How big are the blips in Intel’s dual-core roadmap?
Posted by Dennis Sellers 
Nov 1, 2005 at 12:36am
It may be a minor blip in the Intel—and therefore Mac—roadmap, but it is worrisome. Last week Intel announced that delivery of its dual-core Itanium would be delayed by three months from the first quarter of 2006 to the middle of the second quarter. It’s another setback for Intel that has some folks wondering whether the company can deliver upcoming technologies as quickly as promised.
“The setback is the latest in a string of events that raise questions about Intel’s ability to execute on its innovative R&D, a commodity of which Intel undoubtedly has plenty but which Intel hasn’t been able to get to market,” Tom Yager writes in an InfoWord report. “There has always been a tug-of-war at Intel
between x86 and Itanium over budget, staff resources, and scheduling priorities. Time and time again, Itanium loses out to the can’t-miss x86. Intel’s latest focus on low-end and power-efficient systems, including digital entertainment technology, reflects a campaign to carve out new volume niches that competitor AMD can’t quickly attack. Even if the dual-core Itanium delay has nothing to do with these other factors, Itanium is certainly a poor fit with those elements of Intel’s new strategy that we’ve seen to date. Although analysts will debate the relevance of the one-quarter delay in the release of dual-core Itanium as an isolated event, this latest setback prolongs Intel’s long-awaited return to form.”
Dual-core chips contain two processing units per chip. Apple’s latest Power Macs have dual-core chips, although they’re IBM PowerPC processors, of course, rather than Intel.
Apparently, it’s only the Itaninum dual-cores that are being delayed and not more consumer oriented dual-core chips such as Yonah. Yonah is an Intel dual-core processor that’s due for volume production in 2006. Expect to see it in Apple laptops, Mac minis and perhaps iMacs by mid-2006 as these systems will probably the first of the Mac product line to go “Mactel.” See our July 5 article for details. Still, there are reports are even the Yonah processor may run hotter than previously projected.
I’m not saying that Apple shouldn’t move to Intel chips. After all, IBM never delivered the promised (expected?) PowerPC G5/3GHz chips. And a PowerBook G5 never seemed feasible due to heat issues.
What I am saying is that the move to Intel, like any major transition, is going to have glitches along the way. And some of them may be involve more than software transitioning.
Thoughts? Write me at dsellers@macsimumnews.com
Also, don’t forget this week’s Macsimum News poll. We’re asking if you’re planning on purchasing Apple products over the holiday season.
Jon Mark Hancock Says:
Though I’m sure the intel switch is a done deal and not “reversible”, it’s hard for me to wonder how new Macs (especially laptops) would fare with processors from PA Semiconductor (just came out of stealth mode last week), as their dual core 2GHz parts has a typical dissipation of 13 watts and maximum TDP of 25 watts with over 1000 SPECint and 2000SPECfp per core.
For desktops, AMD’s existing products are a lot more enticing than Intelsk, including Intels latest MCM hybrid modules which are not true dual core processers, and are getting eaten alive by AMD in test comparisons. Say, 40% poorer on average.
Still, I think there’s a dual processor dual core PPC G5 in my future around Xmas time.... ;^) may be the best Macs ever for quite some time.
Posted on November 01, 2005
Thomas Gentry-Funk Says:
So far, I haven’t seen anything that Intel offers that beats PPC on the desktop. In laptops, the potential of a dual-core Intel proc makes a lot of sense for Apple. But, what if IBM can provide a dual core solution for Apple in laptops? IBM is nothing if not innovative in microprocessor R&D;. I would argue that IBM has better technology than Intel in many regards.
So I guess the question is: what if IBM makes good on promises about their products? Can Apple create two computer lines, PPC and Intel?
Posted on November 01, 2005
Hybrid Geek (Mac PC) Says:
Good points, good article. You’ve evidenced your topic well, and made me think about it. Guess i’ll be waiting to make my purchase a bit more longer ;)
Posted on November 01, 2005
Mac Fan Dave Says:
With the ability to create Universal Binaries that run on both Intel and PowerPC (with cosuming the disk space of the total size of separate apps), there is no real reason for Apple to go single-source for CPU’s.
At the moment, PowerPC may be the best choice for desktops while Intel is the best for laptops (and PortalPlayers are the best for Apple’s third line of computers, iPods).
Apple ought to focus on making sure they keep supplying the developer tools that generate apps that are optimized for both architectures to maintain flexibility for future hardware.
Posted on November 01, 2005
hmurchison Says:
The important thing to remember is Apple is not referencing the current “Netburst” architectecture when they reference excellent “Performance per watt” they are refererring to Intel’s future roadmap which has Yonah dual-core processors with 2MB of L2 cache at 2Ghz (30 watts TDP) and eventually the processor made with Merom the next core that’ll be up to faster than Yonah per clock, support 64-bit, better performance in FPU all around the same TDP.
Conroe is going to have a Merom core with a 2 or 4MB shared cache an still only take 65 watts for the whole shebang. IBM does indeed have the technology to compete but not the desire or market.
I’m excited about Apple’s movie to Intel. Macs are defined by the OS...not the hardware.
Posted on November 01, 2005
hector Says:
something of note is that intel dual core P4’s are not actually dual core, they are simply two P4 dies on one package, thus they are just as “dual core” as my g4 cube is (got a dual 450 board in their :P).
however, intel is a very split company, they have teams that are completely separate and are dumping the P4 and switching to the P-M, the itanic team is completely separate and this news is essentially irrelevant.
Posted on November 01, 2005
Cats Says:
Maybe Apple is advancing their Server roadmap and Intel is simply accomomdating them :-)
Posted on November 01, 2005
Riot Nrrrd™ Says:
I agree with hector. Who cares about delays with the Itanic? That thing is dead - no one in IT will buy a dead-end chip like that, especially given the fact that it isn’t X86-compatible.
Posted on November 01, 2005
ken2 Says:
I’m not too worried about the transition as Apple will have options to keep their sales going. While there may be a speed bump in the top PM I believe that they will open BTO options on the other two PMs to add a second processor - making it a quad. Why? Because they can - all PMs use the same motherboard.
On the PB side Freescale might actually deliver their dual core (yes, I know it’s really Moto, but miracles happen) and that would keep it very competitive even if the iBook and Mac mini go Mactels.
On the iMac side, if there is a delay there may be the option to go a single dual core, with memory limits to keep from eating into the lower end of the PMs.
All in all, Apple is pretty well protected for any blips.
Posted on November 01, 2005
Ron Jon Says:
“Macs are defined by the OS...not the hardware.”
Couldn’t be more wrong on that one! X86 is a waste of time inefficient and buggy:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=431
Posted on November 01, 2005
Peter Says:
“[...] it’s hard for me to wonder how new Macs (especially laptops) would fare with processors from PA Semiconductor (just came out of stealth mode last week) [...]”
PA Semi does not have a shipping product. Remember that. Oh, they look like they’ll have a rockin’ good chip, but it’s still in the design stage. They “came out of stealth mode” so that they could hopefully find some investors who would give them money to actually produce the thing. If you look at their timeframes, though, they’re too late. They won’t even begin sampling their new CPU until the end of 2006. That’s at least six months behind Intel, which will be shipping Yonah in volume by mid-2006.
I think that Apple’s switch to Intel has to do with R&D;money that Apple pays to IBM and Freescale but doesn’t get anything out of. Apple gave IBM a big hunk of money to develop PowerPC chips for them and they dropped the ball, wooed by Sony and Microsoft.
Posted on November 01, 2005
harpermi Says:
Nobody seems to remember the AIM alliance. The question remains - what intellectual property does Apple have rights to that would benefit Intel? Oh come on folks! Maybe I’ll refresh the memory. Just for starters - Altivec anyone! PPC was codeveloped and Apple has many rights to the intellectual property - so - I don’t think we’ll see just any old Intel chip coming in the future Mac machines. Intel specifically said in the keynote that they wanted Apple as a “design” partner. Most never caught this in the verbiage nor understood the implications. Most don’t understand this relationship between the two companies has ties well before Next became Apple’s property and for all the years we have been using OS X they’ve been busy with internal builds on x86. This was not a sudden shift - but planned for many years. Intel wants and sees more in the relationship with Apple beyond the numbers of chips folks. We very well may witness a coup in the coming year that the industry has no warning of nor understanding. The age of iPod is just the beginning. Be prepared for the unthinkable - Red Box reborn? Oh the possibilities make me shiver with delight!
Neo - any thoughts now that the trick can spring the treat?
harpermi
Posted on November 02, 2005
Article Information
Comment on this Article Print this Article Email this Article Digg This
Contributor
Dennis Sellers
Dennis has been a newspaper editor/reporter (seven years) and teacher (seven years). He has over 4,000 magazine, newspaper and online articles to his credit. He has also covered the Mac and tech industries for over a decade for such online publications as MacCentral, MacMinute and now MacsimumNews.
hmurchison Says:
Not too worried about the Server blips. They affect us the least. Itanium is not in Macintoshes immediate future. What I’d like to see is Yonah ship on time and Merom follow 2H ‘06. I’d like to see Apple hop in early with Intel Mac minis and iBooks. I’d like to see the Merom core based Conroe and Woodcrest processors on time as well. If that happens we’re in good hands and I would have no complaints.
Posted on November 01, 2005