***CONFIRMED*** APPLE MOVES TO INTEL - X86!

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: bjc112
Comparing a overclocked Dothan to a STOCK 4000+ is just as stupid.. Overclock the 4000+ and watch it demolish it even more..

LOL. I never took you for an AMD zealot bjc112, but crap like that is going to change my mind.

The comparison was fair because Dothan was clocked up to match (as closely as possible -- note Dothan STILL with a far slower bus) the A64. And surprisingly, it was able to BEST the A64 in many areas. This despite two HUGE disadvantages -- single channel DDR -- and a slow FSB. The A64 has dual-channel as well as HTT running much faster than the FSB on Dothan.

This wasn't a desktop against mobile comparison or anything of the sort. It was designed to illustrate CLOCK-FOR-CLOCK performance of these processors. Clearly, Dothan IS faster than Athlon64 at an equal clock -- despite the huge disadvantages facing it.



Did you read the other 10 posts between Pariah and myself?

Read again.

USing the Anand Article, @ 2.0 the 3200+ takes 25 out of 33 test..

At tech reports, excluding one test I linked above, the 3200+ takes 17 or so out of like 22 or 23...


I don't know why you continue to argue about the Athlon 64 has a high HTT speed.. OH MY OH OH MY...


Drop it down to 400 and watch it still perform the same..


NExt, lets factor in price.. $450-$650.. And $190 for the 3200+

Clearly a win for the Athlon 64..

I am by no means a zealot, whatever is better at the time, price performance is what I am with..


The next core from Intel will be good, but intel then, the Athlon 64 is cleary a better overall value.

 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,998
3,327
126
Originally posted by: Anubis
yea i know they only fit 1 type of mobo, but again i ask why limit it to a propriety anything

IMO it woule be much better to have it work with any cpu and any hardware so there would essentially be a 3rd OS as a choice
Because it is Apple. That is their business model. Years ago for desktops, there were IBM computers, IBM compatable computers, and Apple. Soon, the first two groups combined so it became PC vs Apple. PCs went the route where everything was customizeable, everything was user replacable, etc. Apple had everything (even the file system on the floppies) proprietary. So if you wanted to do anything, you had to buy an Apple part (at a huge markup of course).

Apple has gradually gotten better. You no longer have to use the Apple mouse, Apple printer, Apple everything. But the transition isn't over - it is far from over.

They only have to support 1-3 options for video cards (all from the same line from the same company). They only have to support a few minor speed variations of the same processor. Etc. Compatability isn't an issue. Operating systems are simple and stable. That is Apple's claim to fame.

Going to multiple motherboard brands, multiple processor brands, multiple video card brands, etc is not Apple's area. They lose everything their customers came to love.

 

ai42

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2001
3,653
0
0
You know I have to bring this point up again. I posted it on the pre-Intel/Mac switch thread where most people discounted the rumor.

However, you have to admit that the Aopen Mac Mini clone showed off at Computex (check it out here) looks amazingly similar to the Mac Mini in almost every way (with the exception of the power button being on the front where it should be). Which from the stories Intel requested of the OEM channel (perhaps doing Apple's dirty work). According to the intial Cnet article it said that Apple would move it's lower end stuff to x86 first namely the Mac Mini by early next year. And to be honest to meet such an ambitious goal Apple likely has some pretty concrete hardware specs lined up. So perhaps this IS the next Mac Mini or at least a precurser to the next Mac Mini... Devious. I would be very intrested in seeing the mobo on that little thing perhaps there is an empty BIOS slot for an Apple DRM chip or something to that effect.

Also consider with a Pentium M/Celeron M being in this sucker don't expect it to be any cheaper.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: bjc112
I don't know why you continue to argue about the Athlon 64 has a high HTT speed.. OH MY OH OH MY...


Drop it down to 400 and watch it still perform the same..

Yeah, let us cripple the A64 with PC2700 (single channel) DDR and give it a 533MHz FSB. Then watch the Dothan REALLY stomp A64.

NExt, lets factor in price.. $450-$650.. And $190 for the 3200+

Clearly a win for the Athlon 64..

Here we go again. You are comparing the price of a desktop CPU to that of a mobile one. I don't need to tell you how stupid that is.
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Originally posted by: Dothan
*** CONFIRMED ***

This information comes from long-time Apple employee. Believe it or not, you'll all see in 2 hours when WWDC 2005 begins !!!

Apple will move ALL chips to Intel by 2006; The Mac Mini is going first -- processor will be PENTIUM M (Dothan!) -- Apple's investment in software transition company Transitive (which produces emulation allowing x86 execution) will allow this transition to be smooth.

