PDA

View Full Version : Intel Announces Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme


hyperpasta
May 7, 2006, 03:05 PM
Intel has announced that the Merom and Conroe chips that are almost definitely going to power Apple's second-generation Intel Macs will be called "Core 2" processors.

So we can expect to have Core 2 Solo and Core 2 Duo Macs by the end of the year.

In my opinion, this is great news. If Intel chips would be called simply "Core" forever, then system requirements would have to say:

*Core chips introduced from January 2006-August 2006: 1.83 GHz
*Core chips introduced from August 2006-June 2007: 1.67 GHz

Etcetera forever.


Link. (http://news.com.com/The+second+coming+of+Intels+Core+Duo/2100-1006_3-6069307.html?tag=nefd.top)

zap2
May 7, 2006, 03:13 PM
Well here is to a Apple line up of Core Solo/Duo and Core 2 Solo/Duo!

Benjamindaines
May 7, 2006, 03:21 PM
My Opinions:

1. "Core 2" is an absolute crap name, it's just Intel being lazy and not wanting to come up with a new name so they mooch (if you will) off of a name they already made.

2. I don't want to see the Intel PowerMacs with regular desktop PC processors in them. The last thing I want to do is pay $3000 or more for a Mac with a chip that I can get in a PC for half the price.

3. The Core 2 chip should go into the next generation of iMacs and Apple should use the "Woodroe" (or what ever it's called) chip in the PowerMacs

Yes, obviously what ever Apple does there will be PCs with the same chip but the Core 2 chip is just a replacement to the Pentium chip.

Chaszmyr
May 7, 2006, 03:24 PM
Apple should use the "Woodroe" (or what ever it's called) chip

Woodcrest

hyperpasta
May 7, 2006, 03:26 PM
Well here is to a Apple line up of Core Solo/Duo and Core 2 Solo/Duo!

This leaves a few questions unanswered. Will Intel keep older Core chips available after Core 2 chips debut? Will Apple use the older Cores if Intel makes them availible? How fast will Apple transition its line? Will the iMac use Conroe or Woodcrest chips?

I would guess that we'll see new Macs in this order:

MacBook with Core Solo/Duo - Very soon
Mac Pro with Dual Core 2 Duo chips - August
MacBook Pro with Core 2 Duo chips - September
iMac with Core 2 Duo chips - October

By the end of the year, I would also expect that the MacBook and Mac mini get faster Cores and get price-dropped, but stay on Core 1, assuming Intel keeps making it.

dmw007
May 7, 2006, 03:28 PM
So we can expect to have Core 2 Solo and Core 2 Duo Macs by the end of the year. In my opinion, this is great news.


Great news indeed. :D


Not sure how much I like the name Core 2 though... :o

munckee
May 7, 2006, 03:28 PM
My Opinions:

1. "Core 2" is an absolute crap name, it's just Intel being lazy and not wanting to come up with a new name so they mooch (if you will) off of a name they already made.



:rolleyes: You're seriously going to complain about the name of the chip used in your computer?

Benjamindaines
May 7, 2006, 03:30 PM
:rolleyes: You're seriously going to complain about the name of the chip used in your computer?
No no no, just the lazyness :p It's basically a synonym of Core Duo

hyperpasta
May 7, 2006, 03:31 PM
"Core 2" is an absolute crap name, it's just Intel being lazy and not wanting to come up with a new name so they mooch (if you will) off of a name they already made.

What would you call it? :D


I would call it Core 64, since its major new feature (besides being faster) is that it's a 64-bit chip. But simply numbering them makes it easy to see which chip is superior. Everyone can see that a "G5" is superior to a "G4".

iGary
May 7, 2006, 03:38 PM
Like I said, "Core Duo" already sounds like a candy bar.

thebassist
May 7, 2006, 03:42 PM
I agree about using a woodcrest in the powermacs and here's why...

When the G5 came out Apple was comparing it to a Xeon, which is (I believe) going to be replaced by the WoodCrest chip. So, Apple has already put the powermac in the league with the Xeon, and soon to be WoodCrest.
Cornroe and Morem are meant to replace the P4 which is a consumer level chip, and should be left with the consumer level computers (Imac). If Apple put a consumer level chip in the powermac, they'd be pulling it down to the level of IMac.

I don't think Intel is "Lazzy" with the naming, it's marketing. Just like the "Pentium" name, they want consumers to have a catch phrase in their heads when they go into a store. Same with Centrino, or however it's spelt.

mkrishnan
May 7, 2006, 03:48 PM
If Apple put a consumer level chip in the powermac, they'd be pulling it down to the level of IMac.

Speed is speed, isn't it? If the PM successor uses Core Duo, but has two of them, keeping the Quad Core thing going, isn't it going to be fairly fast?

I understand your argument, but in the end, is this about props or performance? I think Apple should do whatever it takes to get the performance of the computer where it needs to be at the lowest cost....

thebassist
May 7, 2006, 04:12 PM
pardon me for not keeping up with the Intel products, but I just thought of this. can you put 2 Conroe or 2 Morem chips in the same motherboard, (duel processors). I ask because currently all the powermacs have 2 chips in them, even the quad actually has 2 physical chips. I'm not sure if that's possible with the Morem or Cornroe. It might very well be possible, but it's not possible with todays P4, but it is with the Xeon. maybe that's another tick mark for using Woodcrest. Powermacs have had the option for 2 processors for an awfully long time. I'd expect them to continue the trend, even given the multiple core trend going on in the industry.
I believe there is a quad core in the works as well, is that a Morem core, or a Woodcrest? also what will it be called "Core Quadro", "Core Quortet" that sounds pretty good actually. and if you put 2 of them in a system will it be a "core Octo"?

hyperpasta
May 7, 2006, 04:17 PM
>can you put 2 Conroe or 2 Morem chips in the same motherboard, (duel processors).

Probably.

> I ask because currently all the powermacs have 2 chips in them, even the quad actually has 2 physical chips.

Not quite. All PowerMacs have dual-core chips, the quad has TWO dual-core chips (total: four cores)

> I believe there is a quad core in the works as well, is that a Morem core, or a Woodcrest?

Neither, the first Quad-core chip will be called "Kentsfield", I beleive.

t^3
May 7, 2006, 04:17 PM
As far as I know, the current Core Duos don't support dual socket configurations, because Sossaman (Xeon LV) is mentioned as being similar to the Core Duo but supporting dual socket, or a total of 4 cores. This is why the G5's were compared to Xeons instead of P4's because there's no support for dual P4's. I think this lends further evidence that the PowerMac replacement will indeed have next-generation Xeons (Woodcrest).

isgoed
May 7, 2006, 04:24 PM
As I already encountered in this thread, this will result in mis-communication. How should one interpretet sentences like: "I have 2 core 2 duo dualcore processors in my system."

The core 2 will actually just identify the processorgroup of all intels 64-bit core-processors. The processors themselves will get a serial number. As your link points out the Conroe will for example fall in the 4000 or 6000 serie.

And the codenames woodcrest, conroe, etc will not be used for sale-products, just because they don't sound like computer products. And for the record: Merom and Conroe can't be set up in a dual socket configuration.

hyperpasta
May 7, 2006, 04:25 PM
Yup, Kentsfield, expected in 2007.

hyperpasta
May 7, 2006, 04:26 PM
As I already encountered in this thread, this will result in mis-communication. How should one interpretet sentences like: "I have 2 core 2 duo dualcore processors in my system."

The core 2 will actually just identify the processorgroup of all intels 64-bit core-processors. The processors themselves will get a serial number. As your link points out the Conroe will for example fall in the 4000 or 6000 serie.

And the codenames woodcrest, conroe, etc will not be used for sale-products, just because they don't sound like computer products. And for the record: Merom and Conroe can't be set up in a dual socket configuration.

Yes, it is confusing. But I highly doubt Apple will use model numbers; they haven't so far with Yonah chips...

hyperpasta
May 7, 2006, 04:27 PM
Oh, and I heard that there will be no Core 2 Solo... only Duo. Is that right?

Catfish_Man
May 7, 2006, 04:43 PM
Oh, and I heard that there will be no Core 2 Solo... only Duo. Is that right?

Hard to say; on the one hand, dual-core is in these days. On the other hand... why not sell a Core 2 Solo?

I'm also curious as to whether Intel will continue its tradition of differentiating between server and desktop chips based on whether SMP is turned on or off. My guess is that they will, so Apple will have to either go dual core (may or may not be fast enough to be practical) or use woodcrest.

MacRumors
May 7, 2006, 08:19 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

News.com reports (http://news.com.com/The+second+coming+of+Intels+Core+Duo/2100-1006_3-6069307.html?tag=nefd.top) on the new name for the next generation of Core Duo processors, now known as the Core 2 Duo.

The Core 2 Duo will be the new name for the upcoming Merom (mobile) and Conroe (desktop) processors which are now expected as early as July/August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060420043039.shtml). Meanwhile, "Core 2 Extreme" will be Intel's name for the high end desktop processor.

Merom and Conroe processors are distinguished by their model numbers - 4000 and 6000 series for Conroe and 5000 and 7000 series for Merom.

Conveniently, the Conroe numbers match up well with the model numbers used by Advanced Micro Devices on its current generation of dual-core Athlon 64 X2 desktop processors

The Tuck
May 7, 2006, 08:22 PM
Apple will probably wait until this August to update the portable Macs again and the PowerMac intel version will probably be announced at WWDC.

My 2 cents.

GFLPraxis
May 7, 2006, 08:24 PM
Awesome, but the names are terrible.

"Core 2 Duo"? Doesn't Duo mean 2?

Fiveos22
May 7, 2006, 08:25 PM
I agree, the naming here is not nearly as sexy as the G series

yankeefan24
May 7, 2006, 08:26 PM
Awesome, but the names are terrible.

"Core 2 Duo"? Doesn't Duo mean 2?

I agree. Its very redundant. Translation, Core two two. Or a Two-Two Cores. Doesn't make sense. I think they could come up with a better name.

vniow
May 7, 2006, 08:26 PM
Extreme is sooo 2002.

twoodcc
May 7, 2006, 08:27 PM
I agree, the naming here is not nearly as sexy as the G series


i agree. but i don't think the name will be "that bad". we'll get used to them

mikemodena
May 7, 2006, 08:29 PM
It didn't really make sense to me until I saw the logo for it. It's the Core 2 -- like the Pentium 2, then Duo for dual core. So it can also be Core 2 Solo I suppose, but I have no idea if they would make Solo versions.

wrldwzrd89
May 7, 2006, 08:30 PM
I agree on the names - not the best job on Intel's part. However, I look forward to finding out what advanced features Intel has put into these CPUs that future Macs could make use of - my next Mac will have an Intel processor inside, but I won't be getting one for a while yet.

What I'm most curious about, though, is the virtualization technology rumors. If these are true, would it then become trivial to run Mac OS X as a guest OS on an Intel Mac (or any other x86 OS as a guest)? I would be hugely excited if this turned out to be true. Any further speculation on this matter?

EricNau
May 7, 2006, 08:31 PM
What stupid (and confusing) names.

:confused:

jdurston
May 7, 2006, 08:34 PM
How long till someone pops one of these in their Mini or iMac? When are they available?

BWalen
May 7, 2006, 08:34 PM
Apple will probably wait until this August to update the portable Macs again and the PowerMac intel version will probably be announced at WWDC.

My 2 cents.

Yeah hopefully! when mac was using powerpc it took forever to get updates (ie- 1 year between powerbook updates?). Now that they're with intel, i could see mac updating more frequently, and hopefully the macbook pro updates in a few months when i'll be ready to sell my current powerbook and move up!

200paul
May 7, 2006, 08:37 PM
Extreme is sooo 2002.

I know - I want "HYPER" to come back!

QCassidy352
May 7, 2006, 08:37 PM
Apple will probably wait until this August to update the portable Macs again and the PowerMac intel version will probably be announced at WWDC.

My 2 cents.

I don't think they can afford to do that. Now that they use the same chips as PC makers, if those chips are available and being used in Dells, Sonys, Acers, etc. in July/August, then Apple needs to be using those chips or else look really really bad.

avensis087
May 7, 2006, 08:37 PM
what i'm curious about in the pin compatibility. i'm running the 2.0 GHz Core Duo, so it's not out of date (yet) but i wouldn't mind shelling out a few hundred bucks for a speed bump of .33 GHz or more. any thoughts?

mr

ChinComSlot
May 7, 2006, 08:40 PM
I"m waiting to see when's the best time to get the new MacBookPro....i'm really hoping that it will be upgraded to 64-bit soon!

what other features are expected in the Rev. B MacBookPro??

Damek
May 7, 2006, 08:41 PM
Extreme is sooo 2002.

Seriously - once we hit "wormhole x-treme! (http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/s5/512.shtml)" - that should have been the end of it!

interlaced
May 7, 2006, 08:42 PM
"Core 2 Duo" makes me think it would be a Quad. Sneaky Intel.

AidenShaw
May 7, 2006, 08:43 PM
How long till someone pops one of these in their Mini or iMac? When are they available?
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060412011938.shtml

A month ago it was reported that a sample Merom could be dropped into a Mini.

sam10685
May 7, 2006, 08:43 PM
that's great. now it's apples turn to do it's thing.

chuckles:)
May 7, 2006, 08:45 PM
I seem to remember this same argument from when the MBP came out,
just about everyone thought it was a dumb name, but we got used to it didn't we?

AidenShaw
May 7, 2006, 08:46 PM
what i'm curious about in the pin compatibility. i'm running the 2.0 GHz Core Duo, so it's not out of date (yet) but i wouldn't mind shelling out a few hundred bucks for a speed bump of .33 GHz or more. any thoughts?

mr
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060412011938.shtml

Yes, it's pin compatible.

Note that Merom is 25% faster than Yonah at the same clock, so you'll get more bang for your bucks.

