PDA

View Full Version : Intel Chip Delivery Moving Up?


MacRumors
Apr 28, 2006, 10:28 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The Inquirer reports (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31316) on comments by Intel CEO Paul Otellini at the financial analyst's spring meeting.

According to the article, Intel is planning on delivering Woodcrest (server) is due in June, Conroe (desktop) in July, and Merom (mobile) in August. Apple is expected to take advantage of these new processors for upcoming designs.

Beyond these expected updates, Intel is aggressively working towards future architectures:

It has large teams working on the next two microarchitectures, he said. Every two years Intel will bring out a new microarchitecture.

This year's processors will start at a 65-nm process and quickly move to 45-nm. All future processors are optimized for performance-per-watt -- one of the features that attracted Apple to Intel's processors.

Of additional interest, Intel also has over 1000 people working on next generation Handheld devices with consumer pricepoints. The goal will be an "always on" architecture consuming only 1/2 of a watt. Apple has no announced plans to again enter the handheld market, but rumors of an Apple tablet or handheld regularly recur.

TheNightPhoenix
Apr 28, 2006, 10:31 AM
Come on I want a new desktop!! Preferably with Woodcrest for all my rendering needs.

4God
Apr 28, 2006, 10:33 AM
......Intel is planning on delivering Woodcrest (server) is due in June, Conroe (desktop) in July, and Merom (mobile) in August. Apple is expected to take advantage of these new processors for upcoming designs.

Beyond these expected updates, Intel is aggressively working towards future architectures:


Could this mean the release of an Intel PowerMac this summer? It would be great to see Rev. A and B hit stores by the end of this year. :D

Kingsly
Apr 28, 2006, 10:35 AM
Imagine... a 45nm Intel core quad in the 2007 MBP's!!!

jared_kipe
Apr 28, 2006, 10:35 AM
I'll proabably get a low end intel Powermac (Macintosh?) when they come out. Don't really care which processor, as long as its wicked fast.

ImNoSuperMan
Apr 28, 2006, 10:37 AM
Imagine... a 45nm Intel core quad in the 2007 MBP's!!!
WOW. But wudn`t that make my new MBP so obsolete...

Wait..... I dont have a MBP.:o

twoodcc
Apr 28, 2006, 10:44 AM
Imagine... a 45nm Intel core quad in the 2007 MBP's!!!

i just can't imagine :eek:

ImNoSuperMan
Apr 28, 2006, 10:44 AM
According to the article, Intel is planning on delivering Woodcrest (server) is due in June, Conroe (desktop) in July, and Merom (mobile) in August.


Now I was thinking why not release the processors in reverse order. ie Merom in June,Conroe in July, Wood in Aug. Actually dont even care bout Conroe n Woodcrest. Lets get the Meroms ASAP in the MBP.

7on
Apr 28, 2006, 10:46 AM
doesn't change my plans to buy a 13" Macbook when they come out. Integrated graphics may delay me more though. Here's hoping that the $1500 level MB doesn't have integratedness :o

neutrino23
Apr 28, 2006, 10:46 AM
This is why I still use a PowerBook 100. Every time I decide to buy something word comes of something much better just a little ways off in the future.
:o

twoodcc
Apr 28, 2006, 10:47 AM
This is why I still use a PowerBook 100. Every time I decide to buy something word comes of something much better just a little ways off in the future.
:o

well then you'll just miss out on all the fun ;)

MIDI_EVIL
Apr 28, 2006, 10:50 AM
Do you really think that we'll have Intel PowerMac's / MacPro's in June?

I need to work more hours!!!

Rich.

Grimace
Apr 28, 2006, 10:52 AM
thanks for writing 'recur' instead of 'reoccur' -- that's my one grammatical pet peeve. :p

nagromme
Apr 28, 2006, 10:54 AM
I'd love to see a Woodcrest uber-tower added to make a new highest-end "workstation" model in June... with the current G5 towers lingering a little longer until Conroe can replace them.

But me WANTING woodcrest won't make it happen--and won't make it remotely affordable--so instead I'll just be glad that Conroe itself keeps moving earlier :)

Intel should really take it easy on us. All this "early" nonsense is very hard to take after being used to IBM and Motorola.

danielwsmithee
Apr 28, 2006, 10:55 AM
Now I was thinking why not release the processors in reverse order. ie Merom in June,Conroe in July, Wood in Aug. Actually dont even care bout Conroe n Woodcrest. Lets get the Meroms ASAP in the MBP. I beleive they chose the launch date primarily based upone competition. Currently Intel is loosing market share in the server market like crazy due to AMD's Opeteron offerings. The decision to release in this order makes a lot o sense for Intel. It is probably not ideal for Apple because people would buy Merom machines sooner then new workstation due to the lack of Adobe apps. In the end Intel is still going to do what is best for it's own interests.

danielwsmithee
Apr 28, 2006, 10:59 AM
Imagine... a 45nm Intel core quad in the 2007 MBP's!!!
Intel's roadmap is pretty clear through the end 2007 and they have not said anything yet about a 4-core mobile processor. The MBP will be limited to two cores until the middle of 2008 is my guess.

IJ Reilly
Apr 28, 2006, 10:59 AM
Conroe, Merom and Woodcrest.... finally, Intel is releasing an SUV, a compact sedan and a station wagon. They've been out of that market for far too long.

andiwm2003
Apr 28, 2006, 11:01 AM
does anybody see what that means? new micro architecture every two years. that means totally new macs every two years with significant upgrades every 6-12 month. not like 5 years with the G4. that also means used macs will drop in price faster, machines may be outdated sooner. and on top of that new processors are actually available. on time. or even early. in quantity. o.k. I need to calm down. i'm hyperventilating.

but seriuosly, this will change the mac landscape and the time we keep our macs a lot.

sillycybin
Apr 28, 2006, 11:02 AM
what a load of junk. i was hoping to get the new 2.2 Ghz yonahs next summer (2007) when i will be ready to make a purchase.

this quick pathway to chip advancement makes me feel all uncomfortable inside. i was way more into the static bumps in speed like in the previous decade of Mac computers.

wtf is going on here

starnox
Apr 28, 2006, 11:03 AM
Is woodcrest 65nm or 45?

MattyP
Apr 28, 2006, 11:04 AM
I wonder if they will be pin compatible with the core dou chips... It would be great to update our intel imac with a 64 bit Merom chip!

bigbossbmb
Apr 28, 2006, 11:04 AM
Imagine... a 45nm Intel core quad in the 2007 MBP's!!!

I can't wait...I'm replacing my 12" next year and this would be the thing to do it....hell, it might beat my g5 by then!

Lollypop
Apr 28, 2006, 11:04 AM
I think this is good news, the dates and the order is perfect! This way we will know very soon if woodcrest will go into the mac pro or not. And the new iMacs wont be out of date before the laptops recieve a upgrade. We can also see if the new intel achitecture is what its suppose to be or not.

On the other hand it also results in a longer waiting time for the imac and mac mini users before they can upgrade their machines to meron.. but then apple wont mind!

amberashby
Apr 28, 2006, 11:06 AM
Must resist buying a Macbook Pro till Merom.... Must resist....must resist...

Multimedia
Apr 28, 2006, 11:07 AM
How Dey Do Dat? I read that article that someone posted the link to last night before retiring this morning. And I thought to myself, how can anything run on a HALF WATT? :eek:

Multimedia
Apr 28, 2006, 11:11 AM
Imagine... a 45nm Intel core quad in the 2007 MBP's!!!I imagine two. 8-cores is what I both imagine and expect from two Quad Core Cloverton processors in the top Mac a year from now released at NAB 2007. :) But not in the MBP.

SF MacWorld Expo 2008 SteveNote: The Leopard Tigerton 16 Core Mac. :eek:

Thank you for correcting me danielwsmithee. Excellent post #48. Thanks again.

Peace
Apr 28, 2006, 11:14 AM
I wonder if they will be pin compatible with the core dou chips... It would be great to update our intel imac with a 64 bit Merom chip!


correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Merom chip is pin compatable with the Core-Duo.

danielwsmithee
Apr 28, 2006, 11:15 AM
On the other hand it also results in a longer waiting time for the imac and mac mini users before they can upgrade their machines to meron.. but then apple wont mind!True for the mini but the iMac will use Conroe.

milo
Apr 28, 2006, 11:16 AM
Imagine... a 45nm Intel core quad in the 2007 MBP's!!!

Will there be such a thing, or are you imagining? This article doesn't go into any specifics on the chips.

Now I was thinking why not release the processors in reverse order. ie Merom in June,Conroe in July, Wood in Aug. Actually dont even care bout Conroe n Woodcrest. Lets get the Meroms ASAP in the MBP.

Why? Core duo just came out. Makes more sense to upgrade the ones that are most out of date first (server chips).

danielwsmithee
Apr 28, 2006, 11:17 AM
I imagine two. 8-cores is what I both imagine and expect from two Quad Core Kentsfield processors in the top Mac a year from now released at NAB 2007. :)Kenstsfield does not support dual processor configurations, Cloverton will, and Tigerton will support MP cofigurations.

amac4me
Apr 28, 2006, 11:17 AM
With Intel pushing forward with chip updates, I expect Apple to update their Macs on a more frequent basis. No longer will Apple be at the mercy of slow PowerPC updates.

Although the move to Intel was driven by the "performance-per-watt" argument put forth by Jobs, my view is that Apple's goal was to Four fold:

1. "performance-per-watt"
2. More updates More frequently
3. Lower prices for chips which will bring down the cost of Macs (we've already seen this)
4. Leverage the Intel brand and integrate Intel technology into future Apple products

MattyP
Apr 28, 2006, 11:17 AM
Must resist buying a Macbook Pro till Merom.... Must resist....must resist...

Amen to that! ...and a socket mounted cpu PLEASE!

MattyP
Apr 28, 2006, 11:20 AM
correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Merom chip is pin compatable with the Core-Duo.

Mwa ha ha! I hope so! With all of these processor updates Apple needs to keep their machines upgradable...

milo
Apr 28, 2006, 11:21 AM
what a load of junk. i was hoping to get the new 2.2 Ghz yonahs next summer (2007) when i will be ready to make a purchase.

this quick pathway to chip advancement makes me feel all uncomfortable inside. i was way more into the static bumps in speed like in the previous decade of Mac computers.

wtf is going on here

Good=bad.

That's awesome.

correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the Merom chip is pin compatable with the Core-Duo.

It absolutely is. Someone's even tested and swapped a Merom into a mini, worked fine.

True for the mini but the iMac will use Conroe.

It's all speculation at this point. We really don't know what will be in the iMac, it's an oddball machine.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a socketed chip in any mac laptops, just takes up too much space.

Fabio_gsilva
Apr 28, 2006, 11:27 AM
Imagine... a 45nm Intel core quad in the 2007 MBP's!!!

Bah! What for? :p

I'd rather the 3 ghz G5!!! ;)

rxse7en
Apr 28, 2006, 11:35 AM
Anyone have any idea if the Merom-based 'books will have mobos and chipsets that are different than Yonah? I understand that Merom is a direct swap, but being the hardware layman that I am, I would like to know if a faster/64-bit/proc swappable board would be in the works too. Or do you think Apple would just plop the Meroms into Yonah boards for Rev. A Merom 'books?

I wish I was a fly on the wall at Apple labs now--watching them play with those soon-to-be-released Merom 'books!

Thanks for your replies,

B

milo
Apr 28, 2006, 11:37 AM
Anyone have any idea if the Merom-based 'books will have mobos and chipsets that are different than Yonah? I understand that Merom is a direct swap, but being the hardware layman that I am, I would like to know if a faster/64-bit/proc swappable board would be in the works too. Or do you think Apple would just plop the Meroms into Yonah boards for Rev. A Merom 'books?

I wish I was a fly on the wall at Apple labs now--watching them play with those soon-to-be-released Merom 'books!

Intel's announced plan is that they will initially release Merom on existing mobos, then release new ones later with better Merom support. I don't think anyone will have Merom-specific mobos ready at the time of Merom release.

MrCrowbar
Apr 28, 2006, 11:37 AM
I wonder if they will be pin compatible with the core dou chips... It would be great to update our intel imac with a 64 bit Merom chip!

Yes, Merom is pin compatiblw woth Yonah (Core Duo). There was this guy who put a pre-release Merom into his Mac Mini and it worked fine (was recognized by the system as Merom and no overheating). So you will be able to upgrade your iMac Core Duo to an iMac Merom as long as you get into the iMac's guts. That's the most difficult part actually, you really have to take everything out to get to the CPU and may void your guarantee... :(

asencif
Apr 28, 2006, 11:39 AM
Well a 2 year major microarchitecture change is not that bad, however the Yonah chips appear to be the ones to absolutely have the shortest life. Stop gap chip is all it was as Merom will hit in August which is actually still pretty soon. I see the Mac Mini and Macbooks probably still going with Yonah, but I hope Apple just switched entirely to Merom when it's out. It's the true laptop/compact desktop chip that will carry for two years. I would advice anyone to wait on buying an Intel Mac until Merom is out as it will last 2-2 and a half years.

For the desktops is hard to say....I would hope Apple goes straight to Woodcrest for the next PM's as we can have a Quad with the configuration. Let the iMac use Conroe instead. Then Spring next year we can have Kentsfield.

Super Dave
Apr 28, 2006, 11:50 AM
Intel should really take it easy on us. All this "early" nonsense is very hard to take after being used to IBM and Motorola.

Word. And Apple released the intel macs "early" too. Are they getting my hopes up just to dash them later?

David:cool:

MrCrowbar
Apr 28, 2006, 11:54 AM
But... but... I just got my iMac! :mad: :p
Like they say, buy the newest thing and it's already obsolete when you turn it on. Oh well, I don't care for now. I think I will swap the Core Duo for a high end Merom in a year when my guarantee runs out. At least I got a Mac now. Think I'll wait for Merom to buy a portable beacause 5 hours of battery is what I need.

But I's true that the Mac community is not used to such quick updates. We're all getting older and someday we won't understand the world at all. Get used to things changing so fast. Imagine Mac OS XI, we will have to port alle the OSX software to OS XI or use an emulator (classic). It never stops! :eek: It's getting even faster actually.

nagromme
Apr 28, 2006, 11:58 AM
Must resist buying a Macbook Pro till Merom.... Must resist....must resist...
The elephant in the room:

If you wait for Merom, you'll be in the same boat as Yonah buyers are today: something new will be coming in less than a year. Not a whole new chip design, but better and faster Meroms.

