Pentium M and Yonah Processors in Upcoming Macs?

[go4d1]

Will the Mother boards be interchangeable?

I want to hear Steve say one thing: The intel motherboard will be interchangeable with the current G5 Model.

How great would it be if we could keep the existing chassis, video card, drives, and just swap out the motherboards?

 

[JackSYi]

Can't wait till the Rev. B or C of the dual core PowerBook comes out, getting one. This is exciting times for Apple you guys.

 

[MacEyeDoc]

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.

Yea, that's what happened with those IBM chips - they went from 90nm to 65nm and got - hotter! This is something that really bothers me about this move. Apple is betting that Intel will make these great chips for them, but they don't have them yet. To borrow that movie phrase - "Show me the chips!" Intel doesn't have them, just like IBM doesn't. I would have preferred Apple just saying that they would run their OS on the fastest chip they could find, IBM, AMD, Intel, Freescale, whatever. Why are we always waiting for a faster chip that no one ever seems to be able to produce?

 

[scu]

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!!!

I am not sure I agree with his view of Intel buying Apple, however he makes some very convincing agruments in regards to other areas. Especially in regards to decrease sales.

Personally if Apple came out with a dual core PowerMac or a 3 GHZ system within the next 6 months I would still buy one. I believe many loyal Apple users will continue to buy the G5 if the price is right and it much faster than what we have today.

I just can not see Apple not introducing faster PowerMacs between now and 2007 when I suspect the PowerMacs will get the Intel chips. In the mean time there are millions who already have the professional software and will be very hesitant to upgrade to the Intel machines and deal with emulators or buy new rewritten versions.

 

[pont]

>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

damn good point

Can't wait till the Rev. B or C of the dual core PowerBook comes out, getting one. This is exciting times for Apple you guys.

You can get duel core powerpcs too (not from apple)

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.

Carbon wasn't only on the 68k, OS 9 ran on a powerpc..

2006 will be an interseting year, and by late 2006 I think it will be clear if Apple made the right decision ( I think they did, since I don't think they could get there hands on the cell chip).

I wonder if you installed Darwin on a cell if you could then attempt to put all the osx stuff ontop of it ?, with multiple operating systems able to run off the same cpu you could have a bitching PS3 and no lack of games...

But I would think unless osx was reacompiled it wouldn't take full advantage of a cell, since it would just uterlise the PPU and no SPU

 

[chatin]

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.

Pentium M will never be 64-bit or dual capable. The EMT64 spec requires a RISC CPU, the M is a hybrid - at best. That's probably why the keynote and the transition kits ignore 64-bit.

Unlike the G5, the cache memory on a Pentium does not run at the same speed as the CPU. Xeon is more like the G5, because of a vastly superior cache. IMHO, putting a Pentium anything in a Mac is going backwards.

 

[ailleur]

Yea, that's what happened with those IBM chips - they went from 90nm to 65nm and got - hotter! This is something that really bothers me about this move. Apple is betting that Intel will make these great chips for them, but they don't have them yet. To borrow that movie phrase - "Show me the chips!" Intel doesn't have them, just like IBM doesn't. I would have preferred Apple just saying that they would run their OS on the fastest chip they could find, IBM, AMD, Intel, Freescale, whatever. Why are we always waiting for a faster chip that no one ever seems to be able to produce?

Intel doesnt NEED a new chip now, their 90nm still has a lot of life in it since overclockers will take a dothan pentium m of any model and crack it up to 2.7-2.8ghz on air cooling.

As for the hotter part, thats also what happened when intel went from 120nm to 90nm or from northwood to prescott. Thats when the **** hit the fan, as we say, the cpu was hotter and a lesser performer (due to other factors than the die shrink)

 

[plinden]

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!

Ach, he's just a noob - ignore him. Anyone who knows anything about Intel cpus knows that the PIIIs were faster than P4s for the same clock cycles, but Intel were pushing the MHz myth back then and didn't think they would reach high enough clock speeds (ignoring performance) with the PIIIs.

Quotes from the Wikipedia article he linked to:

The Pentium M represents a radical departure for Intel, as it is not a low-power version of the desktop-oriented Pentium 4, but instead a heavily modified version of the Pentium III design (itself based on the Pentium Pro core design). It is optimised for power efficiency, a vital characteristic for extending notebook computer battery life. Running with very low average power consumption and much lower heat output than desktop processors, the Pentium M runs at a lower clock speed than the contemporary Pentium 4 desktop processor series, but with similar performance (e.g. a 1.6 GHz Pentium M can typically attain or exceed the performance of a 2.4 GHz Northwood Pentium 4 [FSB 400 (100 MHz quad-pumped)], no Hyper-Threading Technology).

