PDA

View Full Version : Hacker Upgrades Mac Mini w/ Core 2 Duo


MacRumors
Jun 13, 2006, 05:52 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Macenstein is reporting that a hacker with access to a Core 2 Duo "Merom" CPU clocked at 2.16 GHz has successfully upgraded his Mac Mini (http://macenstein.com/default/archives/323). According to the hacker's benchmarks, the upgraded Mini beat out a Dual 2.5 GHz G5 in an iTunes encoding test by 15%. Note that these benchmarks could not be confirmed by MacRumors, but are placed on Page 1 for interest's sake.

Both the Mac Mini and the iMac have socketed CPUs, which make them suitable (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/04/20060412011938.shtml) for swapping with Intel's imminent Core 2 Duo chips, which are conveniently socket-compatible with Intel's current Core Duo chips. The MacBook and MacBook Pro however have their CPUs soldered to the motherboard, making upgradeability impractical.

erockerboy
Jun 13, 2006, 05:54 PM
Time to turn in my long-in-the-tooth 2x2.5 G5?

Piarco
Jun 13, 2006, 05:55 PM
Beat a dual G5 by that much?!?
I know I'm holding out for Merom like so many others, but I'll wait until official benchmarks come out to have that stat verified...

But nice to know we can upgrade easily all the same!

liven2
Jun 13, 2006, 05:56 PM
All I can say this type of upgrading options makes these little affordable packages very appealing! :)

AoWolf
Jun 13, 2006, 05:57 PM
Wow thats really fast can't wait for the new MBP's and maybe MB's :-)

Some_Big_Spoon
Jun 13, 2006, 05:59 PM
I see a big market for "old" core solo mini's after these chips hit the streets in numbers.

You could trick out a nice system for heavy lifting (not graphics intensive) for a fraction of what Apple's going to eventually charge.

I'm waiting for proc upgrades for the MB. I think I'll run with that from a ship 'n' strip 'n' re-equip company instead of going with a new Rev., unless they throw in some more nice bells and whistles.

treblah
Jun 13, 2006, 06:00 PM
*chuckles at the PowerPC fanboys* ;) :p :)

BornAgainMac
Jun 13, 2006, 06:01 PM
Yea, but the G5 has higher Mhz. :p

manu chao
Jun 13, 2006, 06:09 PM
So how does Aperture run on Core Duo (Yonah or Merom) compared to 1.67 GHz PPC Powerbook? It should run much much faster if it were not for the integrated graphics.
In order to speed up Aperture for me, I guess would either have to buy an iMac or a MacBook Pro.

FF_productions
Jun 13, 2006, 06:12 PM
Wow, with stats like those, I'm going to be switching to Intel very very soon...:(
Looks down on his iMac G5.:(

mmmcheese
Jun 13, 2006, 06:13 PM
I expect that when the Merom comes out, the MBP will be upgraded, but the MB will stick with the cheaper Yonah processors.

runplaysleeprun
Jun 13, 2006, 06:13 PM
schweeeet.

my girlfriend will be incredibly chuffed when i tell her. (got an imac a few months back)

and after I explain what that means.

Twice.

and then just settle and tell her its a good thing.

Some_Big_Spoon
Jun 13, 2006, 06:18 PM
Or wait for them to iron out the kinks that are eating up CPU and GPU cycles.

I bought Aperture first thing and it's unbearably slow on a 2.1GHz 2.5GB imac G5. My work flow is fast just using PS and iPhoto.

So how does Aperture run on Core Duo (Yonah or Merom) compared to 1.67 GHz PPC Powerbook? It should run much much faster if it were not for the integrated graphics.
In order to speed up Aperture for me, I guess would either have to buy an iMac or a MacBook Pro.

EricNau
Jun 13, 2006, 06:19 PM
It seems Apple has made their computers very easily upgradable, so hopefully they'll update their lines more often to keep up with other PC manufacturers.

Piarco
Jun 13, 2006, 06:22 PM
I expect that when the Merom comes out, the MBP will be upgraded, but the MB will stick with the cheaper Yonah processors.

Only for a short time - its been well recorded on these forums (and many other places) that Jobs/Apple want to migrate the entire line to the new Core 2 Duo chips.
MBP in Sept, MB's in Nov/Jan....

Platform
Jun 13, 2006, 06:25 PM
Now this is impressive, almost as fast as a Dual 2.5 G5 in Photoshop trough Rosetta ????...now that good !

Lets see what 4 of these cores can do..with no Rosetta translation :D

billystlyes
Jun 13, 2006, 06:27 PM
There is another guy in the United States who did the same thing.

http://www.123macmini.com/news/story/487.html

nagromme
Jun 13, 2006, 06:32 PM
More than one person has done this "Macaholic" and "Fugger" at the least, and maybe neither of those is the one this story is about?

http://teammacosx.homeunix.com/forum/cgi-bin/ikonboard.pl?act=NW;f=17;t=2439

Object-X
Jun 13, 2006, 06:40 PM
I see a big market for "old" core solo mini's after these chips hit the streets in numbers.

You could trick out a nice system for heavy lifting (not graphics intensive) for a fraction of what Apple's going to eventually charge.

I'm waiting for proc upgrades for the MB. I think I'll run with that from a ship 'n' strip 'n' re-equip company instead of going with a new Rev., unless they throw in some more nice bells and whistles.

Not so fast. (Pun) Having sold quite a few Apple computers on Ebay over the last three years I can attest to the fact that Apple computers really hold their value. Even if Apple puts the Core 2 in the mini the older Core solos will keep most of their value. So, it might be cheaper, but not by much. I don't think you'll see a Core 2 in a mini for quite some time. It will go in the iMac long before it lands in the budget mini. Which means the mini will retain top resale dollar. But being able to upgrade your mini gives the mini even more value. So a $600 mini + $xx for the proc = a great option.

It will be curious to see if the Core 2 makes it into the MacBook. I don't think it will right away. Everyone is raving about what a great buy the MacBook is compared to the Pro, so all you suckers that bought a MacBook Pro are going to be pissed when your machines are outdated within a year and the performace differece between the MacBook and MacBook Pro widens.

Can't wait to put one in my iMac. :p

dongmin
Jun 13, 2006, 06:43 PM
Only for a short time - its been well recorded on these forums (and many other places) that Jobs/Apple want to migrate the entire line to the new Core 2 Duo chips.
MBP in Sept, MB's in Nov/Jan....What does "well recorded on these forums" mean? It's all speculation at this point. Jobs/Apple has not gone on the record in any way with a roadmap of which processors are going into which computers.

This benchmark isn't that surprising considering that the 2.0 ghz MacBook beats out the 2.0 ghz Dual G5 in several benchmarks. Since they say Meroms are about 20% faster at the same clock, 2.167 ghz x 120% should beat out a 2.5ghz Dual G5.

081440
Jun 13, 2006, 06:47 PM
If this is true then GREAT!!!! There will be good business swapping chips for people if the specs are true.

but if it's all a hoax or false numbers....

shelterpaw
Jun 13, 2006, 06:53 PM
Time to turn in my long-in-the-tooth 2x2.5 G5?
yeah an and my blue and white G3 400.... Think I'll notice the difference?

fixyourthinking
Jun 13, 2006, 07:02 PM
Doesn't Daystar Digital do CPU swaps for PowerBook G4s? (also soldered)

What's to prevent this from ever being an option for Intel CPUs?

Stella
Jun 13, 2006, 07:03 PM
Excellent as it may be, you are still limited by the ( relatively poor ) graphics card.

A is jump
Jun 13, 2006, 07:22 PM
Excellent as it may be, you are still limited by the ( relatively poor ) graphics card.

Boy I was wondering how long it would take for someone to HAVE to point that out.

maybe someone should figure out how to add a dedicated Graphics card to the mac mini and macbook, and then everyone can stop whining about how their cheap computer isnt as good as the expensive models.

swingerofbirch
Jun 13, 2006, 07:24 PM
mmm . . . merom! they should actually call the chip that instead of just using it as the code name: Intel Merom sounds nicer than Intel Core 2 Duo

I want my next Mac:
to be a small portable
Merrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrom!
10.5
slot loading blu-ray player and burner
128 VRAM, capable decoding blu-ray HD
13" screen with built in isight

SAWEET

Sounds like the Macbook of next Tuesday? Next year? Never?

Mechcozmo
Jun 13, 2006, 07:32 PM
Apple is working for simplicity as well, it would seem. When they want to upgrade to the new CPUs, all they have to do is drop in the new CPUs. That's it. Very convenient, and the savings get passed onto the consumers. Well, part of the savings.

Piarco
Jun 13, 2006, 07:34 PM
What does "well recorded on these forums" mean? It's all speculation at this point. Jobs/Apple has not gone on the record in any way with a roadmap of which processors are going into which computers.

It means exactly what it means - its been discussed in many a thread. If it still remains speculation, then I still think that it will be the case - MacBooks are meant to cover the range of teh old iBooks through to the 12" PB, and as that is the case, Apple surely wouldn't want to let the MacBooks keep a lesser (albeit fantastic) chip in it - a lot of business users would be swayed away from the MacBooks possibly. Then again, that may well be what Apple want...

miniConvert
Jun 13, 2006, 07:37 PM
I like to just buy something at top spec. I'm quite crazy. Then it lasts me until the Next Big Thing comes along... so I buy that at top spec. Yes, it would work out quite a bit cheaper to upgrade as I go along, but I guess I just get tired of my kit and need something new to inspire me.

This Mac mini I have now will stay as it is indefinitely. I'd rather keep my money for something like the Mac Pro to have in addition to it rather than pour it on RAM (it already has 2GB), HD and/or CPU upgrades.

adamfilip
Jun 13, 2006, 07:51 PM
Very Cool

I really hope the new Mac pro (powermac) machine will not have the cpus soldered on the board. that would really. suck. finally i want a Mac where i can upgrade the processors easily

celebrian23
Jun 13, 2006, 07:54 PM
"put on page 1 for interest's sake"

haha thanks for the chuckle

Abstract
Jun 13, 2006, 07:58 PM
Only for a short time - its been well recorded on these forums (and many other places) that Jobs/Apple want to migrate the entire line to the new Core 2 Duo chips.

Are those opinions or facts? It has all sounded like pure opinion, but if you can show me where someone stated this, then please go ahead.

Otherwise, this sounds more right to me.....

I expect that when the Merom comes out, the MBP will be upgraded, but the MB will stick with the cheaper Yonah processors.