There's always something better coming--that won't change by waiting for Merom. When you need to buy, buy... but if you don't need to, then wait like me :)


It never stops! :eek: It's getting even faster actually.
That it is :)

Marx55
Apr 28, 2006, 12:01 PM
Apple should build a handheld capable of booting Mac OS X (mobile, as Windows mobile). That will be the ultimate presentation tool:

1. Make the presentation on Mac or PC using Keynote or PowerPoint.

2. Transfer it to the Apple wireless handheld.

3.-Use the wireless handheld as a remote control to give the presentation from it via a wireless videoprojector. No cables involved. No computers involved.

Apple will sell millions to corporate, educational and domestic market. It will have a huge halo effect.

elfurbe
Apr 28, 2006, 12:12 PM
In case any of you were curious about what you can expect performance-wise from the next generation, I submit Anand's preview:
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713

The performance looks to be stellar. I would imagine these will make it into the G5 replacements with the server chips just going to the servers. Unlike PowerPC-land, x86 has more options. Where Apple was shoehorning the same chip into multiple duties before, now they'll have a proper range to choose from. No more trying to cram G5s into everything.

As for the iMac moving to Conroe, I'd imagine they'll probably just move to Merom and keep it on the mobile platform. With it being pin-compatible, it's a no-brainier. Lower power consumption/heat generation and more aggressive power management are beneficial in a form factor like the iMac, and there's virtually no trade off in features. The only performance benefit of the Conroe platform will be DDR2-800, which is pretty much unnecessary in an iMac, and the bus speed increases. Strapping a G5 in there before was a measure of necessity, not of desire. I mean, the current Yonah-based iMac is already a beast. I've done some H.264 (using multi-threaded x264) encoding tests comparing the 20" to a Quad-core G5 and the Quad-core is only just faster, coming in around 7fps ahead on 480p content. That's pretty outstanding already, and the Merom is promising a 20% increase in performance at the same TDP. Why migrate to Conroe for comparably minor performance benefits, especially in the consumer line?

Oh, and for you that just bought your Core-based iMacs/Mac Minis, you can swap a Merom in at your leisure... They're both socketed and the Merom will jack right in there and give you all the tangible benefits. All you'll need is a little moxy and some familiarity with installing a heatsink properly. :D

BornAgainMac
Apr 28, 2006, 12:13 PM
I'll upgrade my MBP when I can get another 4x to 5x improvement again. It really beats those 5% performance increases of the past. I am Apple switched to Intel and Intel isn't a dead end.

boncellis
Apr 28, 2006, 12:17 PM
...Intel should really take it easy on us. All this "early" nonsense is very hard to take after being used to IBM and Motorola.

Lol. I feel exactly the same way. I read the article after you linked to it in the other thread and immediately started to worry for my future employment status knowing how much MR surfing I would be obliged to do in coming years.

With so many processors in the pipeline, I really wonder if Apple can take advantage of them all with their current product lineup.

durvivor
Apr 28, 2006, 12:20 PM
I have been confused about the difference between the Yonah the MBP's are using and Merom. So, I did some reading at Wikipedia and this is the primary (human language) difference I found.

Yonah is a 65nm chip that is a decendent of Pentium M.
Merom is a 65nm chip that has been designed from the ground up.

Do I have it (highly simplified) right?

danielwsmithee
Apr 28, 2006, 12:24 PM
For the desktops is hard to say....I would hope Apple goes straight to Woodcrest for the next PM's as we can have a Quad with the configuration. Let the iMac use Conroe instead. Then Spring next year we can have Kentsfield.In spring 2007 Kentsfield will be used in the lower end Mac Pro that only contain one socket (i.e. 4 cores). The higher end Mac Pro will use dual Clovertons (i.e. 8 cores :D ) then later towards the end of 2007 4 Tigertons (i.e. 16 cores :eek: ). Here is some info from a prvious thread I found useful.

Conroe
To make things clear "Conroe" will not be able to be used in a Dual or Multi-processor configuration. Conroe is limited to ONE cpu with TWO cores.

Woodcrest
Woodcrest is the designation for the chip that is capable of a Dual-processor configuration, but is not capable of running in a multi-processor configuration. So the limit is TWO cpu's for a total of FOUR cores.

Kentsfield
Kentsfield is two dual-core CPUs in a single housing, but is not capable of Dual processor or mult-processor configuration so it is limited to FOUR cores. It will drive down the price of a quad machine. Intel has only said first quarter 2007.

Sossaman
I believe this is the most likely choice for the future Xserves due to it's low power consumption and small thermal footprint. It is a Core Duo except it is capable of being placed in a dual-processor configuration.

Cloverton
This is a quad core processor capable of a dual-processor configuration to make EIGHT total cores. Last stated to be available first quarter 2007. Until then we will not see an 8-core Mac Pro.

Tigerton
This is the same as Cloverton except it can be placed in a multi-processor configuration. Giving you the ability to have four Tigerton CPU's or 16 cores. This will not be available until later in 2007.

Merom
This is Conroe but targeted at the mobile market.

boncellis
Apr 28, 2006, 12:26 PM
I have been confused about the difference between the Yonah the MBP's are using and Merom. So, I did some reading at Wikipedia and this is the primary (human language) difference I found.

Yonah is a 65nm chip that is a decendent of Pentium M.
Merom is a 65nm chip that has been designed from the ground up.

Do I have it (highly simplified) right?

That is correct, Merom is the mobile (low voltage) counterpart to the Conroe processor, both of which are 64 bit whereas Yonah is 32 bit.

Play Ultimate
Apr 28, 2006, 12:26 PM
Must resist buying a Macbook Pro till Merom.... Must resist....must resist...

ditto...I'm just trying to hold on until Jan. '07 and move from 10.3.9 to 10.5

(skipping 10.4(dashboard) since we STILL can't get DSL/Cable at the house and I'm unwilling to shell out $100/mo for so-so speed satellite.)

combatcolin
Apr 28, 2006, 12:26 PM
With Intel pushing forward with chip updates, I expect Apple to update their Macs on a more frequent basis. No longer will Apple be at the mercy of slow PowerPC updates.

Although the move to Intel was driven by the "performance-per-watt" argument put forth by Jobs, my view is that Apple's goal was to Four fold:

1. "performance-per-watt"
2. More updates More frequently
3. Lower prices for chips which will bring down the cost of Macs (we've already seen this)
4. Leverage the Intel brand and integrate Intel technology into future Apple products

Strongly agree with 1 and 2, evidence we have seen already. (MBP clock speed suddenly increased)

3 i would like to agree on, but i think the best we can hope for is that established prices don't increase much. EG, 1400 for the entry level Powermac.

4 im not bothered by as long as THAT bloody sticker comes no-where close to my future Intel Powermac.

MrCrowbar
Apr 28, 2006, 12:29 PM
As many people around here show interest in upgrading their iMacs to Merom someday, here's how you'd have to do it:

Remove the front (watch out for the iSight cables). That's already tricky.
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/%7ekodawarisan/imac_intel/0114103.jpg

Remove the display to get to the guts:
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/%7ekodawarisan/imac_intel/0114120.gif

Remove the CPU cooling block:
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imac_intel/01141122.jpg
(back)
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imac_intel/01141112.jpg
(front)

Pull out the Core Duo:
http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawarisan/imac_intel/01141082.jpg


Then reassemble the whole thing. I didn't open my iMac, I took the pics from http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/%7ekodawarisan/imac_intel/imac_intel01.html. Cooling shouldn't be a problem since Merom is cooler than Yonah. It may be troublesome if you go for a 3GHz Merom or anything but I guess the fans will just be on a bit more.

weitzner
Apr 28, 2006, 12:29 PM
Bring on the Mac Pro! So it seems like the entire line up could be transitioned before WWDC... which would mean that maybe they plan on mainly focusing on Leopard?

BurtonCCC
Apr 28, 2006, 12:33 PM
Even if Merom comes out in August, how long do you think it will be until we have a Merom MacBook Pro.

I'm in the same boat of waiting to buy a 17" MBP.

Daniel.

nagromme
Apr 28, 2006, 12:34 PM
I have been confused about the difference between the Yonah the MBP's are using and Merom. So, I did some reading at Wikipedia and this is the primary (human language) difference I found.

Yonah is a 65nm chip that is a decendent of Pentium M.
Merom is a 65nm chip that has been designed from the ground up.

Do I have it (highly simplified) right?
Pretty close. But Merom is still descended from Yonah, despite being a new design. (And note that Pentium M is NOT descended from the Pentium 4. Pentium M was the start of Intel's new direction.)

And the obvious difference with Merom vs. Yonah: Merom is 64-bit.

boncellis
Apr 28, 2006, 12:36 PM
...For the desktops is hard to say....I would hope Apple goes straight to Woodcrest for the next PM's as we can have a Quad with the configuration. Let the iMac use Conroe instead. Then Spring next year we can have Kentsfield.

This is a running debate around here. A few people agree with you, that Conroe will not be in the PowerMac replacement, but others think that the Pro desktop will have both Conroe and Woodcrest at different price intervals.

I suppose it's hard to change the thought process of "G4<G5" but there's nothing that says Apple can't use both processors in the same line. The iMac presents another question, is it using a mobile processor because of the low voltage properties or just because it beat the previous G5 configuration it had? I can see it happening either way--and either way it's going to be pretty dang cool. ;)

Play Ultimate
Apr 28, 2006, 12:41 PM
Although the move to Intel was driven by the "performance-per-watt" argument put forth by Jobs, my view is that Apple's goal was to Four fold:

2. More updates More frequently


Otherwise known as More Sales.

A friend and I argued that one (only one of many) of the reasons that Microsoft caught on was the way hardware and software pushed each other in the marketplace. First, Intel would come out with a new chip & Dell et. al. would come out with a new computer. Microsoft would come out with new software that would require that lastest and greatest. Everybody upgrades, everybody makes money. Apple on the other had released things much slower. Thus the Microsoft/Intel environment was a more disposable one with more repeat business. Apple on the other hand enabled, even now, older hardware to run the latest software. Thus less disposability and fewer repeat sales.

dongmin
Apr 28, 2006, 12:47 PM
As many people around here show interest in upgrading their iMacs to Merom someday, here's how you'd have to do it:You missed the small detail of the CPUs being soldered onto the mobo. Only the Minis are on a socket.

With Intel pushing forward with chip updates, I expect Apple to update their Macs on a more frequent basis.It's already happening. Remember how Apple uppped the speed on the MBPs before they shipped them.

MrCrowbar
Apr 28, 2006, 12:50 PM
[QUOTE=dongmin]You missed the small detail of the CPUs being soldered onto the mobo. Only the Minis are on a socket.

w00t? :confused: :eek:
Really? damn... :mad:

freeny
Apr 28, 2006, 12:52 PM
How Dey Do Dat? I read that article that someone posted the link to last night before retiring this morning. And I thought to myself, how can anything run on a HALF WATT? :eek:
I believe this would only be in the sleep mode.

DavidCar
Apr 28, 2006, 12:54 PM
Do you really think that we'll have Intel PowerMac's / MacPro's in June?

I need to work more hours!!!

Rich.Since all the computer companies have equal access to the same chips (I assume), then I expect Apple will want to be among the first to use the latest and greatest chips. I saw some speculation that HP would release a dual Woodcrest machine in June, so I expect Apple would want to do the same, if possible.

I also expect that when the dual Woodcrest machines are demoed, they will also be demoed with Clovertown chips just to show what the machines will be able to do with eight cores around Christmastime. Intel wants to speed up delivery of Clovertown for the same reasons it wants to speed up Woodcrest.

Roller
Apr 28, 2006, 12:54 PM
does anybody see what that means? new micro architecture every two years. that means totally new macs every two years with significant upgrades every 6-12 month. not like 5 years with the G4. that also means used macs will drop in price faster, machines may be outdated sooner. and on top of that new processors are actually available. on time. or even early. in quantity. o.k. I need to calm down. i'm hyperventilating.

but seriuosly, this will change the mac landscape and the time we keep our macs a lot.

It depends by what you mean by outdated: The Mac you buy today is no less useful to you just because a faster machine comes out tomorrow, although it certainly depreciates faster, as you say.

Apple never seemed to gain market share based on the fact that Macs tended to have longer useful lives than Windows PCs. With more frequent updates in the Intel era, though, they're betting that Mac users will want to buy new computers more often.

One thing I haven't seen discussed much lately is the possibility of running OS X on non-Apple Intel boxes. That would affect Mac sales, unless Apple implements online validation or licenses the OS, which isn't likely to happen.

shelterpaw
Apr 28, 2006, 01:00 PM
Imagine... a 45nm Intel core quad in the 2007 MBP's!!!
Quad is so old school. At least an 8-way mulitiprocessor. :p

amberashby
Apr 28, 2006, 01:13 PM
[QUOTE=dongmin]You missed the small detail of the CPUs being soldered onto the mobo. Only the Minis are on a socket.

Not according to arstechnica

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/1/15/2521

MrCrowbar
Apr 28, 2006, 01:16 PM
[QUOTE=dongmin]You missed the small detail of the CPUs being soldered onto the mobo. Only the Minis are on a socket.

Not according to arstechnica

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/1/15/2521

So it's socketed as I say, right?

amberashby
Apr 28, 2006, 01:17 PM
[QUOTE=amberashby]

So it's socketed as I say, right?


According to that article.

DavidCar
Apr 28, 2006, 01:17 PM
Kentsfield
Kentsfield is two dual-core CPUs in a single housing, but is not capable of Dual processor or mult-processor configuration so it is limited to FOUR cores. It will drive down the price of a quad machine. Intel has only said first quarter 2007.



You can add another name to your list. The inquirer is claiming that a true four core Kentsfield in 45nm will be called Bloomsfield. No expected dates given, and no source for their information.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31323

danielwsmithee
Apr 28, 2006, 01:26 PM
You can add another name to your list. The inquirer is claiming that a true four core Kentsfield in 45nm will be called Bloomsfield. No expected dates given, and no source for their information.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31323I got all of my information from an intel paper here:
intel decoder ring (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/events/idfspr_2006/20060313_multicore_fact_sheet_decoder.pdf)
It sound like Bloomsfield is going to be later then any of these processors since all of these will start with the 65 nm process and are split dual-core dies.

