If could have the body of a power, 15" all aluminum. Nice, 1680x1050 screen. X800 XT mobility and a Dothan 2Ghz...
I'd be sold.
I'd be sold.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
This should make the Intel ZEALOTS happy after such bad news for two years now. Apple better hope Intel improves the performance of the Dothan or their machines will get beat worse than before.
I'm sure Stevie would have loved to go with AMD, but last time I checked AMD could just barely keep up with the demand they already have, Intel can use unsed factory space stolen from them by AMD so it does make some sense... Intel will sell thier chips for firesale prices like they do with Dell and Apple will get more profits. win for Intel win for Apple, win for customers.
Dothan right now has some collosal performance flaws they better address though:
Look at this latest review, with dual channel full bandwidth matching up same speed Dothan to A64 : http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2382
Dothan@2.0 wins:
-----------------
Business Winstone 2004
Doc Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
Mozilla 1.4
Winzip
Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1
MusicMatch Jukebox 7.10
Windows Media Encoder 9
3dsmax 5.1 Dx
A64 3200 939 @2.0 wins:
-------------
Comm Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
Data Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
ACD Systems ACDSee PowerPack 5.0
WinRAR 3.40
MCC Winstone 2004
3D ICC SYSMark 2004
2D ICC SYSMark 2004
Web ICC SYSMark 2004
Mozilla + Media Encoder
Adobe Premier 6.5
Roxio VideoWave Movie Creator 1.5
DivX 5.2.1 with AutoGK
XviD 5 with AutoGK
Windows Media Encoder 9 HD
Doom 3
Wolfenstein: ET
3dsmax 5.1 Ogl
Visual Studio 6
SPECviewperf 8 3dsmax
SPECviewperf 8 CATIA Viewset (catia-01)
SPECviewperf 8 Lightscape Viewset (light-07)
SPECviewperf 8 Maya Viewset (maya-01)
Pro/ENGINEER (proe-03)
SolidWorks Viewset (sw-01)
Unigraphics (ugs-04)
Dothan gets dominated by a 512 cache budget chip, pretty sad really Intel with 1000x the budget getting beat by little AMD, and with K10 AMD's lead should grow even more.
I'm sure Stevie would have loved to go with AMD, but last time I checked AMD could just barely keep up with the demand they already have, Intel can use unsed factory space stolen from them by AMD so it does make some sense... Intel will sell thier chips for firesale prices like they do with Dell and Apple will get more profits. win for Intel win for Apple, win for customers.
Dothan right now has some collosal performance flaws they better address though:
Look at this latest review, with dual channel full bandwidth matching up same speed Dothan to A64 : http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2382
Dothan@2.0 wins:
-----------------
Business Winstone 2004
Doc Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
Mozilla 1.4
Winzip
Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1
MusicMatch Jukebox 7.10
Windows Media Encoder 9
3dsmax 5.1 Dx
A64 3200 939 @2.0 wins:
-------------
Comm Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
Data Office Productivity SYSMark 2004
ACD Systems ACDSee PowerPack 5.0
WinRAR 3.40
MCC Winstone 2004
3D ICC SYSMark 2004
2D ICC SYSMark 2004
Web ICC SYSMark 2004
Mozilla + Media Encoder
Adobe Premier 6.5
Roxio VideoWave Movie Creator 1.5
DivX 5.2.1 with AutoGK
XviD 5 with AutoGK
Windows Media Encoder 9 HD
Doom 3
Wolfenstein: ET
3dsmax 5.1 Ogl
Visual Studio 6
SPECviewperf 8 3dsmax
SPECviewperf 8 CATIA Viewset (catia-01)
SPECviewperf 8 Lightscape Viewset (light-07)
SPECviewperf 8 Maya Viewset (maya-01)
Pro/ENGINEER (proe-03)
SolidWorks Viewset (sw-01)
Unigraphics (ugs-04)
Dothan gets dominated by a 512 cache budget chip, pretty sad really Intel with 1000x the budget getting beat by little AMD, and with K10 AMD's lead should grow even more.
Dammit! Intel is another M$
Now that they got Apple on thier side AMD is really taking another blow to its profits and pride.
I mean, here is a superior product by AMD..... a company that most ppl consider the underdog. I always root for the underdog
And Apple knows whats its like to be the underdog.
