Apple ditches IBM power PC chip and will use Intel.

[egbert]

The arrival of the dual core Pentiums will deliver similar bang for less bucks though.

No it won't because they will have no increase is FSB bandwidth, unlike the Athlon64 X2 dual-core chips. So Apple can switch to Intel and still be left in the dust on price/performance by the noticably better AMD line of processors.

Well check the posted results on the Nuendo hardware forum - the dual core Intel chips are right up there with the dual Xeon results on the Nuendo specific Thonex test according to those that have tested them.

As far as the memory bandwidth - my understanding is that the single core AMDs have better bandwidth than the single core Intels (overclocking scenarios to one side). However, the best single core AMD chips already have dual channel RAM. The Dual cores have the same RAM and, while there are two MMUs (one for each core), they still have to move data down two channels. Therefore, if memory bandwidth is a limiting factor we should not expect a big change in the relative memory performance of AMD and Intel when both go to dual core.

This is apparently borne out by the real world tests - (see the Nuendo hardware forum). The Intel dual cores are cheap - the most expensive (bar the EE) are priced near the bottom of the AMD X2 range. The only problem is the lack of cheap Mobos to match according to what I read.

I fancy the AMD X2s myself but Intel will compete by keeping prices keen. Pentium D systems will be cheap as chips some time later this year. Perhaps AMD will come to the party but at this stage they are going for a hefty price premium.

[beanie]

Will WinXP run on the Intel-based Macs? If it can be installed, either installed natively on a separate partition (dual boot) or by VirtualPC or another emulator, then maybe Mac users will start using WinXP. And if they start using WinXP, they might make the switch over to cheaper PC hardware since they become accustomed to it.

It depends on Microsoft. If they decide to make WinXP install on Apple's Intel Macs, then WinXP will gain even more market share.

Also since no CPU emulation is needed, WinXP would run at almost 100% speed.

[james0tucson]

Also since no CPU emulation is needed, WinXP would run at almost 100% speed.

Why "almost?"

Why not "an order of magnitude faster?"

Since you're just making a conjecture, why this kind of assumption?

I expect the Intel-based Apple to be an entirely new architecture, not X86 or even Itanium compatable.

I predict the first OS other than the Mac port will be an IBM-branded version of Linux. A couple of years after Microsoft announces it, there will be some kind of Windows release for the platform. The FUD surrounding it will be thick. IT Managers will still buy into it, basing decisions on what they've read in a magazine article in the bog.

[Borogove]

I expect the Intel-based Apple to be an entirely new architecture, not X86 or even Itanium compatable.

Apple's stated it's x86-based; they're making a big effort to encourage devs to port by providing Pentium 4 Macs. Since Apple's stated reason is to maximize performance, and since Intel's efforts to increase performance are squarely aimed at x86 and x86-64, I think we can assume that for the next couple of years, it's going to be x86 and x86-64.

[Borogove]

Looks like the post I saw (somewhere -- I thought it was in this thread but I can't find it now) about the falloff in business at Apple stores (down from 250 to 100 walkin customers per day in one instance according to the poster's friend who works in the store) is on the money.

Then the next few months, as AAPL share prices collapse on this kind of news, will be a great time to buy Apple stock. Apple is sitting on 3.7 metric assloads of cash right now, and iPod sales are not going to slow as a result of the change. It's going to hurt in the short term as people wait for the new machines, but they can weather it easily.

My prediction and hope is that the PowerMac line will feature dual Intel CPUs just as they currently feature dual G5s. If they do that, they immediately wipe the floor with all the PC manufacturers who reserve dual CPU systems for their overpriced professional-workstation product lines. The people who always say Macs are twice as expensive as PCs will be rebutted with "dude: dual CPUs"; when they in turn point to Dell's dual CPU line, the price advantage will be gone.

I say this is my hope as a Windows user: it will force Dell and the others to bring dual CPU systems into the mainstream.

It's possible that Apple won't be able/willing to deal with the heat issues raised by dual CPUs in a prosumer machine, and they'll settle for single CPU/dual core machines (Pentium D) as those become available. At that point they will have no real advantage over the regular PC manufacturers, and apples-to-Apples ( ) comparisons will be easier than they've been in the past, and Apple will get crushed. I'm basing my prediction on the belief that Jobs is smarter than that.

