Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Core Duo "is" 64-bit compatible.
- Thread starter mingisback
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HOLY CRAP PEOPLE STOP IT!
You are killing this thread, which is a REALLY interesting one. Is or is not the Core Duo 64-bit, and if it is why would Intel hide that fact (Flaw in the 64-bit implementation?) and if its available does Apple plan on some sort of firmware update at some point down the road to enable it when they either more fully support or add support for 64-bit to OS X. This isn’t a thread about whether or not OS X is 64-bit its about whether or not the Core Duo is!!
What does this mean for the end user? Will leopard "unlock" my MBP? I don't see why Apple would restrict a perfectly good 64 bit processor to 32, especially after their failure to deliver the G5 powerbook. Hopefully there will be a way to access that feature.
Seriously, how did you get to the point that the G5 is 32-bit on the iMac?
A 64-bit processor can address up to 16777216 Terabytes of memory! But that's just the theoretical maximum, it's just impossible to get this amount inside any form of computer (As far as I know). Now, even though the G5 is 64-bit, it can only address up to 4 Terabytes of memory, still impossible to fit inside a desktop. So the limit set by Apple on the Powermac and the iMac is just the limit of the motherboard and the memory controller.
http://www.apple.com/g5processor/
enough said...
A 64-bit processor can address up to 16777216 Terabytes of memory! But that's just the theoretical maximum, it's just impossible to get this amount inside any form of computer (As far as I know). Now, even though the G5 is 64-bit, it can only address up to 4 Terabytes of memory, still impossible to fit inside a desktop. So the limit set by Apple on the Powermac and the iMac is just the limit of the motherboard and the memory controller.
http://www.apple.com/g5processor/
enough said...
SiliconAddict said:
that's my question as well. it's one thing if core duo has 64-bit capabilities as shipped now. it's another thing entirely if those 64-bit capabilities are disabled at the hardware level by intel (somewhat like how intel disabled hyperthreading in the first northwood p4s).
I'm sure we'll not be able to take advantage of 64 bit. Companies don't tend to ship things and unlock capabilities later. For that, they have a new model. 
I believe the chips probably do have the capability, but we'll never get to use it.
I believe the chips probably do have the capability, but we'll never get to use it.
If it is there, its disabled and we will never be able to turn it on. It doesn't really much sense for them to be 64-bit anyways. It kind of takes away the glory of Merom if they are. Merom is set at the same chip speeds as Yonah, but with the better Performance Per Watt and 64-bit.
cnakeitaro said:
So in an iMac, will these make much of a difference? 64 bit doesn't seem that big of a deal at least right now and performance per watt in an iMac does not seem like an immediate worry.
cnakeitaro said:
So in an iMac, will these make much of a difference? 64 bit doesn't seem that big of a deal at least right now and performance per watt in an iMac does not seem like an immediate worry.Will Apple put Meroms in iMacs, or only portables?
powerbook911 said:
Right now 64-bit doesn't mean much. My only worry is that maybe in the next 2-3 years developers might begin to make 64-bit only apps which would leave early intel adopters stranded.
This is incredible news to me. I was debating holding off buying an iMac until the 64-bit Merom came out later this year, but I couldn't wait so I bought one (and boy am I glad!).
Intel has been weirdly tight-lipped about the Core Duo's capabilities. There were conflicting reports about virtualization on the Core Duo, but apparently it's there in the Macs after someone emailed Intel about it. And now the possibility of 64-bit? I'm confused by the wording of this article. How are they so sure that Yonah and the Sossaman are the same thing? Sossaman is an SMP Yonah, and isn't it quite possible Intel added 64-bit to the Sossaman implementation and not the Yonah? According to the Wikipedia article on the Intel Core: "The only difference between Intel Core and Sossaman cores will be the capability of the latter to be used in multi-processor dual-core systems."
So it seems quite possible. Can anyone with an Intel iMac with programming knowledge try to run a 64-bit process and see what happens?