ChrisA
Jun 13, 2006, 07:58 PM
the "Core 2 Dual" is only 20% faster than the "Core Dual" 20% is hard to notice without a stopwatch and is unnoticable for many tasks. Also after the upgrade the Mini stil only holds 2GB of RAM. I doubt many people will spend almost $300 for such a small increment of performance. But in a few years ifwe are REALLY lucky the "Core 2 Quad" will fit in the same socket and more than double the performance. Generally it make little sense to upgade just one generation of processor. Beter to use a machine for 3 or so years and then upgrade

I think this make the iMac more atractive. As it is it seems such a waste to buy a 20" LCD screen and know that it is attached to a computer that will become obsolite in a few years. A good LCD screen might remain usful for a decade or longer. But an upgradable iMac would have a longer usful life

shawnce
Jun 13, 2006, 08:27 PM
the "Core 2 Dual" is only 20% faster than the "Core Dual" 20% is hard to notice without a stopwatch

Note the Core 2 has much better SSE support then Core, you should a better then 20% improvement from SSE. The 20% number is a ball park figure put out by Intel for typical usage (likely not counting SSE).

SSE is Intel's spin of what AltiVec does on the PowerPC... the Core 2 will bring SSE to performance much closer to AltiVec.

Note Mac OS X makes heavy use of SSE/AltiVec in various system wide services.

Nar1117
Jun 13, 2006, 08:33 PM
Wow. 15%. Im Amazed.

/sarcasm

Woopdedoo. And that 15% is over a PPC chip, not existing Yonahs. If you wait to switch to an Intel mac until Merom is released, you are going to wait too long. It really wont matter all that much except for the change in the description of the product. Core 2 Duo versus Core Duo.

Ok, so benchmarks will show it to be a little faster in rendering, shaving those precious seconds off of encoding... But if youre actually comparing a Yonah and a Merom real world using perception, like in the real world, it wont matter. 80% of the people who buy a mac wont care and the other 20% are buying the Merom Macs just for the 'newest, best computer' effect, which doesnt last but 6 months anyway. Its a placebo, they say its faster (which it might be) and people will think that they see an improvement when they really dont.

Choppaface
Jun 13, 2006, 08:42 PM
the word is modder, not hacker

in line for a T7600 baby, I've already got the Raptor X running externally and the 2gb of RAM stuffed in there and she SINGSSSSS

if apple swaps the GMA950 in the rev b i wont cry like yalls nutcases, but if they put an eSATA on the back I will cuz i already cuts a hole in mine!! X_X

seriously the mini is probably one of the coolest computers ever put on the market, now give me full speed XP emulation and NTFS R/W and I can put my server and client all in one box :)

jvan
Jun 13, 2006, 08:52 PM
if the core 2 duo chip doesn't make much of a difference in the real world, then i guess i won't wait.. i'll get a macbook this week then :D

grockk
Jun 13, 2006, 08:58 PM
Are those opinions or facts? It has all sounded like pure opinion, but if you can show me where someone stated this, then please go ahead.

Otherwise, this sounds more right to me.....

the only problem is that every other PC maker will have merom in their consumer lines. it's no longer up to apple's whim where the consumer/pro break occurs. they have to follow the industry

Analog Kid
Jun 13, 2006, 09:11 PM
*chuckles at the PowerPC fanboys* ;) :p :)
Yeah, it feels good to laugh doesn't it? Nothing like outpacing a 3 year old chip to really get out the giggles though...

:rolleyes:

Collin973
Jun 13, 2006, 09:14 PM
Man this makes my wait even more worth it. Bring me that MBP with merom baby!

gman71882
Jun 13, 2006, 09:15 PM
I knew the new Core 2 duo chip was going to be a great upgrade... that why im holding out for it in the New Mini or iMac.

a 64 bit processer is perfect.
Now with the RAM limit going up to 16 GB, hopefully some companies will start making 2GB and 4 GB RAM SODIMMs so we can maxxing out those machines!!!!

THX1139
Jun 13, 2006, 09:18 PM
Wow. 15%. Im Amazed.

/sarcasm

Woopdedoo. And that 15% is over a PPC chip, not existing Yonahs. If you wait to switch to an Intel mac until Merom is released, you are going to wait too long. It really wont matter all that much except for the change in the description of the product. Core 2 Duo versus Core Duo.

Ok, so benchmarks will show it to be a little faster in rendering, shaving those precious seconds off of encoding... But if youre actually comparing a Yonah and a Merom real world using perception, like in the real world, it wont matter. 80% of the people who buy a mac wont care and the other 20% are buying the Merom Macs just for the 'newest, best computer' effect, which doesnt last but 6 months anyway. Its a placebo, they say its faster (which it might be) and people will think that they see an improvement when they really dont.

Wow, a little short sighted aren'tcha? There's plenty of reasons besides a hypothetical 20% speed increase to wait for Merom. True, most web surfers are not going to notice the difference, but if you're a power user stuck with a notebook out in the field, then that Merom is going to rock. My guess is that you own a device that uses Yonah and you are just pissed that you'll miss out.

I suggest you do a bit of research on Merom vs Yonah before you do any further bashing of the upgrade. There's one good post upthread concerning SSE support that is far superior to Yonah, not to mention support for 64bit in pro applications. There are plenty of other resources, but I'll leave that for you to find on your own. It should keep you busy for awhile. If you're a consumer, then it's not going to matter, but a pro will want the new technology. And yes... shaving seconds off renders does matter. Those seconds can add up to hours.

Analog Kid
Jun 13, 2006, 09:18 PM
Now this is impressive, almost as fast as a Dual 2.5 G5 in Photoshop trough Rosetta ????...now that good !

Lets see what 4 of these cores can do..with no Rosetta translation :D
"50% slower" != "almost as fast"

Man-- the bandwagon gets rolling here and all of space time gets warped out of proportion. Not saying these aren't positive results, but I'm trying to keep some frame of reference...

I think that's my benchmark for transition though-- when the Macintels running Rosetta can outpace my dual G5. At that point I know I'm not losing anything running existing software.

macaddict06
Jun 13, 2006, 09:21 PM
the "Core 2 Dual" is only 20% faster than the "Core Dual" 20% is hard to notice without a stopwatch and is unnoticable for many tasks.
Yeah, let's also remember that Merom will be the first Intel Portable chip to have EMT64 - way closer to true 64 bit portable computing than Core DUO is. Look, 20% is still better than what we had - I seem to remember Intel saying that best optimization one Merom would put it at 40% better than CoreDuo. So once Apple engineers finish up their work, I'm pretty sure we will see better than just 20%....but most likely not the full 40%.

Edit: This may be of interest to the forums, just remembered that I still had the link :)
http://homepage.mac.com/macaholicg5/PhotoAlbum12.html

Analog Kid
Jun 13, 2006, 09:24 PM
Intel Merom sounds nicer than Intel Core 2 Duo
I have to agree... The new trend seems to be staccato marketing names-- "Core 2 Duo", "Mac Book Pro". I like the smoother flowing names myself, but I've gotten used to MBP so I'm sure C2D will get comfortable with time.

RichP
Jun 13, 2006, 09:31 PM
Yeah, it feels good to laugh doesn't it? Nothing like outpacing a 3 year old chip to really get out the giggles though...

:rolleyes:

LOL!

We talk so much about "when Photoshop goes native, blah blah" but we really dont know how much Rosetta really criples a program, do we? Is there a benchmark of a PPC app vs Universal?

Analog Kid
Jun 13, 2006, 09:35 PM
Here's the part that worries me:
Yonah T2300
Off 01 watts
Boot 29 watts
MacOS X/Win XP only 20 watts
MacOS X/Win XP with 2 Folding@home CLI clients 37 watts

Merom T7400
Off 01 watts
Boot 41 watts
MacOS X/Win XP only 21 watts
MacOS X/Win XP with 2 Folding@home CLI clients 51 watts


From http://www.123macmini.com/news/story/487.html

Are the Mini's equipped to handle the extra power and heat? The Merom is more power hungry clock for clock too, which I thought ran counter to Intel's claims...

Nar1117
Jun 13, 2006, 09:56 PM
Wow, a little short sighted aren'tcha? There's plenty of reasons besides a hypothetical 20% speed increase to wait for Merom. True, most web surfers are not going to notice the difference, but if you're a power user stuck with a notebook out in the field, then that Merom is going to rock. My guess is that you own a device that uses Yonah and you are just pissed that you'll miss out.

I suggest you do a bit of research on Merom vs Yonah before you do any further bashing of the upgrade. There's one good post upthread concerning SSE support that is far superior to Yonah, not to mention support for 64bit in pro applications. There are plenty of other resources, but I'll leave that for you to find on your own. It should keep you busy for awhile. If you're a consumer, then it's not going to matter, but a pro will want the new technology. And yes... shaving seconds off renders does matter. Those seconds can add up to hours.

Actually i dont own an Intel Mac.

Im trying to make people realize that Merom really wont make that much of a difference. From reading a lot of people on here that say to wait to buy a macbook pro until they have Merom in them, and from reading the specs (like this original post by macrumors) of Merom, i dont think that its as big of a deal as people make it out to be.

Like i said in my other post, 80% (about) of the people who buy a mac are NOT going to care. Why not? because they're not Pro-consumers. As you said, Pros will want that extra 10 seconds for rendering or encoding, and if they really need it, they should wait, sure. But i could also say that they should wait until the Mac Pros come out with Woodcrest, as most pros that ive seen use Power Macs in the lab or studio. Merom is a consumer chip, meant to replace/run alongside the Yonah. Everyone on here is saying 'wait until merom comes out!', and the people that are listening are, im taking an educated guess here, not Pros who will actually benefit from that 20% speed increase. Now we have a ton of people saying 'im waiting until merom comes out to get my Macbook', and it frustrates me that people dont look past the numbers to see that just maybe, it wont matter that much. And i certainly dont have to remind you that waiting is a fool's game in the computer world.

Black Monolith
Jun 13, 2006, 10:03 PM
I am a little excited about these Core 2 Duo chips not because of the fact that they will provide a significant speed improvement, but I am hoping they will solve some of the heat issues we have been having Apple's new Laptops...err I mean notebooks. While it is true that in the MB and MBP the CPU is not socketted, CPU swaps can still be performed. I know for a fact that there is a company out there that desolders the CPUs in the previous generation Powerbooks for 1.83GHz G4 replacements. While it might be a little expensive, I for one would be willing to do it if the service can be made available. I am sick of burning my damn hands.

mmmcheese
Jun 13, 2006, 10:08 PM
the only problem is that every other PC maker will have merom in their consumer lines. it's no longer up to apple's whim where the consumer/pro break occurs. they have to follow the industry

Yeah, because you know that no one else sells notebooks with Core Solo, Pentium/Celeron M, or Pentium 4 Mobile processors these days...

ClimbingTheLog
Jun 13, 2006, 10:27 PM
Note the Core 2 has much better SSE support then Core....Note Mac OS X makes heavy use of SSE/AltiVec in various system wide services.