T'hain Esh Kelch
Apr 28, 2006, 01:30 PM
Woodcrest
Woodcrest is the designation for the chip that is capable of a Dual-processor configuration, but is not capable of running in a multi-processor configuration. So the limit is TWO cpu's for a total of FOUR cores.
I could swear I read somewhere that Woodcrest would support 4 cores eventually, not long after its release?

adamfilip
Apr 28, 2006, 01:32 PM
a Dual Dual core Woodcrest PowerMac would be great
if its fast enough, running photoshop in rosetta might still be faster then a dual 2.0 G5 now.

so that would be fine. for most users. and they will get a good speed bump once adobe released universal versions

ksz
Apr 28, 2006, 01:37 PM
In case any of you were curious about what you can expect performance-wise from the next generation, I submit Anand's preview:
http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713

The performance looks to be stellar. ...
Exactly. The projected performance of Woodcrest looks to be stellar. Intel claims 80% improvement over a dual-core 2.8 GHz Xeon.

Conroe will perform 40% better than a Pentium D950 (3.4 GHz).

A new PowerfulMac with Woodcrest in July would be exciting.

milo
Apr 28, 2006, 01:37 PM
You missed the small detail of the CPUs being soldered onto the mobo. Only the Minis are on a socket.

Not true. Mini and iMac both are socketed, MBP is soldered. Someone swapped the CPU of an iMac way back in January.


In spring 2007 Kentsfield will be used in the lower end Mac Pro that only contain one socket (i.e. 4 cores). The higher end Mac Pro will use dual Clovertons (i.e. 8 cores :D ) then later towards the end of 2007 4 Tigertons (i.e. 16 cores :eek: ). Here is some info from a prvious thread I found useful.


Thanks for the list, this all gets pretty confusing. My follow up question to that is, I wonder what the socket compatibility will be between all those different chips.

Conroe->kentsfield->cloverton??

nagromme
Apr 28, 2006, 01:58 PM
a Dual Dual core Woodcrest PowerMac would be great
if its fast enough, running photoshop in rosetta might still be faster then a dual 2.0 G5 now.

so that would be fine. for most users. and they will get a good speed bump once adobe released universal versions
I don't know that quad cores will help much--you get diminishing returns. But Conroe should certainly run Rosetta faster than Yonah!

And that WILL be "good enough" for a lot of people, knowing they can be productive with the verison of PShop they already own, while enjoying the full speed for other apps... and then in less than a year, Photoshop CS 3 will blow Rosetta PShop out of the water.

I use PShop daily, but that's good enough for me.

It's not good enough if:

* You don't have other apps you want that ARE native.

* Your PShop files are big enough and complex enough that only a recent top-end machine (a G5, say) is tolerable.

* You replace your machine so quickly that the future doesn't matter as much as the now.

For those situations, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple keeps selling G5 models alongside the Conroe towers. And not just to use up supply--they could keep making them as long as there's demand.

mutantteenager
Apr 28, 2006, 02:00 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The Inquirer reports (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31316) on comments by Intel CEO Paul Otellini at the financial analyst's spring meeting.

According to the article, Intel is planning on delivering Woodcrest (server) is due in June, Conroe (desktop) in July, and Merom (mobile) in August. Apple is expected to take advantage of these new processors for upcoming designs.

Beyond these expected updates, Intel is aggressively working towards future architectures:



This year's processors will start at a 65-nm process and quickly move to 45-nm. All future processors are optimized for performance-per-watt -- one of the features that attracted Apple to Intel's processors.

Of additional interest, Intel also has over 1000 people working on next generation Handheld devices with consumer pricepoints. The goal will be an "always on" architecture consuming only 1/2 of a watt. Apple has no announced plans to again enter the handheld market, but rumors of an Apple tablet or handheld regularly recur.

With the fevour over what new processors are in the pipeline (ding-dong, moonbeam, and shangri-la), is anyone likely to buy any Apple computer, considering the next one is going to outperform the one you just bought by 5x, because it's core is in the gigawatt?

The Mac community is set to become just as boring as the Windows one.

Bring back those G4's which seem to only be upgraded every century, with only Mac OS X being upgraded to be the 'best ever' every 10 minutes, ah back in the day!

daveL
Apr 28, 2006, 02:07 PM
Anyone have any idea if the Merom-based 'books will have mobos and chipsets that are different than Yonah? I understand that Merom is a direct swap, but being the hardware layman that I am, I would like to know if a faster/64-bit/proc swappable board would be in the works too. Or do you think Apple would just plop the Meroms into Yonah boards for Rev. A Merom 'books?

I wish I was a fly on the wall at Apple labs now--watching them play with those soon-to-be-released Merom 'books!

Thanks for your replies,

B
The Yonah chipset (Napa) will be "refreshed" for Merom. It will have a more efficient memory interface. Then in early 2007, the Santa Rosa chipset, which optimized for Merom, will be introduced.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2715&p=2

Photorun
Apr 28, 2006, 02:10 PM
Imagine... a 45nm Intel core quad in the 2007 MBP's!!!

Um, yeah, with a 15 minute battery life and a side burner with rollers to keep hot dogs warm.:rolleyes:

Photorun
Apr 28, 2006, 02:14 PM
[QUOTE=amberashby]

So it's socketed as I say, right?

If this means one could upgrade their current MBP... THIS WOULD BE HUGE!!! :eek:

MrCrowbar
Apr 28, 2006, 02:21 PM
[QUOTE=MrCrowbar]

If this means one could upgrade their current MBP... THIS WOULD BE HUGE!!! :eek:

You could if you're wery good at soldering. The CPU is soldered on in the MBP.

amberashby
Apr 28, 2006, 02:23 PM
[QUOTE=MrCrowbar]

If this means one could upgrade their current MBP... THIS WOULD BE HUGE!!! :eek:


I was referring to the iMac.

crainial
Apr 28, 2006, 02:26 PM
I will, and am ready to wait out for the new Intel Procs that are true 64bit. OSX is a 64bit OS and to take advantage of it I can wait. Now that Intel is copying AMD64, it will be much better that Intel's EM64T, which sucked. The MacPro/Intel PowerMac would have been at a disadvantge if it used current 32bit Intel procs, or EM64T technology. One caveat is that with Intel rushing out Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest, is the tech behind it complete? I worry that it will be like the original Pentium all over again. All to play catch up with AMD?

milo
Apr 28, 2006, 02:30 PM
[QUOTE=MrCrowbar]

If this means one could upgrade their current MBP... THIS WOULD BE HUGE!!! :eek:

Nope. That comment was talking about the iMac. The MPB is soldered.

ksz
Apr 28, 2006, 02:35 PM
With the fevour over what new processors are in the pipeline (ding-dong, moonbeam, and shangri-la), is anyone likely to buy any Apple computer, considering the next one is going to outperform the one you just bought by 5x, because it's core is in the gigawatt?
If succeeding processors are pin-for-pin compatible and Apple provides a socketed processor a la iMac and Mac mini, then it makes the whole proposition much more enticing. When was the last time you could swap out a processor on an Apple motherboard?

Of course, Intel will only be able to maintain backwards compatibility for a short time, but that window of opportunity prolongs the perceived lifespan of the computer.

milo
Apr 28, 2006, 02:41 PM
I will, and am ready to wait out for the new Intel Procs that are true 64bit. OSX is a 64bit OS and to take advantage of it I can wait.

Actually OSX is not a 64 bit OS. Most apps can't use 64 bit functionality without hacks and kludging. That's why the vast majority of OSX apps can't access more than 4 gigs of ram.

64 bit hardware is nice but doesn't give you much if the software doesn't use it. That's the case with the G5's, the hardware isn't being used to its fullest potential and at this point I doubt apple will ever make the updates to the PPC version of the OS.

regre7
Apr 28, 2006, 02:45 PM
Please excuse my ignorance, but what do the 65nm and 45nm processes mean? What do they refer to? I get that 45nm is somehow better than 65nm, but I'm a bit in the dark.

And I would love it if I could swap out the processor on the iMac that I might buy after WWDC (just incase Jobs announces a transition to AMD or something drastic like that). Either than or a MBP, which *tear* can't be upgraded.

excalibur313
Apr 28, 2006, 02:49 PM
Please excuse my ignorance, but what do the 65nm and 45nm processes mean? What do they refer to? I get that 45nm is somehow better than 65nm, but I'm a bit in the dark.

And I would love it if I could swap out the processor on the iMac that I might buy after WWDC (just incase Jobs announces a transition to AMD or something drastic like that). Either than or a MBP, which *tear* can't be upgraded.

It is the size of the processor. Smaller size generally means less power usage and more stuff crammed in the same spot.

danielwsmithee
Apr 28, 2006, 02:51 PM
Please excuse my ignorance, but what do the 65nm and 45nm processes mean? What do they refer to? I get that 45nm is somehow better than 65nm, but I'm a bit in the dark.It deals with the size of the actual silicon used to lay out the processor. By decreasing the to 45nm you do a few things. 1) Decrease power consumption, 2) Increase clock speeds, 3) Increase the number of dies (processors) that can be fabricated on one wafer, which means your production increases and the cost decreases.

danielwsmithee
Apr 28, 2006, 02:59 PM
Thanks for the list, this all gets pretty confusing. My follow up question to that is, I wonder what the socket compatibility will be between all those different chips.

Conroe->kentsfield->cloverton??I don't think that anyone outside of intel or under an NDA knows the answer to that yet... I would suspect though that there will not be pin compatibility across processors that add DP or MP support, as that will add aditional pins to support those features. There may be between for example conroe->kentsfield (both processors for Single Socket mother boards), or woodcrest->cloverton (both processors for DP configurations).

heisetax
Apr 28, 2006, 03:05 PM
With Intel pushing forward with chip updates, I expect Apple to update their Macs on a more frequent basis. No longer will Apple be at the mercy of slow PowerPC updates.

Although the move to Intel was driven by the "performance-per-watt" argument put forth by Jobs, my view is that Apple's goal was to Four fold:

1. "performance-per-watt"
2. More updates More frequently
3. Lower prices for chips which will bring down the cost of Macs (we've already seen this)
4. Leverage the Intel brand and integrate Intel technology into future Apple products


I thought that all of the prices have increased. The Mac Minis are up a $100 or more. The MacBook 15" SemiPro & 17" MacBook Pro are up $300. That sounds like Intel has added to the price of the Macs. This is what has been expected by me.

Bill the TaxMan

rxse7en
Apr 28, 2006, 03:08 PM
The Yonah chipset (Napa) will be "refreshed" for Merom. It will have a more efficient memory interface. Then in early 2007, the Santa Rosa chipset, which optimized for Merom, will be introduced.

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2715&p=2

Thanks Dave. Ya know, I read that article a while back and was too interested in the Merom gains and didn't even catch the mobo changes. Soooo, a faster FSB will also increase the number crunching--we may be looking at 30-40% gains with Merom + Santa Rosa. I was always a hardcore PPC advocate, but the excitement that Intel has brought to our platform has replaced my disappointment in the Power PC's demise. Intel + Apple are delivering on their promise--at least in my eyes.

B

paradillon
Apr 28, 2006, 03:08 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The Inquirer reports (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31316) Of additional interest, Intel also has over 1000 people working on next generation Handheld devices with consumer pricepoints. The goal will be an "always on" architecture consuming only 1/2 of a watt. Apple has no announced plans to again enter the handheld market, but rumors of an Apple tablet or handheld regularly recur.

This makes me think back to SJ comments from the intel announcement keynote. He spoke of having to make the transition to intel because their road map was the only way to get to the future products that apple wants to bring to the market. I interpreted that to not be limited to the desktop or laptop computer line. I think this would play into those comments well for portable devices from apple.

ksz
Apr 28, 2006, 03:22 PM
Please excuse my ignorance, but what do the 65nm and 45nm processes mean? What do they refer to? I get that 45nm is somehow better than 65nm, but I'm a bit in the dark.

And I would love it if I could swap out the processor on the iMac that I might buy after WWDC (just incase Jobs announces a transition to AMD or something drastic like that). Either than or a MBP, which *tear* can't be upgraded.
If you look at the surface of a computer motherboard or any other printed circuit board, you will see thin lines running from the output pin of one component (chip, resistor, capacitor, etc.) to the input pin of another component. The lines are the wires that connect components together. Although they look thin, they have a definite width and a minimum spacing between them.

Now when you look at a highly magnified view of the surface of a chip, you see a very similar thing. The "components" of a chip are the transistors and they are etched into the substrate of the wafer. All the transistors are laid out first on one and only one layer. This is called the "front end" of the manufacturing process. Next, the transistors have to be connected to each other. Because there are so many transistors and they are all on one layer, there isn't enough space on one layer to connect them all. So the "wires" are built on several layers on top of the buried transistors.

One layer of wires makes one set of connections. Another layer of wires makes another set of connections. Wires can tunnel through layers by virtue of small holes drilled between layers. These holes are called "vias". So a wire goes from one layer to another layer via the hole between the layers.

All of the wiring is layered on top of the transistors. This is called the "back end" of the manufacturing process. Much of the development cost of a chip comes from the Number of Layers because each layer needs its own "reticle" or lithography glass plate. Reticles (or masks) have soared in price to between half-million to a million dollars each.

The wires (in the back-end layers of a chip) have a minimum width and a minimum spacing between them. If the minimum width and space are 65nm, we say that the chip is a 65nm design. If the min width and space are 45nm, we say it's a 45nm design. Going from 65nm to 45nm takes a lot more than merely scaling (demagnifying) the design! It often takes new materials and new processing techniques to deal with the increases in lithography difficulty, increases in electrical parasitics (such as heat density, leakage current, stray capacitance), and increases in the fragility of the printed pattern.

Nevertheless, the combination of new materials, new processing techniques, and smaller dimensions leads to a faster and cooler chip, one that operates on lower voltage (less power).