Intel has been weirdly tight-lipped about the Core Duo's capabilities. There were conflicting reports about virtualization on the Core Duo, but apparently it's there in the Macs after someone emailed Intel about it. And now the possibility of 64-bit? I'm confused by the wording of this article. How are they so sure that Yonah and the Sossaman are the same thing? Sossaman is an SMP Yonah, and isn't it quite possible Intel added 64-bit to the Sossaman implementation and not the Yonah? According to the Wikipedia article on the Intel Core: "The only difference between Intel Core and Sossaman cores will be the capability of the latter to be used in multi-processor dual-core systems."
So it seems quite possible. Can anyone with an Intel iMac with programming knowledge try to run a 64-bit process and see what happens?
mingisback said:
Sorry, GIzmodo, and Gizmodo's source are all wrong.
Intel Link:
'Sossaman' is *NOT* based on Yonah. It is based on the same NetBurst core as every other 'Xeon'. Intel claims it is based on the 'Pentium 4-M' processor, which is the portable version of the desktop Pentium 4. It uses the 'NetBurst' architecture. Pentium M is based on the much older 'P6' core used in the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium III. THe NetBurst core has had 64-bit-ness tacked on, but P6 won't have 64-bit tacked on until Merom/Conroe.
In short, everyone who says Sossaman is based on Yonah is wrong. Sossaman is based on the desktop Pentium 4/D's next revision, the 65 nm 'Presler'.
Yonah =! Sossaman
Sorry, double post, editing to remove. (Hrm, why did it insist I wasn't logged in the first time?)
Sorry, double post, editing to remove. (Hrm, why did it insist I wasn't logged in the first time?)
iMac G5 = 64-bit, iMac Core Duo = 32-bit.
And to settle all the crap regarding the iMac G5 not being 64-bit:
The iMac G5 uses the same 'G5' IBM PowerPC 970 processor as in the Power Mac G5. The PowerPC 970 is 64-bit. Period. IBM doesn't make a 32-bit PowerPC 970.
But, if you need more proof, here's the Internet Archive's cache of the iMac web page soon after the iMac G5's intro.
Internet Archive Link emphasis mine
And, to top it off, if you go to Apple's G5 Processor page, you see it explicitly state 64-bit, with a link to the iMac G5 up top. (Older versions of the iMac G5's main webpage (see linked archive version above,) have a direct link to this page. Apple didn't make a big deal out of the iMac's 64-bit-ness, but they did acknowledge it.
I'm guessing that when they decided to move the iMac to the 32-bit Core Duo, they decided to completey remove all references to the 64-bitness of the iMac G5 so it wouldn't become an obvious 'downgrade'. (I mean, it already lost .1 GHz, losing half its bitness would have made it seem like too much of a 'downgrade' just when they're trying to explain why it's such a huge improvement.)
And to settle all the crap regarding the iMac G5 not being 64-bit:
The iMac G5 uses the same 'G5' IBM PowerPC 970 processor as in the Power Mac G5. The PowerPC 970 is 64-bit. Period. IBM doesn't make a 32-bit PowerPC 970.
But, if you need more proof, here's the Internet Archive's cache of the iMac web page soon after the iMac G5's intro.
Internet Archive Link emphasis mine
And, to top it off, if you go to Apple's G5 Processor page, you see it explicitly state 64-bit, with a link to the iMac G5 up top. (Older versions of the iMac G5's main webpage (see linked archive version above,) have a direct link to this page. Apple didn't make a big deal out of the iMac's 64-bit-ness, but they did acknowledge it.
I'm guessing that when they decided to move the iMac to the 32-bit Core Duo, they decided to completey remove all references to the 64-bitness of the iMac G5 so it wouldn't become an obvious 'downgrade'. (I mean, it already lost .1 GHz, losing half its bitness would have made it seem like too much of a 'downgrade' just when they're trying to explain why it's such a huge improvement.)
ehurtley said:
That's a bummer, especially since Wikipedia says thus:
And there's this from last August:
Despite those sources, the Intel page you linked specifically mentions being based on the Pentium 4-M. Damn!
what core is yohan ?
