Pentium M and Yonah Processors in Upcoming Macs?

[~Shard~]

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?

I don't think this is going to be that major of an issue, as I don't see a ton of people waiting for Intel. There are two basic groups of Mac users out there as I see it:

1) Geeks like us who know every single detail and will scrutinize these things very closely. We're the ones who watched the keynote, understand the concept of universal binaries, and as a result, should not feel like we need to wait for Intel-based machines. (Of course everyone has their personal preference, but I'm speaking from a logical/knowledge perspective - there's no issue with buying an existing PPC)

2) Joe Mac-User who uses Macs because they're nice and they work and doesn't have a clue what type of processor Macs currently have, let alone what processor they're moving to. These users will buy Macs when they need to, regardless of what is underneath the hood. They could care less.

 

[elo]

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.

This is an outstanding suggestion.

 

[nsjoker]

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?

of course it will. it'll be a tough year, but once apple rolls out 6th gen ipods they'll be back in business... and once the intel macs start shipping, any losses in 2005 will be worth it.

 

[Mr Maui]

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?

It always has ... just depends on whether investors will freak out as bad as some of the people in these threads. Apple and Steve Jobs know how to make money and how to do it with style, class, and a loyal following too. JMO

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.

Not to mention "classier"!

 

[Mr Maui]

This is an outstanding suggestion.

Thank you very much ... (I kinda thought so, if I may say so myself).

of course it will. it'll be a tough year, but once apple rolls out 6th gen ipods they'll be back in business... and once the intel macs start shipping, any losses in 2005 will be worth it.

I believe Steve Jobs did a good job of alleviating some of the fears that people had about the possible switch to Intel when he announced it was a reality for the following reasons:

1. The fact that OSX has been working on Intel since its inception (5 years).
2. The fact that Rosetta allows existing PPC apps to work on Intel with a minor speed loss.
3. When he acknowledged that the WWDC demos were being done on an Intel box.
4. When he explained Universal Binaries (for those who didn't understand them)
5. When he talked about (with Mathematica CEO) the relative ease of porting of many to most existing apps, other than really OLD ones.
6. When he talked about Intel's timeline vs. IBM.
and
7. When he reiterated that this move was being made because Apple wants to continue to deliver the best computers out there, and IBM / Freescale were not making that possible.

 

[jettredmont]

I think the Ibooks will get a minor speed bump soon, then at mwsf 06 we will get powerbooks with the M chip, I think it will happen similar to this becuse I doubt Apple would give the new chip to the Ibook first, but I could be wrong, just my 2 cents.

Dave

The iBook is less likely to be using high-end Altivec-loving pro apps that will run like crap under Rosetta. An iBook is significantly more likely to be using just Apple software (OS X and iLife and MAYBE MS Office).

In this way, iBooks first makes sense. Especially if the processor put in there is not a barn-burner (there are slow Intel chips too ...)

I do agree, however, that all things considered it looks more likely that the PB will get Intel chips before iBooks (but possibly after Mac Minis).

 

[jettredmont]

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.

That's rather inaccurate. While the PM is closer to a PIII than a P4 in overall design and design goals, it is hardly right to categorize it as a souped-up P3. It can just as easily be called an evolved P4, minus the Netburst abominations. It's only more like a P3 because so much of the difference between the P3 and P4 was Netburst. Looking at the other P4 advances (better pipelining and branching, etc), they all made it to the "M" as well.

The PM, also, is hardly "unreliable". At least, I've not heard of any more problems with PM-based machines than with others. Do you have any data to back up this assertion?

 

[Silver Apple]

Yonah Speed Target is 2.5 Ghz!

I've see people post here that Yonah will max out at 2.1 Ghz ...

Well, most of the Intel insider's that I've been reading suggests a little faster than that... 2.1 or 2.0 will most likely be the bottom end. 2.5 or perhaps 2.7 could be the top end.

Yonah will also come in a single core flavour.

As far as a 64 bit part ... Intel says that they will release that when the market demands it.... or I'm betting if Apple demands it for the Powerbook line (dual core) with single core going to ibook possibly. I believe that the single core will be designated Celeron M

http://www2.technobabble.com.au/article247.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21091

Cheers!

 

[pont]

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?