Granted, Apple prolly would have chosen AMD had AMD been able to meet the demand...... but this is whats killing AMD, the inability to fulfill the demand since thier supply is so limited. This puts AMD in such an akward position. If only the had the capital and resources of Intet, then AMD would have been chosen hands down, but not being able to guarantee Apple that they could fill demand is too much of a risk for Apple to take. Apple cannot afford to take such a big risk with AMD, as thier marketshare is quite small compared to PC's.
Hopefully, AMD can build a few more plants to fulfill demand and start taking some business away from Intel. They really need to go after the OEM's like DELL. Otherwise AMD may not be around for much longer.
Now that they got Apple on thier side AMD is really taking another blow to its profits and pride.
I mean, here is a superior product by AMD..... a company that most ppl consider the underdog. I always root for the underdog
And Apple knows whats its like to be the underdog.
Granted, Apple prolly would have chosen AMD had AMD been able to meet the demand...... but this is whats killing AMD, the inability to fulfill the demand since thier supply is so limited. This puts AMD in such an akward position. If only the had the capital and resources of Intet, then AMD would have been chosen hands down, but not being able to guarantee Apple that they could fill demand is too much of a risk for Apple to take. Apple cannot afford to take such a big risk with AMD, as thier marketshare is quite small compared to PC's.
Hopefully, AMD can build a few more plants to fulfill demand and start taking some business away from Intel. They really need to go after the OEM's like DELL. Otherwise AMD may not be around for much longer.
You are a fuvking idiot. Just a little troll running around trying to increase your post count.
Yeah, right. Like Apple ever even CONSIDERED AMD. Jobs wouldn't even consider that after smoking a few bowls...
ROFLMAO. You really are a troll. Dothan is a MOBILE processor. You are comparing a desktop chip to a mobile processor. Dothan is limited by the memory and FSB much more than architecture. We already know that clock cycle for clock cycle, Dothan TRUMPS your great Athlon 64. If you REALLY want to look at it your way (with your benchies) isn't it PATHETIC that Athlon 64 gets beaten in ANYTHING by a LAPTOP processor? Grow up Zebo.
*Ugh* Let the flame wars begin.
.
It's true that the Dothan's got some serious flaws, hopefully they'll address that in their new chip, and possibly add some more cache to their exisign processor.
I'm really not too sure why they're going for a mobile processor on a desktop. It's posssible that they did this because the existing prescotts are hot (I have one, I know), but the 6XX series doesn't run so hot (in fact, I hear that it's nearly on-par with the heat output of the 3500+ winchester - but don't quote me on this one).
If intel can up the performance of the M processor, and turn it into a desktop processor (to replace the existing Prescott) - I think that might benifit them. It's doing pretty well, despite it's fatal flaws in some areas (Which I hope they fix).
However I'm not going to simply make a 1-sided argument to appear as a fanboy. Apple could have considered AMD, but (fortunately or unfortunately, depends on how you look at it), I don't think that AMD's got the manufacturing ability to do that (maybe they do, maybe they don't, I'm not really an expert when it comes to this).
Zebo, I think you're right. But you could have phrased it in a less... provocative manner
.It's true that the Dothan's got some serious flaws, hopefully they'll address that in their new chip, and possibly add some more cache to their exisign processor.
I'm really not too sure why they're going for a mobile processor on a desktop. It's posssible that they did this because the existing prescotts are hot (I have one, I know), but the 6XX series doesn't run so hot (in fact, I hear that it's nearly on-par with the heat output of the 3500+ winchester - but don't quote me on this one).
If intel can up the performance of the M processor, and turn it into a desktop processor (to replace the existing Prescott) - I think that might benifit them. It's doing pretty well, despite it's fatal flaws in some areas (Which I hope they fix).
However I'm not going to simply make a 1-sided argument to appear as a fanboy. Apple could have considered AMD, but (fortunately or unfortunately, depends on how you look at it), I don't think that AMD's got the manufacturing ability to do that (maybe they do, maybe they don't, I'm not really an expert when it comes to this).
"But even at 2.56GHz, the Pentium M wasn't a competitive CPU when it came to tasks like media encoding, indicating that if the Pentium M is to succeed on the desktop, it's going to need some architectural improvements."
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2382&p=13
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2382&p=13
clarkey01, you're just trolling as usual.