Does it have a better implementation or a new instruction set? I'd be surprised if Apple's shipping libraries had optimizations for a Mermon SSE instruction set such that this modder would have benefited. But if it's just better silicon, then onward.

Everyone on here is saying 'wait until merom comes out!', and the people that are listening are, im taking an educated guess here, not Pros who will actually benefit from that 20% speed increase.

I don't care about the 20% (but I'll take it) - I care about better SSE and 64 bit addressing. I'm running out of memory with my current machine with 1.5GB of RAM - when I'm running two more OS's on my new MBP 2GB just isn't going to cut it. I need a 4GB laptop and Mermon should make that practical.

Core Duo was a transition chip from the start, everybody was well aware of its positioning. And it's fine for commonplace usage.

Oryan
Jun 13, 2006, 10:32 PM
*Looks at Dual 2.0 G5

*Sobs

johnthevulcan
Jun 13, 2006, 10:33 PM
Are Still 10 Times Faster Than Their Pc Counter Parts, I Am A Bit Confuddled Because I Have A Dell Pc, Intel P4 Running At 2.8ghz, My Friends Ibook With Only 1.4 Ghz Is Twice As Fast Plus I Have Twice The Ram. Will My Macbook With 2 Ghz And 1 Gig Of Ram Be A Sprinter Compared To My System Or Will It Just Be Cuter, I Dont Care, My Heart Is Set On It.
And As For The Color Argument, I Think The White One Is Cuter And Glad Its Cheaper Than That Ugly Black One, If It Wasnt White, It Wouldnt Be A Mac!!!!!

ChrisA
Jun 13, 2006, 10:39 PM
Actually i dont own an Intel Mac.

Im trying to make people realize that Merom really wont make that much of a difference. .....

I agree. Here is a simple test you all can do to see if you would even notice a 20% faster CPU. Bring up "activity monitor" then select "CPU" now look to see if the processor is at 100% utilization. If it is not then you will not notice a 20% speed boost in the CPU.

In my experiance you need to double the CPU speed before a casual user can notice the difference. It seems to follow how our perception of sound and brightness of light is also on a log scale.

YoGramMamma
Jun 13, 2006, 10:56 PM
LOL!

We talk so much about "when Photoshop goes native, blah blah" but we really dont know how much Rosetta really criples a program, do we? Is there a benchmark of a PPC app vs Universal?


Though we dont know how the universal version of photoshop will stack up against the PPC version running thru rosetta.... there is a way to find out how much rosetta actually cripples a program. anyone with an intel machine can do this....

A friend pointed out to me that you can actually make any universal program run in Rosetta, by right clicking, CTRL clicking, 2-finger clicking, whatever... the icon in your apps folder, then say "Get Info" in that box that pops up there is a checkbox that says "Run Using Rosetta". I'd imagine this would be nice for doing comparisons. I checked that box on Photobooth and it used about 100-140% of the processing power at any given moment while running.. and when running NOT in rosetta, it only took up about 30-40%. (divide those numbers in half for actual percentage. in the activity monitor it uses a 200% load to account for 2 processors running at 100% each) I dont know if Photobooth was the best thing to use to test this, but i could tell a difference no doubt. load times, effect changes etc.

The reason my friend discovered this is because he found it to be a good way to get Flip4Mac (a non-universal addon to Quicktime for playing WMV files) to run by making quicktime player run thru rosetta.

About the whole merom thing, i think this is a cool upgrade to a mini no doubt. I think Apple will be among the first to get them into everything except the PowerMac replacement and the Minis. I think they want/need to have the fastest available chips, and so we'll see them in the MB and MBP. Maybe as a CTO option in the MB, though i dont think they'd complicate the manufacturing process that much to do a CTO, so we'll see. At least i'd think they would offer the core 2's to all laptops.

I dont think they will use processor type as a separation between MB and MBP. speed yes, type no. I think the reason the computers are so close as it is, is because apple wanted to focus on getting everyhting Intel FIRST, then go back and revise them all. The MBP was their first, and a safe bet. The MB they took a bit more liberties with, cause the MBP went relatively well. Next revision we will more than likely see a ton of new features to set thm apart from the MB.

just my 2 cents

Analog Kid
Jun 13, 2006, 10:59 PM
I am a little excited about these Core 2 Duo chips not because of the fact that they will provide a significant speed improvement, but I am hoping they will solve some of the heat issues we have been having Apple's new Laptops...err I mean notebooks. While it is true that in the MB and MBP the CPU is not socketted, CPU swaps can still be performed. I know for a fact that there is a company out there that desolders the CPUs in the previous generation Powerbooks for 1.83GHz G4 replacements. While it might be a little expensive, I for one would be willing to do it if the service can be made available. I am sick of burning my damn hands.
Don't get your hopes too high for lower power, and don't send your machine to some hack shop to unsolder your CPU. There is a reason Apple replaces entire motherboards when components fail-- because replacing individual components isn't reliable. I'd guess that if you and 4 friends brought machines in to be modified, one would probably die in surgery, one would fail within weeks, and one would probably have problems with sporadic crashing for years...

Yeah, it's technically possible to do but it's an art, not a science. And most artists throw away most of their attempts...

Multimedia
Jun 13, 2006, 11:12 PM
And 2.33 GHz Will Be First Gen Merom Top Speed. So this is great news. Wow faster than dual 2.5 G5 @ 2.16GHz is amazing. This means the Fall MacBook Pros will be defacto portable supercomputers for amazing field productivity situations. :)

iMacs and Mac minis running faster than the 2004-2005 Fastest Macs in the world. ;) Wow Wee!!

thogs_cave
Jun 13, 2006, 11:19 PM
Yeah, let's also remember that Merom will be the first Intel Portable chip to have EMT64 - way closer to true 64 bit portable computing than Core DUO is. Look, 20% is still better than what we had - I seem to remember Intel saying that best optimization one Merom would put it at 40% better than CoreDuo. So once Apple engineers finish up their work, I'm pretty sure we will see better than just 20%....but most likely not the full 40%.

From what I've been able to tell (from various sources), Apple does not do a huge amount of optimization, especially on OS X.

idea_hamster
Jun 13, 2006, 11:41 PM
If others on this board hadn't linked to other examples of people getting Merom chips (where? how?) and shoe-horning them into their Macs, I think that I would have called it BS.

Does the "About this Mac" screen call current Intel chips "Genuine"? That struck me as a little too much -- like the old saw about a fake coin dated "50 B.C."

I'm voting this as positive, because any ability to keep your computer working better longer is a good thing. I'm just surprised that the only talk about Photoshop was how well it runs on Rosetta....

AidenShaw
Jun 13, 2006, 11:59 PM
I need a 4GB laptop and Mermon should make that practical.

Core Duo was a transition chip from the start, everybody was well aware of its positioning.
Yonah ("Core Duo") supports 4 GiB of RAM when you buy from Dell, Lenovo or HP.

No idea why Apple doesn't admit that 2 GiB SO-DIMMs exist.

emaja
Jun 14, 2006, 12:18 AM
No idea why Apple doesn't admit that 2 GiB SO-DIMMs exist.

Apple obviously knows they exist, but they also know that few people will ever consider them at $1791.99 (http://www.crucial.com/store/partspecs.Asp?IMODULE=CT25664AC667) a pop.

Seriously, does any consumer level user need that much RAM that badly to shell out that kind of cash for it?

nagromme
Jun 14, 2006, 12:29 AM
Excellent as it may be, you are still limited by the ( relatively poor ) graphics card.
Yes, if your main goal with a Mac Mini is to be a 3D gaming rig :D

If, on the other hand, you have processor-intensive NON-OpenGL needs, Merom is a great boost to a great Mini.

dontmatter
Jun 14, 2006, 12:56 AM
Wow, a little short sighted aren'tcha? There's plenty of reasons besides a hypothetical 20% speed increase to wait for Merom. True, most web surfers are not going to notice the difference, but if you're a power user stuck with a notebook out in the field, then that Merom is going to rock.

If you're a consumer, then it's not going to matter, but a pro will want the new technology. And yes... shaving seconds off renders does matter. Those seconds can add up to hours.

True, but then again, if waiting means not having that speed for 20% of the life of the computer, you're making a bad choice. (OK, OK, the math doesn't work out unless you're assuming that your current computer doesn't do anything while you have it, etc. But my point is, there's a signifigant cost to waiting, too, and for the power user, where those few seconds that add up to hours mean big dollars, the cost of not upgrading to yonah now is comprable to the savings of merom over yonah.)

knackroller
Jun 14, 2006, 01:27 AM
I'm very sure the new (official) intel mac minis are due anytime now...!

Glassman
Jun 14, 2006, 01:34 AM
the maximum memory capacity depends on chipset, not on the processor.. i945GM most likely supports only 2G, so that's it.. as for 64bit, there will be a newer spin of the Napa chipset/platform called Napa64, which may very well mean that in order to utilise 64bit, you'll need the updated chipset to go along with Merom..

those 'Pros' who like to peel the seconds of off the rendering time and so - overclock.. you'll gain much more performance than paying the price premium for the current top MHz option (which is just a stupid +166MHz nowadays).. I'm sure Merom/Conroe will fly past 3GHz easily.. Yonah can do well above 2.5GHz too..

scibry
Jun 14, 2006, 01:43 AM
i think the naming schemes and codenames have officially gone off the deep end. the numbers are meaningless. why don't we stop this stuff and just go with the standard metric. the blank per watt. whatever. just pick something that's a real number of meaning. stop with clock speeds. PERFORMANCE PER WATT.

BakedBeans
Jun 14, 2006, 01:45 AM
*chuckles at the PowerPC fanboys* ;) :p :)


How well does it run photoshop :)

dextertangocci
Jun 14, 2006, 01:49 AM
This is old news, I saw this about 2 weeks ago already.:)

unfaded
Jun 14, 2006, 01:58 AM
Yeah, it feels good to laugh doesn't it? Nothing like outpacing a 3 year old chip to really get out the giggles though...

:rolleyes:

A three-year old chip that didn't fit in a laptop versus one that is designed specifically for mobile use, that is. Which does make a very, very big difference.

dongmin
Jun 14, 2006, 02:03 AM
Yeah, because you know that no one else sells notebooks with Core Solo, Pentium/Celeron M, or Pentium 4 Mobile processors these days...True, but those budget PCs cost far less than $1100 which is the cheapest Mac portable available. So if Apple is gonna be competitive with other PC manufacturers at the $1000-$1500 price point, they need to put in a Core 2 Duo.

odedia
Jun 14, 2006, 02:07 AM
I don't care about the 20% (but I'll take it) - I care about better SSE and 64 bit addressing. I'm running out of memory with my current machine with 1.5GB of RAM - when I'm running two more OS's on my new MBP 2GB just isn't going to cut it. I need a 4GB laptop and Mermon should make that practical.