Also, Merom will run the 64-bit software that's coming, so your iMac/Mini with a Merom should be useful further into the future than a Yonah system will be. Note also that in 64-bit mode you get another 20% or so - making the Merom about 50% faster than the Yonah when running 64-bit apps.

mmcxiiad
May 7, 2006, 08:46 PM
this naming scheme shows why the intel marketing department makes the big bucks!

hyperpasta
May 7, 2006, 08:46 PM
Wait a minute! Am I blind, or is there no mention of a Core 2 Extreme in that C|NET Article?

ampd
May 7, 2006, 08:46 PM
I just want to buy my first mac and im set on buying one of the new intel powermacs...

AidenShaw
May 7, 2006, 08:48 PM
[QUOTE=MacrumorsNews.com reports (http://news.com.com/The+second+coming+of+Intels+Core+Duo/2100-1006_3-6069307.html?tag=nefd.top) on the new name for the next generation of Core Duo processors, now known as the Core 2 Duo.[/QUOTE]
So, how do you get the "Intel Announces..." title from a 2nd hand rumour? C|net says that "the company is expected to announce Sunday" - which is far from "Intel Announces".

I would think that only an Intel press release or public presentation would warrant "Intel Announces"....

Nothing at http://www.intel.com/pressroom/index.htm?iid=HMPAGE+Header_1_Press

iHeartTheApple
May 7, 2006, 08:50 PM
Apple will probably wait until this August to update the portable Macs again and the PowerMac intel version will probably be announced at WWDC.

My 2 cents.

Do you really think they'll update the portables this soon? :confused: It would be great if they did, but...Wow! I'll be surprised if it happens...I figured we wouldn't see MeromMacs 'til early '07. :( I guess we'll find out soon enough...

Chaszmyr
May 7, 2006, 08:54 PM
Wait a minute! Am I blind, or is there no mention of a Core 2 Extreme in that C|NET Article?

You're not blind.

MrCrowbar
May 7, 2006, 08:55 PM
So "Core" goes like "Pentium". So will we get "Core 3", "Core 4" etc. ?
I thought "Core Duo" means "Dual Core Processor". Then we will have "Core 3 Quad" eventually? Whoever thought about that name...
Isn't it called Pentium D in the PC worls anyway?

It's likely Apple waits untill Julli/August for the updates. The mashines are now opn Intel alright, but making too many updates isn't good. Twice or 3 times a year is ok, otherwise people are reluctant to buy knowing there will be an pdate very soon. I just hope my iMac is the fastest one available for some time :p . Don't know if I will upgrade my CPU this soon. It's fast enough for the stuff I do. I'll wait for the real update when there's something really new coming out. Maybe I'll get a Macbook once it's Rev B. Hope the black one is not too ugly ;)

SuperSnake2012
May 7, 2006, 08:57 PM
Is it just me or would adding the number 2 just confuse consumers on which processor is which? :rolleyes:

Stridder44
May 7, 2006, 08:58 PM
Its cool, but means nothing (to me anyway) until Apple actually shows us some products that use it.


Thank God the days of waiting 6-12 months for updates is over.

chaos86
May 7, 2006, 08:58 PM
nnnnooooooooooo please stop using 'extreme' in naming schemes!

hyperpasta
May 7, 2006, 09:02 PM
You're not blind.

Hmmm.... arn?

AidenShaw
May 7, 2006, 09:03 PM
So "Core" goes like "Pentium". So will we get "Core 3", "Core 4" etc.
That's what the rumour at C|net says...


I thought "Core Duo" means "Dual Core Processor". Then we will have "Core 3 Quad" eventually? Whoever thought about that name...
Isn't it called Pentium D in the PC worls anyway?
I'd guess Quattro, myself ;) .

Pentium D is a Netburst dual-core, very different architecture from a Core Duo.


The mashines are now opn Intel alright, but making too many updates isn't good. Twice or 3 times a year is ok, otherwise people are reluctant to buy knowing there will be an pdate very soon.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Intel - Apple will be updating much more rapidly, else they will risk being seen as pushing obsolete kit.


I just hope my iMac is the fastest one available for some time :p .
Nope, you'll lose on this one. After August, your iMac will be an older generation 32-bit CPU, when the new iMac as a faster 64-bit capable CPU.


Don't know if I will upgrade my CPU this soon. It's fast enough for the stuff I do.
It may be possible to put the faster CPU in your iMac - it has a socket for the CPU.

But, you're smart to realize that it's "fast enough" - no need to spend money on the latest if what you have meets your needs. (I'm typing on a 2.6 GHz P4 with a 400MHz bus - it's fast enough ;) )

Shaddow825
May 7, 2006, 09:04 PM
I find it amusing that there is all this confusion from a group of people running OS X 10.x :)

thejadedmonkey
May 7, 2006, 09:09 PM
I seem to remember this same argument from when the MBP came out,
just about everyone thought it was a dumb name, but we got used to it didn't we?
yes, but just cuz we got used to it doesn't mean we still don't think it's dumb.

boncellis
May 7, 2006, 09:11 PM
I agree the name leaves something to be desired. However, it's not without precedent--if I'm not mistaken, Intel wanted to ditch the "x86" naming when it went to "Pentium," which was the next generation or "5th." So, pentium II, III, IV are all 5-II, 5-III, et al.

Nice to see Intel hasn't learned much since those days. ;)

I'll keep calling them Merom and Conroe and hope that the people I talk to are smart enough to know what the hell I'm talking about. And yes, I'm prepared to be disappointed.

MrCrowbar
May 7, 2006, 09:14 PM
It may be possible to put the faster CPU in your iMac - it has a socket for the CPU.


Yea, I know. But I'd want to upgrade RAM (> 2GB) and Graphics Card first but none of it is possible on iMacs. And intel iMacs seem to be difficult to take apart. I void my warranty if I break something when swapping processors, right? I miss the old G5 iMacs that were beautiful on the onside too. I know I'll have this Mac long enough for the hard drive to die someday so I'll have to disassemble the whole thing to get to the HDD :mad: .

081440
May 7, 2006, 09:31 PM
Great news!!!!

It's great being with Intel now, the updates are so much faster (if a bit confusing) :)

I hope Apple renames theses chips.... cause Intel needs a new marketing department...the names are awful

sluthy
May 7, 2006, 09:33 PM
Great, confusing the new chips with the current Core line (which, ironically, is NOT based on the Core architecture...). That's their fault for naming Yonah "Core", when it isn't. Surely they should've distinguished between their desktop and mobile line with more than a model number (So a Core 2 Duo 5000 is a desktop CPU, but the 6000 is mobile?).

boncellis
May 7, 2006, 09:33 PM
...Also, Merom will run the 64-bit software that's coming, so your iMac/Mini with a Merom should be useful further into the future than a Yonah system will be. Note also that in 64-bit mode you get another 20% or so - making the Merom about 50% faster than the Yonah when running 64-bit apps.

That's what I'm waiting for. While I usually don't expect to buy "future-proof" computers, it seems like Merom will at least give me semblance of such protection. Though I wonder how far away 64 bit applications are...

My question is when will we see Merom in the Mini? It's still relatively fresh in its current incarnation, and it's anticipated that WWDC will see the PowerMac replacement, not the consumer level machines. I guess Apple could announce the update to the iMac and Mini at WWDC while focusing on the tower. If so, that's a lot of "new" products when you consider that the MBP will also have to be updated. This Intel time-frame has me happily disoriented. :)

iMeowbot
May 7, 2006, 09:38 PM
Wait a minute! Am I blind, or is there no mention of a Core 2 Extreme in that C|NET Article?

Right, they haven't mentioned that bit. Here's (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31514) a source that does discuss it in way too much detail.

Super Dave
May 7, 2006, 09:39 PM
Awesome, but the names are terrible.

"Core 2 Duo"? Doesn't Duo mean 2?

They should have come up with something original and sexy like Core…

Quadra!

David:cool:

KindredMAC
May 7, 2006, 09:39 PM
I think at this point, if Intel is going to be retarded about their naming (what else do you expect from a PC company?), I think Apple should just call the next PowerMac the G6. It is technically the Sixth Generation chip in the PowerMac line isn't it?

My reasons for keeping the name PowerMac G6:
1) This desktop is the most "powerful" computer Apple offers along all lines.
2) It is the most trusted and recognized name in the industry and non-industries.
3) It has "Mac" in the name already to go along with Steve's reasoning of changing the name of the PowerBook.

081440
May 7, 2006, 09:39 PM
Can't they just call them: Core 1, Core 2, Core 3,.....

And drop the Duo designation as they will all be duo soon enough

They could label with solo where nessesary, and it would make sense.

this is not like the the MacBook Pro at all!!!! as that name didn't confuse people.

I had to read it three times over before I got it, I can't imagine the poor salespeople on the floor trying to explain this name to someone who doesn't have a firm grasp on computer lingo.

081440
May 7, 2006, 09:41 PM
I think at this point, if Intel is going to be retarded about their naming (what else do you expect from a PC company?), I think Apple should just call the next PowerMac the G6. It is technically the Sixth Generation chip in the PowerMac line isn't it?

My reasons for keeping the name PowerMac G6:
1) This desktop is the most "powerful" computer Apple offers along all lines.
2) It is the most trusted and recognized name in the industry and non-industries.
3) It has "Mac" in the name already to go along with Steve's reasoning of changing the name of the PowerBook.


Perfect!!! e-mail that to Steve

nagromme
May 7, 2006, 09:45 PM
I would have predicted Core64.

Core 2 Duo/Solo/Extreme is a little weird, but at least it provides easy abbreviation: C2D, C2S, C2X.

nagromme
May 7, 2006, 09:54 PM
So just to be clear... Core 2 Extreme is NOT Woodcrest.

Woodcrest is going to be called the Xeon 5100 series.

Core 2 Extreme must just be the top-model Conroe chips.

MacQuest
May 7, 2006, 09:56 PM
...I can't imagine the poor salespeople on the floor trying to explain this name to someone who doesn't have a firm grasp on computer lingo.

If a customer asks why it's called Intel Core 2 Duo:

"It's the 2nd version of Intel's 'Core' series chips.
'Duo' [Quattro, Sexta, Octa, Penta, :D ] simply indicates the number of processors on that chip."

If a sales person can't explain that, they need to be fired.

Chupa Chupa
May 7, 2006, 09:56 PM
Great. So, I guess in light of Apple's new policy of giving product names tounge twisters the Mac Pro Desktop Extreme will debut in August.

AidenShaw
May 7, 2006, 09:58 PM
Yea, I know. But I'd want to upgrade RAM (> 2GB) and Graphics Card first but none of it is possible on iMacs.
The chipset in the iMac can handle 4 GiB of RAM, if you use 2 GiB DIMMs. Not sure if Apple's firmware supports that, you'll have to watch for reports of people buying 3rd party 2 GiB DIMMs.

nagromme
May 7, 2006, 10:05 PM
Great. So, I guess in light of Apple's new policy of giving product names tounge twisters the Mac Pro Desktop Extreme will debut in August.
Are you referring to how much more complicated and hard to pronounce "MacBook Pro" is, compared to "PowerBook G4"? ;)

MacEyeDoc
May 7, 2006, 10:06 PM
I would have predicted Core64.

Core 2 Duo/Solo/Extreme is a little weird, but at least it provides easy abbreviation: C2D, C2S, C2X.

Now that's a good name - I've got a Core64 and 4gigs-on-the-floor.

Now if they can just get a Beatles song to go with it for the big launch . . .

When I'm (Core) 64!

iMeowbot
May 7, 2006, 10:13 PM
So just to be clear... Core 2 Extreme is NOT Woodcrest.

Woodcrest is going to be called the Xeon 5100 series.

Core 2 Extreme must just be the top-model Conroe chips.

Looking at all the published reports, it looks like what really happened is that the graphics made their way out, and all the reporters are speculating wildly about what chips belong to what logos. No two reports are exactly the same. No one has named names, they are trying to scoop an announcement that is apparently scheduled for Monday.

Stridder44
May 7, 2006, 10:31 PM
I seem to remember this same argument from when the MBP came out,
just about everyone thought it was a dumb name, but we got used to it didn't we?


Agreed. And now people are denying that Apple will call the iBook the MacBook. Retarded.

p0intblank
May 7, 2006, 10:52 PM
The names could be better, but does all that really matter in the long run? Nope. :)

Rower_CPU
May 7, 2006, 10:53 PM
I can't wait for the PowerMac replacement/update announcement. I've been sitting on a line item in the budget at work for a Mac desktop for a couple of months now...

truz
May 7, 2006, 11:00 PM
Honestly,

I could care less if Intel called there chip Core XP or WinCore XP now shipping in Apple Computers. It's a stupid name for a processor. As long as I'm getting better performance I don't give a rats @$$. Be thankful microsoft did not purchase Intel out and call them Core XP's.

I think the name Core Duo is much better then a P4 or Xeon.

ncook06
May 7, 2006, 11:25 PM
These awesome names might just make me consider waiting for the merom chips....:D

Linkjeniero
May 7, 2006, 11:38 PM
The name reminds me of the movie "2 Fast, 2 Furious". Probably took a whole 2 neurons to come up with, too :rolleyes: :D .

gman71882
May 7, 2006, 11:41 PM
Hopefully you be able to replace the existing Core Duo Chips with the new Core 2 chips!!!:eek:
Since the Intel IMac Processor isnt Sautered to the Motherboard it should be replaceable!!:eek: NICE

Anonymous Freak
May 7, 2006, 11:49 PM
Hard to say; on the one hand, dual-core is in these days. On the other hand... why not sell a Core 2 Solo?

I would imagine that the single-core chip will end up being the new Celeron. Wether they continue the Celeron name for low-end chips, or just can the Celeron name and use Core Solo (or Core 2 Solo) instead, I can't predict. But I imagine that the 'Core 2 Solo' will fill the same product slot as the current Celerons. (Of course, if it follows previous Celerons, it will take a few months to a year for the new architecture to get the 'Celeron' name.)