The Pentium M couples the execution core of the Pentium III with a Pentium 4 compatible bus interface, an improved instruction decoding/issuing front end, improved branch prediction, SSE,SSE2 and (from Yonah onwards) SSE3 support, and a larger cache. The usually power-hungry secondary cache uses an innovative access method to avoid switching on any parts of it not being accessed.

The next incarnation of the Pentium M, codenamed Yonah, taped out in mid-September 2004 and is due to ship in late 2005 for volume introduction in early 2006. Yonah is a dual-core design targeted for manufacturing on a 65 nm process, and will be Intel's first dual-core processor designed from scratch.

Yonah consists of two cores based on the Banias/Dothan microarchitecture, a 2MB L2 cache shared by both cores, and an arbiter bus that controls L2 cache and FSB access. Floating point performance has been drastically improved through the addition of SSE3 instructions and improvements to SSE and SSE2 implementations. Yonah also includes Vanderpool (VT) virtualization technology and the ability to disable one core to conserve power.

Yonah is expected to launch at 2.13 GHz with a Front side bus speed of 667 MHz (166 MHz quad-pumped). A single core version will be marketed under the Celeron M brand.

 

[ailleur]

Pentium M will never be 64-bit or dual capable. The EMT64 spec requires a RISC CPU, the M is a hybrid - at best. That's probably why the keynote and the transition kits ignore 64-bit.

Unlike the G5, the cache memory on a Pentium does not run at the same speed as the CPU. Xeon is more like the G5, because of a vastly superior cache. IMHO, putting a Pentium anything in a Mac is going backwards.

What in the hell are you smoking, the cache on pentiums has been full core since pentium 3's. That means the last cpu to NOT have full cache were socket pentium 2's, back in 1995. Way to keep up.

As far as not running 64bit capable, thats pretty funny, since the pentium is a cisc cpu, which renders your whole argument quite worthless.

 

[pont]

Pentium M will never be 64-bit or dual capable. The EMT64 spec requires a RISC CPU, the M is a hybrid - at best. That's probably why the keynote and the transition kits ignore 64-bit.

Unlike the G5, the cache memory on a Pentium does not run at the same speed as the CPU. Xeon is more like the G5, because of a vastly superior cache. IMHO, putting a Pentium anything in a Mac is going backwards.

Yes it will

 

[illumin8]

Let me just be the first to say....

Dual-Core G6 PowerBooks on Tuesday!!!

 

[nagromme]

Pentium M --> Dual-core Yonah --> 64-bit dual-core Merom

I'm liking the idea of a Merom PowerBook late next year Time for the growing pains to work out of OSx86, the hardware to be revised a couple times, and fast chips to get even faster.

 

[~Shard~]

Can't wait till the Rev. B or C of the dual core PowerBook comes out, getting one. This is exciting times for Apple you guys.

Those will probably be sweet machines, as long as you don't mind waiting. I could see the first ones out in a year or so, possibly, but rev Bs or Cs will no doubt take you into 2007 for sure.

 

[VanNess]

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html Interesting given the fact that I too believe this is all about DRM!!!

Nope. Nothing to do with DRM. Apple has their own DRM and thanks to the iTunes Music store, it's well along the way towards positioning itself as the de-facto DRM standard for digital media. Apple has no need for anyone else's DRM, Intel's (the existence of which seems to be more speculation than anything else) or Microsoft's (they aren't going to be happy in the long run).

One simple fact about Apple's switch is getting completely lost: IBM screwed Apple big time. Almost everyone has forgotten that when SJ made the infamous 3ghz "promise" is was a JOINT announcement by BOTH Apple and IBM. Job's made that abundantly clear when he made the announcement. I've watched that portion of the keynote again recently. This just wasn't another edition of RDF, IBM ALSO promised 3ghz in a year.

But no one mentions that. A year later, Jobs alone took the heat for the missing 3ghz G5, IBM was nowhere in sight. Jeez, what happened to them? They were on stage just a year ago, basking in all of the glory of the announcement. IIRC, IBM provided ONE update in that time frame, and it was lackluster by any other name. And check out IBM's most recent G5's. Starting with the 2.5 Ghz model, they were so bad that Apple - not IBM - had to design a custom water-cooled enclosure just so they could get the damn thing inside a Powermac enclosure. Don't even think about a G5 Powerbook, looks like the iMac is as thin as it gonna get. And of course there was IBM's ongoing fab problems to go along with all of this.

Bottom line: Unlike it's venerable G5 PPC, IBM didn't perform. From the very start, the IBM deal was a warp-speed trip to nowhere. Apple had no choice. Poor little Freescale couldn't come close to picking up the technological slack.

