[rcs]

interesting story at toms' hw...

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews...15_161033.html

[Unch]

That would tally up with the speculation that notebooks and the mini would be the first to change over to x86. Although I'd of thought that Apple would want to push the PB to 64bit for marketing value if nothing else.

[hmurchison]

Marketing 64-bit is rather stupid. It's already become a joke with the masses not understanding what 64-bit does for them.

Laptops need long battery life and weight savings before 64-bit IMO. Yonah will make a nice Mac mini, eMac, iBook and Powerbook chip. The single core Yonah can function in the all but the Powerbook which needs to be dual core.

[Franz Josef]

Originally Posted by hmurchison Laptops need long battery life and weight savings before 64-bit IMO.

Would agree - hence Apple's interest in Pentium M.

[Unch]

Originally Posted by hmurchison Marketing 64-bit is rather stupid. It's already become a joke with the masses not understanding what 64-bit does for them. Laptops need long battery life and weight savings before 64-bit IMO. Yonah will make a nice Mac mini, eMac, iBook and Powerbook chip. The single core Yonah can function in the all but the Powerbook which needs to be dual core.

I'm by no means saying that the PB should go 64bit, I also think it's a pretty pointless idea. However 64bit laptops are appearing in the market, and while joe user may have zero understanding of what it means, 64 is still a bigger number than 32 and that *will* be used in marketing, just as MHz were before it.

I was mainly thinking of the "pro" brigade, you know the people who had a hissy fit when the "consumer" iMac went G5 before the "pro" Powerbook. I can imagine a few demanding that the intel powerbook should be the same as the intel PowerMac (which will have to be 64bit as to not be seen as a step backwards).

[runner91786]

First off, Intel's "yonah" IS the dual-core pentium m. There is a not a single core "yonah" The yonah is basically two dothan processors on one chip.

Also, they still haven't decided if it will have EM64T support or not, so it may in favor of Apple's wishes to move 64-bit technology into the powerbook.

Personally, I think this processor will more than pull its weight in performance and seriously kick the G4's ass in battery life, heat output, and all out power!

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by runner91786 First off, Intel's "yonah" IS the dual-core pentium m. There is a not a single core "yonah" The yonah is basically two dothan processors on one chip. Also, they still haven't decided if it will have EM64T support or not, so it may in favor of Apple's wishes to move 64-bit technology into the powerbook. <snip>

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2445&p=3

The second big surprise are the "TBD" (To Be Determined) chips. These are single core Yonahs. Since all the original documentation about Yonah claimed that the two cores were intertwined, our guess is just that the single core versions are identical to the dual core versions with a single core disabled.

No EM64T support planned according to all info that I've read.

[runner91786]

Interesting...I read that they were considering EM64T support, but they weren't sure if they would implement it in the first batch they release, and that maybe it would come down the road.

Haven't seen anything about the single core Yonah's, thanks for pointing that out.

[hmurchison]

Actually runner you're still correct. If Intel ships a single core Yonah then it's likely a dual core chip with a disabled core. I wouldnt mind seeing EM64T in Yonah. I wouldn't say that it's a definite "out" yet.

The Mac portable landscape is going to improve rapidly. I can't wait.

[newmedia]

There will NOT be EMT64 in Yonah for the simple reason that the 64-bit x86 project "Yamhill" was in the US and not linked to the Israelli team that did Pentium M.

The 64-bit dual-core successors to Pentium M (and Pentium D) will not be available until 2007 -- Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest -- which is why Jobs focussed on "completing" the transition to x86 by the end of 2007.

Sorry folks, it'll be 2+ years before all the "good" stuff can be shipped -- quite a long time to wait.

[runner91786]

Where are you getting your info from?

[wizard69]

Hereis how I see it, in two years time Apple won't be able to afford to go without a 64 bit portable. So I would have to think that Apple has been clued in as to when the 64 bit hardware will be available. Now the question is will that be the first release of Apple / Intel hardware. I don't know my self but not having a top of the line 64 bit portable in a year and a halfs time will look rather sad for Apple.

By the way the need for 64 bit hardware is not really there for marketing purposes rather it is needed to produce future applications running on heavily SMP'ed machines.

It should also be tecken into account that one of Apples issues with IBM was the lack of affordable 64 bit chips. If Apple was really interested in 32 bit low power hardware they could have stayed with Freescales hardware. I think the move is the result of Apple wanting 64 bit low power hardware. So I wouldn't be surprised to see such hardware in the early line ups.

Dave

[newmedia]

Dave:

> So I wouldn't be surprised to see such hardware in the early line ups.

Can't happen. It just doesn't exist. Won't be available until 2007.

The information about Intel's roadmap is easily collected -- just go to The Register or the Inquirer. Google "Merom" and read the stories.

The shift to 64-bit x86 caught Intel totally with their heat-power envelope down around their knees. They thought that Longhorn wasn't coming until late 2007 (or early 2008) and that they could wait until then. Microsoft pulled it in by a year and has been aggressively working with AMD to get the hardware to market. So have many others.

If you want to check out the details of how/why Longhorn is a 64-bit kernel, go to DigiTimes and read the two-part Chris Jones interviews.

Intel is 2+ years behind AMD and Apple will be 2+ years behind all the AMD vendors -- since (according to Intel sources) the Intel/Apple deal is an *exclusive* . . . sorry, once again.

[BJNY]

newmedia,
Surely Steve Jobs knows this info, too.
So why didn't Apple go with AMD?

[hmurchison]

Intel is 2+ years behind AMD and Apple will be 2+ years behind all the AMD vendors -- since (according to Intel sources) the Intel/Apple deal is an *exclusive* . . . sorry, once again.

Don't believe the hype. Apple will be staying with PPC for Powermacs and Xserve until 2007 which means 64-bit support is where people need it the most.

Powerbooks will likely migrate over mid 2006 but won't be 64-bit but who "really" needs a 64-bit laptop? I'd venture to say a pretty small niche.

AMD doesn't even come close to offering what Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest will offer as per power per watt and production IMO. It's not only the microprocessors but also the chipsets. AMD doesn't like to make their own whilst Intel makes pretty damn good chipsets. Thus Apple is teaming with the company that can "make the whole widget" and do it right.

I like AMD and will build an AMD computer probably next year but by 2007 AMD will be ran through the buzzsaw that the Israeli Intel team has started. Intel cancelling Tejas was the biggest admission that Netburst was the wrong path. Intel won't make that mistake again.

[newmedia]

True enough that AMD and Intel's roadmap differ. True as well that Intel makes complete "platforms" while AMD is only a part of the Hypertransport puzzle. But most importantly, Intel *paid* for Apple's affections and, under the circumstances, Jobs just couldn't turn down the deal.

If indeed it is true that Apple signed an "exclusive" arrangement with Intel -- similiar to the one Dell appears to have -- they will get first crack at new products and perhaps even some "assistance" on pricing if the quarter isn't falling into place. A deal with the "devil"? We'll see . . .