I'm also curious as to whether Intel will continue its tradition of differentiating between server and desktop chips based on whether SMP is turned on or off. My guess is that they will, so Apple will have to either go dual core (may or may not be fast enough to be practical) or use woodcrest.

Yes, it has already been announced by Intel that only Woodcrest (the Xeon replacement,) will support multiple sockets. Core 2 Duo (neé Conroe,) will be one socket only.

Anonymous Freak
May 7, 2006, 11:52 PM
Hopefully you be able to replace the existing Core Duo Chips with the new Core 2 chips!!!:eek:
Since the Intel IMac Processor isnt Sautered to the Motherboard it should be replaceable!!:eek: NICE

There has been some talk that Merom (The mobile Core 2 Duo) will be drop-in replacable for Yonah (the current Core Duo.) With one report of a beta Merom even working in an existing Intel Mac mini!

But... We won't know for sure until Intel officially states. They have officially stated that Merom will work with the same CHIPSET as Yonah, but I haven't yet seen confirmation that no other changes will be needed. For example, if Merom bumps up to an 800 MHz bus, (from the current 667,) it would require at least a firmware update to support the new bus speed.

P.S. it's "soldered", not "sautered". I'm not going to complain about your other grammar errors individually, but that one just bugs me, sorry.

dornoforpyros
May 7, 2006, 11:58 PM
Our processors are EXTREME Dawg!


Seriously, unless you are promoting a product called Mountain Dew you have no reason to use the world extreme (yes, this includes airport extreme)

dwd3885
May 8, 2006, 12:00 AM
My Opinions:

2. I don't want to see the Intel PowerMacs with regular desktop PC processors in them. The last thing I want to do is pay $3000 or more for a Mac with a c


You've already been doing that for years. PCs are cheaper, Macs are of higher quality. Just come to terms with it man and suck it up!

You will overpay if you buy a Mac

Lollypop
May 8, 2006, 12:10 AM
The chipset in the iMac can handle 4 GiB of RAM, if you use 2 GiB DIMMs. Not sure if Apple's firmware supports that, you'll have to watch for reports of people buying 3rd party 2 GiB DIMMs.

The iMac, mini and MBP both use laptop memory, if your right shouldnt the mini not only have a upgradeable processor as well as the ability to address 4gigs of memory.. sweet! :D

I dont like the names either, Pentuim was ok, but there is a bit of confusion with the duo part, why not core2 for the normal duo part, core2 solo and core2 extreme, drop the duo asap!

nagromme
May 8, 2006, 12:12 AM
OK, I'll chime in and agree that "Extreme" is silly and painful :o

And I'll agree that I don't care, as long as it delivers.


You've already been doing that for years. PCs are cheaper, Macs are of higher quality. Just come to terms with it man and suck it up!

You will overpay if you buy a Mac
Only if you ignore some specs and use just one or two numbers to say a Mac and PC are "the same." But the reality is usually that the cheaper PC is missing some things.

If you look at ALL the specs, and the software bundle, you'll usually find configuring a NAME-brand PC that comes close actually gets you around the same price as the Mac. Sometimes higher.

Now, you can get a generic-brand PC with cheap parts, or build your own, and those are options Mac buyers don't have. Macs also don't come in rock-bottom models that are really stripped down. But if you compare a Mac with a truly equivalent PC, you'll find that "paying more for Macs" is a myth. (It once was true--but not in recent years.)

Of course, if the two are actually similar in price, you still end up with the Mac being CHEAPER in TCO. Support costs aside, Macs stay useful longer and so you end up buying fewer.

DMann
May 8, 2006, 12:41 AM
Hmmm.... arn?

Announced here:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1958543,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532

sw1tcher
May 8, 2006, 12:47 AM
What's so confusing about the naming scheme? They're just following the naming scheme of their Pentium line.

Core is the microarchitecture being used in these new processors, and that's what Intel are calling these now. So instead of calling them Pentium, they're calling them Core. Pretty simple, right?

The number 2 just refers to the generation, like Pentium II, Pentium III, and Pentium 4.

Duo refers to how many cores the processor has. In this case, it has two cores.

So, Core 2 Duo is a processor that uses the Core microarchitecture, is the second generation of the Core processor (think Pentium II) and has two processor cores.

If it was a Core 2 Solo it would be a processor that uses the Core microarchitecture, is the second generation of the Core processor, and has only one processing core.

For example, when/if Intel puts out quad core chips and they stick to this naming scheme, they'll probably call the first generation Core Quad.... the second generation would be called Core 2 Quad... etc.

The 3rd generation of the Core chip would be called Core 3. If it's a duo core chip, it'll be Core 3 Duo. If it's a single core chip, it will be Core 3 Solo. If it's a quad core chip, it'll be Core 3 Quad.

Not so confusing now is it?

SeaFox
May 8, 2006, 12:47 AM
Awesome, but the names are terrible.

"Core 2 Duo"? Doesn't Duo mean 2?

So when they release a 2 die design to get four cores, they can name it the...

wait for it now...

Bi-Core 2 Duo

The Two Core Two-Two!

Josias
May 8, 2006, 12:49 AM
Would it be "stupid" of me to buy a macbook (intel ibook) if it is announced during the next couple a days. I don't believe there will be Core 2 Duo/Solo in them very soon, perhaps first mid-2007. I don't care much for the extra power. If I just buy a maxed out one now, it will last a logn time. By the time the MacBooks have Core 2 Duo, the others will probably have something else.:p

xPismo
May 8, 2006, 12:58 AM
Arguing about how fast apple will be using new and faster CPU's is such a refreshing change. I have a soft spot for big blue, but the heat and speedlimits on the G5 were really a sad thing.

Now we can join the rest of the world in the never ending 18 month product cycle of faster/cooler/better chips in out computers.

Freaking awesome. Heck, Freaking awesome - extreme! :p ;)

jacobj
May 8, 2006, 01:14 AM
No no no, just the lazyness :p It's basically a synonym of Core Duo

What about the laziness of those that cannot be bothered to spell properly? ;)

redAPPLE
May 8, 2006, 01:19 AM
I don't think Intel is "Lazzy" with the naming, it's marketing. Just like the "Pentium" name, they want consumers to have a catch phrase in their heads when they go into a store. Same with Centrino, or however it's spelt.

no i would not call it LAZY. ;)

i would call it pc marketing guys being pc users, non-creative beige box peecee users, thinking up a name for a chip.

this is btw imo the reason, why no window$ pc name became a household name. i mean e.g. dell megatron 3213x core 2 dual duo (or something).

sushi
May 8, 2006, 02:59 AM
My Opinions:

1. "Core 2" is an absolute crap name, it's just Intel being lazy and not wanting to come up with a new name so they mooch (if you will) off of a name they already made.

2. I don't want to see the Intel PowerMacs with regular desktop PC processors in them. The last thing I want to do is pay $3000 or more for a Mac with a chip that I can get in a PC for half the price.

3. The Core 2 chip should go into the next generation of iMacs and Apple should use the "Woodroe" (or what ever it's called) chip in the PowerMacs

Yes, obviously what ever Apple does there will be PCs with the same chip but the Core 2 chip is just a replacement to the Pentium chip.
Somehow, I think you might never be happy with the new chip names! ;)

Maybe Intel is thinking of going like the Pentium family:

- Pentium
- Pentium II
- Pentium III
- Pentium 4

So the Core family will be:

- Core
- Core 2
- Core 3
- Core 4
- etc.

The average customer probably does not know what it all means but thinks hey, a Core 2 has to be better than a Core processor. Likewise the Core 3 would be better than the Core 2 processor.

Afterall, isn't that what Apple did with the G processors?

- G3
- G4
- G5

BTW, one buys a Mac for the overall Mac experience. Almost anyone these days can go out and build their own computer for less, or buy a Dell box for reasonable price.

sushi
May 8, 2006, 03:00 AM
What's so confusing about the naming scheme? They're just following the naming scheme of their Pentium line.

Core is the microarchitecture being used in these new processors, and that's what Intel are calling these now. So instead of calling them Pentium, they're calling them Core. Pretty simple, right?

The number 2 just refers to the generation, like Pentium II, Pentium III, and Pentium 4.

Duo refers to how many cores the processor has. In this case, it has two cores.

So, Core 2 Duo is a processor that uses the Core microarchitecture, is the second generation of the Core processor (think Pentium II) and has two processor cores.

If it was a Core 2 Solo it would be a processor that uses the Core microarchitecture, is the second generation of the Core processor, and has only one processing core.

For example, when/if Intel puts out quad core chips and they stick to this naming scheme, they'll probably call the first generation Core Quad.... the second generation would be called Core 2 Quad... etc.

The 3rd generation of the Core chip would be called Core 3. If it's a duo core chip, it'll be Core 3 Duo. If it's a single core chip, it will be Core 3 Solo. If it's a quad core chip, it'll be Core 3 Quad.

Not so confusing now is it?
Well put and agree. Just saw your post after I made mine.

Marketing and sales need a way to catch the customer. Keeping the name simple helps them do just that.

joelypolly
May 8, 2006, 03:30 AM
This is great news for those who have iMacs ... cpu upgrades on the way:)

NewSc2
May 8, 2006, 03:49 AM
But the reality is usually that the cheaper PC is missing some things.

If you look at ALL the specs, and the software bundle, you'll usually find configuring a NAME-brand PC that comes close actually gets you around the same price as the Mac. Sometimes higher.

Now, you can get a generic-brand PC with cheap parts, or build your own, and those are options Mac buyers don't have. Macs also don't come in rock-bottom models that are really stripped down. But if you compare a Mac with a truly equivalent PC, you'll find that "paying more for Macs" is a myth. (It once was true--but not in recent years.)

Of course, if the two are actually similar in price, you still end up with the Mac being CHEAPER in TCO. Support costs aside, Macs stay useful longer and so you end up buying fewer.

Of course when configuring a NAME-BRAND PC you can make the case that it will be as expensive as a mac. However, you can't argue that macs aren't more expensive. I've been able to build my own PC from eBayed parts and newegg for around $300-400.

If I had $1000 I could build something that rivals (or at least comes close to) Dual G5's in processing capabilities. My friend's Dell laptop ran pretty much as fast as my 17" Powerbook, and albeit his is much uglier, heavier, etc. it was also less than half the price. A Mac might last longer than a PC, but a PC is very easy and fairly cheap to upgrade.

bigandy
May 8, 2006, 03:52 AM
I agree the name leaves something to be desired. However, it's not without precedent--if I'm not mistaken, Intel wanted to ditch the "x86" naming when it went to "Pentium," which was the next generation or "5th." So, pentium II, III, IV are all 5-II, 5-III, et al.

Nice to see Intel hasn't learned much since those days. ;)

I'll keep calling them Merom and Conroe and hope that the people I talk to are smart enough to know what the hell I'm talking about. And yes, I'm prepared to be disappointed.

they ditched the x86 naming conventions because of the ongoing battle with AMD. the inability to trademark numbers made them move to naming their chips.

aswitcher
May 8, 2006, 03:59 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060412011938.shtml

Yes, it's pin compatible.

Note that Merom is 25% faster than Yonah at the same clock, so you'll get more bang for your bucks.

Also, Merom will run the 64-bit software that's coming, so your iMac/Mini with a Merom should be useful further into the future than a Yonah system will be. Note also that in 64-bit mode you get another 20% or so - making the Merom about 50% faster than the Yonah when running 64-bit apps.

So my next gen iMac or the mythic Multimedia Mac (what I would prefer) should be 25%-50% faster at same clock...nice... Worth the wait - 3-6 months to go I guess.

strange days
May 8, 2006, 04:00 AM
I think they'll upgrade the Mini next January; if we're lucky September at the soonest; but i wouldn't bet on it...

...and hopefully they'll put an ATI Mobility X1600 graphics card in it to go with the Merom chip ( by then it should be relatively cheap, right ? ).

That's when i will be drooling for those babies... :rolleyes:

joelypolly
May 8, 2006, 04:35 AM
I think they'll upgrade the Mini next January; if we're lucky September at the soonest; but i wouldn't bet on it...

...and hopefully they'll put an ATI Mobility X1600 graphics card in it to go with the Merom chip ( by then it should be relatively cheap, right ? ).

That's when i will be drooling for those babies... :rolleyes:

Hmm i wouldn't hold your breath for it. Now that Apple can get integrated GFX from intel for free (comes with the chipset) I don't think they will change.

Stridder44
May 8, 2006, 05:05 AM
Hmm i wouldn't hold your breath for it. Now that Apple can get integrated GFX from intel for free (comes with the chipset) I don't think they will change.


Laaaame. But then again, it does drive down the initial price....God I just hope they offer a real graphics card as a BTO option...

tiramisu
May 8, 2006, 05:08 AM
so on july/august there'll be the new processor. so apple will use the new "Core Duo Duo" in the macbook on summer, right? wow, thats quite fast. i guess i'll have to wait again. puh! :rolleyes:

chaos86
May 8, 2006, 05:11 AM
Laaaame. But then again, it does drive down the initial price....God I just hope they offer a real graphics card as a BTO option...

if youre buying a mac mini and you want non-intergrated graphics youre buying the wrong machine. its the entry level mac so it has entry level graphics. as for a CTO graphics card, not gonna happen- that would require a every CTO machine to have a different internal design, so it wouldnt be CTO, it would be a different model. now if they made the $799 model half an inch taller to fit in a graphics card, more ports, and two more ram slots, that would be cool by me.

tiramisu
May 8, 2006, 05:38 AM
Intel has announced that the Merom and Conroe chips that are almost definitely going to power Apple's second-generation Intel Macs will be called "Core 2" processors.


don't you think that apple will use it earlier? or does it take for apple longer to user them e.g. in a revision of macbook pro 17"?

odedia
May 8, 2006, 05:41 AM
so on july/august there'll be the new processor. so apple will use the new "Core Duo Duo" in the macbook on summer, right? wow, thats quite fast. i guess i'll have to wait again. puh! :rolleyes:

I'm still secretly hoping that Apple would do the unthinkable and not have the processor in the 17" mbp soldered into the motherboard. Dell's XPS laptops have switchable processors, and that makes them a great upgrade-capable option. Apple already said the technology in the 17" is "new" (referring to including the firewire 800 and 8X DVD Burner), so who knows...