So if there is one overriding reason for Intel, it's plain, simple and not the least bit conspiratorial - it's security. No more broken promises, no more technology fizzles and dead ends. And maybe, just maybe there is one tiny ray of hope that came out of Jobs' last keynote, but this one wasn't from Jobs. It was from Intel's CEO. He underscored the point that Intel looks forward to working with a leader in innovation, and I just bet they do. Up until now, Intel has been bootstrapped for decades to Microsoft and the corporate PC industry, which endures technology changes rather than encouraging them, and especially in poor Microsoft's case, is anything but innovative.

So this could be Intel's big chance to show what it really has with whatever they produce for Apple. At least in this partnership, they don't have to be concerned about issues like keeping the x86 instruction set alive for the next 30 years. In the long run, this could be Intel's chance to get out from under the rock and maybe even embarrass AMD and IBM for the technology lead.

Remember, as Apple has said time and time again, the soul of the company is innovation. They aren't and never have been a "me too" company.

 

[chatin]

Merom not M or Yonah!

Pentium M --> Dual-core Yonah --> 64-bit dual-core Merom

I'm liking the idea of a Merom PowerBook late next year Time for the growing pains to work out of OSx86, the hardware to be revised a couple times, and fast chips to get even faster.

Finally, the roadmap appears!! Not M or Yonah as previously rumored. The rumor must have gotten lost in translation between M and Merom!

The G6 Merom might just do it!

 

[Mr Maui]

i don't even know where to start taking apart your ideas... i'll leave that to the other informed mac heads

I don't believe those were Stella's ideas. The post was dripping with sarcasm concerning the types of foolish comments people have made already concerning the switch to Intel processors.

I want to hear Steve say one thing: The intel motherboard will be interchangeable with the current G5 Model.

How great would it be if we could keep the existing chassis, video card, drives, and just swap out the motherboards?

And where's the PROFIT for Apple in that? Steve doesn't like it if there's not profit.

Yea, that's what happened with those IBM chips - they went from 90nm to 65nm and got - hotter! This is something that really bothers me about this move. Apple is betting that Intel will make these great chips for them, but they don't have them yet. To borrow that movie phrase - "Show me the chips!" Intel doesn't have them, just like IBM doesn't. I would have preferred Apple just saying that they would run their OS on the fastest chip they could find, IBM, AMD, Intel, Freescale, whatever. Why are we always waiting for a faster chip that no one ever seems to be able to produce?

Intel has the Pentium M (up to 2.13 GHz, I believe I heard) and Freescale has the G4 (1.67 GHz) and IBM has ... um ... NOTHING for laptops. The Pentium M runs cooler than the G4, and so far, IBM can't cool the G5 near enough to get it into a laptop. That says that Intel does have the chips, while IBM doesn't. And by the time IBM / Freescale do, IBM may have dual cores or higher GHz available. I prefer to wait and see before passing judgement on any of this. JMO

 

[Panoctopi]

Is there any chance we can refer to the new Macs as Macs instead of Mactels or Macintels. It makes them sound cheap and sarcastic like the Wintel label. My Macs will always be Macs regardless of the chip inside.

completely agree, let's keep macs macs and let's not capitulate in adoration to intel so quickly.

Originally Posted by chatin
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.

Originally posted by ablueski
You are obviously in the minority with this opinion.

a couple of weeks ago it'd have been the majority opinion though.

 

[~loserman~]

LOL, I'm really looking forward to what decent processors are going to be used in apple's laptops.

What ever they are - they will smoke today's current line up.

No doubt.....
The current PowerBook is a performance joke.
And it's battery life sucks.

Man will it be nice to get even a single core Pentium M 2.4 Ghz in a Pbook
With some nice memory bandwidth.

Can we finally say good by to the slow as hell bus speed of the G4?
I say good riddance

 

[Mpowerbook182]

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.

I would not worry to much about this, A sony vaio (laptop or Desktop) has a higher cost than a dell, and while sony doesn't sell as many computers as dell, they do sell quite a few, probably for one reason; it's a Sony, I think Apple has the same thing going for it but even more so since we have OSX.

 

[Mr Maui]

I just can not see Apple not introducing faster PowerMacs between now and 2007 when I suspect the PowerMacs will get the Intel chips. In the mean time there are millions who already have the professional software and will be very hesitant to upgrade to the Intel machines and deal with emulators or buy new rewritten versions.

So you believe dual 2.7s is as good as it gets till 2007? I guess Apple is just gonna close the doors until Intel is ready for them. Personally, I believe 1-2 more upgrades are in the works until Intel chip based Macs ship. Not sure about your numbers, but I bet there are millions who will continue to buy Mac products just because they are the best out there.

Let me just be the first to say....

Dual-Core G6 PowerBooks on Tuesday!!!

Careful ... Pontiacs lawyers may be calling you for copyright infringement.

Pentium M --> Dual-core Yonah --> 64-bit dual-core Merom

I'm liking the idea of a Merom PowerBook late next year Time for the growing pains to work out of OSx86, the hardware to be revised a couple times, and fast chips to get even faster.

What's with all of the positive, enthusiastic Intel talk all of a sudden <dripping sarcasm>

 

[dontmatter]

So I'm still waiting for this debate to surface-

will apple survive the inevitable slump as people wait for intel?

votes, anybody?

A good argument?

We know they've got 6 bill in the bank, and the ipod makin' money, but will the stock survive?

 

[mrw]

performance

Hope this isn't to dumb a question and it hasn't been addressed already of but, any thoughts on the performance of OSX vs Windows on same processor configuration?

 

[w_parietti22]

So much for the end of the MHz myth!

no, not really. If you compare a $2,699 2.13 Pentium M PowerBook to the $2,999 1.2 Pentium M Panosonic eLite I think people will go for the faster, cheper PowerBook.

Also the likelyhood that Apple will use Pentium M (Laptop Processors) in there PowerMacs and iMacs is unlikely. I could see it in the Mac Mini and maybe the eMac. But not the iMac and PowerMac. So if yoou compare Macintel Desktops to Wintel Desktop, they will be the same and if you compare Macintel Laptops to Wintel Laptops, it will be about the same.

I hope the Pentiums bring down the prices for Apples computers! Especialy becuase we won't need a special liquid cooling system to cool down any computer above 2.5ghz. And we won't need to have our notebooks be 2" thinkjust to fit a processor that can run above the 2ghz mark!

I love the featuire on the yohan where you can turn of one of the processors for longer battery life. that will be nice when watching movies on long trips.

Lots of people have copnsider Intel the dark side for many years (Even Apple, they burnt the intel bunny! haha) but yu have to look on the bright side, you no that you never were going to get a G5 in your powerbook, it was taking Apple for ever! You know that the PowerBooks were slowing. This is a chance for Apple to get you a speedy fast processor in your notebook with out it haveing to be 2" think and it killing you future children! (Heating Issues!) So take this for granted and be greatful. Its going to be hard, but I think this is the right thing for Apple and the right thing for your little ones down there.

 

[AliensAreFuzzy]

Now, only if they were to release these in time for me to buy them this fall.

 

[Mr Maui]

One simple fact about Apple's switch is getting completely lost: IBM screwed Apple big time. Almost everyone has forgotten that when SJ made the infamous 3ghz "promise" is was a JOINT announcement by BOTH Apple and IBM. Job's made that abundantly clear when he made the announcement. I've watched that portion of the keynote again recently. This just wasn't another edition of RDF, IBM ALSO promised 3ghz in a year.

But no one mentions that. A year later, Jobs alone took the heat for the missing 3ghz G5, IBM was nowhere in sight. Jeez, what happened to them? They were on stage just a year ago, basking in all of the glory of the announcement. IIRC, IBM provided ONE update in that time frame, and it was lackluster by any other name. And check out IBM's most recent G5's. Starting with the 2.5 Ghz model, they were so bad that Apple - not IBM - had to design a custom water-cooled enclosure just so they could get the damn thing inside a Powermac enclosure. Don't even think about a G5 Powerbook, looks like the iMac is as thin as it gonna get. And of course there was IBM's ongoing fab problems to go along with all of this.

Bottom line: Unlike it's venerable G5 PPC, IBM didn't perform. From the very start, the IBM deal was a warp-speed trip to nowhere. Apple had no choice. Poor little Freescale couldn't come close to picking up the technological slack.

So if there is one overriding reason for Intel, it's plain, simple and not the least bit conspiratorial - it's security. No more broken promises, no more technology fizzles and dead ends. And maybe, just maybe there is one tiny ray of hope that came out of Jobs' last keynote, but this one wasn't from Jobs. It was from Intel's CEO. He underscored the point that Intel looks forward to working with a leader in innovation, and I just bet they do. Up until now, Intel has been bootstrapped for decades to Microsoft and the corporate PC industry, which endures technology changes rather than encouraging them, and especially in poor Microsoft's case, is anything but innovative.

So this could be Intel's big chance to show what it really has with whatever they produce for Apple. At least in this partnership, they don't have to be concerned about issues like keeping the x86 instruction set alive for the next 30 years. In the long run, this could be Intel's chance to get out from under the rock and maybe even embarrass AMD and IBM for the technology lead.

Remember, as Apple has said time and time again, the soul of the company is innovation. They aren't and never have been a "me too" company.

Well said ... says I !! <for what that's worth>

Originally Posted by 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.

Mac users already do. Loyal Mac people know that the chip is only a small part of the equation. The OS is the key. No Dell with Windows can even compete in the Apple / OSX arena. IMO