PDA

View Full Version : Updated Intel Product Pipeline Uncovered?


MacRumors
May 31, 2006, 07:31 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

DailyTech has updated its roadmap for Intel processors (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2546), giving a clue as to what can be seen in future Macs. At launch in August, Intel's Merom mobile CPU will come in ranging from 1.66 to 2.33 Ghz, and ranging in price from $209 to $637 which is comparable to Intel's current lineup's (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30881) initial price points.

While initial Merom CPU's will use 667 Mhz Front Side Busses that exist today, a Q2 2007 refresh and new "socket P" rollout is slated to bump that speed to 800 Mhz.

In related news, Daily Tech also has uncovered plans (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2532) for a single-core Conroe chip, named "Conroe-L." While interesting, it is doubtful that this chip will make its way into many, if any future Macs. Currently, the lowest-priced Mac Mini is the only Mac to use Intel's Core Solo processor.

sunfast
May 31, 2006, 07:32 AM
Hope it's true! A Merom will be in my first intel mac

rimrocka07011
May 31, 2006, 07:35 AM
Great! Now I'll have to sell my MBP in my sig by the start of school next year...

BornAgainMac
May 31, 2006, 07:38 AM
The Mhz myth is in full effect. It really is starting to lose it's meaning even on the Intel side. Performance per watt is the new thing now. Even AMD talks about it as if they watched the Stevenote.

Core Trio
May 31, 2006, 07:41 AM
I wonder how long Ill be able to wait, at the release of Merom my powerbook will be a little over a year old, it still runs great but every time i go to the apple store I come that much close to justifying a MBP purchase.

qubex
May 31, 2006, 07:44 AM
Multicore MacPro in August.

News at eleven.

JFreak
May 31, 2006, 07:48 AM
While initial Merom CPU's will use 667 Mhz Front Side Busses that exist today, a Q2 2007 refresh and new "socket P" rollout is slated to bump that speed to 800 Mhz.

This brings me back memories of Titanium Powerbooks that had 667/800 MHz processor speeds ;) Plenty fast for a front side buss...

AlBDamned
May 31, 2006, 07:51 AM
This brings me back memories of Titanium Powerbooks that had 667/800 MHz processor speeds ;) Plenty fast for a front side buss...

Yup and it makes the G4's 167MHz frontside bus, which was around for ages, look even slower than it did before.

Soli Gratia
May 31, 2006, 07:52 AM
So...if the Merom processor is here in August, does this guarantee that Mac will update the Macbook to Merom then too? :confused:

Chaszmyr
May 31, 2006, 07:53 AM
This brings me back memories of Titanium Powerbooks that had 667/800 MHz processor speeds ;) Plenty fast for a front side buss...

Speak for yourself, I want a 3ghz frontside bus in 12 months :rolleyes: :p

Core Trio
May 31, 2006, 07:54 AM
So...if the Merom processor is here in August, does this guarantee that Mac will update the Macbook to Merom then too? :confused:


The thing with apple is that there are no guarantees. Although it seems they are done with their old ways of separating the consumer and pro portable lines based on crippled clock speeds, their stance can change at any moment, without notice.we could technically see Yonah in Macbooks until its end.

miketcool
May 31, 2006, 08:10 AM
As long as the giant power hungry U571 is finally out of the picture, this map looks fine!

Update: Looks as if Intel in the UK helped sink this one in 1944.

4God
May 31, 2006, 08:12 AM
.....<snip>.....In related news, Daily Tech also has uncovered plans (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2532) for a single-core Conroe chip, named "Conroe-L." While interesting, it is doubtful that this chip will make its way into many, if any future Macs. Currently, the lowest-priced Mac Mini is the only Mac to use Intel's Core Solo processor.



Maybe that's what is going in the rumored new eMacs.

scottlinux
May 31, 2006, 08:12 AM
I think they will keep core duos in the laptops/minis, and put the beefier chips in the iMac/[Power]mac. If these new intel chips use the same socket as the core solo/duos, you could just take a solo mini and pop in the newer chip. Or the same with your macbook.

jaxstate
May 31, 2006, 08:13 AM
These minor speed bump reminds me of the PPC days. They are just more frequent.

Josias
May 31, 2006, 08:14 AM
I know Merom and Yonah have impressive FSB's, but I hope the Conroe will do even better, since the old PM G5's had up to dual 1.25 GHz FSB's. I also hope the new PowerMacs will feature BSB (backsidebus), 4 S-ATA bays, and room for two optical drives.:cool: BTW, what are the clockspeeds of Conroe set to?

Well, on topic, it's cool all of them 'cept 1.67 and 1.83 GHz have 4 MB L2 caches:cool: That is going to own with a 17" MBP with 2.33 GHz Merom, 4 GB RAM, 160 GB 7.200 rpm. drive and a 1920x1200 screen (+Leopard:D ).

bigandy
May 31, 2006, 08:20 AM
another new socket

good too see intel following tradition there, another month, another socket design :rolleyes:

[/sarcasm]

The Mhz myth is in full effect. It really is starting to lose it's meaning even on the Intel side. Performance per watt is the new thing now. Even AMD talks about it as if they watched the Stevenote.

but performance per watt is the big new thing because of the Stevenote, is it not? ;)

Core Trio
May 31, 2006, 08:23 AM
I know Merom and Yonah have impressive FSB's, but I hope the Conroe will do even better, since the old PM G5's had up to 1.25 GHz FSB's. I also hope the new PowerMacs will feature BSB (backsidebus), 4 S-ATA bays, and room for two optical drives.:cool: BTW, what are the clockspeeds of Conroe set to?

We dont know if Conroe will even be used in the Powermacs at this point...In fact many (including myself) think that the coming "Mac Pro" will house a woodcrest or two.

RichP
May 31, 2006, 08:25 AM
but performance per watt is the big new thing because of the Stevenote, is it not? ;)

Yeah, AMD has their new performance-per-watt ad campaign going around too.

The power consumption of the chip is a rather small part of the overall power consumption of these machines..we need some real energy reduction in other areas to really give battery life a boost.

HiRez
May 31, 2006, 08:29 AM
Performance per watt is great and it seems that Intel is doing a decent job with that, but with larger, brighter screens, more CPU cores, faster hard drives (you are a noob if you don't put a 7200 rpm drive in your PowerBook, doncha' know), and particularly faster, more power-hungry GPUs, one area that Apple and the industry as a whole needs to make some breakthroughs on is battery technology. There really haven't been an major changes that I'm aware of in about 5 years or so. Yes, they manage to squeeze another watt here or there, but essentially, they are the same bulky, heavy, short-life batteries we've had for a long time. Where is the battery revolution?

Macer
May 31, 2006, 08:31 AM
Conroe is just the P4 replacement, you couldn't stick that in a power mac and call it a power mac. Most PC users who buy a new PC in the next year or 2 will have a conroe cpu in their pc, as this will be the standard desktop cpu.

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 08:41 AM
Here's more on the subject from this article yesterday (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=32026) plus all these other articles (http://www.theinquirer.net/?page=7) since earlier this year. Point is MacBook can't go above 2GHz while MacBook Pro will go to 2.33 GHz as soon as Apple can get them - even if they're just Yonah's in July short term. :)

Designated Conroe July 23 Launch Date perfect timing for the August 7th SteveNote at SF WWDC two week later.

Of course the Woodcrest Quad will still be the "star" of the SteveNote Presentation. But I think Conroe will have a role in the Quad's little Core 2 Duo brothers.

Also of note is the addition of a 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo processor set to sell for $209 retail. Looks like the $599 Combo Mac mini's friend to me. Hope to see the $799 Superdrive Mac mini get the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo.

DTphonehome
May 31, 2006, 08:51 AM
So...if the Merom processor is here in August, does this guarantee that Mac will update the Macbook to Merom then too? :confused:

First off, "Mac" doesn't make computers - Apple does. And I think it's reasonable that they would keep the Yonah in the Macbook and save the faster/cooler chip for the MBP. Right now the MBP isn't a compelling value in the face of the MB, so this could be a way to seperate the lines.

