Apple is going to use Intel's retarded x86 processors! Nooo!

[The_One]

http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID =8698892
Read 'em and weep 'em:
Apple to switch to Intel chips: WSJ
Sun Jun 5, 2005 06:21 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research) is expected to announce Monday that it will begin shifting its Macintosh computer line next year to Intel Corp. chips, the Wall Street Journal reported on its Web site on Sunday, citing people familiar with the situation.
The move would be a major change in strategy by Apple, a high-profile win for Intel (INTC.O: Quote, Profile, Research) and a blow to International Business Machines Corp. (IBM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) . and Freescale Semiconductor Inc. (FSL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) , suppliers of the PowerPC chips long used in its Macintosh systems.

Apple executives were not immediately available for comment.

Apple's decision, which comes after years of industry speculation and behind-the-scenes lobbying by Intel, could cause disruptions for Macintosh users, the paper said.

Application programs will have to be adapted to run on Intel's x86 chips, the calculating engines used in most computers running Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) Windows operating system.

Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive, is expected to explain the shift Monday during a keynote speech at the company's annual software developers conference in San Francisco, said the people familiar with the situation.
Source (http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID =8698892)

All I gotta say is: Screw you apple! The only reason why I'd ever use a Mac was because of its power (3D rendering on that thing was such a breeze)... Guess that advantage is gone now :cry:.

Side note: Ya, I know there's gonna be lots of people arguing that P4 and their wicked customized PC is better than a dual G5 and whatnot, but you can't beat a Mac's reliability :D.

[Brandon]

This is the stupidest, most ridiculous decision I have ever heard Apple go through with. I will make sure to watch the keynote to find out why Steve Jobs has resorted to smoking crack.

[Viper]

This is like Chevy deciding to put Yugo engines in their Corvettes.

Mac's have been 'specialists' machines all due to the design and functionality of the insides and they are going to take that away?

[Brandon]

This is like Chevy deciding to put Yugo engines in their Corvettes.

Mac's have been 'specialists' machines all due to the design and functionality of the insides and they are going to take that away?
Apple is really losing me here.

[Charlie]

Thats a pretty risky move there. I knew Apple's and IBM's grounds where shakey, but I always thought that this was just another rumor Apple does every year to get a stock point jump.

[Brandon]

but I always thought that this was just another rumor Apple does every year to get a stock point jump.
In this case, I think it would be a stock point drop.

[stanDarsh]

After a conversation with my brother and my co-worker, it seems this could be a very good move or a very bad move for apple, I shall elaborate.

It could be said that Mac OS is the most successfully distributed version of Unix ever. Now if by chosing Intel as their CPU provider means cheaper Macs for consumers, and or choice of buying whatever PC parts you want, and then free to choose what OS you wanted whether it be Windows, Mac OS, Linux etc. This could also mean we will start seeing more games on Macs as well.

The downside is, if Apple keeps charging large amounts for their PCs when they switch to Intel CPU and or you can't choose your hardware components either, then I think this would be a very bad move for Apple!

[Fats]

Well, there are valid reasons for the move to Intel. But there are also reasons for them not too. One theory is that IBM are simply getting greedy because they are making the chips for the PS3, X-box 360 and the Revolution. That's quite a bit of revenue right there, so why bother with Apple and their tiny market share?

I personally wouldn't like to see it happen, I'm quite happy with the way things stand now... But! If Intel have some advanced chips up their sleeves for the Powermac range and some low cost chips for machines such as the Mac-mini then it may not turn out to be ALL bad.

At the minute, it's all speculation and could be complete bull-poo... But we'll just have to wait and see.

[Fooly Cooly]

I heard think it was times that IBM only makes 2% of their processors for apple not that much so losing that wont be a big deal

[Coded-Dude]

So does this mean appple will whore out the rest of their hardware like MS does.
Now there will be a billion drivers for third party hardware, half of which won't even work, and hardware bugs begin to plauge the OS.

I hope we don't see a decrease in overall product quality.
Maybe I'll buy a powerbook while I still can!

[Fats]

So does this mean appple will whore out the rest of their hardware like MS does.
Now there will be a billion drivers for third party hardware, half of which won't even work, and hardware bugs begin to plauge the OS.

I hope we don't see a decrease in overall product quality.
Maybe I'll buy a powerbook while I still can!

I don't think that this will happen at all, at the end of the day this is Apple we're talking about. They strive themselves on quality products, something that a lot of people won't want to see decrease!