For once I can say something GOOD about Apple !!!

Does anyone believe Tiger will be on our desktops by 2006?

I'd imagine they'd hold off Tiger for x86-64, so unless Apple is doing desktop Pentium 4s or Ds, then probably not.

The comparison was fair because Dothan was clocked up to match (as closely as possible -- note Dothan STILL with a far slower bus) the A64. And surprisingly, it was able to BEST the A64 in many areas. This despite two HUGE disadvantages -- single channel DDR -- and a slow FSB. The A64 has dual-channel as well as HTT running much faster than the FSB on Dothan.

Since when does clock for clock matter? How about performance per dollar, or performance per watt, or max performance attainable?

AMD simply cannot meet Apple's production needs (even though it is meager).

Eh, if that's the case then AMD's fabs must be running at max capacity all the time, which I don't think they are.
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: bjc112
I don't know why you continue to argue about the Athlon 64 has a high HTT speed.. OH MY OH OH MY...


Drop it down to 400 and watch it still perform the same..

Yeah, let us cripple the A64 with PC2700 (single channel) DDR and give it a 533MHz FSB. Then watch the Dothan REALLY stomp A64.

NExt, lets factor in price.. $450-$650.. And $190 for the 3200+

Clearly a win for the Athlon 64..

Here we go again. You are comparing the price of a desktop CPU to that of a mobile one. I don't need to tell you how stupid that is.


Wow, you really are out there..

IF YOU DON'T WANT IT COMPARED on ALL angles, don't put it in the same lineup..

I don't care if it's a mobile chip or not.. It's damn near 3 times the price for lesser, if not similar performance..
 

ai42

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2001
3,653
0
0
As to this whole Intel vs. AMD debate...

Remember you must consider that Intel has been trying to "switch" Apple to Intel for years mostly without sucess until now. So perhaps Intel offered up a great deal to get them to switch. After all AMD does not have nearly the financal resources that Intel has (that at least cannot be debated). Also Intel can afford to pay some engineers to goto Apple's camp to help development out (similar to their Centrino laptop development deal).

Also according to this blurb Apple is not counting AMD out entirely. After all the details to the whole Intel/Apple contract is not yet known. Perhaps the Intel only Apple is fleeting in that Intel gave a strong punch from the get go. That certainly doesn't count AMD out down the road.
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,583
996
126
Pix of the Apple Intel development boxes

Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Anubis
yea i know they only fit 1 type of mobo, but again i ask why limit it to a propriety anything

IMO it woule be much better to have it work with any cpu and any hardware so there would essentially be a 3rd OS as a choice
Because it is Apple. That is their business model. Years ago for desktops, there were IBM computers, IBM compatable computers, and Apple. Soon, the first two groups combined so it became PC vs Apple. PCs went the route where everything was customizeable, everything was user replacable, etc. Apple had everything (even the file system on the floppies) proprietary. So if you wanted to do anything, you had to buy an Apple part (at a huge markup of course).

Apple has gradually gotten better. You no longer have to use the Apple mouse, Apple printer, Apple everything. But the transition isn't over - it is far from over.

They only have to support 1-3 options for video cards (all from the same line from the same company). They only have to support a few minor speed variations of the same processor. Etc. Compatability isn't an issue. Operating systems are simple and stable. That is Apple's claim to fame.

Going to multiple motherboard brands, multiple processor brands, multiple video card brands, etc is not Apple's area. They lose everything their customers came to love.
Interestingly, Apparently the new machines may be able to use standard PC video cards if the manufacturer provides a driver.
 

Pariah

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2000
7,357
20
81
Originally posted by: bjc112
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: bjc112
I don't know why you continue to argue about the Athlon 64 has a high HTT speed.. OH MY OH OH MY...


Drop it down to 400 and watch it still perform the same..

Yeah, let us cripple the A64 with PC2700 (single channel) DDR and give it a 533MHz FSB. Then watch the Dothan REALLY stomp A64.

NExt, lets factor in price.. $450-$650.. And $190 for the 3200+

Clearly a win for the Athlon 64..

Here we go again. You are comparing the price of a desktop CPU to that of a mobile one. I don't need to tell you how stupid that is.


Wow, you really are out there..

IF YOU DON'T WANT IT COMPARED on ALL angles, don't put it in the same lineup..

I don't care if it's a mobile chip or not.. It's damn near 3 times the price for lesser, if not similar performance..

