or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Yonah hot n hungry?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yonah hot n hungry?

post #1 of 56
Thread Starter 
According to this Register article Yonah will either be G4 speed and low power or fast and too hungry for a laptop. With the 2.1GHz unit being around 49W it won't be running a Powerbook anytime soon.

That low voltage G5 looks quite good now
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
post #2 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Blackcat
According to this Register article Yonah will either be G4 speed and low power or fast and too hungry for a laptop. With the 2.1GHz unit being around 49W it won't be running a Powerbook anytime soon.

That low voltage G5 looks quite good now

The Register...lol.
post #3 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
The Register...lol.

Ah, the geek equivalent of "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".

El Reg is not making this up, they are printing Intel news, albeit via PCWatch.

Yonah looks less wonderful to me.
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
post #4 of 56
it better not be g4 speed.


someone with knowledge in this field come and blast these statements!!!
post #5 of 56
Yonah be dead and buried by 2H2006...
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #6 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Elixir
it better not be g4 speed.


someone with knowledge in this field come and blast these statements!!!

Actually, it is in accordance with TS predictions for an Intel iBook at first. A low power Yonah would prevent the new iBooks from entering the Powerbook territory, performance wise. Of course Apple could use older P-Ms.
post #7 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Elixir
it better not be g4 speed.


someone with knowledge in this field come and blast these statements!!!

I'd love to have G4 speed. If you take today's G4. Make it dual core and add in a fast FSB you have a killer laptop chip. Clock for clock Yonah won't be much faster than a G4 but when you add in larger L2 cache and faster FSB it takes the lead.

49 watts by itself means nothing. It depends on where the hotspots on the chip are I think you'd find that a even a 970fx will rise in heat depending on its use. It's obvious though with dual cores that laptop cooling is going to have to take precedence over the desire for ridiculously thin laptops
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #8 of 56
First of all - that's 49 W for the Dual Core processor. Half that for the single core. Next, that's 49W for full speed, full power dual core. In normal operation only a single core will be running until the second one is needed.

G4 speed my foot. At 1.5 Ghz (which is used on the really low power systems) its faster than all G4s.
post #9 of 56
Quote:
G4 speed my foot. At 1.5 Ghz (which is used on the really low power systems) its faster than all G4s

A Pentium M is at best equal to a G4 sans taking into account the FSB. I doubt that a 1.5Ghz Yonah single core is going to be much of a attraction to people that need the advantages of a Powerbook.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #10 of 56
Does anyone have stats on the current 1.67 mhz G4 power consumption? If I'm reading this Freescale datasheet correctly, it looks like a 7447A at max dissipation would be in the high 20s wattage.

If so, this is comparable to the 15-24W quoted for 1.67 mhz L2400 package. So we're trading altivec for the faster FSB and larger cache. The real question is how Yonah and G4 compare at same chip speed. Does anyone have empirical data therein?
apple gets "it."
Reply
apple gets "it."
Reply
post #11 of 56
To quote the Man in Black:

Apple on Intel "get use to disappointment"

Anyone still clinging to the Jobs fantasy that Intel was some sort of 'choice'?

Heh.
post #12 of 56
Whatever. The bottom line -- from a business perspective -- is that Mac powerbooks won't be any slower than Windows laptops. We're probably not going to see anything really impressive from Intel until they start finding ways to work Itanium into their consumer offerings. If the e600 and e700 were delivered in any sort of timely fashion, I'd bet they'd make better laptop CPUs than will the Yonah or any other P-M derivative in the immediate roadmap. But, still, at the end of the day there's plenty of business case for sticking with Intel.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #13 of 56
I'd like to see OSX running on this cheap PC:

£749 PC - Dual core, Digital TV etc etc etc

What a great spec for a low low price - if only we got all that on the G5

\
==================================
"It's Happening. Fact."

Ilann Hepworth.
Reply
==================================
"It's Happening. Fact."

Ilann Hepworth.
Reply
post #14 of 56
As Alex stated the Yonah supports throttling the CPUs of the cores independently. The heat issues claimed are likely worst case scenario for engineers.

LOL...funny. We're finally getting aways from sub 2100Mhz busses and slow clock speeds and you have people smirking about the Intel choice.

