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?

sord said:
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.
Click to expand...

Including me. But for those that still cannot believe a Mac or any Apple machine running an Intel I provide you this link courtesy of EveryMac.com

http://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/stats/mac_quadra_610.html

not one but two machines had an old Intel chip and were also DUAL BOOT. It didnt kill Apple then, and it most surely won't know. Does anyone have a photo of that old server that Apple made in the '09s that looked like a coffee machine with lots of hard-drives that could be pulled out? If so could you PM me that photo please?Thanks.

Intel Pentium 4 HT chips - HyperThreading - came out before the Extreme Edition models. Some 2.8Ghz had that branding. As mentioned in another thread Intel already has x86-64bit cpu's shipping. Yonah should be 64-bit as well as 32-bit; if I read correctly. A PowerBook with a Yonah dualcore 64-bit chip should be sweet. I just would like it with a really exotic look like when the TiBooks 1st came out compared to every other competitor.

Any G6 moniker related to a Pontiac car shouldn't prevent Apple from using it. For one thing Apple makes computers, and secondly they can prove that more recognition of the G* lineup is on their side as apposed to Pontiac (G of the G6 car is short for GrandAm 6th generation).
 
Mr Maui said:
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. :confused: 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.
Click to expand...

At least one more PowerMac PPC upgrade is definite. Quite likely more.
 
Oh yeah I forgot to thank Arn and this powerful site & forums.

Apple may have actually done the easy part by always having OS X x86 version ace up its sleeve, but thanks to very knowledgable members and this site, so many of Apple's current sales until next year or even further are saved.

Early switchers and potentials like myself almost **** ourselves hearing the transition news and panicked. But with knowledge help & guidance on this site, were accepting, calm, heck even happy.
 
Hyper-threading?

Two questions about Yonah:

1. Will it have Hyper-Threading?

2. What IS Hyper-Threading? :D

My understanding is that hyper-threading makes the OS see each core as TWO processors, so dual cores in one Yonah would be seen as four processors. I assume "About This Mac" is smart enough not to report 4 though, and as I understand it each core isn't truly doubled: it can run two threads at once sometimes, not always.

Now, since that's all wrong... anyone want to clarify? :)

And if not Yonah, will Merom have it? (The 64-bit laptop ship coming at the end of 2006 after Yonah.)

(FWIW, it's also my understanding that Pentium M throws out a lot of bloat from the P4--and so being similar in SOME ways to the P3 is no bad thing.)
 
nagromme said:
My understanding is that hyper-threading makes the OS see each core as TWO processors, so dual cores in one Yonah would be seen as four processors. I assume "About This Mac" is smart enough not to report 4 though, and as I understand it each core isn't truly doubled: it can run two threads at once sometimes, not always.
Click to expand...
That's correct, and the leaked screen shots show that OS X can tell the difference. And yes, Yonah is reportedly getting HT.

(EDIT: actually, the linked article doesn't mention HT, I'll swear it used to. Reports out there conflict.)

(Another edit: here's one from an intel suit saying that it will have HT.)

http://endian.net is nice to have around to help keep track of the roadmap madness.
 
New poster here, de-lurking for the first time in 3 years... excuse the rambling, but there is a lot of pent up stuff.... :)

I think that the Ars article is the best I have read since Steve took to the stage, in particular it explained why I feel positive for the switch in general terms, but negative for the future of the Mac platform and my "passion" for it:

Quote:

The Mac's "RISC CPU" meant something to a small but very important fraction of the Mac user base. These people were on fire about PowerPC vs. x86, RISC vs. CISC, and the platform wars in general. They cared about things like elegance and orthogonality, and when they used Apple hardware they felt "geeky." And the presence of PPC, regardless of its actual contribution to the cold hard benchmark numbers, lent to these vocal and highly enthusiastic Apple users the sense that they were members of an exclusive club of people "in the know," whose technical tastes were more refined and who were just plan smarter than the average "PC weenie."

This absolutely captures how I feel. I just don't like the idea of having an Intel processor in the heart of my Mac, not because it won't be better - it probably will. Just because I buy Macs because they are different, and I buy Macs because in some sad and pathetic way they make me feel "superior". (And they rock, of course.)