[xbdestroya]

I might as well link to yesterdays article on the front page, if only for the sake of doing so. :)

http://www.psinext.com/forums/posting.php?mode=reply&t=7135

(Today is official PSINext self-promotion day!, since even I for the longest time was just coming straight through to the forums and always skipping the main page)

Lingering rumors of Cell's inclusion inside future Apple computers put to rest
With Apple set to announce a move to Intel's x86 chips, hopes once held for a marriage between Sony's Cell and the Mac appear gone forever.
By Carl Bender - June 05, 2005
Print Email


Since February of this year, when it was confirmed at ISSCC that the processing element within Sony's Cell processor was based off of IBM's Power architecture, tech lovers on both sides of Sony and Apple's fence speculated openly on the chances of Apple possibly using this 'supercomputer on a chip' in some of their future offerings. Speculation heated up further when at the recent Macworld event in San Francisco, Sony president Kunitake Ando took to the stage with Apple founder and CEO Steve Jobs to announce closer relations between the two companies and a move towards greater interoperability between their products. With Apple's sole chip supplier heavily involved in the Cell project, and a warming relationship between Apple and Sony, there were more than a few individuals thinking that Cell's first stab at the desktop might come in the form of a Cell-powered Mac.

Those that were dreaming of one day having the chance to use such a computer to surf the web have recently had those dreams dashed however, with the revelation that Steve Jobs intends to announce his company's move away from IBM's Power architecture and towards adoption of Intel's ubiquitous x86 architecture. Such a move coming during one of the most important moments in Apple's history, when it's consumer brand-awareness is near an all time high, could have profound effects not just for the maker of the famous iPod music players and the venerable Macintosh, but also for the computer industry as a whole.

For one, it would essentially mean the end to IBM's presence on the desktop. This was never a high-margin business for IBM to begin with, but it would certainly seem to be a step backwards in terms of their stated goals in the recently announced 'Power Everywhere' campaign. On the flip side of things, the move would be a clear victory for Intel, the company that by some estimates presently controls over 80% of the desktop market, and that stands to gain even more after winning Apple's business. Even more surreal is the opportunity Apple would have, if they wanted, to sell x86 compatible software directly to consumers who could then install and operate such software on non-Apple x86 PC's. It must be heavily emphasized though, that Apple is very unlikely to make such a move, as the combination of both the software and the hardware has always been what defines Apple as a company. Still, the idea that Steve Jobs could choose to unleash a well supported and popular operating system onto the x86 market at large were the whim ever to strike him must be something the folks in Redmond have at least considered after hearing this news, and likely find quite worrisome.

Why Apple is considering the move to x86 in the first place is clear - Intel's processors come at a significant discount to what Apple has been paying IBM for it's Power4 derived chips, and the high cost of Apple computers has in the past been pointed out when answering the question of why Apple continues to have relatively poor market penetration even at a time when their OS is generally seen in a favorable light compared to Windows. There is some risk of backlash from Apple's traditionally hardcore fan base with this move though, as in the past they have generally found anything remotely related to 'Wintel' to be anathema.

Regardless, though this news seems to decisively put to rest the rumor of Apple computers one day using Cell processors as their CPU's, it certainly is the case that Sony and Apple seem to be warming to each other lately, and the future may yet hold some surprises in terms of joint announcements between the two. Until then though, those who dream of running Cell on the desktop will have to settle for IBM workstations running Linux.

But then again, that's not so bad, is it?

[xbdestroya]

EDIT: As of this moment, Apple has confirmed the switch.

[DofD]

Here is another article on the Apple announcement.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050606/sfm142.html?.v=9

And here is Job's speech.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate/index.php?lsrc=mwrss

Performance and price wise PPC chips haven't been able to keep up with x86 chips for some time now.

One thought is that Apple is working to get out of the proprietary (and horribly expensive) computer hardware market. By switching it x86 they could possibly market Mac OS X to PC users as an alternative to Windows and Linux.

I know a number of Mac users. They use a Mac for the software and operating system, not just because it uses PPC. Thus the hardware doesn't matter, just the software applications and OS and if they run just as well on x86, so be it.


Cheers,

DofD

[xbdestroya]

Wow here's another possible take on it all - were this to be true and pan out for Apple, they'll really have achieved a 'holy grail' situation of sorts.

...But why would Apple do this? Because Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D chips.

Released just few days ago, the dual-core chips include a hardware copy protection scheme that prevents "unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard," according to PC World.