Quote:
What a great spec for a low low price - if only we got all that on the G5

That's kind of interesting but I'm not envious of boxen from unknown companies. I like the drive bay on top of the case.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #15 of 56
TDP is not power consumption. It's a specification delivered for the OEM engineers in order to make the right cooling system.

I will be more interested to know the powerconsumption of the yonah while running a DVD, writing a word document, CPU intensive tasks ...

That's said, a merom will be way more impressive in those aera.
post #16 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
We're probably not going to see anything really impressive from Intel until they start finding ways to work Itanium into their consumer offerings.

Itanic? Please no.
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
post #17 of 56
Ah where's the news here? All the article states is the top Yonah CPUs fall into the 25 - 49W bracket. Intel stated as much a long time ago. The actual TDP is high 20s to 31W depending on the source, a bit higher than a G4 but that's 2 cores. Yonah runs cool and there's no news here other than Intel's new naming scheme.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #18 of 56
Telomar is right, you guys need to chill. Nobody said (officially) that the Apple notebooks were going to use Yonah at all anyway. If they're Pentium-Ms they'll be plenty fast and cool... and the faster FSB should make them compute better at lower clock speeds. Frankly, given the timing, Pentium-M is more likely. Maybe Apple will use Yonah to make a dual-core PowerBook, maybe just the 17" model. If so, relax. It will be plenty fast and run cool enough. No need to panic.
post #19 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Blackcat
Itanic? Please no.

I don't really want to get started with this, but from a theoretical/academic standpoint, Itanium[2] is very elegant and practical. It's just that we've seen that it takes a while for theory to trickle down until it's at the commodity stage, and that's what's happenning with Itanium. But it will happen, and the game industry looks like it will be leading the charge.

One thing is for certain though: stick a fork in superscalar CPUs . . . they're done. If it weren't for a little thing called "installed base" they'd be gone already.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #20 of 56
There are various levels of power consumption for Yonah and various levels of Yonah parts.

It will have an "E" part for presumably "Extreme" TDP versions of Yonah which will have >= 40 Watt TDP and >2.2 GHz. These are likely Sossamans (will have dual-CPU support (quad-core) in companion northbridge) and Yonah CPUs for 2" thick gaming laptops. A 2.4 GHz Yonah will generally be equivalent to a 2.4 GHz Athlon X2 or 2.4 GHz 970mp in performance. It will be faster in some things, but slower in others.

The "T" part is the normal voltage, highest volume Yonah part with 29 to 49 Watts TDP and up to 2.16 GHz. Apple can skim the 2 GHz 31 Watt TDP "T" parts if they are good at negotiating.

The "L" part is the official low voltage, somewhat lower volume Yonah part with 15 to 24 Watts TDP and up to 1.66 GHz.

The "U" part is the official ultra low voltage, lowest volume Yonah part with <14 Watts TDP and up to 1.3 GHz, but probably somewhere around 1.1 GHz.

There will likely be single core variants of all of these parts.

Intel TDP != AMD TDP != IBM max power != Freescale max power. The companies run an instruction mix through the CPU that they believe would produce the most power, that they believe is above any one user would put a processor through. They are not the same instruction mix, but for intents and purposes, all of the TDP or max power numbers should be the maximum power 99% of users would put a processor through. There really is no use arguing true Intel max power will be higher than IBM max power.

A 1.8 GHz dual-core Yonah will be able to run 1080p H.264 video at 30 fps. That's the power of a 1.8 or 2 GHz dual processor Power Mac G5 in a laptop. On top of that, it will literally feel faster and be faster for most of the apps (integer apps) a consumer user would use than a comparably clocked G5 machine or 8641D machine.

People keep on harping that there are low power G5 processors. Yes, there are, but look at the clock rate of those low power G5 processors. 1.6 GHz at 21 Watts maximum and 2 GHz at 50 Watts maximum for "power-optimized" parts. No power-optimized 1.8 GHz part given. The standard 1.8 GHz part is 37 Watts maximum.

Yonah will deliver similar clock rates and power consumption, but it has twice the cores and hence about twice the integer performance. The G5 will only be faster at single threaded FMADD heavy FPU and specific AltiVec unique problems.