Josias
May 31, 2006, 08:53 AM
We dont know if Conroe will even be used in the Powermacs at this point...In fact many (including myself) think that the coming "Mac Pro" will house a woodcrest or two.

Extreme! I still hope for BSB, 4 SATA bays and two drives, but what are the woodcrests clocked at? 2.5 GHz to 3.2 is my guess? (A Quad 3.2 GHz WoodCrest with dual 1.6 GHz FSB and 8 MB L2 Cache:cool: )

4God
May 31, 2006, 08:56 AM
...<snip>...Designated Conroe July 23 Launch Date perfect timing for the August 7th SteveNote at SF WWDC two week later.


So, what your saying is the August announcement/release of Woodcrest means nothing for the Intel PowerMacs (MacPro)? :rolleyes:

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 09:00 AM
So, what your saying is the August announcement/release of Woodcrest means nothing for the Intel PowerMacs (MacPro)? :rolleyes:No not at all. Woodcrest Quads will be the "star" of the SteveNote. :)

Fabio_gsilva
May 31, 2006, 09:04 AM
Everytime a read something about the upcoming processors I feel much more confident about Intel processors inside Apple machines...

I really feel now that SJ choose the right side of the game.

Kudos for Apple, Kudos, for SJ!

SciTeach
May 31, 2006, 09:06 AM
Maybe that's what is going in the rumored new eMacs.

My thoughts exactly....Sounds like a low-end chip set that is also low cost which will make the new eMacs "affordable" for students & schools. Looking forwatd to what Apple does with them (the eMacs).

iN8
May 31, 2006, 09:09 AM
I know Merom and Yonah have impressive FSB's, but I hope the Conroe will do even better, since the old PM G5's had up to dual 1.25 GHz FSB's. I also hope the new PowerMacs will feature BSB (backsidebus), 4 S-ATA bays, and room for two optical drives.:cool: BTW, what are the clockspeeds of Conroe set to?...

I was wondering the same thing about the FSB. Why is it that Intel doesn't go the same route the G5 went and have the FSB at half the processor speed? Are intels system interconnects lacking? The G5s and I think AMD use Hypertransport, what is Intel using?

Fabio_gsilva
May 31, 2006, 09:12 AM
These minor speed bump reminds me of the PPC days. They are just more frequent.

Hey, come on... the speed bump is big! I read something that the new line of chips will be 30-40% faster than now!!! This is not a minor advantage...

pizzach
May 31, 2006, 09:12 AM
First off, "Mac" doesn't make computers - Apple does. And I think it's reasonable that they would keep the Yonah in the Macbook and save the faster/cooler chip for the MBP. Right now the MBP isn't a compelling value in the face of the MB, so this could be a way to seperate the lines.

Actually, I think they guy was just missing the word "be". If you just kerplunk the word Apple in there it doesn't really make any sense.

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 09:16 AM
So...if the Merom processor is here in August, does this guarantee that Mac will update the Macbook to Merom then too? :confused:I think it's reasonable that they would keep the Yonah in the Macbook and save the faster/cooler chip for the MBP. Right now the MBP isn't a compelling value in the face of the MB, so this could be a way to seperate the lines.I'm afraid so. As much as I would like the MacBook to go Merom ASAP, I think Apple might use the Merom as a way to differentiate the MBP line from MB until Leopard ships - perhaps even longer. I hope we are wrong though DT.

I was thinking MacBook would get a 2GHz Merom in November - IE 6 months hence - at the latest. Now I'm not so sure. Then again MacInDoc in Post #49 below has reminded me I'm not alone in thinking Apple may want Merom inside all mobiles ASAP.

I'm looking at the Santa Rosa 2.33GHz Merom + Leopard as the MBP mobile star Mac of 2007 while a 2GHz Merom MacBook may not get Santa Rosa 'til 2008 just to keep it weaker. But I hope I'm wrong about that too. :( MacBook is such a darling new breed.Post #49 I hope and suspect that the Macbook will go with Merom as soon as it is released, since the Merom is priced the same way as the current Yonah lineup. Apple now has to compete directly with Dell and other Winbox manufacturers, since it is using the same hardware. If Apple uses a Yonah in a Macbook and Dell offers a Merom-based laptop that's 30-40% faster for the same price or less, Apple is in trouble. So, if Apple continues to use Yonah (if Intel even continues to make it), it will have to drop the price of the Macbooks substantially, and I doubt that Apple is prepared to do that.

Look for the 1.66-1.83 (or maybe even 2) GHz Meroms in the next generation of Macbooks, since with the 20-30% speed boost over similarly-clocked Yonahs, even with a 10% drop in clock speed, they will still be faster, cooler-running and less expensive to make than the current models, will likely boost battery life and will offer 64 bit compatability.

The MBPs can all use Meroms clocked above 2 GHz for differentiation of lines, as well as their dedicated GPUs, larger (and maybe faster) HDs and more installed (and maximum) RAM.Thta's a relief. I sure hope you're right. I was thinking like you until today when I let DT talk me out of it. I love the MacBook. But there's no way I could pull the trigger on one until it's got a 64-bit 2GHz Core 2 Duo with the 4MB L2 Shared Cache. ;) Courage. ;)

tristan
May 31, 2006, 09:24 AM
Socket P? The bugs kicked our ass on Planet P. (Starship Trooopers.)

Very promising, but Megahertz Myth or not, the industry still looks like its hit a wall at a little over 2ghz for a mobile processor. Not discounting dual core because I think its an awesome innovation, but at this point Moore's law is a joke. I hope Intel has something else up its sleeve in 2007.

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 09:29 AM
Socket P? The bugs kicked our ass on Planet P. (Starship Trooopers.)

Very promising, but Megahertz Myth or not, the industry still looks like its hit a wall at a little over 2ghz for a mobile processor. Not discounting dual core because I think its an awesome innovation, but at this point Moore's law is a joke. I hope Intel has something else up its sleeve in 2007.I believe they plan a mobile quad core for the end of 2007 which will be small enough to keep up their sleve until then. ;) This will be the mobile decendant of Kentsfield and Cloverton desktop Quad Cores coming out next Spring.

Peace
May 31, 2006, 09:35 AM
Welcome to the world of Intel!.This is nothing like the PPC days when hoping for a 20MHZ bump was coming within a year..That's one of the reasons most Intel's ( and AMD ) use sockets.Upgradability..The switch from 667MHZ FSB to the 800MHZ FSB will be a bummer for folks wanting to upgrade their iMacs though..

speakster
May 31, 2006, 09:36 AM
The Merom chip bumps up the top speed from 2.16 to 2.33 and uses the same bus speed and for around the same price?

how....exciting..... :confused:

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 09:36 AM
Welcome to the world of Intel!.This is nothing like the PPC days when hoping for a 20MHZ bump was coming within a year..That's one of the reasons most Intel's ( and AMD ) use sockets.Upgradability..The switch from 667MHZ FSB to the 800MHZ FSB will be a bummer for folks wanting to upgrade their iMacs though..I thought most of those processors could adapt between 667 and 800 - IE they are dual bus speed capable. No?Post 39 you are correct but I believe one would have to write a compatability module for the EFI for it to run the newer 800MHZ FSB on the 667 MHZ Bus..Akin to the old BIOS where you could change the freqency..Bummer. Sounds like a gottcha! :(

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 09:38 AM
The Merom chip bumps up the top speed from 2.16 to 2.33 and uses the same bus speed and for around the same price?

how....exciting..... :confused:Now you know why some of us have been holding back waiting for a faster Merom in MBP. ;)

Also note: Twice the Shared Cache to 4MB even on the lowly 2GHz Merom. :)

Peace
May 31, 2006, 09:39 AM
I thought most of those processors could adapt between 667 and 800 - IE they are dual bus capable. No?

you are correct but I believe one would have to write a compatability module for the EFI for it to run the newer 800MHZ FSB on the 667 MHZ Bus..Akin to the old BIOS where you could change the freqency..Besides the Socket "P" will probably have an extra pin so one has to buy a new Motherboard.

