So what Intel CPU's will Apple be using?

[NetRyder]

Brand loyalty has this effect of blinding people from the fact that things can change over time...

 

[LeeJend]

Actually you can predict it. Apple ditched IBM because they were power pigs. Steve Jobs has an obsession with "Apple's will not have a fan." You need low power CPU's for fan less operation and long charge life notebooks. Intel's M family wears the crown on low power chips and has for a while.

My money is on the following new Apple Line up in orrder of introduction:
-Extended life P4-M notebooks.
-"Cool and quiet" desktops with P4-M
-Top of line P4 EE dual CPU power user machine.

Note rewriting OS-X for P4 will take time. Making the new OS-I take full advantage of dual CPUs is even a longer road. Time to market for software updates and corporate obsessions will drive the Apple I line up.

 

[X-Istence]

OS-X runs on the P4, and takes full advanteage of it. It does not have any code written for a specific endianness, as the G4 could switch endianness, most of the code was written in little endian.

And having OS-XI take full advantage of Dual Core will not take long either, they have the G5 dual PC's, which is almost the same thing as having dual cores. There are some differences, but those should be fairly easy to program into the kernel.

iLife 05 is supposedly already shipping fat binaries (can't confirm it), and they were running natively not through rosetta on the p4 steve jobs was using for his keynote.

 

[Xie]

Wow, some serious AMD fanboying going on here.

I wouldn't label myself a fanboy, I just don't like how a company like Intel can be praised for charging more for a 2nd rate product. All evidence points to the fact they will continue to be in 2nd place (though not in market share) in '07 as well. I just think Apple could have done better, and I will be awaiting a AMD (or any other CPU maker actually) port.

 

[Geffy]

In the WWDC Jobs said they wanted a Performance per Watt not just outright performance. Personally I am glad they chose Intel rather than AMD. AMD do have a fantastic chip in the form of the amd64, but its not a cool operator, the Intel chips have the potential to be very cool, plus the fact that Intels chips can speed step based on temp a lot better than the AMD's can. All this I see as being very important to the future of the Mac line, especially the laptops.

Apple shouldnt have any problem running on Dual Cores, not only can they do it on Dual processors already, but BSD can already do dual core and so using more of the BSD code wouldnt be difficult to merge into Darwin.

Also the choice to go with Intel can be understood if you look at some of the problems with amd processor supporting motherboards in things like BSD whereas the Intel processor supporting motherboards have always been much easier to get running

 

[Xie]

Just a shame. The new roadmap for AMD that hit frontpages today sound sexy. Will have quad-core and chips using only 10w by '07, which is very interesting if they can pull it off.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Just a shame. The new roadmap for AMD that hit frontpages today sound sexy. Will have quad-core and chips using only 10w by '07, which is very interesting if they can pull it off.

the details

 

[Xie]

the details

Yeah saw that. Also read it on /. and others.

 

[Sazar]

In the WWDC Jobs said they wanted a Performance per Watt not just outright performance. Personally I am glad they chose Intel rather than AMD. AMD do have a fantastic chip in the form of the amd64, but its not a cool operator, the Intel chips have the potential to be very cool, plus the fact that Intels chips can speed step based on temp a lot better than the AMD's can. All this I see as being very important to the future of the Mac line, especially the laptops.

No offense but I know first-hand your supposition here is based on erroneous information.

Pentium processors currently generate FAR more heat than do AMD procs. The rated dissipation for AMD is the max, for the Intel procs is generally the average and it is still a lot higher apples to apples (no pun intended). You will see this borne out in every test out there with thermal properties discussed.

Apple is not going with Intel because of cooler processors, that much you can be sure of.

Unless of course you are comparing it to the Pentium M lineup where it is more of an even footing.

Apple shouldnt have any problem running on Dual Cores, not only can they do it on Dual processors already, but BSD can already do dual core and so using more of the BSD code wouldnt be difficult to merge into Darwin.

Also the choice to go with Intel can be understood if you look at some of the problems with amd processor supporting motherboards in things like BSD whereas the Intel processor supporting motherboards have always been much easier to get running

Intel made boards are typically very stable, if this will be true for Apple made boards for an Intel chipset remains to be seen.

Intel has the capacity to deliver on demand whereas AMD currently still has not demonstrated it is capable of delivering en-masse to a client without disruption.

The first generation of Mac-tel products will indeed be interesting because I anticipate there to be some quirks to work out going from a PowerPC standpoint to an Intel setup.

 

[Son Goku]

The Pentium 4 has certainly had reports of running hot... I'd have to do a search to pull up some of the old articles I've seen on this.

Apple's decision is likely a business one (which is what some articles have suggested). There might be some thought to production capacity as well...though since Dresden came on line I don't remember mention that AMD was having troubles supplying chips... Intel does have more fabs overall, however...

/me thinking Apple's decision was more business related then technical wrt the chips themself... I would be interested to see what Intel would pull off with dual core Nakomas, or whatever it will be, when it comes out...

 

[X-Istence]

Sazar: Unofficial plans that i could get out of a person working at the Apple store who knows people high up the chain, they want to switch over with PowerBooks then iBooks first, then once Intel gets their new chip out (whatever it is), the PowerMac line goes over. iMac will be going shortly afterwards, and the Mac mini will probably get a pentium M later on, it is unsure though. The Mac mini might even be first to switch, since they have a bit more room to play with than a laptop. As they can't just drop in a new replacement for the current CPU's, they need a new mobo as well.

 

[Xie]

The Mac mini might even be first to switch, since they have a bit more room to play with than a laptop. As they can't just drop in a new replacement for the current CPU's, they need a new mobo as well.

Reason for Intel's hype over that small form-factor mini ripoff? Interesting in hindsight.

 

[Sazar]

Sazar: Unofficial plans that i could get out of a person working at the Apple store who knows people high up the chain, they want to switch over with PowerBooks then iBooks first, then once Intel gets their new chip out (whatever it is), the PowerMac line goes over. iMac will be going shortly afterwards, and the Mac mini will probably get a pentium M later on, it is unsure though. The Mac mini might even be first to switch, since they have a bit more room to play with than a laptop. As they can't just drop in a new replacement for the current CPU's, they need a new mobo as well.

Dothans are what they will likely be running. The current 6xx and 8xx procs simply do not have too much heat that needs dissipation vis-a-vis the Dothans.

The "new" proc likely is based off the montecito which would be the 8xx series Dell is currently using in its 9xxx and XPS Gen 5 lineup and will be intro-ing in other products as the year progresses and some models EOL.

If indeed it is montecito based, I am assuming Apple is heading to a BTX format as well, and while the product will be cool, it needs space to effect the dissipation of the heat. Probably no more room, say, than an optiplex or dell dimension 4700C (I use the optiplex version small-form factor tower at work). Noise levels are low but costs are high, especially on upgrades.

 

[Sazar]

The Pentium 4 has certainly had reports of running hot... I'd have to do a search to pull up some of the old articles I've seen on this.

Apple's decision is likely a business one (which is what some articles have suggested). There might be some thought to production capacity as well...though since Dresden came on line I don't remember mention that AMD was having troubles supplying chips... Intel does have more fabs overall, however...

/me thinking Apple's decision was more business related then technical wrt the chips themself... I would be interested to see what Intel would pull off with dual core Nakomas, or whatever it will be, when it comes out...

Nocoma afaik was their Sckt 478 based procs.

Regardless, I think the consensus has been this is a business decision more so than a technical one.

What does confuse me is that IBM and Intel both have a tremendous amount of Fabs out there with brilliant tech. Obviously IBM over-hypes theirs (re: Nvidia, nv3x) but they still have a lot of Fab capacity. Their lack of expertise or lack of cost-savings per wafer v/s Intel seems to have been the prime reason.

 

[Son Goku]

Nocoma afaik was their Sckt 478 based procs.

Ah, OK, thx... I really need to get more up to date with my info Busy with school and stuff, out of the information loop on upcomming procs for awhile, and my info dates. Was a fair time ago (given how fast things evolve in this industry) that I heard about dual core Nakomas...

What does confuse me is that IBM and Intel both have a tremendous amount of Fabs out there with brilliant tech. Obviously IBM over-hypes theirs (re: Nvidia, nv3x) but they still have a lot of Fab capacity. Their lack of expertise or lack of cost-savings per wafer v/s Intel seems to have been the prime reason.

Makes sense... Though on the Intel fab side of things, all isn't as good as it might at first glance appear (I've heard in the past that some of Intel's fabs are rather dated, so unable to produce at full capacity); but they still have a hell of a lot of capacity.

But your logic is impecable, and this would give good reason to their business people to chose on a switch of platforms. You'd be better able to speak of this (for obvious reasons), but it could also well come down to a similar reason for why Dell has pretty much stood away from AMD in their systems, and remained "Intel only".

 

[SPeedY_B]

IMHO everyone using a Intel Mac is losing.

Woohoo! I lose. But I'm going to be the one sat behind a (hopefully) dual-core/cpu 4GHz PowerMac in a few years.

I don't care what chip they use, since whatever it is, cherry is going to port it over to my amd 64 bit pc, and then I will get my chips performance on the apple os.

they will only charge a few dollars for their software, and I will be given a trial of 90 days...this is going to be sweet

of this I am certain

what the **** are you on about?
/blunt

Actually you can predict it. Apple ditched IBM because they were power pigs. Steve Jobs has an obsession with "Apple's will not have a fan." You need low power CPU's for fan less operation and long charge life notebooks. Intel's M family wears the crown on low power chips and has for a while.

My money is on the following new Apple Line up in orrder of introduction:
-Extended life P4-M notebooks.
-"Cool and quiet" desktops with P4-M
-Top of line P4 EE dual CPU power user machine.

Note rewriting OS-X for P4 will take time. Making the new OS-I take full advantage of dual CPUs is even a longer road. Time to market for software updates and corporate obsessions will drive the Apple I line up.

PowerMacs have 9 fans, and OS X already runs on Intel chips, it's been actively maintained over the past 5 years.

 

[Xie]

Woohoo! I lose. But I'm going to be the one sat behind a (hopefully) dual-core/cpu 4GHz PowerMac in a few years.

Yeah but think how sexy a quad-core AMD would be. They are due in '07.

 

[Sazar]

I think Intel has the capability to have the same type of functional units out by then.

They have more and better fabs than AMD does and this gives them more flexibility when it comes to manufacturing and R&D.

 

[SPeedY_B]

Yeah but think how sexy a quad-core AMD would be. They are due in '07.

I'll think about them when I'm sat at my Intel Mac, yeah? Good.

 

[muzikool]

I'll think about them when I'm sat at my Intel Mac, yeah? Good.

Good call.