[goofrider]

The arrival of the dual core Pentiums will deliver similar bang for less bucks though.

No it won't because they will have no increase is FSB bandwidth, unlike the Athlon64 X2 dual-core chips. So Apple can switch to Intel and still be left in the dust on price/performance by the noticably better AMD line of processors.

Well check the posted results on the Nuendo hardware forum - the dual core Intel chips are right up there with the dual Xeon results on the Nuendo specific Thonex test according to those that have tested them.

As far as the memory bandwidth - my understanding is that the single core AMDs have better bandwidth than the single core Intels (overclocking scenarios to one side). However, the best single core AMD chips already have dual channel RAM. The Dual cores have the same RAM and, while there are two MMUs (one for each core), they still have to move data down two channels. Therefore, if memory bandwidth is a limiting factor we should not expect a big change in the relative memory performance of AMD and Intel when both go to dual core.

It's a little more complicated than that, but your conclusions are accurate for the most part. But I want to respond to Bones first.

AFAIK, the Athlon 64 X2 will continue to use HyperTransport 800 and DDR400. I could not find anything that suggest otherwise. So electrically the CPU interface is the same as single-core Athlon 64. HyperTransport 1066 will likely to remain to be an Athlon 64FX exclusive for the time being.

Architeturally, dual-core P4 and dual-processor Xeon are the same, bar the differences in L2 cache size. The dual-core P4 is technically an MCM package, there are 2 discreet dies connected via their FSB internally, but it's an off-die external bus so it'll be a qaud-pumped 800Mbps bus.

In terms of memory bandwidth, Athlon 64/64 X2 and P4/Pen-D all use dual channel DDR 400, so the limiting factor is that P4 has to talk to the memory controller via the shared FSB (shared by the AGP, PCI, PCIe, ATA and SATA controllers integrated on the northbridge), while A64 has a discreet memory interface, independant of all other I/O traffic.

Also note that dual-core Athlon 64 X2 has only **one** memory controller on die. The 2 cores will share the same 2x DDR400 bandwidth externally. Though the crossbar switch allow one core to use the memory controller while the other use HyperTransport I/O.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... i=2397&p=2

Not sure if the 2 cores are connected @ core clock but it seems likely. So core-to-core communication and L2 cache sychronization should be running at core clock speed.

What does it all mean? For CPU-intensive multithreaded tasks and I/O-intensive tasks, Athlon64 X2 is superior thanks to, respectively, single-die dual-core design and HyperTransport. Though A64x2 and Pen-D will both be limited by the same single 2xDDR440 memory interface for memory-bound operations.

Keep in mind that the Althon64 architecture is much less bandwidth hungry than P4's NetBurst architeture. Benchmarks have shown time-and-again that dual channel DDR400 give Athlon64 a modest 10% boost in performance, and doubling L2 cache also only post a modest 10-15 boost. So the memory bandwidth limitation shouldn't affect Athlon64/64x2's actual performance much. P4s live and die by their FSB and L2 cache, so 2 discreet dies sharing the same FSB will have a siginigicant impact. Expect Intel to increase L2 cache soon to compensate for it. I haven't check their roadmap recently but I'll look.

[james0tucson]

I expect the Intel-based Apple to be an entirely new architecture, not X86 or even Itanium compatable.

Apple's stated it's x86-based;

I have tried to read every word that's come out on this story, and that detail has escaped me.

When and where did Apple state this? Apple's press releases have mentioned nothing more specific than
"Intel microprocessors".

[Borogove]

I expect the Intel-based Apple to be an entirely new architecture, not X86 or even Itanium compatable.

Apple's stated it's x86-based;

I have tried to read every word that's come out on this story, and that detail has escaped me.

When and where did Apple state this? Apple's press releases have mentioned nothing more specific than
"Intel microprocessors".

I delved the apple web site just now, and this was the first page I saw that specified x86, so yeah, they aren't really trumpeting it, but it's x86.

[Green Red Brownell]

What's "Sonoma"? I have a Dell M70 at the moment with a 2GHz Pentium-M, would that qualify? If so I'll install ORION on it and run some real-world tests against my Socket 754 Athlon64 3200, although ithe M70 doesn't seem any faster than the M60 I used to have.