Core Trio
May 31, 2006, 10:02 AM
Hey, come on... the speed bump is big! I read something that the new line of chips will be 30-40% faster than now!!! This is not a minor advantage...


I could be wrong but I think I read that the Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest chips were 30-40% faster *at the same clock speed* as Yonah Core Duos, meaning at higher clock speeds the advantage is even greater than just in the numbers on paper.

Josias
May 31, 2006, 10:12 AM
I was wondering the same thing about the FSB. Why is it that Intel doesn't go the same route the G5 went and have the FSB at half the processor speed? Are intels system interconnects lacking? The G5s and I think AMD use Hypertransport, what is Intel using?

I hope we got some owner FSB's, but there are limits. If a Quad 3.2 GHz WoodCrest PowerMac has to have two 1.6 GHz FSB's, we're climbing extreme limits. I wouldn't count on much more than 1 GHz. This is why a Backsidebus would be very good.

Shagrat
May 31, 2006, 10:16 AM
Speak for yourself, I want a 3ghz frontside bus in 12 months :rolleyes: :p

Or more likely Next Tuesday!:)

crees!
May 31, 2006, 10:23 AM
I wonder how long Ill be able to wait, at the release of Merom my powerbook will be a little over a year old, it still runs great but every time i go to the apple store I come that much close to justifying a MBP purchase.

Geez, my PowerBook is almost 3 years old and eventhough I dig the new Macs I don't think I'll be wanting one till Leopard is out of it's cage. Right now it's still a perfect machine with all the crap I shove down it's throat.

portent
May 31, 2006, 10:29 AM
Socket P? The bugs kicked our ass on Planet P. (Starship Trooopers.)

Very promising, but Megahertz Myth or not, the industry still looks like its hit a wall at a little over 2ghz for a mobile processor. Not discounting dual core because I think its an awesome innovation, but at this point Moore's law is a joke. I hope Intel has something else up its sleeve in 2007.

Moore's Law says nothing about clock speed. Moore's law is about transistor density and cost. Dual cores are the perfect embodiment of Moore's Law: double the number of transistors.

jiggie2g
May 31, 2006, 10:30 AM
I could be wrong but I think I read that the Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest chips were 30-40% faster *at the same clock speed* as Yonah Core Duos, meaning at higher clock speeds the advantage is even greater than just in the numbers on paper.


no they are 20% faster then Yonah but 40% faster then P4(netburst). Yonah and AMD64(939) seem to perform the same clock 4 clock.


Of course the Woodcrest Quad will still be the "star" of the SteveNote Presentation. But I think Conroe will have a role in the Quad's little Core 2 Duo brothers.

Also of note is the addition of a 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo processor set to sell for $209 retail. Looks like the $599 Combo Mac mini's friend to me. Hope to see the $799 Superdrive Mac mini get the 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo.

Finally one of you macheads got what i've been saying all this time , in single CPU configurations woodcrest offers no perfromance advantage over Conroe ...it is in fact more expensive for apple to use these instead of conroe and makes no sense if you are not going multi-socket. This is just wishful thinking from macmonkeys who want to extend thier ePenises with bragging rights.

I agree on the Mac Mini and both the 2nd gen Mini and MacBook will use the new Intel G965 Intergrated Video Processor(8-pipe/400mhz) Think Integrated 9800 Pro fully supports Vista Areo Glass/HDMI/SM 3.0/720P . will be faster then X1300 Pro.

brepublican
May 31, 2006, 10:40 AM
Moore's Law says nothing about clock speed. Moore's law is about transistor density and cost. Dual cores are the perfect embodiment of Moore's Law: double the number of transistors.
Ditto.

MacinDoc
May 31, 2006, 10:41 AM
I think they will keep core duos in the laptops/minis, and put the beefier chips in the iMac/[Power]mac. If these new intel chips use the same socket as the core solo/duos, you could just take a solo mini and pop in the newer chip. Or the same with your macbook.
Unfortunately, the CPUs in Macbooks and MBPs are not socketed, they are soldered to the motherboard. iMac and Minis, however, can probably have their Yonah chips replaced with the first generation of Meroms, but not the second generation that's coming in 2007 with the new socket.

NVRsayNVR
May 31, 2006, 11:04 AM
Whatever Apple plans, I look forward to the *NEW* chips and am hopeful that the new MacPro will be an entirely new case design. Smaller, sleeker, better lines and oh... so... FAST! My birthday is August 7! Ha ha.

GREAT JOB INTEL! You guy's are :cool: !!



"Think Alike... BE Different!"

MacinDoc
May 31, 2006, 11:05 AM
I'm afraid so. As much as I would like the MacBook to go Merom ASAP, I think Apple will use the Merom as a way to differentiate the MBP line from MB until Leopard ships - perhaps even longer. I hope we are wrong though DT.
I hope and suspect that the Macbook will go with Merom as soon as it is released, since the Merom is priced the same way as the current Yonah lineup. Apple now has to compete directly with Dell and other Winbox manufacturers, since it is using the same hardware. If Apple uses a Yonah in a Macbook and Dell offers a Merom-based laptop that's 30-40% faster for the same price or less, Apple is in trouble. So, if Apple continues to use Yonah (if Intel even continues to make it), it will have to drop the price of the Macbooks substantially, and I doubt that Apple is prepared to do that.

Look for the 1.66-1.83 (or maybe even 2) GHz Meroms in the next generation of Macbooks, since with the 20-30% speed boost over similarly-clocked Yonahs, even with a 10% drop in clock speed, they will still be faster, cooler-running and less expensive to make than the current models, will likely boost battery life and will offer 64 bit compatability.

The MBPs can all use Meroms clocked above 2 GHz for differentiation of lines, as well as their dedicated GPUs, larger (and maybe faster) HDs and more installed (and maximum) RAM.

aegisdesign
May 31, 2006, 11:19 AM
The Merom chip bumps up the top speed from 2.16 to 2.33 and uses the same bus speed and for around the same price?

how....exciting..... :confused:

Also adds 128bit SSE instructions (ie. it's nearly as good as a G4 at vector code now) and is about 20% faster than Yonah clock for clock. It's also 64bit, unlike Yonah.

SPUY767
May 31, 2006, 11:19 AM
Socket P? The bugs kicked our ass on Planet P. (Starship Trooopers.)

Very promising, but Megahertz Myth or not, the industry still looks like its hit a wall at a little over 2ghz for a mobile processor. Not discounting dual core because I think its an awesome innovation, but at this point Moore's law is a joke. I hope Intel has something else up its sleeve in 2007.

Consider GPUs. GPUs are capable to calculating things many times faster than the fastest desktop GPU. It's just that they have a very limited instruction set and can't do that much. Moore's Law is not dead. If anything, it's been surpassed.

jiggie2g
May 31, 2006, 11:20 AM
I hope and suspect that the Macbook will go with Merom as soon as it is released, since the Merom is priced the same way as the current Yonah lineup. Apple now has to compete directly with Dell and other Winbox manufacturers, since it is using the same hardware. If Apple uses a Yonah in a Macbook and Dell offers a Merom-based laptop that's 30-40% faster for the same price or less, Apple is in trouble. So, if Apple continues to use Yonah (if Intel even continues to make it), it will have to drop the price of the Macbooks substantially, and I doubt that Apple is prepared to do that.

Look for the 1.66-1.83 (or maybe even 2) GHz Meroms in the next generation of Macbooks, since with the 20-30% speed boost over similarly-clocked Yonahs, even with a 10% drop in clock speed, they will still be faster, cooler-running and less expensive to make than the current models, will likely boost battery life and will offer 64 bit compatability.

The MBPs can all use Meroms clocked above 2 GHz for differentiation of lines, as well as their dedicated GPUs, larger (and maybe faster) HDs and more installed (and maximum) RAM.


I agree with Macbook going Merom asap , however ther is now reason to down clock the MB due to the fact that Merom will be clocked up to 2.33ghz on the high end. Apple can save the lower clocked CPU's for the Mini.