Oded S.

iGary
May 8, 2006, 05:42 AM
"Extreme?"

Come on...:rolleyes:

rockthecasbah
May 8, 2006, 05:52 AM
names are lousy but i mean really who cares, you call a computer by it's name (MacBook Pro :p) not by the processor it has inside.

I am curious however, but didnt get a chance to read beyond the first page because i have to leave for class soon... Does anyone know if these new processors are supposed to be "upgradable" as in you can swap these in/out with the older chips that was reported earlier? Not that i want to, but it would be interesting to know...;)

spook
May 8, 2006, 05:57 AM
Ok, I'm trying not to be stupid here, but I fell behind a while ago with this intel chip stuff

can someone give a brief introduction into exactly what the difference between all the chips are

We have the current core duo/solo chips (Yonah)

then we have the conroe & woodcrest coming out


What exactly is the difference between them all, is Yonah a laptop chip
is conroe & woodcrest 64bit? whilst the others are standard?


Cheers if any can lighten it all up

silence
May 8, 2006, 06:14 AM
I'm still secretly hoping that Apple would do the unthinkable and not have the processor in the 17" mbp soldered into the motherboard. Dell's XPS laptops have switchable processors, and that makes them a great upgrade-capable option.

I mean, is soldering really that hard to "unsolder"..!?

I have the current CoreDuo MBP now, and yeah the processor is soldered...
But does that mean, no matter what, i won't be able to upgrade to the new processors (at a reasonable price)? :confused: :eek:

netdog
May 8, 2006, 06:14 AM
Please please please don't solder the CPU to the motherboard in the MacBook!

chaos86
May 8, 2006, 06:16 AM
I mean, is soldering really that hard to "unsolder"..!?

I have the current CoreDuo MBP now, and yeah the processor is soldered...
But does that mean, no matter what, i won't be able to upgrade to the new processors (at a reasonable price)? :confused: :eek:


haha, have you ever see the underside of a processor? there are hundreds of pins there are soldered to the board. only a talented robot should attempt the task.



edit: btw, whoever was whining about someone misspelling 'soldering' as 'sautering', the misspeller should be forgiven because thats how americans say it for some stupid reason. the rest of the english speaking world pronounces it how it reads.

Glen Quagmire
May 8, 2006, 06:36 AM
Ok, I'm trying not to be stupid here, but I fell behind a while ago with this intel chip stuff

can someone give a brief introduction into exactly what the difference between all the chips are

We have the current core duo/solo chips (Yonah)

then we have the conroe & woodcrest coming out


What exactly is the difference between them all, is Yonah a laptop chip
is conroe & woodcrest 64bit? whilst the others are standard?


Cheers if any can lighten it all up

Yonah = laptop chip, 32 bit, current generation. Single and dual core.

Merom = laptop chip (MacBook/MacBook Pro), 64 bit, next generation.
Conroe = desktop chip (iMac), 64 bit, next generation.
Woodcrest = workstation (PowerMac)/server (XServe) chip, 64 bit, next generation.

All Woodcrests will be dual-core. You will be able to run two of them on the same motherboard.

Conroe will also be dual-core. See here - http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/05/intel_conroe_pricing_details/

Merom will be a mixture of dual and single cores - http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/02/09/intel_mobile_roadmap_feb_06/

AidenShaw
May 8, 2006, 06:48 AM
Conroe = desktop chip (iMac), 64 bit, next generation.
Conroe uses roughly twice the power of Merom, so it might be too hot for the iMac - unless you want a noisy fan that runs all the time.

I'm predicting that Conroe will show up in a new mini-tower/pizza-box form factor - filling the gap between the mini/iMac and the maxi-tower PM.

Whistleway
May 8, 2006, 06:53 AM
What's so confusing about the naming scheme? They're just following the naming scheme of their Pentium line.

Core is the microarchitecture being used in these new processors, and that's what Intel are calling these now. So instead of calling them Pentium, they're calling them Core. Pretty simple, right?

The number 2 just refers to the generation, like Pentium II, Pentium III, and Pentium 4.

Duo refers to how many cores the processor has. In this case, it has two cores.

So, Core 2 Duo is a processor that uses the Core microarchitecture, is the second generation of the Core processor (think Pentium II) and has two processor cores.

If it was a Core 2 Solo it would be a processor that uses the Core microarchitecture, is the second generation of the Core processor, and has only one processing core.

For example, when/if Intel puts out quad core chips and they stick to this naming scheme, they'll probably call the first generation Core Quad.... the second generation would be called Core 2 Quad... etc.

The 3rd generation of the Core chip would be called Core 3. If it's a duo core chip, it'll be Core 3 Duo. If it's a single core chip, it will be Core 3 Solo. If it's a quad core chip, it'll be Core 3 Quad.

Not so confusing now is it?

Thank you! That was helpful.

aswitcher
May 8, 2006, 06:55 AM
Conroe uses roughly twice the power of Merom, so it might be too hot for the iMac - unless you want a noisy fan that runs all the time.

I'm predicting that Conroe will show up in a new mini-tower/pizza-box form factor - filling the gap between the mini/iMac and the maxi-tower PM.

I really hope they build such a machine - a home server effectively for ALL my multimedia hooked up to the LCDTV. Sigh.

Dagless
May 8, 2006, 06:59 AM
This is a bad time for a student mac owner. I had a good run with the PowerBook. bought in 2005 and theres little to upgrade it to now, if you want a 12" machine that is. But with all these new Intel chips being announced not so long after you buy a brand new iMac then i can imagine a little sting. PPC was so old and couldn't go much further, these Intel chips just come out so much.

I dunno. I'm forever going to be stuck in a world of "i'll wait another 6 months" from now on :o

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 07:17 AM
>can you put 2 Conroe or 2 Morem chips in the same motherboard, (duel processors).

Probably.

> I ask because currently all the powermacs have 2 chips in them, even the quad actually has 2 physical chips.

Not quite. All PowerMacs have dual-core chips, the quad has TWO dual-core chips (total: four cores)

> I believe there is a quad core in the works as well, is that a Morem core, or a Woodcrest?

Neither, the first Quad-core chip will be called "Kentsfield", I beleive.
It was suggested that they may bring out a quad core Woodcrest, but I simply assumed they meant Kentsfield. I think also the poster you were quoting was referring to most of the G5 PowerMacs and some of the G4s having dual processor configs. To drop down to a single dual core would be bad, a guaranteed performance drop, so at least the top end will have to be dual dual core.

If indeed Core 2 Duo, (I refer to Conroe and not Merom here, although both should be similar, man calling two different chips the same is confusing), can't support dual processors, that would rule out Mac Pros using Conroe, unless they use Woodcrest in their top end machine and Conroe in others, (unlikely). I recall somebody confirming that Core Duo, (Yonah), did not support dual processors. This would almost certainly apply to Merom and probably Conroe, which again leads us to Woodcrest.

It also means a gap between a single Conroe powered iMac and a Woodcrest powered Mac Pro. How about that mini tower again, perhaps with a Core 2 Extreme at nleast as an option?

line
May 8, 2006, 07:24 AM
sounds really dumb in english <core to do-o> but a bit more in italian <core dueduo>... lazy intel, lazy:rolleyes:

50548
May 8, 2006, 07:36 AM
sounds really dumb in english <core to do-o> but a bit more in italian <core dueduo>... lazy intel, lazy:rolleyes:

It sounds even worse in Portuguese or even Spanish, hehehe...

Core DoisDuo Core DosDuo

:rolleyes:

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 07:40 AM
I think at this point, if Intel is going to be retarded about their naming (what else do you expect from a PC company?), I think Apple should just call the next PowerMac the G6. It is technically the Sixth Generation chip in the PowerMac line isn't it?

My reasons for keeping the name PowerMac G6:
1) This desktop is the most "powerful" computer Apple offers along all lines.
2) It is the most trusted and recognized name in the industry and non-industries.
3) It has "Mac" in the name already to go along with Steve's reasoning of changing the name of the PowerBook.
Perfect!!! e-mail that to Steve
Except don't Pontiac own the name G6 and PowerMacs only came in G4 and G5 flavours technically, (official name change from Power Macintosh after G3, so already modified the name once).

I would also argue that PowerBook is/was more well known within tech, music, movie industries and elsewhere. Didn't stop them dropping the name, even after it was older that PowerMac/Power Macintosh.

iGary
May 8, 2006, 07:48 AM
Except don't Pontiac own the name G6

No they don't.

bokdol
May 8, 2006, 07:51 AM
Except don't Pontiac own the name G6 and PowerMacs only came in G4 and G5 flavours technically, (official name change from Power Macintosh after G3, so already modified the name once).

I would also argue that PowerBook is/was more well known within tech, music, movie industries and elsewhere. Didn't stop them dropping the name, even after it was older that PowerMac/Power Macintosh.


sorry not to be picky.. or too be picky the offical name change came with the 60x series processors the chips right before the g series. i should know this as i owned a 3000 dollar computer with 15 inch color monitor with a 150 mhz 604 powerpc chip inside. ohh and they were blazing fast. the 8500 nice expandable case. and made even better by the 86/9600 side panel access. :p

SiliconAddict
May 8, 2006, 07:56 AM
I'm actually pretty happy with my choice of picking up a MBP now. Intel has gone on record stating they will be updating the microarchitecture once every 2 years. So by the time I’m ready to upgrade in 2008 Intel should be introducing the Core 3 whereas Anyone upgrading to the Core2 will be only a year into their system. Yah I’m pretty happy about this.

PS- The G naming convention is dead. End of story. close the book.

SiliconAddict
May 8, 2006, 07:58 AM
sounds really dumb in english <core to do-o> but a bit more in italian <core dueduo>... lazy intel, lazy:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: What else did you want them to call it? What is the sucessor to 1? Two right? Gah. You want to pick on a crappy name pick on Nintendo's next gen console....WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

sneaky
May 8, 2006, 08:03 AM
Extreme is sooo 2002.

How about Uber Core Duo?

AidenShaw
May 8, 2006, 08:38 AM
Extreme is sooo 2002.
But it does follow the current "Extreme Edition" branding...it's not a "new" use of "Extreme", at least.

AidenShaw
May 8, 2006, 08:47 AM
The G naming convention is dead. End of story. close the book.
...it's time to update your avatar :cool:

line
May 8, 2006, 08:52 AM
:rolleyes: What else did you want them to call it? What is the sucessor to 1? Two right? Gah. You want to pick on a crappy name pick on Nintendo's next gen console....WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

core duo x2
..x3, x4 so on perhaps

core 2 duo is not crappy, it's quite logical but it sounds dumb.

SiliconAddict
May 8, 2006, 08:55 AM
...it's time to update your avatar :cool:


Ahh but that is what is in my MBP :D

AidenShaw
May 8, 2006, 09:02 AM
Ahh but that is what is in my MBP :D
'til eBay in August, right?

rxse7en
May 8, 2006, 09:06 AM
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

QPlot
May 8, 2006, 09:34 AM
whatever the name is, just release it, I can't wait.:eek:

Multimedia
May 8, 2006, 09:35 AM
Actually, it will be Core 2 Duo 5000 series and Core 2 Duo 7000 series.

Conroe will be Core 2 Duo 4000 series and Core 2 Duo 6000 series (and maybe 8000 for the extreme).What Will Be The Difference Between Core 2 Duo 5000 & 7000 Series? And what will the Core 3 Duo be and when will it begin manufacturing? :confused:

OK So it looks like the 5000 series are those processors under 2 GHz with a 2 MiB L2 cache while the 7000 series is the over 2 GHz with a 4 MiB L2 cache all running with a 667 MHz FSB.

I'll take one 17" MBP with a T7600 Core 2 Duo 2.33 GHz (4 MiB L2, 667 MHz FSB) please.

Alden: I am unfamiliar with the abbreviation "MiB". Can you tell us what that means please?

^squirrel^
May 8, 2006, 09:38 AM
What Will Be The Difference Between Core 2 Duo 5000 & 7000 Series? And what will the Core 3 Duo be and when will it begin manufacturing? :confused:

lol lets just get the Duo 2 outta the way first......:p

But i see the point your trying to make.

AidenShaw
May 8, 2006, 09:43 AM
What Will Be The Difference Between Core 2 Duo 5000 & 7000 Series? And what will the Core 3 Duo be and when will it begin manufacturing? :confused:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&threadid=1854596

Merom
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)

That's not a confirmed listing, however.

Similar info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors

modernpixel
May 8, 2006, 09:54 AM
So - do I have this straight???

The base brand name of the chips is "Intel Core"

The "2" represents that it is the second generation of the "Intel Core"

And the "Duo" represents that it has two cores.

So, theoretically, if they keep with this branding scheme, the third generation of dual-core processors will be called "Intel Core 3 Duo"

But then the high end chips will be "Intel Core 2 Extreme" ... so will the Extreme's predecessor be the "Intel Core 2 Extreme 3?"

Using multiple numbers in a brand name is a really bad idea.

I think "Intel Core Duo" is a catchy name. If they need to use numbers to demarcate generations -- the number should come after "Duo" As in:

Intel Core Duo 2
Intel Core Duo 3

A simple rearranging illuminates the meaning.

I agree that "Extreme" is a terribly overused adjective. A quick trip to Thesaurus.com doesn't yield many good alternatives:

Intel Core Duo Extreme
Intel Core Duo Max
Intel Core Duo Supreme
Intel Core Duo Ultimate
Intel Core Duo Severe
Intel Core Duo Uttermost
Intel Core Duo Zenith
Intel Core Duo Infinite
Intel Core Duo Precocious
Intel Core Duo Fierce
Intel Core Duo Intense
Intel Core Duo The Unction of God

Thesaurus.com - you are of no use to us.