I am confussed, I have not worried about intel chips for a long time. Last time i followed intel it was 3 lines, Pentium, Pentium ii, Pentium iii, all being the same core. the Pentium pro bcame the xeon. and the 3rd line was the HP px risk which became the itinam or ix. So what is the family tree for these intel chips?
is the P4 the same as a pentium M?
does the penitum M mean mobil?
does the Pentium came from the P4, which came from the P3 ?
if so where did yohan core come from?
I very confussed, please can somebody explain all the new chips and there priors
I am confussed, I have not worried about intel chips for a long time. Last time i followed intel it was 3 lines, Pentium, Pentium ii, Pentium iii, all being the same core. the Pentium pro bcame the xeon. and the 3rd line was the HP px risk which became the itinam or ix. So what is the family tree for these intel chips?
is the P4 the same as a pentium M?
does the penitum M mean mobil?
does the Pentium came from the P4, which came from the P3 ?
if so where did yohan core come from?
I very confussed, please can somebody explain all the new chips and there priors
munkees said:
Pentium-M is descended from the Pentium 3 architecture. The M is for mobile, which means the chip is targeted for low wattage.
Yonah is an improved dual-core Pentium-M. The Pentium 4 architecture is being phased out in favor of more efficient designs like the Yonah and the future Merom/Conroe family. Intel is marketing these new chips at consumers under the Core brand.
After further reading, Sossaman is in fact based off the Yonah. The confusion seems to be that Sossaman is 64-bit, even though Intel has never stated such and all reports so far indicate that it is 32-bit. Someone probably saw the >32-bit memory addressing of Sossaman (inherited from the Pentium Pro/3 line) and got confused. Sossman is a low-power SMP version of the Yonah.
Boy am I glad I'm running PPC...
...everything is so clear-cut. I have two 970's running at 2.0GHz. I think my next mac will be a second-hand 1.67GHz G4. When the Intel Mini's come out - I'll see what the fuss is about - and possibly buy a 1.25GHz G4 mini and overclock the little ***** to 1.5GHz.
Then I'll be happy. As long as Apple support the PPC for at least like 8 years -
I'm waiting for an Anniversary Quad 3.0GHz G5.
Oh, and I don't think 64-bit Intel chips are in Apple hardware. Even IF it were - any way of getting 64-bit (for what ppl?!) will invalidate your warranties and my screw up OS X and the programs you run.
64-bit will be in Apple machines when Apple say they are. You want 64-bit so bad? Buy a G5.
...everything is so clear-cut. I have two 970's running at 2.0GHz. I think my next mac will be a second-hand 1.67GHz G4. When the Intel Mini's come out - I'll see what the fuss is about - and possibly buy a 1.25GHz G4 mini and overclock the little ***** to 1.5GHz.
Then I'll be happy. As long as Apple support the PPC for at least like 8 years -
I'm waiting for an Anniversary Quad 3.0GHz G5.
Oh, and I don't think 64-bit Intel chips are in Apple hardware. Even IF it were - any way of getting 64-bit (for what ppl?!) will invalidate your warranties and my screw up OS X and the programs you run.
64-bit will be in Apple machines when Apple say they are. You want 64-bit so bad? Buy a G5.
Doesn't really matter
Unless your software is designed to address +4GB of memory space - the feature is useless. Besides the core-duo doesn't have EM64T support. In two, three years 99% of software won't be addressing memory as large as this, besides your hardware will be redundant.
Unless your software is designed to address +4GB of memory space - the feature is useless. Besides the core-duo doesn't have EM64T support. In two, three years 99% of software won't be addressing memory as large as this, besides your hardware will be redundant.
munkees said:
Pentium: P5 core
Pentium Pro: P6 core
Pentium 2: improved P6 core with a few additions
Pentium 3: further improved P6 core with more additions, including SSE
Pentium 4: P7 ("NetBurst") core
Pentium 4m: supposedly mobile version of the Pentium 4
Pentium-M: new mobile core based loosely on the P6, with a few things borrowed from P7
CoreDuo: dual core Pentium-M with a few additions (codenamed Yonah)
Pentium-D: dual core Pentium 4
Merom (mobile)/Conroe (desktop)/Woodcrest (server): new core (P8?) with design ideas coming from both CoreDuo and the Pentium-D. Will be released later this year.