Core Duo was a transition chip from the start, everybody was well aware of its positioning. And it's fine for commonplace usage.

The Core Duo can support up to 4GB as well. It's just that 2GB SO-DIMM memory modules are VERY expensive these days - about 2000$ a piece I think.

Any 32Bit processor can support up to 4GB. that's the max limit.

Moe
Jun 14, 2006, 02:16 AM
Personally, my plan is to get through the rest of Tiger and all of Leopard (about 2 years or so) with the 1.66GHz Core-Duo and 2GB and then go to a 2.16 or better Core 2 Duo--a 50% or better increase from what I have. About halfway through that, sometime in the first half of 2007, these interim NAPA Meroms will be superceded by the 800MHz FSB Santa Rosa version, so by the time we're looking at OS-X 10.6, the NAPAs should be about as cheap as they're gonna get. 2GB SO-DIMMs should be a lot cheaper by then too (and the Mini's Northbridge DOES support 4GB total from the datasheet I looked at). At that point, I'll hunker down for another 3-4 years before the next new computer.

This time next year, we'll also be looking at the Crestline integrated video, with twice the pipelines, better shader support and DirectX 10 support. IMHO, the waiters need to wait another year for this and the faster Santa Rosa Meroms, and they'll save the cost of upgrading to Leopard too. ;-) But by then there will be another excuse to wait.

macidiot
Jun 14, 2006, 02:17 AM
Wow, a little short sighted aren'tcha? There's plenty of reasons besides a hypothetical 20% speed increase to wait for Merom. True, most web surfers are not going to notice the difference, but if you're a power user stuck with a notebook out in the field, then that Merom is going to rock. My guess is that you own a device that uses Yonah and you are just pissed that you'll miss out.

I suggest you do a bit of research on Merom vs Yonah before you do any further bashing of the upgrade. There's one good post upthread concerning SSE support that is far superior to Yonah, not to mention support for 64bit in pro applications. There are plenty of other resources, but I'll leave that for you to find on your own. It should keep you busy for awhile. If you're a consumer, then it's not going to matter, but a pro will want the new technology. And yes... shaving seconds off renders does matter. Those seconds can add up to hours.

Merom is a quality upgrade from the Yonah. But installing one in a Mac mini seems really stupid. Spending 3-500 to upgrade a $800 computer to get a ~20% speed boost is a waste of money imo. I know it's what cheapass pc users do all the time, but it's still stupid. I see plenty of Honda Civics with 10k in rims/body kits/exhausts, but in the end it's still a 20k car with 10k of crap stuck on it. I'd rather save my money and buy a better car in the first place.

Your talking about the cheapest mac to begin with. If your buying a mini, you can't realistically expect any sort of serious "I need to get this work done for a deadline, and I really need to save 2 minutes of time" kind of stuff. And again, your still limited by RAM and GPU. Now if your talking about a "power user" with a MacBook Pro, using it to make real money and time is critical, that person is probably going to upgrade to a new Merom laptop anyway. Also, afaik, the really good performance won't come from Merom until the next chipset comes out, which will have higher bandwith and better take advantage of Merom. And it will have a different cpu socket.

Still, it's a cool that the guy did the upgrade. It's good to know that it can be done. 1.5 years from now, when Meroms will cost $150, it won't be such a bad deal.

stephenli
Jun 14, 2006, 02:22 AM
o really..its a nightmare for me..
i bought a Quad G5 a month ago........
when will apple drop support on PowerPC.........afraid........:( :( :(

BakedBeans
Jun 14, 2006, 02:23 AM
o really..its a nightmare for me..
i bought a Quad G5 a month ago........
when will apple drop support on PowerPC.........afraid........:( :( :(

Your quad is still one of the fastest mahines around (faster than the memron) and apple will support them for years and years

aegisdesign
Jun 14, 2006, 03:30 AM
It seems Apple has made their computers very easily upgradable, so hopefully they'll update their lines more often to keep up with other PC manufacturers.

If you think that cracking a case with a palette knife, removing most of the innards before you get to the CPU easy, then yes, they have. :D

Does it have a better implementation or a new instruction set? I'd be surprised if Apple's shipping libraries had optimizations for a Mermon SSE instruction set such that this modder would have benefited. But if it's just better silicon, then onward.

Better implementations AND better instruction set.

Before, with Yonah and previous chips with SSE, they had a 128bit SSE instruction set but the chip split the 128bit instruction over 2 clock cycles. Altivec performed 1 128bit instruction in 1 cycle. Merom is the first to do that with Intel chips and is therefore pretty much as good as the older G4s.

The later G4s (7448 and 8641D) which Apple didn't use also did them out-of-order for even more speed.

the "Core 2 Dual" is only 20% faster than the "Core Dual" 20% is hard to notice without a stopwatch and is unnoticable for many tasks.

Yes, but the point here is that the mini was upgraded from a 1.5Ghz Core Solo to a 2.16Ghz Core 2 Duo. That's not a 20% increase.

2ndPath
Jun 14, 2006, 04:18 AM
True, but those budget PCs cost far less than $1100 which is the cheapest Mac portable available. So if Apple is gonna be competitive with other PC manufacturers at the $1000-$1500 price point, they need to put in a Core 2 Duo.

True, but Apple can still ask a good premium for their OS and their design. Right now the MacBooks are very competitive in their class.

THX1139
Jun 14, 2006, 04:23 AM
Actually i dont own an Intel Mac.

Im trying to make people realize that Merom really wont make that much of a difference. From reading a lot of people on here that say to wait to buy a macbook pro until they have Merom in them, and from reading the specs (like this original post by macrumors) of Merom, i dont think that its as big of a deal as people make it out to be.

Like i said in my other post, 80% (about) of the people who buy a mac are NOT going to care. Why not? because they're not Pro-consumers. As you said, Pros will want that extra 10 seconds for rendering or encoding, and if they really need it, they should wait, sure. But i could also say that they should wait until the Mac Pros come out with Woodcrest, as most pros that ive seen use Power Macs in the lab or studio. Merom is a consumer chip, meant to replace/run alongside the Yonah. Everyone on here is saying 'wait until merom comes out!', and the people that are listening are, im taking an educated guess here, not Pros who will actually benefit from that 20% speed increase. Now we have a ton of people saying 'im waiting until merom comes out to get my Macbook', and it frustrates me that people dont look past the numbers to see that just maybe, it wont matter that much. And i certainly dont have to remind you that waiting is a fool's game in the computer world.

Okay, yeah I agree. If people are waiting for Merom before they buy their mini or macbook or macbookpro so that they can surf the web faster. Well, that's just stupid. What I was talking about is that Merom is going to be a nicer chip than the Yonah for a lot of reasons than a 10-20% bump in speed. Those reasons don't necessarly translate to the average user as has been mentioned in other posts. I for one, need a Merom for a portable solution. Sure the Conroe/Woodcrest desktops are going to be waaay faster then Merom, but you can't haul a desktop into Starbucks or use it on an airplane or hotel when you have business out of town. Looks like we agree, so that's pretty cool. :D

Merom is a quality upgrade from the Yonah. But installing one in a Mac mini seems really stupid. Spending 3-500 to upgrade a $800 computer to get a ~20% speed boost is a waste of money imo. ..

Okay, but if you go back and read my post, you will notice that I was talking about the MacbookPro - not the mini. Sorry if my off topic reply to a post confused you. In summary, I simply said that waiting for Merom before buying a MBP was a good idea. Least that is what I meant to say.

THX1139
Jun 14, 2006, 04:30 AM
o really..its a nightmare for me..
i bought a Quad G5 a month ago........
when will apple drop support on PowerPC.........afraid........:( :( :(

I talked to them yesterday. They told me to tell you that you have exactly two years from tomorrow. Once PPC support is gone, all pre-Intel Apple computers will suddenly stop working. :cool:

MacSA
Jun 14, 2006, 04:42 AM
[QUOTE=macidiot]Merom is a quality upgrade from the Yonah. But installing one in a Mac mini seems really stupid. Spending 3-500 to upgrade a $800 computer to get a ~20% speed boost is a waste of money imo.

A 20% speed boost over a 1.5ghz Core Solo? :p

ezekielrage_99
Jun 14, 2006, 06:27 AM
This gives the Mac Mini some more good selling points because lets face it Macs in the past haven't always been upgrade friendly. Being able the upgrade the CPU, RAM and HDD would appeal to quite a few people out there.

BOOMBA
Jun 14, 2006, 06:36 AM
Yea, but the G5 has higher Mhz. :p

Didn't you hear?
steve told us years ago Megahertz was a myth!

BornAgainMac
Jun 14, 2006, 06:36 AM
Since I already have a Core 1, I'll wait for the Core 3. I'll stick with odd numbered cores. Core 1 gave me the biggest jump from the G4 compared to Core 2 vs Core 1 so it made sense to start with Core 1.

I think the naming is going to be like G3, G4, G5. You will get use to it.

BOOMBA
Jun 14, 2006, 06:38 AM
It seems Apple has made their computers very easily upgradable, so hopefully they'll update their lines more often to keep up with other PC manufacturers.

that doesn't sound like Apple....
I think they would rather you buy a new Mac every 2 years than upgrade the processor. although I guess most people wouldn't. For the price of a new processor and the latest graphics card, you are more than half way to the cost of a new Mac already.

Dunepilot
Jun 14, 2006, 06:41 AM
Yes, but the point here is that the mini was upgraded from a 1.5Ghz Core Solo to a 2.16Ghz Core 2 Duo. That's not a 20% increase.

And that is why this thread is interesting for me. I bought a Core Solo Mini because I couldn't afford the extra for the Core Duo and I wanted an Intel Mini to tinker with (and for Front Row use through my TV, actually).

As soon as the dual-core Meroms are affordable, I'll stick one in my Mini.

ImNoSuperMan
Jun 14, 2006, 06:55 AM
if the core 2 duo chip doesn't make much of a difference in the real world, then i guess i won't wait.. i'll get a macbook this week then :D

You`ve got that absolutely right mate.

Man this makes my wait even more worth it. Bring me that MBP with merom baby!

Yup. You too are correct my friend.


I hope everyone got my point.
And the point really is buying a yonah MB now is a complete no brainer. They`ve just launched and wont be upgraded before Nov at least. And Though Merom might be better / faster than Yonah; It simply isnt big enough difference worth the wait for most MB buyers.