How about they ape Apple and just use "Intel Core Duo Pro" yay - perfect.

Joe

Multimedia
May 8, 2006, 10:05 AM
How about they ape Apple and just use "Intel Core Duo Pro" yay - perfect.Intel Core Duo Gamer
Intel Core Duo 3-D
Intel Core Duo Ultra

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 10:08 AM
the point is that typing apple music into google, saying it on the street, looking it up in any sort of directory, the first result will be Apple Computer Inc. nowadays, rather than Apple Corps. as it used to be.
Even if Apple had never entered the music industry, I doubt many would have noticed the record label name of the Beatles unless they were from the generation that it was launched into. I like the Beatles and am a big classic rock fan, but I wouldn't have been able to tell you what their record label was without these court cases.

Different generations I guess, and I am more of a Pink Floyd fan, (Harvest).

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 10:08 AM
Conroe uses roughly twice the power of Merom, so it might be too hot for the iMac - unless you want a noisy fan that runs all the time.

I'm predicting that Conroe will show up in a new mini-tower/pizza-box form factor - filling the gap between the mini/iMac and the maxi-tower PM.
While I am in full agreeance that a mini tower should return to the line-up, not a pizza box though, (friend has spare LCIII that was promised to be sold onto me, but I think that design has had it's time), I would say that the iMac may also use Conroe. Think about it, the G5 was also hot and noisy, but they overcame this. I guess this may bump the price up however, but we'll see. It would be nice to see the iMac return to a desktop processor after a brief affair with Yonah.

AidenShaw
May 8, 2006, 10:19 AM
While I am in full agreeance that a mini tower should return to the line-up, not a pizza box though...
By "pizza box" I mean a horizontal system the size of home video/audio components (styled to match your DVD/TiVo as well).

The Media Centre Edition, also suitable for a desktop - give it a little stand to use if you want to mount it on edge.

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 10:19 AM
sorry not to be picky.. or too be picky the offical name change came with the 60x series processors the chips right before the g series. i should know this as i owned a 3000 dollar computer with 15 inch color monitor with a 150 mhz 604 powerpc chip inside. ohh and they were blazing fast. the 8500 nice expandable case. and made even better by the 86/9600 side panel access. :p
Well several sources point to the G3 being the last Power model to be called Macintosh rather than Mac. I may be wrong, hell I probably am as even Apple classes some in the Power Macintosh category and then calls them PowerMacs, but I do know there was a minor name change at some point in their life.

I'll stop being picky now though.;)

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 10:41 AM
By "pizza box" I mean a horizontal system the size of home video/audio components.

The Media Centre Edition, also suitable for a desktop - give it a little stand to use if you want to mount it on edge.
I know what you meant, hence my reference to the LCIII, (remember the LC was referred to as a Pizza Box).

I do see you point in the context of a Media Centre machine, but in many ways I would see this potential iMac-Mac pro filler not as a media centre, but as a machine to compete with other Wintel towers. Just as long as it is easier to upgrade than a cube and about the same price as an iMac, (if more powerful), or cheaper, (if same power), it would help sales rise.

Multimedia
May 8, 2006, 10:47 AM
That Extreme Edition "Conroe" is going to to be VF Quick!!

3.3GHz, two cores, 1.3GHz FSB and 4MB L2 cache? Holy Cow Batman!!I forget. Can two of those be paired for a Quad Mac Ultra Alden?

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 10:54 AM
Alden: I am unfamiliar with the abbreviation "MiB". Can you tell us what that means please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mebibyte
1 MebiByte = 1024KiB = 1048576 Bytes, (MB means MegaByte and using SI measurements, this should be 1000000 Bytes and so MebiByte fills that gap).

milo
May 8, 2006, 11:01 AM
More interesting than the name change is the announcement that Conroe (C2D Extreme) will be socket compatible and will work in shipping Yonah motherboards.

I wonder if it will work in either the iMac or mini? I assume the biggest issues are heat and power consumption.

don't you think that apple will use it earlier? or does it take for apple longer to user them e.g. in a revision of macbook pro 17"?

Nobody knows yet. So far apple has only used one chip for the intels, and they got it out about the same time as everyone else.


I do agree that the names are a bit silly and confusing. Duo and 2 in the same name is fairly risible. At least they could have gone with Core Duo 2, sounds more like a sequel while Core 2 Duo sounds like you have two duos. And extreme is cheesy and cliché. If apple hadn't already used the core in a couple desktop machines, the more appropriate names would just be Core and Core Mobile.

bretm
May 8, 2006, 11:05 AM
I agree. Its very redundant. Translation, Core two two. Or a Two-Two Cores. Doesn't make sense. I think they could come up with a better name.

It would not mean 2 2 cores. Core 2 duo would mena the Core 2 chip in a dual configuration.

Just like Core and Core Duo. A single and dual config.

Geez if we had the G4 with a quad config everybody would be complaing about the G4 Quad. Seems the same to me Core 2 duo. Core 2 Quad (doesn't exist, but anyway)

nagromme
May 8, 2006, 11:06 AM
I assume next year we will see Core 2 Quad ? Or maybe that IS what "Extreme" will mean: 4 cores on one die.


Would it be "stupid" of me to buy a macbook (intel ibook) if it is announced during the next couple a days. I don't believe there will be Core 2 Duo/Solo in them very soon, perhaps first mid-2007. I don't care much for the extra power. If I just buy a maxed out one now, it will last a logn time. By the time the MacBooks have Core 2 Duo, the others will probably have something else.:p
Not stupid at all. They're great buys on fast machines. If you CAN wait, waiting always has benefits, for ANY computer product. Improvements are made (large or small) and prices come down over time. But there's ALWAYS something "better" on the horizon. People who buy Merom MacBooks will be seeing rumors of the NEXT Merom chips. So wait if you don't need something now, but if you do, go for it!


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."
Yeah, when was the last time Macs went through two whole GENERATIONS in about half a year? :eek:

bretm
May 8, 2006, 11:08 AM
core duo x2
..x3, x4 so on perhaps

core 2 duo is not crappy, it's quite logical but it sounds dumb.

Yours is harder to say and not logical. Core Duo x2 sounds like a 4 processor machine. 2 Core Duo chips. A configuration that isn't supported and doesn't exist.

dagger01
May 8, 2006, 11:14 AM
My Opinions:

1. "Core 2" is an absolute crap name, it's just Intel being lazy and not wanting to come up with a new name so they mooch (if you will) off of a name they already made.

2. I don't want to see the Intel PowerMacs with regular desktop PC processors in them. The last thing I want to do is pay $3000 or more for a Mac with a chip that I can get in a PC for half the price.

3. The Core 2 chip should go into the next generation of iMacs and Apple should use the "Woodroe" (or what ever it's called) chip in the PowerMacs

Yes, obviously what ever Apple does there will be PCs with the same chip but the Core 2 chip is just a replacement to the Pentium chip.

First, why should anyone care what Intel calls their processors? Does the name affect how good the chip or the computer built around it is? No. So, who gives a flying crap what they call it.

Second, if you don't want to buy a Mac, don't! No one is holding a gun to your head. If you want to buy an el cheapo Wintel box that will give you tons of headaches, go right ahead. I'd rather pay extra for the piece of mind that the damn thing will work right out of the box, but I'm just someone that's used (not sat at for a class, or whatever) just about every hardware and OS platform created since 1980. You can make your own educated (or uneducated) decision. Up to you.

Third, if you were so smart about what processor Apple should use where, then you'd be an Apple product manager. Again, I'm rather happy you're not because you certainly seem to lack a basic understanding of how products are transitioned between technologies.

This is the FIRST set of products to be released after a MAJOR technology switch on the hardware front. Apple is just trying to get products out the door with the new technologies so that consumers, and more importantly developers, can get used to the new platform. This also gives Apple, and Intel who has long wanted to do some nifty things with their designs that the Wintel world just wasn't able to, a chance to work with their new partner and develop some pretty ground breaking things. We are not even seeing the tip of the iceberg as far as what this new Apple/Intel partnership will reveal in the coming years. All this talk about "How is Apple going to differentiate itself in the market now that they are using the same processors as white box vendors?" is just media FUD. We have no idea what Apple and Intel will cook up, but I'm certain (and you can hold me to this in the next four years) that Intel and Apple will create a unique platform that is binary compatible with the Wintel world, yet architecturally unique.

There are a lot of things going on behind the curtain that have yet to even be speculated upon by the best of Apple watchers. Stop whining and strap yourself in, this is gonna be a fun and exciting ride!

Abulia
May 8, 2006, 11:17 AM
Awesome, but the names are terrible.
Wii terrible or just terrible? ;)

50548
May 8, 2006, 11:19 AM
By "pizza box" I mean a horizontal system the size of home video/audio components (styled to match your DVD/TiVo as well).

The Media Centre Edition, also suitable for a desktop - give it a little stand to use if you want to mount it on edge.

I hope you are not referring to those ugly and expensive old stereo-like boxes that are used in "Media Center" PCs...those things are fuuuuugly...

50548
May 8, 2006, 11:20 AM
I know what you meant, hence my reference to the LCIII, (remember the LC was referred to as a Pizza Box).

I do see you point in the context of a Media Centre machine, but in many ways I would see this potential iMac-Mac pro filler not as a media centre, but as a machine to compete with other Wintel towers. Just as long as it is easier to upgrade than a cube and about the same price as an iMac, (if more powerful), or cheaper, (if same power), it would help sales rise.

Come on, I loved my Quadra 605 pizza box...good ol' times when Internet was still a luxury... ;)

dagger01
May 8, 2006, 11:25 AM
Awesome, but the names are terrible.

"Core 2 Duo"? Doesn't Duo mean 2?

A little breakdown for those confused:

"Core 2" - Version of the Core processor architecture (in this case 64-bit)
"Solo/Duo" - number of Core processors on the die/chip

Better now? Make a little more sense? Still looks redundant, I know, but it's really not. Maybe they should have done "Core v2 Duo," but that's a mouthful too.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2/?iid=search

thogs_cave
May 8, 2006, 11:26 AM
I don't think Intel is "Lazzy" with the naming, it's marketing. Just like the "Pentium" name, they want consumers to have a catch phrase in their heads when they go into a store. Same with Centrino, or however it's spelt.

Oh, come on. "Core 2 Duo"?

"Hello, department of redundancy department? I'd like to report a marketeer in need of a serious beating."

I honestly don't care what they call it. It can be "poop on a stick pro turbo gold extreme edition" for all I care, but I hate to see the language brought low once again by the "lazy" marketing types.

Oh, and what does an ancient grain have to do with processors? ;)

alec
May 8, 2006, 11:34 AM
I wonder if you pour Mountain Dew on the new chips, the chips will perform faster?

(ps. to the extreme!!!)

(ps2. who thought of adding 'extreme' is a legitimate way of naming things???)

rxse7en
May 8, 2006, 11:35 AM
I'll be first in line to pick up a 17" 'book with "crappy named" Core 2 Duo proc! Sheesh, like the "603e" was a such a killer name or how 'bout that super-sexy sounding "68040"! :D Again, I am STOKED that we're starting to see HUGE jumps in processing power with this transition and I'd still buy the new 'books even if they called the Merom the "****stick 3000 Turbo Extreme Chip" inside.

B :D

MrCrowbar
May 8, 2006, 11:37 AM
Wii terrible or just terrible? ;)

Good point. It's "just terrible" then. <<Gimme the "Go" Back>> (http://www.notanothertechpodcast.com/podcasts/natp-ep15.mp3). I mean, the Nintendo is aimed for kids. How will they sell it with an obscene name? :p

It's not the number that bohters me that much. The "Core" is in the way. They Sould have called it similarly to Pentium or Itanium.

shawnce
May 8, 2006, 11:55 AM
A little breakdown for those confused:
"Core 2" - Version of the Core processor architecture (in this case 64-bit)


..and riding your coattails...

The Core 2 architecture adds far more then just 64-bit support (x86-64), of major note...


Improved performance at the same power usage over Core (aka "Core 1").
True 128-bit SSE support (vector units can process full 128-bit wide operations in one cycle, data paths are 128b wide now). This bumps Intel's SSE to be more like AltiVec is on PowerPC.
3 x 64-bit integer units up from 2 (boosting integer performance)
One of the more advanced branch predictors available today (increases efficiency of instruction stream processing).
3 x Simple Decoder for Micro-op (up from 2). Allows a large amount of operations to be decoded each cycle (helps to keep the beast (http://media.arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.media/ngma-core.gif) fed).
Micro and Macro operation fusion (reduces the number of independent operations that needs to be tracked while doing the same amount of work)
...among others like enhanced VT, etc.

nagromme
May 8, 2006, 11:57 AM
Speaking of Nintendo, I'll just be thankful it's not "Core Advance."

Advance is a VERB!

Advanced is an ADJECTIVE!

Unless you mean "ahead of time" like "advance warning." Which it not the same as "advanced"!

Now Nintendo has other companies copying this dumbed-down grammar error! You even seen mentions in print about "advance technologies" now! Do they mean "ahead of time"? No, they mean "advanced"!

EDIT: Sorry if I came off over-excited about grammar--I'm not like that.

EDIT 2: Yes! In this case I am! "Advance"? "Advance"???? Let the dumbening end!

EDIT 3: I'm fine now. Warm milk cures all.

jayb2000
May 8, 2006, 11:59 AM
[B][SIZE="4"]
...
I think "Intel Core Duo" is a catchy name. If they need to use numbers to demarcate generations -- the number should come after "Duo" As in:

Intel Core Duo 2
Intel Core Duo 3

A simple rearranging illuminates the meaning.
...
Joe

Agreed! That makes much more sense.

Core Solo 2
Core Solo 3
Core Solo 4

etc.


I just hope the MacBooks are actually pre-announced with the new chips, that would be great.

shawnce
May 8, 2006, 12:05 PM
Personally I am going to start using "C1" for Core Duo/Solo and "C2" for Core 2 Duo/Solo. :)

MacRumorUser
May 8, 2006, 12:08 PM
In theory when the new Core 2 chips are released, they should be able to fit into the socket of the current intel duo imacs, meaning for once a decent upgrade path, albeit one that will have to be done by an expert. Taking apart an imac looks scary :)

Dreamail
May 8, 2006, 12:38 PM
Agreed! That makes much more sense.
Core Solo 2
Core Solo 3
Core Solo 4

It does make more sense - and yet it potentially causes even more confusion.

The problem is the GHz number of the actual chip, where would that go? So we have the Core Solo 1.8 (GHz) and the Core Solo 2.1 (GHz). So would it then be the Core Solo 2 2? Looks like a typo to me. In order to avoid that confusion the version number had to go in between Core and Solo. Not really much choice. Core 2 Solo 2 (GHz) at least avoids typo confusions.

SiliconAddict
May 8, 2006, 12:52 PM
'til eBay in August, right?

Of '08 maybe. This thing is sticking with me a while until some other tech matures. Think OLE displays, higher capacity perpendicular HD’s, Blu-ray burners, 802.11n, a return to the PowerBook name. ;) among other things. I’m happy with my baby right now. *snuggles*

More then anything I want to MacBook Pro with Intel Core Quatro. Mmmm quad core goodness on a laptop....its going to be a while though.

SiliconAddict
May 8, 2006, 12:59 PM
It does make more sense - and yet it potentially causes even more confusion.

The problem is the GHz number of the actual chip, where would that go? So we have the Core Solo 1.8 (GHz) and the Core Solo 2.1 (GHz). So would it then be the Core Solo 2 2? Looks like a typo to me. In order to avoid that confusion the version number had to go in between Core and Solo. Not really much choice. Core 2 Solo 2 (GHz) at least avoids typo confusions.


Intel no longer marks their chips by their clock speed. Its purly by label at this point because they fingured out that the Mhz myth was starting to die and made the appropriate changes to their marketing.
Go to their site and start looking at the Core chips. So what you might have is a Core Duo 2 T2600 which isn't all that much better.


Personally I am going to start using "C1" for Core Duo/Solo and "C2" for Core 2 Duo/Solo. :)


Be careful when you get to C4 though. *hears a pin drop* Fine fine. It was a bad joke. :P

lazyrighteye
May 8, 2006, 01:23 PM
I know - I want "HYPER" to come back!

Did it ever go away?!? :P

thogs_cave
May 8, 2006, 01:34 PM
Be careful when you get to C4 though. *hears a pin drop* Fine fine. It was a bad joke. :P

Ha! Actually, that was funny. Of course, it would've been more useful in the dot-bomb era....

Oooo, now I hate myself. :D

Cinch
May 8, 2006, 01:50 PM
too busy reading all the threads

someone may have brought this up already. What is the next generation Core 2 Duo going to be call assuming that there is a next generation with this naming scheme?

Core 2 Tri
Core 2 3
Core Duo 3

Who knows. I think the consensus here is that the marketeer at Intel is lazy.

Cinch

THX1139
May 8, 2006, 01:53 PM
I give this thread the award for being the most pointless ever. Imagine, arguing over the name of a computer chip! Someday you're going to want the time back that you wasted on this thread. Trust me, you will. :rolleyes:

ATG
May 8, 2006, 02:04 PM
I prefer my names... Metro, Concord and Wooden Crate :p

Seriously though, those names could get rather confusing. Like, Core 2 Duo.
How many words for two do you need in that name?? Wouldn't Core Duo 2 be more appropriate anyway. I really hope that they put a "Core 2 Extreme" in the Mac Pro or even a Dual Core 2 Extreme :)

shawnce
May 8, 2006, 02:08 PM
Be careful when you get to C4 though. *hears a pin drop* Fine fine. It was a bad joke. :P

Just think the bang an Intel C4 Extreme could make!

MrCrowbar
May 8, 2006, 03:20 PM
Hard to say; on the one hand, dual-core is in these days. On the other hand... why not sell a Core 2 Solo?

I'm also curious as to whether Intel will continue its tradition of differentiating between server and desktop chips based on whether SMP is turned on or off. My guess is that they will, so Apple will have to either go dual core (may or may not be fast enough to be practical) or use woodcrest.

Well, the current Core Solo (Yonah) is a Core Duo with one disabled core. This is a nice way to sell a processor even if it's not within the yields. Believe it or not, but the Core Solo helps to keep the price of the Core Duo down. I believe only 3% of the chips on one wafer are funcitonal core duos (correct me if I'm wrong). Then there's a higher percentage (10% maybe) of chips where 1 core is functional. The rest goes to waste. If Intel did not sell the core solo, there would be 97% of waste instead of 87%.

So I'm pretty sure all Dual Core Processors (Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest etc.) will also have a Solo version.

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 05:38 PM
Well, the current Core Solo (Yonah) is a Core Duo with one disabled core. This is a nice way to sell a processor even if it's not within the yields. Believe it or not, but the Core Solo helps to keep the price of the Core Duo down. I believe only 3% of the chips on one wafer are funcitonal core duos (correct me if I'm wrong). Then there's a higher percentage (10% maybe) of chips where 1 core is functional. The rest goes to waste. If Intel did not sell the core solo, there would be 97% of waste instead of 87%.

So I'm pretty sure all Dual Core Processors (Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest etc.) will also have a Solo version.
It's not working much however, few machines are shipping with the Solo, which is why the chip is getting cheaper. This may actually help Apple too as lower prices mean lower manufacturing costs to them for one of the few machines that do use it, the Mac Mini and this means higher margins.

BigBadErik
May 8, 2006, 05:51 PM
I think they should call it the "Intel T-Cell". Because viruses are going to love destroying them.

I personally cannot believe we are making the switch. I have been a Mac user for 15 years, and I have never had so much as a sniffle out of my computers. Now, watch out...

...and if people want to bark at me, feel free. Just wait two years and see what happens.

:eek:

milo
May 8, 2006, 05:59 PM
I think they should call it the "Intel T-Cell". Because viruses are going to love destroying them.

I personally cannot believe we are making the switch. I have been a Mac user for 15 years, and I have never had so much as a sniffle out of my computers. Now, watch out...

...and if people want to bark at me, feel free. Just wait two years and see what happens.

Viruses are targeted at the OS, not the chip. Switching to intel has zero effect on whether there are sucessful mac viruses.

And I don't know why you'd expect people to bark at you. I think you're being overly paranoid about viruses, but that's nothing to scream about.

dagger01
May 8, 2006, 06:14 PM
Viruses are targeted at the OS, not the chip. Switching to intel has zero effect on whether there are sucessful mac viruses.

And I don't know why you'd expect people to bark at you. I think you're being overly paranoid about viruses, but that's nothing to scream about.

I don't know, the chip difference = virus threat makes him a pretty good target for ridicule in my book, but I'll leave the smacking him on the back of the head to others.

And in other uninformed news, taking Viagra makes you more prone to prostate cancer! Film at 11:00!

081440
May 8, 2006, 06:16 PM
I think they should call it the "Intel T-Cell". Because viruses are going to love destroying them.

I personally cannot believe we are making the switch. I have been a Mac user for 15 years, and I have never had so much as a sniffle out of my computers. Now, watch out...

...and if people want to bark at me, feel free. Just wait two years and see what happens.

:eek:


R U SERIOUS!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?? :eek:

There I'm barking at you!

But really? R U SERIOUS!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!??

steve_hill4
May 8, 2006, 06:44 PM
Well, the current Core Solo (Yonah) is a Core Duo with one disabled core. This is a nice way to sell a processor even if it's not within the yields. Believe it or not, but the Core Solo helps to keep the price of the Core Duo down. I believe only 3% of the chips on one wafer are funcitonal core duos (correct me if I'm wrong). Then there's a higher percentage (10% maybe) of chips where 1 core is functional. The rest goes to waste. If Intel did not sell the core solo, there would be 97% of waste instead of 87%.

So I'm pretty sure all Dual Core Processors (Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest etc.) will also have a Solo version.
Actually, to quote you again, I was surprised to see waste figures as high as this, so looked into it and it seems that if anything your figures on waste are inverted. There is actually closer to 10% waste per 300mm wafer. When defects come into things, this can take it up another 20% or so. Assuming these faulty chips could have a defective core disabled, that would indeed cut down on loss.

Anonymous Freak
May 8, 2006, 06:59 PM
I mean, is soldering really that hard to "unsolder"..!?

Yes. Yes it is. Here is a closeup of a Core Solo processor's pins, next to a U.S. penny:

http://www.hurtley.org/Core.jpg
There are 479 of those tiny pins.

I have the current CoreDuo MBP now, and yeah the processor is soldered...
But does that mean, no matter what, i won't be able to upgrade to the new processors (at a reasonable price)? :confused: :eek:

It is difficult enough that I would imagine that the replacement would cost over $100, just in labor. (I know that's what I'd charge.) And that doesn't include warranty. I've been soldering for over 15 years now, including ultra-small-scale things; yet I won't try this with my MacBook while it's still under warranty. I wouldn't want to risk my $2500 notebook; or the $500 replacement processor, by even trying this with my own property. When Merom (er, "Core 2 Duo",) comes out, I will happily offer to swap out the prcoessor in your MBP for a Merom for $150 plus the cost of the chip, with no warranty at all. Or $1000 with 90-day warranty. (That way I can have a 25% failure rate, and still make money.)

The above offer is facetious, I would not offer such replacement for any cost...

edit: Whoops, forgot to include the picture!

Multimedia
May 9, 2006, 12:22 AM
No, Conroe and Merom are single-socket only. Woodcrest is dual-socket.So When Is Woodcrest Scheduled To Ship? :confused: Is Woodcrest Core 3?

Multimedia
May 9, 2006, 12:35 AM
Yes. Yes it is. Here is a closeup of a Core Solo processor's pins, next to a U.S. penny:
http://www.hurtley.org/Core.jpg
There are 479 of those tiny pins.

It is difficult enough that I would imagine that the replacement would cost over $100, just in labor. (I know that's what I'd charge.) And that doesn't include warranty. I've been soldering for over 15 years now, including ultra-small-scale things; yet I won't try this with my MacBook while it's still under warranty. I wouldn't want to risk my $2500 notebook; or the $500 replacement processor, by even trying this with my own property. When Merom (er, "Core 2 Duo",) comes out, I will happily offer to swap out the prcoessor in your MBP for a Merom for $150 plus the cost of the chip, with no warranty at all. Or $1000 with 90-day warranty. (That way I can have a 25% failure rate, and still make money.)

The above offer is facetious, I would not offer such replacement for any cost...Just Sell Your Yonah MBP & Buy The Merom MBP For $500 More. It will cost you less than buying a chip and paying someone to impossibly solder it in. That MOBO Soldering is done by a machine not by a human being. :eek:

silence
May 9, 2006, 12:44 AM
Hm.. I just thought there may be a machine that could do it with a lot more ease!!

tiramisu
May 9, 2006, 07:23 AM
when the new core duo 2 will be available at july/august. do we have to wait a long time for new mainboards e.g. macbook pro 17"?

i mean i could wait until july/august to buy a new mb pro 17", but not months later :rolleyes:

AidenShaw
May 9, 2006, 08:01 AM
So When Is Woodcrest Scheduled To Ship? :confused:
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060428112857.shtml

"According to the article, Intel is planning on delivering Woodcrest (server) in June, Conroe (desktop) in July, and Merom (mobile) in August."


Is Woodcrest Core 3?
No, the "Core N" number will only change for major architectural shifts in the chips' 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."(same story)

Expect Core 3 in 2008.

Note that the "Pentium 4" was introduced in Aug 2001 as a 1.4 GHz, 256KiB L2, 180nm chip.

The shift from 180nm to 130nm to 90nm didn't warrant a new name.

The speed increase to 3.6 GHz didn't warrant a new name, neither did increasing the size of the L2 cache eight-fold to 2 MiB.

Adding HyperThreading didn't change the name, neither did adding 64-bit extensions.

They were all Netburst chips - "Pentium 4" was the name for the desktop version of Netburst.
________________

Core 2 is the name for the new architecture coming out next month in Woodcrest. It will also be the name for Conroe in July, and Merom in August. Kentsfield, Clovertown, etc will also be "Core 2".

Multimedia
May 9, 2006, 10:02 AM
Woodcrest is a workstation/server processor, just like Xeon. It will be used in anything that needs two sockets - it's the cheapest multi-socket capable chip.

Xeons have been available in two socket and multi-socket versions for many years. Most of the current ones are basically Pentium 4s with the additional logic for inter-socket synchronization enabled.

Woodcrest/Conroe/Merom are basically the same design, with different capabilities and power envelopes. Don't think of Woodcrest as a "server" chip per se, it's just the version of the Core 2 line that is more powerful and supports two sockets.

If Apple wants more than two cores this summer, Woodcrest is the only option.

Considering the HP/Dell/IBM will be selling quad-core Woodcrest systems in June, Apple should be able to get something out by August.

They'll need to keep the quad PMG5 around at least another 6 months or so - until the fat binary situation is better they can't cut off the supply of the systems that run pro software best.Thanks Alden. That really clarifys the whole line for us now.

So I take it that Woodcrest is "Core 2 Extreme"?

The Quad G5's have been on the Refurb page since early February. I guess it won't hurt for them to stay on there til Adobe ships CM3. Is that what you mean?

I am unfamiliar with "the fat binary situation". Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by that? :confused: :eek:

wrldwzrd89
May 9, 2006, 10:48 AM
Thanks Alden. That really clarifys the whole line for us now.

So I take it that Woodcrest is "Core 2 Extreme"?

The Quad G5's have been on the Refurb page since early February. I guess it won't hurt for them to stay on there til Adobe ships CM3. Is that what you mean?