From my experiance with proformance of Mac vs Linux on a powerpc and Linux vs Windows on intel, I would say that OSX will proform resonably well, XP and OSX both seem to love memory, while i think macos likes it abit more, I think the proformance of OSX will be quite good compared to windows, as long as you have the ram .

But then again, OSX runs like complete crap on my iBook 800mhz and linux runs sweet, but I think thats more of a ram issue then anything. 256 meg of ram is no good for OSX .

We will see I guess. Part of me says windows will run smoother (but then again by that stage longhorn might be released witch will prolly run like complete crap on anything) but poart of me says that they will both run farly similar.

Lets hope its the later

 

[DavidCar]

What happened to Hyperthreading?

Somewhere in reading up to this point I thought I read the Pentium-M design (Wow, that's the first time I've ever had to spell Pentium), and presumably the designs derived from it, like Yonah and Conroe, don't have hyperthreading. I would think hyperthreading would be an advantage for OSX. Am I wrong here?

 

[sord]

Let me be the first to say PowerBook G5s next Tuesday!
... ...
nvm PowerBook Yonahs next Tuesday!!!

 

[sord]

That's rather inaccurate. While the PM is closer to a PIII than a P4 in overall design and design goals, it is hardly right to categorize it as a souped-up P3. It can just as easily be called an evolved P4, minus the Netburst abominations. It's only more like a P3 because so much of the difference between the P3 and P4 was Netburst. Looking at the other P4 advances (better pipelining and branching, etc), they all made it to the "M" as well.

The PM, also, is hardly "unreliable". At least, I've not heard of any more problems with PM-based machines than with others. Do you have any data to back up this assertion?

Woah careful there - PM now can mean PowerMac or Pentium M
Thats one more double abreviation we have to worry about (like PB for PowerBook and Project Builder)

 

[iMeowbot]

Somewhere in reading up to this point I thought I read the Pentium-M design (Wow, that's the first time I've ever had to spell Pentium), and presumably the designs derived from it, like Yonah and Conroe, don't have hyperthreading. I would think hyperthreading would be an advantage for OSX. Am I wrong here?

Hyperthreading as implemented now has security issues. It's great that the developer boxes have it, since it still makes it possible to test multiprocessor stuff without actually having more than one CPU. In real life it's often not a huge performance win anyway, and genuine dual core processors will be much more fun.

 

[j_maddison]

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.

I agree with you. Personally I don't think we'll ever see a Powermac with a P4 chip, my opinion is that we'll see Powermacs move to a Xeon based chip in two years time.

If we do see a P4, or what ever the equivalent is by then, it will be in the imacs, emacs and mini lineup.

Just a quick question, will the Pentium M mean that notebooks can get thinner? I'm specifically thinking about the 12" PB here. Could we see a Powerbook that is ridiculously thin??

Jason

 

[Silver Apple]

About hyperthreading

I read somewhere (anandtech) that Intel couldl possibly have a yonah "extreme edition" part which is Inte'ls moniker for hyperthreading. The followup, Merom and Conroe (desktop) will definitely have it. They have "fixed" the security issues with earlier version of this technology apparently.

As far as the performance gains by hyperthreading ... some applications (threaded ones) can have significant performance boosts... as much as 50% gains so a dual core hyperthreading CPU like the merom, conroe .. could be a rocket for those applications. Incidently ... Mac OSX makes great use of threaded applications so .... watch out!!!

Cheers

 

[DavidCar]

This must be the article you refer to:

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2366

Note: I didn't see a Yonah extreme mentioned there, but I did see something about SIMD FP, but I don't understand if that would compare with Altivec.

Note2: Nothing like Altivec. Just the capability to decode and execute several SSE instructions in parallel.

 

[Silver Apple]

Just a quick question, will the Pentium M mean that notebooks can get thinner? I'm specifically thinking about the 12" PB here. Could we see a Powerbook that is ridiculously thin??
Jason

There are quite a few ultra thin Pentium M and Ultra low voltage Pentium Notebooks on the market ... I think the thinnest is the Sony X505:
http://www.kemplar.com/sonyu3_ts.htm (0.5 to 0.7 inch thick -- 1.8 lbs)
also the Toshiba R200 and several others are about the same ...
IMAGINE what the boys in the Apple lab could come up with ?


