PDA

View Full Version : Intel Quietly Ships 2.33 GHz Core Duo


MacRumors
Jun 28, 2006, 03:10 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Intel has begun shipping Core Duo T2700 series (2.33 GHz), the company's latest and greatest "Yonah" derived CPU (via DailyTech (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2906)). It is currently expected that this will be the last Core Duo release before the mobile Core 2 Duo, aka "Merom" is released in August.

It is unknown whether Apple is planning to upgrade its line to accomodate the T2700 at this time. Currently, Apple's top of the line Intel processor offering is the 2.16 GHz Core Duo (T2600) in the 15" and 17" MacBook Pros.

jaxstate
Jun 28, 2006, 03:12 PM
I don't think they will updated the MB or the MBP line up. I think we were lucky the last time when they but the 1.8 to a 2.0, due to the close release. I see no reason for this.

poppe
Jun 28, 2006, 03:13 PM
I see every reason for it. Because I'd pay more for a 2.33 and who (as a business) doesn't want more cash coming in?

buffalo
Jun 28, 2006, 03:15 PM
Wouldn't it make sence to update the iMac's to atleast the 2.0 and 2.16 if not the 2.33?

aswitcher
Jun 28, 2006, 03:21 PM
yeah, i cant see this being used with newer chips just around the corner

poppe
Jun 28, 2006, 03:26 PM
yeah, i cant see this being used with newer chips just around the corner

What do you mean?

matperk
Jun 28, 2006, 03:32 PM
What do you mean?

I assume he's talking about the Core 2 chips and/or Memrom

dextertangocci
Jun 28, 2006, 03:32 PM
Oh wow. 34Mhz gain in speed.

chrisblore
Jun 28, 2006, 03:37 PM
They might do it but if they were to do so, it would have to be announced within the next couple of weeks. Beyond that, there wouldn't be much point, depending on the numbers of these chips that would initially be available because people would only send them back as and when the Meroms are released.

jephrey
Jun 28, 2006, 03:37 PM
Oh wow. 34Mhz gain in speed.

Looks like 170Mhz to me, but still.

Jephrey

poppe
Jun 28, 2006, 03:37 PM
Ohhhhhh wait this isn't the core duo 2... damn I thought the Yonah's were beeing released in... Oh its not july its june... well then...

My bad. I suppose I shouldn't become so excited when I find new apple news (it makes me miss parts like it just being a speed bump up and not the core duo two)... feeling stupid now:mad:

Object-X
Jun 28, 2006, 03:37 PM
Can't wait for the quad core chips and the new MacPro's. I love my iMac, but I want a bigger monitor for work. I hope they update the Cinema displays too and add integrated iSight.

topgunn
Jun 28, 2006, 03:38 PM
Oh wow. 34Mhz gain in speed.
Was this a typo? It is actually a 167MHz increase (7.7%) over the T2600 and a 333MHz increase (16.7%) over the T2500.

zelmo
Jun 28, 2006, 03:40 PM
Wow. Remember the days when a 170MHz speed bump would have actually been newsworthy, or evolutionary?

poppe
Jun 28, 2006, 03:40 PM
Wow would they release these now? Did they finaly just perfect them? or is it more so that when meroms come out they can also sell these (what will be old) chips to dell to seel in their low/mid range computers?

Peace
Jun 28, 2006, 03:41 PM
With the shift going to Merom in the MBP and iMac,the Conroe in the upcoming MacPro and the Woody in the XServe I can see the Mini getting bumped up in the next couple of weeks.

WildCowboy
Jun 28, 2006, 03:43 PM
Wow. Remember the days when a 170MHz speed bump would have actually been newsworthy, or evolutionary?

Remember the days when chips ran at less than 170 MHz, period? They weren't that long ago...

craigatkinson
Jun 28, 2006, 03:44 PM
Even if apple did begin using these chips, it would probably be a quiet upgrade, kinda like the Macbook Pro upgrade when the Macbooks came out.

storage
Jun 28, 2006, 03:47 PM
Ohhhhhh wait this isn't the core duo 2... damn I thought the Yonah's were beeing released in... Oh its not july its june... well then...

My bad. I suppose I shouldn't become so excited when I find new apple news (it makes me miss parts like it just being a speed bump up and not the core duo two)... feeling stupid now:mad:
Yonah is released! :eek: :eek:

Gasu E.
Jun 28, 2006, 03:55 PM
I smell another stealth upgrade. Frequent stealth upgrades are a side benefit of going with Intel, and I don't see why Apple wouldn't continue to take advantage of these.

noservice2001
Jun 28, 2006, 03:57 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Intel has begun shipping Core Duo T2700 series (2.33 GHz), the company's latest and greatest "Yonah" derived CPU (via DailyTech (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=2906)). It is currently expected that this will be the last Core Duo release before the mobile Core 2 Duo, aka "Merom" is released in August.

It is unknown whether Apple is planning to upgrade its line to accomodate the T2700 at this time. Currently, Apple's top of the line Intel processor offering is the 2.16 GHz Core Duo (T2600) in the 15" and 17" MacBook Pros.


quitely? so it's plug and play into macbook.... woah!

KindredMAC
Jun 28, 2006, 03:57 PM
Here's something Apple users aren't used to....

We are used to chipset upgrades once a year and only ususaly 50-200 mhz max. Now it seems like Intel is ripping these things out almost too fast. I think Apple should sit on upgrading any of the line until there is another upgrade.

The pro lines have taken a beating because of IBM and their snail mail approach. If Apple could do a 6-9 month cycle similar to what the iBooks used to be but on all their lines, I think you will see some serious improvement in Apple's image.

Demon Hunter
Jun 28, 2006, 04:00 PM
I smell another stealth upgrade. Frequent stealth upgrades are a side benefit of going with Intel, and I don't see why Apple wouldn't continue to take advantage of these.

I agree, it's a no brainer.

If I wasn't waiting for Merom, I would want a T2700.

danielwsmithee
Jun 28, 2006, 04:06 PM
They will quietly add the T2700 as a Build-To-Order option on the MBP similar to the way the T2600 has been on the 15"

rdowns
Jun 28, 2006, 04:12 PM
Wow. Remember the days when a 170MHz speed bump would have actually been newsworthy, or evolutionary?

No kidding, it wasn't too long ago that our FSBs ran slower than 170 MHz.

manic
Jun 28, 2006, 04:19 PM
how come the macbooks were released in such a quiet fashion? to me theyre great products and seem quite strategic to apple. and, yet, they havent made a fuss about it. whats gives? has anyone even seen so much as a macbook ad?

adamfilip
Jun 28, 2006, 04:23 PM
yeah, i cant see this being used with newer chips just around the corner

there is always a newer chip around the corner.

based on your logic.. apple should never update anything :)

rumplestiltskin
Jun 28, 2006, 04:28 PM
It is unknown whether Apple is planning to upgrade its line to accomodate the T2700 at this time.

I think you can bet your *ss that Apple is planning to use this chip in upgraded MBP's and, eventually, MB's. When? That's a marketing decision but you know Apple has some of these chips powering some "mules" in their labs.

w_parietti22
Jun 28, 2006, 04:31 PM
Maybe a "Build to Order" option in the MBPs?

grabberslasher
Jun 28, 2006, 04:38 PM
I think this is pretty cool - people who buy/acquired the lowest end iMac Core Duos can now upgrade for the price of a new processor. Great :)

7on
Jun 28, 2006, 04:40 PM
how come the macbooks were released in such a quiet fashion? to me theyre great products and seem quite strategic to apple. and, yet, they havent made a fuss about it. whats gives? has anyone even seen so much as a macbook ad?

the 3 new get a mac ads feature a macbook at the end rather than the iMac

081440
Jun 28, 2006, 04:42 PM
How much is one if I were to buy one from retail? (just wondering, wouldn't until september when prices should plummet)

What happened to the rumored Woodcrests on June 26 and the Xserves?! :(

fastlane1588
Jun 28, 2006, 04:43 PM
so i dont understand why apple wouldnt update the chips quietly, if its no extra cost to them?

also isnt 2.3 ghz just as fast as the fastest merom?

"The Merom processors are expected to be labeled as the "T5X00" and "T7x00" Core 2 Duo models, the T5600 clocked at 1.83 GHz, the T7200 clocked at 2.0 GHz, the T7400 clocked at 2.16 GHz, and the T7600 clocked at 2.33 GHz"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

so im not really sure what intel is doing there. why would they make a chip and put it on the market w/ the same speed as their new chip (merom)? now the only advantage to waiting for merom is the 64 bit capabilities.

danielwsmithee
Jun 28, 2006, 04:53 PM
There are many difference between merom and yonah besides simply 64-bit capability. They have improved SSE botlenecks, improved virtualization technologies, widened many of the data paths. A Merom at 2.33 Ghz will be much faster then a current Yonah at 2.33 Ghz.

deputy_doofy
Jun 28, 2006, 04:54 PM
so i dont understand why apple wouldnt update the chips quietly, if its no extra cost to them?

also isnt 2.3 ghz just as fast as the fastest merom?