Apple -- or rather, Hollywood -- wants the Pentium D to secure an online movie store (iFlicks if you will), that will allow consumers to buy or rent new movies on demand, over the internet.

According to News.com, the Intel transition will occur first in the summer with the Mac mini, which I'll bet will become a mini-Tivo-cum-home-server.

Hooked to the internet, it will allow movies to be ordered and stored, and if this News.com piece is correct, loaded onto the video iPod that's in the works...

Link (http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2)

Especially relevant since it's been assumed Sony is working towards a 'iTunes' for movies themselves.

[Fats]

Ok, so some of the benefits are clear... But what about power? Now that we're using Intel chips this surely means that they wouldn't be able to compete with (for example) a G6 processor developed by IBM.

[Domination]

Wow here's another possible take on it all - were this to be true and pan out for Apple, they'll really have achieved a 'holy grail' situation of sorts.

...But why would Apple do this? Because Apple wants Intel's new Pentium D chips.

Released just few days ago, the dual-core chips include a hardware copy protection scheme that prevents "unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted materials from the motherboard," according to PC World.

Apple -- or rather, Hollywood -- wants the Pentium D to secure an online movie store (iFlicks if you will), that will allow consumers to buy or rent new movies on demand, over the internet.

According to News.com, the Intel transition will occur first in the summer with the Mac mini, which I'll bet will become a mini-Tivo-cum-home-server.

Hooked to the internet, it will allow movies to be ordered and stored, and if this News.com piece is correct, loaded onto the video iPod that's in the works...

Link (http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,67749,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2)

Especially relevant since it's been assumed Sony is working towards a 'iTunes' for movies themselves.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

This is heavy, and I thought the first move was surprising.

[Brandon]

“I stood up here two years ago and promised you 3.0 GHz. I think a lot of you would like a G5 in your PowerBook, and we haven’t been able to deliver that to you,” said Jobs. “But as we look ahead, and though we’ve got great products now, and great PowerPC products still to come, we can envision great products we want to build, and we can’t envision how to build them with the current PowerPC roadmap,” said Jobs.
Faster Apple laptops...I don't see a problem there. ;)

This is interesting:
Mac OS X has been “leading a secret double life” for the past five years, said Jobs. “So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years.”

Jobs demonstrated a version of Mac OS X running on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4-processor equipped system, running a build of Mac OS X v10.4.1. He showed Dashboard widgets, Spotlight, iCal, Apple’s Mail, Safari and iPhoto all working on the Intel-based system. The system itself was not revealed.

[Coded-Dude]

Well I'll Be DAMNED!
:D :shock: :? :x :evil: :roll:

[Brandon]

Well I'll Be DAMNED!
:D :shock: :? :x :evil: :roll:
Are those the 6 phases of "Dude"?

[Coded-Dude]

Thats kind of what I went through when I first read the comment.......
Could Mac be positioned to take over the desktop pc?
I mean seriously how many people would switch just to try it out?

This is an exciting era for operating systems, I wasn't sure if I'd be alive to see a shift in OS dominance.
Now, not only is linux taking market share, but Mac OS X is "coming out of the closet."

[nesman]

But I'm still worried about performance. PowerPC chips were always my favorite other than Intel processors.

[Fats]

But I'm still worried about performance. PowerPC chips were always my favorite other than Intel processors.

I second that. If one of the reasons that Apple is introducing Intel chips is to cut costs, I don't care. People who buy powermacs tend to spend large amounts of money as long as it equals performance, something that Intel chips can't offer over powerpc.

[Brandon]

Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. “When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PowerPC gives us 15 units of performance per watt, but Intel’s roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do,” he explained.
Maybe they'll be able to get more performance out of the Intel chips in the long run?

[Fats]

Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. “When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PowerPC gives us 15 units of performance per watt, but Intel’s roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do,” he explained.
Maybe they'll be able to get more performance out of the Intel chips in the long run?

Great news then, I just hope that it all works out for the best. I have faith in Steve Jobs! :)

[the legendary ice man]

Isn't the PowerPC chip designed to be more effective under load - i.e. multimedia editing?

In which case would Apple lose it's competetive edge over standard Desktops?

Sony's movie store existence has been floating around for at least a month,

[Brandon]

In which case would Apple lose it's competetive edge over standard Desktops?
That's what I'm thinking as well. This seems like more of a downgrade to me. I sure hope it doesn't end up that way.