But MBP will definitely be upgraded(hopefully) as soon as Intel ships Merom. And if someone is splurging for a pro NoteBook then he/she can definitely make that extra 15-20% increase in performance really count. So unless you do need to have an MBP before this Aug/Sept and cant do without it anymore, there should be no reason for not waiting till Merom MPBs. You`ll be getting a newer next gen processor for the same price but for extra two months wait. And you can also hope that these Merom MBP will actually be cooler than the current ones.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 14, 2006, 07:09 AM
G5 has allways been overblown Apple hype, They never were all that Apple was saying and the U.K. forced Apple to stop spinning lies on G5. So here we have a Mini that can outdo a Quad:D Thats funny but whats even more funny is my 2 yr old AMD 3500+ can still spank any G5 in Gaming, you can use 1,2 even 4 G5s and they still get spanked by 1 Athlon 64. Please G5 was nothing more then feeding the fan club. Anyone buying a G5 machine the past few months just isnt paying attention.

Mord
Jun 14, 2006, 07:29 AM
thats a dual 2.5GHz G5, not a quad.

anywho it's not all that surpassing seeing as a 2.66GHz core 2 duo outpaces an FX 62 by some 30% according to some quick maths that puts the core2duo 36% odd percent faster clock for clock than your beloved K8

now if this 2.16 beats the dual 2.5GHz G5 by 10% that means that it's about 27% faster clock for clock.


yes i know the fsb is double with the conroe and that pretty much makes up the difference but by bashing the g5 you bash your own cpu of choice.

ImNoSuperMan
Jun 14, 2006, 07:38 AM
maybe someone should figure out how to add a dedicated Graphics card to the mac mini and macbook, and then everyone can stop whining about how their cheap computer isnt as good as the expensive models.

That someone can be Apple only. I dont know why but apple hasn`t yet realized that there is definitely a BIG market for Minis with Dedicated GPUs. Whatddya say. Will you pay bout 900$ for a Merom Mini with 128MB(or at least 64MB) GPU.

Mord
Jun 14, 2006, 07:44 AM
theirs not enough room, the ppc mini did it because ppc parts are designed to be small as they are used in embedded environments most of the time, intel chipsets and cpu's use giant packages and you need a cpu northbridge and southbridge, once intel drops the fsb and makes some kind of hypertransport equivalent hopefully their will be enough room for a proper gpu in the macbook and mini.

psycho bob
Jun 14, 2006, 09:17 AM
Does the "About this Mac" screen call current Intel chips "Genuine"? That struck me as a little too much -- like the old saw about a fake coin dated "50 B.C."

I'm voting this as positive, because any ability to keep your computer working better longer is a good thing. I'm just surprised that the only talk about Photoshop was how well it runs on Rosetta....

Windows does the same thing, pre production samples of Intel chips do not have the name embedded in to the chips firmware so simple show up as 'Genuine'. I have no doubt the person has indeed done this but quite where they sourced the chip from is a little more dubious.

Macaholic G5
Jun 14, 2006, 09:31 AM
If this is true then GREAT!!!! There will be good business swapping chips for people if the specs are true.

but if it's all a hoax or false numbers....

No hoax. What you see on my .Mac homepage is what you get. Benches under both Xbench and SiSoft Sandra. Power consumption numbers have been posted as well. Next up... 20" iMeromac! :D

psycho bob
Jun 14, 2006, 09:38 AM
G5 has allways been overblown Apple hype, They never were all that Apple was saying and the U.K. forced Apple to stop spinning lies on G5. So here we have a Mini that can outdo a Quad:D Thats funny but whats even more funny is my 2 yr old AMD 3500+ can still spank any G5 in Gaming, you can use 1,2 even 4 G5s and they still get spanked by 1 Athlon 64. Please G5 was nothing more then feeding the fan club. Anyone buying a G5 machine the past few months just isnt paying attention.

Do we have to have this bull everytime. First off as previously posted these results are not compared to a Quad G5. Secondly just about all PC processors of the time will beat PPC when it comes to games but this has far more to do with the OS, GPU and Open GL than anything else. Yes you AMD is a good chip but the difference between it and equivalent x86 products was nothing to shout about. The new Intel Core 2 chips will sweep all before them at least initially, AM2 will not put AMD back to the fore so we await the quad core battle.

The G5 was a good chip but much like the Power 4 on which it was based it was a speciallity product, more scientific server CPU then outright desktop chip. What it did it did well but when you don't set out specifically to build for a specific market you are bound to have problems. The G5 was introduced in 2003 but Power 4 arrived around 2000, as such it is very old. The G5 got Apple back in the game and gained a lot of respect in the scientific and creative fields. Hell I love my G5 but time changes things especially in technology.

Right now it is Intel across the board, when the Core 2 family is complete they will have the fastest mobile, desktop and server chips. We await a response from AMD so the battle can really heat up :)

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 14, 2006, 10:01 AM
Its good for Apple to have CPU's moving forward when for so long with G4 and G5 things were just stagnate. Intel stuff will be sweet. Just look at the Apple line, everyone has a decent CPU in my view minus the old G5s:)

Paranoidmarvin
Jun 14, 2006, 10:37 AM
Wow, with stats like those, I'm going to be switching to Intel very very soon...:(
Looks down on his iMac G5.:(


Grrr, why did I buy a Powerbook in September, knowing I would have to keep it for 5 years!!

DrFrankTM
Jun 14, 2006, 10:43 AM
Ok. Just a quick thing. If you are in the market for a laptop, it might make sense to wait for a Merom chip... or not, depending on whether you need a new computer now or can afford to wait a while.

If you want a super fast Mini, though, buying now and upgrading later makes a lot of sense. For one thing, since the first generation of Merom is a drop-in replacement, I'd be surprised if Apple changes anything else when (and if) they put the Merom in the Mini. Secondly, if Apple puts a Merom chip in the Mini at some point in the future, they will most likely not go with the fastest chip available, for price considerations. I don't recall the speed of the slowest Merom chips, but if you want the fastest, I think your best bet is to buy a Mini now and then buy the (first-generation) Merom chip that you want. I think someone in this thread said the first-gen tops at 2.33 GHz, which isn't bad at all!!! If you need - or want - a Mini now, I don't really see any reason to wait. Get a Core Duo if you want a fast machine now, and you can get a significant upgrade when going to a 2.33 Merom chip when they become cheaper (maybe a year from now?). As was mentioned before, going from a Core Duo 1.66 to a Core 2 Duo 2.33 is a noticeable upgrade:

(2.33/1.66)x1.2=1.684

So the upgrade would make the processor roughly 70% faster. I said "the processor" because the rest of your computer stays the same, obviously, so you would not get a 70% performance increase in real-world tests. If you wait for Apple to ship a Mini with a Merom chip, you might wait quite a while to get a Merom 1.83 (if Intel offers one - as I said, I'm not sure about the speed of the slowest Merom), which would be quite a wait for "only" a 32% increase.

Anyways, that's my take on it.

thogs_cave
Jun 14, 2006, 10:51 AM
G5 has allways been overblown Apple hype, They never were all that Apple was saying and the U.K. forced Apple to stop spinning lies on G5. So here we have a Mini that can outdo a Quad:D Thats funny but whats even more funny is my 2 yr old AMD 3500+ can still spank any G5 in Gaming, you can use 1,2 even 4 G5s and they still get spanked by 1 Athlon 64. Please G5 was nothing more then feeding the fan club. Anyone buying a G5 machine the past few months just isnt paying attention.

Phew. Good thing I use my computers for work and not gaming then. :cool:

It always amazes me how much attention is paid to gaming. Doesn't anybody do anything useful with their multi-thousand-dollar machines?

thogs_cave
Jun 14, 2006, 10:56 AM
The G5 was a good chip but much like the Power 4 on which it was based it was a speciallity product, more scientific server CPU then outright desktop chip. What it did it did well but when you don't set out specifically to build for a specific market you are bound to have problems. The G5 was introduced in 2003 but Power 4 arrived around 2000, as such it is very old.

Unlike the x86 architecture, which is only how old? Oh, that's right: It dates back to the 1970's! (I just couldn't resisit. Yes, I know there have beern many changes, but if we're going to date the architecture, let's be accurate, shall we?)

bbrosemer
Jun 14, 2006, 10:58 AM
I want a pic then maybe I believe.

kingtj
Jun 14, 2006, 11:28 AM
I don't think there's anything wrong with people giving computer gaming a lot of attention. The fact is, the latest games always push the limits of a given machine in practically all areas - so they tend to be really good indicators of absolute performance.

The main reason Macs have been excellent choices for many "work related" tasks has much more to do with the applications offered for the platform and the benefits of the underlying OS. Pure "performance" has almost never been Apple's strongest point.

I do lots of productive things with my PowerMac, including web site development and the occasional video editing/DVD making task. I made some flyers for my home-based business with it last year too, and it keeps track of my finances. Nonetheless, a game like Doom 3 demands much more of the system in terms of CPU, video and hard disk performance than those other tasks. (Well, video editing comes close.)


Phew. Good thing I use my computers for work and not gaming then. :cool:

It always amazes me how much attention is paid to gaming. Doesn't anybody do anything useful with their multi-thousand-dollar machines?

psycho bob
Jun 14, 2006, 11:33 AM
Unlike the x86 architecture, which is only how old? Oh, that's right: It dates back to the 1970's! (I just couldn't resisit. Yes, I know there have beern many changes, but if we're going to date the architecture, let's be accurate, shall we?)

Sorry I don't really see the argument. I'm not talking about platforms just different generations of chips. The G5 (PPC970) was born out of the need to combat the Pentium 4. It's more efficient RISC (although it wasn't efficient by most RISC standards) allowed it to compete at AMD style clockspeeds with what on paper were much faster chips. The problem was basing it on what was an already superseded server chip designed for very specific more limited uses would never translate well in to an all conquering desktop CPU.

AMD stole a march with its Athlon T-Bird design in June 2000 and really set the benchmarks for x86 until the P4 achieved ridiculous clock speeds. Initially the G4 was competitive with these but it just didn't scale quickly enough. The G5 was bascially born out of a server design created during this period. Expecting it to be competitive with what in 2006/2007 will be Intel's new Athlon T-Bird is stupid. G5 development essentially stopped 2 years ago when Apple pulled investment we have no idea what it could have gone on to do. IBM themselves are now using Power 6 for their servers and by all accounts it is a phenominal piece of engineering but it cannot be compared to any of the chips Apple will now be using.

x86 is such a generic name which basically only accurately described the first generation of this type of processor. Today if we go by name there is no longer an x86 processor as each company has trademarked its own name for their type of CPU. Although x86 compatible todays modern CPU's cannot really be compared to the first products to be produced of this type in 1978. Technology has moved on so quickly each major upgrade is essentially a new type of chip that just happens to be backwards compatible.

p0intblank
Jun 14, 2006, 11:47 AM
This is awesome. :D It makes me want to do it with one, but the Core 2 Duo chips are too expensive yet. And plus, I don't even have a Mac mini. This is still really cool news, though.