"The Merom processors are expected to be labeled as the "T5X00" and "T7x00" Core 2 Duo models, the T5600 clocked at 1.83 GHz, the T7200 clocked at 2.0 GHz, the T7400 clocked at 2.16 GHz, and the T7600 clocked at 2.33 GHz"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

so im not really sure what intel is doing there. why would they make a chip and put it on the market w/ the same speed as their new chip (merom)? now the only advantage to waiting for merom is the 64 bit capabilities.

My basic understanding is that Merom is more efficient at the same clock speed. I could be wrong.... and it wouldn't be the first time...

:/

gnasher729
Jun 28, 2006, 05:01 PM
so i dont understand why apple wouldnt update the chips quietly, if its no extra cost to them?

Who says it is no extra cost to Apple? Intel isn't a charity. The 2.33GHz chip will be more expensive than the 2.16GHz chip; I would think about $600 instead of $400 for orders of 1000.

nsjoker
Jun 28, 2006, 05:01 PM
how come the macbooks were released in such a quiet fashion? to me theyre great products and seem quite strategic to apple. and, yet, they havent made a fuss about it. whats gives? has anyone even seen so much as a macbook ad?

because apple's quality control is now the userbase that purchases their rev A products. once the second revision comes out, they should hopefully be less hot and have none of those discoloration and metling magsafe problems. in a way i don't think they wanted everyone to buy a macbook because they knew there was a chance of problems and maybe a recall :eek: .

Fredou51
Jun 28, 2006, 05:03 PM
so i dont understand why apple wouldnt update the chips quietly, if its no extra cost to them?

also isnt 2.3 ghz just as fast as the fastest merom?

"The Merom processors are expected to be labeled as the "T5X00" and "T7x00" Core 2 Duo models, the T5600 clocked at 1.83 GHz, the T7200 clocked at 2.0 GHz, the T7400 clocked at 2.16 GHz, and the T7600 clocked at 2.33 GHz"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2

so im not really sure what intel is doing there. why would they make a chip and put it on the market w/ the same speed as their new chip (merom)? now the only advantage to waiting for merom is the 64 bit capabilities.

Merom is 20 % faster at the same clock rate.

kumbaya
Jun 28, 2006, 05:04 PM
I can see a stealth upgrade:

MacBook at 1.83/2 GHz
MacBook Pro at 2.16/2.33 GHz

Helps to differentiate more clearly..

Maybe:

iMac at 1.83/2.0
"Mac" at 2.16/2.33 Conroe in July
Mac Pro with Woodcrest Quad in June?

Bumps every three months...!!:eek:

Wonder what next Tuesday will bring?:rolleyes:

m-dogg
Jun 28, 2006, 05:05 PM
I think they're going to change the MacBook Pros over to the Core 2 Duo's. Maybe an announcement along with the new Mac Pros at WWDC?

And then save this 2.33 Core Duo as a future update to the MacBooks.

Just my two cents...

gnasher729
Jun 28, 2006, 05:09 PM
My basic understanding is that Merom is more efficient at the same clock speed. I could be wrong.... and it wouldn't be the first time...

:/

You can find a detailed explanation in an article by David Kanter at

http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT030906143144

An excellent comparison of Pentium 4 (Netburst Architecture), Yonah / Core Duo and Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest (Core Architecture). Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest look very impressive indeed; it looks like they can even beat a G5 in floating-point heavy applications.

riversky
Jun 28, 2006, 05:11 PM
Can't wait for the quad core chips and the new MacPro's. I love my iMac, but I want a bigger monitor for work. I hope they update the Cinema displays too and add integrated iSight.

That would not be a good thing to me. An iSight on the 30incher would look right over the top of your head. You'd have to constantly move the screen angle down and most of the bottom part of the monitor would be facing the desktop. I say make them smaller and sleeker but keep them stand alone.

matticus008
Jun 28, 2006, 05:16 PM
Who says it is no extra cost to Apple? Intel isn't a charity. The 2.33GHz chip will be more expensive than the 2.16GHz chip; I would think about $600 instead of $400 for orders of 1000.
Intel's pretty close to a charity these days. AMD has them scared and they're nearly giving away many of their processors to stop the market share loss.

But I think more to the point, "no extra cost" you're replying to refers to the new processor coming it at roughly the same price point, which bumps all the other models into lower prices. So for about the same price as they've been buying 2.16 Yonahs, they now have 2.33 Yonahs. Of course, there are any number of factors that might make that observation untrue.

fastlane1588
Jun 28, 2006, 05:17 PM
That would not be a good thing to me. An iSight on the 30incher would look right over the top of your head. You'd have to constantly move the screen angle down and most of the bottom part of the monitor would be facing the desktop. I say make them smaller and sleeker but keep them stand alone.

yea but apple isnt dumb, they wouldnt put it on there unless it would work properly..... maybe a piviting camera? thatd be cool

amac4me
Jun 28, 2006, 05:19 PM
These chips have been announced well ahead of WWDC, I wonder if we'll see the announcement of MacBook Pro updates to utilize the 2.33 chips to widen the gap between the MacBook Pro's and MacBooks.

The U2500 makes me wonder if we'll see the 12" PowerBook replacement as well.

dansgil
Jun 28, 2006, 05:21 PM
That would not be a good thing to me. An iSight on the 30incher would look right over the top of your head. You'd have to constantly move the screen angle down and most of the bottom part of the monitor would be facing the desktop. I say make them smaller and sleeker but keep them stand alone.

I agree. I don't understand why everyone wants Apple to put iSight's on displays. People who connect them to iMac's, MacBooks, and MacBook Pro's would have two iSights. A built-in iSight would just add to the cost of the displays, which are already way overpriced.

On another note, I think Apple will release an updated iSight soon, as they aren't allowed to sell the old ones in Europe anymore.

fastlane1588
Jun 28, 2006, 05:24 PM
On another note, I think Apple will release an updated iSight soon, as they aren't allowed to sell the old ones in Europe anymore.

why is that?

thogs_cave
Jun 28, 2006, 05:25 PM
Remember the days when chips ran at less than 170 MHz, period? They weren't that long ago...

When I started using Apple hardware, the CPUs ran at 1MHz (Apple ][).

Let's see - it was 10 years ago when Sun released the 170MHz UltraSPARC CPU, for example. 'Bout the same time, the 200MHz Pentium was around, and Apple had 604e systems running at 150Mhz.

The trouble with the 170Mhz boost is that it's not really worth it in my mind. There is no way you're going to really feel a difference between 2.0Ghz and 2.33GHz (for example). That's all of a 16.5% boost, big deal - If my brain is working, that means a 60-second task would take 55.2 seconds. Certainly nothing like going from a 16MHz Mac IIx to a 40MHz Mac IIfx.

But, there will always be people wanting to pay for the "big number".

MacSA
Jun 28, 2006, 05:33 PM
I can see a stealth upgrade:

MacBook at 1.83/2 GHz
MacBook Pro at 2.16/2.33 GHz

Helps to differentiate more clearly..

Maybe:

iMac at 1.83/2.0
"Mac" at 2.16/2.33 Conroe in July
Mac Pro with Woodcrest Quad in June?

Bumps every three months...!!:eek:

Wonder what next Tuesday will bring?:rolleyes:

Why does everyone forget the Mac Mini?

truz
Jun 28, 2006, 05:35 PM
Why does everyone forget the Mac Mini?

No one cares about the mini :) just the macbook's and imac/macpro and acd :)

shawnce
Jun 28, 2006, 05:37 PM
so im not really sure what intel is doing there. why would they make a chip and put it on the market w/ the same speed as their new chip (merom)? now the only advantage to waiting for merom is the 64 bit capabilities. Core 2 (Merom) is a lot more then just x86-64 support. For one it has higher performance per clock then the Core (Yonah), stated to be about 20% greater. Also clock for clock it is more power efficient. Additionally it has a much improved SSE implementation (128b data pathway allow for 1 cycle instruction times) which will benefit Mac users since Apple does a lot of work using SSE on Intel and AltiVec on PowerPC. ...among other improvements.

supremedesigner
Jun 28, 2006, 05:39 PM
Why does everyone forget the Mac Mini?

I guess they are so small and might get lost easily inside the couch ;) Just like the rest of the remote controls.

xPismo
Jun 28, 2006, 05:42 PM
Talking about the potential for a 'new' iSight:

why is that?

New environmental laws in the EU. The eMac & Airport Express is off the store as well.

