Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

warra · Apr 17, 2006, 02:58 PM

Remember about a little less than a year ago, alot of hype was about the 64 bit G5, and its probability of being placed into the powerbooks. Now we have the macbook pros with 32 bit intel processors, but what about a 64 bit core duo? Tiger is a 64 bit os, and i'm sure Leopard will be.

In the case of the other machines, I can't see apple placing 32 bit core duo's in the powermacs, when they are now considered 64 bit machines.

Vista will be coming soon, and with its dramatic hardware requirements, apple has to stay up to par (passing MS with the os of course). Will we be seeing 64 bit MacBook pros in the future?

mduell · Apr 17, 2006, 03:05 PM

Intel has 64-bit chips for desktops (Conroe) and laptops (Merom) coming in Q3 and Q4, respectively.

Velocity211 · Apr 17, 2006, 03:06 PM

Apple will probably update the Power Macs with the 64-bit Conroe processors when they come out later this year. Same with the MacBook.

Zeeb · Apr 17, 2006, 03:09 PM

Does that mean that a current Macbook with a 32 bit processor would not be able to run Vista? What would be the difference in performance between the two?

production_coordinator · Apr 17, 2006, 03:14 PM

Please research Intel's "Conroe" processor.

It has 64-bit capability. It is also important to remember that most consumers don't need 64-bit CPUs.

PS: Yes, we very well may see 64 bit MacBook Pros in the future.

F*ckDell · Apr 17, 2006, 03:50 PM

In other words, don't buy any new Macs until 64 bit CPUs come out and are in the "newer" machines..........

jasonv1 · Apr 17, 2006, 03:50 PM

32 bit processors will be able to run Vista, otherwise the beta program (which I am in) would be a rather limited one.

I haven't tried installing Vista under bootcamp yet, I have this feeling that it won't work just because ot bootcamp itself.

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Does that mean that a current Macbook with a 32 bit processor would not be able to run Vista? What would be the difference in performance between the two?

mduell · Apr 17, 2006, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Does that mean that a current Macbook with a 32 bit processor would not be able to run Vista? What would be the difference in performance between the two?

Vista runs on 32-bit hardware.
The difference between 32-bit and 64-bit code is generally small, but dramatically different in some cases (and not always in favor of the 64-bit code).

Originally Posted by F*ckDell

In other words, don't buy any new Macs until 64 bit CPUs come out and are in the "newer" machines..........

I doubt we're likely to see >4GB RAM in a laptop this year, so a lot of the advantage of 64-bit is gone. I'd wait for the P8/Core machines, not because they're 64-bit, but because of the other improvements they bring (bus, cache, SIMD, etc).

Originally Posted by jasonv1

I haven't tried installing Vista under bootcamp yet, I have this feeling that it won't work just because ot bootcamp itself.

I've heard it works; BootCamp adds a CSM to EFI, so even the EFI-less 32-bit builds of Vista should be fine.

production_coordinator · Apr 17, 2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by F*ckDell

In other words, don't buy any new Macs until 64 bit CPUs come out and are in the "newer" machines..........

You were either kidding or are uninformed.

AGAIN, there is no reason to avoid 32 bit systems for 95% of consumers. If you are one of those people that MUST HAVE 64 bit... you wouldn't be buying a MacBook, iMac or Mac mini.

Please go do a little research on the difference between 64 bit and 32 bit before saying something as silly as "64 bit is better..."

Tomchu · Apr 17, 2006, 06:23 PM

Here's to hoping that Intel's AMD64 implementation in their future processors is more than a cheap graft on top of a 32-bit processor (aka. Pentium IV).

KTM525 · Apr 18, 2006, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

You were either kidding or are uninformed.

AGAIN, there is no reason to avoid 32 bit systems for 95% of consumers. If you are one of those people that MUST HAVE 64 bit... you wouldn't be buying a MacBook, iMac or Mac mini.

Please go do a little research on the difference between 64 bit and 32 bit before saying something as silly as "64 bit is better..."

How could it not be better. From what I found out the 64 will support 8GB of RAM in notebooks while the highest you get today is 4GB and only 2 in Apple.

I can never have enough RAM since I use heavy apps like adobe suite Maya Dreamweaver running 7 to 10 programs all at once.

8GB would make a huge difference.

harrisjamieh · Apr 18, 2006, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by kristian21

How could it not be better. From what I found out the 64 will support 8GB of RAM in notebooks while the highest you get today is 4GB and only 2 in Apple.

I can never have enough RAM since I use heavy apps like adobe suite Maya Dreamweaver running 7 to 10 programs all at once.