Okay... so who voted this Negative? There is always someone. :rolleyes:

macidiot
Jun 14, 2006, 01:37 PM
A 20% speed boost over a 1.5ghz Core Solo? :p

OK, using the base mini, it's more than 20%. But then your spending >$400 on a cpu upgrade on a $600 computer.

If your price sensitive enough to buy a $600 computer what makes you think spending $400 on an upgrade makes sense?

In other words, you could have just spend $200 more to get the 1.66 dual core in the first place and would get a significant boost over the 1.5 single core.

Moe
Jun 14, 2006, 01:43 PM
A 512MB Core Solo Mini with 60GB hard drive and 8X dual-layer Superdrive lists for $649 retail. Add $170 for 2GB of memory, $423 for a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo (list price), $420 for a 500GB MiniStack, $300 for an ElGato EyeTV 500 (or VBox, Saseem or Fusion tuner if you're going to run XP), and you have quite a nice little HTPC for under $2,000.

Yes, the 1.66GHz Core Duo is enough for 1080i HDTV and barely for 1080p QTHD trailers. Where that 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo, 30% faster than 2.0GHz Core Duo (2.166/2.0x120%), and 57% faster than 1.66GHz Core Duo, will show big savings in time is when doing tasks that take hours, such as converting DVDs and MPEG2 .ts files to high-quality H.264. And no doubt it will improve playback of those tough scenes in 30 fps 1080p QTHD trailers.

MS bulldog
Jun 14, 2006, 01:43 PM
OK, using the base mini, it's more than 20%. But then your spending >$400 on a cpu upgrade on a $600 computer.

If your price sensitive enough to buy a $600 computer what makes you think spending $400 on an upgrade makes sense?

In other words, you could have just spend $200 more to get the 1.66 dual core in the first place and would get a significant boost over the 1.5 single core.


so is there any danger (heat wise) of upgrading the core solo minis to processors of the future (merom, core duo2 and the other compatible processors)?

Moe
Jun 14, 2006, 01:55 PM
so is there any danger (heat wise) of upgrading the core solo minis to processors of the future (merom, core duo2 and the other compatible processors)?

From my experience with the 1.66GHz Core Duo, and the power and heat results posted for the 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo, I'd say no. The chips are rated for operation up to 100°C. I've driven both cores on mine to 100% for 10 minutes and the hottest it got, according to the Core Duo Temp app, is 79-83°C. Room temperature was 75°F. Even at that, the fan didn't kick on, or at least kick on any faster than it runs when the processor is idling at 47°C. I still can't hear any fan noise with my ear 6" away from the exhaust. The Apple SMC firmware runs the fan at 100% for a few seconds, and it is certainly is loud and fast, so it seems to me there's a LOT of fan capability that remains unused (if used at all) with the 1.66GHz Core Duo.

FYI, the only pin-compatible processor in the Mini's future is the Merom series, which IS one of the interim first-generation Core 2 Duos. The second generation Core 2 Duos, scheduled to ship in the first half of 2007, will use a different socket configuration.

macidiot
Jun 14, 2006, 01:56 PM
so is there any danger (heat wise) of upgrading the core solo minis to processors of the future (merom, core duo2 and the other compatible processors)?


I don't know much about the core solos, mostly because they seem to be lame duck cpus.

But I do know that the merom is designed to be more efficient than the yonah, so if anything they should run cooler.

Moe
Jun 14, 2006, 02:03 PM
Here are my XBench results with those of the Meromini appended. Note that it only has 512MB of memory compared to my 2GB, and 60GB hard drive compared to my 120GB, so it isn't entirely apples to apples in all areas, at least the memory and hard disk areas.


1.66 Core Duo Macintosh Mini, 2GB RAM, 120GB 5400 rpm Hard Drive
23" Apple Cinema HD Display, 1920 x 1200 resolution

to

2.16 Core 2 Duo Macintosh Mini, 512MB RAM, 60GB 5400 rpm Hard Drive
? Display & resolution

Results 54.92 to 84.26 (153%)
- System Info
- - Xbench Version 1.2
- - System Version 10.4.6 (8I1119)
- - Physical RAM 2048 MB
- - Model Macmini1,1
- - Drive Type ST9120821AS
- CPU Test 63.95 to 113.13 (177%)
- - GCD Loop 216.70 11.42 Mops/sec to 257.63 13.58
- - Floating Point Basic 75.60 1.80 Gflop/sec to 128.93 3.06
- - vecLib FFT 37.03 1.22 Gflop/sec to 88.41 2.92
- - Floating Point Library 56.48 9.84 Mops/sec to 80.59 14.03
- Thread Test 166.15 to 199.94 (120%)
- - Computation 150.42 3.05 Mops/sec, 4 threads to 182.46 3.70
- - Lock Contention 185.56 7.98 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads to 221.13 9.51
- Memory Test 113.23 to 120.03 (107%)
- - System 105.30 to 134.80
- - - Allocate 111.99 411.25 Kalloc/sec to 138.99 510.41
- - - Fill 94.66 4602.74 MB/sec to 127.92 6219.88
- - - Copy 111.16 2295.92 MB/sec to 138.07 2851.73
- - Stream 122.44 DOWN to 108.18
- - - Copy 116.23 2400.78 MB/sec DOWN to 100.27 2071.04
- - - Scale 118.48 2447.80 MB/sec DOWN to 101.99 2107.06
- - - Add 128.74 2742.38 MB/sec DOWN to 115.40 2458.26
- - - Triad 127.26 2722.32 MB/sec DOWN to 117.22 2507.56
- Quartz Graphics Test 58.98 to 84.72 (144%)
- - Line 59.23 3.94 Klines/sec [50% alpha] to 79.56 5.30
- - Rectangle 53.73 16.04 Krects/sec [50% alpha] to 73.47 21.94
- - Circle 53.42 4.35 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha] to 72.08 5.88
- - Bezier 76.85 1.94 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha] to 100.2 2.53
- - Text 56.97 3.56 Kchars/sec 111.28 6.96
- OpenGL Graphics Test 186.76 to 259.63 (139%)
- - Spinning Squares 186.76 236.91 frames/sec to 259.63 329.35
- User Interface Test 23.46 to 56.15 (239%)
- - Elements 23.46 107.67 refresh/sec to 56.15 257.68
- Disk Test 31.22 to 36.45
- - Sequential 45.31 to 62.68
- - - Uncached Write 25.52 15.67 MB/sec [4K blocks] to 60.35 37.05
- - - Uncached Write 62.47 35.35 MB/sec [256K blocks] DOWN to 60.45 34.20
- - - Uncached Read 51.60 15.10 MB/sec [4K blocks] to 63.57 18.60
- - - Uncached Read 72.94 36.66 MB/sec [256K blocks] DOWN to 66.81 33.58
- - Random 23.81 to 25.69
- - - Uncached Write 7.72 0.82 MB/sec [4K blocks] to 8.61 0.91
- - - Uncached Write 70.38 22.53 MB/sec [256K blocks] DOWN to 68.27 21.85
- - - Uncached Read 72.47 0.51 MB/sec [4K blocks] DOWN to 71.08 0.50
- - - Uncached Read 95.15 17.66 MB/sec [256K blocks] DOWN to 92.38 17.14

milo
Jun 14, 2006, 02:11 PM
Excellent as it may be, you are still limited by the ( relatively poor ) graphics card.

Only on apps that need 3d acceleration. Most apps don't need that, the integrated graphics are fine.

the "Core 2 Dual" is only 20% faster than the "Core Dual" 20% is hard to notice without a stopwatch and is unnoticable for many tasks. Also after the upgrade the Mini stil only holds 2GB of RAM. I doubt many people will spend almost $300 for such a small increment of performance.

Most people doing this will probably start with a core solo mini, which means more than double the performance. Even the duo mini is only 1.66G, so that's a 30% boost in clock speed. And I don't agree that 20% is nothing to sneeze at.

Yeah, it feels good to laugh doesn't it? Nothing like outpacing a 3 year old chip to really get out the giggles though...

Wow, that's so weak. That three year old chip is still the best IBM can do right now. And we're talking about a $2500 machine versus a $599 machine plus an upgrade of a few hundred. And a portable chip/compact configuration versus a full-blown desktop. I have to admit, I'm laughing pretty hard.

Merom is a quality upgrade from the Yonah. But installing one in a Mac mini seems really stupid. Spending 3-500 to upgrade a $800 computer to get a ~20% speed boost is a waste of money imo.

The solo mini is $599. Add a $500 upgrade and you're at $1099. You think THAT is the bad deal...not the $2499 G5 tower that loses to it? And GPU is only a limiting factor on 3d apps.

So here we have a Mini that can outdo a Quad:D

Read the article again, it beat a DUAL G5. The quad will still spank any of the dual machines, PPC or intel. I agree that buying a dual G5 in the last few months is a bad deal, but the quad is still unmatched at this point, no other mac even comes close.

macidiot
Jun 14, 2006, 02:52 PM
The solo mini is $599. Add a $500 upgrade and you're at $1099. You think THAT is the bad deal...not the $2499 G5 tower that loses to it? And GPU is only a limiting factor on 3d apps.


Yes, because in a couple of months, merom cpus will be appearing all over the place. And within 6 months, those G5 desktops will be replaced by Conroe or Woodcrest cpus. So, to use your example a $2500 (guess at the cost of an intel mac pro desktop) will blow the doors off your $1099 mac mini. And the G5 desktops. And you'll probably get some things like slots, a real gpu, much faster drives, more ram slots, etc.

So again, YES it is a bad deal.

Just because the G5 desktops happen to be incredibly bad deals doesn't make upgrading the mac mini (and almost doubling the cost) a good deal.

thogs_cave
Jun 14, 2006, 03:24 PM
x86 is such a generic name which basically only accurately described the first generation of this type of processor. Today if we go by name there is no longer an x86 processor as each company has trademarked its own name for their type of CPU. Although x86 compatible todays modern CPU's cannot really be compared to the first products to be produced of this type in 1978. Technology has moved on so quickly each major upgrade is essentially a new type of chip that just happens to be backwards compatible.

Query: Do you think, then, that the architecture itself has not been at all limited by maintaining backwards-compatability with chips designed almost 30 years ago?

(By the way, I'm not a G5 fanboy, as evidenced by my .sig, but I don't see where Any CPU could be called "modern". Name one mainstream (or even semi-maninstream) microprocessor that has an architecture that isn't somehow limited by what came before....

thogs_cave
Jun 14, 2006, 03:28 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with people giving computer gaming a lot of attention. The fact is, the latest games always push the limits of a given machine in practically all areas - so they tend to be really good indicators of absolute performance.

I don't find that true at all. For example, I think a gaming box would make a piss-poor database server.