-

Nice to see upgrades, no matter how small. I'll be dancing in the streets if a Merom MBP hits the stage at WWDC.

sam10685
Jun 28, 2006, 05:44 PM
Remember the days when chips ran at less than 170 MHz, period? They weren't that long ago...

i remember when i got my first computer at less than 100MHz than we jumped up to 170 or something like that... i was like ((("holy CRAP this is fast!!!!!)))

carlos700
Jun 28, 2006, 05:51 PM
Merom and Yonah may run at the same clock rate but select models of Merom feature 4MB of shared L2 cache opposed to 2MB in Yonah, in addition to Intel EM64T.

Eidorian
Jun 28, 2006, 05:52 PM
*sigh*

http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom

shawnce
Jun 28, 2006, 05:54 PM
i remember when i got my first computer at less than 100MHz than we jumped up to 170 or something like that... i was like ((("holy CRAP this is fast!!!!!)))

Kids today... my first personal computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II#Apple_II_Plus) had a 1 MHz 8-bit CPU.

bear1973
Jun 28, 2006, 05:59 PM
Hey,

I'm new to the forum, but have been reading for a while. Maybe some of you who know a lot more about this can give me some advice.

I really want to replace my eMac 1.25 (I buy a new Mac every two years) with an Intel iMac, and it seems that an upgrade is just around the corner. But do you think it like the last speed bump of the iMac G5, which came in 10/05, only to be superceded by the Intel dual core two months later? I'm afraid I'll buy right after the bump, and then they'll stick the 64-bit Intel in the iMac after August.

Any advice? My eMac is fine for now, but I did have an iMac G5 at my last job and really want one at home now.

Feel free to email off the list.

Thanks,

BH

vv-tim
Jun 28, 2006, 06:02 PM
Why does everyone forget the Mac Mini?

Because for $300 more you can get a Macbook with a higher processor speed, keyboard, "mouse", battery, and display included.

I guess if you're looking for a very cheap system, the Core Solo mini could be more appropriate, but it's not that competitive at the price point unless you either REALLY want a mac, or REALLY want the small form factor.

Multimedia
Jun 28, 2006, 06:03 PM
I think that Merom is so close to coming out @ 2.33 GHz to begin with at its top that this will only create confusion if Apple adopts it. I can see they should put it in whatever they sell between now and when they can get the 2.33 GHz Meroms. But it is still going to be a point of confusion among those less attentive than we are.

Peace
Jun 28, 2006, 06:16 PM
But it is still going to be a point of confusion among those less attentive than we are.

huh? :D

Abstract
Jun 28, 2006, 06:54 PM
Oh wow. 34Mhz gain in speed.

Wow, your maths is horrid.

I don't see why Apple would hold out and not get these into their systems. They probably get the 2.16 Ghz now for cheaper or something, and these are probably priced at where the 2 and 2.16 GHz cpus were 2 months ago.

sam10685
Jun 28, 2006, 06:55 PM
Kids today... my first personal computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_II#Apple_II_Plus) had a 1 MHz 8-bit CPU.


i wasn't even around at the time.

ezekielrage_99
Jun 28, 2006, 07:53 PM
I can see Apple putting the Core 2 Duo initially in their line up as an upgrade, eventually Intel will phase the Core Duos out for the newer faster Core 2 Duo.

I wont expect an Apple with a Core 2 Duo for at least 6 months even then I'm guessing it will have to be an option upgrade because of the cost on consumers.


Either way I want a Mac with a Core 2 Duo :cool:

poppe
Jun 28, 2006, 07:57 PM
I'm confused I thought Yonah was 64 Bit. I thought the new Xenon were becoming 64 bit, then Yonah in July (which according to now is early) which is also supposed to be 64 Bit, and then Merom to come in August which also is supposed to be 64 Bit.

So is Yonah not the new Core Duo 2 as I thought it was?

WildCowboy
Jun 28, 2006, 07:59 PM
I'm confused I thought Yonah was 64 Bit. I thought the new Xenon were becoming 64 bit, then Yonah in July (which according to now is early) which is also supposed to be 64 Bit, and then Merom to come in August which also is supposed to be 64 Bit.

So is Yonah not the new Core Duo 2 as I thought it was?

Yonah is the current Core Duo.

Woodcrest (the new Xeon) is the server chip just released, Conroe is the desktop version of Core 2 Duo arriving in July and Merom is the notebook version of Core 2 Duo arriving in August.

AidenShaw
Jun 28, 2006, 08:21 PM
I think that Merom is so close to coming out @ 2.33 GHz to begin with at its top that this will only create confusion if Apple adopts it. I can see they should put it in whatever they sell between now and when they can get the 2.33 GHz Meroms. But it is still going to be a point of confusion among those less attentive than we are.
In the Intel world, minor speed bumps are a constant thing - and it's no big deal.

Two months ago I bought an XXX YYYY system, at the top speed of Z GHz.

I need another one today, and the web store shows the XXX YYYY at Z GHz for $200 less than I paid before, but a system a Z+167MHz for the same price.

It's no big deal - it's the same system, with a somewhat faster CPU.

A MacBook Amateur at 2.0GHz isn't a different machine than a Mac Book Amateur at 2.16 GHz - it's just slightly slower.
_______________________________________

Apple has to choose between confusing the old Apple fans who expect a major SteveNote for each trivial system change, and attracting the switchers who notice that everyone but Apple is using the newer, faster part.

And it DOES NOT MATTER than Merom is two months away - you don't market stuff at a premium price if it's using last month's chips.

SPUY767
Jun 28, 2006, 08:51 PM
With the shift going to Merom in the MBP and iMac,the Conroe in the upcoming MacPro and the Woody in the XServe I can see the Mini getting bumped up in the next couple of weeks.

You can bet on a woodcrest being in the MacPros, not a conroe.

AidenShaw
Jun 28, 2006, 09:02 PM
You can bet on a woodcrest being in the MacPros, not a conroe.
"a Woodcrest" - as in "one Woodcrest" - doesn't make a lot of sense. The dual-socket capable Woodies are more expensive, and the motherboard support chipsets are more expensive.

A single dual-core Conroe will give roughly the same performance as a dual-core Woodie, for a lot less money.

Since Conroe won't do dual-socket (quad-core), you'll see Woodies in the high end Mac Pro, for sure.

Conroe, of course, will be featured in the new form-factor Mini-Tower/Pizza-Box Dual-Core 64-bit Conroe systems.

SPUY767
Jun 28, 2006, 09:02 PM
When I started using Apple hardware, the CPUs ran at 1MHz (Apple ][).

Let's see - it was 10 years ago when Sun released the 170MHz UltraSPARC CPU, for example. 'Bout the same time, the 200MHz Pentium was around, and Apple had 604e systems running at 150Mhz.

The trouble with the 170Mhz boost is that it's not really worth it in my mind. There is no way you're going to really feel a difference between 2.0Ghz and 2.33GHz (for example). That's all of a 16.5% boost, big deal - If my brain is working, that means a 60-second task would take 55.2 seconds. Certainly nothing like going from a 16MHz Mac IIx to a 40MHz Mac IIfx.

But, there will always be people wanting to pay for the "big number".

You want big numbers, go out, pick yourself up a Pentium D 805, same architecture as the old Pentium Extreme Editions. Buy a decent motherboard, probably ASUS as their OC utils are light years ahead. Find a reasonably priced phase-change cooling system. There. You've got a dual core, 64-bit system running at 3.8-4 GHz on the Cheap for about 400 bucks if you don't throw in a buffalo testicles GPU.

SPUY767
Jun 28, 2006, 09:03 PM
"a Woodcrest" - as in "one Woodcrest" - doesn't make a lot of sense. The dual-socket capable Woodies are more expensive, and the motherboard support chipsets are more expensive.

A single dual-core Conroe will give roughly the same performance as a dual-core Woodie, for a lot less money.

Since Conroe won't do dual-socket (quad-core), you'll see Woodies in the high end Mac Pro, for sure.

Conroe, of course, will be featured in the new form-factor Mini-Tower/Pizza-Box Dual-Core 64-bit Conroe systems.

Should have been more specific in referring to the MacPro Pro.

know-it-all5
Jun 28, 2006, 09:03 PM
Wouldn't it make sence to update the iMac's to atleast the 2.0 and 2.16 if not the 2.33?


it would for sure... but it wont happen. despite the reasonable high price for imacs, they are still consumer desktops. adding too much speed changes that. plus, the specs on the imac are already pretty good for a consumer desktop. the graphics card is better than that of previous macs.

know-it-all5
Jun 28, 2006, 09:09 PM
maybe im crazy, but wouldnt a cpu boost mean more heat, which has been the biggest problem with the new macs? why add to an already big problem?

these are already very fast computers. apple cant use any stronger coreduos(yonahs) or their computers will burn to ash. My brother's macbook pro has hit its limit. those 2.16 ghz coreduos pack a lot of heat.

boncellis
Jun 28, 2006, 09:26 PM
Apple will definitely end up using these chips, maybe not in the MBP, but maybe in the iMac and certainly in the MacBook. What Apple will release at or around WWDC will be interesting, because it's traditionally been a "Pro" event, but Apple has taken to breaking that tradition in recent years. One would think the MBP and the Mac Pro would be the main attractions at WWDC, but Apple is quick to update what has become their "flagship" of sorts, the iMac, so I wouldn't be surprised if it gets some attention even though it's considered a "Consumer" level machine.