I am unfamiliar with "the fat binary situation". Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by that? :confused: :eek:
As far as I know, Woodcrest will be marketed under the Xeon brand, since it is meant for servers.

The "fat binary situation" refers to many pro applications (both Apple's own and those by third parties) not yet being Universal Binaries, and thus performing unacceptably slowly on Intel Macs.

Multimedia
May 9, 2006, 11:07 AM
As far as I know, Woodcrest will be marketed under the Xeon brand, since it is meant for servers.But Woodcrest is part of the Core 2 family not the Xeon family of processors. Surely they don't intend to label a Core 2 processor an old family name? Now I'm really confused. :confused: :eek:

According to Alden Shaw quoted in my post #187 above, Woodcrest is not just for Servers. It is the only new Core 2 processor capable of being mounted in pairs for a total of 4 cores - IE QUAD configs. So it is HIGHLY LIKELY that this will be what's inside the first gen Intel Core 2 Quad Mac Tower shipping by WWDC, since it will be the first Core 2 processor shipping in June.

I think it is pretty obvious by now that Steve wants to declare the transition to Intel Macs and the pro line - both fixed and mobile - to 64-bit complete in record time at his historic August 7th WWDC SF SteveNote. And Intel is making that possible as a result of their unexpected accelerated Core 2 deployment performance.

From announcement to completion in 14 months is a pretty amazing feat of engineering dexterity. :) That's why the WWDC got moved back to August. So the meeting can be all about completion of the hardware line and advancement on to Leopard early next year when 8 core Macs will also be unleashed.

AidenShaw
May 9, 2006, 11:20 AM
But Woodcrest is part of the Core 2 family not the Xeon family of processors. Surely they don't intend to label a Core 2 processor an old family name? Now I'm really confused. :confused: :eek:
Xeon is also a firmly established brand for the multi-socket chips - a brand that's quite a bit more $$$ than the single socket chips.

While architecturally Woodcrest is a "Core 2", Intel can call it whatever they want. If they feel that the "Core" line is too much associated with laptops - they could stick with Xeon or some variant (and evidence is that they will).

Historically, Xeons have just been Pentiums with larger caches and multi-socket coherency.


According to Alden Shaw, Woodcrest is not just for Servers. It is the only new Core 2 processor capable of being mounted in pairs for a total of 4 cores - IE QUAD configs. So it is HIGHLY LIKELY that this will be what's inside the first gen Intel Mac Quad Core Mac Tower shipping by WWDC, since it will be the first Core 2 processor shipping next month.
Xeon/Woodcrest are for workstations and servers.

In this context, a "workstation" is just a PC with dual-sockets.

Will Apple do the "premature" quad PowerMacIntel, or will they wait for WWDC and introduce the full line of 64-bit MacIntels?

- Merom in laptops/iMac
- Conroe in the new form-factor mini-tower/media-centre
- Woodcrest in the much more expensive maxi-towers


I think it is pretty obvious that Steve wants to declare the transition to Intel Macs complete in record time at his historic August 7th WWDC SF SteveNote. And Intel is making that possible as a result of their unexpected accelerated Core 2 deployment performance.

Complete. ("...but we'll keep the quad-PMG5 in the lineup until WWDC'07 for those customers who need to run PPC applications...")_

milo
May 9, 2006, 11:31 AM
So is it really really impossible to unsolder??

Yes. The question has been answered, no need to keep repeating it.

Anonymous Freak
May 9, 2006, 01:29 PM
But Woodcrest is part of the Core 2 family not the Xeon family of processors. Surely they don't intend to label a Core 2 processor an old family name? Now I'm really confused. :confused: :eek:

Alright. The 'Xeon' name started life as a large/high-speed cache version of a Pentium chip. (Specifically the Pentium 2, which had 512 KB of 1/2 speed L2 cache, the 'Pentium 2 Xeon Processor' had 1 MB of full speed L2 cache.) It also supported more than two processors per motherboard (as the Pentium 2 support dual-processing, but not quad.)

When the Pentium III came out, they released a 'Xeon' version of it as well, larger cache, more sockets supported. Later revisions of the Pentium III muddied up the line, though, as the 'Pentium III Xeon' split into two lines, one that was basically the exact same core as the desktop Pentium III, only in the larger Xeon packaging (same cache size/speed, only two sockets,) and a second that used a different core with more cache, and supporting more than two sockets.

Later, just plain 'Xeon' became the name of the multiprocessor-capable version of the Pentium 4. Xeon was the first chip to add HyperThreading, and the first Intel x86 chip to add 64-bit support; both of which 'trickled down' to the Pentium line. It has been this way now for 6 years. 'Xeons' are the same basic core as a Pentium 4 (or more recently, the dual-core Pentium D,) with supporrt for multiple sockets and larger caches.

Then, Intel did the REVERSE. They took a large-cache Xeon, put it on the Pentium 4 socket, removed multi-socket setups, and labelled it 'Pentium 4 Extreme'. So we do have a history of taking the 'workstation/server' chip, and rebranding it as a ultra-high-end desktop chip. Based on this, I feel that in all likelihood, 'Core 2 Extreme' will be a Woodcrest. (Since Woodrest is launching in June, Conroe in July, and Intel has said that 'Core 2 Extreme' will launch before 'Core 2 Duo'.)

According to Alden Shaw quoted in my post #187 above, Woodcrest is not just for Servers. It is the only new Core 2 processor capable of being mounted in pairs for a total of 4 cores - IE QUAD configs. So it is HIGHLY LIKELY that this will be what's inside the first gen Intel Core 2 Quad Mac Tower shipping by WWDC, since it will be the first Core 2 processor shipping in June.

edit: making this paragraph less obvious since I misread your post, read the next paragraph... Unfortunately, it really does take more than just slapping two dual-core chips onto one socket to make a quad-core chip. Intel has announced that Clovertown will be what you describe, (edit: not what you described, but rather two Woodcrest's slapped together,) and it's not due until mid-to-late 2007. (The desktop version, Kentsfield, or two Conroe's slapped together, is due at about the same time.)

Whoops, realized I misread your point. Whie quad-CORE won't appear until next year, dual-socket, dual-core will be available this year, on Woodcrest. (Not Conroe, not even 'Extreme'. They don't want the lower-cost desktop 'Extreme' chips cutting into their lucrative server chip sales.)

I think it is pretty obvious by now that Steve wants to declare the transition to Intel Macs and the pro line - both fixed and mobile - to 64-bit complete in record time at his historic August 7th WWDC SF SteveNote. And Intel is making that possible as a result of their unexpected accelerated Core 2 deployment performance.

From announcement to completion in 14 months is a pretty amazing feat of engineering dexterity. :) That's why the WWDC got moved back to August. So the meeting can be all about completion of the hardware line and advancement on to Leopard early next year when 8 core Macs will also be unleashed.

Absolutely. I think Steve is probably ecstatic over the sped-up timetable. It's probably vindication to him on why they left IBM and Freescale.

AidenShaw
May 9, 2006, 02:22 PM
Alright. The 'Xeon' name started life as a large/high-speed cache version of a Pentium chip...
Pretty good overview, but we both forgot that Xeons supported 36-bit addressing for a total of 64 GiB of physical RAM per 32-bit system. (And x64 Xeons support up to 128 GiB of RAM depending on the NorthBridge - and the number of DIMM slots ;) )

There was also some confusion in the Pentium III days, when some of the ordinary P III could use 36-bit addressing and dual-sockets. (P III Xeons had larger caches, and could do 4-way and 8-way.)

Here's a good page for Intel CPU history: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/quickreffam.htm

Jedi128
May 10, 2006, 09:37 PM
What I want to know is why are we getting a completely new processor after only 6 months?

Its like wearing a pair of jeans for one hour, being very content with them, and throwing them away after that hour, then buying a new pair.

If I may say so WTF?

Has the transistion between any two other processors ever been this fast? Is there a problem with the Core Duo? This isn't normal; can the Core 2 Duo really be that much better. I guess the 64bit thing kinda makes up for this, but really? What is the point of releasing a brand new processor every 6 months? No, our 4 month old processor sucks, we need a completely new architecture..... It just seems like something you wouldn't do.

AidenShaw
May 11, 2006, 07:24 AM
What I want to know is why are we getting a completely new processor after only 6 months?
...
Has the transistion between any two other processors ever been this fast? Is there a problem with the Core Duo? This isn't normal; can the Core 2 Duo really be that much better. I guess the 64bit thing kinda makes up for this, but really? What is the point of releasing a brand new processor every 6 months? No, our 4 month old processor sucks, we need a completely new architecture..... It just seems like something you wouldn't do.
No problem with the Yonah (Core) - it was just a little later than anticipated. And Merom (Core 2) is a little earlier than expected. This makes the gap between them unusually short.

Standard procedure for Intel (and others) is to "shrink" an existing processor when new silicon fabrication comes online. This means that you're taking an existing processor design, and using smaller features. Any problems that you have are due to the new fabrication process - not design flaws in the CPU.

After the new, smaller process comes online - then you can create a completely new chip. Since the process is now well understood, problems that show up are in the design of the chip, not the manufacturing process. (If you try to build a new CPU on a new process, you're not sure if problems are due to chip design or fabrication.)

In this case, Yonah was an existing chip that was shrunk to the new 65nm fab. Yonah is basically a Dothan (actually, two Dothans) with some minor architectural changes. Dual-core makes it seem like a giant step, but the two cores are pretty close to a Dothan so it wasn't a big risk. (Intel actually build prototype Yonahs on the 90nm fab for testing, but it needed 65nm to be economically feasible.)

Merom (Core 2) is the new design to be built on the (now-tested) 65nm fab.

Intel has said that there will be a new architecture every 2 years or so. You can expect a shrink every 2 years also, coming a year after the new chip. Most of the "shrinks" won't merit a new name, however. The next shrink might bring single-die quad cores - but the cores will be Core 2.

2006 - Core 2
2007 - shrink Core 2
2008 - Core 3
2009 - shrink Core 3
...


Its like wearing a pair of jeans for one hour, being very content with them, and throwing them away after that hour, then buying a new pair.

If I may say so WTF?.
I agree, which is why I've said that Apple will regret not waiting for Merom.

Life would have been much better for software houses (including Apple) if *all* MacIntels were 64-bit.

Instead, for many years they'll have to deal with the "9 months of Yonah" - the small number of early Intel machines that use the older processor.

chaos86
May 11, 2006, 07:25 AM
What I want to know is why are we getting a completely new processor after only 6 months?

because there is something new and (we'll assume) better. why shouldn't apple try to be at the state of the art from here on out, even if it means switching chips after 6 months.

anyway, they probably wont get rid of core duos, just relegate them to the mac minis and macbooks.

Multimedia
May 11, 2006, 09:41 AM
because there is something new and (we'll assume) better. why shouldn't apple try to be at the state of the art from here on out, even if it means switching chips after 6 months.

anyway, they probably wont get rid of core duos, just relegate them to the mac minis and macbooks.I agree with you about Apple needing to keep up with the latest processors Chaos86.

But I hope you're wrong about keeping Yonah in the line longer than necessary because the longer Apple waits to move to an all 64-bit line, the more legacy 32-bit systems will be deployed that they will continue to have to support as Alden explains above your post - Currently Post #195. The idea of not waiting for Woodcrest, Conroe and Merom all-at-once was shortsighted on Apple's part. The big picture was not taken into account. And last year when they needed to decide, Intel was projecting a much longer time frame until all three types of Core 2 Duos would be deployed.

It was more about a short term picture of not being able to deliver faster Macs for another 9-12 months they were thinking then - now only 6-9 months as it turned out. And I guess that was just too much time for Steve & the Board to agree to endure. Bummer for the long term among software developers. :( :eek:

I'm wondering if Adobe is thinking about NOT supporting any Yonah Macs when they release CS3 next Spring with Universal code that is only for 64-bit Intel Macs as well as for all the PPC Macs. I guess not. No wonder they need more time. :mad:

I think it's becoming clearer now why a certain group of Mac Vets as well as thoughtful newbies are waiting for Merom Core 2 Duos on the mobile side as well as expecting Woodcrest Quads (2 x Core 2 Duo) and Conroe Core 2 Duos this Summer before making the switch to Intel Macs. There's also a smaller group of State-Of-The-Art types who plan on selling their Yonah MBPs as soon as or on the eve of the Meroms shipping date, who either don't mind eating a few hundred or can buy at extra low prices - Apple employees.

The road to an all 64-bit computing world has been fraught with many 32-bit pot holes and detours. Hopefully this one is only a pot-hole and by this time next year we'll all be sailing in smooth 64-bit waters with 8 core power and Leopard in the engine room. :)

wrldwzrd89
May 11, 2006, 03:11 PM
Seriously guys, I think you're blowing the 64-bit thing way out of proportion. Yes, the way 64-bit support is implemented in x86 is different from PPC, and has performance improvements associated with it. However, in the real world, the number of applications that would truly benefit from going 64-bit is tiny, and only growing slowly. 64-bit support will help, but it's far from being essential - I suspect Adobe won't bother making their applications 64-bit if doing so wouldn't help them, and other developers will probably do the same thing.

Also, the whole 64-bit native Mac OS thing isn't truly necessary either. All that's needed are 64-bit core libraries that 64-bit programs can take advantage of, and those are already in place.

Anonymous Freak
May 11, 2006, 06:39 PM
Seriously guys, I think you're blowing the 64-bit thing way out of proportion. Yes, the way 64-bit support is implemented in x86 is different from PPC, and has performance improvements associated with it. However, in the real world, the number of applications that would truly benefit from going 64-bit is tiny, and only growing slowly. 64-bit support will help, but it's far from being essential - I suspect Adobe won't bother making their applications 64-bit if doing so wouldn't help them, and other developers will probably do the same thing.

Also, the whole 64-bit native Mac OS thing isn't truly necessary either. All that's needed are 64-bit core libraries that 64-bit programs can take advantage of, and those are already in place.

