Pentium M and Yonah Processors in Upcoming Macs?

[ailleur]

Personally, I hope they use the Intel Pentium D processors in Macintosh desktops; the Pentium M's will work well for PowerBooks and iBooks, but the frontside bus is only 400Mhz, a far cry from the 1.35Ghz FSB of the dual 2.7Ghz G5, or even the 667Mhz FSB of the 2.0 Ghz G5 in the iMac G5.

If Apple is going to make this move to Intel work, they need to either equal their current processor speeds or increase them.

See the cpu as a black box and stop caring how its inners work.
The Pentium M is faster, period.

And please PLEASE dont compare speed to performance, i thought mac people were the one that wanted to kill the mhz myth? A 2.5ghz pentium M will DESTROY a pentium at 4ghz

 

[tdewey]

Personally, I hope they use the Intel Pentium D processors in Macintosh desktops; the Pentium M's will work well for PowerBooks and iBooks, but the frontside bus is only 400Mhz, a far cry from the 1.35Ghz FSB of the dual 2.7Ghz G5, or even the 667Mhz FSB of the 2.0 Ghz G5 in the iMac G5.

If Apple is going to make this move to Intel work, they need to either equal their current processor speeds or increase them.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-01.html

Pentium-M is just awesome.

 

[dontmatter]

I thought this should go without saying, honestly. But, glad to hear it confirmed. It's the logical move, for sure, given steves remarks, apples' market share, and the processors and companies involved. Of course apple would go with the cool technology of yenoah, or whatever it is!

Personally, I'm still a little worried about the transitions=loss in market share phenomanon, but then again, hey, perhaps that's why this is scheduled around the release of longhorn, so there's new and uncertain no matter what in computers.

Man, I can't wait, though. Given the excellent cooling and form factors mac engineers have been capable of with their exremely hot chips (how thin PB's are, mac mini, imac having a virtual furnace in there, and powermacs having two) compared to many windows counterparts... I'd betcha we will get some AWESOME computers when they're running cool and efficient M's.

Shrink the form factor or double the number of chips.... plus being made on 65 nm process? gonna be sweet.

 

[joeconvert]

Uh... ok...

It would be great marketing to fanboys but...

It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.

Pentium M for dummies

I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.

The Pentium M was a different direction of progression post Pentium III. It is highly optimized and very efficient design from Intel Israel.

It is an outstanding processor. I have a Dell X300 form the company. I believe it is a 1.5GHz if I recall correctly, it really kills my 1.5GHz Powerbook. It's kind of sad, especially given the major video card advantage my Powerbook has over the X300.

And it looks like your link is one more nail in the wikipedia coffin.

 

[MacG]

The [Pentium M], which currently tops out at 2.13 GHz, typically performs as well or better than all but the fastest Pentium 4 chips, which clock in at 3.6GHz and 3.8GHz, even for applications such as computer-aided design, Intel and analysts say, while consuming roughly a quarter of the amount of power those chips use.

So much for the end of the MHz myth!

 

[sethypoo]

See the cpu as a black box and stop caring how its inners work.
The Pentium M is faster, period.

And please PLEASE dont compare speed to performance, i thought mac people were the one that wanted to kill the mhz myth? A 2.5ghz pentium M will DESTROY a pentium at 4ghz

Yes but only if that Pentium M's FSB is waaaaay faster than the Pentium 4's. Which it currently isn't so it is NOT as fast as a P4 with a 800Mhz FSB.

The day I stop caring about how the "inners" of a CPU work is the day I become a quadriplegic. The "inners" are everything for a CPU!

 

[ailleur]

Yes but only if that Pentium M's FSB is waaaaay faster than the Pentium 4's. Which it currently isn't so it is NOT as fast as a P4 with a 800Mhz FSB.

The day I stop caring about how the "inners" of a CPU work is the day I become a quadriplegic. The "inners" are everything for a CPU!

If i build a cpu that works on a 1mhz fsb but does 3x the work a g5 does, you wont buy it cause of its low fsb? End results are what matters, not one of the variable.

The pentium m is faster than the pentium 4, its faster than the pentium 4 EE, its faster than the athlon fx, and that is a fact

http://x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/dothan/bench2-1.png
http://x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/dothan/bench2-2.png
http://x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/dothan/bench2-6.png
http://x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/dothan/bench2-7.png

 

[dontmatter]

I don't knwo if anyone said this already..but...

