New (and conflicting) info on Mac/Intel procs.

fussnfeathers · Lord of the Tweak Joined: 14 Dec 2004 Posts: 2763

Was talking with a friend of mine who's got some inside tracks on this change-over, here's what's available so far.

Apple will *probably* use the Pentium M first, or a variation of it. Makes sense, since their computer systems generally have crappy cooling. It'd be an ideal chip for the Mac Mini.

However, rumblings from inside are also hinting that, even if they do use it, it'll be a temporary stopover, and Apple will eventually be using an embedded chip (read- not upgradable) when it makes the final design change to Intel. This is also the reason Apple chose Intel over AMD: Intel will make a custom, embedded chip, while AMD will not.

Apple will also most likely use EFI, rather than a traditional BIOS. This makes sense, if they move to an embedded chipset. EFI will eventually replace the usual PC BIOS, but not for awhile yet. I'm not sure how true it is, but it seems likely. Most of the traditional BIOS work would be done within the chipset, the EFI boot-up would simply tell the chipset "hey, there's power, turn on, dummy".

As far as OS's, it's possible Microsoft will make a Mac-capable version of Windows, but it probably won't be a full dual-boot setup like PC's are capable of. Rather, it'll be an optimised version that runs off of the Intel virtualization setup, similar to what allows PC's to run Linux, Solaris, Unix, and so on, but much more controlled. Think of it as a more efficient version of the emulators already used by Mac users to run basic Windows programs (and vice-versa). It'll have the "feel" of using Windows, but OS-X will still be running the show.

Apple has no plans to license OS-X or future versions to run on Intel PC based designs, and has already stated that even with the move to Intel, OS-X will remain an Apple-only OS. That hints that while the processor will be Intel, the remainder of the system's chipset will continue to be totally incompatible with PC based chipsets.

In reality, Apple was forced to make this move, due to IBM selling off it's PC division to Levono Group (China). IBM will no longer produce "PC type" chips, including the PowerPC chips, so Apple had to do something. In this way, they also get 64-bit extensions, power management capabilities, and all the other perks of Intel processors, with little concern that Intel will suddenly decide to stop producing the chips for them.

What I expect to see by late 2006/early 2007: A similar lineup to what Apple already has. One bigger system, one small desktop "all in one" and one mini system. They'll be better performers, obviously, but still not on a par with PC's, due to two factors: lack of upgradability and price. Sound familiar?

One thing is certain, though. You won't be able to buy an Apple/Intel Pentium chip and drop it into your PC, and Mac owners won't be seeing the chips on store shelves so they can upgrade themselves.

I wasn't sure where to post this, but since it deals with the CPU itself, I figured here was good.

_________________
Big enough to scare you

Google · Sponsor

[KoG]^weaZel · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:10 pm Post subject:

a couple of things that were in error. First the Pentium M does not offer 64-bit extensions. And the chip that Intel builds for Apple is going to be a special chip, not just an off-the-shelf cpu. I believe that they are looking for a dual-core cpu with a small thermal footprint. So it may very well be a derivative of the P-M.

Also "no longer producing PC-type chips"? then what about the chips that they are going to manufacture for Sony, Microsoft, and (does the Nintendo use IBM?)? As they are a PC-type chip, albiet cell microprocessors. Also IBM has extended its licensing agreement with RAMBUS for the XDR technology. I would think that this means that they are ramping up their CPU production rather than closing it down.
_________________
I tweaked and it tweaked back! So I Tweaked some more!

"Barney is like the Michael Jackson of PBS." - James Tybeerious

gmoney · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:31 pm Post subject:

yeh ... exactly what kog said... they are creating a chip specifically for mac... my own inside sources have told me this... hmmm... also it will be 64 bit ... and apple is in the process of making their systems backwards compatible so that new software runs on old systems and old software runs on new ones...

my "inside source" is a jerk... wont tell me much about it... but i do kno he is head manager of pcb design... so i kno what he told me was rite... he said abunch of other stuff but u guys already kinda touched base wit dat
_________________
I finally got an award=OFFICIAL ROCKSTEADY AWARD and then one time... at tweaknews dene gave me a A+++++++....
and then...
i got a couple josh awards too
an' den one of those too -->... Ж award

gmoney · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 1:39 pm Post subject:

i forgot to mention that ... "one of the primary reasons (for the switch) was because of ibms power consumtion issues" ... mac has had prototype mainboards with g5's on them aimed toward portables for the past year or more... however ibm was never able to lower the chips consumption... so now with the switch mac is going to be able to offer more powerful notebooks
_________________
I finally got an award=OFFICIAL ROCKSTEADY AWARD and then one time... at tweaknews dene gave me a A+++++++....
and then...
i got a couple josh awards too
an' den one of those too -->... Ж award

fussnfeathers · Lord of the Tweak Joined: 14 Dec 2004 Posts: 2763

Like I said, alot of this is rumor, but alot is still true.

Cell chips are not PC based chips, in the sense of the term. Neither are the chips produced for Sony and Nintendo. Those are all "embedded" chips, which differ from CPU's, in that they're not interchangable from platform to platform, and rely heavily on the chipset for much of what a CPU does alone. Like I said, IBM has abandoned the PC market for the embedded market. You can't directly compare a game console controller chip with a PC CPU chip, they're two totally different animals. Same as you can't compare a G4/G5 proc to a PC proc, they're just different enough to warrant different categorizations.

While the Pentium M doesn't include 64 bit NOW, it will in the near future, and I expect Apple's version will. Remember, the final Intel switchover won't happen for at least a year, so it's entirely possible that hints of 63-bit extensions hitting the P-M will come true.

There's alot left to come, alot is still speculation. But what I'm hearing makes sense. Like G$ said, lower power consumption, faster data rates, smaller formfactors. But, HOW it's being done is still kept very quiet.
_________________
Big enough to scare you

[KoG]^weaZel · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:29 pm Post subject:

yeah alot is being left to speculation for now at least.

It is going to be some time before the P-M get 64-bit. The dual core P-M doesnt even support it. And there are no rumors or other info that even talk about the P-M getting it any time soon.

I do have to believe that the chip for Apple is going to have 64-bit capabilities. Otherwise it would make it very hard on the software guys to make everything forward and backward compatible. But any which way you look at this, these machines will be able to play a mean game of Tetris!
_________________
I tweaked and it tweaked back! So I Tweaked some more!

"Barney is like the Michael Jackson of PBS." - James Tybeerious

2old2care · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 3:54 pm Post subject:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_12670_12684,00.html?redir=CORBF02

Think this has anything to do with things Think

_________________
.
Liquid-Cooled Q9450 and an EeePC
.

[KoG]^weaZel · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:30 pm Post subject:

I think that AMD is feeling a little left behind right now. With Apple choosing Intel over AMD, AMD sees another market closed off to them. They try and they try but they can't beat the prices and incentives that Intel is able to offer. And if Intel is able to offer extremely low prices it would be insane for the company to buy other products at a higher cost.

I love this comment though.
[quote=Hector Ruiz]Intel's behavior is much more than meets the eye. You may not have been aware, but Intel's illegal actions hurt consumers - everyday. Computer buyers pay higher prices inflated by Intel's monopoly profits. Less innovation is produced because less competition exists. Purchasers lose their fundamental right to choose the best technology available.[/quote]

So this is why AMDs dual core and FX product lines cost so much? Or AMDs high end chips costing as much or more than Intels equivalent cpu. So lets see: Intels monopoly drives up the prices AMD charges for their product. Yeah that makes alot of sense. It used to be that AMD offered a product at a lower cost than the competition, but that is slowly changing.

I do have to say that Intel is very aggressive in their business, but that is what business is about. AMD needs to be able to make some offers that companies can't refuse. Then we will see some true competition.
_________________
I tweaked and it tweaked back! So I Tweaked some more!

"Barney is like the Michael Jackson of PBS." - James Tybeerious

2old2care · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 6:43 pm Post subject:

The most credible part of this is that Intel puts pressure on OEMs. ie. The apparent restriction of server chips to compaq.
The consumer has the "fundamental right" to choose?
Huh....I want a Chevy engine in my Ford...WTF...I don't think so...or a car dealer who wants to sell new Chevys and Fords at the same location, NOT.

The consumer HAS the fundamental right to choose....I choose NOT to buy dells, or compaqs, or emachine, or Ford, or Chevy, or whatever.

Oh well....
_________________
.
Liquid-Cooled Q9450 and an EeePC
.

[KoG]^weaZel · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:14 pm Post subject:

2old2care · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:13 pm Post subject:

meobius · Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:03 pm Post subject:

i wonder if intel is trying to dump some of their IA-64 architechture on mac
_________________
If time is of the essence,
than why is it that we waste,
that which holds such great importance,
spent without a trace.

fussnfeathers · Lord of the Tweak Joined: 14 Dec 2004 Posts: 2763

[KoG]^weaZel · Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:18 pm Post subject:

Silicon Skum · Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:00 pm Post subject:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824695,00.asp

fussnfeathers · Lord of the Tweak Joined: 14 Dec 2004 Posts: 2763

From everything I've heard, the P-M is just a transition. I'm fully expecting the final MacTel setup to be an embedded (read- hard-soldered into the mobo), and not replacable. M$ has also said that they "would look into" producing a Mac-version of Windows, but whether it's a native OS or still run on an emulation setup is up in the air. Depends on how willing Jobs and Co are willing to give up some info. I don't see why they wouldn't: Apple finally released a two-button mouse!!
_________________
Big enough to scare you

Spiegel · Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:16 pm Post subject:

http://cube.ign.com/articles/522/522559p1.html

To what was said earlier....yes Nintendo is using an IBM chip.

fussnfeathers · Lord of the Tweak Joined: 14 Dec 2004 Posts: 2763