The report seems to indicate that Yonah is a 32-bit chip. Does it also come in a 64-bit flavor?
In the long run, yes,. When they're released in Q1 of next year? Maybe yes, maybe no. Rumors say 'yes', but official Intel roadmap says 'no'. OTOH, Intel has been releasing things ahead of schedule recently.
Initially, dual-core versions Yonah will be available in four flavors, ranging from 1.66GHz to 2.16GHz, each with a 667MHz front side bus. A single core 1.66GHz version of Yonah is also reportedly in the works.
I'm not up with the dual core lingo, I take it this is 1.66Ghz for both cores rather than each core?
Intel is such a huge company though. I don't see them stumbling as Moto and IBM have. Their roadmap looks awesome.
The most important thing is that if Intel stumbles, everyone else stumbles too. As Intel goes, so does the microprocessor market. That will be a first for Mac users and it should be a good thing.
It's just astonishing to read this thread... if you showed any of us a transcript of this conversation a week ago, we would've laughed you out of the room.
I think it would be easier for the "intel sucks, OMG" crowd not to choke on their talking points that they mindlessly held for so many years against intel like standard democrat talking points if they just use their brain and think about it.
I think we're starting to see some people thinking.
I think it would be easier for the "intel sucks, OMG" crowd not to choke on their talking points that they mindlessly held for so many years against intel like standard democrat talking points if they just use their brain and think about it.
I think we're starting to see some people thinking.
Not only that, but I just read an article at "i, cringley" (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html) that said he's under the impression that Intel HATES Microsoft. Heck, that's a good enough reason alone to team up with 'em. If we're going to save the world from the bloated vaporware that is Longhorn, we'd better team up with (or get bought by, according to Cringley) Intel. It's a fascinating read.
The 64 bit version of Yohan is due out around the same time as Longhorn, there has been rumors that Intel might not reach that date, and Longhorn may have to be pushed back, since Longhorn is a 64bit OS.
Another major feature of Yonah is Digital Media Boost, a dual-part update delivering improvements the chips SSE instructions for multimedia and Floating Point unit. Together, Intel says the updates will improve everything from digital photo manipulation to video editing, gaming, and music.
While not exactly the same, this definitely sounds like Intel's 2006 version of AltiVec, which is definitely a good thing for the media gurus and game whores around here.
1) This is the first thread about Intel chips where the Mac community here has been drooling. We would have found ways to slag it off or ignore it before.
2) Me too. Our Macs will still be Macs. It feels good.
Not entirely true, some posters including myself pointed out the virtues of the 2nd gen centrino 'dothan' when it was announced (@1.8G). It has taken Intel some time but they had finally surpassed anything from Moto on the low power front.
The current 2.16G chips blow the G4 away - but more importantly OS X will scream on top of these chips.
Intel will also introduce a Yonah based Celeron M at 65 nanometres, it will have a 533MHz front side bus, 1MB of level two cache, and be dubbed the 4XX series. It will also introduce an ultra low voltage member of this family. They're due in the second quarter of next year.
Its good to see a lot of positive technical details coming out, but I think it's obvious at this point that technology is not going to be the issue; it?s marketing and developer support.
Apple has two huge marketing hurdles:
Convincing people to buy PPC machines over the next two years when the perception (not necessarily reality) is going to be that better Intel machines are coming and that PPC machines will be obsolete. Apple might be able to afford the loss in revenue thanks to the iPod, but can they afford a further loss in market share?
Convincing people that the MacIntel is not ?just another PC? now. The folks at Dell and especially the know-nothing retail sales people outside Apple stores are going to be using this line like a mantra. Apple has never marketed their OS well; the marketing emphasis has been on hardware. They'll have to do a huge about-face on this one.
The developer issue may be an even bigger problem:
Why optimize my application for MacIntel when Rosetta is ?good(enough)??
Why port games for the Mac when Mac owners can just load Windows on their machine and run it that way?
Heck, why write any code for the Mac since owners can run my software on Windows on the same machine.
I think that these are the questions keeping people up at night over at Apple.
Convincing people to buy PPC machines over the next two years when the perception (not necessarily reality) is going to be that better Intel machines are coming and that PPC machines will be obsolete.
I don't understand why people are focusing on this to the exclusion of the opposite problem. It seems to me to be a much tougher sell to convince people to buy Intel Macs when they come out. You know your software will work on the PPC Macs, but you don't know that all of your software will work on the Intel Macs.