Yes, gaming stresses the CPU (useful), the GPU (not really of any use in a server), and the memory subsystem (not a bad thing). Does it stress I/O?

Mord
Jun 14, 2006, 03:40 PM
Query: Do you think, then, that the architecture itself has not been at all limited by maintaining backwards-compatability with chips designed almost 30 years ago?

(By the way, I'm not a G5 fanboy, as evidenced by my .sig, but I don't see where Any CPU could be called "modern". Name one mainstream (or even semi-maninstream) microprocessor that has an architecture that isn't somehow limited by what came before....

EPIC.

JAT
Jun 14, 2006, 03:49 PM
OK, using the base mini, it's more than 20%. But then your spending >$400 on a cpu upgrade on a $600 computer.

If your price sensitive enough to buy a $600 computer what makes you think spending $400 on an upgrade makes sense?

I'd say you're spending about half that for the upgrade, because you buy the Mini now, and it works! it isn't dead in the box, but wait til the price drops on Merom for the upgrade. I was going to do this with the Solo, and upgrade RAM and processor in 2007 or something, but decided on a refurb Duo instead because of the price and wanting 1GB of RAM. Lucky me, I got a maxed out Duo (2GB, 120GB) in the refurb roulette. Now I'm not sure if I'll ever need to upgrade the processor, or anything else other than additional external drives. But once there is more 1080p to worry about, and I have a TV to match, maybe I'll want to pick up a 2.33 Merom cheap.

I'd agree, otherwise. Anybody buying the cheapest computer only to upgrade it with the most expensive parts the same day is pretty silly.

aegisdesign
Jun 14, 2006, 04:29 PM
G5 has allways been overblown Apple hype, They never were all that Apple was saying and the U.K. forced Apple to stop spinning lies on G5.

Not entirely true. The UK Advertising Standards Agency ruled that the claim Apple made that the G5 was the 'Worlds fastest personal computer' was not true 'in all circumstances for all applications' even if on average over a set of tests it was it was. Oddly, the proof they gave for the ruling was Apple's own benchmarks which showed it getting beaten by a Dell in some of the benchmarks.

So here we have a Mini that can outdo a Quad:D

No, A Dual. And only at fairly specific benchmarks of iTunes encoding. Great if that's what you want it for I guess. If you want to run Photoshop however, best not.

Thats funny but whats even more funny is my 2 yr old AMD 3500+ can still spank any G5 in Gaming, you can use 1,2 even 4 G5s and they still get spanked by 1 Athlon 64. Please G5 was nothing more then feeding the fan club. Anyone buying a G5 machine the past few months just isnt paying attention.

Ah, gamers, they think the world revolves around them when in reality they're such a small tiny, teeny, weeny, miniscule part of the computer market. PC game sales last year fell to the same level they had in 1993. Why would Apple even bother with games and why would anyone care if an Athlon can "spank any G5 in Gaming" if it can't run MacOSX?

Mord
Jun 14, 2006, 04:34 PM
geeks tell people what to buy and most geeks play games

Eidorian
Jun 14, 2006, 04:37 PM
OK, using the base mini, it's more than 20%. But then your spending >$400 on a cpu upgrade on a $600 computer.

If your price sensitive enough to buy a $600 computer what makes you think spending $400 on an upgrade makes sense? Read the guide before you post...

http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom

aegisdesign
Jun 14, 2006, 04:42 PM
But I do know that the merom is designed to be more efficient than the yonah, so if anything they should run cooler.

Yes they're more efficient but that doesn't mean they run cooler. It just means you get more performance for the SAME power consumption. Both the Yonah and Merom have the same thermal design package.

So, in the case of the Mini, if it's designed to run ok with a 35W Yonah in there, it'll run with a 35W Merom in there in theory.

aegisdesign
Jun 14, 2006, 04:44 PM
geeks tell people what to buy and most geeks play games

I know lots of 'geeks'. I don't know any that play games. Perhaps my geeks are too geeky. :)

aegisdesign
Jun 14, 2006, 04:57 PM
- - Floating Point Basic 75.60 1.80 Gflop/sec to 128.93 3.06
- - vecLib FFT 37.03 1.22 Gflop/sec to 88.41 2.92
- - Floating Point Library 56.48 9.84 Mops/sec to 80.59 14.03


Those are nice improvements. Floating Point and Vectors are where Intel were bad previously so it looks like the SSE improvements are finally giving us a chip as nice as the G4 there.

bloodycape
Jun 14, 2006, 04:59 PM
thats a dual 2.5GHz G5, not a quad.

anywho it's not all that surpassing seeing as a 2.66GHz core 2 duo outpaces an FX 62 by some 30% according to some quick maths that puts the core2duo 36% odd percent faster clock for clock than your beloved K8

now if this 2.16 beats the dual 2.5GHz G5 by 10% that means that it's about 27% faster clock for clock.


yes i know the fsb is double with the conroe and that pretty much makes up the difference but by bashing the g5 you bash your own cpu of choice.
Wasnt that a preproduction FX62 they tested against? And wasnt the intel also preproduction. I think once the both are out we will that both are equally fast in their own way.

Multimedia
Jun 14, 2006, 06:07 PM
G5 has allways been overblown Apple hype, They never were all that Apple was saying and the U.K. forced Apple to stop spinning lies on G5. So here we have a Mini that can outdo a Quad. :D Thats funny but whats even more funny is my 2 yr old AMD 3500+ can still spank any G5 in Gaming, you can use 1,2 even 4 G5s and they still get spanked by 1 Athlon 64. Please G5 was nothing more then feeding the fan club. Anyone buying a G5 machine the past few months just isnt paying attention.Well that's a crock if I ever read one. I am certainly one who pays attention more than 99.99999% of Mac users and I can't tell you how brilliant it was for me to sell my Dual 2.5 G5 for $2500 and buy a Quad for $3000 in February. If I had waited any longer, I would have been lucky to get $2000 for my Dual 2.5. As for regretting owning a Quad - NO WAY Jose. For one thing it can still run classic - not that I ever do. For another it is dead silent. For another it is still the world's fastest Mac. So put a sock in it Don't Hurt Me. You don't know what you are writing about. I love my Quad and will continue to love it after the Woodie Quads ship. :eek:

And I NEVER play games. ;)

Mord
Jun 14, 2006, 06:12 PM
Wasnt that a preproduction FX62 they tested against? And wasnt the intel also preproduction. I think once the both are out we will that both are equally fast in their own way.

the difference in production and pre is near non existent

Multimedia
Jun 14, 2006, 06:17 PM
Since I already have a Core 1, I'll wait for the Core 3. I'll stick with odd numbered cores. Core 1 gave me the biggest jump from the G4 compared to Core 2 vs Core 1 so it made sense to start with Core 1.

I think the naming is going to be like G3, G4, G5. You will get use to it.Waiting For Core 3 Is Until 2008 or '09 - I Doubt You Will Do That. By the end of 2007 Core 2 Quad Leopards will be the rule inside everything. You gonna wait with a Core 1 past then? No way. :rolleyes:

Nar1117
Jun 14, 2006, 06:22 PM
Okay, yeah I agree. If people are waiting for Merom before they buy their mini or macbook or macbookpro so that they can surf the web faster. Well, that's just stupid. What I was talking about is that Merom is going to be a nicer chip than the Yonah for a lot of reasons than a 10-20% bump in speed. Those reasons don't necessarly translate to the average user as has been mentioned in other posts. I for one, need a Merom for a portable solution. Sure the Conroe/Woodcrest desktops are going to be waaay faster then Merom, but you can't haul a desktop into Starbucks or use it on an airplane or hotel when you have business out of town. Looks like we agree, so that's pretty cool. :D



Okay, but if you go back and read my post, you will notice that I was talking about the MacbookPro - not the mini. Sorry if my off topic reply to a post confused you. In summary, I simply said that waiting for Merom before buying a MBP was a good idea. Least that is what I meant to say.


Im glad that we have come to an agreement :D

Its tricky sometimes to articulate what you mean on the internet... so thanks for putting up with it and not starting a flame war. :)

081440
Jun 14, 2006, 07:16 PM
Waiting For Core 3 Is Until 2008 or '09 - I Doubt You Will Do That. By the end of 2007 Core 2 Quad Leopards will be the rule inside everything. You gonna wait with a Core 1 past then? No way. :rolleyes:


Why not? I lived with a G3 from when it was screaming fast in 1998 to 2003 when I got my dual 2.5 G5. A fantastic speed bump and the G3 earned its cost many times over. (its now a server in the basement)

idea_hamster
Jun 14, 2006, 08:43 PM
Windows does the same thing, pre production samples of Intel chips do not have the name embedded in to the chips firmware so simple show up as 'Genuine'. I have no doubt the person has indeed done this but quite where they sourced the chip from is a little more dubious.
Fascinating! I learn something every day -- and some days, it's from MR. :)

zap2
Jun 14, 2006, 09:04 PM
[QUOTE=aegisdesign]If you think that cracking a case with a palette knife, removing most of the innards before you get to the CPU easy, then yes, they have. :DQUOTE]


I upgrade the RAM on my Mini, while i broke the first one(strip a screw and it went downhill from there) it was because i did not have the right screwdrive for the job. Apple replace the Mini, i got a new screw drive and BAM! a new 1Gb stick of RAM in my Mini

macidiot
Jun 15, 2006, 12:25 AM
Read the guide before you post...

http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom

wtf.

You mean I got the part wrong about the mini being $600? Or the part that the merom is supposed to be ~20% faster? Or that the merom is >$400? Or that the merom is 64 bit?

Oh wait, those are all correct.

Maybe you should ****.

Moe
Jun 15, 2006, 12:32 AM
You got the part about the 2.13GHz Merom being 20% faster than the $600 1.5GHz Core Solo wrong. The Core 2 Duo Meroms are approximately 20% faster than a Core Duo of the same clock speed. The 2.13GHz Merom used by these guys is WAY more than 20% faster than either a 1.5GHz Core Solo or 1.66GHz Core Duo.

ezekielrage_99
Jun 15, 2006, 02:00 AM
You got the part about the 2.13GHz Merom being 20% faster than the $600 1.5GHz Core Solo wrong. The Core 2 Duo Meroms are approximately 20% faster than a Core Duo of the same clock speed. The 2.13GHz Merom used by these guys is WAY more than 20% faster than either a 1.5GHz Core Solo or 1.66GHz Core Duo.

That sounds more reasonable, I thought it sounded strange that there was on a performance gain of 20% from a 1.5Ghz Core Solo to a Core 2 Duo. If there was on 20% on the Solo it hardly seems worth upgrading a Mac Mini for the price.

Evangelion
Jun 15, 2006, 05:41 AM
Unlike the x86 architecture, which is only how old? Oh, that's right: It dates back to the 1970's! (I just couldn't resisit. Yes, I know there have beern many changes, but if we're going to date the architecture, let's be accurate, shall we?)