While this is good, it still might pose some problems:

example: People see 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 PC compared to 2.13 GHz Pentium M Mac... and they see that the PC is "faster"... and it even has the same processor so I don't know if they megahertz myth would work in this situation... we'll see what happenes...

Yeah, but PC companies will also be using pentium M's. So they go, hmm, here's the sexy mac pentium M at 2.13, or the fugly dell with same proc running windows for 200 bucks less....

 

[tdewey]

Sure....

It would be great marketing to fanboys but...

It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.

Pentium M for dummies

I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.

Which is of course why Intel is basing their entire new line of chips in 2006, 2007 and beyond on the Pentium-M and dumping the P4 netburst architecture.

 

[rockthecasbah]

While everyone is saying "oh it tops out at 2.13ghz" and that stuff, that is NOW, correct? If i am not mistaken, Apple won't start using intel chips until 2006. Speeds may increase by then because we have no idea when in 2006 it will be! Look, I'd be happy with a 2.13ghz anyway if it's a Pentium M, just some food for thought. I say Powerbooks are first to be updated if both Powerbooks and iBooks aren't updated.

 

[sethypoo]

If i build a cpu that works on a 1mhz fsb but does 3x the work a g5 does, you wont buy it cause of its low fsb? End results are what matters, not one of the variable.

I would buy the Pentium M if it were in the 65nm form and if it were dual core. Then it WOULD kick the P4's and the Athlons butts. But who's to say the P4 isn't going to get a major overhaul? We'll just have to see.

65nm.....drool

 

[Surreal]

Foolish? They support two different processors now ... from IBM and Freescale. you never know what they future will hold. <snip>

i meant it would be foolish to expect them to optimize for G5 and whatever intel processor replaces it. that would be wonderful, and if they did it, then they COULD seel a retail version of the mac os for x86 and still sell high end hardware. ...well..it's ONE way to look at it. LoL

 

[tdewey]

Yes but only if that Pentium M's FSB is waaaaay faster than the Pentium 4's. Which it currently isn't so it is NOT as fast as a P4 with a 800Mhz FSB.

The day I stop caring about how the "inners" of a CPU work is the day I become a quadriplegic. The "inners" are everything for a CPU!

Already posted above:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-01.html

The P-M is faster then the P4 and Athlon for almost all tasks.

 

[Freakk123]

It's amazing... Here is the the progression of my feelings towards Mactel (Feeling in red):

First: Article in the WSJ reignites Mac-Intel rumors. Skeptical, Negative

Next: More rumors. Skeptical, Negative. I fight the rumors off.

Then: c|net confirms WSJ article. Negative, half hoping they're wrong, half interested in what this means

WWDC: Apple officially announces Mactel. Confused, Suddenly Excited. Neutral/Slightly optimistic

Now: More and more information is piling in. I'm getting mroe and more excited, intrigued, and I believe more and more that this will be a great move. I can't wait for my first Mactel (Hopefully a powerbook)

Seriously, the more info I get the more excited I get. While as long as I build PC's I'll use AMD's, I've accepted that Intel is not pure evil. This is a big turning point in my life.

 

[Mr Maui]

Which is of course why Intel is basing their entire new line of chips in 2006, 2007 and beyond on the Pentium-M and dumping the P4 netburst architecture.

That must make Intel really stupid ... converting their whole line to a slower and more useless processor ... no?!?!? chatin?!?!?!? <the comments we hear out here> sheesh!

 

[tdewey]

I would buy the Pentium M if it were in the 65nm form and if it were dual core. Then it WOULD kick the P4's and the Athlons butts. But who's to say the P4 isn't going to get a major overhaul? We'll just have to see.

65nm.....drool

Intel has already annouced its roadmap. P4 is dead. P-M is king. Yonah, Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest, Whitefield, etc. All the new chips coming out in 2006, 2007 and beyond are based on P-M arch. P4 (netburst) arch hit the wall with Prescott.

Don't take my word for it search on Google.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Mac Mhz Myth Solution

Perhaps the eMac and iMac consumer macs can use the 3.8 fake-a-hz regular Pentium 4 cpus because they sound fast. The pro Macs can use the real Pentium M processors for speed running at the lower 2.5 Ghz speed.