Just for your info, along with the standard Pentium M Yonahs coming out there will be ultra low voltage versions of Yonah as well ... I think 1.6 & 1.8 Ghz ?? That consume total 15 watts of power only!!

Cheers!

 

[sw1tcher]

It is my guess that there will be a design change to go with the new processor insertions. May still be aluminum, but I'd bet some design change will occur to distinguish the new line.

All Apple has to do to distinguish the new PB line from the old PB line is to slap an Intel Inside or Centrino sticker on it.

 

[JDOG_]

Sounds good to me. High clockspeed, low power consumption & heat...sounds like a dream come true

Excited about the next generation, I don't care who makes the chips, apple's bringing the dip & it's not going to the bean variety if you know what I'm saying.

 

[ansalmo]

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!

Sethypoo, what are you basing your opinions on? You seem obsessed with FSB speeds for some reason.

Let me tell you of my experience. Alongside my Mac equipment, I ran a 2.4GHz P4 (800MHz FSB), which was overclocked to 3.0GHz (1GHz FSB). I replaced this with a Pentium-M Dothan desktop (not a laptop) running at 2.0GHz, with less than half the FSB speed of the P4 system, and it wiped the floor with the P4. What was most gratifying was that it did this with a peak load CPU temperature of 38C, compared to the P4's 65C....

About the only thing the P4 was better at was video encoding. Perhaps that's why you want the P4? My focus was more C/C++ development (much faster compile times on the P-M), with a bit of gaming on the side (again honours go to the P-M).

 

[ZLurker]

I don't think this is going to be that major of an issue, as I don't see a ton of people waiting for Intel. There are two basic groups of Mac users out there as I see it:

1) Geeks like us who know every single detail and will scrutinize these things very closely. We're the ones who watched the keynote, understand the concept of universal binaries, and as a result, should not feel like we need to wait for Intel-based machines. (Of course everyone has their personal preference, but I'm speaking from a logical/knowledge perspective - there's no issue with buying an existing PPC)

2) Joe Mac-User who uses Macs because they're nice and they work and doesn't have a clue what type of processor Macs currently have, let alone what processor they're moving to. These users will buy Macs when they need to, regardless of what is underneath the hood. They could care less.

Well said!
I will not wait. My next mac will be delivered to my doorstep later this fall, guessing after the Paris event.

 

[ZLurker]

I am thrilled about this move to Intel!
I think it was SJ that ones set out on a quest to remove all fans from the computer. Well for the last couple of years that would have been impossible. But now i think we will see iMac power without fans, not just mac mini. I guess its not yet possible to ask this for PM yet, not even after the switch.
I mean, why should a computer make any sound? Except for music through the speakers

 

[sord]

I don't think this is going to be that major of an issue, as I don't see a ton of people waiting for Intel. There are two basic groups of Mac users out there as I see it:

1) Geeks like us who know every single detail and will scrutinize these things very closely. We're the ones who watched the keynote, understand the concept of universal binaries, and as a result, should not feel like we need to wait for Intel-based machines. (Of course everyone has their personal preference, but I'm speaking from a logical/knowledge perspective - there's no issue with buying an existing PPC)

2) Joe Mac-User who uses Macs because they're nice and they work and doesn't have a clue what type of processor Macs currently have, let alone what processor they're moving to. These users will buy Macs when they need to, regardless of what is underneath the hood. They could care less.

3) Geeks who want the latest and greatest and now think that their iMac G5s now only have a $400 resale value because Intel based Macs will be coming out.

I'm between 1 and 3 but closer to 1 (I want the latest and greatest even though I understand having the latest and greatest PPC based will be fine for years to come)

 

[MacMyDay]

Interesting how many people have rated this positive in comparison to the original release announcement of Intel. Seems that once figures are mentioned, the benefits become more clear.

I just hope there's at least some form of updates for the computers in the next year, otherwise the infamous Osborne Effect might really be a kick in the teeth.

 

[sord]

Interesting how many people have rated this positive in comparison to the original release announcement of Intel. Seems that once figures are mentioned, the benefits become more clear.

I just hope there's at least some form of updates for the computers in the next year, otherwise the infamous Osborne Effect might really be a kick in the teeth.

I think people have finally just calmed down and realized that Apple will continue to make great products, even if it runs on similar hardware as Windows.