For me, I've never considered buying a Yonah anyway, I've been holding out for Merom since the switch. My G4 is humming along nicely.

eXan
Jun 28, 2006, 10:29 PM
Wow. Remember the days when a 170MHz speed bump would have actually been newsworthy, or evolutionary?

I remember the days when Macs used PPC chips :eek:

Glassman
Jun 28, 2006, 11:17 PM
i see you old ppc farts getting excited really quick just becouse of some slight MHz update, heh :D

the fact is, whenever intel or AMD release higher clocked versions of the same CPU, it's due to increased yield in manufacturing process and the faster chip replaces the previous and is sold for the same price as the previous model, so that the whole speed range offered shifts a bit down and the slowest chip usually falls out.. what you saw on MacBook Pro lounch was precisely that - Apple decided upon chips they will use, for the price, but intel had better yield from the beginning so they changed the offering - faster chip for the same price.. and since Apple was already prepared to pay the original price for the originally announced models, they just used what intel gave them for that price.. it was the same story lately with the 1.83->2.0 update and although Meroms are around the corner, it could be again the same story with 2.33.. but it also might be that Apple is already fully stocked on Core Duo and that they're already preparing to roll out Core2 Duo..

btw. I heard that initially only Apple and Lenovo will be getting Merom in reasonable quantities, which makes me hope for Core2 Duo MacBook Pros announced and likely demonstrated at WWDC.. desktop versio Core2 Duos are being officially released by the end of july and there are very reasonable models with 40W TDP which will most likely end up in iMacs and maybe even Mac Minis.. we'll see

thogs_cave
Jun 28, 2006, 11:23 PM
Wow, your maths is horrid.

It's fortunate that your grammar is a good match. :p

(I just couldn't resist!)

thogs_cave
Jun 28, 2006, 11:25 PM
i wasn't even around at the time.

Egad, why do I feel old all of the sudden? <pulls shawl tight around shoulders>

dontmatter
Jun 29, 2006, 12:23 AM
Why would apple update? 2.33 is the new top of the line, everything else is now either not the top or futher from it than it used to be. As 2.33 comes in at the top, prices drop, and everybody else is going to update/drop prices, so if apple sits, they're computers look slow and expensive, and in fact, are. So apple has two options: lower prices, or update. Apple is about selling high end computers, so it is always in there interest to update rather than lower prices, because it keeps them from going to commodity zone where they don't fare so well, and there ain't any margins.

Why wouldn't apple update? It's not their style. Frequent updates make big announcments hard to pull off, and so people don't have reason to get excited about macs, but start to view them like PC users view PCs (and there go margins). People buying a mac usually know they're buying a mac beforehand, rather than a dell customer who might buy a HP if it's a better deal. So apple isn't as worried about being competitive, and if they can get away with not updating, it's free money for them as the processor gets cheaper. Doing this means they don't have to be uber-efficient like Dell, and can still be relatively competitive when they announce a new computer, because they'll get more profits out at the end of the product lifecycle, and then get to fix the whining and unhappy customers and make them love apple again with a big fancy update.

So quick, do some rough math. If they lose 3% of mbp sales by not updating, but save about 100 bucks per $3000 unit on chips, it looks like they gain 3, loose 3, end up about dead even. But wait, that's for revenue. Look at profits- say they've got pretty fat margins (for easy calculation) of $1000 per unit. Boom, 100 bucks in the chip is a 10% increase in profits. Combine that with a 3% decrease in units, and you've still got more than a 9% increase in profits overall.

So what's apple after? Unit sales, market share, the great demonic microsoft? They give updates. Profits? They pretend nothing happened, we grumble, and they keep making dough.

matticus008
Jun 29, 2006, 01:11 AM
It's fortunate that your grammar is a good match. :p

(I just couldn't resist!)
His grammar is perfectly fine if he speaks Commonwealth English. ;)

Evangelion
Jun 29, 2006, 01:14 AM
I see every reason for it

I see no reason for it. I bet that MBP (and iMac, maybe others as well) are going to be upgraded to Merom in August.

truz
Jun 29, 2006, 01:31 AM
Here's something Apple users aren't used to....

We are used to chipset upgrades once a year and only ususaly 50-200 mhz max. Now it seems like Intel is ripping these things out almost too fast. I think Apple should sit on upgrading any of the line until there is another upgrade.

The pro lines have taken a beating because of IBM and their snail mail approach. If Apple could do a 6-9 month cycle similar to what the iBooks used to be but on all their lines, I think you will see some serious improvement in Apple's image.


Apple has to keep up with the latest in there systems or the PC's will beat them as Dell runs the same intel chips.

I don't see any problem with apple upgrading to the latest chips for there systems (drop the lowest chip.. ex: 1.83 to 2.0 when 2.1 came out and now 2.0 drop for 2.1 and 2.3 chip) This allows someone who is hunting the latest mac gain the latest chip as well.

I see alot of people on ebay buying macs and turn around and sell them for the new stuff and threw a few hundred down the drain.. WASTE! I have my imac intel 2.0 and I'm more then happy with it and don't plan on upgrading for a year or so.. I buy a new laptop and or desktop once a year and my current laptop is a hp (windows). I'm very interested in buying a macbook as I want the 13" screen, the down side is the video card so I was holding off for the macbook pro 13" (if they make one). As I'm always on the road for a week at a time and being away from my mac and on a windows laptop hurts :) I can't wait until I get home so I can move my mouse and awake my mac. Anyways.. I think I'll be buying a macbook shortly as I can't handle my windows laptop for checking my email and then having to run my virus scanner.. I'm just waiting to get a good deal on ebay as they been selling for around $800 used and shipped. I just can't seem to hold a bid at the last minute

Evangelion
Jun 29, 2006, 01:43 AM
With the shift going to Merom in the MBP and iMac,the Conroe in the upcoming MacPro and the Woody in the XServe I can see the Mini getting bumped up in the next couple of weeks.

Putting Conroe in Mac Pro would be a disaster, IMO. Dell would be offering true dual-dual workstations, whereas Apple would be stuck at single dual-core. What Apple should do is this:

All Mac Pro's would be dual-dual's from top to bottom. And that means using Woodcrest. True, this might mean that prices might increase. And they could increase the baseline price of MacPro to $2499 (currently $1999) for example. specs would start from dual-dual 2GHz Woodcrest, through 2.33Ghz dual-dual to 3Ghz dual-dual (the hi-end model seems to always be significantly better then the rest. For example, original G5 PowerMac had 1.6Ghz G5, 1.8Ghz G5 and 2x 2GHz G5)

Now, a change like that means that there's room for additional machine in Apple's lineup. I mean, consumer-segment has two desktops (iMac and Mac Mini), there could be two professional desktops as well. Those new desktops would be using dual-core Conroes. Prices would be (for example) $1499 and $1999. Specs of the two machines would be 2.4GHz Conroe and 2.67GHz Conroe.

Besides CPU's, what other differences would there be between Mac Pro and Mac? Mac Pro would support SLI (two 16x PCI-E slots), whereas Mac would not (just one 16x PCI-E slot). Mac Pro would have room for four HD's, whereas the Mac would have just two. And the Mac Pro would have more PCI-E slots than the Mac would have.

And before you ask: "Dude! Why should I buy a dual-core Mac for $1999, when I could just get a dual-dual Mac Pro for $500 more?". Well, Apple would just LOVE to see you get the Pro instead ;). They do that with iPod even today. But seriously. the 2.67GHz Conroe would outrun the 2Ghz dual-dual Woodcrest in some situations (games for example, they are not multithreaded). And that hi-end Conroe-Mac might have better vid-card by default than the low-end Woodcrest Pro would have.

As to iMac... It would get Merom in it and upgraded graphics. But Conroe-Mac would still be faster, and it would have the benefit of being expandable. And the iMac would have the benefit (or drawback, depending on your viewpoint) of the screen and all-in-one design. So they would not be direct alternatives to each other.

Am I making any sense here?

bloodycape
Jun 29, 2006, 02:03 AM
You want big numbers, go out, pick yourself up a Pentium D 805, same architecture as the old Pentium Extreme Editions. Buy a decent motherboard, probably ASUS as their OC utils are light years ahead. Find a reasonably priced phase-change cooling system. There. You've got a dual core, 64-bit system running at 3.8-4 GHz on the Cheap for about 400 bucks if you don't throw in a buffalo testicles GPU.

Wait I thought those chips were 32bit? I rather use abit and an AMD 64but chip but that another thing.

Evangelion
Jun 29, 2006, 02:03 AM
also isnt 2.3 ghz just as fast as the fastest merom?