Anand's review is looking at P-M on a crippled platform -- a freaking adapter on an ASUS board. It is crippled by memory and FSB amongst other things. There's no way to produce a valid comparison -- unless we cripple the competition similarly, which he did not.
Don't be an idiot. P-M with single channel PC2700 isn't likely to compete with A64 running dual-channel (as well as a MUCH faster bus) but, surprisingly, IT ACTUALLY BESTS A64 in several tests. What does that tell ya?
You want "links", go search for 'em. There are plenty of comparisons showing P-M being (clock for clock) a superior chip to both P4 and A64.
Anand's review is looking at P-M on a crippled platform -- a freaking adapter on an ASUS board. It is crippled by memory and FSB amongst other things. There's no way to produce a valid comparison -- unless we cripple the competition similarly, which he did not.
Don't be an idiot. P-M with single channel PC2700 isn't likely to compete with A64 running dual-channel (as well as a MUCH faster bus) but, surprisingly, IT ACTUALLY BESTS A64 in several tests. What does that tell ya?
You want "links", go search for 'em. There are plenty of comparisons showing P-M being (clock for clock) a superior chip to both P4 and A64.
Well if you dont like Zebo or me and we'r just trolls and anandtech cripples your fave chip the pentium M why you here?, p*ss off, go to toms hardware or something.
Yea right, you may want to look again. First off you're comparing a mobile CPU to a desktop CPU which in itself is pretty dumb. Secondly, Anand did cripple the Pentium-M running it in the setup he did. Tech-report did a much better review:
"The performance that this motherboard enables speaks for itself, I'd say. As a desktop processor, the Pentium M fares very well. The stock Pentium M 755 at 2GHz rivals the lower speed grades of the Athlon 64 and Pentium 4 fairly consistently. Overclocked to 2.4GHz on a 533MHz bus, though, the Pentium M gets downright scary, shadowing the performance of the Athlon 64 4000+ through many of our tests, including games."
The Pentium M on the desktop
The Pentium-M is absolutely better clock for clock than the A64 even on a dated 533MHz bus. It even did well in the majority of encoding benchmarks when compared to AMD, including blowing by everyone in LAME encoding and Adobe Premiere.
The mobile nature of the product has forced it to run on a dated platform. It's not the CPU that chokes, it's the platform. Given even a slightly more up to date memory bus and other "modern amenities" and the CPU will dominate the market. If Apple uses Yonah, which again is a mobile CPU, it won't be in the highend PowerMac's, it will be in Imac's and assuming Intel still produces single core P-M's a year from now, those will go in the Mini-Mac's.
Yonah and X2 will not be competing for the same market, so there is no point in comparing them. Presler (I think that's the name), is Intel's next generation dual core that will be competing on the desktop against the X2 while Cedar Mill will compete against nothing I guess since AMD is discontinuing single core CPU's besides the niche FX. Since we know practically nothing about Presler except that it isn't based on Netburst there isn't much point in comparing it to the X2 any further. If Presler is a variation of Yonah without the constraints of a mobile platform, we can assume it will compete with anything AMD has coming out since they don't have any major revisions on the horizon, just clock boosts for the X2.
Edit,
It's not Presler and Cedar Mill which appear to have been dumped. Replace Presler with Conroe which is the next gen dual core not based on Netburst. Merom is the next gen single core Pentium-M.
Software porting (if it could even be called that) will not be that bad at all. Many, Many Cocoa programs will compile on x86 and run without error. Others will require some clean up but we are talking about 5% or less of the code that would need modification. In the case of high performance codes where significant optimizations for PPC are hard coded rewrites will be required...but I can't think of too many pieces of HP software that are Mac only.
I think IBM did not want Apple as customer anymore...I agree with you there. The chip volume just wasn't there to keep IBM happy.
But now that Apple is moving to Intel...IBM server competition for the long term just got worse, not better. Xserves will be cheaper and Intel server MB's are highly reliable and trusted in industry, more so than Apple system have been to this point. Apple will sell a lot more servers w/ the Intel switch.
The Intel vs. AMD thing comes down to two things: comparing Intel and AMD performance now can be a bit misleading. Apple is looking at desktop, server chip performance 1.5+ years from now...many folks think Intel has some seriously ass kicking chips lined up on that timeline.
Second, AMD is pretty much just chips. Intel is chips, chipsets, MB's, wireless, HD audio... near complete system design. Apple is sick and tired of having to carry most of the load of designing their own MB's and writing their own drivers. They just don't have the volume of sales to justify custom MB design/production...the design and tooling overhead is too high. Intel can and will provide, at a minimum of design and tooling cost, a robust, slightly customized, high-tech MB with solid drivers at a price point that Apple could only dream about previously.
So maybe Apple will pay more for chips relative to their IBM discount...but Apple's internal hardware engineering costs and MB prices will be reduced significantly.
I guess I qualify as a zealot, and whether I do or don't, I do know that I'm happy about Apple using x86 - whoever happens to be the specific manufacturer.
I remember years ago, using one of the original Macs in high school and compared to the Apple IIGS's and the IBM PC's, it seemed like a revolution. Then years go by and I see lots of apps for the Apple that I could wish that I could have. Case in point, iPhoto - which I am seriously impressed with right now and wish that I could find something like it on the PC (Picasa doesn't work well for me). Anyway, anything which unites Apple's stylish usability, with the PC's cost structure and flexibility is a great thing in my mind as a computing enthusiast.
You know, I am already half way out the door.
I only read here one or two days a week nowadays and I post far less frequently that I used to.Predicting that Apple would choose Itanium in 2003 is not quite the same as Apple switching to x86 in 2005.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,939886,00.asp
I have a sneaking suspicion that we will eventually see a standalone version of OS X that can be installed in white box PCs, and that it will likely hit sometime in 2007. I think that 6/6/06-6/6/07 will be used by Apple as a shakedown period for the new architecture. In that time period Apple will only allow OS X to run on their own tightly controlled hardware while they make sure the drivers all work properly and they iron out all the other bugs that will inevitably crop up in the transition.
While all this is happening, Longhorn will be launched. It has the potential to be a huge flop of an OS if it simply turns out to be XP Service Pack 3 if MS continues to strip out all of the cool features of Longhorn in order to meet their shipping deadlines. If that happens, I wouldn't be shocked if Steve unleashes a version of OS X that will install on any recent x86 hardware in order to strike while there is blood in the water. Apple already missed their chance to beat Win 95 to the punch with their Star Trek project a decade ago, so I doubt they will let another juicy opportunity like this pass them by. I think Apple is going to take the battle to MS in 2007/2008 and attempt a takeover of the Windows market - with the possible end result being Apple becoming predominantly a software company in the second decade of this century.
I do think that the performance per watt figure actually is accurate if that number is based not on the Pentium 4/D line of chips, but rather on the TDP of the Dothan-derived dual core desktop chips that Intel likely has in the pipeline.
While all this is happening, Longhorn will be launched. It has the potential to be a huge flop of an OS if it simply turns out to be XP Service Pack 3 if MS continues to strip out all of the cool features of Longhorn in order to meet their shipping deadlines. If that happens, I wouldn't be shocked if Steve unleashes a version of OS X that will install on any recent x86 hardware in order to strike while there is blood in the water. Apple already missed their chance to beat Win 95 to the punch with their Star Trek project a decade ago, so I doubt they will let another juicy opportunity like this pass them by. I think Apple is going to take the battle to MS in 2007/2008 and attempt a takeover of the Windows market - with the possible end result being Apple becoming predominantly a software company in the second decade of this century.
I do think that the performance per watt figure actually is accurate if that number is based not on the Pentium 4/D line of chips, but rather on the TDP of the Dothan-derived dual core desktop chips that Intel likely has in the pipeline.
I have a sneaking suspicion we'll be able to run it a lot sooner than that. Will be interesting to see the exact hardware composition of the $999 developer package. If Apple won't "allow" it, someone will.
Longhorn has went from somewhat promising to dismal. In fact, I'm not even remotely excited about it. I'm somewhat glad they've removed some of the "features" as they'd only turn the OS into more bloatware than it already is. That said, I don't see Longhorn being a significant upgrade to XP. Personally, I'm far, far more excited with the prospect of Tiger running on vanilla x86...
If you notice, Jobs didn't specify how he arrived with his "Performance-Per-Watt" figures. I'm quite sure he was referring to something beyond P4/P4D with those figures. Time will tell.
Comparing a overclocked Dothan to a STOCK 4000+ is just as stupid.. Overclock the 4000+ and watch it demolish it even more..
Dothan is a good chip and will definitely get better, excited to see the new dual core ones, once they release...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter