[hyteckit]

I don't think Steve said Intel was a better and faster chip than PowerPC.

All Steve said was that power consumption is just as important as processing speed and because Intel has better power consumption, Apple is switching to Intel.

[ManOfSteal]

He alluded to it...

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by ManOfSteal

He eluded to it...

Actually, he alluded to it!

[Mr. Blur]

apple -> intel thread # 6578942587541

[hyteckit]

Oh yeah, bring on the benchmarks. ;-)

Switching to Intel Pentium chip wasn't about speed. It was about the long-term future. Intel might not have a fastest chip, but it certainly has the biggest marketshare and most stable future.

I'm just feed up with people complaining about why Apple didn't go with AMD and how great the PowerPC chip is. Yes, the PowerPC is a great chip, but doesn't have the brightest and most stable future. AMD Athlon 64 is great chip, but so what. It's not about being the fastest anymore.

[ManOfSteal]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Actually, he alluded to it!

That's what I said...

[Superchicken]

You know even when we switch to x86 we won't be the fastest... just not fair.

Anyway, the thing probably is IBM told Steve to screw off and Steve said he would. Or Steve told IBM to screw off and they said they would. Either way it's more because the G5's future isn't exactly looking that hot...

[Oneota]

Y'know, I've been playing with the 3.6 GHz P4 test machines at WWDC. They're pretty speedy, frankly.

And I'm sure we won't be seeing P4s in the actual machines - more likely we'll get 64 bit chips of some variety.

[hyteckit]

Yeah, even when Apple switch to Intel next year using 3.8GHz - 4GHz chips, it's still be slower than the current dual 2.7GHz G5 with all the OSX software running on handicap. Well, at least we are getting faster laptops.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

You know even when we switch to x86 we won't be the fastest... just not fair.

You state that as fact.

[Yose]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Either way it's more because the G5's future isn't exactly looking that hot...

Actually, I think that is the heart of the issue.

*rolleyes*

[mattsgotredhair]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Yeah, even when Apple switch to Intel next year using 3.8GHz - 4GHz chips, it's still be slower than the current dual 2.7GHz G5 with all the OSX software running on handicap. Well, at least we are getting faster laptops.

I'm just curious as to why you say this? Will this really be the case, or are you exaggerating a little?

[dan johnson]

Its pretty obvious Steve had been planning this for a long time, it was just a matter of transitioning at the right moment. It wouldn't surprise me if the only reason the G5 was introduced in Apple's line-up was to give Intel more time.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Yeah, even when Apple switch to Intel next year using 3.8GHz - 4GHz chips, it's still be slower than the current dual 2.7GHz G5 with all the OSX software running on handicap. Well, at least we are getting faster laptops.

This wasn't addressed by Jobs that I remember, but the original press on the situation said the transition would start at the low end.

So 3.8GHz - 4GHz Intel chips won't equal or beat a 1.42GHz G4 (mini) or a 2GHz G5 (iMac)?

[hyteckit]

AKcrab,

You need to read what I wrote.

"3.8GHz - 4GHz chips, it's still be slower than the current dual 2.7GHz G5"
"at least we are getting faster laptops."

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

AKcrab,

You need to read what I wrote.

"3.8GHz - 4GHz chips, it's still be slower than the current dual 2.7GHz G5"
"at least we are getting faster laptops."

I read what you wrote. It's a short sentence.

Did you miss my point? The machines that will be replaced first aren't dual cpu machines. Why are you trying to compare the new base line models to the current top of the line professional models?

[JoshuaZ]

Heck, we don't even know if Apple is using the P4! Its probably some custom chip from Intel. Heck, a lot can happen in a year.

[milhous]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Oh yeah, bring on the benchmarks. ;-)

Switching to Intel Pentium chip wasn't about speed. It was about the long-term future. Intel might not have a fastest chip, but it certainly has the biggest marketshare and most stable future.

I'm just feed up with people complaining about why Apple didn't go with AMD and how great the PowerPC chip is. Yes, the PowerPC is a great chip, but doesn't have the brightest and most stable future. AMD Athlon 64 is great chip, but so what. It's not about being the fastest anymore.

i've heard the comments as well from others on why apple didn't go to AMD. two reasons on why i think this didn't happen.

1. roadmaps. i think if jobs wanted to do x86 "right", he'd pick whoever it was that offered the best roadmap. we don't know what the future of intel will bring to the table, but jobs liked it and bought into it. of course buying into the future is a bit of gamble in and of itself.

2. mobile processors. intel's already done a bunch of r&d on mobile processors that run cooler and use less power. i don't think this can be said of amd's mobile processor products yet. the performance disparity between the ppc notebooks and ppc desktops is greater than ever before, thus i think that using intel will help close this gap and greatly improve performance parity while also being good with power consumption.

but in the end, who's to say that apple has to stick to intel forever? from this point forward, if intel ever pulls an ibm or motorola on apple, i don't see why jobs could make another, much smaller and less noticeable transition, to another x86 chip maker.

i also wouldn't be surprised if intel offered some additional perks such as ad money and the promise for future joint-marketing campaigns.

and just for disclosure, i don't own any intel systems, but i do have an old athlon box.

[Oneota]

Originally Posted by milhous

but in the end, who's to say that apple has to stick to intel forever? from this point forward, if intel ever pulls an ibm or motorola on apple, i don't see why jobs could make another, much smaller and less noticeable transition, to another x86 chip maker.

...Or even back to PPC; since any developer worth its salt will be producing Universal binaries for the foreseeable future, if IBM gets its act together within the next 5 years, Apple could conceivably switch back for some or all of its products.

[version]

The current dev boxes with Intel OS X are about as fast as a turd. I'm sure they'll be fine when they hit the marketplace.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

What about the tablet rumors? Those need to run cool, have better than average battery life, and might be where Apple sees technology 3 years from now.

[wdlove]

At least the single processor is faster. They are in the testing phase now.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ManOfSteal

That's what I said...

That's cute, a bot with a spell-check weakness

-t

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally Posted by ManOfSteal

That's what I said...

Stop eluding your mistake.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by version

The current dev boxes with Intel OS X are about as fast as a turd. I'm sure they'll be fine when they hit the marketplace.

Could you expound on that first statement, version?

[Eriamjh]

Everyone knows that you can show benchmarks on a 2.7GHz Mac that blow away a 3.6GHz P4 and vice-versa.

This switch is about power/watt. The Intel roadmap shows Intel is 4.5 times higher in speed/watt compared to the PowerPC roadmap (from the Keynote, IIRC).

Steve wants to save some money and never have to use liquid-cooling in a Mac again. That's gotta cost a bundle!

[TheMosco]

Being able to make a mac mini based on the pentium M will be huge. It wil kick the current mini's ass.

[OreoCookie]

But a Pentium M mini (there are some fake ones) will be more expensive. The Pentium M isn't exactly cheap.

[moki]

Originally Posted by version

The current dev boxes with Intel OS X are about as fast as a turd. I'm sure they'll be fine when they hit the marketplace.

Hopefully you're not basing that on something you read online.

I've used said machines, and despite the OS still being in the early stages of tuning, I can categorically state that you are incorrect. The prototype Intel boxen are quite speedy; in a blind usability test, you would not be able to tell the difference between them and high-end G5s. And this is simply the beginning.

[Big Mac]

moki, would you be able to confirm or deny the veracity of this pic?

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

But a Pentium M mini (there are some fake ones) will be more expensive. The Pentium M isn't exactly cheap.

Under retail pricing and the current manafacturing procces, yes. But next year the Yonah will bring 65 nm prodcution which will likely reduce costs and Apple will obviously receive discounted pricing. I think they can do it.

[Oneota]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

moki, would you be able to confirm or deny the veracity of this pic?

It's real. If you peer into the front of the case of a machine here at the conference (most don't have the side panels taken off), you can see that the motherboard is indeed very lonely-looking. The case is practically empty inside.

And yes, the Dev Transition Kit machines are quite zippy for most operations. The video operations appear to be all on-motherboard or in-processor, though, so you only get to play 1 or 2 HD H.264 videos before it chokes.

They boot friggin' FAST, though. It's amazing.

[Big Mac]

Thanks for the confirmation, Oneota. It will be interesting to see just how fast they actually are once we have a real benchmark available. But if they're so functional, one wonders why Apple's release schedule is so conservative. Why weren't they ready with the real hardware much earlier? And if they're as fast as moki claims, why are they only going into the low-end until later on?

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Thanks for the confirmation, Oneota. It will be interesting to see just how fast they actually are once we have a real benchmark available. But if they're so functional, one wonders why Apple's release schedule is so conservative. Why weren't they ready with the real hardware much earlier? And if they're as fast as moki claims, why are they only going into the low-end until later on?

They don't want to release hardware early because then developers wont have enough time to release their software. This gives them enough time to convert their software. In refernce to updating lower-end macs first, this allows apple to skip the current netburst architecture of the current P4 which is garbage. If you look at the intel roadmap, they would be releasing a new chip right around the time that apple said that PM would come out. The Pentium M which would probably be used in the lower end is not based on netburst, its based on the P3 core.

[Big Mac]

I finally watched the keynote straight through and noticed he refers to the developer boxes as Power Macs, as a G5 case is displayed on screen. . . .

[RAILhead]

I think someone should start another thread about Intel processors and how they compare to PowerPC processors.

That would be sweet.

[hyteckit]

Ask the guys from anandtech to do a comparision.

[:XI:]

Originally Posted by version

The current dev boxes with Intel OS X are about as fast as a turd. I'm sure they'll be fine when they hit the marketplace.

They're probably not designed to be fast. Or even remotely close to what Apple has in the locked room in building whatever. They're probably the bare minimum for the developers to check their code works. I'd guess that's all they're for anyway.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Yeah, even when Apple switch to Intel next year using 3.8GHz - 4GHz chips, it's still be slower than the current dual 2.7GHz G5 with all the OSX software running on handicap. Well, at least we are getting faster laptops.

being that its not that hard to switch over to the x86 code, and they have a entire year to make the changes, I doubt there will be that many hindicapped programs when the PowerMac x86's are released.

[Superchicken]

Well these do also have Intel Intigrated Graphics remember so no QE or CI etc. Actually I wonder if all that stuff has been worked out? I imagine Apple needs to get drivers for Nvidea and ATI cards for x86 Macs...

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Well these do also have Intel Intigrated Graphics remember so no QE or CI etc. Actually I wonder if all that stuff has been worked out? I imagine Apple needs to get drivers for Nvidea and ATI cards for x86 Macs...

Built-in Graphics would make a big difference, on PC's built-in Always sucks. And with out looking at this motherboard closely which I don’t have the means to do currently, most built in GPU's uses the main system memory which slows things down for everything that uses memory, think of it as extra car traffic on a big freeway, and the graphics are running at a much slower speed then what it could be doing on a dedicated video card. Also since most of the display work is done in the GPU and Video card memory in Tiger, im sure there is even more of a performance hit because of the built in graphics. Which leaves me to wonder how fast the final product will be since x86 on Mac already seems pretty dam fast.

[Drakino]

The dev machines are running Quartz Extreme fine. Intel's Integrated graphics aren't anything to write home about, but they are pretty capable components.

Based on my experiences with World of Warcraft, I can say that the Intel Extreme 2 Graphics are about 20-30% slower then a Radeon 8500. They support every feature the 8500 does. And that graphics chip isn't what Intel is using now, it;s something faster and possibly more stuff in hardware. Remember, Longhorn is also pushing a 3D accelerated interface, and Intel accounts for over 30% of the graphics solutions on the PC side due to how many people buy a name brand computer and never change the graphics card.




As far as the topic about Steve not commenting on speed, thats a good thing. Apple has announced the begining of the hardware transition won't be seen by consumers until likely Q2 2006. So right now they have no accurate speed numbers, since by then Intel will be shipping new chips. Also, releasing numbers now would simply kill the Mac sales this year. Sure, people here are reconsidering when to buy their next machine, but this is a low key announcement for Apple. It's not palstered on the web site, and won't have promotional posters in Apple stores yet. So the general public might hear some news blurb about the switch, walk into an Apple store and walk out with a new fully functional system.

Will the Intel Macs be faster then the PowerPC Macs? Yes. Will the PowerPC macs be faster then the Intel Macs? Yes. Benchmarking has always been tricky, and Apple has been very good about only showing things that fly on PowerPC. But Intel chips also have certain things that fly on them. Neither type of Mac will have a clear advantage in computing power until the PowerPC is no longer shipped by Apple and they move on to even faster chips from Intel.

Personally, I'm just excited that my replacement to my existing Powerbook 15 inch might actually see 5 hours of battery life. The claim of such on the existing hardware is a joke, but might actually come true with a Pentium M based system. And if it runs OS X, I'm happy. I switched because of OS X and Apple hardware design, and not the PowerPC.

[hyteckit]

I have a PowerBook 1.25GHz. I'm waiting for a Pentium M based PowerBook myself. Hopefully cooler, faster, and longer battery life.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I have a PowerBook 1.25GHz. I'm waiting for a Pentium M based PowerBook myself. Hopefully cooler, faster, and longer battery life.

And Counter-Strike. You know it's about Counter-Strike.

[ambush]

He mentionned the better roadmap too