Finally, you might wonder how the industry picks the minimum width/space. For example, the industry went from 180nm to 130nm to 90nm to 65nm to 45nm. The answer is that the industry strives to halve the area of a chip with each successive generation. If you start with a 1 micron x 1 micron square and you want to reduce the area by one-half, you must multiply each side of the square by 0.707 (square root of 1/2). If you do this several times, you get the following (in nanometers or 1/1000th of a micron) -- this is "classical scaling":

1000.00 (1 micron square)
707.11 (.7 micron)
500.00 (half micron)
353.55
250.00 (quarter micron)
176.78 (rounded to 180nm)
125.00 (rounded to 130nm)
88.39 (rounded to 90nm) <--- currently in widespread use
62.50 (rounded to 65nm) <--- current state-of-the-art; Intel Yonah
44.19 (rounded to 45nm) <--- next generation Intel processors
31.25 (rounded to 32nm)
22.10 (rounded to 22nm)
15.63
11.05 <-- classical scaling may stop here

milo
Apr 28, 2006, 03:31 PM
I thought that all of the prices have increased. The Mac Minis are up a $100 or more. The MacBook 15" SemiPro & 17" MacBook Pro are up $300. That sounds like Intel has added to the price of the Macs. This is what has been expected by me.

The 15 is the same price, it was $1999 before and is still $1999. I'm not sure why so many people have that misconception.

The others are more expensive although in some cases they're comparable or a better deal when you BTO the previous versions to be more comparable to the ones shipping (add BT and airport to base mini).

regre7
Apr 28, 2006, 03:33 PM
Thanks ksz, that really helped. Maybe I'll actually be able to contribute with a bit of informed opinion now.

ksz
Apr 28, 2006, 03:43 PM
Thanks ksz, that really helped. Maybe I'll actually be able to contribute with a bit of informed opinion now.
Glad to help. :)

ntsapp3
Apr 28, 2006, 03:44 PM
.

deadturtle
Apr 28, 2006, 03:45 PM
Hmmm think about it this way... a half watt processor 500 - 600 mhz range, coupled with a low voltage codec = apple has an ipod that runs just about all week before needing recharge....

that being said a 1/2 watt processor would also make an awsome always on media device, 600mhz would run linux just ducky, or some kind of embedded OS (does apple have an embedded OS group?) Interesting thought!

Or maybe just maybe they really cram some technology in there and get it all the way up to 700mhz pushing the wattage barrier but its been a while since I had to compute core voltage consumptions... but still 700mhz intel class chip with a gig of ram would run OSX... stuff it all in a waffer thin case and you've got the eBook, slap an eink display on the front... you could blue tooth to your phone, get the NYTIMES page, download it to the eInk buffer, turn off OSX and read the news on your way into work... all week... on a single charge!

Ok I need to turn my brain off now...

milo
Apr 28, 2006, 03:46 PM
Someone please clarify : does this means that Merom MBP will be out in August?

Nope, just that maybe it *could* be out in august. We're all just guessing at this point. My guess is that apple will ship merom laptops as soon as the chips are available in quantity, about the same time that everybody else ships merom laptops.

Stridder44
Apr 28, 2006, 03:47 PM
WAHOO!! Um, yeah guys....I love Intel. I don't see any downside to switching over from IBM (not that I ever did)

heisetax
Apr 28, 2006, 05:11 PM
The elephant in the room:

If you wait for Merom, you'll be in the same boat as Yonah buyers are today: something new will be coming in less than a year. Not a whole new chip design, but better and faster Meroms.

There's always something better coming--that won't change by waiting for Merom. When you need to buy, buy... but if you don't need to, then wait like me :)



That it is :)


The Merom I thought is to be 64-bit. With the future being 64-bit why would you purchase a stop-gap computer? I'd do everything I could to wait for this big of a change.

Also much of the needed software will not even be available until next year. This makes waiting for Rev B even a more sensible thing to do.

I'll be waiting until all of the needed software is in place & my current Macs do not run fast enough to handle these programs. If I purchase no new software then that time could be measured in years. Then I could use the excuse that I was just waiting for the 128-bit AMD/IBM/FreeScale Mac. This is after the god Steve Jobs tells us that Intel is too slow, uses too much power & is all around bad again. This will mean that we will have to use a new 128-bit chipset make by a joint effort of AMD, IBM & Freescale. That way AMD can see that it will not be out front of everyone after joining with IBM Freescale & Apple.

Now for ones that believe in only one God, then we don't believe what the salesman Steve Jobs says & purchase what we think is best for us. The fact that it usually ends up being a Mac may not be what you think it is.

Bill the TaxMan

milo
Apr 28, 2006, 05:21 PM
The Merom I thought is to be 64-bit. With the future being 64-bit why would you purchase a stop-gap computer? I'd do everything I could to wait for this big of a change.

Because EVERY computer is a stop-gap. There are always ones in the future with more cores, more bits, higher clock speeds, etc. If you're fine with keeping your current machine forever, there's nothing wrong with that.

Some of us have work we need to get done. Today. And for me, the advantage of having a machine today outweighs the possibility of a 64 bit machine down the road with modest enhancements (not to mention that I have a machine with a socketed processor that will let me upgrade to that 64 bit chip if I want it).


And I'm still wondering how a $1999 MPB is a price raise from a $1999 powerbook? Do you have a reason for saying that or were you just mistaken?

tonyl
Apr 28, 2006, 08:13 PM
Because EVERY computer is a stop-gap. There are always ones in the future with more cores, more bits, higher clock speeds, etc. If you're fine with keeping your current machine forever, there's nothing wrong with that.

Nod, you won't get any computer if you keep waiting.

macgeek2005
Apr 28, 2006, 08:14 PM
Theres something to that. But at the same time, I am "waiting" for there to be a 17" MacBook Pro with a Merom chip in it, and I am going to get one once they have that.

AidenShaw
Apr 28, 2006, 08:38 PM
Even if Merom comes out in August, how long do you think it will be until we have a Merom MacBook Pro.
The day it is announced.

Lenovo/HP/Dell/Asus will have them on the day that they're announced.

'nuf said. :)

AidenShaw
Apr 28, 2006, 08:46 PM
OSX is a 64bit OS and to take advantage of it I can wait.
LOL. OSX is 32-bit, by any reasonable interpretation of the word.

Darwin has 64-bit memory handling, and there's a 64-bit libSystem - so if you want to ignore all that is really OSX you can run a 64-bit terminal app.

No Cocoa, no Carbon, no GUI, no frameworks - 64-bit on OSX is like a throwback to the punched card days.

Now that Intel is copying AMD64, it will be much better that Intel's EM64T, which sucked.
Ummm, Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are EM64T.

The MacPro/Intel PowerMac would have been at a disadvantge if it used current 32bit Intel procs, or EM64T technology.
There are no "current" 32-bit chips from Intel, except for Yonah.

iRepublican
Apr 28, 2006, 09:31 PM
LOL. OSX is 32-bit, by any reasonable interpretation of the word.

Darwin has 64-bit memory handling, and there's a 64-bit libSystem - so if you want to ignore all that is really OSX you can run a 64-bit terminal app.

No Cocoa, no Carbon, no GUI, no frameworks - 64-bit on OSX is like a throwback to the punched card days.


Ummm, Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are EM64T.


There are no "current" 32-bit chips from Intel, except for Yonah.

You're correct,but you could sure use a little tact in your post......try it sometime.

AidenShaw
Apr 28, 2006, 09:57 PM
You're correct,but you could sure use a little tact in your post......try it sometime.
I thought that I exercised enormous tact by not starting my post with

"You incredible clueless newbie #$$hole..."

His claims are so ludicrous ("now that Intel is using AMD64 instead of EM64T") that they invited derision. When someone writes three sentences with four fundamental errors....

C'est la vie...

ksz
Apr 28, 2006, 11:31 PM
Cranial did not say Intel is "using" AMD64, only that they are "copying" it. You quoted him correctly in your first reply, but you twisted it in your second. The value of this forum, for me at least, is when we post our reactions to news and rumor stories and those more knowledgeable in certain areas chime in from time to time to help everyone out. If you're an expert in certain areas and you're easily irritated by statements from those less well versed as yourself in those areas, you should probably ignore this forum and make better use of your time.

devman
Apr 29, 2006, 01:50 AM
Darwin has 64-bit memory handling, and there's a 64-bit libSystem - so if you want to ignore all that is really OSX you can run a 64-bit terminal app.

No Cocoa, no Carbon, no GUI, no frameworks - 64-bit on OSX is like a throwback to the punched card days.


On the G5 it makes no sense for the UI (et al) to be 64bit. All it means is almost everyone's apps will run more slowly. For the fraction of a percent of apps that needed the address space or the numerics that 64bit provides, the Apple approach was smart. Why penalise the overwhelming majority of apps and users.

Since then a lot has changed. OS X is now on Intel. On Intel, 64bit does make a positive performance difference. But is it because it is 64 bit or because of other architectural changes such as more registers. You could split hairs and spin that either way...

On Intel it does make sense to switch everything (eventually) to 64bit.

Josias
Apr 29, 2006, 02:18 AM
Just because there will be a faster model 6 months after you bought yours, doesn't mean yours get bad. It is still as good and fast and vivious as when you bought it. You might even be able to upgrade it. Unless you insist on having the 100% newest, you can easily keep a Woodcrest PowerMac for 4-5 years, berfore it is being a bit too outdated. There are many people who still use G4 PowerMacs, which are already 6 years old, some even older. I would liek to buy a very expensive computer, with lots of posibilities to upgrade it. This would keep it up to date for mnay years to come, and saving me money in the future, not having to buy a new laptop every 2 years. This is why I so much would like an Intel PowerMac with a good ACD. I have a budget of $2400. Is there any chance I could get a low-end Intel PM with 4 GB RAM and an ACD?:D

heisetax
Apr 29, 2006, 03:48 AM
Because EVERY computer is a stop-gap. There are always ones in the future with more cores, more bits, higher clock speeds, etc. If you're fine with keeping your current machine forever, there's nothing wrong with that.

Some of us have work we need to get done. Today. And for me, the advantage of having a machine today outweighs the possibility of a 64 bit machine down the road with modest enhancements (not to mention that I have a machine with a socketed processor that will let me upgrade to that 64 bit chip if I want it).


And I'm still wondering how a $1999 MPB is a price raise from a $1999 powerbook? Do you have a reason for saying that or were you just mistaken?


The 17" Mac portable went from $2,499 to $2,799. Sounds like a $300 increase to me. Same with the better 15" model. Intel still means more dollars for the models that I would be interested in purchasing. Also the Apps that I must run are not Universal nor will they be for another year. This would mean a slow down for any work I would do.

Everyone has their own set of needs. Many still find the Intel Mac to be less for more for the near future. By time the Intel Mac is more for more we may be two generations ahead of where we are now. This would make any new Mac one or two generations behind their $ price point.

Only those that can run native Intel Mac applications can use most of the changes in the new Intel Mac.

Just because Steve Jobs says something is twice as fast dos not mean that all or even anyone can achieve that doubling of speed. Remember that Steve Jobs is a salesman & tells us his information from the salesman's point of view. This is not always correct for most users. Being a salesman he will take one special group, which may not really exist & use that as his example for others.

For the next year or two the change in performance between an older PPC Mac and & Intel Mac will depend on the programs & versions of those programs that each has to use. Like many people that still must run their favorite application in Classic, or maybe even be able to boot into OS9 to be able to run a multithousand $ program that is just too expensive to upgrade. Now many people will be faced with this same problem a second time. Only now their old Classic Apps will no longer run.

Everyone will have to decide when a change in their Mac makes sense. A new Mac is not always going to be an upgrade. For many the term will be changed to new Mac.

Where did your information come that you would disagree on the prices of the 17" model. A 17" Intel MacBook "Pro" is still $300 higher than the old model. That's what my checking with Apple's web sight says. $2,499 old to $2,799 new. That's still more to me.

Bill the TaxMan

generik
Apr 29, 2006, 04:23 AM
Ummm, Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are EM64T.


Correct, and EMT64 does suck as compared to AMD's implementation. However we do not know for certain if it will still suck on this new line of processors, after all it is a new microarchitecture!

generik
Apr 29, 2006, 04:29 AM
The 17" Mac portable went from $2,499 to $2,799. Sounds like a $300 increase to me. Same with the better 15" model. Intel still means more dollars for the models that I would be interested in purchasing. Also the Apps that I must run are not Universal nor will they be for another year. This would mean a slow down for any work I would do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the 17" model previously 2999?

But I have to admit, even the price increases brought on by the Intel switch fails to justify such a price increase. Think about the features we've lost on the 15" model, right now they are getting away with using a cheapskate single layer drive (yeah right, I believe the "for the sake of thinness" reasoning alright, my bet is making it thin to eliminate the DL drive has cost cutting motivations), no FW800, no optical audio ports, and all this because of a processor that's a mere $200 more than a G4 on the lower end model? Doesn't add up to me.. especially considering that Dell can deliver a similar machine specwise for virtually 1/2 of what Apple is charging after you've tacked on various rebates and coupons...

The Intel Duo is a good chip, but the "value" aspect of the current MBPs generally doesn't quite cut it. Oh and btw, while MacOS is nice I don't consider it to be stellar even, I've spend this weekend on my Windows box after my Mac got sent back in for some major servicing and I have to say for some tasks MacOS barely scratches the surface of Windows.

generik
Apr 29, 2006, 04:35 AM
Nod, you won't get any computer if you keep waiting.

Except more often than not most changes are only evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I have been putting off getting an Appl portable since.. let's see.. 2 years ago when the 1.5Ghz model first got released? But back then I couldn't bring myself into shelling out that much for such a pokey CPU and went with a Thinkpad instead. Say what you will about virii and spyware, but that 1.8Ghz machine was blazing with 2GB of ram. I've subsequently owned a 1.67Ghz G4 and even at the pinnacle of PPC development on the mobile platform, let's just say I'm not remotely impressed even with the fully tricked out system.

My take on this is that the Yonahs are definitely stop-gap machines. Even the early Meroms will be stop gap. However the time to seriously consider buying would be MWSF next year, when hopefully MBPs with the Santa Rosa chipset are unveiled. Those would feature 801.11n wireless cards and Robson caching, 2 features which I do believe will bring about a revolution in mobile computing.