MBP 2.16-2.33ghz w/ GF 7600Go 128-256MB

MB 1.83-2.0ghz w/ G965 GPU

Mini 1.66-1.83 w/ G965 GPU

andiwm2003
May 31, 2006, 11:20 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

....................................

While initial Merom CPU's will use 667 Mhz Front Side Busses that exist today, a Q2 2007 refresh and new "socket P" rollout is slated to bump that speed to 800 Mhz.
....................................


that should answer a lot of the "should i buy now or wait for merom" questions. the next update is already around the corner and the new chipset and FSB should make everything a little bit faster again. so there is no reason to wait now because there will always be something faster in less than 6 month. it's not like motorola/ibm anymore where you had large changes once in a while. now the changes are often. intel was the right choice.

nodmonkey
May 31, 2006, 11:20 AM
While initial Merom CPU's will use 667 Mhz Front Side Busses that exist today, a Q2 2007 refresh and new "socket P" rollout is slated to bump that speed to 800 Mhz.

Can someone more technically minded inform me how this front side bus difference will affect the performance of the machines running with these chips? I don't know what a front side bus is; will the performance difference between these machines be significant or subtle?

Balli
May 31, 2006, 11:22 AM
Look for the 1.66-1.83 (or maybe even 2) GHz Meroms in the next generation of Macbooks, since with the 20-30% speed boost over similarly-clocked Yonahs, even with a 10% drop in clock speed, they will still be faster, cooler-running and less expensive to make than the current models, will likely boost battery life and will offer 64 bit compatability.

The MBPs can all use Meroms clocked above 2 GHz for differentiation of lines, as well as their dedicated GPUs, larger (and maybe faster) HDs and more installed (and maximum) RAM.

The thing is, I don't see Apple lowering the clock-speeds of current MacBooks when they transition to Meroms. I know that the Meroms are better processors, but the average Joe Blog who visits the Apple Store won't.

My guess is 2.0Ghz and 2.13Ghz Meroms in the MacBooks.

cyberdogl2
May 31, 2006, 11:29 AM
Hopefully this means I won't have to wait as long for a more-Vista-ready macbook.

aegisdesign
May 31, 2006, 11:31 AM
Finally one of you macheads got what i've been saying all this time , in single CPU configurations woodcrest offers no perfromance advantage over Conroe ...it is in fact more expensive for apple to use these instead of conroe and makes no sense if you are not going multi-socket. This is just wishful thinking from macmonkeys who want to extend thier ePenises with bragging rights.

Nothing to do with bragging rights. The current top end PowerMac G5 is probably faster than any Conroe based machine so unless Intel starts allowing desktop class chips to be used multi-socket then the only option for a machine faster than the outgoing year old G5 is Woodcrest.

Intel have not done that since the Celerons of 1999 or so when you could run dual celerys.

Maybe they'll use both though. Conroe in the two base dual-core models and Woodcrest in the Quad replacement.

It'll be interesting to see if they use Conroe in the iMac too instead of Merom.

danielwsmithee
May 31, 2006, 11:35 AM
I was wondering the same thing about the FSB. Why is it that Intel doesn't go the same route the G5 went and have the FSB at half the processor speed? Are intels system interconnects lacking? The G5s and I think AMD use Hypertransport, what is Intel using?Correct me if I am wrong but I believe one of the differences is the Quad pumped bus that intel uses. On intel you transfer four bits across the FSB per clock cycle, rather then just one bit for IBM. So a 667 Mhz intel FSB is actually a 166 Mhz clock. The difference lies in the clock multiplier internal to the chip. Intel uses a much higher multiplication 166 Mhz -> 2 Ghz (Intel x12) 1 Ghz -> 2Ghz (IBM x2). I may be off on some of the details, but I believe using a lower clock frequency on pads (external pins) allows intel to increase their yield (which drives down price).

jiggie2g
May 31, 2006, 11:39 AM
Can someone more technically minded inform me how this front side bus difference will affect the performance of the machines running with these chips? I don't know what a front side bus is; will the performance difference between these machines be significant or subtle?


The faster FSB will not matter unless the CPU is Bandwidth starved, which is not the case with any Core 2 CPU(woodcrest/conroe/merom) all perform the same clock 4 clock the guys at XtremeSystems.org have proven this. FSB becomes an issue when clock speed is ramped up and more bandwidth is need for processing information.

So far Conroe has already been overlocked to 5ghz by Tam of TeamJapan http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101190&page=6&highlight=conroe

seems that intel not only managed to increase Performance per cylce and lower power consumption but found a way to implement Netburst's crazy clock speed ramping, this is truely an amazing chip the best since Alpha.

This Fall the New Gigahertz War will begin....:D

mike2q
May 31, 2006, 11:51 AM
Now I'm glad I didn't wait for Merom and bought a Macbook now. For the entire next school semester I'll have a blazing fast Mac laptop and won't have to "limp along" my old machine. When the core 2 duo's come out I won't have to get onto these forums to read about rev A problems. Then when the bus gets a bump to 800mhz in november I'll just be finishing up my semester. I'll wait until January when those chips get a price drop and sell my MB for a 17" MBP with a 2.33ghz 64bit chit with a 800Mhz bus at the discounted price. Life will be good. :D

Core Trio
May 31, 2006, 11:57 AM
Hopefully this means I won't have to wait as long for a more-Vista-ready macbook.


I am without speech.

danielwsmithee
May 31, 2006, 11:58 AM
... Not discounting dual core because I think its an awesome innovation, but at this point Moore's law is a joke. I hope Intel has something else up its sleeve in 2007.You don't understand Moore's Law very well then do you:eek:

Moore's Law only states that IC complexity will double every two year not the clock frequencies will double. The dual-core innovation is in fact a fulfillment of Moore's Law. Two years from now with Quad-Core processors you could say you will have another fulfillment of Moore's Law, twice the processor for the same price.

I'm sorry but you appear to be a victim of the Mhz myth.

jiggie2g
May 31, 2006, 12:07 PM
Nothing to do with bragging rights. The current top end PowerMac G5 is probably faster than any Conroe based machine so unless Intel starts allowing desktop class chips to be used multi-socket then the only option for a machine faster than the outgoing year old G5 is Woodcrest.

Intel have not done that since the Celerons of 1999 or so when you could run dual celerys.

Maybe they'll use both though. Conroe in the two base dual-core models and Woodcrest in the Quad replacement.

It'll be interesting to see if they use Conroe in the iMac too instead of Merom.


Where did I ever mention dual conroe's , did u even read what i wrote correctly. i was speaking of single cpu configurations. Woodcrest would offer no advantage and even cost more at a lower clock speed.

Apple will most likely use(as i've said many times) woodcrest at the very top(3ghz x 2 ) , then two conroe models to fill the rest.

MacPro

$3299 Quad Core / 2 x Xenon 5160(3.0ghz) 4MB L2 1333 FSB (Woodcrest)

$2499 DC X6800(2.93ghz) 4MB L2 1066FSB (Conroe)

$1999 DC E6700(2.67ghz) 4MB L2 1066FSB (Conroe)

Conroe will never see light of day in an iMac when all is needed for Merom is a cpu swap.

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 12:13 PM
The thing is, I don't see Apple lowering the clock-speeds of current MacBooks when they transition to Meroms. I know that the Meroms are better processors, but the average Joe Blog who visits the Apple Store won't.

My guess is 2.0Ghz and 2.13Ghz Meroms in the MacBooks.Yes they won't lower them. But they won't raise them either because there is a radical increase in the price of a 2.16GHz Merom vs the 2GHz and below ones - more than 40% higher. Notice the 2GHz Merom also has the 4MB L2 shared cache while the 1.83GHz Merom retains a 2MB L2 shared cache. So the speed LABELS will not change while the 2GHz Merom MacBook will PERFORM significantly faster. :)I agree with Macbook going Merom asap , however there is no reason to down clock the MB due to the fact that Merom will be clocked up to 2.33ghz on the high end. Apple can save the lower clocked CPU's for the Mini.