It's hard to bench a laptop against a desktop. One of the biggest bottlenecks in (most) laptops is their hard drive perf. If your laptop has a 7200 RPM hard drive, then it might be reasonably fair.

-- Green

[stefankuhn]

I expect the Intel-based Apple to be an entirely new architecture, not X86 or even Itanium compatable.

Apple's stated it's x86-based;

I have tried to read every word that's come out on this story, and that detail has escaped me.

When and where did Apple state this? Apple's press releases have mentioned nothing more specific than
"Intel microprocessors".

I delved the apple web site just now, and this was the first page I saw that specified x86, so yeah, they aren't really trumpeting it, but it's x86.

Jepp. The early machines demoed at the WWDC were running an P4 3.6 GHz processor. The development-machines sent out to Developers will have the same configuration. However, these machines are only for developers and will not be available to the market. Mr. Jobs did not say what future Intel based computers, once they enter the market, will use.

Best,
Stefan

[Green Red Brownell]

Pentium-M is a GREAT laptop CPU, but its not a threat to A64 or AFX performance on the desktop. Why do you think Intel is so lukewarm on marketing it for desktop? Its not that competitive, in price (motherboards are terribly expensive) or performance.

That said Intel's next major cpu revision (in a few years time) is supposed to be based on the Pentium-M and taking it to the next level for desktop-use.

Yes, by sometime in 2006, all of Intel's desktop CPU's will be dual-core Pentium M derivatives. The Prescott architecture hit a dead end, because of heat problems. So, the newer (2006) CPU's will run at a lower clock speed than today's Intel CPUs, but they'll do more work.

[Green Red Brownell]

I expect the Intel-based Apple to be an entirely new architecture, not X86 or even Itanium compatable.

Apple's stated it's x86-based;

I have tried to read every word that's come out on this story, and that detail has escaped me.

When and where did Apple state this? Apple's press releases have mentioned nothing more specific than
"Intel microprocessors".

I delved the apple web site just now, and this was the first page I saw that specified x86, so yeah, they aren't really trumpeting it, but it's x86.

It is plain ol' Pentium 4's!! The Apple Dev Kits are out now! People are benchmarking against them already. Intel has no interest in making an entirely new architecture for Apple, who has between 2 and 3 % of the PC hardware market.

The big reason for Apple to do this is that the entire market is moving more and more toward laptops, and Apple didn't have a good laptop story at all, with IBM processors. Intel just announced yesterday that Pentium M's are selling like hotcakes. Without some seriously strong laptops, Apple doesn't have much future as a hardware company. So, if ya con't make a G5 laptop, what are ya gonna do??

For a few million chips. IBM can't keep up the R&D to make a competitive desktop AND laptop chip. So, Intel gets the business. Good thing for Apple that they have that huge iPod cash cushion right now. Otherwise this switch would cause them serious financial difficulty. Keep buying iPod's, Apple fans!!

[Green Red Brownell]

Will WinXP run on the Intel-based Macs?

The Apple position that I heard so far is that they aren't going to do anything to prevent that, but I'm sure they aren't going to do anything to enable that scenario either.

[egbert]

Also note that dual-core Athlon 64 X2 has only **one** memory controller on die. The 2 cores will share the same 2x DDR400 bandwidth externally. Though the crossbar switch allow one core to use the memory controller while the other use HyperTransport I/O.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sh ... i=2397&p=2

OK as that link shows, I was mistaken - one MMU only in Athlon 64X2. The full duplication of the core is the situation with Pentium D but not AMD dual core.

[Green Red Brownell]

After this move I dont see any reason of Apple keeping in hardware business.

One more point that needs to be made... even though they will have Intel chips inside, these will still be Macs. They will not be vanilla beige PC's. You will still need to buy a Mac to run OSX. OSX will *not* run on any random Dell machine, at least until Steve Jobs is no longer at Apple. Why? Because Apple makes money on the hwardware in order to subsidize the cost of developing OSX. If they went to an all-software model, they'd have to cover all their costs through what they were charging for the OS. What do you think they'd have to charge?? Quite a bit... a few hundred dollars, at least, because of their smaller sales. Plus, if their OS runs on just any PC, then piracy becomes an issue. If it *requires* Apple hardware to run (and it will), then there is much less reason to ever think about cracking it, because you'd have to crack the hardware part too.

Think Different.