Currently what have we got? An extra core.. more cache, faser FSB. But apart from that, there is nothing special. Heck, even the Yonah is really 2 Pentium M cores stitched together. Talk about lack of originality! :rolleyes:

Stridder44
Apr 29, 2006, 04:48 AM
Correct, and EMT64 does suck as compared to AMD's implementation. However we do not know for certain if it will still suck on this new line of processors, after all it is a new microarchitecture!

exactly

milo
Apr 29, 2006, 08:01 AM
Theres something to that. But at the same time, I am "waiting" for there to be a 17" MacBook Pro with a Merom chip in it, and I am going to get one once they have that.

Absolutely. Everyone has to make the individual choice of how long to wait. I just take issue with the notion that Merom is such a huge step that anyone who buys yonah instead of waiting is a fool.

On the G5 it makes no sense for the UI (et al) to be 64bit. All it means is almost everyone's apps will run more slowly. For the fraction of a percent of apps that needed the address space or the numerics that 64bit provides, the Apple approach was smart. Why penalise the overwhelming majority of apps and users.


I don't think you understand how it works. It's not that the UI isn't 64 bit, it's that *apps that use the GUI* can't be 64 bit. Only command line apps can be 64 bit. For a GUI app to be 64 bit, it has to use the hack of running separate 64 bit processes in the background.

It's a terrible approach, and the result is that virtually no apps are 64 bit, which is a shame because there are apps that could really benefit from it.

The 17" Mac portable went from $2,499 to $2,799. Sounds like a $300 increase to me. Same with the better 15" model. Intel still means more dollars for the models that I would be interested in purchasing. Also the Apps that I must run are not Universal nor will they be for another year. This would mean a slow down for any work I would do.


Bill, you need to read more carefully. I specifically said the 15 is the same price, not the 17.

The base 15 was $1999 before, now you can still get one for $1999. You haven't explained how that's a price increase. There's also a new second configuration available for $2500, there isn't really an old model to compare this to since the G4 wasn't available in a choice of speeds.

AidenShaw
Apr 29, 2006, 08:31 AM
Cranial did not say Intel is "using" AMD64, only that they are "copying" it. You quoted him correctly in your first reply, but you twisted it in your second.

The full quote is "Now that Intel is copying AMD64, it will be much better that Intel's EM64T, which sucked."

The mistake, of course, was to not understand that "EM64T" is just Intel's name for the *copy* of "AMD64". In my paraphrase, the important word is "instead" - the notion that Intel is switching from the EM64T ISA to the AMD64 ISA.. The words "copying" and "using" aren't really that different.

(And to imply criticism of Intel for copying AMD is amusing, since just about everything else about the AMD architecture is an exact copy of Intel's x86 architecture.)

Ciao.

AidenShaw
Apr 29, 2006, 08:48 AM
Correct, and EMT64 does suck as compared to AMD's implementation. However we do not know for certain if it will still suck on this new line of processors, after all it is a new microarchitecture!
You clearly understand the difference between architecture and implementation, but you've misused "EM64T" in your first sentence.

A better statement would have been:

Correct, and the Netburst implementation of EM64T does suck as compared to AMD's implementation.

It's still debatable, however, that any current advantage that AMD has is due to the implementation of the 64-bit extensions on Netburst.

I would think that a more common view is that AMD's on-chip memory controller is more important, as well as less power consumption. We all know that the power advantage won't last for long....

janstett
Apr 29, 2006, 09:08 AM
Intel should really take it easy on us. All this "early" nonsense is very hard to take after being used to IBM and Motorola.

See, they're not the evil empire we made them out to be :)

devman
Apr 29, 2006, 11:39 AM
I don't think you understand how it works. It's not that the UI isn't 64 bit, it's that *apps that use the GUI* can't be 64 bit. Only command line apps can be 64 bit. For a GUI app to be 64 bit, it has to use the hack of running separate 64 bit processes in the background.

It's a terrible approach, and the result is that virtually no apps are 64 bit, which is a shame because there are apps that could really benefit from it.


I understand how it works. I think you should re-read what I said. In the context of a G5 (there was no Mactel when this was done) a switch to 64bit is a performance loss for the overwhelming majority of users and apps. Because it is fraction of a percent of users and apps that needed the address space for a process or the numerics, it is a good approach when all apps and users are considered.

AidenShaw
Apr 29, 2006, 12:54 PM
Because it is fraction of a percent of users and apps that needed the address space for a process or the numerics, it is a good approach when all apps and users are considered.
This penalizes the apps that need 64-bit - they have to be re-engineered into pieces if they need anything more than a terminal window.

A better approach is one like Windows, Linux, Solaris... use - support 32-bit APIs for the apps that don't need performance or large memory, and support the full set of APIs for 64-bit apps that do.

A 64-bit clean app can be compiled for either 32-bit or 64-bit by changing the build settings only.

macgeek2005
Apr 29, 2006, 12:54 PM
What are the clockspeeds of Merom?

milo
Apr 29, 2006, 01:05 PM
...no optical audio ports...

... and all this because of a processor that's a mere $200 more than a G4 on the lower end model? Doesn't add up to me.. especially considering that Dell can deliver a similar machine specwise for virtually 1/2 of what Apple is charging after you've tacked on various rebates and coupons...

Both MPB's have optical inputs and outputs. And from what I've seen, dells that have similar specs to the 17 aren't anywhere near 1/2 the price, more like 25% cheaper ranging to about the same price and even higher. I'll admit, the dells do offer the option to strip out many of the pro features and save money. And the 15 isn't as competitive as the 17 is, I expect it will have a feature bump or price drop soon.

If there's a dell 17 with the same specs for $1400, I'd love to see it.

Currently what have we got? An extra core.. more cache, faser FSB. But apart from that, there is nothing special. Heck, even the Yonah is really 2 Pentium M cores stitched together. Talk about lack of originality! :rolleyes:

Originality? Who cares about originality, I just want a machine that performs well. And that extra core you dismiss provides *double* the processing power. I'm pretty darn happy with that.

I don't see what Merom will provide that's a more radical change than the ones in Yonah. With Yonah, the second core doubles the speed. What's the speed boost in Merom, 20-30% at the same clock speed?

I understand how it works. I think you should re-read what I said. In the context of a G5 (there was no Mactel when this was done) a switch to 64bit is a performance loss for the overwhelming majority of users and apps. Because it is fraction of a percent of users and apps that needed the address space for a process or the numerics, it is a good approach when all apps and users are considered.

But wouldn't it be possible for OSX to enable 64 bit features so that apps that need 64 bit could take advantage, and apps that don't need it could continue running in 32 bit? Best of both worlds. As it is, it's pointless to have a 64 bit chip if you're not going to actually take advantage of it. It's crippling any possibility the machine has of really being a pro machine. Why even make the chip 64 bit if it's going to hurt performance on most apps?

I don't buy that argument, apple dropped the ball on 64 bit software support.

macgeek2005
Apr 29, 2006, 01:07 PM
What are the clockspeeds of Merom?

Anybody know?

j26
Apr 29, 2006, 01:26 PM
Anybody know?
Wikipedia says these are the speculated numbers

Speculated model numbers for Merom [3]:

* Core Duo T7600 - 2.33 GHz (4 MiB L2, 667 MHz FSB)
* Core Duo T7400 - 2.16 GHz (4 MiB L2, 667 MHz FSB)
* Core Duo T7200 - 2.00 GHz (4 MiB L2, 667 MHz FSB)
* Core Duo T5600 - 1.83 GHz (2 MiB L2, 667 MHz FSB)
* Core Duo T5500 - 1.66 GHz (2 MiB L2, 667 MHz FSB)


But 20% more performance per watt

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core)

daveL
Apr 29, 2006, 01:28 PM
Think about the features we've lost on the 15" model, right now they are getting away with using a cheapskate single layer drive (yeah right, I believe the "for the sake of thinness" reasoning alright, my bet is making it thin to eliminate the DL drive has cost cutting motivations), no FW800, no optical audio ports, and all this because of a processor that's a mere $200 more than a G4 on the lower end model?
Both MBP models have digital and analog audio in and out.

poppe
Apr 29, 2006, 03:34 PM
I've been dreaming for the 17" MBP since I heard about the transition to Intel. I want so badly to get it, but don't know when I should. I'm moving to California this fall and wanted to buy an Apple laptop that will last a long time if not all 4 years. With all this new motherboard/processor talk I have no clue on what I should do. I figure I will wait until the August release of the new processors, but now you guys keep talking of new motherboards and WiFi... I think I'm getting an ulcer...

I was hoping you all could help me in the right direction on what to do because I'm clueless. I've been saving up for a 17" for a year now and as time passes I find myself less and less excited to buy one...

Will this new motherboard said to be out by Christmans be truly worth it? or is waiting for the August processor my best bet? I will be using Avid on it, but all my video will be on an external HDD.

THX1139
Apr 29, 2006, 04:04 PM
Will this new motherboard said to be out by Christmans be truly worth it? or is waiting for the August processor my best bet? I will be using Avid on it, but all my video will be on an external HDD.

The answer to when to buy is simple, buy a computer when you NEED a computer, and buy the best you can afford. If you wait 6 months for rumored features, you might be disappointed. Another thing, in 6 months, there will be a whole new bunch of rumors to deal with.

Anyway, your situation is exclusive. I don't think Avid is Universal yet, so your choices are not very good on Apple hardware. If you buy a new MBP, you will have to run Avid in rosetta and that's going to suck, if it will run at all (unless you boot into Windows). Your next option is buy a G4 laptop, but that would run slow too. If you switched to Final Cut Studio, that would solve a lot of your trouble because it's Universal and should smoke on a MBP. If I was in your shoes and didn't want to run FCS, I'd probably get a stop-gap machine (used iMac G5?) and buy whatever is current when Avid goes UB.

tristan
Apr 29, 2006, 06:21 PM
Wow! This news is huge. You'd have to have a head full of sawdust to buy a MBP now. :D *ducks*

There's always something faster on the way. And I bet the first Meroms will be EXPENSIVE.

AidenShaw
Apr 29, 2006, 06:51 PM
There's always something faster on the way. And I bet the first Meroms will be EXPENSIVE.
Oops.

The current Yonah 2.16 GHz is $637 ($423 after the price drop next month).

The Merom 2.16 GHz will be $420, the 2.33 GHz will be $640.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30506
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30881

tristan
Apr 29, 2006, 07:44 PM
Perhaps when simians are flying out of my posterior. Merom $3 less than Yonah at the same clock? To quote Thor, I say thee nay. Intel's not a charity, it's a billion dollar machine with greedy stockholders to feed - profit has to be made on both on the new chips and on the old inventory. Don't try to get people's hopes up that Merom on release will be cheap. And as for the first quad-core CPU, Intel would be Insane to charge anything less than $850 for it. That first 8-way machine will have a price point higher than your glue-sniffing cousin.

Willis
Apr 29, 2006, 08:35 PM
Perhaps when simians are flying out of my posterior. Merom $3 less than Yonah at the same clock? To quote Thor, I say thee nay. Intel's not a charity, it's a billion dollar machine with greedy stockholders to feed - profit has to be made on both on the new chips and on the old inventory. Don't try to get people's hopes up that Merom on release will be cheap. And as for the first quad-core CPU, Intel would be Insane to charge anything less than $850 for it. That first 8-way machine will have a price point higher than your glue-sniffing cousin.

8-way?

what he said is right in someways, although we wont know how much they'll cost until they come out.

Multimedia
Apr 29, 2006, 09:55 PM
Perhaps when simians are flying out of my posterior. Merom $3 less than Yonah at the same clock? To quote Thor, I say thee nay. Intel's not a charity, it's a billion dollar machine with greedy stockholders to feed - profit has to be made on both on the new chips and on the old inventory. Don't try to get people's hopes up that Merom on release will be cheap. And as for the first quad-core CPU, Intel would be Insane to charge anything less than $850 for it. That first 8-way machine will have a price point higher than your glue-sniffing cousin.I don't understand the billigerent tone of this post. I think Alden makes a pretty good case for faster MBPs at the same price this summer. And what's the problem with 4 and 8 core Macs costing more than the rest. I doubt even the 8-core model will exceed $3999. So what's your beef with that? They will surely be worth every penny. :rolleyes:

tristan
Apr 30, 2006, 12:13 AM
I don't understand the billigerent tone of this post. I think Alden makes a pretty good case for faster MBPs at the same price this summer. And what's the problem with 4 and 8 core Macs costing more than the rest. I doubt even the 8-core model will exceed $3999. So what's your beef with that? They will surely be worth every penny. :rolleyes:

My beef? Did I get into a debate with Walter Mondale? :eek:

No belligerency, more like flippancy. But yes, I am throwing cold dasani on the aforementioned "brand new next-generation semiconductors... and they're cheap!" Not possible, and its cruel to get people's hopes up. Intel will have lots of old inventory to clear out, and if they price the new stuff low, they have to price the old stuff even lower.

No, the Merom & Woodcrest will start out priced high, and then over time, the price will decline. That's just how it always works in the industry. And that's fine, when the price point falls to the level that you're happy with, grab it like Gollum and keep it away from those nasty hobbitses.

devman
Apr 30, 2006, 07:41 AM
But wouldn't it be possible for OSX to enable 64 bit features so that apps that need 64 bit could take advantage, and apps that don't need it could continue running in 32 bit? Best of both worlds. As it is, it's pointless to have a 64 bit chip if you're not going to actually take advantage of it. It's crippling any possibility the machine has of really being a pro machine.

Um, so the current quad G5 is not a pro machine according to you. And only because an app that needs the address space or numerics from 64bit and that must also be a GUI app, needs to be two communicating processes.

Why even make the chip 64 bit if it's going to hurt performance on most apps?

*sigh* No. If the chip is already pretty well architected so that the jump from 32 to 64 bit only provides address space and numerics, then all the processes that don't need the address space or numerics will take a hit if all of OS X is made 64bit. (note: this is solely in relation to the G5).

Geez. Do all the pointers in Cocoa need to be 64bit for example. Do you need a 64 bit pointer to a button, to a text field, to a radio button, to everything...

I don't buy that argument

That's because you clearly don't understand the topic.

devman
Apr 30, 2006, 07:49 AM
This penalizes the apps that need 64-bit - they have to be re-engineered into pieces if they need anything more than a terminal window.

That's one spin on things as they were at that time. Another spin is that people with such needs were benefited by even being able to make use of that stage 1 implementation (and I'd say a bigger penalty is not being able to do it at all). It's not like this is a high percentage install base need. It still isn't today. Most of the dudes in here bleating about 64bit do so only because 64 is bigger than 32 and therefore they have to have it...

