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

Pentium M and Yonah Processors in Upcoming Macs?

Lunja said:
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... :)
Click to expand...


A shrink in the chip process (in this case 90nm to 65nm) usually leads to lower power consumption and improves the scalability of the chip. In other words, higher mhz at lower temp.


A dual core chip does not require its own ram any more than a dual cpu system requires 2 sets of ram.
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
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.
Click to expand...

It will allow them to have a wider range of Macs
They don't ONLY have to use Intel chips. They may keep IBM or ADM chips for higher end. Rermember, with xCode, it's justt a button click to recompile so when things get ported they can then use any processor their heart desires
 
You have to be careful with those benchmarks from Tom's Hardware.

Those are measuring the Dothan chips, but they're not all the same chipsets.

Current Pentium-Ms are using the Alviso chipset, which improves things substantially (DDR2, PCI express, faster FSB).
 
Stella said:
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..."
Click to expand...
Then here is my response to those people ... "Then jump to the ever-reliable Wintels and live in the fantasy world of MHz myths and Winderz again." :p
 
rockthecasbah said:
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.
Click to expand...

According to Appleinsider it should have 2.16 Dual Core Prosessers by the time apple gets them >http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1123
 
pgwalsh said:
Using the Pentium M. Guess it'll still be a while before we hit that 3 Ghz mark. :rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...

We could say "equivalent to 3ghz ( or more likely 3.5 =P ) of g5 power", problem solved!
 
pgwalsh said:
Using the Pentium M. Guess it'll still be a while before we hit that 3 Ghz mark. :rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...
But we just might get 2 GHz and/or dual core in a Powerbook sooner ... so there is a positive side!! :D
 
Anyone have any thought on if we will still be getting dual processor models with the intel chips? Or just dual cores?
 
JesterJJZ said:
Anyone have any thought on if we will still be getting dual processor models with the intel chips? Or just dual cores?
Click to expand...

Pentium 4, or in this case, consumer oriented cpus, have not been able to run in dual cpu config since the pentium III's. I dont know if the pentium M are able to work in dual cpu configs.
 
Mr Maui said:
Steve Jobs told the developers at WWDC to start writing (for those who were not already), or to convert their present apps to xCode,
Click to expand...
For some Carbon applications on Codewarrior, especially the ones that have been around since the 68K days, this is going to involve a lot of pain. CW includes a lot of crutches to hide some differences between the old toolbox and Carbon. I've got some inherited stuff that hasn't even been converted to use modern Navigation Services (hangs head in shame), and that's gonna hurt.
which, if my undertanding is correct, is processor independent ...
Click to expand...
The development environment is portable, sure. GCC, on the other hand, is perfectly happy to allow non-portable code to be written (it's just C after all), and having code that successfully compiles is nowhere at all near the same as having code that runs correctly. That's going to be the painful part, ensuring that the PowerPC and Intel binaries behave exactly the same way.
 
riversky said:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

Interesting points made in the opinion piece.

Looks like the gist of it is Intel buy Apple and becomes far more innovative and dominate than Microsoft.

Interesting given the fact that I too believe this is all about DRM!!!
Click to expand...

That article is actually a huge pile of crap
Allow me to quote a post on slashdot since i dont feel like typing it all

>Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?

Dissapearing as we speak and that is part of the reason for the move.

>Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16819116198 [newegg.com]
intel Pentium 4 630 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T
$289 NOTE the EMT64T.

The Chip in the dev platform is reportedly:
Nntel Pentium 4 660 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T
Again note the EM64T

>Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
To me this is the lamest question people ask. There are so many reason that it would be a much bigger surprise if it were AMD. Want some:

0: Better deal, simpler engineering if you stick with one.
1: Intel provides the whole platform from a single vendor. Massively simplifying engineering the new platform
2: The myriad of reasons that Dell does the same. Most of them Dollars.
3: Pentium-M Laptop platform.
4: Truly massive Fab capacity, vs AMD history of production problems.

>Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
As said before Developers. Because there is no other way you can give ALL the developers a heads up and keep it a secret.
Click to expand...
 
iMeowbot said:
For some Carbon applications on Codewarrior, especially the ones that have been around since the 68K days, this is going to involve a lot of pain. CW includes a lot of crutches to hide some differences between the old toolbox and Carbon. I've got some inherited stuff that hasn't even been converted to use modern Navigation Services (hangs head in shame), and that's gonna hurt.
Click to expand...
Can you give me examples of Carbon apps from the 68K days that people still NEED to be running today? 68K was a decade or more ago.
 
Mr Maui said:
Can you give me examples of Carbon apps from the 68K days that people still NEED to be running today? 68K was a decade or more ago.
Click to expand...
NewsWatcher.
 
Mr Maui said:
Never heard of it. Is that MT-NewsWatcher (I did a web search)?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's another fork of the same code base.
They appear to have it for OSX (see link below) ... but it is written in really old Code??
Click to expand...
The code base (originally from Apple!) goes back about 15 years.
 
iMeowbot said:
Yes, that's another fork of the same code base.

The code base (originally from Apple!) goes back about 15 years.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that helps a bit ... kinda like the Mathematica comments about some of the code it contains going back to the Reagan administration, huh? :)
 
Mr Maui said:
Thanks, that helps a bit ... kinda like the Mathematica comments about some of the code it contains going back to the Reagan administration, huh? :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, and when you use the same program for a decade or longer it's really, really hard to let it go, especially when there really isn't a newer replacement that works the same way.

I mean, this isn't causing anyone financial woe or anything, the version I'm looking at here is something that only a few friends use. But the Intel transition is probably going to kill it for good, and that's like .... a bummer.
 
Freakk123 said:
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.
Click to expand...


because it takes a while for the effects of the kool-aid to kick in.
 
Stella said:
Here we go, 50 pages of misguided ***** of how -
- intel sucks
- intel means viruses
- people don't want macs to get over 5% market share.
- macs will be Dell quality machines
- Apple should have gone with IBM's (!!!???)
- apple making osx available on all PCs
- the final demise of Macs

plus other crap that people invent.

Very little insight and factual posts ( judging from the other posts )

Sorry, I'm being pessimistic.
Click to expand...

i don't even know where to start taking apart your ideas... i'll leave that to the other informed mac heads
 
If you have the time a good and interesting artical in macs switch to intel (seesh I should be doing work) He states in the artical that the pentum-M isn't 64-bit, but via the time the Mactels come out to the consumer I bleave it will. Or sencerly hope it will.

Just noticed someone already posted it :p
 
This is a key thing to point out. It is now where IBM and Intel (and others) are now but where they are going and how fast they are getting there. Besides by prepping for Intel Apple could use AMD as well. I wonder more about the 32 and 64 bit side of things.
 
Object-X said:
If they don't support 64 bit then will they actually go in a Powerbook? It would seem to me that Apple would want 64 bit support for the Powerbook line, but Intel says they aren't going to support it until it's needed. I think it's needed now, don't you?

Powerbook sales are going to drop like a stone until the Intel chips are ready. :(
Click to expand...

Agreed. Unless Apple upgrades the Powerbooks to a faster chip (the 1.8 range) or twicks Tiger to increase its speed without upgrading the chip.

Now the Intel is part of the picture news in regard to future chips will leak like crazy. Apple better come up with some great device or a kick ass PowerMac to make up for a decrease in sales.
 
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