Sneak peek at Yonah
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=428812
The above is a prototype running a Yonah at 2x1.47GHz running on the 945G platform with Win XPsp2. Remember, the actual Yonah will come with the "napa" platform with the slowest dualcore speed grade of 2x1.67GHz on a 667MHz bus.
We may see those Apple Yonah portables before the winter holiday buying season.
Some info about the Smart Cache:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=428790
A PC concept based on Yonah:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=428824
The above is a prototype running a Yonah at 2x1.47GHz running on the 945G platform with Win XPsp2. Remember, the actual Yonah will come with the "napa" platform with the slowest dualcore speed grade of 2x1.67GHz on a 667MHz bus.
We may see those Apple Yonah portables before the winter holiday buying season.
Some info about the Smart Cache:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=428790
A PC concept based on Yonah:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=428824
Comments
Originally posted by Existence
[B]http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=428812
The above is a prototype running a Yonah at 2x1.47GHz running on the 945G platform with Win XPsp2. Remember, the actual Yonah will come with the "napa" platform with the slowest dualcore speed grade of 2x1.67GHz on a 667MHz bus.
We may see those Apple Yonah portables before the winter holiday buying season.
Before winter 2006, maybe.
Remember, Apple can't just start releasing x86 Macs whenever they feel like it. They need enough developer support as well as their own polish. Yonah won't be officially ready until Q1 2006 as it is.
Originally posted by Commodus
Yonah won't be officially ready until Q1 2006 as it is.
Q1 2006 is from October to December, inclusive.
Originally posted by Existence
Q1 2006 is from October to December, inclusive.
Lets ignore for a second that Intel just finished their second fiscal quarter why don't we. Use some common sense and get it into your head, companies don't release things to fiscal calendars, especially when they are working with dozens of companies all operating on different fiscal calendars. If they say Q1 2006 it's planned for Jan - Mar 2006.
Nobody does actual project management to fiscal quarters. You may take them into consideration but you still talk in reference to the regular calendar year so you don't confuse the hell out of people, unless it's a financial report.
Originally posted by Telomar
Lets ignore for a second that Intel just finished their second fiscal quarter why don't we. Use some common sense and get it into your head, companies don't release things to fiscal calendars, especially when they are working with dozens of companies all operating on different fiscal calendars. If they say Q1 2006 it's planned for Jan - Mar 2006.
Nobody does actual project management to fiscal quarters. You may take them into consideration but you still talk in reference to the regular calendar year so you don't confuse the hell out of people, unless it's a financial report.
Agreed, financial stuff yes but market stuff no. Jan to Mar is correct.
Its funny, I may not be anything like an Apple Insider, but I know more about the future of the platform Apple is transitioning to then any Apple site aparently.
I love it when sites say that mactel isnt going to happen for a few months into 06' because of what Jobs said... only problem is Jobs didnt say that. He said there would be products on the shelf BY next year's developer conferance. With Yonah sampling for months now unless Intel drasticly changes something companies can easily already start working on designs for it. Processor is basicly done, chipset is in its final revisions, and Intel is already working on its next wireless chip (currently there is an b/g and a/b/g). The new wireless chip doesnt need to be done for the platform launch (wireless chip revisions are independent of the platform cycles, hence why you can get a b/g intel chip in a Sonoma package).
Personaly I bet the Powerbooks get the dual core Yonahs and the iBooks get the single core ones. I think the low end iBooks are going to stay G4 for a little while (a Pentium M is more expencive to make then the little G4 cores). its also possible that the iBooks will all stay G4 and the Powerbooks will get the dual core on the high end and the single core on the low end.
Ready for all of the Yonah infromation I have? To bad I am under NDA for most of it (the slides dont scare me but the sales people in the channel do, they may tourture us with a worse modified "B" movie from the 50's then last time).
The Tarzan (or was it Gorge of the Jungle? anyways it was the one with Jane) spoof was awful. The lady was a Intel sales rep, he was a whitebox/whitebook company owner, and it only went down hill from there. Intel people with photoshop and sound editors is a baaaad combination.
P.S.
Yonah = CPU and not a centrino platform technology (centrino is the combination of a CPU, chipset, and wireless chip).
Napa = Centrino generation. Is also sometimes referd to the chipset codename, though in intel labs you would get a slap on the wrist if you called the upcoming chipset/mainboards for Yonah Napa. It has letters and numbers to identify it. A few of my associates at the last ICC are still recovering by the brutal ruller attacks by the Intel geeks.
Thats just past experince and what a little birdy told me without showing me a NDA slide durring a meal.
Intel claims it wont be like Sonoma with some companies taking forever... but I have learnt never to underestimate how long it takes Dell to make and test a product. You would think with all of that testing they would, in the last 5 years, be making better laptops instead of worse ones. I have had WAY to many people come to me complaining of components coming unseated in the case.