For the Freescale 8641D, my estimate would be: typical power consumption for 1.4 GHz 7448 is about 10 Watts x 2 for maximum power consumption x 1.5 for dual-core = 30 Watts max power consumption for a 1.4 GHz 8641D. A 1.67 GHz 8641D will be in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 Watts. Lookee, Intel Yonah will be 24 Watts TDP at 1.67 GHz, almost half the power consumption.

You scale linearly for increased clock rate and quadradically for voltage increases necessary to get the higher clock rates. It can very easily be more than 80 Watts at 2 GHz. The only problem is that it won't be delivered until late 1H 06 or 2H 06. Still waiting on 7448 G4 upgrades to confirm that they are shipping the chip. It's not good sign that we haven't seen any yet.

By 2H 2006, Intel will have Merom out.
post #21 of 56
ok, i love all the tech talk but i need to be sold on a potential laptop buy.

what should i wait for?


my activities usually run as so


powerpoint/keynote/word/excel
heavy internet browsing
Reason or any equivalent musical
program
and an occasional photoshop
post #22 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
By 2H 2006, Intel will have Merom out.

I hate Merom - it makes me think about buying a notebook instead of a desktop
post #23 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
A Pentium M is at best equal to a G4 sans taking into account the FSB. I doubt that a 1.5Ghz Yonah single core is going to be much of a attraction to people that need the advantages of a Powerbook.

I own two Pentium M 2.1 Ghz laptops, a Dual 2Ghz G5, a 2Ghz iMac, and 2 1.25 Ghz G4 Powerbooks. I can tell you right now fact wise that a 1.5 Ghz Pentium M 1.5 Ghz CPU IS faster than a 1.67 Ghz G4 that's in the current laptops (my friend has one). Its not just the software - OS X runs very very nicely on that machine. But running similar software and even dissimilar software (Safari vs PC Firefox), the Intel procs run faster. Thinking anything less is just putting your head in the sand.

I love the G5 architecture. I hate that IBM has piddled around with it.
post #24 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Elixir
ok, i love all the tech talk but i need to be sold on a potential laptop buy.

what should i wait for?


my activities usually run as so


powerpoint/keynote/word/excel
heavy internet browsing
Reason or any equivalent musical
program
and an occasional photoshop

A current PowerBook will do a great job handling all those.
post #25 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Akac
I love the G5 architecture. I hate that IBM has piddled around with it.

Oh please.
post #26 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I don't really want to get started with this, but from a theoretical/academic standpoint, Itanium[2] is very elegant and practical. It's just that we've seen that it takes a while for theory to trickle down until it's at the commodity stage, and that's what's happenning with Itanium. But it will happen, and the game industry looks like it will be leading the charge.

The game console software companies are being forced to design multithreaded software to take advantage of simple, but multi-core CPUs. They are doing thread level paralellism.

Itanium extracts parallelism out of one thread or one single instruction stream. They are doing instruction level parallelism.

The two don't really meet each other. Intel bet that they could design a compiler to extract lots and lots of parallelism from an instruction stream through a 3 pronged attack: a new instruction set architecture with provisions to help a compiler extract parallelism, a compiler that can extract the parallelism, and programmers to design software so the compiler could do it. It's almost like superscalar and out-of-order execution taken to the extreme.

Suffice it to say, they weren't that succesful. Itanium 2's big SPECfp2000 score (2500+) is really due to 2 FPU units with FMADDs with a whole lot of cache I think. Maybe in another few years, they can get the compiler to a point that real gains in ILP can be made.

As for the PS3 and Xbox 360 programmers, they are in the process of designing multithreaded games for 2006+. We'll see how good their TLP kung fu is.

Quote:
One thing is for certain though: stick a fork in superscalar CPUs . . . they're done. If it weren't for a little thing called "installed base" they'd be gone already.

Not sure what you're talking about, but superscalar aint it. Superscalar CPU design features will be in every single future CPU design I've seen. Heck, I'm not exactly sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if future PDA CPUs use superscalar designs.
post #27 of 56
mate, give me an iBook pentium M 745 (1.8ghz, 2mb L2 cache, 400mhz FSB, DD2-PC4200 RAM), and that will do just nice. i predict most macintel universal binaries will perform equivalent to a powerbook on this machine. but here's the catch: iApps will be nice and fluid, but adobe/macromedia/ms office will be running via rosetta, so performance will come in just under equivalent powerbook ppc apps. it will work out fine and i am really hoping for mobility radeon x600 64mb
post #28 of 56
Quote:
the Intel procs run faster. Thinking anything less is just putting your head in the sand.