MBP 2.16-2.33ghz w/ GF 7600Go 128-256MB

MB 1.83-2.0ghz w/ G965 GPU

Mini 1.66-1.83 w/ G965 GPUThis makes perfect sense. Thanks for reminding me I'm not alone guys. Also note the cache difference, from 2GHz on up, I mention above. And it's a way for the whole line to go 64-bit in time for the Holiday shopping season. I agree wholeheartedly. Let us Pray... :)

CommodityFetish
May 31, 2006, 12:15 PM
I agree with Macbook going Merom asap , however ther is now reason to down clock the MB due to the fact that Merom will be clocked up to 2.33ghz on the high end. Apple can save the lower clocked CPU's for the Mini.

MBP 2.16-2.33ghz w/ GF 7600Go 128-256MB

MB 1.83-2.0ghz w/ G965 GPU

Mini 1.66-1.83 w/ G965 GPU

I agree we will see Merom Macbooks asap as well. Here are other factors pointing to this:

a.) the new chips are the same price as the current batch. No reason Apple won't continue their practice of maintaining general price points for better and better machines.

b.) now that the macbook has replaced the PB 12" apple can't afford a big gap between the MB and MBP on the CPU. We see this in the high speed CPUs that Apple put in the Macbook from the start. In general, with the frequent speed bumps, apple seems committed to keeping up with the latest from Intel. It seems clear that if anything apple is choosing to differentiate MB from MBP in the graphics department with GPU and screen size, (along with high end extras like the expansion card slot, etc)

c.) apple originally wanted to have the Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest line as their entry into the world of intel chips. Since they were not going to be out soon enough, they went ahead with Yonah to get the transition moving sooner. So I think apple will really jump on this new generation of processors which they've had in their sights all along. The better performance per watt roadmap from the first Intel Stevenote really kicks in with these chips, so I think apple will not hesitate to get them into as many machines as they can, especially portables.

Here's hoping. I'd love to see a Merom MB in time for my fall semester!

aegisdesign
May 31, 2006, 12:23 PM
Can someone more technically minded inform me how this front side bus difference will affect the performance of the machines running with these chips? I don't know what a front side bus is; will the performance difference between these machines be significant or subtle?

Not a lot.

An Intel FSB is 'Quad Pumped' so the actual speed of a 667Mhz bus is 167Mhz. The same speed as a G4. The difference is, it fetches 4 bits of info 167 million times a second instead of just 1 bit of info.

The FSB speed affects how quickly data can be retrieved from memory into the CPU. An 800Mhz (ie 200Mhz in Intel terms) bus therefore is about 16.5% quicker than a 667Mhz(167Mhz) bus and therefore shift 16.5% more data in the same time. In the Core chips that means 6.4GB/s instead of 5.3GB/2

The G5 bus, to be complete, operates at half the CPU speed so in the case of the 2.5Ghz G5, it's running at 1.25Ghz and it has two FSBs each capable of 10GB/s in one direction at a time only though.

However, the CPU has a cache which stores the most accessed data on the CPU itself and unless you're shifting very large amounts of data, FSB speed rarely makes that big a difference since most code fits in the cache. If you were processing huge amounts of video or sound and you had extremely fast hard disks you might see some improvements though.

ImAlwaysRight
May 31, 2006, 12:52 PM
As much as I would like the MacBook to go Merom ASAP, I think Apple might use the Merom as a way to differentiate the MBP line from MB until Leopard ships - perhaps even longer.
Well, well, Multi, glad to see that you're finally coming around to my side of the fence, that MacBooks will still have Yonahs into 2007 to differentiate them from MBP. And it's only been a few weeks! ;) :)

Posted 05-07-2006, 07:06 PM -
[Core 2 Duo] has got to go down as one of the DUMBEST names ever. July for Desktop and August for Mobile.

Posted 05-14-2006, 05:52 PM -
I do believe that by September-October MacBooks will have Merom Core 2 Duo inside. I do not believe Core 2 Duo will be held back until next year in MacBooks.

Posted 05-16-2006, 03:46 PM -
My GUESS is Merom will be in MacBooks by November - about 6 months from now.
Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks? :D

daneoni
May 31, 2006, 01:11 PM
Re-Edit. Wrong forum. I think its wise to buy a MacBook now and upgrade to merom next year christmas period or even MWSF 08. When CS3 would be out, vista would be shipping, Leopard would be more stable and Merom would be on the Santa Rosa platform with 800MHZ FSB . Good times

zippo
May 31, 2006, 01:27 PM
Re-Edit. Wrong forum. I think its wise to buy a MacBook now and upgrade to merom next year christmas period or even MWSF 08. When CS3 would be out, vista would be shipping, Leopard would be more stable and Merom would be on the Santa Rosa platform with 800MHZ FSB . Good times

I have PB 12" 867MHz. I am using it for browsing and some multimedia design (iLife, iWeb etc). It approaches its end of life as long as my needs grow.

I need to do leeeeaaaaap in platform choice. For me it would be MBP 17", Merom on Santa Rosa chipset. Do you think it is worth torturing myself for another year or so with PB 12"??

Wait or Not Wait - that is the question...

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 01:32 PM
Well, well, Multi, glad to see that you're finally coming around to my side of the fence, that MacBooks will still have Yonahs into 2007 to differentiate them from MBP. And it's only been a few weeks! ;) :)

Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks? :DTruthfully, I can't make up my mind IAR. I don't want you to be right. But I can see how you might be. On the other hand, several here have persuaded me it's Merom this Fall for MB. So I really have no fixed opinion on what will happen and hope it's Merom sooner than later. :confused:

In other words, I see both sides of the argument and will understand why Apple does what they do no matter which course of action they choose. :) But I want them to switch to Merom across the whole line ASAP and not hold them back for marketing and product differentiation reasons. God knows it won't be for cost reasons unless someone is counting pennies. There are plenty of other ways to differentiate the whole line.

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 01:47 PM
I have PB 12" 867MHz. I am using it for browsing and some multimedia design (iLife, iWeb etc). It approaches its end of life as long as my needs grow.

I need to do leeeeaaaaap in platform choice. For me it would be MBP 17", Merom on Santa Rosa chipset. Do you think it is worth torturing myself for another year or so with PB 12"??

Wait or Not Wait - that is the question...In your case I would say buy the 2GHz MacBook now and then sell it when your dream 17" ships next Spring. Consider the difference between purchase and sale prices rent for more power now. But only because your 12" is so terribly weak.

AcousticDoc
May 31, 2006, 01:51 PM
I am very confused as to the benefits of Merom vs yonah. Is it just a chip that can produce faster performance? OR are there other perks like battery life, heat reductiopn and stuff? SHould I buy a macbook now or wait until it gets merom(I am currently without a laptop)?

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 01:55 PM
I am very confused as to the benefits of Merom vs yonah. Is it just a chip that can produce faster performance? OR are there other perks like battery life, heat reductiopn and stuff? Should I buy a macbook now or wait until it gets merom(I am currently without a laptop)?If you need a laptop now MacBook is a great value. Yes to all of the above you wonder about. But how long before MacBook goes Merom is, as you can see above, anybody's guess. :eek: :)

AcousticDoc
May 31, 2006, 01:59 PM
How much battery life can we expect from a merom chip? Yonah and G4 chips have the same exact abttery life...I was dissapointed.

jiggie2g
May 31, 2006, 02:03 PM
I am very confused as to the benefits of Merom vs yonah. Is it just a chip that can produce faster performance? OR are there other perks like battery life, heat reductiopn and stuff? SHould I buy a macbook now or wait until it gets merom(I am currently without a laptop)?

If you need a notebook now then buy a macbook. there is nothing wrong with the current model , for $1299 you are basically getting a notebook that out performs a dual 2ghz G5.

As for your Merom vs Yonah question. you get about a 20% performance boost clock 4 clock with Merom vs a Yonah cpu.

AcousticDoc
May 31, 2006, 02:05 PM
As for your Merom vs Yonah question. you get about a 20% performance boost clock 4 clock with Merom vs a Yonah cpu.