I bet Asus will be making some of the first mactel laptops because Intel and Asus are best buddies.
I can completely see the iBook taking a g4 for another year+ easily. While the powerbook runs the intel side. Thats all I want... a powerbook with yonah... MMMM dual boot with 1 small machine!
Yonah is a die shrink, a few improvements to the FPU+media extentions, and the option of having a second core.
Cant tell you much about power management, how they do the dual core, yeilds, etc.
However I can tell you its going to be cloced at about the same effective speed as Sonoma. The bus is probebly going to be pretty full most of the time trying to feed two cores (yes there are single core and dual core Yonahs).
So glue 2 sonoma cores togeather and you have about the performance of a Yonah. I would guess depending upon application you will see a 10% to 30% speed increase on avarage when you take into account most applications arent multithreaded or the speed bottleneck of the FSB. I would guess 20% to 60% increase when it comes to video encoding and other things (mostly FSB restricted).
It will be a similar speed increase from single core Pentium 4 to dual core pentium 4. Take about the percentage increases, input the single core score of a pentium M and you should be able to ball park the speed increase.
The mobile G4 processors are actualy slightly cooler and more compact then Centrino. The reason Centrino gets such good power results is because its an intigrated package. So Intel can optimize the components for ideal batterylife. Hence why when you add Pentium M, Centrino mainboard, wireless chip, and Intel intigrated graphics you can get 6+ hour battery life. The G4 and AMD could do better if it wasnt a hodge podge of chips and technologies put in its laptops.
I will learn more about Yonah at fall 05' ICC. As for the next Centino technology (which is not going to be Pentium 4 based) I will learn about this at that ICC or Spring 06'.
Originally posted by g3pro
Apple is going for price/performance at the moment. The pro line will be the last to switch.
Not really. Centrino has a price/performance the G4 cant beat. Yes it costs more, but you get a 30%+ performance increase with web browsing and other daily tasks. You also get longer battery life, a tighter controled platform, the economics of scale with Intel, and a supplyer that can provide you with as much stock as you need.
These are all things Apple is going to need with laptops. The Apple laptops need to most new life injected into them and are the fastest growing market with PC sales (yes the mac is a Personal Computer, despite how much you might not want it Apple makes computers for the consumer
Low end is going to be G4 simply because the G4 is cheaper and will help keep the low end prices down, besides Apple needs to get rid of the last of its G4s somehow.
For the desktop the high end will be the last to go. But on the laptops the high end is going to be the first to go. That is unless Apple decides to just transition all of the laptops at once.
In my humble opinion I dont see Apple altering the powermac line until late 2006 to early 2007 when the sucessor to the Pentium 4 (A totaly re-architected Pentium M designed for portable and dekstop use) starts showing its head. Before then the Mini and iMacs could get touched with some Centrino technology.
With how Jobs was talking about performance per watt, I dont think they are going to use many Pentium 4s in their products. They want new laptops and to replace the G4. The G5 is still doing ok and people do like them, why change it until Intel comes out with something clearly better? I meen lets face it, with the G4s you can see they have performance issues now, but with the G5 its less aparent. Powermacs are used more for multimedia and the G5 is a good content creation chip.
If anything Apple needs to work on its thread creation mechanisims because it takes OS X so long to make a thread its holding behind any multi processor platform it goes into.
Just dual boot OS X and a PPC Linux distro on a dual core G5 and run some MySQL or Apache benchmarks. Thread creation is awful becase it isnt anywhere close to streamlined. Heck if Apple fixed that in its x86 verson no wonder all of the devs are saying x86 is so much faster.
Originally posted by emig647
I believe teh Powerbooks will be the first machines to get an intel chip period.
Mac mini will be. That's already confirmed.
Originally posted by Telomar
Mac mini will be. That's already confirmed.
If you're talking about confirmation from CNET... I beg to differ. Do you have this officially announced by apple?
Judging by how pissed Jobs was at IBM durring his keynote (he put Power PC instead of G5) I would say Jobs wants to transition as many of their products as fast as possible, but still needs to keep the vacade that the G5 is always better then the P4. So he will say wait the Pentium M is not the Pentium 4. The Pentium M wont be a stellar content creation processor till atleast the next revision past Napa. Till then the G5 can enjoy being Apple's poster child for content creation.
The current development kit is like an alpha xbox 360 dev kit. Its a stop gap measure to give developers a head start. The new platform wont look anything like the development kits, but developers need somewhere to start.
Now I want to see Jobs come out next apple dev conferance and scream "Developers! Developers! Developers!" because lets face it, its allways been about developers. A good set of developers can make anything look good. Heck it was developers that started the mass exodus from Apple to Windows back in the 90's.
One of my PC's is an AMD based notebook with an x86_64 (64-bit) Athlon @ 2GHz that peaks at over 60Watts, somehow they managed to pack it in a notebook (although bat. life is only about 2hrs 40mins). In any case assuming the 970MP consumes twice the power of the new 970FX, 2x16 watts (I couldn't find the spec. on the MP). We're looking at about 32 watts worst case. This of course could be reduced by speed-stepping clock speeds or disabling the 2nd core on the fly when it is not needed. Even at 32 watts with both cores chugging along at say 1.6Ghz a pop (an underclocking from the desktop 970MP), power consumption would be about only half that of a 64 bit Mobile Athlon (2Ghz). In rough terms that would suggest about half the heat and twice the battery life of the AMD comparison system.
Despite my pro-PPC statement, I think the Intel announcement was neccissary to get IBM on their feet and to produce the low power 970FX. (I think the 970MP would have come out anyway).
Intel does have the best ability of the big 4; IBM, MOT, AMD and Intel, to keep production on par with demand as well as the smallest processes. However it has too many baskets and not enough eggs in each if you know what I mean. Look how many cpu lines it now just for laptops and desktops (not including the server cpus) and soon will have. Take for instance the Pentium 4 HT Extreme Edition and the Pentium Extreme Edition. The newer of the two, the Pentium Extreme Edition, has a slower clock and bus speed than the P4 HT EE. I think this is also the case with some of the newer laptop chips. While power consumption may have been improved, performance is actually in a slight decline with several of Intel's lines. Why would Intel even bother to keep the Celeron when there are so many low end Pentiums to choose from? The new 7 series 9 series was supposed to help put the cpu's in a heirchal view of least performance to highest, however some cpu's are near equivalent. Take for instance a dual core vs. an Extreme Edition single core? How does one make a decision there?
Desktop CPU's
--------------
-Celeron
-Celeron D
-Pentium 4 HT
-Pentium 4 HT Extreme Edition
-Pentium Extreme Edition
-Pentium D
Laptop CPU's
--------------
-Celeron M
-Pentium 4 M
-Pentium M
Originally posted by emig647
If you're talking about confirmation from CNET... I beg to differ. Do you have this officially announced by apple?
My recollection is that Jobs said the first Intel Macs would be low-end machines. I took this to mean the Mini. This might make sense seeing how trivial the latest Mini updates were.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
My recollection is that Jobs said the first Intel Macs would be low-end machines. I took this to mean the Mini. This might make sense seeing how trivial the latest Mini updates were.
Jobs didn't say that himself, CNet did. That said, it makes the most sense to go with the low-end first, since usually it's those people who have the least amount of investment in older software. You get PowerMacs and Xserves into the fray only once enough pro apps are ready.
Originally posted by Commodus
Jobs didn't say that himself, CNet did. That said, it makes the most sense to go with the low-end first, since usually it's those people who have the least amount of investment in older software. You get PowerMacs and Xserves into the fray only once enough pro apps are ready.
Look at the balance sheet and you will see that Apple, does not rely on the PowerMacs to pull them through. This has changed for Apple and, in my opinion, made them a better company. As the sales of the top end have slid down, the sales of the bottom end and iPod have multiplied. The need for Apple to switch was obvious, Intel is going to be making high performance low power chips and more importantly chip sets. It is this low end and mobile crowd, that generate the bulk of the sales for AAPL, that will benefit most from those chip sets, and the power/performance. Actually the risk here is much greater, if they came out with a poor update/switch to the PM sales would erode further but how would that affect AAPL. Apple gets good supply, and no more need to have custom chips made for them, including the GPU and 'Apple chip', Intel gets a truly innovative customer.
I believe, that if Yonah's performance is that great, to the point where PPC applications will not see a speed hit while running under Rosetta, why would they want to waste more time with a G4 on the Powerbooks? I hope the next PB is an Intel, it just makes sense, and if these chips will already be available, all the more reason to stay competitive with the Dells, HPs that will surely have them as soon as they are available.
Originally posted by MacAficionado
I tend to think like cwestpha. Nowhere in Steve Jobs' keynote did he say that Intel Macs would come out a year from that day. He actually said that by that time next year there were already going to be Intel machines out there.
I believe, that if Yonah's performance is that great, to the point where PPC applications will not see a speed hit while running under Rosetta, why would they want to waste more time with a G4 on the Powerbooks? I hope the next PB is an Intel, it just makes sense, and if these chips will already be available, all the more reason to stay competitive with the Dells, HPs that will surely have them as soon as they are available.
Chip set, not just the CPU, Apple could make more and spend less and may still have more functionality in the chip set than what is current. I agree these could see the light of day before the end of '05. It all depands on Intel shipping the chip set, I believe that the CPU is ahead of the chip set so no worries there.