I'm surprised that I have to tell a Mac-user this, but.... There's more to performance than clock-speed ;). Merom is about 20% faster, clock for clock than Yonah is. And Merom has twice as much L2-cache (on faster models) than Yonah has. Also, Merom is a 64bit CPU, which also gives it a nice boost in performance.

Evangelion
Jun 29, 2006, 02:05 AM
why is that?

The question was: Why can't Apple sell the iSight in Europe. Answer: it has too much lead and/or other other toxic chemicals/metals in it, so it doesn't pass the new environmental-directive. Same thing happened to the Airport Extreme base-station.

kumbaya
Jun 29, 2006, 02:11 AM
Putting Conroe in Mac Pro would be a disaster, IMO. Dell would be offering true dual-dual workstations, whereas Apple would be stuck at single dual-core. What Apple should do is this:

All Mac Pro's would be dual-dual's from top to bottom. And that means using Woodcrest. True, this might mean that prices might increase. And they could increase the baseline price of MacPro to $2499 (currently $1999) for example. specs would start from dual-dual 2GHz Woodcrest, through 2.33Ghz dual-dual to 3Ghz dual-dual (the hi-end model seems to always be significantly better then the rest. For example, original G5 PowerMac had 1.6Ghz G5, 1.8Ghz G5 and 2x 2GHz G5)

Now, a change like that means that there's room for additional machine in Apple's lineup. I mean, consumer-segment has two desktops (iMac and Mac Mini), there could be two professional desktops as well. Those new desktops would be using dual-core Conroes. Prices would be (for example) $1499 and $1999. Specs of the two machines would be 2.4GHz Conroe and 2.67GHz Conroe.

Besides CPU's, what other differences would there be between Mac Pro and Mac? Mac Pro would support SLI (two 16x PCI-E slots), whereas Mac would not (just one 16x PCI-E slot). Mac Pro would have room for four HD's, whereas the Mac would have just two. And the Mac Pro would have more PCI-E slots than the Mac would have.

And before you ask: "Dude! Why should I buy a dual-core Mac for $1999, when I could just get a dual-dual Mac Pro for $500 more?". Well, Apple would just LOVE to see you get the Pro instead ;). They do that with iPod even today. But seriously. the 2.67GHz Conroe would outrun the 2Ghz dual-dual Woodcrest in some situations (games for example, they are not multithreaded). And that hi-end Conroe-Mac might have better vid-card by default than the low-end Woodcrest Pro would have.

As to iMac... It would get Merom in it and upgraded graphics. But Conroe-Mac would still be faster, and it would have the benefit of being expandable. And the iMac would have the benefit (or drawback, depending on your viewpoint) of the screen and all-in-one design. So they would not be direct alternatives to each other.

Am I making any sense here?

Yes.

One interesting question is what, if anything, will Apple do with the cheapest variants of Intel chips, and the ultra low-power variants?

I would love ultraportable MacBook Mini or even iTablet

What's unclear is Apple's strategy going forwards in the cheap desktop space: MacPro Mini??!!:)

Evangelion
Jun 29, 2006, 02:11 AM
Intel's pretty close to a charity these days. AMD has them scared and they're nearly giving away many of their processors to stop the market share loss.

They are "giving away" NetBurst (Pentium 4) based CPU's, not Core-CPU's. reason being that P4 is crap, whereas Core is not ;).

sam10685
Jun 29, 2006, 02:26 AM
Egad, why do I feel old all of the sudden? <pulls shawl tight around shoulders>

don't worry... it's cool dude.

SiriusExcelsior
Jun 29, 2006, 03:37 AM
Putting Conroe in Mac Pro would be a disaster, IMO.
[snip]
All Mac Pro's would be dual-dual's from top to bottom.
[snip]
Now, a change like that means that there's room for additional machine in Apple's lineup. I mean, consumer-segment has two desktops (iMac and Mac Mini), there could be two professional desktops as well.
[snip]
Besides CPU's, what other differences would there be between Mac Pro and Mac?
[snip]
As to iMac... It would get Merom in it and upgraded graphics. But Conroe-Mac would still be faster, and it would have the benefit of being expandable. And the iMac would have the benefit (or drawback, depending on your viewpoint) of the screen and all-in-one design. So they would not be direct alternatives to each other.

Am I making any sense here?

I see where you're going with this, but remember one of the things Jobs did after he came back to Apple back in '97. He killed off the grand multitude of Quadrii, Performae, Centrises, LCs, PowerBooks and PowerMacs (lovely plurals there) because he said it confused consumers or something like that. He replaced it with the iMac, iBook, PowerMac and PowerBook.

I'm not saying Apple is still like that (just look at the product line now.. 3 consumer lines, 2 professionals, 3 iPods and heck knows how many types of accessories from remotes to socks), but something tells me Apple doesn't want to drop down to the likeness of the PC world again, with a Series name and series numbers (LC 630, for example), each just that tiniest different from other models. Although now we still say things like iMac G4 900...:confused:

Who knows, maybe Jobs decided inventory is easier controlled by individual configs rather than BTO offers.

Now i'm just blabbering..:rolleyes:

dextertangocci
Jun 29, 2006, 04:01 AM
Was this a typo? It is actually a 167MHz increase (7.7%) over the T2600 and a 333MHz increase (16.7%) over the T2500.

Huh?

I just went 2.33 - 2.16 = 00.17 * 2 = 00.34

psycho bob
Jun 29, 2006, 05:22 AM
Huh?

I just went 2.33 - 2.16 = 00.17 * 2 = 00.34

Unfortunately you put 34MHz when it should be .34GHz or 340MHz ;)

jesaja
Jun 29, 2006, 05:23 AM
Huh?

I just went 2.33 - 2.16 = 00.17 * 2 = 00.34
Then it would still be 340 Mhz, not 34...:rolleyes:

Jojo

erlendscott
Jun 29, 2006, 06:59 AM
His grammar is perfectly fine if he speaks Commonwealth English. ;)

You mean regular English, not the 'American English' that most people on these boards speak! :p

AidenShaw
Jun 29, 2006, 07:12 AM
Wait I thought those chips were 32bit? I rather use abit and an AMD 64but chip but that another thing.
All of the current Intel desktop and server chips (even the Celerons) are 64-bit, and have been for about a year or so. The Intel developer porting machines that Apple introduced at last year's WWDC were 64-bit Pentium 4s.

Only the Yonah laptop chips are 32-bit only.

AidenShaw
Jun 29, 2006, 07:26 AM
btw. I heard that initially only Apple and Lenovo will be getting Merom in reasonable quantities
That's not going to happen - Intel is not going to stiff HP and Dell and all the others.

It's unlikely that there will be much of a supply problem (Merom is built on a proven 65nm process), and even if there is Intel wouldn't "favor" one or two vendors. That would be the quickest way to increase the number of AMD laptops - something that Intel would not want.


...which makes me hope for Core2 Duo MacBook Pros announced and likely demonstrated at WWDC.. desktop versio Core2 Duos are being officially released by the end of july and there are very reasonable models with 40W TDP which will most likely end up in iMacs and maybe even Mac Minis.. we'll see
Why would Apple kill off MacBook Pro and MacBook Amateur sales by showing a much better laptop that they couldn't sell?

Conroe (the desktop Core 2) is said to have a TDP of 65 watts, where did you see 40 watts for a Conroe?

Evangelion
Jun 29, 2006, 07:28 AM
I see where you're going with this, but remember one of the things Jobs did after he came back to Apple back in '97. He killed off the grand multitude of Quadrii, Performae, Centrises, LCs, PowerBooks and PowerMacs (lovely plurals there) because he said it confused consumers or something like that. He replaced it with the iMac, iBook, PowerMac and PowerBook.

true, he simplified the lineup to just four: Consumer laptop and desktop, and professional laptop and desktop. For pro's we have PowerMac and MacBook Pro. For consumers we have iMac and MacBook. Question is: where does that leave Mac Mini? It's a consumer desktop for sure, but we already have iMac occupying that slot.

Apple has expanded their lineup in the past if they feel the need to do so. They could do so in this case just fine as well. And if/when PowerMac starts to really move up (dual-dual for example), there will be a wide opening in Apple's lineup Some people will want an expandable machine. Today they could get the low-end PowerMac, but if Apple moves to dual-dual (like they should, we ARE talking about workstation here), those would get too expensive. iMac would be right pricewise, but it lacks the feature-set they need. So there is a need for cheaper but expandable machine.

Evangelion
Jun 29, 2006, 07:34 AM
That's not going to happen - Intel is not going to stiff HP and Dell and all the others.

Apparently Dell just signed a deal with AMD where AMD will supply Dell with "millions" of mobile-CPU's....

It's unlikely that there will be much of a supply problem (Merom is built on a proven 65nm process), and even if there is Intel wouldn't "favor" one or two vendors. That would be the quickest way to increase the number of AMD laptops - something that Intel would not want.