As THT has pointed out Intel procs have better Integer performance thus the perception of speed is there but what you are seeing with the Pentium M is the effects of a good memory throughput system as well. Sadly even the G5 has a markedly less efficient memory subsystem when compared to the Pentium 4. The G4 is even worse in this regard. However there's nothing magical about the Pentium M processor. The G4+ has 7 pipeline stages compared to the 13 or so for the Pentium M thus it's harder to clock. I believe the G4 has 4 execution units compared to a PMs 3 so it must clock a tad higher.

If you could strap a 7448 G4 proc at 1.8ghz with a 450Mhz FSB and a 1MB cache into a laptop I'd take that over a 2Ghz single core Pentium M.

The G4 is a nice core that simply wasn't pushed forward enough. I don't want to overhype the pentium m to people. A 1.5Ghz single core Pent M isn't going to blow your mind. It'll be serviceable but the fun really doesn't start until you go dual core.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #29 of 56
Originally posted by hmurchison
....If you could strap a 7448 G4 proc at 1.8ghz with a 450Mhz FSB and a 1MB cache into a laptop I'd take that over a 2Ghz single core Pentium M.....


totally. 1.8ghz g4, 450mhz fsb and 1MB onboard CACHE with altivec/"ppc legacy" applications would be beautiful. unfortunately, this will *never* be a reality for the iBook
post #30 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
If you could strap a 7448 G4 proc at 1.8ghz with a 450Mhz FSB and a 1MB cache into a laptop I'd take that over a 2Ghz single core Pentium M.

They don't say whether it's a 7448, but it clocks at 1.92 GHz If it's a 7448, that means 1 MB cache and 200 MHz FSB. Not quite 450... but it's a start.
post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
TDP is not power consumption. It's a specification delivered for the OEM engineers in order to make the right cooling system.

That's said, a merom will be way more impressive in those aera.

Bah, guess that settles it. Im waiting for rev B.
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
"There's no bigot like a religious bigot and there's no religion more fanatical than that espoused by Macintosh zealots." ~Martin Veitch, IT Week [31-01-2003]
Reply
post #32 of 56
Thread Starter 
I'm totally sceptical on all these claims because I remember how phenominal the G5 was supposed to be. Claims of a clock-for-clock 2x - 4x improvement were quoted. A 1.4GHz G5 will be like a 3.2GHz G4, low power low heat etc etc. All of which ended up being less amazing than hoped for.

So until these things are real shipping products I'm inclined to believe we won't be blown away. Same goes for Merom.
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
James Savage - "You can take my Mac when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"

http://www.blackcat-software.com/
Reply
post #33 of 56
well, that's what the guinea pig early adopters are for. of which they won't be any scarcity of \
post #34 of 56
post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Roadmap
Oh please.

Yes, yes, oh, yeeeees.
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by wmf
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2.../kaigai225.htm
Some pretty interesting graphs.

indeed. if these charts are accurate, then, imo, the L2400 proves the register is out to lunch.

1.67 mhz, dual-core, 667 FSB, 2 MB L2 cache, all at 15 W.

i'll take one! well, maybe rev 2.
apple gets "it."
Reply
apple gets "it."
Reply
post #37 of 56
Should I bother pointing out that Apple's decision to move to Intel is based on long term potential? Long term is not 6 months, or 1 year, or even 2 years. The bet is that Intel is going to do better in the 3..20 year time frame. Until 65 and 45 nm parts arrive there isn't much reason to think that Intel can do enormously better than Moto's 90 nm part (7448, which Apple hasn't used). And IBM hasn't really tried for a laptop processor, and it doesn't look like they will since nobody is paying them to do so.