Really? That is good to know cause all I use to do on my ibook G4 was work, surf, watch movies and chat. So that shouldn't be an issue then. Can We expect 20% more battery life as well tho?

Snide
May 31, 2006, 02:13 PM
How much battery life can we expect from a merom chip? Yonah and G4 chips have the same exact abttery life...I was dissapointed.

When you consider how utterly and completely the Core Duo cleans the
G4's clock (no pun intended), it is impressive that the MBP and MB's battery
life are as good as they are. If the Merom improves on this, even better.

I am so very glad that I waited when I wanted an iBook last November.
Now all I have to decide is buy MB now or wait for Merom?:cool:

AcousticDoc
May 31, 2006, 02:21 PM
When you consider how utterly and completely the Core Duo cleans the
G4's clock (no pun intended), it is impressive that the MBP and MB's battery
life are as good as they are. If the Merom improves on this, even better.

I am so very glad that I waited when I wanted an iBook last November.
Now all I have to decide is buy MB now or wait for Merom?:cool:

apple's websitesays the MB has a six hour battery life. Have peeople been able to confirm this in the real world? My ibook G4 almost always got at least 5 hours and 30 minutes. Sigh....I miss my ibook...This macbook better be worth it!

Cinch
May 31, 2006, 02:33 PM
apple's websitesays the MB has a six hour battery life. Have peeople been able to confirm this in the real world? My ibook G4 almost always got at least 5 hours and 30 minutes. Sigh....I miss my ibook...This macbook better be worth it!

I wonder how long can you keep this 5.5 hours of battery life? A year plus some? I remember my G4 TiBook battery gets progressively worse after a year of use. Toward the end of the second year we are talking about 1.5 hours (real world number).

Cinch

Core Trio
May 31, 2006, 02:37 PM
I wonder how long can you keep this 5.5 hours of battery life? A year plus some? I remember my G4 TiBook battery gets progressively worse after a year of use. Toward the end of the second year we are talking about 1.5 hours (real world number).

Cinch

my 15" Al PB gets 4 hrs 15 mins after a full charge, as long as i dont have the screen brightness up past 50%, but i think thats a good trade off.

Its a year old still performing like the day i got it, only problem i have is the (almost) microscopic dent on the right palm rest where i dropped my ipod on it :(

Fabio_gsilva
May 31, 2006, 02:55 PM
I could be wrong but I think I read that the Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest chips were 30-40% faster *at the same clock speed* as Yonah Core Duos, meaning at higher clock speeds the advantage is even greater than just in the numbers on paper.

Yeah! That was exactaly what I wanted to say!
Thank you!

So, this is not at all a minor speed bump like was said, and is much much better than what we were used to before Intel.

Don't you think it?

alec
May 31, 2006, 03:09 PM
It's nice to see consistent updates out of Apple's chip producers. Will we have more than 1 laptop update a year?! Oh well, looks like it's back to waiting for me...

Fabio_gsilva
May 31, 2006, 03:11 PM
I am without speech.

LoL!:D

aswitcher
May 31, 2006, 03:31 PM
Yeah! That was exactaly what I wanted to say!
Thank you!

So, this is not at all a minor speed bump like was said, and is much much better than what we were used to before Intel.

Don't you think it?


Yes. We might even see Pre-N wireless, black iMacs/eMacs, smaller form factor PMs, etc

daneoni
May 31, 2006, 03:46 PM
I have PB 12" 867MHz. I am using it for browsing and some multimedia design (iLife, iWeb etc). It approaches its end of life as long as my needs grow.

I need to do leeeeaaaaap in platform choice. For me it would be MBP 17", Merom on Santa Rosa chipset. Do you think it is worth torturing myself for another year or so with PB 12"??

Wait or Not Wait - that is the question...

Well given that the current core duo chips are faster than anything out there...except the quad. In your case i would do one of two things

1. Buy the low end macbook (1.83) and keep your PB now as a stop gap and when your dream system is built, you can just sell both off and get it. Both machine should get you a decent resale value towards your new system. The reason i say keep the PB is incase you find rosetta's performance to be subpar you can always change between both systems to increase productivity

2. You can sell the PB and buy a high end macbook (2.0GHz) and dump loads of RAM in it, which should increase rosetta's performance and when your dream machine is built, you just sell the macbook (which will garner a better resale value than the low end one) and get your dream machine.

Goodluck with whatever you decide

aegisdesign
May 31, 2006, 06:18 PM
I am very confused as to the benefits of Merom vs yonah. Is it just a chip that can produce faster performance? OR are there other perks like battery life, heat reductiopn and stuff? SHould I buy a macbook now or wait until it gets merom(I am currently without a laptop)?

It's just more performance. Merom has exactly the same power and heat requirements as Yonah.

aegisdesign
May 31, 2006, 06:40 PM
When you consider how utterly and completely the Core Duo cleans the
G4's clock (no pun intended), it is impressive that the MBP and MB's battery
life are as good as they are. If the Merom improves on this, even better.


It doesn't improve on it. Merom has the exact same power requirements as Yonah. What you get is supposedly 20% more performance for the same power consumption.

And the MBP and MB only get reasonable battery life because they made the battery bigger, and heavier. iBook/Powerbook G4 had a 50Wh battery. MacBook is 55Wh. MacBookPro 15" is 60Wh. 17" is 68Wh.

Performance went up with the MacBook(Pro) from the iBook/Powerbook but so also did power consumption.

heisetax
May 31, 2006, 06:40 PM
Speak for yourself, I want a 3ghz frontside bus in 12 months :rolleyes: :p


Remember, the G5's have the highest speed front side busses. Except the iMacs, they had a 1/2 speed buss. The dual dual 2.5 GHz are 1.25 GHz & the dual 2.7 GHz are 1.35 GHz. This seems to be faster than the much slower 667 MHz of the Intel processors.

The Intel front side buss has an easy time to beat the much older G4's speed. It will take a much longer & harder time to match the G5's front side buss speed.

Bill the TaxMan

aegisdesign
May 31, 2006, 06:51 PM
If you need a notebook now then buy a macbook. there is nothing wrong with the current model , for $1299 you are basically getting a notebook that out performs a dual 2ghz G5.

Only marginally and only usually in integer performance. Plus you're hobbled by non-Universal binaries, integrated graphics and laptop drives.

Let's not get carried away with the Intel fanboism. The MacBook's a nice laptop but it's not a desktop.

ModestPenguin
May 31, 2006, 07:04 PM
God... I was gonna go get a black macbook tommorrow. Should I wait? I don't need it but oh...I want it so...:o

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 07:08 PM
If you need a notebook now then buy a macbook. there is nothing wrong with the current model , for $1299 you are basically getting a notebook that out performs a dual 2ghz G5.Not Really. He was just kidding. I give you the Barefeats Shootout (http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd4.html). :DOnly marginally and only usually in integer performance. Plus you're hobbled by non-Universal binaries, integrated graphics and laptop drives.

Let's not get carried away with the Intel fanboism. The MacBook's a nice laptop but it's not a desktop.

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 07:18 PM
God... I was gonna go get a black macbook tommorrow. Should I wait? I don't need it but oh...I want it so...:oYou need cold water? I give you the Barefeats MacBook comparative benchmarks against other Mac Mobiles (http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html). :DThe 13" MacBook is NOT optimized for 3D gaming or Tiger Core Image effects.

The 13" MacBook is not even a strong Core Image machine as you can see below.

WHAT IS THE MACBOOK GOOD FOR?
It's good for CPU intensive tasks as you can see from our iMovie and iDVD test page. If you don't mind the small screen, the 13" MacBook is a big improvement over the iBook G4 for productivity tasks. Thankfully, it can be expanded to 2GB of main memory, just like its bigger brothers, the 15" and 17" MacBook Pro.

CASE IN POINT
I'm not fond of the plastic case design used for the MacBook 13". It smudges and scratches too easily compared to the aluminum cased MacBook Pros. The black model is even worse than the white one in showing my oily fingerprints. But I still like the look of the black case.