AidenShaw
Apr 30, 2006, 08:53 AM
That's one spin on things as they were at that time. Another spin is that people with such needs were benefited by even being able to make use of that stage 1 implementation (and I'd say a bigger penalty is not being able to do it at all). It's not like this is a high percentage install base need. It still isn't today.
It also means that when a company does a 64-bit port for Windows/Linux/Solaris it's mostly a manner of checking for (and fixing) what many would consider sloppy coding practices.

But a 64-bit port for OSX means that you have to tear your application apart, and run it in multiple pieces using one of several inter-process communication protocols.


Most of the dudes in here bleating about 64bit do so only because 64 is bigger than 32 and therefore they have to have it...
I'm bleating because 64-bit on Intel is typically about 20% faster than 32-bit - so there's a real benefit for any compute-intensive app to be 64-bit. (Not just those apps that need more than 4 GiB of RAM per process.)

Do you want your new quad core to run major applications 20% slower than Windows on the same machine?

After hyping 64-bit as a killer feature since the PMG5 introduction, Apple has been virtually silent about 64-bit since last June. Now that they will be using processors where 64-bit is an advantage for most programs (not just advertising copy), it's about time for that silence to be broken.

We're less than 8 weeks away from Woodcrest systems according to many of these reports....

Fabio_gsilva
Apr 30, 2006, 10:27 AM
If you look at the surface of a computer motherboard or any other printed circuit board, you will see thin lines running from the output pin of one component (chip, resistor, capacitor, etc.) to the input pin of another component. The lines are the wires that connect components together. Although they look thin, they have a definite width and a minimum spacing between them.

Now when you look at a highly magnified view of the surface of a chip, you see a very similar thing. The "components" of a chip are the transistors and they are etched into the substrate of the wafer. All the transistors are laid out first on one and only one layer. This is called the "front end" of the manufacturing process. Next, the transistors have to be connected to each other. Because there are so many transistors and they are all on one layer, there isn't enough space on one layer to connect them all. So the "wires" are built on several layers on top of the buried transistors.

One layer of wires makes one set of connections. Another layer of wires makes another set of connections. Wires can tunnel through layers by virtue of small holes drilled between layers. These holes are called "vias". So a wire goes from one layer to another layer via the hole between the layers.

All of the wiring is layered on top of the transistors. This is called the "back end" of the manufacturing process. Much of the development cost of a chip comes from the Number of Layers because each layer needs its own "reticle" or lithography glass plate. Reticles (or masks) have soared in price to between half-million to a million dollars each.

The wires (in the back-end layers of a chip) have a minimum width and a minimum spacing between them. If the minimum width and space are 65nm, we say that the chip is a 65nm design. If the min width and space are 45nm, we say it's a 45nm design. Going from 65nm to 45nm takes a lot more than merely scaling (demagnifying) the design! It often takes new materials and new processing techniques to deal with the increases in lithography difficulty, increases in electrical parasitics (such as heat density, leakage current, stray capacitance), and increases in the fragility of the printed pattern.

Nevertheless, the combination of new materials, new processing techniques, and smaller dimensions leads to a faster and cooler chip, one that operates on lower voltage (less power).

Finally, you might wonder how the industry picks the minimum width/space. For example, the industry went from 180nm to 130nm to 90nm to 65nm to 45nm. The answer is that the industry strives to halve the area of a chip with each successive generation. If you start with a 1 micron x 1 micron square and you want to reduce the area by one-half, you must multiply each side of the square by 0.707 (square root of 1/2). If you do this several times, you get the following (in nanometers or 1/1000th of a micron) -- this is "classical scaling":

1000.00 (1 micron square)
707.11 (.7 micron)
500.00 (half micron)
353.55
250.00 (quarter micron)
176.78 (rounded to 180nm)
125.00 (rounded to 130nm)
88.39 (rounded to 90nm) <--- currently in widespread use
62.50 (rounded to 65nm) <--- current state-of-the-art; Intel Yonah
44.19 (rounded to 45nm) <--- next generation Intel processors
31.25 (rounded to 32nm)
22.10 (rounded to 22nm)
15.63
11.05 <-- classical scaling may stop here

Thank you very much!
I learned a lot!

poppe
Apr 30, 2006, 06:30 PM
Alright so I'll buy when the new Memron (or what ever it is) chip is out, but one dumb question.

Can you replace the motherboard in a MBP?

I know you explained to buy when you needed it, but what I'm scared to do is buy a computer that next week is updated and does not have gains of only a few percentages, but has gains of double or something around that.

poppe
Apr 30, 2006, 06:44 PM
I know we dont know if it is possible in the 17" yet, but I thought maybe you might have a better guess than I would.

Would I beable to drop a 512mb Video card in there or is that also stuck permanent in there?

Or is ATI's 512 to big to fit in?

Multimedia
Apr 30, 2006, 08:14 PM
Another Dumb Question
Alright so I'll buy when the new Memron (or what ever it is) chip is out, but one dumb question.

Can you replace the motherboard in a MBP?

I know you explained to buy when you needed it, but what I'm scared to do is buy a computer that next week is updated and does not have gains of only a few percentages, but has gains of double or something around that.

How about GPU replacement?
I know we dont know if it is possible in the 17" yet, but I thought maybe you might have a better guess than I would.

Would I beable to drop a 512mb Video card in there or is that also stuck permanent in there?

Or is ATI's 512 to big to fit in?The giant leap has already happened Poppe. From here on it will be small increments each refresh. No you can't change the mobo nor the video in any practical way. What you do is sell the one you have and buy the next one. I doubt that will cost you more than a new mobo and a new video chipset. Now go get one and start having fun. :cool:

generik
Apr 30, 2006, 11:45 PM
Alright so I'll buy when the new Memron (or what ever it is) chip is out, but one dumb question.

Can you replace the motherboard in a MBP?

I know you explained to buy when you needed it, but what I'm scared to do is buy a computer that next week is updated and does not have gains of only a few percentages, but has gains of double or something around that.

The only thing that is replaceable in a MBP is the memory and hard drive.

generik
Apr 30, 2006, 11:45 PM
I know we dont know if it is possible in the 17" yet, but I thought maybe you might have a better guess than I would.

Would I beable to drop a 512mb Video card in there or is that also stuck permanent in there?

Or is ATI's 512 to big to fit in?

The only thing that is upgradeable in a MBP is the memory and hard drive.

DavidCar
May 1, 2006, 12:54 AM
For anyone interested in comparative chip architecture, I just spotted this article:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2748&p=1

AnandTech: Intel Core versus AMD's K8 architecture

janstett
May 1, 2006, 06:47 AM
But wouldn't it be possible for OSX to enable 64 bit features so that apps that need 64 bit could take advantage, and apps that don't need it could continue running in 32 bit? Best of both worlds. As it is, it's pointless to have a 64 bit chip if you're not going to actually take advantage of it. It's crippling any possibility the machine has of really being a pro machine. Why even make the chip 64 bit if it's going to hurt performance on most apps?

I don't buy that argument, apple dropped the ball on 64 bit software support.

First, new generations of chips may be better at running code optimized for older generations -- an example, the first 386 processors were faster than the 286 they replaced even though they were still running 16-bit code and not native 32-bit code for quite some time.

People seem to think that simply being 64-bit for the sake of being 64-bit is some kind of magical performance increase. It isn't.

I've pointed out in the past that a simple register-level add of two numbers is MORE work for no value gain in 64 bit.

00000000000000000000000000000001 +
00000000000000000000000000000010

versus

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 +
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010

both yield the same results.

Having spent some seat time with an AMD 64 at work, I decided to find out what Microsoft did with the 64-bit version of XP and how it works. This may shed some light for those seeking the same from OSX, and those of you pining for a 64-bit OSX may have second thoughts.

First, there are two versions of 64-bit XP -- one for the older Itaniums, the others for the newer Intel and AMD 64 bit processors.

On these 64-bit processors, it's still possible (thankfully) to run the 32-bit operating systems on them, as they are compatible with 32 bit instructions still.

Next, these 64-bit versions of XP are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the mainstream build of XP. They require different device drivers (in other words, EVERYBODY has to rewrite their device drivers for 64-bit, because while the OS can work with 32-bit applications, it cannot work with 32-bit drivers). This brings down hardware compatibility significantly.

It also means waiting for "64-bit native" compiles of applications, which as far as I can tell, hasn't happened at all. It also means being stuck with non-mainstream versions of things like Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. You'd better hope that Microsoft's teams get upgrades of these components day-and-date 32-bit and 64-bit, and I don't know that is true. There is no 64-bit version of Office or other MS apps. I'm sure there are other corners of incompatibility that one has to deal with on a daily basis.

The good news is the 64-bit OS can run 32-bit apps or it would be sunk. This happens with WoW-64 (Windows-on-Windows 64), which is similar to how Microsoft ran 16-bit apps on 32-bit Windows -- with a virtual machine layer and thunking.

In summary, Microsoft is already doing the 64-bit thing and it isn't quite the panacea people would think it is. It actually has a number of drawbacks and many people just run the mainstream 32-bit OS on the 64-bit hardware. I don't think it would be any better for OSX.

devman
May 1, 2006, 06:52 AM
I'm bleating because 64-bit on Intel is typically about 20% faster than 32-bit - so there's a real benefit for any compute-intensive app to be 64-bit. (Not just those apps that need more than 4 GiB of RAM per process.)

On Intel I agree with what you've said. I never disagreed with it; on Intel...

It's not the same on a G5.

poppe
May 1, 2006, 08:43 AM
Oh yeah duh that makes alot of sense. I never thought about selling it and buying a new one... good ole newbie I suppose. Thanks Multimedia

AidenShaw
May 1, 2006, 10:22 AM
People seem to think that simply being 64-bit for the sake of being 64-bit is some kind of magical performance increase. It isn't.
A 20% performance increase just by changing one build setting is as close to "magic" as you'll find in application performance tuning! :D



I've pointed out in the past that a simple register-level add of two numbers is MORE work for no value gain in 64 bit.

00000000000000000000000000000001 +
00000000000000000000000000000010

versus

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 +
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000010

both yield the same results.
This would be of concern *IFF* running in 64-bit mode forced you to use 64-bit integers.

That's not the case - short (usually 16-bit) and int (usually 32-bit) integers don't change size unless you modify your program to use a 64-bit length datatype.




Next, these 64-bit versions of XP are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the mainstream build of XP. They require different device drivers (in other words, EVERYBODY has to rewrite their device drivers for 64-bit, because while the OS can work with 32-bit applications, it cannot work with 32-bit drivers). This brings down hardware compatibility significantly.
A valid point - the kernel is completely 64-bit and drivers must also be 64-bit for real device drivers.

Note that almost all of the "Vista Ready" systems that will be sold this fall will have 64-bit CPUs, and a current generation of hardware. You won't have much trouble finding 64-bit drivers for any of these systems.

(I expect most of the holiday PCs to have a free "Vista Upgrade" coupon, redeemable in January.)



It also means waiting for "64-bit native" compiles of applications, which as far as I can tell, hasn't happened at all.
POVray, Mathematica, Cinema 4D, Lightwave, SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, ....

Quite a few high end applications in content creation, science, and business support are available for x64 systems.


It also means being stuck with non-mainstream versions of things like Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer. You'd better hope that Microsoft's teams get upgrades of these components day-and-date 32-bit and 64-bit, and I don't know that is true.
Actually, if you look closely I believe you'll see that both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of those apps are included in XP x64.

Microsoft uses a single source tree for 32-bit and 64-bit versions - no need to worry about version skew. Even the operating systems are built from the same source for Vista (32/64/XP/Server...). (XP x64 is built from the Server 2003 sources.)


The good news is the 64-bit OS can run 32-bit apps or it would be sunk. This happens with WoW-64 (Windows-on-Windows 64), which is similar to how Microsoft ran 16-bit apps on 32-bit Windows -- with a virtual machine layer and thunking.
True, although the "virtual machine layer" is very lightweight - it's nothing like VMware or Virtual PC. It mainly has to deal with the transition and mapping between 32-bit mode and 64-bit mode.



There is no 64-bit version of Office or other MS apps.
See "good news" above. Actually, several MS server apps are available, but it's not clear that Office really needs the extra CPU boost or added memory of 64-bit.

As new versions appear, however, you'll see 64-bit apps. It's just not urgent for most applications.



I'm sure there are other corners of incompatibility that one has to deal with on a daily basis.
LOL - pure FUD. :D

Actually, there's surprisingly little incompatibility. If you have 64-bit drivers for your hardware, you can run 64-bit Windows every day and not see anything unusual.

Oh wait, let me take that back. When I first switched a couple of my systems to 64-bit - I realized that I had a couple of tools that were 16-bit DOS or Windows 3.1 applications. I needed to get the 32-bit versions of those (Windows x64 doesn't have WOW). There's also an issue with 32-bit browser plugins not running with 64-bit IE.




In summary, Microsoft is already doing the 64-bit thing and it isn't quite the panacea people would think it is. It actually has a number of drawbacks and many people just run the mainstream 32-bit OS on the 64-bit hardware. I don't think it would be any better for OSX.
Yes, we're in the middle of the transition to 64-bit for everyday use. The only real drawback is driver support for legacy or special purpose hardware - and that's getting better every day (especially if you're using Vista x64).

Vista's arrival will mark the beginning of the end of 32-bit computing on the desktop.

AidenShaw
May 1, 2006, 10:55 AM
For anyone interested in comparative chip architecture, I just spotted this article:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2748&p=1

AnandTech: Intel Core versus AMD's K8 architecture
A very good article, thank you for the link.

I hadn't noticed before that Core will have 3 SSE vector arithmetic units (P4 has 1) - and will be able to do 8 32-bit floating point operations per cycle, or 4 64-bit floating ops per cycle!

The anandtech article concludes that Core has "massive SIMD/FP power".

Maybe this is why Jobs' was willing to abandon AltiVec - an SSE implementation was on the way that will scream.

dbit
May 2, 2006, 06:25 PM
I, like one previous poster, am getting an ulcer here following all of this information.

I need a new high end mac laptop, and it is a substancial several year investment for me, so I can't afford to purchase wrong.

Many of my apps won't operate for some time under universal, or even rosetta, but I am planning on setting up Windows on the machine for those applications in the meantime. This doesn't bother me too much.