Question: What does it matter? Fact is that that "old" x86 is running rings around those "modern" CPU's. It's mopping the floor with them. It absolutely annihilates them. I know that it's fashionable in some circles to whine how "old" x86 is. But, in the end of day, IT DOES NOT MATTER!

And the primary thing that is hampered by the age of the architecture is x87 (floating point). And these days x87 has been all but replaced with SSE. And where plain 'ol x86 sucked (number of registers for example), x86-64 fixed things.

psycho bob
Jun 15, 2006, 07:01 AM
Query: Do you think, then, that the architecture itself has not been at all limited by maintaining backwards-compatability with chips designed almost 30 years ago?

(By the way, I'm not a G5 fanboy, as evidenced by my .sig, but I don't see where Any CPU could be called "modern". Name one mainstream (or even semi-maninstream) microprocessor that has an architecture that isn't somehow limited by what came before....

That's a very good point but I guess we have to look at what the alternatves are. Very rarely do we see a complete breakaway from mainstream thinking at least in the computer arena with software perhaps providing the occassional exception. I remember reading an article in the mid nineties which discussed how IBM was researching crystal structures as a way or storing data, not heard a thing on the subject since then.

It is quite possible that we could have come up with an entirely new form of microprocessor technology but who's to say we wouldn't have hit a complete wall with ir shortly after. Evolution works for a reason, it allows us to finely wean out what isn't working well (Netburst, MMX) and to introduce fresh thinking.

I'm an audiophile and kept a very close eye on the whole SACD, DVD-A and CD battle. CD in many ways is similar to the original x86 format. It was introduced long ago and has been steadily updated albeit more in the materials side of things but had to stay Red Book compatible with the very first CD players. I don't like DVD-A but SACD did indeed sound great and would have made a worthy successor to CD but it never took off as it should have done due to cost and the fact CD had a 20 year back catalogue and on the face of it was exactly the same to Joe Public. x86 isn't the only technology out there but has climbed to the top and will be with us for a very long time because no company and certainly most consumers aren't able to except widespread change.

x86 has evolved to include RISC like processing in certain stages thus incorporating one advantage of a competing technology it will keep on doing this. Man evolved from Apes and there came a point where we stopped being one and became who we are today (whoever that may be :D ) the same should be said about processors; all evolve but at some stage they grow beyond what they once were and what their DNA says they still should be.

MS bulldog
Jun 15, 2006, 09:35 AM
I'd agree, otherwise. Anybody buying the cheapest computer only to upgrade it with the most expensive parts the same day is pretty silly.


what about buying the cheapest bc its your first mac and all you do now is email, photos/music and web browsing? some day when cpu prices are much cheaper, it would be nice to upgrade the cpu instead of buying another machine. is it still silly to buy the cheapest with the intent of upgrading cpus 2 to 3 years from now?

Eidorian
Jun 15, 2006, 12:26 PM
wtf.

You mean I got the part wrong about the mini being $600? Or the part that the merom is supposed to be ~20% faster? Or that the merom is >$400? Or that the merom is 64 bit?

Oh wait, those are all correct.

Maybe you should ****.The price part. Who said you just had to pop in the fastest Merom into that mini Core Solo? Buy a refurb and stop whining.

stephenli
Jun 16, 2006, 05:34 AM
Please G5 was nothing more then feeding the fan club. Anyone buying a G5 machine the past few months just isnt paying attention.

Yes, I have become a member of Quad G5 fan club a month ago. You are right. I never play any attention to Gaming performance of G5, as my gaming machine is PS2 and CG but not PC or Mac. I did persuaded myself to get an intel mac, but just failed tolerate the speed on Adobe CS right now.

Why would Apple even bother with games and why would anyone care if an Athlon can "spank any G5 in Gaming" if it can't run MacOSX?

Good say! Thats the point!

Dunepilot
Jun 16, 2006, 10:29 AM
Grrr, why did I buy a Powerbook in September, knowing I would have to keep it for 5 years!!

Because you bought a product near the end of its life cycle you have something stable that runs existing software very well and doesn't suffer from all sorts of wierd teething problems. I wouldn't knock it myself.

The Intel machines may be the latest and greatest thing, but they're not all that different from PPC Macs. I use both on a daily basis.

briansolomon
Jun 16, 2006, 11:31 AM
How are these people getting Core 2 Duo's already? Are they insiders?

Mord
Jun 16, 2006, 11:34 AM
intel hands out engineering samples.

bloodycape
Jun 16, 2006, 02:18 PM
the difference in production and pre is near non existent
Really? That good to know. The only thing I don't like about AMD atm is the fact they keep chaning sockets(I guess it is for the good since the new socket DDR2/3).
Hopefully Core 2 Duo wont be running as hot as their core duo. If it is Intel should take page out of their(or other cpu makers) old playbook and make it run cooler?

psycho bob
Jun 16, 2006, 02:41 PM
Really? That good to know. The only thing I don't like about AMD atm is the fact they keep chaning sockets(I guess it is for the good since the new socket DDR2/3).
Hopefully Core 2 Duo wont be running as hot as their core duo. If it is Intel should take page out of their(or other cpu makers) old playbook and make it run cooler?

I don't think Core Duo necessarily runs that hot. I realise at this point a few thousand MBP owners will target this post but I feel any such issues are more to do with Apple's implementation of the chip and assembly issues. On paper it should run cool at least compared to its competitors. Merom consumes a little more power but it shouldn't present any issues if the cooling system is designed right.

My Rev A 17in Powerbook ran far hotter then my current 1.67GHz version I put this down solely to the subtle revisions in internal layout, fan behaviour and cooling setup. The 17in MBP has shown what the system can do when designed carefully and correctly, the 15in versions are just rougher diamonds. Come the next major revisions i expect cooling concerns to go away.

Intel are having to change sockets next year I believe. AMD's recent move to AM2 was all to gain one more pin to go from 939 to 940.

beatle888
Jun 16, 2006, 07:01 PM
wtf.

...Maybe you should ****.


damn, and i got banned for telling someone to stop polluting the Nike/Apple thread with politics


the Mods here suck:rolleyes:

AidenShaw
Jun 17, 2006, 08:46 AM
Intel are having to change sockets next year I believe. AMD's recent move to AM2 was all to gain one more pin to go from 939 to 940.
Dempsey (Netburst dual-core Xeon), Woodcrest, and Clovertown quad core share the same socket.

Intel should be able to keep the same socket at least until sometime in 2008 (that is, until the more advanced FSB is released).

Since AMD put the memory controller on the CPU chip, AMD needs to change sockets to use different memory. (That's why you won't see DDR2 until the new socket.)

Mord
Jun 17, 2006, 08:53 AM
so much for the days where it was socket A A or A :/

psycho bob
Jun 17, 2006, 09:48 AM
Dempsey (Netburst dual-core Xeon), Woodcrest, and Clovertown quad core share the same socket.

Intel should be able to keep the same socket at least until sometime in 2008 (that is, until the more advanced FSB is released).

Since AMD put the memory controller on the CPU chip, AMD needs to change sockets to use different memory. (That's why you won't see DDR2 until the new socket.)

Interesting :)

Apparently according to a number of early reviews AMD's decision to move to a new 940 pin socket was purely one of marketing and to avoid confusion to those who may try and fit a DDR2 CPU to an earlier motherboard. With the large number of pins included in modern sockets there must be some redundancy built in at least in number if nothing else.

AidenShaw
Jun 17, 2006, 10:23 AM
Apparently according to a number of early reviews AMD's decision to move to a new 940 pin socket was purely one of marketing and to avoid confusion to those who may try and fit a DDR2 CPU to an earlier motherboard.
This is very common to keep people from frying CPUs by plugging them into a wrong socket, and is the "need" that I said.


With the large number of pins included in modern sockets there must be some redundancy built in at least in number if nothing else.
A 100watt 2volt chip needs 50 amps of power, and 50 amps of ground.

Over half the pins are used for power and ground. There's not much redundancy on any other pins (except obvious parity and ECC signals).

Ripmax2000
Jun 17, 2006, 07:17 PM
what about buying the cheapest bc its your first mac and all you do now is email, photos/music and web browsing? some day when cpu prices are much cheaper, it would be nice to upgrade the cpu instead of buying another machine. is it still silly to buy the cheapest with the intent of upgrading cpus 2 to 3 years from now?

It is silly because you won't be able to buy the same socket CPU in 2 years time. Merom will be using a different pin config by eary next year, so unless people upgrade within a few months of buying, they won't be able to at any later point.

bloodycape
Jun 17, 2006, 10:21 PM
I know what you people are saying about redundency as AMD went from their prior chip to the 939 chip pretty quickly.


Now does anyone know much about what the Centrino Duo is? Is that the same as the core duo or is it like Pentium 4 D but instead on a Centrino based chip?

Moe
Jun 17, 2006, 11:27 PM
It is silly because you won't be able to buy the same socket CPU in 2 years time. Merom will be using a different pin config by eary next year, so unless people upgrade within a few months of buying, they won't be able to at any later point.

I started to respond that "a few months" was ridiculous. Historically, processors are available long after that. Then I considered what a short production life this interim Yonah-compatible 1st generation Core 2 Duo is going to have... possibly less than a year, with an associated lower total production. So you may be onto something and those of us planning to use it for upgrade might reconsider doing it a year from now instead of two. I'm glad you brought that up.

zap2
Jun 17, 2006, 11:31 PM
It is silly because you won't be able to buy the same socket CPU in 2 years time. Merom will be using a different pin config by eary next year, so unless people upgrade within a few months of buying, they won't be able to at any later point.

Its called ebay:eek:

But its very possible to find old chips from other sources, to say once intel stops making it, it will be impossible to find, is simple not true. That said it might be harder to find then it was when intel was still making it

Ripmax2000
Jun 18, 2006, 04:57 PM
Its called ebay:eek:

But its very possible to find old chips from other sources, to say once intel stops making it, it will be impossible to find, is simple not true. That said it might be harder to find then it was when intel was still making it


The fact is, these Merom's are only going to be an interim solution for the next few months until the new versions come out early next year. Processors that are only available for such a short time will be very hard to get hold off 2 - 3 years down the line.

AidenShaw
Jun 18, 2006, 11:07 PM
The fact is, these Merom's are only going to be an interim solution for the next few months until the new versions come out early next year. Processors that are only available for such a short time will be very hard to get hold off 2 - 3 years down the line.
Can you please post a pointer to the roadmap that says that Merom will change sockets in a few months? Everything I've heard about Santa Rosa is that it uses the same socket as Napa.

I thought that I've been paying attention during my NDA meetings with Intel, but I've missed that one. :rolleyes: