Dualcore & Quadcore Mactels
Intel's reaction to AMD...
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/lapto...e-in-q1-106626
Given this news I think:
- High-end Mactels could come sooner if these quad-core puppies show up in 2006.
- Transition period over 12 months before first low-end Mactel is deliberately too long. I think Apple will react if HW sales will drop...and they will drop. Read any message board today and see the confusion. iPods will also come under pressure when new HD-equipped mobile phones start appearing in the next months.
What do you think ? Only good thing is Apple has a lot of $$$ to weather this transition.
PS: Also, two important new bookmarks for every AI member....bookmark now
http://www.intel.com/products/roadmap/
http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/lapto...e-in-q1-106626
Given this news I think:
- High-end Mactels could come sooner if these quad-core puppies show up in 2006.
- Transition period over 12 months before first low-end Mactel is deliberately too long. I think Apple will react if HW sales will drop...and they will drop. Read any message board today and see the confusion. iPods will also come under pressure when new HD-equipped mobile phones start appearing in the next months.
What do you think ? Only good thing is Apple has a lot of $$$ to weather this transition.
PS: Also, two important new bookmarks for every AI member....bookmark now
http://www.intel.com/products/roadmap/
http://www23.tomshardware.com/index.html
Comments
This means we will have much better (public) info when to upgrade our MacTels
Originally posted by jabba
One more thing: The Intel link is really interesting because I doubt Apple will be able to have Intel remove this info or change its corporate culture regarding product roadmaps.
This means we will have much better (public) info when to upgrade our MacTels
That was the first thing I thought of when the announcment was made, no more secrets, the Intel roadmap is usually announced years ahead, I doubt Apple has enough power in the relationship to get them to conceal anything. Do you think Intel will also produce the chipsets? (Northbridge, etc)
Primarily because looking at speculation about Yonah, Conroe and Merom leads me to believe that even Intel realizes Netburst is about to "burts"
Hell I can't complain about having a 65nm Dual Core Powerbooktel that has a 5hr battery life due to the 25watt processor.
Once more info comes out on the eventual successor to the P4 which will be Conroe/Merom I think Apple's actions become a little more clear and focused.
I'm guilty of being ignorant about Intel's roadmap. Let's be real though the Pentium D sucks and Intel knows it sucks but it'll prepare the market for the real deal DC stuff coming at 65nm.
Welcome to a brave new era. There will be both good and bad but if Intel delivers on the nextgen stuff...we'll all be pretty happy.
Found another good PC-centric site listing processor news/roadmaps and associated developments..
http://endian.net/
Damn, so many new PC-centric sites to bookmark and visit from now on
And Intel has some really hard-to-remember codenames: Yonah, Whitefield, Dunnington, Merom, Conroe...
So if I understood this correctly, the first Intel chips Apple is going to use could be:
Portables: Yonah - Q1 2006 or Merom - Q3 2006
See:
http://news.com.com/Intel+spills+bea...9925&subj=news
---------------------------
Desktop: Conroe - Q3 2006
See:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...408140302.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04...nroe_revealed/
However even after a brief google session I can see how Intel's 2007 lineup will be nice.
I've seen first hand how nice Pentium M Centrino notebooks are. Now with Yonah, Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest we'll see this new core spread its wings a bit show us what its capable of. The whole Intel line will be based off of the same core. Easy to develop for and if the Pentium M of today is any indication the Dual Core versions will be even sweeter.
Apple did what it had to do. I now realize this and look forward to seeing what Yonah can do first. Yummy.
nicer ring to it.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple did what it had to do. I now realize this and look forward to seeing what Yonah can do first. Yummy.
Originally posted by jabba So if I understood this correctly, the first Intel chips Apple is going to use could be:
Portables: Yonah - Q1 2006 or Merom - Q3 2006
Desktop: Conroe - Q3 2006
I don't see Yonah nor Merom in Apple laptops att all, because they are only 32-bit x86 processors. Instead I see this part of Intel's Roadmap used in Macs (all x86-64) :
? Intel Gilo (2006)
64-bit dualcore for laptop, 65 nm
successor of Merom
? Intel Conroe and Woodcrest (2006 H2)
64-bit dualcore for desktop and server, 65 nm, L2 4 Mo, 90 W
successor of Jonah (a Dothan dualcore)
? Intel Whitefield (2006)
low-power 64-bit 4-cores for server, 65 nm
? Intel Nehalem (2006 H2)
New design Pentium V (perhaps called "Pentium 8"
? Intel Bloomfield (2007)
64-bit "cores-a-plenty?" (> 8 cores), 65 nm. Should compete with IBM Cell...
Interesting, Intel seems to drop its Pentium IV "NetBurst" long-pipeline/high-frequency/high power consumption architecture, in favor of a more efficient post-Pentium M concept, with shorter pipelines (12 stages).
Originally posted by rageous
okay, off topic, but I'm stick with Xtel as opposed to Mactel.
nicer ring to it.
Why not "MacIntel"? Reminds me some kind of "Macintosh".
I really encourage all AI members to study these in details. I know I felt much better after seeing Intels' roadmaps for 2006 / 2007
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
I don't see Yonah nor Merom in Apple laptops att all, because they are only 32-bit x86 processors. Instead I see this part of Intel's Roadmap used in Macs (all x86-64) :
? Intel Gilo (2006)
64-bit dualcore for laptop, 65 nm
successor of Merom
? Intel Conroe (2006 H2)
64-bit dualcore for desktop, 65 nm, L2 4 Mo, 90 W
successor of Jonah (a Dothan dualcore)
? Intel Whitefield (2006)
low-power 64-bit 4-cores for server, 65 nm
? Intel Bloomfield (2007)
64-bit "cores a-plenty?" (> 8 cores), 65 nm. Should compete with IBM Cell...
Interesting, Intel seems to drop its Pentium IV "NetBurst" long-pipeline/high-frequency/high power consumption architecture, in favor of a more efficient post-Pentium M concept, with shorter pipelines (12 stages).
This is what I like to see.
Now that the initial shock has begun to subside a bit for me (and I thought this was a hell of a shock!) and acceptance of the news has slowly started to sink in, I think the most interesting and positive thing to think about now is what chips in the Intel roadmap were the ones the sealed the deal for Jobs and what he hopefully based an engineering decision on. Let's get some cool discussion going here!
I sincerely hope (read: F***ing better be!) the chips mentioned above ie Gilo, Conroe etc are the ones. (Having to investigate Intel architecture details more closely is FREAKING ME OUT!
What I want to see is nothing less than 64-bit multiple core architectures being used.
I also hope that some engineering collaboration between Apple and Intel brings some nice new innovations/optimisations. This could be cool. I hope the future brings some amazing products and hopefully the innovation Apple prides itself on really shines. I say all this as I have some huge doubts that I want to be reassured about! x86 doesn't really inspire me that much, but anyway..... If both companies are as passionate about their engineering as Jobs said in the keynote yesterday, this could be fun. If Intel flex their corporate might and stifle things... well I don't want to think about it.
What happens in the mean time before Intel units start rolling out is anyones guess. This'll be some show for Jobs.
Having said all that and getting through the initial despair......
I honestly have to say I never thought I'd see the day!!
[ps any links to good guides about intel family of chips and all the different names greatly accepted!!!!!....... freaking me out!]
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars
See the graph at bottom of page 1, interesting article