. And Steve Jobs will not authorize any. He doesn't want us to open our Macs, just like when the first Mac 128 came out in 1984. It wasn't long before the Macs were opened to be upgraded by third parties. Remember that this voided your warranty. My 17" PowerBook is not designed to be easilly taken apart & needed to change items like the hard drive be done without doing some damage easilly. I use to change my hard drive at least once a year. In that way I always had my first line unit fresh, i.e. no worn-out hard drives, & have a drive that has a back-up system on it. I now have 5 extra 2.5" hard drives all ready & capable to run my 1.67 GHz 17" PowerBook. They just are used as externals now.We'll see how long this PowerBook lasts. Until this one I ran my PowerBook 20+ hours a day 7 days a week. They have all held up very well. Will the Intel Macs hold up as well as the Motorola & IBM Macs have in the past? Or we start having Macs that fail on a regular basis as many Intels units are reported to do. Or was this just a salesman talking about the competition. My wife's company uses only Gateway computers & they don't seem to have any units that stop working or break down. It may only be 100-150 units.
Buy your PPC Mac while you have a chance then you can easilly wait until 2009 or later to need a replacement. By that time the bugs should be basically out & there may even be some Clones out there that are like the Mac Clones of old, they worked better, cost less & were available on a more timely manner.
To me Intel is just like Microsoft, a bad word that should not be spoken. Will this prove to be a 3 strikes & you're out deal though. First Motorola was basically given their wa;king papers, then IBM is to be next, & finally Intel. We still don't know if the Intal Mac will work as advertised. Will the speeds be as fast as the current PPCs in the PowerMac. Most information seems to say no. Will it be able to do as much work or more work than the current PPC Mac. They say it will, but remember they are comparing a product that is at least 2 years off with one that is shipping now. Two years is a long time when you're talking about computers. Since I have no plans to purchase any more new software, my hardware will be able to keep operating until the end of it's electronic life. The purchase of new software is why many of us have to purchase a new computer.
Bill the TaxMan
Evangelion said:
Yes but DMA is usually used for those types of things so IO flow usually goes from memory to the devices directly. In the case of the G5 the U3 (and U3H) acts as a crossbar switch with DMA programability (and DART remapping). So data flowing from memory to AGP doesn't involve the CPU buses at all, just the memory bus and AGP bus. This is the same for K8 except the memory controller lives on die with the CPU cores. So your point above isn't really a win.
Also look at the size of the U3 (U3H). It is rather large, why? Well it has a rather capable cross bar like implementation allowing many to many communication to be taking place.
The K8 on the other hand has a limited transistor budget because they also have to fit the CPU cores on the same die. So the implementation of the interconnect isn't as capable.
Finally the K8 is tied to a given memory bus technology and a limited range of data rates. You have to spin the K8 to change memory technology. (FB-DIMM may change that)
Also adding more K8 CPUs requires either fancier multi-ported RAM and related management or separate RAM banks, one per CPU with the use HT to share data from banks among CPUs.
The K8 has low latencies and generally good bandwidth characteristics thanks to the location of the memory controller but as you see above drawbacks exist.
It isn't always a WIN WIN type of situation, each has strengths and weaknesses.
It comes down to how you want to spend you transistor budget for CPU dies: more compute units, more cache, more OOE management, etc. or more system on chip type of thing.
Freescale is taking system on chip thing to an extreme with the MPC8641/D.
shamino
macrumors 68040
I would tend to agree with you. It's not a useless comparison, but it does not reveal any facts that consumers will care about.AidenShaw said:
Performance-per-clock is a measure of efficiency. It says things about the architecture and hints at peak performance levels, if the manufacturer can make the chips with clocks just as fast (or faster) than the competition. But as far as a user is concerned, it doesn't matter. Efficiency alone won't make videos render faster or games play better.
shamino
macrumors 68040
Don't forget that IBM's POWER chips (based on the same architecture as PPC) are being used extensively in their big-iron.heisetax said:
You're right that they're not interested in customizing a roadmap for Apple, but they aren't dedicating themselves solely to embedded apps either.
Celeron just a name!
For the 1000th time, Celeron is just a name for Intel's lower end CPUs.
Usually running at the lower FSB speed. Which is currently 533.
And with a smaller cache L1/L2 cache.
Their clock speeds overlap with regular P4s at the low end, 2-2.4ghz.
And they are non Hyper-Threading.
Also, don't expect an intel ibook or powerbook until Q3 2006 at least.
But a Dual-Core/64 bit, low end Power Mac is a real possibility.
The chips are already available.
Or even a Dual - Dual-Core. With Hyper-Threading at the high end.
Think about that.
2 x 2 x 2.
For the 1000th time, Celeron is just a name for Intel's lower end CPUs.
Usually running at the lower FSB speed. Which is currently 533.
And with a smaller cache L1/L2 cache.
Their clock speeds overlap with regular P4s at the low end, 2-2.4ghz.
And they are non Hyper-Threading.
Also, don't expect an intel ibook or powerbook until Q3 2006 at least.
But a Dual-Core/64 bit, low end Power Mac is a real possibility.
The chips are already available.
Or even a Dual - Dual-Core. With Hyper-Threading at the high end.
Think about that.
2 x 2 x 2.
Not necessarily. New buyers may be attracted to Intel Macs if they're capable of running Windows (and Linux) in addition to OS X and competitively priced compared with the alternatives. That could end up being part of Apple's future marketing strategy for selling their computers. Why buy a Dell that only runs Windows (and Linux) when you can buy a Mac that runs those OSs and OS X? 🙂 If future Intel Macs do indeed have that kind of multi-OS support it's one reason I doubt Apple will license OS X for Intel to other vendors, at least not immediately. If hardware sales turn unprofitable then they'd have more reason to consider licensing OS X but otherwise it doesn't make much sense (to me) for them to do it and risk killing their own profitable computer business.pjkelnhofer said:
Sorry for any redundant speculation. I haven't kept up with every post in this thread.