 

[Mr Maui]

i meant it would be foolish to expect them to optimize for G5 and whatever intel processor replaces it. that would be wonderful, and if they did it, then they COULD seel a retail version of the mac os for x86 and still sell high end hardware. ...well..it's ONE way to look at it. LoL

Well ... keep in mind ... OSX has been living a "now not-so-secret double-life" for 5 years now, and will likely continue to do so until Steve decides that the PowerPC is officially done ... and ... the majority of PowerPCs already in existence have died off too. JMO

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I am starting to warm up to the idea of the Macintel. My concern is for Apple as a computer company, and the ability to charge premium prices as they do now for the PPC systems. The consumer when the switch is done to the Intel chips, will only look at the companies offering the same chip and what the systems offer hardware wise. The PPC chip allowed Apple to be "different" in pricing. A consumer will not be willing IMO to spend hundreds more for the Apple/OS X experience. Will Apple be able to live with lower margins on their end? The margins for the resellers already stink.

 

[runninmac]

Here's a good read. Probably has been posted before.

A Pentium M (2.56 Ghz) beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-21.html

Looks very promising to me!

That is [expletive deleted] amazing! And now with Dual cores??? All i can say and hope for is WOW!!!

 

[dontmatter]

Foolish? They support two different processors now ... from IBM and Freescale. you never know what they future will hold. Time will tell. Remember ... "3 GHz in a year" never materialized ... "transition almost complete by the end of 2007" could go south too if things don't run just perfectly for Intel. One never knows.

So here's my take. A bit off topic, mind you.

yeah, mac's support two different processors now. But really, those are very similar, and the amazing thing is, apple's been supporting two completely different architectures, little did we know. When software is updated for x86, it's actually not (from what I can tell) much updated for x86, but to be processor independent.

My hope is, apple keeps up this old habit of a secret backup architecture, and sets it all up so we are completely processor independent. So then, if there's a powerpc controlled cell derivitive from IBM, no problem, it doesn't involve a transition, they'll carry those and intel at the same time. If AMD doesn something cool, no optimization needed, they just need to buy the chips.

That's my hope. Because wouldn't it be funny if intel went the way IBM did for apple, and IBM took it's console expertise and turned it into an awesome PC chip, but microsoft couldn't support anything but X86?

yeah....

just dreaming.

 

[Lunja]

Time for some newbie questions...

What is the significance of 65nM? To be honest, I don't have a clue...

And also if the Yonah is a dual-core chip, will each core require its own RAM or will they be able to 'share' it? Would 1Gb be 512mb to each core, or could the RAM usage vary according to the task undertaken by each core?

Sorry if this all seems a bit preschool, but I'm fairly new...

 

[Stella]

I see can the reaction to ( clueless) Mac users now upon release:

"BUT these Intel processors are SLOWER than the previous IBM G5's, WHAT are apple thinking about.. SJ is a wa?ker, useless... Apple are dead.. .I'm not using Apple, Apple betrayed me, blah blah blah..."

Perhaps the eMac and iMac consumer macs can use the 3.8 fake-a-hz regular Pentium 4 cpus because they sound fast. The pro Macs can use the real Pentium M processors for speed running at the lower 2.5 Ghz speed.

 

[Mr Maui]

yeah, mac's support two different processors now. But really, those are very similar, and the amazing thing is, apple's been supporting two completely different architectures, little did we know. When software is updated for x86, it's actually not (from what I can tell) much updated for x86, but to be processor independent.

My hope is, apple keeps up this old habit of a secret backup architecture, and sets it all up so we are completely processor independent. So then, if there's a powerpc controlled cell derivitive from IBM, no problem, it doesn't involve a transition, they'll carry those and intel at the same time. If AMD doesn something cool, no optimization needed, they just need to buy the chips.

That's my hope. Because wouldn't it be funny if intel went the way IBM did for apple, and IBM took it's console expertise and turned it into an awesome PC chip, but microsoft couldn't support anything but X86?

Steve Jobs told the developers at WWDC to start writing (for those who were not already), or to convert their present apps to xCode, which, if my undertanding is correct, is processor independent ... meaning it will work on PowerPC or Intel. Feel free to correct me if my understanding is in error. I am willing to learn. Really!!!

 

[iMeowbot]

Did Steve refer to them as Macintels during the keynote? I can honestly say that I don't remember that.

The NYT reported on Monday that he used the term. They didn't say when.