SECOND MOST SORELY MISSED FEATURE
Next to wishing it had a faster GPU, we wish the 13" MacBook had a backlit keyboard.

lord patton
May 31, 2006, 07:35 PM
I agree we will see Merom Macbooks asap as well. Here are other factors pointing to this:

a.) the new chips are the same price as the current batch.

b.) now that the macbook has replaced the PB 12" apple can't afford a big gap between the MB and MBP on the CPU.

c.) apple originally wanted to have the Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest line as their entry into the world of intel chips.

regarding a., what if the MacBook came down in price?

regarding b., what if we get a MacBook Pro 13" with Merom and GMA965

as for c., well maybe, but do we really know those are the chips Apple was lusting over?

I guess Merom could go into MacBooks right away, particularly if they stay at the same price. But I'd rather see the new processors as CTO options and/or a MBP 13", and have the MacBooks base price drop.

ModestPenguin
May 31, 2006, 07:37 PM
You need cold water? I give you the Barefeats MacBook comparative benchmarks against other Mac Mobiles (http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html). :D

No I love Mb, but how soon is this Merom gonna be stuck in the MB, I would be slightly angered if the mb I bought was upgraded in a few weeks. By slightly agnry I mean Hulk style green penguin of vengeful doom angry. If you know what I mean.

Multimedia
May 31, 2006, 07:51 PM
No I love Mb, but how soon is this Merom gonna be stuck in the MB, I would be slightly angered if the mb I bought was upgraded in a few weeks. By slightly agnry I mean Hulk style green penguin of vengeful doom angry. If you know what I mean.We don't know. There are some here who think MacBook (MB) won't get Merom before next year and others who think it will happen in September. There's just no way of knowing how soon the switch to Merom will happen for MacBook. MacBook Pro will happen by September for sure. :)regarding a., what if the MacBook came down in price?

regarding b., what if we get a MacBook Pro 13" with Merom and GMA965

as for c., well maybe, but do we really know those are the chips Apple was lusting over?

I guess Merom could go into MacBooks right away, particularly if they stay at the same price. But I'd rather see the new processors as CTO options and/or a MBP 13", and have the MacBooks base price drop.A) Apple has no history of lowering prices much. I doubt they will lower the price of a hit model when they don't need to.
B) would be nice.
C) Probably since they are all 64-bit which is the goal right?

Which leads us back to "We don't know".

ModestPenguin
May 31, 2006, 07:54 PM
Well...damnit...Macbook tommorrow it is then -shudder-...I think...OH GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!

reb
May 31, 2006, 08:23 PM
Forgive me, I thought Merom and the new server chips are 64 bit instead of the current 32 in the Macs. No one has mentioned this change in the discussion so far. Am I wrong?

cgc
May 31, 2006, 08:50 PM
...you are a noob if you don't put a 7200 rpm drive in your PowerBook, doncha' know...
7200RPM drives aren't necessarily faster than 5400 RPM drives, just like the MHz myth there is an RPM-myth as well.

CommodityFetish
May 31, 2006, 09:14 PM
regarding a., what if the MacBook came down in price?

I think it will be more of a priority to keep top-of-the-line chips in their portables. They are charging $150 for black plastic after all!

Though I could see the low end model coming down $100 or so to give them a sub-$1000 option again. This one might stay Yonah... Their overall strategy just seems to be better machines at the same prices - and the chips will be the same price as current models.

regarding b., what if we get a MacBook Pro 13" with Merom and GMA965

If we were going to see one I think we would have seen it already. The black plastic and the "MacBook Family" especially makes me think we won't. I may be wrong. It just seems that Apple is betting that those doing intense graphics work will want the MBP's bigger screen.

as for c., well maybe, but do we really know those are the chips Apple was lusting over?

D#$% if I can't remember where I read this... :(

I guess Merom could go into MacBooks right away, particularly if they stay at the same price. But I'd rather see the new processors as CTO options and/or a MBP 13", and have the MacBooks base price drop.

More options would be nice. We'll just have to wait and see. I just hope it's sooner and not later! :)

(The current MacBook looks like a great machine - I'm just not in any great need for an upgrade until the fall...)

MacinDoc
Jun 1, 2006, 12:37 AM
I agree with Macbook going Merom asap , however ther is now reason to down clock the MB due to the fact that Merom will be clocked up to 2.33ghz on the high end. Apple can save the lower clocked CPU's for the Mini.

MBP 2.16-2.33ghz w/ GF 7600Go 128-256MB

MB 1.83-2.0ghz w/ G965 GPU

Mini 1.66-1.83 w/ G965 GPU
My point is simply that if Apple needs to differentiate between MB and MBP, it will be better and cheaper for Apple to use a slightly lower clocked Merom than a slightly higher clocked Yonah. Having said that, if the MHz myth persists, it will be difficult for Apple to put in a slower clocked chip and say it is faster, even though it is the truth (for once!).

MacinDoc
Jun 1, 2006, 12:46 AM
You need cold water? I give you the Barefeats MacBook comparative benchmarks against other Mac Mobiles (http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html). :D
Well, then, what more do we need to differentiate the MB from the MBP? With the MBP so clearly superior in 3D and Core Image rendering, only a small difference in clock speed is needed. IMO, if Merom doesn't go into all of Apple's portables and the Mini shortly after it's introduced, it will be a major disappointment, and a blow to those who claim that Apple's products are priced competetively.

zmonster
Jun 1, 2006, 01:34 AM
My guess is that Apple will not put the faster Merom processor in MacBook Pros this year. Some reasons are:

- They may not want to go with a brand new and unproven architecture so quickly after it's launch.

- The current Core Duo processors are more than fast enough for most notebook users.

- They do not want to stifle sales of Mac desktop and Xserve machines, by keeping those machines 2-4x faster than the laptops.

BWhaler
Jun 1, 2006, 02:07 AM
The Merom chip bumps up the top speed from 2.16 to 2.33 and uses the same bus speed and for around the same price?

how....exciting..... :confused:

double the onboard memory and 40% reduction in power...these are for laptops remember.

If this doesn't excite you, you are still drinking the megahertz myth...

BWhaler
Jun 1, 2006, 02:11 AM
I am without speech.

As am I.

I am sure Dell will sell him a Vista compatible laptop today.

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 09:38 AM
My guess is that Apple will not put the faster Merom processor in MacBook Pros this year. Some reasons are:

- They may not want to go with a brand new and unproven architecture so quickly after it's launch.

- The current Core Duo processors are more than fast enough for most notebook users.

- They do not want to stifle sales of Mac desktop and Xserve machines, by keeping those machines 2-4x faster than the laptops.zmonster, your post is astonishing! :eek: I am flabergasted you wrote it. :eek: Your GUESS is wrong.

Merom is totally proven architecture. Apple is competing with other Intel computers.

The goal is 64-bit almost desktop capable within mobile limits. 2.33GHz Meroms will cost the same as Yonah and run cooler, quieter and faster.

Desktop and Mobile sales do not compete with one another. They are completely different markets. Many people have both. Mobiles will always be a little slower than contemporary desktops because of those limits.

I can't believe I even had to write this reply. :rolleyes:

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 09:47 AM
God... I was gonna go get a black macbook tommorrow. Should I wait? I don't need it but oh...I want it so...:oYou need cold water? I give you the Barefeats MacBook comparative benchmarks against other Mac Mobiles (http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html). :DThe 13" MacBook is NOT optimized for 3D gaming or Tiger Core Image effects.

The 13" MacBook is not even a strong Core Image machine as you can see below...Well, then, what more do we need to differentiate the MB from the MBP? With the MBP so clearly superior in 3D and Core Image rendering, only a small difference in clock speed is needed. IMO, if Merom doesn't go into all of Apple's portables and the Mini shortly after it's introduced, it will be a major disappointment, and a blow to those who claim that Apple's products are priced competetively.Boy am I with you on that point. ImAlwaysRight seems to believe Apple would rather keep MacBooks and minis crippled 'til next year. But I think you're right Doc. It's just plain gonna feel lame, dumb and wrong for Apple to hold back on a complete switch to Merom as soon as the supply is large enough to meet demand which I am thinking will be November at the latest. And they should also go to the next IG chipset G965 as well.