I could wait the 4 months for Merom, but this ulcer will grow, and I will be losing some productivity working on my fairly old G4 laptop.

I'm also hesitant to buy a Rev A premium machine when problems have been spotted in models and software is still catching up. I'll be buying 17 inch top end when I do purchase.

Any advice, or do we just sit in this purgatory until we can't take it anymore and jump at a purchase?!

DavidCar
May 2, 2006, 07:12 PM
Hannibal on ArsTechnica just posted his comments on the early introduction of Woodcrest, along with a link to some great slides on the next two generations of architecture over the next four years.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060502-6729.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060428162855.html

Multimedia
May 2, 2006, 10:54 PM
Hannibal on ArsTechnica just posted his comments on the early introduction of Woodcrest, along with a link to some great slides on the next two generations of architecture over the next four years.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060502-6729.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060428162855.htmlThanks David. Great find. Very helpful.

I hesitate a bit to speculate on exactly what will happen here, because things are already such a mess. As you may recall, WWDC was pushed back to August from its normal June date, presumably to coincide with Intel's Q3 rollout of Woodcrest, Conroe, and Merom. But Intel just keeps bumping up the intro dates for these parts in response to a number of factors (competitive pressure from AMD, profit shortfalls, internal restructuring), a fact that probably drives Apple nuts. Imagine the wrath of Steve if he really did delay WWDC from June to August in order to make it coincide with what was at the time an already accelerated Woodcrest rollout, only to have Intel move the Woodcrest launch date even further ahead into June! Such are the woes of being a relatively small fish in the very large pond of the x86-based PC market.Looks like Steve's postponement of the WWDC may have been a mistake in terms of jiving with Intel's aggressively unpredictable release "pattern". But I think the Leopard news will still be the star of that SteveNote and he'll be able to brag about how quickly the transition went by then - which may in fact be complete in way amazing record six month's time. March to September. Worst case he can announce the Mac Pros at WWDC. Likely sooner. NOTE - although announced in early January, 15" MBP didn't really arrive in quantity until early March.

I found this X-bit labs mid-April piece on a Quad Core Mobile Processor shipping by Summer 2007 (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobile/display/20060414150548.html) equally interesting.

AidenShaw
May 3, 2006, 07:32 AM
...how quickly the transition went by then - which may in fact be complete in way amazing record six month's time. March to September. Worst case he can announce the Mac Pros at WWDC. Likely sooner. NOTE - although announced in early January, 15" MBP didn't really arrive in quantity until early March.
The transition officially started 6 June 2005. That's when the first Intel-based Apples were shown and announced, with delivery shortly after.

LOL that you can claim that delivering a system two months late can be called "speeding up" the transition. :eek:

milo
May 3, 2006, 07:39 AM
Um, so the current quad G5 is not a pro machine according to you. And only because an app that needs the address space or numerics from 64bit and that must also be a GUI app, needs to be two communicating processes.

*sigh* No. If the chip is already pretty well architected so that the jump from 32 to 64 bit only provides address space and numerics, then all the processes that don't need the address space or numerics will take a hit if all of OS X is made 64bit. (note: this is solely in relation to the G5).

Geez. Do all the pointers in Cocoa need to be 64bit for example. Do you need a 64 bit pointer to a button, to a text field, to a radio button, to everything...

To be honest, although the G5 is the best that apple can do right now, it's not a completely pro machine if apps running on it are limited to 4 gigs of ram. A true "pro" solution wouldn't have that limit. And I realize that in theory, GUI apps can use a hack to get around memory limits. I just think it's pretty obvious from the lack of apps that actually do that, it's not

Note that I haven't insisted that Apple make all of OSX 64 bit. I'll be happy if they just make it possible for some apps to take advantage of 64 bits (mainly for RAM usage). If the rest of the OS stays 32 bits along with apps that don't need more, I'm fine with that. You think I don't understand the topic, but from what you've written it sounds like you just aren't understanding my posts.

Sighing and other drama queenery aside, if going 64 bit takes a performance hit on apps that don't need it, it sounds like the G5 isn't "pretty well architected". Sounds like their 64 bit implementation wasn't really thought out and they shouldn't have bothered with it until they figured out a solution without such a big down side.

I would hope you wouldn't need a 64 bit pointer to every little trivial thing. If there's no way to take the OS to a point where apps can run 64 bit without requiring that, it looks like somebody dropped the ball, either on the chip side or the OS side.

So I guess you agree that the current 64 bit situation for OSX is pretty lame, you just blame the chip and not the OS?

milo
May 3, 2006, 08:08 AM
In summary, Microsoft is already doing the 64-bit thing and it isn't quite the panacea people would think it is. It actually has a number of drawbacks and many people just run the mainstream 32-bit OS on the 64-bit hardware. I don't think it would be any better for OSX.

But some of us need apps to access more than four gigs of ram. I don't really care if the whole OS goes 64 bit (maybe there are advantages to not doing it). But I need the increased ram support, Apple needs to do something to make that possible. The lame hack they propose now obviously isn't cutting it. How many apps can currently access more than 4 gigs of ram on a G5?

The transition officially started 6 June 2005. That's when the first Intel-based Apples were shown and announced, with delivery shortly after.

LOL that you can claim that delivering a system two months late can be called "speeding up" the transition. :eek:

The first macs were shipped in January. Only dev kits were released before that, and you can't really call those a released mac.

What was two months late? Wit the exception of the MPB running about a week late, the rest of the transition has been WAY ahead of the announced schedule. They're going to be close to finishing the hardware transition around the time they originally announced they'd be starting.

AidenShaw
May 3, 2006, 09:22 AM
But some of us need apps to access more than four gigs of ram. I don't really care if the whole OS goes 64 bit (maybe there are advantages to not doing it).
Agree that the "whole OS" question is not important.

Someone might say, sake of example "Windows x64 isn't true 64-bit because Notepad is still a 32-bit app". I find that to be unimportant - I don't care if every single executable on the kit is 64-bit.

What I care is that I can build a 64-bit app (either because I want the extra speed, or because I need more than 4 GiB of RAM in my single app) and not be forced into using a small subset of the capabilities of the system.

Mac OSX fails that test on 10.4, but Windows/Linux/Solaris/... pass.


What was two months late? Wit the exception of the MPB running about a week late, the rest of the transition has been WAY ahead of the announced schedule.
Actually, if you check the threads here, you'll see that shipping didn't really start until the last half of Feb, and it was spotty into March.

The rest of my post makes more sense in the context of MultiMedia's post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2370468&postcount=151) that it is a reply to.

The first macs were shipped in January. Only dev kits were released before that, and you can't really call those a released mac.
I can claim that it's the *start* of the transition, though. MultiMedia's post implies that volume shipment (not "first", but "volume") of MBPs marked the start.

They're going to be close to finishing the hardware transition around the time they originally announced they'd be starting.
Please, The Steve said that systems would be shipping *by* June (or August) - not *starting in* June.

Yes, it's going well. Apple is right there with every other vendor who is taking Intel's Yonah CPU and chipsets and shipping products. (In other words, give Apple credit where it's due - but don't give Apple credit for Intel's good execution on the NGMA transition!)

Apple will have Conroe (new mini-tower form factor) and Merom (laptop/mini/iMac) systems at the same time as everyone else - that's pretty much a given.

Woodcrest - not so sure. Quad towers and XServes are clearly "pro" machines, but one could argue that it's premature to shift these to Intel until the pro software situation improves. What good is new hardware if the software that the high end customers needs doesn't run well on the new kit?

Of course, Apple could build and ship both PPC and Woodcrest machines for a while - but so far they've been killing PPC systems as soon as the Intel arrives. (with some "while supplies last" overlap)

milo
May 3, 2006, 10:23 AM
Actually, if you check the threads here, you'll see that shipping didn't really start until the last half of Feb, and it was spotty into March.

I can claim that it's the *start* of the transition, though. MultiMedia's post implies that volume shipment (not "first", but "volume") of MBPs marked the start.

Please, The Steve said that systems would be shipping *by* June (or August) - not *starting in* June.

Yes, it's going well. Apple is right there with every other vendor who is taking Intel's Yonah CPU and chipsets and shipping products. (In other words, give Apple credit where it's due - but don't give Apple credit for Intel's good execution on the NGMA transition!)

Woodcrest - not so sure. Quad towers and XServes are clearly "pro" machines, but one could argue that it's premature to shift these to Intel until the pro software situation improves. What good is new hardware if the software that the high end customers needs doesn't run well on the new kit?

Apple's first announcement of the MBP said that it would ship in February, and it did, didn't it? That would make it on time, not two months late. Apple never announced that MPB would ship in the beginning of January, did they?

You can define "the start of the intel transition" however you want, it sounds like this has just turned into a semantics game. Apple started the transition internally years ago, what matters to the consumer is when WE get to participate in the transition. The important part is the public portion of the intel transition, and that has been generally ahead of the deadlines Apple initially announced.

In any event, it makes no sense to call the shipment of MPB's the start of the transition since intel iMacs started shipping weeks earlier in January. Those were some of the first core duo machines shipped, weren't they?

Of course I'm aware that he said starting BY June. I don't think that makes it any less impressive that they shipped machines six months earlier than that date. And I think apple does deserve credit for getting these machines out when they have, there's definitely more involved for Apple to ship these than just swapping in a new CPU (both on the hardware and software side).

I'd love to see apple ship intel towers as soon as they can. Yes, there are people using third party apps that haven't been ported yet. But there are plenty of us using apple pro apps and other apps that are already universal, it would be silly to artificially delay the machines because photoshop isn't ready. At my job, we're looking to get at least two new tower machines in the next few months, I'd much rather get intels than get G5's this late in the game.

Multimedia
May 3, 2006, 10:50 AM
Apple's first announcement of the MBP said that it would ship in February, and it did, didn't it? That would make it on time, not two months late. Apple never announced that MPB would ship in the beginning of January, did they?No. I meant that they only arrived in quantity and on display at the Apple Stores in early March. I never said they were two months late. In fact I don't think they were late at all. You must have me confused with someone else. It took 'til then to eleminate the queue for them just like it's probably going to take until June to eleminate the 17" MPB queue. I don't think they are late either.At my job, we're looking to get at least two new tower machines in the next few months, I'd much rather get intels than get G5's this late in the game.Buy a pair of 17" MBPs instead. According to tests I've seen, they perform similarly to or better than Dual 2 GHz G5 towers and support 30" external screens. Depends on what apps you mainly use. If it's all about Adobe CS2, then a pair of G5 Quads would have to tide you over. But if the fact is you can wait into Summer, then you should do that. :)

milo
May 3, 2006, 10:59 AM
No. I meant that they only arrived in quantity and on display at the Apple Stores in early March. It took 'til then to eleminate the queue for them.

Buy a pair of 17" MBPs instead. According to tests I've seen, they perform similarly to or better than Dual 2 GHz G5 towers and support 30" external screens. Depends on what apps you mainly use. If it's all about Adobe CS2, then a pair of G5 Quads would have to tide you over. But if the fact is you can wait into Summer, then you should do that. :)

Even if you count shipping in quantity as "really shipping", early march is only a week or two later than the announced February ship date. That's a couple weeks late, not two months late.

A laptop isn't really an option. We need at least 4 gigs of ram, dual big monitors, internal hard drives would be nice, and a laptop doesn't fit the form factor of our offices. Not to mention that we'll want power comparable to the Quad, not the duals. If the first batch of towers only replaces the dual G5's, (and who knows, based on these announcements?), we'll be waiting for the next gen. The machines we're looking at replacing are dual G5's.

As I said, we're using mainly apple pro apps, so the software we need is mostly good to go.

Norse Son
May 3, 2006, 05:16 PM
The past few days I've been reading stuff on the net which suggests that if ("if") Apple decided to go with Woodcrest in some or all of the Intel replacements for the current PowerMac PPC, that Apple might/could slip Conroe into the iMac instead of Merom...

My question is this: If Merom was pin-compatible with Yonah, so that people like me, who bought the iMac Core Duo, could replace the Yonah cpu with a Merom chip;... does the same apply to Conroe? I know that Woodcrest, Conroe and Merom are all based on the same Core Microarchitecture, but I haven't come across any info on whether the Conroe and Merom share the same pin-structure (if that's the correct non-geek term for it).

I'd probably hold off 'til 2007 anyway - fear of doing something to void my AppleCare warranty - but it would be interesting to see what kind of performance gains I'd acquire off replacing the 2GHz Yonah with either of the new chips.

Multimedia
May 3, 2006, 05:25 PM
The past few days I've been reading stuff on the net which suggests that if ("if") Apple decided to go with Woodcrest in some or all of the Intel replacements for the current PowerMac PPC, that Apple might/could slip Conroe into the iMac instead of Merom...

My question is this: If Merom was pin-compatible with Yonah, so that people like me, who bought the iMac Core Duo, could replace the Yonah cpu with a Merom chip;... does the same apply to Conroe? I know that Woodcrest, Conroe and Merom are all based on the same Core Microarchitecture, but I haven't come across any info on whether the Conroe and Merom share the same pin-structure (if that's the correct non-geek term for it).

I'd probably hold off 'til 2007 anyway - fear of doing something to void my AppleCare warranty - but it would be interesting to see what kind of performance gains I'd acquire off replacing the 2GHz Yonah with either of the new chips.I doubt it. But even if it is, it will run too hot for your iMac's cooling system. Merom is the one you want in there. Cooler and faster.

AidenShaw
May 3, 2006, 08:35 PM
I doubt it. But even if it is, it will run too hot for your iMac's cooling system. Merom is the one you want in there. Cooler and faster.
...and quieter.

Merom (and Yonah) are designed for the power and cooling requirements of a laptop - which makes them ideal for the iMac where the CPU is (literally) in your face.

Conroe probably would work without a lot of effort - but its design goal is to use more power to deliver more performance. It would probably need bigger fans (or at least would run the current fans faster and more often).