The price comparison is worthless, since #1) We have no idea what Intel will be charging AMD, but I can guarantee you it will be less than NewEgg charges us. #2) We're a year off from seeing Intel in an Apple computer, and prices will be drastically different even for us at that point. #3) You're comparing the inflated price of the fastest available P-M to a midrange A64. It's practically guaranteed that Intel will have lower speed P-M based CPU's on faster buses by this time next year, not that it will matter since they'll have higher clocked CPU's as well pushes down the current topend. AMD has already announced that the single core A64 is dead and will not be getting any faster releases unless you want to compare the FX to the P-M which would swing practically every performance barometer except absolute performance into Intel's favor.

Yeah, let us cripple the A64 with PC2700 (single channel) DDR and give it a 533MHz FSB. Then watch the Dothan REALLY stomp A64.

AMD would never do that, so there's no point in simulating a CPU that will never exist. We know Intel will improve the P-M, so it is perfectly legitimate to OC the CPU to get an idea of where Intel is going. The 400MHz P-M should be long gone by this time next year, so it should be left out of the comparison. We know the single core A64 will not be further developed, and as far as we know the X2 will not be receiving any significant architectural improvements or platform improvments within the next year. Just die shrinks and speed bumps, so what you see now is basically what you're gonna get then.
 

Chadder007

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
7,560
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Anubis
why does it only have to work with 1 type of CPU?

why cant OSX work with any x86 CPU like windows or linux does?
Most likely, Apple will be using a proprietary motherboard that happens to accept an Intel chip. AMD chips just don't fit in the same slot anymore. AMD simply cannot meet Apple's production needs (even though it is meager).

I kinda hope they go with SATA controllers along with PCIXpress instead of the PCI-X they use now. That way, it will be cheaper for new video cards and ATI/NVidia won't have to make another interface just for Apple's motherboards.
 

ai42

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2001
3,653
0
0
Originally posted by: Chadder007
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Anubis
why does it only have to work with 1 type of CPU?

why cant OSX work with any x86 CPU like windows or linux does?
Most likely, Apple will be using a proprietary motherboard that happens to accept an Intel chip. AMD chips just don't fit in the same slot anymore. AMD simply cannot meet Apple's production needs (even though it is meager).

I kinda hope they go with SATA controllers along with PCIXpress instead of the PCI-X they use now. That way, it will be cheaper for new video cards and ATI/NVidia won't have to make another interface just for Apple's motherboards.
But I'm sure Apple will insist upon Apple specific BIOS on their graphics cards (which might make a big issue trying to run Windows on Mac x86 hardware due to lack of drivers).
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: bjc112
Wow, you really are out there..

IF YOU DON'T WANT IT COMPARED on ALL angles, don't put it in the same lineup..

I don't care if it's a mobile chip or not.. It's damn near 3 times the price for lesser, if not similar performance..

...As are you. Don't compare Athlon 64 to the P-M unless you are willing to cripple it so as to be an APPLES TO APPLES comparison. As I've stated (and restated) the P-M is performing very well given the limitations it is crippled with. There is no debate to be had that PC2700 single channel DDR and a 533MHz FSB are severe limitations when compared to today's most modern CPUs (ala A64).
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
Originally posted by: Pariah
Originally posted by: bjc112
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: bjc112
I don't know why you continue to argue about the Athlon 64 has a high HTT speed.. OH MY OH OH MY...


Drop it down to 400 and watch it still perform the same..

Yeah, let us cripple the A64 with PC2700 (single channel) DDR and give it a 533MHz FSB. Then watch the Dothan REALLY stomp A64.

NExt, lets factor in price.. $450-$650.. And $190 for the 3200+

Clearly a win for the Athlon 64..

Here we go again. You are comparing the price of a desktop CPU to that of a mobile one. I don't need to tell you how stupid that is.


Wow, you really are out there..

IF YOU DON'T WANT IT COMPARED on ALL angles, don't put it in the same lineup..

I don't care if it's a mobile chip or not.. It's damn near 3 times the price for lesser, if not similar performance..

The price comparison is worthless, since #1) We have no idea what Intel will be charging AMD, but I can guarantee you it will be less than NewEgg charges us.

Intel charging AMD for what?

The comparison I am talking about, is using the Pentium M in it's current state, vs the A64 in it's current state..

I don't care what Intel charges Apple... This whole argument has been about Pentium M performance, versus current AMD performance..
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,583
996
126
I'd expect Apple's notebooks to START with Pentium M Yonah dual-core in the PowerBooks, and possibly Celeron M single-core in the iBooks (assuming Apple keeps these distinctions around).

So this discussion of Banias and Dothan in this context may just be irrelevant.
 

CrimsonChaos

Senior member
Mar 28, 2005
551
0
0
Originally posted by: Eug
Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
Didn't Steve Jobbs try this before? Remember his little PC line called "NeXT"?

Let's see, if memory serves me correctly.... NeXT was an x86-based machine. And oh yeah, it was also a UNIX-based machine.

If at first you don't succeed, try try again...

Believe me, I'm no Microsoft fan. In fact, I actually bought a NeXT back in college (1991 or so). But their extremely short lifespan left me rather bitter toward Steve Jobbs. I love UNIX, and I really do hope this succeeds, because frankly I can't stand Windows.

I just wish he would've went with AMD.
NeXT the OS was cross platform.

In fact NeXT is what OS X is built from. They even released Rhapsody as a developer preview. Rhapsody was the precursor to OS X, but the GUI looked like OS 9ish, and it ran on x86. However, nobody seemed interested.

IOW, I think Steve Jobs wanted to switch to x86 before OS X was even released, but his hands were tied by the software developers. Plus he had the deal cooking with IBM, and he hoped IBM would come through. IBM didn't, so Steve "switched".


Yeah, just seems odd that he'd be trying to make yet another NeXT line of computers. What is the big appeal to Macintosh now that it'll have typical PC hardware and UNIX OS? I always thought Mac was trying to be "proprietary" in all of their products.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: ViRGE
LMAO! SimpleText!:D My sides are seriously hurting right now.

I thought they changed the name of simpletext.
SimpleText died with MacOS Classic*. Its sucessor was TextEdit for OSX, but TextEdit just doesn't have the nerdish appeal of SimpleText.:(

* Apple actually Carbonized it for OSX, it was released as source code in the 10.3 Panther developer kit
 

Eug

Lifer
Mar 11, 2000
23,583
996
126
Originally posted by: CrimsonChaos
Yeah, just seems odd that he'd be trying to make yet another NeXT line of computers. What is the big appeal to Macintosh now that it'll have typical PC hardware and UNIX OS? I always thought Mac was trying to be "proprietary" in all of their products.
Well, they weren't "trying" to be proprietary, but they had gone with PowerPC so long ago, so by definition they couldn't be off-the-shelf PCs in this market.
 

Excelsior

Lifer
May 30, 2002
19,048
18
81
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: Excelsior
Originally posted by: ViRGE
LMAO! SimpleText!:D My sides are seriously hurting right now.

I thought they changed the name of simpletext.
SimpleText died with MacOS Classic*. Its sucessor was TextEdit for OSX, but TextEdit just doesn't have the nerdish appeal of SimpleText.:(

* Apple actually Carbonized it for OSX, it was released as source code in the 10.3 Panther developer kit

Yeah, thats what I thought.
 

Pariah

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2000
7,357
20
81
I don't care what Intel charges Apple... This whole argument has been about Pentium M performance, versus current AMD performance..

So now you're admitting the money issue that you brought up to begin with had nothing to do with anything here and shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. Good for you, I respect someone who can admit to his mistakes.

Yeah, just seems odd that he'd be trying to make yet another NeXT line of computers. What is the big appeal to Macintosh now that it'll have typical PC hardware and UNIX OS? I always thought Mac was trying to be "proprietary" in all of their products.

He's not. With NeXT he had to create a market and the software. With Apple, he already has the software that people want and a market with a loyal fanbase. Now he is trying to lower the prices and bring it more mainstream. This whole transition thing is being blown way out of proportion. If this goes the way Jobs wants it to, the changes should be completely transparent to the user. It's still going to be the same stylish Apple computer, with the same Apple software, except now it will have a different CPU in it. Big deal. This could have major impacts on the business side for Apple and Intel, but to the consumer it shouldn't mean anything at all unless you're a fanboy of either side who wants to troll all day about which side is better.
 

bjc112

Lifer
Dec 23, 2000
11,460
0
76
I don't care what Intel charges Apple... This whole argument has been about Pentium M performance, versus current AMD performance..

--------------


So now you're admitting the money issue that you brought up to begin with had nothing to do with anything here and shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place. Good for you, I respect someone who can admit to his mistakes.



I have no problem admitting to mistakes, but I think you have me a little bit confused.. The line I typed above that was..

The comparison I am talking about, is using the Pentium M in it's current state, vs the A64 in it's current state..

Current state meaning Price AND Performance.. And in those aspects, AMD is ahead.

I really don't care what Intel charges apple and so forth.. But oh well..

Good arguments though!

:p