The DigiTimes reports on possible Intel Yonah pricing at its launch in the first quarter of 2006:
X50 dual-core 2.16 GHz: US$637
X40 dual-core 2.00 GHz: US$423
X30 dual-core 1.83 GHz: US$294
X20 dual-core 1.66 GHz: US$241
Single-core 1.66 GHz: US$209
It's heartening to see (again) the specs of these chips, as they are likely to be used in future Mac laptops. The dual-core Yonah, with its 2 MB L2 cache and 667 MHz bus, should be competitive overall with a dual-core G5 970MP at a similar ballpark clockspeed. In other words, a Pentium M Yonah 17" PowerBook in 2006 could be as fast as one of the slower dual G5 Power Macs of today in many tasks (Rosetta translation notwithstanding). Impressive.
The single-core 1.66 GHz should also be quite a nice chip, likely sporting 1 MB L2 cache. It's significantly faster than the fastest current PowerBook G4 CPU, but is aimed at the budget market, perfect for the iBook. If Apple does release an iBook with this Celeron M Yonah 1.66 GHz, I may just update my current PowerBook Titanium 1.0 GHz to an iBook instead of a dual-core PowerBook.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
"Enjoy Uncertainty"
"Enjoy Uncertainty" - This marketing slogan for the iPod shuffle might best summarize what Steve Jobs has asked us to do during the coming Mac x86 transition period. We are now watching the demise of PowerPC in general purpose computing, and it makes a lot of people very nervous. However, I am confident to say I am not one of those people. I see this as a huge win for Apple, a huge win for Intel, and ultimately a huge win for us Mac users. This is not the OS 9 --> OS X transition that Apple had during its period of crisis. Apple is now strong financially, its OS is second to none, its hardware is as cool as ever, and it has the iPod.
Because of their uncertainty, many people have flat out stated that they will not buy new PowerPC hardware, and will wait it out until x86 Mac hardware shows up before they buy. For mid to high end desktops, that seems foolish, since Apple's current iMac G5 and Power Mac G5 are excellent machines. They are well designed, and fast, and moreover, they will not be hit with compatibility issues that the initial x86 Mac hardware may face initially. Sure, there's Rosetta to translate PPC binaries to x86, but Rosetta doesn't understand Altivec, and there is a definite speed hit with software running under Rosetta. Translation and emulation are never fast:
Steve Jobs' P4 3.6 launching Photoshop CS2: 25 seconds
Eug's iMac G5 2.0 launching Photoshop CS2: 20 seconds (first launch)
Eug's iMac G5 2.0 launching Photoshop CS2: 8 seconds (second launch)
Even Steve isn't all that enamoured with Rosetta performance judging by his keynote. "Fast (enough)" indeed. Current Macs right now understand PowerPC code natively (obviously) and will continue to do so throughout the transition. Software will continue to be supported on PPC hardware for quite some time to come with universal binaries, and I'd expect so for at least 5 years. (Tiger is still supported on the lowly G3 Pismo PowerBook, for example.) At the end of 5 years, most would want to upgrade the hardware anyway.
What about low end desktops and laptops? Here I can understand the wish to wait. Apple's current G4 offerings are adequate, but nothing more. The G4 is relatively low power, but it is also relatively low performance, especially when one is talking about floating point code. Many would argue that performance-wise, the PowerBook has nothing "Power" about it. It's an excellent machine overall, just not from the point-of-view of CPU speed.
In fact, I think this is one of the main reasons for Apple's decision to switch. Steve Jobs spent a lot of time on stage talking about performance per watt. This is a huge consideration. We couldn't get our G5 PowerBook, but Intel has Pentium M Dothan right now, and Pentium M Yonah coming in 2006. I had postulated previously that we could get a warm-running laptop G5 at up to about 1.8 GHz, but Dothan is already at 2.1 GHz and uses less power, for at least similar performance to a comparatively clocked G5. Yonah will be even faster, since it's a 65 nm cool running dual-core chip. Furthermore, its little brother Celeron M will also be comparatively fast. Think G5 level performance in an iBook with Celeron M, and dual-core G5 level performance in a PowerBook with Pentium M, all possibly in a year from now. Yes, I am succumbing somewhat to Steve's Reality Distortion Field, but even if we were to be stuck with Pentium M Dothan, that would still be a major performance per watt improvement, and improvement in overall speed.
