Yonah details

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
From The Register:



Quote:

Intel has said Yonah will ship by the end of the year, but don't expect it to make much of a noise until Q1 2006 when Napa is formally launched. Yonah should ship clocked to between 1.66GHz and 2.16GHz, and contain 2MB of L2 cache. Expect it to support Virtualisation Technology and Intel Active Management Technology, along with the latest incarnation of SpeedStep.



The speed there is interesting. We can have a G5 now at 1.6GHz or a Yonah in 9 months at 1.66GHz.



That to me says we will see a Powerbook G5 with the Intel 'books following on at 1.6 (iBook) and 2.1 (Powerbook) in 12 months or less.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 67
    dhagan4755dhagan4755 Posts: 2,148member
    Interesting analysis Blackcat. I tend to agree with you. Sounds like a plan.
  • Reply 2 of 67
    smalmsmalm Posts: 654member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blackcat

    We can have a G5 now at 1.6GHz



    Now? Says who? IBM didn't say anything!
  • Reply 3 of 67
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by DHagan4755

    Interesting analysis Blackcat. I tend to agree with you. Sounds like a plan.



    What I found most interesting is that if you believed the Intel 'fanboys' Yonah was already massively faster than the G5 (even allowing for the fact it didn't exist).



    It seems like a massive leap forward won't happen. But steady progress is good.
  • Reply 4 of 67
    wingnutwingnut Posts: 197member
    Well, clockspeed doesn't mean everything, folks. Yonah will have 2 cores, and will have a very high IPC. It should have great battery life and will be faster than a single core 1.6 G5.
  • Reply 5 of 67
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wingnut

    Well, clockspeed doesn't mean everything, folks. Yonah will have 2 cores, and will have a very high IPC. It should have great battery life and will be faster than a single core 1.6 G5.



    some Yonahs will be dual core. Everything else at this stage is heresay. We'll know in january.
  • Reply 6 of 67
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    The intel switch seems to have more to do with Apple not having to pay for R&D than with the chips being significantly quicker.
  • Reply 7 of 67
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    The intel switch seems to have more to do with Apple not having to pay for R&D than with the chips being significantly quicker.



    Again, we don't know if Apple will use Intel chipsets or continue to roll their own. IBM built G5 chipsets but Apple needed custom jobs.



    Apple doesn't always do logical
  • Reply 8 of 67
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    The intel switch seems to have more to do with Apple not having to pay for R&D than with the chips being significantly quicker.



    If Apple pay for all the R&D of their chips, they'd better design their own chips.

    With Intel they won't have to pay for that, and it will be good for us customers.



    BTW the lack of the 3 ghz G5 has nothing to do with Apple . IBM failed, and I don't think that they can bring the R&D apologies here.
  • Reply 9 of 67
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blackcat

    Again, we don't know if Apple will use Intel chipsets or continue to roll their own. IBM built G5 chipsets but Apple needed custom jobs.



    Apple doesn't always do logical




    Again?



    After the switch, apple won't have to foot the R&D bill for an entire platform anymore. I think this, rather than speed is the primary motivation for switching. It wouldn't suprise me if a huge jump in performance never materializes. Granted, the powerbooks haven't been updated in a while.
  • Reply 10 of 67
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    Again?



    Everybody assumes Apple is going to build stock Intel PCs running OS X in pretty cases. They might just use the CPUs. Jobs only mentioned CPUs at WWDC, not chipsets.



    It wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple didn't do the obvious and kept designing their own chipsets.
  • Reply 11 of 67
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blackcat

    Everybody assumes Apple is going to build stock Intel PCs running OS X in pretty cases. They might just use the CPUs. Jobs only mentioned CPUs at WWDC, not chipsets.



    It wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple didn't do the obvious and kept designing their own chipsets.




    Everybody?



    You must be fixating on the people you disagree with and then projecting that disagreement into your interpretation of other posts. Rest assured, relatively few people think that apple will use stock or reference design motherboards.
  • Reply 12 of 67
    blackcatblackcat Posts: 697member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    Everybody?



    You must be fixating on the people you disagree with and then projecting that disagreement into your interpretation of other posts. Rest assured, relatively few people think that apple will use stock or reference design motherboards.




    Yes Everybody, All At Once, EVERYWHERE I TELL YOU!!!



    *ahem*



    I blame my mother...
  • Reply 13 of 67
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blackcat

    some Yonahs will be dual core. Everything else at this stage is heresay. We'll know in january.



    Actually, it's widely known most Yonahs except the ulta-low voltage versions and the cheapest 1.6GHz will be dual core.



    Some Yonah details: 667MHz FSB, 151.6 million transistors, 2MB cache, about 25W TDP



    Price list that's been leaked (in lots of 10,000--expect Apple to get them for cheaper for being exclusively Intel).