Well, it's supply and demand. Intel will sell as many CPU's as possible. AMD will do the same. If Intel can't satisfy the demand, AMD will benefit. Intel COULD satisfy the demand by favouring few companies.

It doesn't really matter to Intel that does Apple alone (for example) consume their entire Merom-supply, or that does it take Apple, Dell, Lenovo and HP to do so. Intel would still sell the same number of CPU's.

Likewise, Apple and Lenovo could get first dibs on the new CPU, but that does not mean that Dell and the like are left without. If vendors can't get enough Meroms (due to strong demand for the CPU or due to Intel favouring some specific companies), they would use other CPU's instead.

AidenShaw
Jun 29, 2006, 07:55 AM
Apparently Dell just signed a deal with AMD where AMD will supply Dell with "millions" of mobile-CPU's...
Can you provide any links to back up that "apparently"? A Yahoo! search finds nothing about it....

Apparently, it's just an unfounded rumour.


Well, it's supply and demand. Intel will sell as many CPU's as possible.
True, except for the fact that Intel can very quickly ramp up to satisfy any level of demand. That kind of distorts any "supply and demand" model.

Intel wants marketshare - seen any of the stories about the "crisis" that Intel only has 80% of the server chip market?

Evangelion
Jun 29, 2006, 08:29 AM
Can you provide any links to back up that "apparently"? A Yahoo! search finds nothing about it....

Apparently, it's just an unfounded rumour.

Link (http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32628). Not actually reported on Reuters yet, but still :)

True, except for the fact that Intel can very quickly ramp up to satisfy any level of demand. That kind of distorts any "supply and demand" model.

Well, Intel does not have infinite supply. And I believe that most of their production is going to be NetBurst for quite some time.

Intel wants marketshare - seen any of the stories about the "crisis" that Intel only has 80% of the server chip market?

Considering that few years ago they had practically 100% market-share in x86-servers, it IS a crisis. Intel has lost market-share at a trendemous pace to AMD. Hell, in 4+P servers AMD's market-share is about 50%! Few years ago that was unheard of!

Mammoth
Jun 29, 2006, 08:31 AM
Remember the days when chips ran at less than 170 MHz, period? They weren't that long ago...
Yeah.. that was in 1995 or so. My mom had a beige dell I would play math games on. It had about 100MHz proc. and a 1GB hard drive she claims she payed $2000 for the upgrade (Or maybe the whole system).

AidenShaw
Jun 29, 2006, 08:46 AM
Link (http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32628). Not actually reported on Reuters yet, but still :)
That story seems pretty far-fetched.... Although Dell has been known to leak info like that in order to get a better deal with Intel.

The bit at the end about the Meroms going to Apple and Lenovo, however, makes me doubt the whole story.

Evangelion
Jun 29, 2006, 08:57 AM
That story seems pretty far-fetched.... Although Dell has been known to leak info like that in order to get a better deal with Intel.

Since Dell already ships computers with AMD-CPU's, it's not as far fetched as it would have been few years ago.

The bit at the end about the Meroms going to Apple and Lenovo, however, makes me doubt the whole story.

Apple is the new apple in Intels eye :).

thogs_cave
Jun 29, 2006, 11:36 AM
So quick, do some rough math. If they lose 3% of mbp sales by not updating, but save about 100 bucks per $3000 unit on chips, it looks like they gain 3, loose 3, end up about dead even. But wait, that's for revenue. Look at profits- say they've got pretty fat margins (for easy calculation) of $1000 per unit. Boom, 100 bucks in the chip is a 10% increase in profits. Combine that with a 3% decrease in units, and you've still got more than a 9% increase in profits overall.

Actually, this raises a question in my mind: Do they have to re-certify the computer with the FCC? I used to work for $BIG_UNIX_VENDOR, and was suprised to find out how most changes required re-certification (which isn't cheap).

thogs_cave
Jun 29, 2006, 11:46 AM
You mean regular English, not the 'American English' that most people on these boards speak! :p

Yes, and they've had it around longer than us. However, we get bonus points for introducing cool acronyms like FUBAR. :D

However, we also get massive points off for introducing business-speak, like: "Virtual buckets of synergy." (The next person to use the term "action item" to me is going to eat an entire G4 tower, whole.)

Macnoviz
Jun 29, 2006, 11:49 AM
true, he simplified the lineup to just four: Consumer laptop and desktop, and professional laptop and desktop. For pro's we have PowerMac and MacBook Pro. For consumers we have iMac and MacBook. Question is: where does that leave Mac Mini? It's a consumer desktop for sure, but we already have iMac occupying that slot.

I think that we may consider adding a fifth slot, let's call it the "switcher slot"
Mac Mini is a cheap, stripped down Mac for people that threw their PC's out of the Window, and they want to try a Mac, but don't want to pay for an iMac, so they buy a mini because it's cool, light, and just plugs in here there PC box used to stand.

you could say that in the iPod Line-up, the Shuffle fills this slot, for people that want an iPod, but don't want to cough up a lot of money for a nano or iPod.

you can't link the mini to an iTablet, or such, because these would be for the Pro market.

Mitch1984
Jun 29, 2006, 01:35 PM
I reckon it'll go in the 17" MacBook Pro

poppe
Jun 29, 2006, 02:17 PM
I see no reason for it. I bet that MBP (and iMac, maybe others as well) are going to be upgraded to Merom in August.

I said I saw every reason for it when I thought Yonah was the new Core 2 Duo... Thats all... I really have no opinion now about if they should or shouldn't be put in.

playaj82
Jun 29, 2006, 02:48 PM
Actually, this raises a question in my mind: Do they have to re-certify the computer with the FCC? I used to work for $BIG_UNIX_VENDOR, and was suprised to find out how most changes required re-certification (which isn't cheap).

But what types of changes do you mean.....
processors, software, comm devices

I can understand some of these requiring re-certification, but not necessarily processors

Orange-DE
Jun 29, 2006, 02:50 PM
On TomsHardware.de (Germany) I found yersterday an comparision between an Dual (2xdual) Woodcrest system and one powered by an AMD Opteron.
(http://business.thgweb.de/2006/06/26...ion-prozessor/)
The article says, the Woodcrest-system was delivered by INTEL for testing.
Given the rumors that Apple had outsourced the developement of the MacPro to Intel, and given the similarities of the "air-condition" in both the G5 PowerMac and this prototype, it COULD be the next MacPro in an ugly computercase. I am pretty shure about it, because INTEL founded an research-departement right there in Munic, where also TomsHardware is located.:cool:

lewchenko
Jun 29, 2006, 03:52 PM
Good news for Intel.
Would be great news for Apple if they actually had a laptop that they could put it in it without melting peoples laps!

Macnoviz
Jun 29, 2006, 04:43 PM
On TomsHardware.de (Germany) I found yersterday an comparision between an Dual (2xdual) Woodcrest system and one powered by an AMD Opteron.
(http://business.thgweb.de/2006/06/26...ion-prozessor/)
The article says, the Woodcrest-system was delivered by INTEL for testing.
Given the rumors that Apple had outsourced the developement of the MacPro to Intel, and given the similarities of the "air-condition" in both the G5 PowerMac and this prototype, it COULD be the next MacPro in an ugly computercase. I am pretty shure about it, because INTEL founded an research-departement right there in Munic, where also TomsHardware is located.:cool:


That's a great find, this could really be true. Makes me think about the testing of new cars, where they have a special "armor" that covers the car, so that the design stays hidden. I think the current PowerMac has the potential to become the fastes Intel Machine available to the public, and a similar design built with the cooling in mind is to be expected, especially for higher clocked processors. (3-4 GHz) imagine that, in less than a year 4 4GHz Cores in one Mac (raaahr)

Multimedia
Jun 29, 2006, 08:57 PM
I can see Apple putting the Core 2 Duo initially in their line up as an upgrade, eventually Intel will phase the Core Duos out for the newer faster Core 2 Duo.

I wont expect an Apple with a Core 2 Duo for at least 6 months even then I'm guessing it will have to be an option upgrade because of the cost on consumers.

Either way I want a Mac with a Core 2 Duo :cool:3 months with no extra charge. By September the whole lineup except MacBook will be Core 2 Duo. The 2 top MacBook Pros will go to 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo in September for no extra charge. The Combo 15" MacBook Pro will go 2.16 GHz Merom. MacBooks will quietly go to Merom Core 2 Duo but stay 2 GHz by November at the latest. :) There is a significant price increase above 2GHz for Merom processors.