Also, I am dreading the day that Apple launch a new Intel based Mac and the usual "price comparisons with a Dell" are reported..... pardon the phrase but it will be a comparison of apples with apples and that makes me uncomfortable. We have always been able to "self justify" our purchase behind the processor architecture and the os. Now we only have the os. And if some hacker works out how to run mac os x on a Dell, how many of the cash strapped amongst us are going to be tempted?
 
as a public company doesnt apple have to ask its shareholders before doing something like this?

and if they think it will make their stock collapse for next year or so, cant they tell apple to reverse this decision?

i just dont know what percentage of apple is publiclly owned these days, can anyone answer that?
 
iMeowbot said:
That's correct, and the leaked screen shots show that OS X can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links! What leaked screen shots are those? They show a Mac being aware of dual cores vs. HT?

EDIT: Oh... I posted that prefs shot myself yesterday! Didn't notice the HT checkbox. Back to my hole now :)
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131320

Anyway, unrelated: re 64-bit not making it to Yonah: I'm led to believe that 64-bit would increase power usage and heat--and it's seldom of use currently. So while it IS coming to laptops (Merom?) I won't lose sleep if I don't have it.
 
nsjoker said:
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.
Click to expand...

6G iPods? What happened to the 5G?
 
sord said:
Let me be the first to say PowerBook G5s next Tuesday!
... :confused: ...
nvm PowerBook Yonahs next Tuesday!!!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're not the first. One can only hope you're the last.
 
where do the concerns really lie?

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 seems that many people switch or get into Macs PRECISELY BECAUSE OF the user experience, and DESPITE the processor. As mostly unfounded as we all know it to be, the megahertz myth is probably what has concerned most people the most; and running on an "alien" processor or architecture probably concerned most IT support staff a lot as well, because it also leads to questions about compatibility - maybe more so than the fact that the operating system is different...

We know that the Mac is more "compatible" than most people realise. And thanks to the unix underpinnings of OS X and better implementation of universal standards, networking and hardware support, more open source etc., a case can be made that the Mac is "more compatible". That the processor is now going to be "no different", no longer alien, gives no one an excuse not to investigate Macs and try one out.

So why should anyone switch? Because they WILL STILL BE MACS WITH A SUPERIOR USER EXPERIENCE! The point has continually been made. Macs will not change into crummy unproductive boxes that cost twice as much for the same thing you can get from DELL. Besides the user experience, I am sure Apple can get better benchmark results from the same chips because of the cleanness of the operating system, ingenuity in technologies, and quality of parts.

Of course people still need to discover the superior user experience, and they need to be educated, they need to be shown. But the winning argument is not, and has never been, "hey come and try this other kind of computer that has a different processor." [edit] "...it costs more but the extra expense is justified because the processor is different." No. Other things (in addition to user experience) justify the price difference: life, "things just work", security, appeal, etc. etc. [edit]

Rip
 
rdowns said:
6G iPods? What happened to the 5G?
Click to expand...
I guess some people call the iPod Photo the 5G, but I disagree. It's just the top-end 4G. I'd accept the Shuffle being called the 5G first :) But that's just a different model, like the Mini.

So there is no 5G yet in my book.

I'm glad we'll have a reason to keep using "G"s :)
 
Prom1 said:
Including me. But for those that still cannot believe a Mac or any Apple machine running an Intel I provide you this link courtesy of EveryMac.com

http://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/stats/mac_quadra_610.html

not one but two machines had an old Intel chip and were also DUAL BOOT. It didnt kill Apple then, and it most surely won't know. Does anyone have a photo of that old server that Apple made in the '09s that looked like a coffee machine with lots of hard-drives that could be pulled out? If so could you PM me that photo please?Thanks.

Any G6 moniker related to a Pontiac car shouldn't prevent Apple from using it. For one thing Apple makes computers, and secondly they can prove that more recognition of the G* lineup is on their side as apposed to Pontiac (G of the G6 car is short for GrandAm 6th generation).
Click to expand...
Is this what you are looking for? The Network Server 700/200.
...a rugged, easy-to-expand tower case designed so that any major component can be replaced in less than a minute. The enclosure includes a lockable translucent front bay door, seven front-mounted, hotswappable drive bays, hotswappable external fans, optional redundant hotswappable powersupplies, and a rear 'drawer' for easy access to internal components. The Network Server models are technically not 'Macs', as they do not operate the MacOS, and instead use AIX (an IBM version of UNIX).
Click to expand...
As for the G6 moniker, Apple has nothing to worry about. Apple has an established pattern with the G3, G4, and G5 series names. Also, Pontiac has made G4 and G5 model name cars and hasn't said anything.
 
nagromme said:
Thanks for the links! What leaked screen shots are those? They show a Mac being aware of dual cores vs. HT?
Click to expand...