    X50 - 2.16GHz dualcore - $637 <---- 15" and 17" PowerBooks

    X40 - 2.00GHz dualcore - $423 <---- 13" PowerBook

    X30 - 1.83GHz dualcore - $294 <---- iBook

    X20 - 1.66GHz dualcore - $241 <---- Mac Mini

    Single core 1.66GHz - $209 (Probably marketed as Celeron)



    Pentium M architecture in general is about twice as fast as a G5 at the same clockspeed on integer stuff and about 10-30% slower on floating point stuff. However, Yonah reportedly includes some improvements to the FPU so it should be even on that front.



    The last time Apple's PowerBooks had faster processors than Apple's PowerMacs was 7 years ago.

  • Reply 14 of 67
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blackcat

    That to me says we will see a Powerbook G5 with the Intel 'books following on at 1.6 (iBook) and 2.1 (Powerbook) in 12 months or less.



    I'll take that bet. It makes no sense for them to re-engineer a PowerBook for a G5 only to re-engineer a new one for Intel in such a short time. It also makes no sense for them to market a brand new and exciting chip in a PowerBook. How would they market it, when everyone knows they're switching almost immediately?



    No, the only major leaps they'll be making in chips over the next two years will be to Intel. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't update the Powerbook at all until the Intels come. At best, they'll stick a slightly faster 7448 in there in a couple months.
  • Reply 15 of 67
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I'll take that bet. It makes no sense for them to re-engineer a PowerBook for a G5 only to re-engineer a new one for Intel in such a short time. It also makes no sense for them to market a brand new and exciting chip in a PowerBook. How would they market it, when everyone knows they're switching almost immediately?



    No, the only major leaps they'll be making in chips over the next two years will be to Intel. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't update the Powerbook at all until the Intels come. At best, they'll stick a slightly faster 7448 in there in a couple months.




    I agree with that, reenginering a new pbook (that means a new mobo) for just a 6 months like expectancy make no sense.



    They will just upgrade the laptop line, with the new 7448 if this one is avalaible on the market.
  • Reply 16 of 67
    fieldorfieldor Posts: 213member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    If Apple pay for all the R&D of their chips, they'd better design their own chips.

    With Intel they won't have to pay for that, and it will be good for us customers.



    BTW the lack of the 3 ghz G5 has nothing to do with Apple . IBM failed, and I don't think that they can bring the R&D apologies here.




    The fact that Steve Jobs made the promise 2 years ago is Apple fault and it probably hurt sales for a year because some people don't want rev 1 and they could wait a year and get 1 Ghz more (*2 if dual).

    IBM probably said : hey we will have 3ghz next year . Apple : wow, lets use this for marketing purpose.



    1 year later: IBM couldn't deliver so bummer. Apple blames IBM. We have 2.3 and are bummed to



    2 year later same thing.





    To cut a long story short: Apple (Steve Jobs) shouldn't have made that promise!!!



    Lets look forward and embrace the future, what has been done , is done.
  • Reply 17 of 67
    fieldorfieldor Posts: 213member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Actually, it's widely known most Yonahs except the ulta-low voltage versions and the cheapest 1.6GHz will be dual core.



    Price list that's been leaked (in lots of 10,000--expect Apple to get them for cheaper for being exclusively Intel).







    Apple won't be exclusive Intel , until the end of 2007 when the transition should be complete. They might get them a bit cheaper , of course, but not yet for being Intel inside across the line.
  • Reply 18 of 67
    9secondko9secondko Posts: 929member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blackcat

    From The Register:







    The speed there is interesting. We can have a G5 now at 1.6GHz or a Yonah in 9 months at 1.66GHz.



    That to me says we will see a Powerbook G5 with the Intel 'books following on at 1.6 (iBook) and 2.1 (Powerbook) in 12 months or less.




    The difference is 1.6 is the highest closked low power G5, while 1.66 is the lowest clocked Yonah.



    So even the lowest Yonah is faster than the highest "G5 M".
  • Reply 19 of 67
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Blackcat

    From The Register:







    The speed there is interesting. We can have a G5 now at 1.6GHz ...




    no, we can't. IBM "announced" these chip's existence for the first time. They gave absolutely no indication as to when they'd ship in volume. Most likely, the Intel Yonah chips will ship before IBM gets the 970fx out the door.
  • Reply 20 of 67
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chris v

    no, we can't. IBM "announced" these chip's existence for the first time. They gave absolutely no indication as to when they'd ship in volume. Most likely, the Intel Yonah chips will ship before IBM gets the 970fx out the door.



    IBM is truely pathetic if that's true. Yonah is a 65nm chip, while the low-power G5s are 90nm.
Sign In or Register to comment.