The operative word here is SHOULD. Will they is anybody's guess. :)

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 10:50 AM
Also adds 128bit SSE instructions (ie. it's nearly as good as a G4 at vector code now) and is about 20% faster than Yonah clock for clock. It's also 64bit, unlike Yonah.
The SSE instruction set has always worked on 128-bit data.

The change for the new Core 2 (and Woodcrest/Tulsa) is that the internal arithmetic units are now 128-bits wide as well.

Previous SSE chips took two cycles, sending 64-bit of the vector to the unit each cycle.

The new Core 2 chips send 128-bits in a single cycle.

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 10:53 AM
I was wondering the same thing about the FSB. Why is it that Intel doesn't go the same route the G5 went and have the FSB at half the processor speed? Are intels system interconnects lacking? The G5s and I think AMD use Hypertransport, what is Intel using?
Some of the G5s ran the FSB at 1/3 the CPU speed.

Intel matches the bus to the memory speed, and speed-matches (buffers) at the CPU. The G5 bus matched the CPU speed, and buffered at the memory. 6 of 1, half-dozen of the other.

Neither the G5 nor the AMD use HyperTransport for the FSB or memory bus. They are I/O and IPC buses.

milo
Jun 1, 2006, 01:23 PM
MacBook Does Not Out-Perform Dual 2GHz G5 PowerMacs - Barefeats Shootout Proves It

Not Really. He was just kidding. I give you the Barefeats Shootout (http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd4.html). :D

That's funny, on FCS benchmarks, the MB does beat the G5 on most tests. Gaming benchmarks only matter if you're planning on playing 3d games. And I'd like to see a real world example of a real difference in Core Image performance before writing off the MB for that.

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43717

manic
Jun 1, 2006, 02:01 PM
to those people who say that its not worth waiting for merom. Id like you to think about the risks youre taking:

apple has been tight lipped about leopard. What if leopard is a full blown 64-bit OS and theyre waiting for intel to deliver the goods to make the breakthrough announcement in august, which, by the way, is right around the corner.

Youll end up with the capable yonah that, however, will be outdated for not supporting the better features of the brand new update to OSX. its a pretty big risk given its not so far away. Even if leopard is not announced as a 64 bit OS, youll not lose because youll get the 20% speed gain AND will be better futureproofed for when that 64bit OS comes. College students wanting to hang to their laptops for 4 years, consider this

milo
Jun 1, 2006, 03:15 PM
to those people who say that its not worth waiting for merom. Id like you to think about the risks youre taking:

apple has been tight lipped about leopard. What if leopard is a full blown 64-bit OS and theyre waiting for intel to deliver the goods to make the breakthrough announcement in august, which, by the way, is right around the corner.

Youll end up with the capable yonah that, however, will be outdated for not supporting the better features of the brand new update to OSX. its a pretty big risk given its not so far away. Even if leopard is not announced as a 64 bit OS, youll not lose because youll get the 20% speed gain AND will be better futureproofed for when that 64bit OS comes. College students wanting to hang to their laptops for 4 years, consider this

Who cares if Leopard is 64 bit? On most apps it will make little difference if any. What "better features" do you imagine there will be that won't run on Yonah, much less PPC? And the 20% speed gain isn't any different than a chip shipping with 20% higher clock speed. Chips get faster all the time, so ANY machine you buy will be superceded by a faster one. I don't think merom makes any difference in terms of future proofing. To look at the analogous situation, are there any OS versions or apps that run on G5 but not G4? After all, in theory the G5 is way more "future proof", right?

Multimedia
Jun 1, 2006, 04:29 PM
That's funny, on FCS benchmarks, the MB does beat the G5 on most tests. Gaming benchmarks only matter if you're planning on playing 3d games. And I'd like to see a real world example of a real difference in Core Image performance before writing off the MB for that.

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43717You're right. I forgot. I guess it's really a mixed bag so far.

AidenShaw
Jun 1, 2006, 11:41 PM
Who cares if Leopard is 64 bit? On most apps it will make little difference if any. What "better features" do you imagine there will be that won't run on Yonah, much less PPC?
The real "future" issue is software support.

When true 64-bit OSx64 ships, developers will need to make "even more universal binaries" to get the extra speed from 64-bit.

At some point, probably not too far down the road, these developers will decide that there weren't enough 32-bit MacIntels sold to justify the expense of including 32-bit MacIntel code in the universal binaries. (Some that are making new ports or software for Apples will decide to skip x86 and only ship PPC and x64.)


And the 20% speed gain isn't any different than a chip shipping with 20% higher clock speed.
20% faster is pretty big, especially for the pro apps. And especially if your competitor is shipping x64 and you're not.

To look at the analogous situation, are there any OS versions or apps that run on G5 but not G4? After all, in theory the G5 is way more "future proof", right?
The difference is that PPC OSX is a 32-bit operating system, with extremely limited support for restricted 64-bit apps.

OSx64 will be true 64-bit, where any app can get the extra speed or memory space of 64-bit.

Multimedia
Jun 2, 2006, 12:38 AM
4 Core Kentsfield will be single socket - it's a Conroe follow-on. Q1 2007

4 Core Clovertown is a dual socket - it's a Woodcrest follow-on. Q2 2007

8 Core Tigerton is a quad socket - it's a Tulsa follow-on. Q4 2007 or Q1 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_MicroarchitectureI'm smelling a Yorkfield, eight-core MCM, 45 nm, 12 MiB L2, successor to Kentsfield Mac Pro Q1 2008. I think short term a pair of Clovertowns will make the first 8 core Mac Pro Q2 2007 :eek:

milo
Jun 2, 2006, 11:33 AM
At some point, probably not too far down the road, these developers will decide that there weren't enough 32-bit MacIntels sold to justify the expense of including 32-bit MacIntel code in the universal binaries. (Some that are making new ports or software for Apples will decide to skip x86 and only ship PPC and x64.)

20% faster is pretty big, especially for the pro apps. And especially if your competitor is shipping x64 and you're not.

The difference is that PPC OSX is a 32-bit operating system, with extremely limited support for restricted 64-bit apps.

OSx64 will be true 64-bit, where any app can get the extra speed or memory space of 64-bit.

We'll see what happens with 64 bit support. Based on what happened with G4 and G5, I'll be surprised if we see many (if any) apps that don't have 32 bit support. Do you know of any specifically that will skip 32 and only do 64 as you say? And what additional work is required to do a 32 bit build in addition to 64?

Sure, 20% faster is a big deal. But you can also get a 20% gain by waiting for chips at a 20% faster clock speed. In either case, it's the same as things have always been, you can always wait and get something faster. I don't see a 20% boost as a huge reason for waiting to buy a machine.

Multimedia
Jun 6, 2006, 11:14 PM
Apple Pushing Intel In New Directions (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2491397#post2491397). New Thread mentions Intel will announce new processors tomorrow. Woodcrest or something else? :)They announced them today in this AppleInsider Article:
Intel rolls out Broadwater, says 3.2GHz Woodcrest planned (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1791).

Woodcrest sounds fast - 3.2 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme...:)

And they unveiled some low-wattage processors as well. Is this what you were talking about, or am I completely confused??? :confused: :DI guess tomorrow was today in Japan. Wonder why MacRumors didn't post a feature on the cover about this? Seems cover feature worthy. Very interesting. Makes waiting for Core 2 Duo even more logical than ever.

AvSRoCkCO1067
Jun 6, 2006, 11:17 PM
Apple Pushing Intel In New Directions (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2491397#post2491397). New Thread mentions Intel will announce new processors tomorrow. Woodcrest or something else? :)

They announced them today: http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1791

Woodcrest sounds fast - 3.2 GHz Core 2 Duo Extreme...:)

And they unveiled some low-wattage processors as well. Is this what you were talking about, or am I completely confused??? :confused: :D