This also illustrates why Apple chose to ignore AMD. Many have stated that Apple has made a mistake because it chose Intel's desktop chips over the arguably superior Opteron line from AMD. Opterons ARE excellent chips, but the key here is that Intel's Xeons will be in the same ballpark (if not better) at the time Apple adopts them, and Apple already has fast IBM G5 chips for the time being. (I wouldn't even be surprised if Apple did finally release that famed 970MP dual-core G5 this year, as an interim chip before the x86 transition, as a last hurrah.) So yes, AMD's desktop chips are great, but that's about it. Notebook sales are now finally starting to outstrip desktop sales, and Apple just couldn't afford to deal with another chip vendor who couldn't provide on the mobile front. They've suffered through that with Motorola/Freescale, and they've suffered through that with IBM, too.
We also shouldn't forget Intel's excellent autovectorizing compilers, which are being ported to Mac OS X. ICC/IFC often offers markedly superior performance to GCC 4.0 performance. IBM's compilers were good but the autovectorizing compilers never materialized, and AMD simply has nothing significant to offer. All of this business of MMX/SSE/SSE2/SS3 autovectorization may be a slap in the face to those Apple fans who have spent their careers learning how to hand tweak Altivec code, but business is business. Altivec is in certain ways superior, but Apple was the only real proponent of Altivec for quite some time. Despite Apple's vocal support, Altivec just never had the support it should have, and finally they just threw in the towel. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. It's a mild shame that tweaked SSE3 code sometimes may not be quite as good as tweaked Altivec code, but Intel's autovectorizating compilers will go a long way to help the average non-Altivec jockey to get reasonable performance from his or her code. And those who don't need all that extra performance will continue to use the free GCC.
It's refreshing to finally be in a situation where CPU benchmarketing is less important, and Apple's true soul, its hardware, OS, and software designs, are the main differentiating factors. Apple did the unthinkable, but sometimes it just pays to Think Different.
Because of their uncertainty, many people have flat out stated that they will not buy new PowerPC hardware, and will wait it out until x86 Mac hardware shows up before they buy. For mid to high end desktops, that seems foolish, since Apple's current iMac G5 and Power Mac G5 are excellent machines. They are well designed, and fast, and moreover, they will not be hit with compatibility issues that the initial x86 Mac hardware may face initially. Sure, there's Rosetta to translate PPC binaries to x86, but Rosetta doesn't understand Altivec, and there is a definite speed hit with software running under Rosetta. Translation and emulation are never fast:
Steve Jobs' P4 3.6 launching Photoshop CS2: 25 seconds
Eug's iMac G5 2.0 launching Photoshop CS2: 20 seconds (first launch)
Eug's iMac G5 2.0 launching Photoshop CS2: 8 seconds (second launch)
Even Steve isn't all that enamoured with Rosetta performance judging by his keynote. "Fast (enough)" indeed. Current Macs right now understand PowerPC code natively (obviously) and will continue to do so throughout the transition. Software will continue to be supported on PPC hardware for quite some time to come with universal binaries, and I'd expect so for at least 5 years. (Tiger is still supported on the lowly G3 Pismo PowerBook, for example.) At the end of 5 years, most would want to upgrade the hardware anyway.
What about low end desktops and laptops? Here I can understand the wish to wait. Apple's current G4 offerings are adequate, but nothing more. The G4 is relatively low power, but it is also relatively low performance, especially when one is talking about floating point code. Many would argue that performance-wise, the PowerBook has nothing "Power" about it. It's an excellent machine overall, just not from the point-of-view of CPU speed.
In fact, I think this is one of the main reasons for Apple's decision to switch. Steve Jobs spent a lot of time on stage talking about performance per watt. This is a huge consideration. We couldn't get our G5 PowerBook, but Intel has Pentium M Dothan right now, and Pentium M Yonah coming in 2006. I had postulated previously that we could get a warm-running laptop G5 at up to about 1.8 GHz, but Dothan is already at 2.1 GHz and uses less power, for at least similar performance to a comparatively clocked G5. Yonah will be even faster, since it's a 65 nm cool running dual-core chip. Furthermore, its little brother Celeron M will also be comparatively fast. Think G5 level performance in an iBook with Celeron M, and dual-core G5 level performance in a PowerBook with Pentium M, all possibly in a year from now. Yes, I am succumbing somewhat to Steve's Reality Distortion Field, but even if we were to be stuck with Pentium M Dothan, that would still be a major performance per watt improvement, and improvement in overall speed.
This also illustrates why Apple chose to ignore AMD. Many have stated that Apple has made a mistake because it chose Intel's desktop chips over the arguably superior Opteron line from AMD. Opterons ARE excellent chips, but the key here is that Intel's Xeons will be in the same ballpark (if not better) at the time Apple adopts them, and Apple already has fast IBM G5 chips for the time being. (I wouldn't even be surprised if Apple did finally release that famed 970MP dual-core G5 this year, as an interim chip before the x86 transition, as a last hurrah.) So yes, AMD's desktop chips are great, but that's about it. Notebook sales are now finally starting to outstrip desktop sales, and Apple just couldn't afford to deal with another chip vendor who couldn't provide on the mobile front. They've suffered through that with Motorola/Freescale, and they've suffered through that with IBM, too.
We also shouldn't forget Intel's excellent autovectorizing compilers, which are being ported to Mac OS X. ICC/IFC often offers markedly superior performance to GCC 4.0 performance. IBM's compilers were good but the autovectorizing compilers never materialized, and AMD simply has nothing significant to offer. All of this business of MMX/SSE/SSE2/SS3 autovectorization may be a slap in the face to those Apple fans who have spent their careers learning how to hand tweak Altivec code, but business is business. Altivec is in certain ways superior, but Apple was the only real proponent of Altivec for quite some time. Despite Apple's vocal support, Altivec just never had the support it should have, and finally they just threw in the towel. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. It's a mild shame that tweaked SSE3 code sometimes may not be quite as good as tweaked Altivec code, but Intel's autovectorizating compilers will go a long way to help the average non-Altivec jockey to get reasonable performance from his or her code. And those who don't need all that extra performance will continue to use the free GCC.
It's refreshing to finally be in a situation where CPU benchmarketing is less important, and Apple's true soul, its hardware, OS, and software designs, are the main differentiating factors. Apple did the unthinkable, but sometimes it just pays to Think Different.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Steve Jobs has confirmed the switch to Intel
Steve Jobs has now officially confirmed the switch to Intel. They are in for the long term, and he states that they will start in 2006 with Intel based machines, with most Macs on Intel by 2007. Xcode 2 will be able to compile fat binaries capable of running on both PPC and x86 machines, and Mathematica was just compiled this way last week.
For applications which cannot be recompiled this way, Apple will leverage "Rosetta" which will translate PPC binaries on the fly to function on x86 machines.
I am truly shocked.
[Update 2005-06-06]
Both Adobe and Microsoft have committed to creating universal x86 and PPC Mac OS X binaries for their apps. Steve Jobs also demonstrated Adobe Photoshop CS2 running under Rosetta with no modification whatsoever. And Wolfram Research states it took only 2 hours of work, including modifying just 20 lines of code, to port Mathematica 5 to Mac OS X x86.
Here is Apple's press release:
For applications which cannot be recompiled this way, Apple will leverage "Rosetta" which will translate PPC binaries on the fly to function on x86 machines.
I am truly shocked.
[Update 2005-06-06]
Both Adobe and Microsoft have committed to creating universal x86 and PPC Mac OS X binaries for their apps. Steve Jobs also demonstrated Adobe Photoshop CS2 running under Rosetta with no modification whatsoever. And Wolfram Research states it took only 2 hours of work, including modifying just 20 lines of code, to port Mathematica 5 to Mac OS X x86.
Here is Apple's press release:
Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006What's this world coming to? Microsoft is on PowerPC with the Xbox 360, and Apple is on x86 with Macs. Whatever the case, I look forward to a new PowerBook Pentium M, in 2006.
WWDC 2005, SAN FRANCISCO—June 6, 2005—At its Worldwide Developer Conference today, Apple® announced plans to deliver models of its Macintosh® computers using Intel® microprocessors by this time next year, and to transition all of its Macs to using Intel microprocessors by the end of 2007. Apple previewed a version of its critically acclaimed operating system, Mac OS® X Tiger, running on an Intel-based Mac® to the over 3,800 developers attending CEO Steve Jobs’ keynote address. Apple also announced the availability of a Developer Transition Kit, consisting of an Intel-based Mac development system along with preview versions of Apple’s software, which will allow developers to prepare versions of their applications which will run on both PowerPC and Intel-based Macs.
“Our goal is to provide our customers with the best personal computers in the world, and looking ahead Intel has the strongest processor roadmap by far,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. “It’s been ten years since our transition to the PowerPC, and we think Intel’s technology will help us create the best personal computers for the next ten years.”
“We are thrilled to have the world’s most innovative personal computer company as a customer,” said Paul Otellini, president and CEO of Intel. “Apple helped found the PC industry and throughout the years has been known for fresh ideas and new approaches. We look forward to providing advanced chip technologies, and to collaborating on new initiatives, to help Apple continue to deliver innovative products for years to come.”
“We plan to create future versions of Microsoft Office for the Mac that support both PowerPC and Intel processors,” said Roz Ho, general manager of Microsoft’s Macintosh Business Unit. “We have a strong relationship with Apple and will work closely with them to continue our long tradition of making great applications for a great platform.”
“We think this is a really smart move on Apple’s part and plan to create future versions of our Creative Suite for Macintosh that support both PowerPC and Intel processors,” said Bruce Chizen, CEO of Adobe.
The Developer Transition Kit is available starting today for $999 to all Apple Developer Connection Select and Premier members. Further information for Apple Developer Connection members is available at developer.apple.com. Intel plans to provide industry leading development tools support for Apple later this year, including the Intel C/C++ Compiler for Apple, Intel Fortran Compiler for Apple, Intel Math Kernel Libraries for Apple and Intel Integrated Performance Primitives for Apple.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
USC game hardware course material to include IBM PowerPC 970MP
The Univesity of Southern California School of Engineering will be offering a new course, Game Hardware Architectures, which includes classes on IBM's dual core PowerPC 970MP.
The inclusion of the 970MP in the course is interesting, since no game console uses it. However, its single core predecessor, the PowerPC 970, is used in Power Mac G5 development boxes for Microsoft's Xbox 360. Furthermore, all three next generation consoles are PowerPC based*, so it makes sense to study other PowerPC chips for comparative purposes. Also, practically, it will be a lot easier to get 970MP machines (ie. Power Macs) for labs (assuming 970MP machines are released soon by Apple or IBM) than it will be to get development machines with the same CPUs as the consoles.
* - Confirmed for the Sony PlayStation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360, and presumed for the Nintendo Revolution (since IBM will be making the chip).
The inclusion of the 970MP in the course is interesting, since no game console uses it. However, its single core predecessor, the PowerPC 970, is used in Power Mac G5 development boxes for Microsoft's Xbox 360. Furthermore, all three next generation consoles are PowerPC based*, so it makes sense to study other PowerPC chips for comparative purposes. Also, practically, it will be a lot easier to get 970MP machines (ie. Power Macs) for labs (assuming 970MP machines are released soon by Apple or IBM) than it will be to get development machines with the same CPUs as the consoles.
* - Confirmed for the Sony PlayStation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360, and presumed for the Nintendo Revolution (since IBM will be making the chip).
Friday, June 03, 2005
eWeek: Analysts predict new G5s at WWDC
eWeek today reports analysts' predictions which state the famed IBM PowerPC 970MP dual core G5 may make an appearance at Steve Jobs' WWDC keynote on Monday.
This prediction seems quite feasible, and in fact I was predicting the same thing myself, especially given that we already have IBM confirmation that the 970MP exists:
If the 970MP was to debut in a Power Mac at WWDC, it would likely only debut in a quad (dual dual core) machine, since the Power Macs were only recently updated. Such a machine would probably sport PCIe, and could be priced at about $3999. A reasonable debut clock speed would be at the very least 2.3 GHz, although higher speeds (such as 2.5 GHz) seem plausible. The other possibility for a machine that would utilize dual core chips is the Xserve, which is due for an update soon.
The eWeek analysts are less sure about a PowerBook G5, but I suspect that Apple would much prefer to ship a new form factor G5 PowerBook as soon as possible. While the coming G4 7448 (especially with its 1 MB L2) is a capable replacement for today's G4 7447A for most usage, its floating point performance is still very problematic, at least when compared to the G5 (and current x86 chips).
The main issue with putting a G5 in the PowerBook is the thermal output of the chip. Ideally such a chip should be less than 30 Watts maximum in a laptop, although slightly higher wattage chips could still be used. I suspect a 30ish Watt chip is feasible right now at speeds up to 1.8 GHz. Based on this, I would predict a PowerBook G5 line this year with speeds of 1.6 to 1.8 GHz (although not necessarily at WWDC). To replace my aging PowerBook Titanium G4 1 GHz, my PowerBook of choice would have these specifications:
13.3" 1152x768 widescreen (104 ppi)
1.6 GHz G5 (with 512 KB L2, although 1 MB would be preferred)
512 MB PC3200 RAM built-in, expandable to 2.5 GB
PCIe, with Radeon X300 128 MB
Dual-layer 8X SuperDrive
Bluetooth 2.0 & Airport Extreme
DVI/VGA/S-video out
Backlit keyboard
80 GB 5400 rpm drive
4.5 lbs
A line with this unit at the bottom end would sell extremely well. We'll know soon enough however, with WWDC now only 3 days away.
This prediction seems quite feasible, and in fact I was predicting the same thing myself, especially given that we already have IBM confirmation that the 970MP exists:
If the 970MP was to debut in a Power Mac at WWDC, it would likely only debut in a quad (dual dual core) machine, since the Power Macs were only recently updated. Such a machine would probably sport PCIe, and could be priced at about $3999. A reasonable debut clock speed would be at the very least 2.3 GHz, although higher speeds (such as 2.5 GHz) seem plausible. The other possibility for a machine that would utilize dual core chips is the Xserve, which is due for an update soon.
The eWeek analysts are less sure about a PowerBook G5, but I suspect that Apple would much prefer to ship a new form factor G5 PowerBook as soon as possible. While the coming G4 7448 (especially with its 1 MB L2) is a capable replacement for today's G4 7447A for most usage, its floating point performance is still very problematic, at least when compared to the G5 (and current x86 chips).
The main issue with putting a G5 in the PowerBook is the thermal output of the chip. Ideally such a chip should be less than 30 Watts maximum in a laptop, although slightly higher wattage chips could still be used. I suspect a 30ish Watt chip is feasible right now at speeds up to 1.8 GHz. Based on this, I would predict a PowerBook G5 line this year with speeds of 1.6 to 1.8 GHz (although not necessarily at WWDC). To replace my aging PowerBook Titanium G4 1 GHz, my PowerBook of choice would have these specifications:
13.3" 1152x768 widescreen (104 ppi)
1.6 GHz G5 (with 512 KB L2, although 1 MB would be preferred)
512 MB PC3200 RAM built-in, expandable to 2.5 GB
PCIe, with Radeon X300 128 MB
Dual-layer 8X SuperDrive
Bluetooth 2.0 & Airport Extreme
DVI/VGA/S-video out
Backlit keyboard
80 GB 5400 rpm drive
4.5 lbs
A line with this unit at the bottom end would sell extremely well. We'll know soon enough however, with WWDC now only 3 days away.
c|net reports Apple to switch to Intel
c|net today is reporting that on Monday, Steve Jobs will announce that Apple will switch to Intel:
Apple Computer plans to announce Monday that it's scrapping its partnership with IBM and switching its computers to Intel's microprocessors, CNET News.com has learned.I think c|net is misinformed, but that's just me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)