8GB would make a huge difference.

32 bit (well the core duo, at least) supports up to 64 GB of RAM, its the chipset that only supports 4GB. So, for example, if the iMac with Core Duo had a 64 bit proc in it, but the same chipset, it would STILL only support a max of 4 GB.

With the intro of 64 bit processors, we will not automatically be able to get 8 gigs of RAM in a laptop - you would need 4 RAM slots, which is unlikely in many desktop systems, let alone a laptop, and we dont have 4 GB SODIMMS yet, so thats out of the question too.

btw, you CAN have 4 GB of RAM in an Intel Mac, just look a mduells signiture

Tomchu · Apr 18, 2006, 01:59 PM

It's all about the registers, people. 32-bit x86 has 8 GP registers. 64-bit x86 has 16. The x86 architecture has always been starved for GP registers, and that decreases its efficiency (lots of swapping data in and out of system RAM).

Even if you're not using >4 GB of RAM, certain things run a *lot* faster with a proper x86-64 implementation (Intel's current one blows goats). GZIP compression performance, for instance, increases by almost 100% when going to 64-bit.

Zeeb · Apr 18, 2006, 07:14 PM

"I doubt we're likely to see >4GB RAM in a laptop this year, so a lot of the advantage of 64-bit is gone. I'd wait for the P8/Core machines, not because they're 64-bit, but because of the other improvements they bring (bus, cache, SIMD, etc)"

On the Dell website there is an option to load their high end XPS system with 4GB of RAM. Of course, it cost $2275 for that upgrade alone so maybe Donald Trump could afford it. Not to mention the XPS is a bulky computer with tacky s**t all over it.

mduell · Apr 18, 2006, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Zeeb

On the Dell website there is an option to load their high end XPS system with 4GB of RAM. Of course, it cost $2275 for that upgrade alone so maybe Donald Trump could afford it. Not to mention the XPS is a bulky computer with tacky s**t all over it.

You can slap 4GB in any Intel Mac (see my sig); the memory is about $3k from Crucial.

b11051973 · Apr 19, 2006, 03:58 PM

I'm waiting at least for Merom before getting a Macbook. My 867 Mhz Powerbook is kind of a dog, but I'm still waiting. The Meroms are supposed to have virtualization on them. I'd like to see what Apple does with this and Leopard. Having 64 bit would be cool but not necessary.

I'd also like to have 802.11n built in. I move stuff from my Powerbook to my Dell all the time. 802.11g is too slow. I'm also slightly interested to see if Apple puts a Blu-ray drive in their Macbooks.

mduell · Apr 19, 2006, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by b11051973

I'm waiting at least for Merom before getting a Macbook. My 867 Mhz Powerbook is kind of a dog, but I'm still waiting. The Meroms are supposed to have virtualization on them. I'd like to see what Apple does with this and Leopard. Having 64 bit would be cool but not necessary.

I'd also like to have 802.11n built in. I move stuff from my Powerbook to my Dell all the time. 802.11g is too slow. I'm also slightly interested to see if Apple puts a Blu-ray drive in their Macbooks.

Core Duo (Yonah) chips already support VT/Vanderpool virtualization; Apple may have disabled it in EFI, I'm not sure.

I doubt the first Blu-ray drives will be skinny enough for the MBP.

Zeeb · Apr 19, 2006, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by b11051973

I'm waiting at least for Merom before getting a Macbook. My 867 Mhz Powerbook is kind of a dog, but I'm still waiting. The Meroms are supposed to have virtualization on them. I'd like to see what Apple does with this and Leopard. Having 64 bit would be cool but not necessary.

I'd also like to have 802.11n built in. I move stuff from my Powerbook to my Dell all the time. 802.11g is too slow. I'm also slightly interested to see if Apple puts a Blu-ray drive in their Macbooks.

I had been waiting for an 802.11n card as well since I heard the same thing--faster and more reliable than 802.11g. However, I gave into temptation thinking that If "n" did come out, at some point I could get an adaptor for my MBP. I wonder if one could upgrade the internal card however? I've heard its easily removable-except that would void applecare I guess.

mduell · Apr 19, 2006, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Zeeb

I had been waiting for an 802.11n card as well since I heard the same thing--faster and more reliable than 802.11g. However, I gave into temptation thinking that If "n" did come out, at some point I could get an adaptor for my MBP. I wonder if one could upgrade the internal card however? I've heard its easily removable-except that would void applecare I guess.

I'd guess it's pretty easy to swap the miniPCI card for another once you have it open, but getting it open will probably be quite a chore.