The big problem with 64-bit on x86 is the fact that you have to have two separate OSes, and the 64-bit OS will, by nature, be a little bit different, code-wise. It also means that an app would need to be compiled separately for 32-bit and 64-bit versions, if you wanted full performance on the 64-bit platforms. (i.e. 32-bit code on the 64-bit platform runs slower than 64-bit code on the 64-bit platform, even if the core app doesn't really NEED to be 64-bit.) This is different from PPC, where a 64-bit processor can run a 'hybrid' 32/64-bit OS, and run 64-bit or 32-bit apps with no performance difference at all. That means that if an app doesn't NEED to be 64-bit, you can go ahead and just compile it for 32-bit.

Multimedia
May 12, 2006, 02:09 AM
The big problem with 64-bit on x86 is the fact that you have to have two separate OSes, and the 64-bit OS will, by nature, be a little bit different, code-wise. It also means that an app would need to be compiled separately for 32-bit and 64-bit versions, if you wanted full performance on the 64-bit platforms. (i.e. 32-bit code on the 64-bit platform runs slower than 64-bit code on the 64-bit platform, even if the core app doesn't really NEED to be 64-bit.) This is different from PPC, where a 64-bit processor can run a 'hybrid' 32/64-bit OS, and run 64-bit or 32-bit apps with no performance difference at all. That means that if an app doesn't NEED to be 64-bit, you can go ahead and just compile it for 32-bit.So you are saying that Woodcrest, Conroe and Merom 64-bit processors will run all the existing 32-bit software slower than the Yonah 32-bit Macs will? What a revolting development???!!!???!?!?! :eek: :eek: :eek:

AidenShaw
May 12, 2006, 09:26 AM
(i.e. 32-bit code on the 64-bit platform runs slower than 64-bit code on the 64-bit platform, even if the core app doesn't really NEED to be 64-bit.)
That's true, but 32-bit code on the 64-bit platform runs faster than 32-bit code on the 32-bit platform !!

In order of increasing speed:

32-bit app, 32-bit OS, 32-bit chip (today, Yonah)
32-bit app/OS, 64-bit chip (June Woodcrest, August Merom - Merom in 32-bit 25% faster than Yonah)
32-bit app, 64-bit OS/chip (XP in June/August, wait for WWDC for news about true 64-bit OSx64)
64-bit app/OS/chip (the future, but few apps today for Windows, none for OSx64)

The problem for the current Yonah MacIntels, is that #1 is the only option. Stuck at 32-bit only.

When Apple drops Yonah and puts Merom in the MacIntels, they'll start at #2, and can move to #3 and #4 in the future.

(The #3 is minor for most apps, and comes from the fact that even though application code and libraries are running 32-bit, calls to the operating system support APIs are 64-bit. If you do a lot of I/O or memory calls, the 64-bit OS can help your 32-bit application. This is how Windows x64 does it, the OSx64 implementation is unknown)

Anonymous Freak
May 12, 2006, 02:03 PM
So you are saying that Woodcrest, Conroe and Merom 64-bit processors will run all the existing 32-bit software slower than the Yonah 32-bit Macs will? What a revolting development???!!!???!?!?! :eek: :eek: :eek:

No, not by any means. They are still newer/better architectures, and should run 32-bit code at least equally fast at the same clock speed. My point is that it won't be MUCH of an improvement at the same clock speed. The big speed increases will be from clock speed improvements and moving to 64-bit. (x86's 64-bit mode adds more than just 64-bit data and more memory, it also adds more registers; making it up to 10% faster to run 64-bit code on a 64-bit OS than running 32-bit code on a 32-bit OS; even if the code itself has no 'logical' reason to be 64-bit.)

Again, Merom at 2.16 GHz should be marginally faster than Yonah at 2.16 GHz when run on a 32-bit OS. But when run on a 64-bit OS and 64-bit code, a 2.16 GHz Merom could be up to 10-15% faster than a 2.16 GHz Yonah. (Plus Merom should be available in faster clock speeds, and it will add SSE4, which could improve some multimedia code.)

rxse7en
May 14, 2006, 04:21 PM
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20060512162433.html
Dell has already announced a new system.

I smell Core 2 Duo Macbook Pros coming soon!

Rower_CPU
May 14, 2006, 04:27 PM
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20060512162433.html
Dell has already announced a new system.

I smell Core 2 Duo Macbook Pros coming soon!

Interesting that Dell is putting the Core 2 Duo in their high-end gaming machine. I don't think Apple will do this with the PowerMac replacement - the Conroe seems like a better choice for a powerhouse desktop.

Anonymous Freak
May 14, 2006, 04:49 PM
Interesting that Dell is putting the Core 2 Duo in their high-end gaming machine. I don't think Apple will do this with the PowerMac replacement - the Conroe seems like a better choice for a powerhouse desktop.

Conroe *IS* Core 2 Duo. Both the desktop and laptop chips (Conroe and Merom) will go by the name Core 2. Core 2 Solo (not yet announced, but likely,) will likely be the low-end chip, both mobile and desktop (most likely the Celeron name will be retired,) Core 2 Duo will be the 'mainstream' laptop and desktop chip, and Core 2 Extreme will be the high-end desktop chip (equivalent of Pentium Extreme Edition.)

Rower_CPU
May 14, 2006, 07:43 PM
Conroe *IS* Core 2 Duo. Both the desktop and laptop chips (Conroe and Merom) will go by the name Core 2. Core 2 Solo (not yet announced, but likely,) will likely be the low-end chip, both mobile and desktop (most likely the Celeron name will be retired,) Core 2 Duo will be the 'mainstream' laptop and desktop chip, and Core 2 Extreme will be the high-end desktop chip (equivalent of Pentium Extreme Edition.)

Thanks for the clarification - I assumed Core 2 Duo were Merom chips only.

If the Conroe/Core 2 Duo chips are starting to become available I'm hoping to see a pro desktop announcement soon. :)

Multimedia
May 14, 2006, 09:42 PM
Thanks for the clarification - I assumed Core 2 Duo were Merom chips only.

If the Conroe/Core 2 Duo chips are starting to become available I'm hoping to see a pro desktop announcement soon. :)Woodcrest Quad - Core 2 Duo x 2 - should happen no later than July or WWDC August 7 SteveNote worst case. :)

shawmanus
May 15, 2006, 06:25 AM
Woodcrest Quad - Core 2 Duo x 2 - should happen no later than July or WWDC August 7 SteveNote worst case. :)

Woodcrest is Xeon 5100 series and will not use core 2 duo brand. That's only for desktop and laptop (consumer segment) series.

Hopefully we see Macpro with woodcrest asap. HP is releasing woodcrest based workstations early next month (in another 3 weeks) and I am sure Dell would release precision workstation with woodcrest in the same timeframe.

MacBoobsPro
May 15, 2006, 07:37 AM
Does anyone else find all these different 'crap' names for chips a little confusing?

I mean conroe, merom and woodcrest as well as Core solo/Duo or Core 2 solo/Duo WTF :confused:

I think most people who are looking at buying a mac in the future are going to have to do quite a bit of research to make sure they get what they need/want.

The G series was easy, just stick a number on the end and guess what...? it was sequential! All you had to worry about was CPU speed.

Now you need to know how many cores it has, whether core 2 duo is really 2 cores or 4 and whether woodcrap or ****flap are actually faster than moron.

***** marketing = confused customers = low sales

AidenShaw
May 15, 2006, 08:55 AM
Does anyone else find all these different 'crap' names for chips a little confusing?

I mean conroe, merom and woodcrest as well as Core solo/Duo or Core 2 solo/Duo WTF :confused:
Not really.

We currently have "Core" chips. This summer we'll have "Core 2" chips. "Core 2" is faster and better than "Core".

I think that the unwashed masses won't have any trouble figuring out that "2" is the one to buy.

They won't know that there were different engineering code names for the mobile and desktop versions of "Core 2". Only geeks will see those.

MacBoobsPro
May 15, 2006, 09:20 AM
Not really.

We currently have "Core" chips. This summer we'll have "Core 2" chips. "Core 2" is faster and better than "Core".

I think that the unwashed masses won't have any trouble figuring out that "2" is the one to buy.

They won't know that there were different engineering code names for the mobile and desktop versions of "Core 2". Only geeks will see those.

Oh i see, its an evolution, I thought they would be produced at the same time. Well that does make sense. :o

Multimedia
May 15, 2006, 04:24 PM
Woodcrest is Xeon 5100 series and will not use core 2 duo brand. That's only for desktop and laptop (consumer segment) series.

Hopefully we see Macpro with woodcrest asap. HP is releasing woodcrest based workstations early next month (in another 3 weeks) and I am sure Dell would release precision workstation with woodcrest in the same timeframe.No that is not my understanding. Woodcrest is the beginning of Core 2 Duo - the highest end gets produced first in June followed by Core 2 Duo Conroe (desktop) production starting in July followed by Core 2 Duo Merom (mobile) production starting in August.

Woodcrest may be a decendant of Xeon 5100 but it might be branded part of the Core 2 Duo family - high end. It's the only one that can be mounted in pairs on motherboards for a total of 4 cores IE the first Mac Intel QUAD. I guess for marketing purposes you may be right and it may retain the old family name of Xeon even though it is really high end Core 2 Duo. :confused:

AidenShaw
May 15, 2006, 11:06 PM
No that is not my understanding. Woodcrest is the beginning of Core 2 Duo - the highest end gets produced first in June followed by Core 2 Duo Conroe production starting in July followed by Core 2 Duo Merom prduction starting in August.
True, but the question is what *name* will Intel choose to market Woodcrest as?

The evidence is strong that they'll stick with the strong Xeon brand for workstations and servers - and "Core" for laptops and desktops.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/04/19/intel_to_ship_core_inq3_2006/

"While Woodcrest, which will carry the Xeon 5100-series designation, was always scheduled for a Q3 introduction, chief executive Paul Otellini on Wednesday confirmed that the company will also be announcing the desktop processor "Conroe" (Core Duo E4000 and E6000 series) as well as the mobile CPU "Merom" (Core Duo T5000 and T7000 series) in the third quarter. All three variants will be shipping "in volume."

Remember that no one had heard of "Core 2" until this current article was posted. The marketing name is chosen for marketing reasons.

Woodcrest may be a decendant of Xeon 5100 but it will be branded part of the Core 2 Duo family - high end. It's the only one that can be mounted in pairs on motherboards for a total of 4 cores IE the first Mac Intel QUAD.
Woodcrest is a sibling of Merom/Conroe, therefore descended from Yonah, Dothan and Banias.

No Xeon blood here, except for the Netburst parts of the Core 2 architecture which are also in Merom and Conroe.

Anonymous Freak
May 16, 2006, 01:37 PM
True, but the question is what *name* will Intel choose to market Woodcrest as?

The evidence is strong that they'll stick with the strong Xeon brand for workstations and servers - and "Core" for laptops and desktops.

Woodcrest is a sibling of Merom/Conroe, therefore descended from Yonah, Dothan and Banias.

No Xeon blood here, except for the Netburst parts of the Core 2 architecture which are also in Merom and Conroe.

It's already pretty well known that Woodcrest will be sold as both 'Xeon' and 'Core 2 Extreme'. The 'Core 2 Extreme' part will likely have dual-socket disabled, but will otherwise be a Xeon clone. (Just as the 'Pentium 4 Extreme Edition' and dual-core 'Pentium Extreme Edition' are Netburst-core Xeons with multiple sockets disabled.)

Woodcrest, Conroe, and Merom are all a hybrid of Yonah/Dothan/Banias and parts of NetBurst.

And 'Xeon' has always been an upgraded version of the mainline desktop part. The original Xeons actually had the name of their desktop equivalent in the name 'Pentium II Xeon' and 'Pentium III Xeon'. Only with the intro of the NetBurst Pentium 4 did Intel drop the 'Pentium x' part of the name to call it just plain Xeon. So when they have a major upgrade of the core, Xeon gets that core, too. So far, there have been three major cores to the Xeon line, Core 2 Xeon will be the fifth. Note that 'Core 2' won't be part of the name, I just put it there for clarification. In the three major cores, there have been 14 revisions (P2/Deschutes, P3/Katmai, P3/Cascades, P3/Cascades MP, P4/Foster, P4/Prestonia, P4/Gallatin, P4/Prescott, P4/Nocona, P4/Irwindale, P4/Cranford, P4/Potomac, P4/Paxville, Core/Sossaman; note that I don't count Multiprocessor separately unless there is more different than just multiprocessing.) Dempsey and Tulsa are scheduled to be the last two P4 based Xeons, but the the early arrival of Core-2-based Woodcrest, I have a feeling Dempsey and Tulsa will be cancelled.


I guess for marketing purposes you may be right and it may retain the old family name of Xeon even though it is really high end Core 2 Duo.

Again, Xeon has always been a 'really high end' version of the current desktop chip. It has already had three major architecture changes under the Xeon name.

Now you need to know how many cores it has, whether core 2 duo is really 2 cores or 4 and whether woodcrap or ****flap are actually faster than moron.

Well, 'Core 2 Duo' is just the second generation 'Core' architecture chip (Core 2) with two cores (Duo). If they consider a quad-core version to still be part of the 'Core 2' generation, then it will likely be the 'Core 2 Quad' or similar. A third-generation Core architecture chip with four cores would be 'Core 3 Quad'. So 'Core x' denotes the generation, then Solo, Duo, or Quad denotes the number of cores. (It might make sense for a quad-core to be called 'Quadro', too, but nVidia has that as the name of their high-end professional graphics chip, 'Quadra' might make sense, too, but that one is Apple's old name for high end 68040 machines.)

rxse7en
May 16, 2006, 02:32 PM
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006May/bch20060516036269.htm

All these benchies I post from around the 'net are very exciting and Core 2 Duo promises to be a sweet proc for the MBPs. Again, just in case someone at Apple is reading this, I want my 17" MBP with Core 2 Duo and in black. :D

B