Xeon: has been a variety of cores, basically just means "the high end/server version of whatever is current for desktops"
Celeron: has been a variety of cores, basically just means "the low end/crippled version of whatever is current for desktops"
Celeron-M: mobile version of the Celeron
Pass the crow, please.
Alright. I used to work for Intel's server division. Catfish man has the list of processors right, with two minor quibbles:
Pentium-M is essentially a P6 core, only using the NetBurst-P4's bus, and with SSE2 from the P4 added. It has no 'core' pieces of NetBurst (no trace cache, and thankfully no ridiculously-long pipeline.
Celeron-M is more properly "has been a variety of cores, basically just means "the low end/crippled version of whatever is current for notebooks".. This is because the desktop Celeron-D is based on NetBurst/Pentium 4, but the mobile Celeron-M is based on P6/Pentium-M. Basically, they apply the 'Celeron' name to crippled versions of whatever is most appropriate for the use.
Crap. Intel's website is confusing. I had written the following:
Then I found this...
So Intel's PR says Sossaman is based on the "Mobile Pentium 4 Processor-M" (a.k.a NetBurst,) but Pat Gelsinger says at IDF that it is indeed based on Yonah. And a SuperMicro Press Release also calls Sossaman "The brand new 32-bit dual-core Intel Xeon LV processor with 2MB of L2 cache running at 2 GHz is based on the existing Pentium M architecture and offered power-saving features with Demand Based Switching, and Enhanced Speedstep Technology (EIST)."
So I guess someone will have to find me a plate of crow. I'm guessing that even though the Intel PR is dated LATER than the Gelsinger speech, that the PR dept was wrong, not Gelsinger.
But, it does show irrefutably that Sossaman is only 32-bit. Which means Yonah/Core Duo is still only 32-bit. (edit: Sossaman does have 36-bit memory addressing, which means that it can access more memory than a normal 32-bit chip, but it can't process 64-bit data blocks, and any given process can only address 32-bits of memory.)
Alright. I used to work for Intel's server division. Catfish man has the list of processors right, with two minor quibbles:
Pentium-M is essentially a P6 core, only using the NetBurst-P4's bus, and with SSE2 from the P4 added. It has no 'core' pieces of NetBurst (no trace cache, and thankfully no ridiculously-long pipeline.
Celeron-M is more properly "has been a variety of cores, basically just means "the low end/crippled version of whatever is current for notebooks".. This is because the desktop Celeron-D is based on NetBurst/Pentium 4, but the mobile Celeron-M is based on P6/Pentium-M. Basically, they apply the 'Celeron' name to crippled versions of whatever is most appropriate for the use.
Crap. Intel's website is confusing. I had written the following:
Then I found this...
So Intel's PR says Sossaman is based on the "Mobile Pentium 4 Processor-M" (a.k.a NetBurst,) but Pat Gelsinger says at IDF that it is indeed based on Yonah. And a SuperMicro Press Release also calls Sossaman "The brand new 32-bit dual-core Intel Xeon LV processor with 2MB of L2 cache running at 2 GHz is based on the existing Pentium M architecture and offered power-saving features with Demand Based Switching, and Enhanced Speedstep Technology (EIST)."
So I guess someone will have to find me a plate of crow. I'm guessing that even though the Intel PR is dated LATER than the Gelsinger speech, that the PR dept was wrong, not Gelsinger.
But, it does show irrefutably that Sossaman is only 32-bit. Which means Yonah/Core Duo is still only 32-bit. (edit: Sossaman does have 36-bit memory addressing, which means that it can access more memory than a normal 32-bit chip, but it can't process 64-bit data blocks, and any given process can only address 32-bits of memory.)