That's not really a good fit for an all-in-one, but it will be great for the new form factor mini-tower that Apple will introduce with Conroe in July. (Single socket, dual-core, 8 GiB RAM, PCIe x16 graphics, dual optical....)

daveL
May 3, 2006, 09:07 PM
That's not really a good fit for an all-in-one, but it will be great for the new form factor mini-tower that Apple will introduce with Conroe in July. (Single socket, dual-core, 8 GiB RAM, PCIe x16 graphics, dual optical....)
And where does this assertion come from, might I ask? Apple is obviously consolidating its laptop line from 2xiBook + 3xPowerBook to 1 MacBook + 2xMacBook Pro. I don't see any room between the iMac and "Mac Pro" line, if that's what you are thinking. Maybe a low end Mac Pro with Conroe, but the same enclosure as the high end model. Who knows?

AidenShaw
May 4, 2006, 09:07 AM
And where does this assertion come from, might I ask? Maybe a low end Mac Pro with Conroe, but the same enclosure as the high end model. Who knows?

Intel charges much more for dual-socket and multi-socket capable CPUs/chipsets
This would make a Woodcrest system much more expensive than a Conroe system
Apple would need to increase the price of the maxi-tower by probably $500 to $800 to maintain their high margins
This widens the gap between the mini and the maxi - the only two systems without monitors
This puts the price of the only expandable Mac much higher (separate PCIe graphics, disks, PCIe slots)
Many people do not want an all-in-one, and others don't like the huge case of the maxi-tower


Finally, HP/Lenovo/Dell/... will all have dual-core Conroe mini-towers in that gap. A potential switcher might be faced with choosing between 3 Apples that he doesn't really want (mini too restricted, iMac is an all-in-one, maxi too big and expensive), or a Windows system that fits his price range and needs.

Apple can no longer operate like they're in a vacuum - the other companies understand that customers want choice, including a choice of form factor.

http://img.dell.com/images/global/products/category/optix/optix_149x149.jpg

DavidCar
May 4, 2006, 11:35 AM
If Apple doesn't come up early on with a dual Woodcrest machine, it will give up it's claim to having cutting edge destop computers. I don't think there are any acceptable excuses for not doing this.

It would be interesting to estimate the relative performance of a PPC application on a PPC Quad versus the performance on Rosetta on a Woodcrest Quad, using a Woodcrest chip at a speed which sells at a price comparable to the 970MP chip. I would think there was a chance that the performance of the PPC application on Rosetta would be better, and a chance that such a Woodcrest machine would sell at a similar price to the PPC Quad. I posted a list earlier of estimated Woodcrest chip prices. I don't know what the 970MP sells for. I don't know how well speed comparisions between the current Core Duo and an 970MP could be extended to make predictions for Woodcrest.

(Also, I've noted the MacRumors chatter about a possible Woodcrest Quad is a lot different from last year's chatter about a then possible 970MP Quad. )

Also, wouldn't it be possible, in theory, for Apple to sell a chipless MacPro Tower, with sockets for two Woodcrests/Clovertowns, and have that be the top of the line for the next year? As long as the chipset FSB was 10333 Mhz, the buyer could install whatever the best chip was at that moment, maybe even just one chip, from a 1.8 Ghz Woodcrest to a 3.0 Ghz four core Clovertown due in January?

Multimedia
May 4, 2006, 12:27 PM
Also, wouldn't it be possible, in theory, for Apple to sell a chipless MacPro Tower, with sockets for two Woodcrests/Clovertowns, and have that be the top of the line for the next year? As long as the chipset FSB was 10333 Mhz, the buyer could install whatever the best chip was at that moment, maybe even just one chip, from a 1.8 Ghz Woodcrest to a 3.0 Ghz four core Clovertown due in January?Get Real David. Apple is never going to sell a do-it-yourself Mac without processors installed and tested before shipping. You realize how easy it is to blow a processor installation?

What have you been smoking David? :eek: :confused: :rolleyes:

DavidCar
May 4, 2006, 01:29 PM
Get Real David. Apple is never going to sell a do-it-yourself Mac without processors installed and tested before shipping. You realize how easy it is to blow a processor installation?

What have you been smoking David? :eek: :confused: :rolleyes:

That's why I said "in theory". I'm not interested in whether users should install processors, only about how easy it would be for Apple to create one motherboard to be used in all versions for the next year. The underlying question I don't understand is how the clock frequency of the chip relates to the design of the motherboard.

And there is a lot of talk lately about end users upgrading chips, even if Apple never sold a chipless MacPro. So could the slowest possible Woodcrest Mac Pro be in theory upgradable to the fastest new chips, or is there a limit in the motherboard somewhere.

daveL
May 4, 2006, 01:58 PM
Apple can no longer operate like they're in a vacuum - the other companies understand that customers want choice, including a choice of form factor.
So how does that explain the consolidation of the laptop lines? Maybe a UMPC-type Mac is coming to fill the low end spot?

In any case (no pun intended :-), Apple has made a point of limiting the number of models and configurations they offer, and I would be surprised to see that change. We'll find out by WWDC, I expect.

daveL
May 4, 2006, 02:07 PM
That's why I said "in theory". I'm not interested in whether users should install processors, only about how easy it would be for Apple to create one motherboard to be used in all versions for the next year. The underlying question I don't understand is how the clock frequency of the chip relates to the design of the motherboard.

And there is a lot of talk lately about end users upgrading chips, even if Apple never sold a chipless MacPro. So could the slowest possible Woodcrest Mac Pro be in theory upgradable to the fastest new chips, or is there a limit in the motherboard somewhere.
The MB and chipset should work within a range of CPU clock speeds. I have a Tyan server that will accept 2 Opteron CPUs from 1.8 GHz and up, including dropping in dual core CPUs.

The biggest problem is that the user has to get the heat sink installed correctly. If you ***** it up, you can smoke your several hundred dollar CPU. Apple has had some problems with incorrectly applied thermal paste on early MBPs. In short, you have to know what you're doing.

ksz
May 4, 2006, 04:06 PM
Get Real David. Apple is never going to sell a do-it-yourself Mac without processors installed and tested before shipping. You realize how easy it is to blow a processor installation?

What have you been smoking David? :eek: :confused: :rolleyes:
While Apple will probably not sell a processor-less system, I don't see any major technical or logistical problem with selling a partially-filled motherboard. Provide 2 sockets and leave one empty. Let the user plug in a compatible processor later.

End-users add memory onto their motherboard by slipping in a DIMM module, so what's the problem with slipping in a new processor? Customers who are reluctant to do this by themselves could take their box to an Apple Store.

milo
May 4, 2006, 04:24 PM
And where does this assertion come from, might I ask? Apple is obviously consolidating its laptop line from 2xiBook + 3xPowerBook to 1 MacBook + 2xMacBook Pro. I don't see any room between the iMac and "Mac Pro" line, if that's what you are thinking. Maybe a low end Mac Pro with Conroe, but the same enclosure as the high end model. Who knows?

Why not? There's not much difference between a pro and consumer laptop at the same screen size. But there's definitely room for a small tower with a slot or two, and more modest expandability than a full blown tower. Especially since they're getting most of their technology from intel, they could easily do a basic, budget, small tower that's *cheaper* than the mini.

People have long complained that the 12" powerbook and ibook weren't really that different. I suspect one far outsold the other. People have the opposite complaint on the desktop side.

Mainly for people doing gaming and graphics. Power tower is overkill, but you can't swap the graphics card in a mini or iMac.

I doubt apple would release a machine with an empty processor slot, but I'd love to see them offer configs with no ram or hard drive. I'm getting tired of taking out Apple ram and throwing it in a drawer.

AidenShaw
May 4, 2006, 07:20 PM
So how does that explain the consolidation of the laptop lines?
That's easy - the 12" PB has always been an odd duck. Popular, but an odd duck.

I've always assumed that the 12" PB was a prototype for a G4 iBook that got Steve'd as an iBook replacement - but instead was brought in as a more portable model of PB.


Maybe a UMPC-type Mac is coming to fill the low end spot?
I'd expect that a 10" subnotebook is more likely.

DavidCar
May 6, 2006, 07:56 PM
Lets wait for 2008. More on the next generation of processors. While this is not in the Xeon line, it is said to be socket compatible, I assume with the 2008 version of the Xeon line, so I expect similar features. On die memory controller. Inter processor interconnect, torus topology.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060506-6766.html

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?NewsID=361&date=05-05-2006#361

As for a Mac Pro with one empty socket, wouldn't there be an economic advantage over such a machine vs a Conroe flavored low end Mac Pro, as no additional motherboard version required? I think processor expandability would be a selling point.

As for a mini tower, I wouldn't expect such a machine to have the same form factor as everyone else's mini tower. I would think it would be as small as possible while still having a few features of the PowerMac size version.

AidenShaw
May 6, 2006, 09:07 PM
Lets wait for 2008.
2008 will be fun - but I'll have a couple of years of enjoying my Conroes and Woodcrests by then (and the big systems at work).


As for a Mac Pro with one empty socket, wouldn't there be an economic advantage over such a machine vs a Conroe flavored low end Mac Pro, as no additional motherboard version required? I think processor expandability would be a selling point.
When has Apple supported adding a CPU in a recent machine? The single socket PMG5 systems are not expandable in the CPU department (and some have been crippled in other dimensions).

Note that Apple no longer has to design custom chips for a new mobo - they buy off-the-shelf stuff from Intel/TI/Philips/Siemens and stick it on a mobo. This is very different from the G4/G5 era, when Apple had to design its own northbridge and southbridge chips.

This makes it much cheaper to add a different motherboard. Couple that with the higher price of Woodcrest CPUs and chipsets, and it should be cheaper to use Conroe in the mid-range than to use a single chip Woodcrest.

HP/Lenovo/IBM/Dell have always had Pentium 4 towers for the mid-range. The Xeon workstations might be available with only one chip, but a single Xeon would never have been cheap enough for the mid-range. So they've always had "Conroe-class" single socket systems in addition to the Xeon workstations.

"Processor expandability" is not important to the market. By the time you need a second processor, there's probably a new model that's more interesting - and you replace rather than put more money into the now outdated model. It's pure opinion, but I would expect that the number of "add-on" CPUs sold is a tiny fraction of the number of 2nd CPUs included in the original purchase. I buy way over a million dollars worth of systems a year, and the only time I've "added" a CPU was when I needed to play a budget game (buy a couple of dozen single CPU systems in March, and buy the add-on CPUs in April on the new quarter's budget).


As for a mini tower, I wouldn't expect such a machine to have the same form factor as everyone else's mini tower. I would think it would be as small as possible while still having a few features of the PowerMac size version.
After my previous post, I've become more convinced that a pizza-box that matches the form factor of home audio/video components is a more likely configuration. This will be the Media Centre Edition for Apple.

It might be convertible so that it can be placed on edge - but Apple must have an MCE.

THX1139
May 7, 2006, 01:36 AM
Woodcrest - not so sure. Quad towers and XServes are clearly "pro" machines, but one could argue that it's premature to shift these to Intel until the pro software situation improves. What good is new hardware if the software that the high end customers needs doesn't run well on the new kit?

Well, since Final Cut Studio and Shake are ready, that's two very good reasons to ship Quad towers. Not sure if that's enough to support the market, but it's enough for me to buy! There is no way that Apple is going to hold up the Intel systems (woodcrest) to wait for Adobe! But of course, that's probably not what you are implying...:D

AidenShaw
May 7, 2006, 09:18 AM
Well, since Final Cut Studio and Shake are ready, that's two very good reasons to ship Quad towers. Not sure if that's enough to support the market, but it's enough for me to buy! There is no way that Apple is going to hold up the Intel systems (woodcrest) to wait for Adobe! But of course, that's probably not what you are implying...:D
If Apple brings out Woodcrest, but keeps the Quad G5 in the lineup until next summer, that would probably satisfy most people.

rxse7en
May 7, 2006, 01:18 PM
http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/display/20060505150459.html


Interesting results and speculation if follow the embedded links. One statement I found interesting was "Yonah, maybe is the shortest life of all CPU history. From Q1 started and Q3 replace by T7 model, his big brother, Merom."

I haven't been as excited about waiting to buy a new Mac since the G3s and G4s first came out. I'm psyched for a Merom 'book!

B

tehdee
May 7, 2006, 02:42 PM
...(allow me to introduce myself, long time lurker, first post, as i figured i'd wait until i bought my first mac to register. bto mbp, on the way; i know, it's like rolling the dice, but regardless of all the problems, i NEED a computer now, so ordered what was available. i'd love to be able to wait for merom, but i just can't. and it kills me.)

i've been thinking, if i purchase this mbp with applecare, and a year down the road, something happens to it, and it's in need of a replacement... would they replace my yonah spec mbp with the same, old out of production yonah mbp? or would they simply replace it with a merom or 'rev b' model? anyone have similar experiences with powerbooks?

Multimedia
May 7, 2006, 04:39 PM
...(allow me to introduce myself, long time lurker, first post, as i figured i'd wait until i bought my first mac to register. bto mbp, on the way; i know, it's like rolling the dice, but regardless of all the problems, i NEED a computer now, so ordered what was available. i'd love to be able to wait for merom, but i just can't. and it kills me.)

i've been thinking, if i purchase this mbp with applecare, and a year down the road, something happens to it, and it's in need of a replacement... would they replace my yonah spec mbp with the same, old out of production yonah mbp? or would they simply replace it with a merom or 'rev b' model? anyone have similar experiences with powerbooks?Welcome tehdee. No you won't get a new mobo and processor. Apple keeps plenty of spare parts in stock to repair your computer for 3 years. If anything will go wrong, it is most likely to happen at the beginning of its life rather than later. Best bet is to sell your MBP when the Merom ships for almost as much money and then just pay the difference to get the new one. You don't really need to buy Applecare until almost a year is up if nothing goes wrong. If you keep it you DEFINITELY should buy it within that time since anything can happen and often times does happen to portables. But you can sell it within that year as "Applecare upgradeable" since multiple owners can still buy Applecare until after a year from the first buyer's purchase date. :)

AidenShaw
May 7, 2006, 07:01 PM
http://news.com.com/The+second+coming+of+Intels+Core+Duo/2100-1006_3-6069307.html

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d//i/ne/p/2006/intel_178x210.jpg

Multimedia
May 7, 2006, 07:19 PM
http://news.com.com/The+second+coming+of+Intels+Core+Duo/2100-1006_3-6069307.htmlhttp://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d//i/ne/p/2006/intel_178x210.jpgConroe Desktops in July and Mobiles in August. Don't get the name. But sure is going to make all the early 2006 MBPs look pretty obsolete pretty fast. :D :eek: