MontyZ said:
Yes, dual-core processors as I pointed out to Mr. Mac X-pert. They were launched in late may-early april as these(1) articles(2) indicate.
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.
Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Yes, dual-core processors as I pointed out to Mr. Mac X-pert. They were launched in late may-early april as these(1) articles(2) indicate.
~loserman~ said:
Not really. I think your right that it will be out there... but:
1) Most people using Windows PC's are not interested in OSX. I think it's a conceit of Mac users that the whole world is just burning to run OS X. Most Windows (that I know) users don't even know what OS X is. That's because their not programming their computer or doing hardcore video editing. The PC is just another appliance on the desk for email, surfing and their vacation pictures and video's.
2) OS X releases come out with lot's of bugs and hardware issues that the boys at Apple have to fix for their limited hardware set. Whose going keep it working for the 1e4 hardware configurations outside the Apple zoo? If you actually keep up with the release issues, you'll note they are almost always either GUI issues or Application incompatibilites, and Apple will not be working to resolve this issue for your Dell Inspiron.
edit:
~loserman~ said:
Look at the numbers. Macs of 46% of total sales, Software 16%, further Apple makes almost nothing on Software vs 15% margins (best in the industry) on their macs.
Let's keep one other thing in mind. Microsoft has a stated policy that they will not produce software for OS's which compete on the same platform. I'm wondering exactly how attractive OSX will be when people find out they can't have their Microsoft Office.
Man I never thought I'd be doing this ...Defending Intel. but therew are a million and one reason why Apple didn't stick to PPC or jump on Cell. now lets explore these options.
PPC : 1st IBM dosen't give a crap about the PPC 970 or Apple for that matter they were more then willing to let Apple go down like the Titanic. When did u see IBM advertise the PPC 970...ever. They used Xenons more then they used thier own PPC chips. Yea You and all the other PPC Fanboys keep crying and call Jobs a fool but this was the right decision and when ur buying ur Pentium M Powerbook I wanna hear some PPC nut bitch about it. I dare you.
Cell : How many time do we have to explain to you mac monkey that the cell never was and very well may never be designed as a general purpose desktop CPU. Jobs went to Sony took a look at it and said ...no way. Simply because it's perfromance was not on par with the current desktop CPU's and everything would have to be completely re-written ...didn't we just finish doing this with OSX. not to mention Cell it probably one of the worst chips to program for, Developers would have given Jobs the middle finger and just make stuf for windows.
Intel : Let's see between intel and apple just about every industry standard of the last 15yrs has come from either company , USB , Firewire, 802.11b , PCI, AGP , PCIe..etc. next everyone of you PPC nuts have this assumption that the P4 will end up in a mac just because it's in the stupid dev kit. Not going to happen Jobs dosen't want that POS in a retail mac. Intel has 14 fab plants in total...4 doing the 90nm CPU's and 2 will be doing 65nm by 1QT '06, the Arizona fab plant is already doing 65nm. The rest wil follow suit.
Intel will be selling 65nm cpu's before AMD and IBM even start producing them. They have the best engineers in the business and spend the most on R&D. Notice they were the only chip company they didn't go to IBM for help on the 90nm bumps. they figured it out on thier own. Nvidia , AMD and ATI all when to IBM for help. Yonah , Memron and Conroe are the future of Intel CPU's and looking at the tomshardware article will scale very well.
why aren't you mac monkeys happy about all the Pubilic butt kissing Intel has been giving you since the WWDC. Unlike IBM , Intel is actually showing that they want Apples business and are willing to go out thier way to prove it. They need us as much was we need them and this will ultimately lead to both companies going head to head with M$. That is Inevitable.
P.S. I bet Paul Otellini never smiled like he did at the WWDC any other day in his life , surely not in the recent months..AMD
.
PPC : 1st IBM dosen't give a crap about the PPC 970 or Apple for that matter they were more then willing to let Apple go down like the Titanic. When did u see IBM advertise the PPC 970...ever. They used Xenons more then they used thier own PPC chips. Yea You and all the other PPC Fanboys keep crying and call Jobs a fool but this was the right decision and when ur buying ur Pentium M Powerbook I wanna hear some PPC nut bitch about it. I dare you.
Cell : How many time do we have to explain to you mac monkey that the cell never was and very well may never be designed as a general purpose desktop CPU. Jobs went to Sony took a look at it and said ...no way. Simply because it's perfromance was not on par with the current desktop CPU's and everything would have to be completely re-written ...didn't we just finish doing this with OSX. not to mention Cell it probably one of the worst chips to program for, Developers would have given Jobs the middle finger and just make stuf for windows.
Intel : Let's see between intel and apple just about every industry standard of the last 15yrs has come from either company , USB , Firewire, 802.11b , PCI, AGP , PCIe..etc. next everyone of you PPC nuts have this assumption that the P4 will end up in a mac just because it's in the stupid dev kit. Not going to happen Jobs dosen't want that POS in a retail mac. Intel has 14 fab plants in total...4 doing the 90nm CPU's and 2 will be doing 65nm by 1QT '06, the Arizona fab plant is already doing 65nm. The rest wil follow suit.
Intel will be selling 65nm cpu's before AMD and IBM even start producing them. They have the best engineers in the business and spend the most on R&D. Notice they were the only chip company they didn't go to IBM for help on the 90nm bumps. they figured it out on thier own. Nvidia , AMD and ATI all when to IBM for help. Yonah , Memron and Conroe are the future of Intel CPU's and looking at the tomshardware article will scale very well.
why aren't you mac monkeys happy about all the Pubilic butt kissing Intel has been giving you since the WWDC. Unlike IBM , Intel is actually showing that they want Apples business and are willing to go out thier way to prove it. They need us as much was we need them and this will ultimately lead to both companies going head to head with M$. That is Inevitable.
P.S. I bet Paul Otellini never smiled like he did at the WWDC any other day in his life , surely not in the recent months..AMD
.
Mac-Xpert said:What I find funny is that a lot of people here are saying IBM did not deliver and Apple made the right choice to switch to Intel. But what everybody seems to have forgotten is that Intel also hardly made any progress in clock-speed the last 2 years. They went from 3 GHz to 3.8 GHz. (27% gain) while the G5 went from 2 GHz to 2.7 GHz (35% gain).
Intel promised its customers 4 GHz by january this year. We're at june and they can still only manage 3.8. GHz.
Although I agree the Pentium M is a nice laptop chip Im much less impressed by their desktop offerings.
I think Apple also took yet another risk basing their decision on a future roadmap. The did the exact same thing with the switch to the G5. They (and IBM) thought that the next process was going to be more power efficient and allowed for higher clock-speeds (+3 GHz) than it turned out to be.
With Intel they are now thinking that the future chips at 65 nm process are going to be faster and more power efficient than the PPC offerings. But if Intels transition from 130 nm to 90 nm gives us any insight to the future, I wouldn't be to sure of that.
I would not be surprised if the PPC, if it continues to be developed, will remain competitive with Intels offerings for the desktop chips.
Only for the portable market Intels offerings look at bit better, but we still have to see (if we will) how the Freescale MPC8641D and future e700 core chips with speeds above 3 GHz will compare.
Steve Jobs reality distortion seems to have worked wonders again on the majority of people on this board. Only a week ago the general consensus on this board was that x86 is outdated crap that runs way to hot (think Pentium D), and now after Steve said "Mac-Os runs great on Intel" everybody seems to think Intels x86 chips are the best thing since sliced bread.
I really am starting to hate these PPC fanboys. You guy had one major advantage in comparison to x86 that was dual processing , and that was only on a handful of apps , benchmarks , plus you needed to write or update new software to take advantage of it.
Where is the 970MP ...huh??? , where ??, can't find it ??? must be vaporware.
The Pentium D/EE 840 and Athlon X2 is on sale RIGHT now ..all models. Yonah will be out by holiday season. The PPC970MP is where fanboys????
Please no more talk about Freescale(bastardized Moto spinoff) and the e600/e700 I think wev'e had enough of Moto for one life time. They can't even get thier Cell phones to come on on schedule ..that's a company that lacks credibility. Please the 970MP is more likely to see day light before any of that Freescale crap.
Intel has Chips now ...not in 6 months, not in 2yrs..now ..dual core now ... low power mobile cpu now .....DC Pentium M at 65nm ..already sampling and coming soon.
So why would Apple no make this Jump ... you Fanboys don't like it then buy a G5 and keep it till the Apocolypse. no one cares.
artjones said:
C'mon Now. Apple is a business. They are not a social welfare organization. They're in it to make money, period. The developers are in it to make money, full stop. If there comes a time when you feel purchasing an apple does not provide value to you, you shouldn't.
i was wondering if apple will offer an intel upgrade path for the iMac G5 for a reasonable price, with the midplane and various parts being replaceable.
that would add a lot of mileage to the current (and next two year's) iMac
that would add a lot of mileage to the current (and next two year's) iMac
Why is it that people think Apple needs to be in the charity business all of a sudden? Any computer you buy today should last you a good 5 years. PPC machines are no exception. You'll probably be fine evan after 5 years as well. The upgrade path is, buy a new computer when the old one no longer suits your needs.Don't panic said:
Let's make one thing clear. When Dell announces it's "margins" on the computer, it has to pay MS some money for Windows. IF Dell paid $0 for Windows, their margins on their product would be considerably higher.vatel said:
That's the only way you can compare a Mac sale to a Dell sale. Or you assume that part of the Mac sale is PAYING for the OS too. Then the famous high margin reduces considerably (and as a side effect, Apple makes some good money on Software too!)
Where was this stated policy? You do know that MS have already said on stage that they'll port Microsoft Office to OSX-Intel.vatel said:
jiggie2g said:
jiggie2g said:
Haha now this is funny. You're saying dual processing doesn't offer that much of a improvement because it requires software rewrites. and then you start to praise Intel and AMD on their dual-core chips being available now.
Guess what? You need to rewrite the software to take advantage of the second core just like using dual processors. So how much better is that than a dual G5 system.
BTW my earlier comments have nothing to do with being a PPC fanboy. I was only pointing out that Apple seems to be basing their decision to switch to Intel on a future roadmap that includes a process switch to 65 nm, and that there really is no way of telling how successful that will be. The power comparison between future PPC and Intel x86 that Jobs did in his WWDC speech seems to be based on speculation mostly.
I did not forget that, I even mentioned the Pentium D in my comment. However I'm not at all impressed by that processor. It runs really hot and they had to clock it down to 2.8 GHz just to keep the heat under control. If a 3.6 GHz Xeon system is pretty much on par (on some things faster and other slower) with a 2.7 GHz G5 system, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a 2.8 GHz Pentium D is slower than Apples current offerings.JCheng said:
The AMD processor does indeed perform better than Intels offering. But that isn't of any real importance in this discussion since we're switch to Intel and not AMD.
Again I was pointing out that also Intel did not deliver what they promised (no 4 GHz) and that it therefore is not a given that Intel can actually deliver the future processors with the specs that they are supposed to have according to their roadmap. And that switching to Intel just based on that roadmap is just as tricky as Jobs claim of being able to delivering 3 GHz G5 a year after it's introduction.
Mac-Xpert said:Haha now this is funny. You're saying dual processing doesn't offer that much of a improvement because it requires software rewrites. and then you start to praise Intel and AMD on their dual-core chips being available now.
Guess what? You need to rewrite the software to take advantage of the second core just like using dual processors. So how much better is that than a dual G5 system.
BTW my earlier comments have nothing to do with being a PPC fanboy. I was only pointing out that Apple seems to be basing their decision to switch to Intel on a future roadmap that includes a process switch to 65 nm, and that there really is no way of telling how successful that will be. The power comparison between future PPC and Intel x86 that Jobs did in his WWDC speech seems to be based on speculation mostly.
The point I was trying to make is the Dual CPUs were the only advantage left that PPC mac had and now that's out the window with the arrival of DC CPU's . now the PPC vs. x86 Perfromance gap will only grow larger and larger till the G5 starts to look as pitiful as the G4.
I know apps require a re-write but on mac is was only implemented by very few companies for mainly Pro apps. On x86 it will be done on a much larger scale and it will become more noticeable.
Point is in 6-8months Intel wil have 3.4-3.6ghz Pentium D's , Hell they already OC to 4.0ghz
. AMD will have a X2 5000+(DC 2.6ghz) , 5200+(DC 2.8ghz). and the G5 will be an after thought. Apple made the right choice in choosing Intel , They were gonna get hammered in the next 12months it would have been like the Moto days of being stuck at 450mhz for ever.Mac-Xpert said:
Okay, so now your basically saying that two G5s are faster than a single dual-core pentium IV. Perhaps you could enlighten me on how that changes the fact that the technological and performance gap between the Pentium 4 and G5 has widened in a processor to processor comparison? And please get your facts straight, the current fastest dualcore Pentium D is clocked at 3.2 GHz not 2.8 GHz.
Two caveats here, first of all, your completely ignoring the fact that the entire point of having dualcore processors in the first place was to move away from constantly ramping up clockspeed. 4 GHz Pentium 4s are actually quite feasible, they simply no longer became a priority with the changing roadmap. Secondly, as far as history is concerned, Intel has consistently delivered common technology first over IBM. They were the first to deliver 90 nm CPUs, they were the first to utilize SMT (which regardless of what mac fanatics might think, is a useful technology that is being touted as one of the main features of Power5) and now they are the first to deliver dualcore desktop processors.
jiggie2g said:The point I was trying to make is the Dual CPUs were the only advantage left that PPC mac had and now that's out the window with the arrival of DC CPU's . now the PPC vs. x86 Perfromance gap will only grow larger and larger till the G5 starts to look as pitiful as the G4.
I know apps require a re-write but on mac is was only implemented by very few companies for mainly Pro apps. On x86 it will be done on a much larger scale and it will become more noticeable.
Point is in 6-8months Intel wil have 3.4-3.6ghz Pentium D's , Hell they already OC to 4.0ghz
how ironic the man who caused the 450MHz stall is now the CEO of AMD.
jiggie2g said:
No special code is really needed to take advantage of dual processors. The OS handles that, by distributing threads to the processors. Multithreading is a good thing to do in compute-intensive applications anyway, even on single-processor single-core machines, so it's not really something unique to dual processors.
Even if you don't write your app multi-threaded, it'll benefit from multiple processors or core because it'll be sharing a processor/core with fewer other processes or threads. So it'll run longer when it gets the CPU, and/or it will run more often.
What does require special code, and probably made more of a difference, is AltiVec on the G4s and G5s.
GregA said:
Could you clarify this point. I'm not actually sure what your trying to say. Dell doesn't make Windows, so their narrow margins are not the result of accounting gimmicks of moving sales from one division to another. OS is a real cost, just like steel and plastic.
My point was just that it'd be stupid for Apple to say, 'well we're making hand over fist on hardware and jack on software, let's become a software company'. Once again, nobody has historically been able to contemporaneously sell open platform OS and successfully sell hardware. I've seen nobody who thinks Apple can continue to be a successful hardware company if they sell OS X across platforms
That's the only way you can compare a Mac sale to a Dell sale. Or you assume that part of the Mac sale is PAYING for the OS too. Then the famous high margin reduces considerably (and as a side effect, Apple makes some good money on Software too!)Where was this stated policy? You do know that MS have already said on stage that they'll port Microsoft Office to OSX-Intel.[/QUOTE]
This was given as Microsoft's official reason for not supporting Office in the Linux environment.
Because Apple has said they are going to keep OS X running on Apple hardware only, they're not competing on the same platform. (Ignoring the inevitable cracks, which as I've said earlier, will not produce a commericially significant number of OS X 'beige boxes'
That's exactly what I'm saying - the OS is a real cost. Dell knows that the OS costs them $X. This is part of their costs, and then they sell their computer.vatel said:
Apple's margins are a result of accounting gimmicks - they say that the OS costs them $0 - which is not true. But if the OS costs them nothing, then they sell their computer and SEEM to make a great profit on it.
If "Apple software" charged "Apple hardware" for OSX and iLife, then it'd be just the opposite ("We're making hand over fist on software and jack on hardware.").vatel said:
Get it?
(In reality it's a little bit of everything that allows Apple to make a profit)
GregA said:
I don't think so. Not everything is disclosed in Apples SEC filings, but Apples Software sales do not include the software bundled with the Macs. And it is on these (not bundled) sales that Apple does not have a high margin. Meaning that regardless of how things are treated for the bundled software, Apple could not sustain their current margins as a software seller unless they significantly increased the price of their offerings. I admit that all the numbers aren't in the statements and I'm making best estimates from what is there.
Keeping in mind that the 93% of consumers who don't build their PC's don't (directly) pay for their operating system, I think it would be a tough sell to get people to pay $130 for an OS when:
1) They got the one they have for free (in their mind)
2) They don't really care.
Alright I didn't check the speed recently so it runs 600 Mhz slower than a regular Pentium. Your right when you say that on a processor to processor comparison there is a performance gap between a Pentium D and a single G5, but the Pentium D can not be used in dual-processor configurations, and as far as I know Intel will not be offering it in a Xeon version any time soon (if ever). I'm mostly interested in the systems Apple can build with these chips, not so much in the fact if one chip is technologically better than the other, but limited to single processor configuration that won't be any faster than a dual processor single core machine. So I do think it makes sense to compare a Dual G5 system to a single Pentium D as long as you can't built a dual Pentium D machines. The only way to get a real performance benefit is to use the Xeon's which clock higher and could eventually overtake the G5 in performance (if the G5 is not developed any further).JCheng said:
I think its a good idea to use dual cores at a lower speed if it allowed for a more powerful system, but the Pentium D is not the chip for that. Since its unlikely that Apple will be using that chip, it doesn't really mater anyway. The point I was making had to do with predictions of the future and making decisions based on yet not known elements like performance and power-ratings of processor at a new process. Who used a particular technology first doesn't matter much to me. Intel using certain technologies first doesn't mean they are going to be better at it than say IBM. The transition to the 90nm process clearly showed that. So the point is that it seems that a lot of people here say al sorts of things about IBM not living up to expectations and yet seem to believe that Intel can make all their claims on future technology become reality. I'm just a little bit more skeptical about that.JCheng said:
jiggie2g said:
You seem to go by the assumption that IBM will completely abandon any further development on the PowerPC. I think this remains to be seen. I think there is still a reasonable chance that IBM will be delivering the 970MP. If Apple will use it is impossible to say at the moment, but if Apple plans to keep the Powermac on PPC till late 2007 I can certainly see them introducing a 970MP system when the chip becomes available.jiggie2g said:Point is in 6-8months Intel wil have 3.4-3.6ghz Pentium D's , Hell they already OC to 4.0ghz
I think the switch to Intel was mostly driven by the mobile market and the lack of a low-power G5, not so much the high-end Powermacs. I also think that there won't be any real advantage to switch the Powermacs to Intel anytime soon, particularly because a lot of software power-users depend on will not be available immediately when Apple will introduce the first Intel based macs.
But time will tell I guess.
Mac-Xpert said:
Oh please, do you honestly think its that difficult (comparatively speaking) to make a processor line dp capable? AMD has already done it by launching dual-core Opterons and Intel has already demoed their own dual-core Xeon servers (the CPUs themselves are slated for launch later this year/early next year). To say that Intel will just HAND the workstation and server markets to AMD by not producing something as relatively simple as a dp capable variant of an existing dual-core design is quite frankly ludicrous.
Sorry, fact of the matter is that the Pentium D (along with its soon-to-be DP variants) DOES allow for significantly more powerful systems. I don't think I needed to tell you that seeing how you yourself have already admitted to the performance gap on a processor-processor level (and please read the previous paragraph again if your going to argue that there isn't going to be any dp systems
).Of course no one can predict the future with absolute certainty. The fact of the matter remains though, that IBM hasn't lived up to the expectations because Intel and AMD are currently beating them in delivering faster and more cutting-edge processors (dual core designs for example). Intel has been more consistent in delivering performance than IBM (and thus, is logically the better choice), its as simple as that and thats why Apple picked them.
Well I couldn't find anything about that on Intels site, but I believe you on your word. However I still don't think Apple will use such a configuration simply because the Pentium D runs way to hot. Sticking two of those hot chips in a system seems like a bad idea to me if you like quite systems.JCheng said:
They will probably wait for the next generation based on the lower power Pentium M.
I guess debating the future roadmap any further is a little pointless since its pure speculation if Intel can or can not meet their goals.
skellener said:
Why should they? What does a warranty have to do with anything? Besides, I'm talking about ANY computer. Whether it's a Dell, Apple, or build it yourself. Five years is about an average what you should expect a machine to last for. You will most likely out grow it before it stops working.MontyZ said:
Some people just don't get it.
For those of us that do get it, we will happily be running Mac OS X on any chip Apple decides to use now or in the future.
For those of you that are pissed off and just don't get it...you know what? Ditch your Mac and go with Windows on any chip you like. Enjoy all that Microsoft has to offer you.
For those of us that do get it, we will happily be running Mac OS X on any chip Apple decides to use now or in the future.
For those of you that are pissed off and just don't get it...you know what? Ditch your Mac and go with Windows on any chip you like. Enjoy all that Microsoft has to offer you.
- Status