Perhaps it's just a phenomenon of being on a computer forum; I doubt that real people are concerned about it, if they even know about. What might concern them is buying a new Mac in 2006-7 when they find out that it has a different brain than the previous models. Then they'll have to worry about whether software they get will actually work on it.
667MHz FSB... the PowerMac G5's use a 400MHz bus to memory.
Actually, that's incorrect. While the memory in current PowerMac G5s does indeed run at 400MHZ (it's PC3200 memory), the FSB in the Dual 2.7 GHZ actually runs at 1.35GHz, which is very impressive compared to anything else available on the market.
However, you have to realise the Pentium M is a mobile processor, and should be compared that 667MHz FSB to the PowerBook's FSB, which is at a mere 167MHz (probably due to Motorola's incompetence more than anything else).
Its good to see a lot of positive technical details coming out, but I think it's obvious at this point that technology is not going to be the issue; it?s marketing and developer support.
Apple has two huge marketing hurdles:
Convincing people to buy PPC machines over the next two years when the perception (not necessarily reality) is going to be that better Intel machines are coming and that PPC machines will be obsolete. Apple might be able to afford the loss in revenue thanks to the iPod, but can they afford a further loss in market share?
Convincing people that the MacIntel is not ?just another PC? now. The folks at Dell and especially the know-nothing retail sales people outside Apple stores are going to be using this line like a mantra. Apple has never marketed their OS well; the marketing emphasis has been on hardware. They'll have to do a huge about-face on this one.
The developer issue may be an even bigger problem:
Why optimize my application for MacIntel when Rosetta is ?good(enough)??
Why port games for the Mac when Mac owners can just load Windows on their machine and run it that way?
Heck, why write any code for the Mac since owners can run my software on Windows on the same machine.
I think that these are the questions keeping people up at night over at Apple.
And the last two can be answered quite simply... Because then you'd HAVE TO run windows!
Comments
The report seems to indicate that Yonah is a 32-bit chip. Does it also come in a 64-bit flavor?
In the long run, yes,. When they're released in Q1 of next year? Maybe yes, maybe no. Rumors say 'yes', but official Intel roadmap says 'no'. OTOH, Intel has been releasing things ahead of schedule recently.
Originally posted by AppleInsider
Initially, dual-core versions Yonah will be available in four flavors, ranging from 1.66GHz to 2.16GHz, each with a 667MHz front side bus. A single core 1.66GHz version of Yonah is also reportedly in the works.
I'm not up with the dual core lingo, I take it this is 1.66Ghz for both cores rather than each core?
So the slowest speed chip ( the 1.66 GHz chip ) is just like having two chips, both of which are running at 1.66 GHz.
Sidenote: anybody seen anandtechs article on it? Looks pretty good.
Originally posted by jaffi
Intel is such a huge company though. I don't see them stumbling as Moto and IBM have. Their roadmap looks awesome.
The most important thing is that if Intel stumbles, everyone else stumbles too. As Intel goes, so does the microprocessor market. That will be a first for Mac users and it should be a good thing.
Originally posted by jarodsix
Just to remind you that GHz doesn't equal performance. Two cores do more than one, faster bus allows for more throughput.
Jarodsix,
It's okay, man. We're using Intel now, we don't have to pretend anymore about that whole "megahertz myth" thing.
This just shows, that change isn't always a bad thing. Bring on the Intel chips!
I think we're starting to see some people thinking.
Originally posted by g3pro
I think it would be easier for the "intel sucks, OMG" crowd not to choke on their talking points that they mindlessly held for so many years against intel like standard democrat talking points if they just use their brain and think about it.
I think we're starting to see some people thinking.
Not only that, but I just read an article at "i, cringley" (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html) that said he's under the impression that Intel HATES Microsoft. Heck, that's a good enough reason alone to team up with 'em. If we're going to save the world from the bloated vaporware that is Longhorn, we'd better team up with (or get bought by, according to Cringley) Intel. It's a fascinating read.
Another major feature of Yonah is Digital Media Boost, a dual-part update delivering improvements the chips SSE instructions for multimedia and Floating Point unit. Together, Intel says the updates will improve everything from digital photo manipulation to video editing, gaming, and music.
While not exactly the same, this definitely sounds like Intel's 2006 version of AltiVec, which is definitely a good thing for the media gurus and game whores around here.