Multimedia
Jun 29, 2006, 09:14 PM
Apple will definitely end up using these chips, maybe not in the MBP, but maybe in the iMac and certainly in the MacBook.NO WAY IN HELL will the 2.33 Yonah or even the 2.33 Merom go into a MacBook. Apple has to pay a significantly higher price for anything above 2GHz in the Yonah and Merom lines. No. MacBook is stuck at 2GHz for the foreseeable future. Only a very quiet switch to Merom is in the cards by November.What Apple will release at or around WWDC will be interesting, because it's traditionally been a "Pro" event, but Apple has taken to breaking that tradition in recent years. One would think the MBP and the Mac Pro would be the main attractions at WWDC, but Apple is quick to update what has become their "flagship" of sorts, the iMac, so I wouldn't be surprised if it gets some attention even though it's considered a "Consumer" level machine.

For me, I've never considered buying a Yonah anyway, I've been holding out for Merom since the switch. My G4 is humming along nicely.My Quad G5 still seems to have significant functionality too. :p

wrxsti86
Jun 29, 2006, 11:06 PM
I swear my Pro Mac run with Quad Core in my dream!

bloodycape
Jun 30, 2006, 01:51 AM
All of the current Intel desktop and server chips (even the Celerons) are 64-bit, and have been for about a year or so. The Intel developer porting machines that Apple introduced at last year's WWDC were 64-bit Pentium 4s.

Only the Yonah laptop chips are 32-bit only.

What are the Centrino's then and the Centrino core duo?

gammamonk
Jun 30, 2006, 01:54 AM
No kidding, it wasn't too long ago that our FSBs ran slower than 170 MHz.
Mine still does. (167)

Eidorian
Jun 30, 2006, 02:02 AM
What are the Centrino's then and the Centrino core duo?Those are 32-bit Core Duo's. Yes, even I was surprised to learn about 64-bit Celerons.

bloodycape
Jun 30, 2006, 02:07 AM
I think the current PowerMac has the potential to become the fastest Intel Machine available to the public

I would agree for the most part. I would agree it could be the fastest Intel machine but only in stock form. I still think an one of those intel chips on an Asus or Abit system OC'ED will be even faster something PC's have an advantage still.

bloodycape
Jun 30, 2006, 02:09 AM
Those are 32-bit Core Duo's. Yes, even I was surprised to learn about 64-bit Celerons.

Oh okay, well that nothing to surprising since AMD's low cost chip are also 64bit.
So the core duo is the same as the Centrino duo?

Eidorian
Jun 30, 2006, 02:18 AM
Oh okay, well that nothing to surprising since AMD's low cost chip are also 64bit.
So the core duo is the same as the Centrino duo?Centrino Duo is just a Core Duo + Intel Wireless.

Just like Centrino was a Pentium-M + Intel wireless.

Not all of AMD's low cost chips are 64-bit. There are 32-bit Semprons.

Jowl
Jun 30, 2006, 02:33 AM
With the shift going to Merom in the MBP and iMac,the Conroe in the upcoming MacPro and the Woody in the XServe I can see the Mini getting bumped up in the next couple of weeks.


I hope so. I plan to buy one for a media centre soon...just have a feeling they'll get an upgrade soon - they are 6 months old now after all!!

I was hoping they might but a merom in them in September...do you think that they'll keep merom for mid/higher end machines?

wmmk
Jun 30, 2006, 02:48 AM
I can see a stealth upgrade:

MacBook at 1.83/2 GHz
MacBook Pro at 2.16/2.33 GHz

Helps to differentiate more clearly..

Exactly what I was thinking
Maybe:

iMac at 1.83/2.0
"Mac" at 2.16/2.33 Conroe in July
Mac Pro with Woodcrest Quad in June?

Bumps every three months...!!:eek:

Wonder what next Tuesday will bring?:rolleyes:
an iMac speed decrease and a computer just called "mac"?
i highly doubt it.:rolleyes:

eXan
Jun 30, 2006, 02:49 AM
minis are 6 months old now after all!!

Really? :rolleyes:

I thought it was 4 months? ;)

Jowl
Jun 30, 2006, 02:58 AM
4/6 months. I want a Merom in mine! :D

bloodycape
Jun 30, 2006, 03:44 AM
Centrino Duo is just a Core Duo + Intel Wireless.

Just like Centrino was a Pentium-M + Intel wireless.

Not all of AMD's low cost chips are 64-bit. There are 32-bit Semprons.

Alright does anyone know if the intel wireless is better than what we get in our macs or do we get the same one?

Evangelion
Jun 30, 2006, 04:10 AM
Given the rumors that Apple had outsourced the developement of the MacPro to Intel, and given the similarities of the "air-condition" in both the G5 PowerMac and this prototype, it COULD be the next MacPro in an ugly computercase.

No, no, and once more: NO! That is NOT going to happen! So Intel delivered a (more or less) generic server for testing, and you think that Mac Pro will look the same? No chance in hell! Intel might be designing the Moterhboard (according to Apple-specs), but they are NOT designing the actual computer! You can bet your ass that Mac pro will have Jonathan Ive all over it!

kumbaya
Jun 30, 2006, 06:18 AM
Previously speculated:

iMac at 1.83/2.0
"Mac" at 2.16/2.33 Conroe in July

an iMac speed decrease and a computer just called "mac"?
i highly doubt it.:rolleyes:

The laptop, server, Mac mini and high end desktop configurations seem to be fairly easy to predict: Merom and Woodcrest.

The low-end desktop segment is where it's more interesting.

Apple has not bothered with low speed chips to date. I speculate this is to ensure that IntelMac computers bought now will be able to run Leopard when it comes out - making a good contrast with the upgrading that will be necessary to run Vista.

I do see an opening for a low-end desktop which is upgradeable. This would speak the language of PC switchers who tend to like more potential control over their boxes than the average MacHead. That calls for Conroe, but what minimum speed? What price point?

Apple wants its computers to be seen as fast. No Apple computer will be 'slow'. This supports its differentiation, and also higher margins.

I think it reasonable to see a marketing policy that all IntelMac chips will start from at least 2GHz. So the "Mac" computer would have choice of Conroe 2.13GHz or 2.4GHz as giving a sweetspot of price/performance.

I also see Mac mini moving to only dual core - timing depends on price drops for CPUs.

Having said that, once the minimum standards to run Leopard fast are met, there is scope for lower-end, lower priced systems for the education market. Sometime next year? The processor price wars might bring this about sooner rather than later!

:cool:

Orange-DE
Jun 30, 2006, 06:38 AM
Evangelion
macrumors 6502

No, no, and once more: NO! That is NOT going to happen! So Intel delivered a (more or less) generic server for testing, and you think that Mac Pro will look the same? No chance in hell! Intel might be designing the Moterhboard (according to Apple-specs), but they are NOT designing the actual computer! You can bet your ass that Mac pro will have Jonathan Ive all over it!

You havenīt read my post accurately. -> I said, according to the airflow-system and dual woodcrests, it could be a protopyte (in a technical way).
I is just shure like the sun goes up, that JI will design an apple product, k?
That was a non-post, dude.

playaj82
Jun 30, 2006, 10:20 AM
I don't think I'm really liking that eventually there will be 85 different Apple computers. Pretty soon Apple will be like Dell.

The computer you bought one month ago for $1000, doesn't even sell on eBay for $200.

I'm afraid to see where all this constant processor upgrade nonsense is going to go.

Evangelion
Jun 30, 2006, 02:28 PM
You havenīt read my post accurately. -> I said, according to the airflow-system and dual woodcrests, it could be a protopyte (in a technical way).

Such airducts are not new. There were such setups before PowerMac G5, Apple's implementation was just more elegant than the others. The machine intel supplied was just a generic Woodcrest-server. I see no reason to believe that the system in question is somehow related to the PowerMac (apart from using the same CPU).

Evangelion
Jun 30, 2006, 02:33 PM
I don't think I'm really liking that eventually there will be 85 different Apple computers. Pretty soon Apple will be like Dell.

Not gonna happen. I see room for two lines of laptops, and 4 desktops (at most). That's nowhere near 85 ;)

The computer you bought one month ago for $1000, doesn't even sell on eBay for $200.

There were two reason why Mac held their price so well:

A) Quality-products do maintain their price

B) Because Macs weren't updated that freguently, the machines didn't get old that fast (as in, the old machine wasn't THAT much slower when compared to the brand-new machine)

A hasn't really gone anywhere. B has changed, since Macs are now updated more frequently (well, we can't be 100% sure yet, since we don't have much data yet). And having more up-to-date machines for sale is a GOOD THING. How many hear buy teir Macs because they retain their value, instead of actually DOING something with them? I don't know about you, but I buy my compters because I intend to do something with them, not because I plan to sell them.

I'm afraid to see where all this constant processor upgrade nonsense is going to go.