As for the comparison to Itanium, all processors these days have instruction level parallelism, this is not strictly an Itanium thing. The main difference is that in the Itanium it is explicitly encoded in the instruction stream, whereas other architectures attempt to find it dynamically at runtime. The Itanium approach hasn't worked out as well as Intel/HP promised, partly because the compilers haven't measured up, and partly because a lot of the potential parallelism is truly dynamic and not available for compile time optimization. We starting to see a few processors with simpler cores, dropping some of the expensive dynamic ILP finding in favor of higher clock rates and putting the burden back on the programmers. I expect this trend to continue, and in some sense it validates the Itanium approach... in another sense it kinda makes you wonder how the Itanium guys could have gotten such poor results after spending so much money trying it.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #38 of 56
programmer, much respects, but a dualcore 65nm yonah may very well be in a shipping apple product by the middle of 2006. just over 7 months away. in this short time of space, a dualcore 65mm(edit: 65nm i mean) yonah could be all apple really needs for all its consumer offerings, again, in this short time of the next 1-7 months.

that said, yes, definitely the intel move is a decision that will have very long term impacts, i guess like the salivating dogs we are, we can't wait to reap some of the benefits like, now. edit: particularly if the yonah truly is the next evolutionary step of the wildly proven and successful pentium M... with osX86, it means that singlecore pentium Ms with the cache and FSB to give an edge over the 7448 *if it ever comes out* and single/dualcore yonahs are all very viable options within the next 6 months.
post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Akac
I can tell you right now fact wise that a 1.5 Ghz Pentium M 1.5 Ghz CPU IS faster than a 1.67 Ghz G4 that's in the current laptops.

I find it kind of amusing that no matter which Apple fan site I go to the word is 'PPC rocks! x86 sucks! Talk to the hand'

My experience with my 1.42 ghz Mac Mini with 1GB RAM is that the G4 seems sluggish.

As we all know the G4 can't run 720p H264 video at full frame rate. My Mini runs them at about 50% or 66%. My brother's girlfriend's 1.7 ghz Dell laptop which cost her slightly less than an entry 12" iBook, runs 720p H264 video at full frame rate no problem.

A while ago I ran the Cinebench benchmark on two PCs and my Mini. The last test which is the scene render took the following:

Mac Mini 1.42ghz 1GB - 201 seconds.
Pentium-M 1.4ghz 256MB - 141 seconds.
Pentium 4 3Ghz 2GB - 80 seconds.

At some point I'm hoping to do a Lightwave 8.5 render and Vue 5 render to see the differences there.

I've also tried Warcraft III. Ran smoothly on a 1.1ghz Athlon with 768MB RAM and a Radeon 8500. But does not on my Mini. But that may down to running it at 1280x1024 on the Mini instead of 1024x768.

Folding@home. Takes my Mini about 6-7 days to process a work unit. My P4 3ghz takes about 2 days.

I've yet to do any tests with rendering audio or video but I'm still expecting the G4 to lose.

OK. I'm not expecting a G4 to beat a P4 but you guys make it sound like x86 sucks period.

You might say but a dual-processor/dual-core G5 kicks a P4's arse in this benchmark or that benchmark. It might do. But the machine costs twice as much as a P4 based machine but it doesn't give twice the performance.

And take World of Warcraft. I run it on my P4 3ghz with 6800GT with all settings full on. It always runs incredibly smoothly. From what I've read, even if you've got a Dual Processor 2.5ghz G5 with a 6800 Ultra you have to pull the draw distance back. And Doom 3 doesn't perform too good on a Mac. Again, silky smooth on my setup - even with vsync on.

When Steve confirmed the move to Intel, I was happy. I'll be buying myself a Intel based Mac laptop next year without any worries. I think you guys should give up slagging off Intel. Its not Intel that sucks, its Microsoft's Windows O/S that does.
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
... putting the burden back on the programmers. I expect this trend to continue, and in some sense it validates the Itanium approach... in another sense it kinda makes you wonder how the Itanium guys could have gotten such poor results after spending so much money trying it.

I disagree with you re Apple's decision being based on "long term potential". That's just rationalization of the fact that it seems a poor near-term decision. None of us know what Apple's decision was really based on.

But you are right on regarding the Itanium. I have been wondering for some time exactly what you said. The best engineers and programmers in the industry couldn't get it to perform near expectations, despite near-infinite expenditures.

You know, much the same could be said for the G4, too. Sure, it's crippled by its FSB, but it never seems to have approached its potential either.

I wonder if the whole problem is that compiler technology is lagging processor design? And it's been pointed out, too, that C is a difficult language to optimize, due to all kinds of restrictions placed on it by ANSI and portability requirements. Fortran compiler writers never had to be concerned about type and length of intermediate results.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Yonah hot n hungry?