Hey, you even posted a copy here :D

Also, re 64-bit not making it to Yonah: I'm led to believe that 64-bit would increase power usage and heat--and it's seldom of use currently. So while it IS coming to laptops (Merom?) I won't lose sleep if I don't have it.
Click to expand...
The 64-bit support in Tiger is kind of lame anyway, it's not really integrated with Cocoa and Carbon. Mainstream applications aren't likely to make use of it.
 
Pentium-M... c'mon Apple give us a break. While the P-M chips may be good for ibooks, powerbooks and the minis they aint gonna cut it for the big boy powermacs.
I meany you buy a powermac because your a power user and a lame Pentium-M will not cut it im afraid. I mean all you have to do is pick up any PC mag and see that for apps which need the grunt and horsepower (i.e 3d, CAD/CAm etc) and therefore what a powermac is needed for only the regular Pentium 4s will do, the 6xx or 8xx. The P-Ms cant keep up with the regular P-4s for pure power.

Hopefully apple is going to shoot itself in the foot AGAIN by selling us under powered pocessors.

Matt
 
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...

why is it needed 'now'? they are not going to mac a laptop with 8Gbs of RAM 'now'

64bit powerbook don't exist now so it is not a step backwards for apple to use 32bit intel stuff
 
hcorf said:
as a public company doesnt apple have to ask its shareholders before doing something like this?

and if they think it will make their stock collapse for next year or so, cant they tell apple to reverse this decision?

i just dont know what percentage of apple is publiclly owned these days, can anyone answer that?
Click to expand...
Well, there was a stock-holders meeting earlier this year and since the Apple Board of Directors members as a group probably own over 50% of the company, they then probably approved the deal with Intel. However, the deal can easily be approved by agreement via conference call with a majority of the Board members.
 
Cold_Steel said:
Pentium-M... c'mon Apple give us a break. While the P-M chips may be good for ibooks, powerbooks and the minis they aint gonna cut it for the big boy powermacs.
I meany you buy a powermac because your a power user and a lame Pentium-M will not cut it im afraid. I mean all you have to do is pick up any PC mag and see that for apps which need the grunt and horsepower (i.e 3d, CAD/CAm etc) and therefore what a powermac is needed for only the regular Pentium 4s will do, the 6xx or 8xx. The P-Ms cant keep up with the regular P-4s for pure power.

Hopefully apple is going to shoot itself in the foot AGAIN by selling us under powered pocessors.

Matt
Click to expand...

Please check the links already posted on this thread or google Pentium-M. Your understanding of the relative power of P-M v P4 is incorrect.
 
gadget1974 said:
New poster here, de-lurking for the first time in 3 years... excuse the rambling, but there is a lot of pent up stuff.... :)

I think that the Ars article is the best I have read since Steve took to the stage, in particular it explained why I feel positive for the switch in general terms, but negative for the future of the Mac platform and my "passion" for it:
Click to expand...

In some respects, the switch to Intel will be like going back to the Mac's pre-PPC days. I bought my first 128k Mac 21 years ago not because of its 68000 processor but because the user experience was so much better than on any of the competition, including my Apple ][ Plus. Although most people paid some attention to CPU changes over the years (000, 020, 030, 040), it was only after the PPC that the chip wars really got heated up, and Apple and others began to tout the RISC vs. CISC advantage.

Going forward, it's mostly going to be user experience again. Sure, people will still buy Macs because of their elegant physical design, reliability (comparative), and so on, but the OS is going to count even more than it does now.

And, in that respect, I hope that Apple's software engineers are going back to the drawing board with Leopard. As much as I appreciate OS X, the Mac OS feels more disjointed to be with each update. If Apple's going to thrive, Leopard is going to have to reverse this trend; this is especially important since 10.5, Longhorn, and Intel-based PowerMacs will all appear at roughly the same time.
 
sacear said:
As for the G6 moniker, Apple has nothing to worry about. Apple has an established pattern with the G3, G4, and G5 series names. Also, Pontiac has made G4 and G5 model name cars and hasn't said anything.
Click to expand...

Lets not forget the Canon PowerShot G3, the G3-class of stars in astronomy, the G3 Free Trade Agreement, the G4 TV channel, the G4 nations and G5 Jet (Gulfstream VI), the G5 engine, the G5 howitzer and the G5, now G7 countries. ;)
But it probably isn't likely for Apple to use the next POWER chip in the Macs. The last PPC product will likely be the 970MP. (Unless they call this the G6..)
 
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