[cpiasminc]

Well, even without a CPU that is exceptionally well-suited to such tasks as video editing and what not, part of the thing that made Macs so great was the tools. I mean Final Cut is still a very clean and effective tool for the job. Okay, it will most likely run slower on a P4 as opposed to a G5... but if that doesn't hamper the power of the software, they still have their biggest advantage. Nobody can say that OSX is an inferior OS to Windows, but the problem with Apple's sellability has always been their closed-off and otherwise weird hardware architectures. And like it or not, x86 owns the market.

x86 itself is an architecture hampered by the same Achilles heel that makes just about any MS software into complete loads of bloatware. It's just a very crufty old architecture that has simply not grown enough to support the current age because it could not afford to give up legacy support. The best you could do is to add on entirely separate functionalities and hope that it doesn't break all the old stuff. Which is a very difficult proposition because in the land of silicon, independence between components is a non-existent condition.

[Fats]

I still don't know if I'm happy with the move to Intel. I respect it from a business point of view, but as a fan of Apple it's just plain weird! It's nice to know that the transistion should be pain free for the consumer and that OSX will work fine on Pentium hardware. I don't know though.

The whole point in buying a Powermac (in my Dad's case) was because it offered us a powerful alternative to using a PC. Given the fact that they'll be using a tool called Rosetta which will convert the powerpc code to run on Intel hardware, doesn't this mean that we'll effectively have more slow-down?

[nesman]

I'm getting a Powerbook while I still can :lol:

[Fats]

I'm getting a Powerbook while I still can :lol:

You might as well wait for the G5 "Pentium" version... :roll: :(

[nesman]

Yes, but I can't wait a year to get the new Powebooks. I need a laptop before school starts again in September. So I really don't have a choice. :? But maybe I'll look for a job next year and save up for the new Macs. :)

[Brandon]

You can view the Apple Keynote presentation here: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/

It's actually very entertaining (as long as you don't hate Apple).

QuickTime 7 is out, by the way.

[nesman]

My connection is unusually slow today. The presentation is lagging even though I'm on a 2mb connection. Must be a lot of traffic :?

[Fats]

My connection is also very slow, itunes seems to be dragging for me. :(

[Brandon]

I'm getting 0% lag and it streams perfectly. Maybe it works better for me because I'm using QuickTime 7. If you don't have the QuickTime 7 Public Preview for Windows, you can get it here: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/preview/

[nesman]

Once you think about it the move to Intel is not that bad. Everything will be the same, its just that there will be an Intel processor in the Mac and not a PowerPC processor. The G5 creates a huge amount of heat. Even the PowerMac G5 fans blare on occasionally. The G5 is too hot to be put in the Powerbook with all the necessary cooling systems. I guess Apple is getting tired of upgrading the PPCs little by little. Plus the biggest turn off of the Mac to the average customer would be "The Dell Inspiron has a 3.0 GHz Intel Pentium while the Apple Powerbook has a PowerPC at 1.5 GHz. Therefore, the Powerbook is slower." Apple will keep their hardware proprietary. They control everything about Macs. That gives them an advantage since they control the upgrade cycle. The thing I hate about PCs are that they evolve rapidly. I bought my Dell Dimension 8250 in 12/02. But three months later a Dimension 8300 came out. Then summer 2003 came along and a 8400 came out. I was angry since PCs last for a year before becoming obsolete. And up to 2007 when the last PPC Mac will be sold, PPC will be supported for some time to come. Hopefully Intel will shape up and make a good processor.

[Brandon]

I guess this article is appropriate here:

Fresh after getting publicly dumped by Apple Computer, IBM is taking new measures to spread its Power processors and make them a stronger competitor to Intel chips.

On Wednesday, IBM announced that 11 new members have joined a consortium of Power processor users. It also released specifications and software to make it easier to build computers using the forthcoming Power-based Cell processor that IBM, Toshiba and Sony developed. In addition, Big Blue has new customers in medical imaging and in defense, said Nigel Beck, chairman of the Power.org consortium.

And on a new section of its Web site, IBM makes the case that most growth in the processor market is taking place with servers, game consoles and mobile devices--markets where Power is used--not personal computers. IBM disclosed the site in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday.

Apple has been one of the highest-profile customers for Power processors, buying PowerPC chips from IBM and Motorola spin-off Freescale Semiconductor since 1994. That changed Monday when Apple announced its 2006 shift to Intel processors, chips it disparaged for years.

But IBM, far from being daunted, instead set the stage for a showdown with Intel by declaring just how ambitious its Power plans are: "IBM's strategy is to spread its open chip technology and establish Power Architecture as the dominant industry standard," Big Blue said on its Web site.

On the one side, Apple's departure tarnishes the image of the group and its related "Power Everywhere" marketing campaign, said Illuminata analyst Gordon Haff. "This certainly takes some of the sheen off of it," he said.

On the other, for burnishing the Power image, the arrival of Cell should offset the departure of Apple. "We believe opening hardware and software specs for Cell will likely expand interest in Power.org," Pund-IT analyst Charles King said in a report.

Linux-on-Power allies hurt
Though Apple's move won't hurt IBM's Power processor manufacturing business much, there are direct effects elsewhere in its business. The company is trying to make Linux useful on its PowerPC- and Power5-based servers, but Apple's move left in the lurch two allies in that effort. Terra Soft Solutions and the Fedora PowerPC project both use Macs in their efforts to develop Linux for Power-based computers.

Terra Soft, which sells Yellow Dog Linux and Macs with the operating system already installed, said it has options to survive Apple's switch to Intel processors. In a statement, CEO Kai Staats said the company doesn't plan to switch its product line to Intel chips but that it still plans to sell its Y-HPC version of Linux for high-performance computing clusters, which can be used on systems such as IBM's JS20 blade servers. And, Staats added, "Things are already in motion to enable a world of greater Power Architecture diversity."

Colin Charles, a lead programmer for the effort to bring the Fedora version of Linux to PowerPC chips, pledged future support for the project.

"I'm not going to back off the project, even if it means that its real use will only last another two more years, and after that, it'll just be for big iron IBM (computers)," Charles said. "IBM hardware will always still exist, though consumer Apple stuff is going away in about two years, sadly--I think it's a big mistake."

Snubbed in public
The Apple divorce was very public. Apple CEO Steve Jobs sharply criticized IBM's PowerPC production during his Worldwide Developer Conference keynote address Monday, spotlighting the fact that his company couldn't deliver a promised 3GHz PowerPC processor or a laptop with the latest G5 generation chip.

"We can envision some amazing products we want to build for you, but we don't know how to build them with the future PowerPC road map," Jobs said.

IBM's response is to fight back with numbers, calling out In-Stat statistics forecasting that the game console market will grow from 3.5 million units this year to 33.5 million in 2008. Sony, the top seller of game consoles, is using the Cell chip in its future PlayStation 3, due in 2006. And Microsoft's Xbox 360, due later this year, uses a Power processor that Beck said is code-named Waternoose.

IBM hopes Cell will be used by new customers beyond gaming, though. To that end, Big Blue released an open-source version of Power computer "firmware"--software that runs beneath the operating system, helps a computer boot up and provides operating system access to many hardware features.

It also released software specifications that let programmers use the unusual architecture of Cell itself. The chip has a single Power processing core aided by eight other cores IBM calls specialized processor units. In game consoles, the eight helper cores handle graphics tasks, but IBM wants to let programmers use them for other tasks, such as encryption or image processing.

Using the extra cores is unwieldy now, though. "We need to make the programming model simpler," Beck said, and IBM hopes opening the Cell specification will help others steer IBM in the right direction for programming tool improvement.

Beyond gaming
Two nongaming customers are using Cell, Beck said, though he wouldn't name them. One is involved in medical imaging, and the other is tapping the chip for military use in image recognition and targeting, he said.

Though others in the Power.org consortium may offer suggestions on what features should be added to Power processors, IBM isn't giving up control over chip design features such as the set of instructions it can execute. Power.org members "wanted transparency--to see proposals for the instruction set architecture coming in and out--but they did not want democracy," Beck said.

Eleven new organizations joined the 16 existing members of the Power.org consortium. Among them are AboveMicro Technologies, which provides custom chip design services; Celestica, which designs and builds computers often sold under other companies' names; Rapport, which sells chips that can be reconfigured on the fly; TimeLab, which builds chips to replace analog circuitry; and Universal Scientific Industrial, which designs Power-based home media centers.

Source (http://news.com.com/Unfazed%2C+IBM+pumps+Power+chip+program/2100-1006_3-5739479.html?tag=st.num)

[nesman]

I don't see this as a big deal. In the Keynote Address, Jobs was using a Intel Based Mac the whole time. I even didn't realize it until he surprised everyone. The Mac was running pretty fast. In my opinion, as long as it makes Macs better, then go for it. This could be a big change for Mac. Whether its a good or bad change, we won't find out till 2006-2007. But I know Apple will pull it off like they did during the Motorola-->IBM PowerPC transition. I have faith in Apple :)

[Fats]

Tell me this though. Is a Mac going to be any different from a PC now that they're using Intel chips? It just doesn't feel right. As I said before, one of the main reasons we bought a powermac was because it was based on powerpc technology and as a result, many applications ran a lot faster than my Dad's latest PC (Which is also quick).

I do understand that eventually the Pentium chips will outdo powerpc, but how long will that take?

[nesman]

Well Apple doesn't have to go with Pentium, Intel could design a processor just for Macs. It all depends on how Apple plans out the negotiations.

[Fats]

When it comes to sipping daintily from the AC and running cooler, Intel chips are unmatched by anything IBM has to offer. And that’s a handy characteristic to have for a CPU that’s wedged within the narrow confines of a notebook.

But before we get into the nitty-gritty of what the Santa Clara, Calif.-based chip giant’s products will do for you, what they won’t offer is a giant leap in performance on the desktop. Apple’s current G5 is a powerful chip—despite running at slower clock speeds than the processors powering Wintel machines. Slower clocked x86-compatible Athlon 64s from über Intel-rival AMD’s regularly benchmark as fast or faster than Intel’s offerings. (Notebook performance is another matter as you’ll gather when you read about the Pentium M below.)

The Wintel world is cluttered with far more products than the Mac universe and Intel offers a bewilderingly large array of CPUs that vary in cache size, speed, and features. A lot can change in a year, but with a recent flurry of new technology releases from Intel, the first MacIntels should feature one of the following processors—or something very close to them.

Pentium 4

Designed for: Desktops and desktop replacement laptops

The best known of Intel’s processors, the P4 was designed to achieve high clock speeds, but it generally does less per clock cycle than competing CPUs. The latest P4s run as fast as 3.8GHz with 1MB or 2MB of cache and an 800MHz front-side bus. They’re also 64-bit courtesy of Intel’s EM64T—a version of the x86-64 64-bit instructions developed by AMD for its Intel-compatible Athlon 64 CPUs. EM64T P4’s perform both 32-bit and 64-bit instructions with equal facility, and, if Apple systems employing them are anything like the PC-side of things, they should support at least 64GB of directly addressable memory.

Some P4 models also feature Hyper-Threading, which creates two virtual CPUs to improve performance when running simultaneous tasks—like applying a Photoshop filter while you’re browsing the Web.

Pentium D

Designed for: Desktops and performance laptops

The Pentium D evolved out of the P4 and, like the G5 and most Intel CPUs, is manufactured using a state-of-the-art 90-nanometer process. The “D” stands for Dual-core which means two execution cores—the heart of a CPU that actually processes the instructions—on the same chip. It’s essentially the same concept as a dual-processor G5, except that the CPUs and support logic are found on a single piece of silicon. With two cores, Pentium D CPUs are especially adept at multi-tasking and all three models (2.8GHz, 3.0GHz, and 3.2GHz) feature the EM64T instruction set, 1MB of cache per core, and an 800MHz front-side bus.

Pentium 4 Extreme Edition

Designed for: Gaming and performance desktops

The newest version of the P4 EE is actually a Pentium D with Hyper-Threading enabled, meaning two physical processor cores split via Hyper-Threading for a total of four virtual CPUs. This latest flagship EE shouldn’t be confused with older EE models, which are single-core P4’s with HT and either a 2MB cache (3.73GHz, 1066MHz front-side bus, 90-nanometer model) or dual 512KB L2 and 2MB L3 caches (3.2Ghz/3.46GHz, 800MHz/1066MHz front-side bus, 130-nanometer models).

Pentium M

Designed for: Laptops

Some think that the 32-bit Pentium M is what Apple was really after from Intel in the short term. The Pentium M isn’t based on the P4 core; it’s a separate animal that does a lot more work per clock cycle. Available in clock speeds from 1.5- to 2.13GHz, it easily outperforms the G4 found in Apple’s fastest notebooks and offers wonderfully parsimonious power consumption. Pentium M notebooks regularly last more than five hours on a single battery charge—something iBook and Powerbook users can currently only dream of.

Celeron

Designed for: budget desktops, laptops

Celerons are the lower-priced, 32-bit-only cousins of the Pentium that generally suffer a slower front-side bus, less cache or some other performance-inhibiting characteristic. They cost only a little less than low-end Pentium models but you never know what might make an appearance in a budget MacIntel.


Source (http://www.macworld.com/2005/06/features/intelchips/index.php)