Originally posted by atomicham
My guess is that the iBook will bet a Celeron-M (the somewhat stripped down version of Yonah).
I have not seen the specs on a single core yonah, but a currently shipping dothan is single core and is in the G5 'class'.
Originally posted by Harald
Can I point out two things?
1) This is the first thread about Intel chips where the Mac community here has been drooling. We would have found ways to slag it off or ignore it before.
2) Me too. Our Macs will still be Macs. It feels good.
Not entirely true, some posters including myself pointed out the virtues of the 2nd gen centrino 'dothan' when it was announced (@1.8G). It has taken Intel some time but they had finally surpassed anything from Moto on the low power front.
The current 2.16G chips blow the G4 away - but more importantly OS X will scream on top of these chips.
Originally posted by hasapi
I have not seen the specs on a single core yonah, but a currently shipping dothan is single core and is in the G5 'class'.
Well, I am basing them using the Celeron in the iBook on power savings not performance (if I understand you right).
From the Inquirer
Intel will also introduce a Yonah based Celeron M at 65 nanometres, it will have a 533MHz front side bus, 1MB of level two cache, and be dubbed the 4XX series. It will also introduce an ultra low voltage member of this family. They're due in the second quarter of next year.
Apple has two huge marketing hurdles:
Convincing people to buy PPC machines over the next two years when the perception (not necessarily reality) is going to be that better Intel machines are coming and that PPC machines will be obsolete. Apple might be able to afford the loss in revenue thanks to the iPod, but can they afford a further loss in market share?
Convincing people that the MacIntel is not ?just another PC? now. The folks at Dell and especially the know-nothing retail sales people outside Apple stores are going to be using this line like a mantra. Apple has never marketed their OS well; the marketing emphasis has been on hardware. They'll have to do a huge about-face on this one.
The developer issue may be an even bigger problem:
Why optimize my application for MacIntel when Rosetta is ?good(enough)??
Why port games for the Mac when Mac owners can just load Windows on their machine and run it that way?
Heck, why write any code for the Mac since owners can run my software on Windows on the same machine.
I think that these are the questions keeping people up at night over at Apple.
Originally posted by neumac
Apple has two huge marketing hurdles:
Convincing people to buy PPC machines over the next two years when the perception (not necessarily reality) is going to be that better Intel machines are coming and that PPC machines will be obsolete.
I don't understand why people are focusing on this to the exclusion of the opposite problem. It seems to me to be a much tougher sell to convince people to buy Intel Macs when they come out. You know your software will work on the PPC Macs, but you don't know that all of your software will work on the Intel Macs.
Perhaps it's just a phenomenon of being on a computer forum; I doubt that real people
667MHz FSB... the PowerMac G5's use a 400MHz bus to memory.
Actually, that's incorrect. While the memory in current PowerMac G5s does indeed run at 400MHZ (it's PC3200 memory), the FSB in the Dual 2.7 GHZ actually runs at 1.35GHz, which is very impressive compared to anything else available on the market.
However, you have to realise the Pentium M is a mobile processor, and should be compared that 667MHz FSB to the PowerBook's FSB, which is at a mere 167MHz (probably due to Motorola's incompetence more than anything else).
Originally posted by neumac
Its good to see a lot of positive technical details coming out, but I think it's obvious at this point that technology is not going to be the issue; it?s marketing and developer support.
Apple has two huge marketing hurdles:
Convincing people to buy PPC machines over the next two years when the perception (not necessarily reality) is going to be that better Intel machines are coming and that PPC machines will be obsolete. Apple might be able to afford the loss in revenue thanks to the iPod, but can they afford a further loss in market share?
Convincing people that the MacIntel is not ?just another PC? now. The folks at Dell and especially the know-nothing retail sales people outside Apple stores are going to be using this line like a mantra. Apple has never marketed their OS well; the marketing emphasis has been on hardware. They'll have to do a huge about-face on this one.
The developer issue may be an even bigger problem:
Why optimize my application for MacIntel when Rosetta is ?good(enough)??
Why port games for the Mac when Mac owners can just load Windows on their machine and run it that way?
Heck, why write any code for the Mac since owners can run my software on Windows on the same machine.
I think that these are the questions keeping people up at night over at Apple.
And the last two can be answered quite simply... Because then you'd HAVE TO run windows!