So, offering your customers a better product for same amount on money is a bad thing?

boncellis
Jun 30, 2006, 02:55 PM
NO WAY IN HELL will the 2.33 Yonah or even the 2.33 Merom go into a MacBook. Apple has to pay a significantly higher price for anything above 2GHz in the Yonah and Merom lines. No. MacBook is stuck at 2GHz for the foreseeable future. Only a very quiet switch to Merom is in the cards by November.My Quad G5 still seems to have significant functionality too. :p

I'm of two minds regarding the future of the MacBook. Part of me thinks Apple will keep the Yonah in them, but another part wonders about what that would mean when Apple software takes advantage of Merom's 64 bit functionality...I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

You're right about the cost, but that will come down relatively soon. The real question is whether the MacBook sticks with Yonah for a while--I could see it happen.

Your hyperbole only hurts the logic of your well-reasoned point. But what did I expect from someone whose histrionics led him to paste his own face all over this forum. ;)

Eidorian
Jun 30, 2006, 02:57 PM
I don't think I'm really liking that eventually there will be 85 different Apple computers. Pretty soon Apple will be like Dell.

The computer you bought one month ago for $1000, doesn't even sell on eBay for $200.

I'm afraid to see where all this constant processor upgrade nonsense is going to go.I just sold my iMac G5 after one year for 75% of its original value. Where have you been?

WildCowboy
Jun 30, 2006, 02:59 PM
I just sold my iMac G5 after one year for 75% of its original value. Where have you been?

I think his point was that that's what happens with PCs, and Macs are heading down that road with the Intel switch and the accompanying upgrade cycle.

thogs_cave
Jun 30, 2006, 05:31 PM
But what types of changes do you mean.....
processors, software, comm devices

I can understand some of these requiring re-certification, but not necessarily processors

Anything that changes the RFI profile, IIRC.

shawmanus
Jun 30, 2006, 07:56 PM
Apple should offer T2700. Why should a company not offer the fastest proc available. They should offer BTO for 15 and 17 inc macbook pros asap. Maybe even upgrade iMac.

Merom should not be available in quantities before Q4. I think Apple would update Macbook pro and maybe iMac in october.So upgrading processor speed would be good in the meantime.

Multimedia
Jun 30, 2006, 08:32 PM
I don't think I'm really liking that eventually there will be 85 different Apple computers. Pretty soon Apple will be like Dell.

The computer you bought one month ago for $1000, doesn't even sell on eBay for $200.

I'm afraid to see where all this constant processor upgrade nonsense is going to go.Wow. :eek: :confused: . How you deduce that from the presented info is hard for me to comprehend. There is no evidence to indicate that Apple Marketing, led by Phil Schiller, is going to complicate nor expand the lines beyond three per family at any one time. The KISS principle has been in place at Apple ever since Steve got back. Pretty soon Apple will NEVER be like Dell. Pretty soon Macs will continue to maintain high resale value. Pretty soon you need a drink. :p

"Constant Processor upgrade nonsense"? What the hell are you writing about? Are you writing that every two years is too frequent for Intel to introduce a new processor set of families? Are you writing that faster processors as a result of manufacturing progress is a BAD THING? :confused: . . I really don't understand your illogic at all. Or are you just kidding?

Multimedia
Jul 1, 2006, 12:22 AM
Apple should offer T2700. Why should a company not offer the fastest proc available. They should offer BTO for 15 and 17 inc macbook pros asap. Maybe even upgrade iMac.

Merom should not be available in quantities before Q4. I think Apple would update Macbook pro and maybe iMac in october.So upgrading processor speed would be good in the meantime.I think the 2.33 should replace the 2.16 and the 2.16 should replace the 2 in each MacBook Pro to further differentiate them from the MacBook. But heat may be the reason why Apple may not until the cooler Meroms are available, I hope in September. But you may be right about October.

Other brands may easily adopt the 2.33 due to their HUGE FAT Kludgy enclosures. But Apple's ultra slim form may need Merom @ 2.33 GHz to avoid Yonah meltdowns.

AidenShaw
Jul 1, 2006, 08:15 AM
Since Dell already ships computers with AMD-CPU's.
Actually, no. There are no Dell computers with AMD CPUs inside.

Dell recently bought Alienware, which has been shipping AMD chips in some systems, but those were existing product lines and do not carry the "Dell" brand.


Apple is the new apple in Intels eye :).
Then why was Apple the last big vendor to announce Yonah, and why does Apple *still* not have a Woody when everyone else does? (http://www.supermicro.com/products/nfo/woodcrest.cfm)

Until there's evidence of Intel favoring Apple over its other customers, any "Apple is special" talk is fanboi fantasy.

fastlane1588
Jul 1, 2006, 12:27 PM
yea apple is really hurting themselves by not releasing either the xserve or the macpro w/ the woodcrest chip. if everyone else already has them then theirs no excuse as to why apple shouldnt have one out yet.....i hope this doesnt happen w/ the mbp and merom chips

freestyleguy128
Jul 1, 2006, 05:35 PM
My prediction:
Late August-Late September: Apple announces Merom MBPs with updated 8x superdrives, bug fixes, and at least 1 gb of RAM standard. Alongside this release comes a "quiet" refresh of the macbooks to a standard 2.16 ghz Yonah processer with an optional upgrade to 2.33 ghz. These notebooks wil be fully leopard and vista (gotta love bootcamp) compatible and will carry apple through the holiday season. I wouldn't be surprised to see a slight price hike as well. Well...We'll see come September.;)

Evangelion
Jul 1, 2006, 07:24 PM
Actually, no. There are no Dell computers with AMD CPUs inside.

Maybe not right now, but by the end of the year there will be Link (http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/corp/pressoffice/en/2006/2006_05_18_rr_000?c=us&l=en&s=corp). The source can't get any more official than that.

Dell recently bought Alienware, which has been shipping AMD chips in some systems, but those were existing product lines and do not carry the "Dell" brand.

I'm talking about real, honest-to-god Dells and not Alienwares.

Then why was Apple the last big vendor to announce Yonah, and why does Apple *still* not have a Woody when everyone else does?

Go talk to Steve about that one. Are you saying that Apple hasn't announced Yonahs because Intel did not give them chips? Apple is propably saving the big releases till August, co coincide with the keynote. The fact that they are relasing latr than others does NOT mean that Intel is screwing them over. Apple might have their own reasons to delau the launch

Until there's evidence of Intel favoring Apple over its other customers, any "Apple is special" talk is fanboi fantasy.

Are you calling me a Mac-fanboy? Heh, I'm actually anything but :).

shawmanus
Jul 1, 2006, 08:11 PM
I think the 2.33 should replace the 2.16 and the 2.16 should replace the 2 in each MacBook Pro to further differentiate them from the MacBook. But heat may be the reason why Apple may not until the cooler Meroms are available, I hope in September. But you may be right about October.

Other brands may easily adopt the 2.33 due to their HUGE FAT Kludgy enclosures. But Apple's ultra slim form may need Merom @ 2.33 GHz to avoid Yonah meltdowns.


TDP of T2700 is not higher than T2600. Macbook pros get hot bcos steve wanted to make nano like laptops with regular proc. He should have used low voltage or ultra low voltage for that. If he had made Macbook pro slightly thicker with better ventilation we would not see so many complaints. Dell XPS M1710 with 7900GTX does not get as hot as macbook pro.

I hope rev2 fixes all issues.

SiriusExcelsior
Jul 2, 2006, 09:16 AM
Apple has not bothered with low speed chips to date. I speculate this is to ensure that IntelMac computers bought now will be able to run Leopard when it comes out - making a good contrast with the upgrading that will be necessary to run Vista.

I don't see how taxing Leopard can be. I've got a lime iMac DV 400 here running Tiger just fine (yea sure it's on the slow side but it's running~). That's a 6-7 year old computer running the latest Mac OS. How many 6-7 year old PCs can usably run XP? How many people even use 6-7 year old PCs as their main computer? (re. the longivity/resale value of Macs)

I don't think Leopard will support this old horse considering most of Apple's software now requires a minimum of G3/400. Looking at the difference between Tiger and Leopard, and XP and "Longhorn" (sorry, can't resist :D ), though, I doubt Leopard requires much to run. I'm pretty sure anything above 600MHz can run it.

On the other hand, there was an article somewhere about the MB and MBP's ability to run Vista. From what I remember, only the higher end MBPs can run Vista fully (with Aero and all), and even then it requires at least 1GB of ram. One word: Bloat.:)

Multimedia
Jul 2, 2006, 11:50 AM
I don't see how taxing Leopard can be. I've got a lime iMac DV 400 here running Tiger just fine (yea sure it's on the slow side but it's running~). That's a 6-7 year old computer running the latest Mac OS. How many 6-7 year old PCs can usably run XP? How many people even use 6-7 year old PCs as their main computer? (re. the longivity/resale value of Macs)

I don't think Leopard will support this old horse considering most of Apple's software now requires a minimum of G3/400. Looking at the difference between Tiger and Leopard, and XP and "Longhorn" (sorry, can't resist :D ), though, I doubt Leopard requires much to run. I'm pretty sure anything above 600MHz can run it.

On the other hand, there was an article somewhere about the MB and MBP's ability to run Vista. From what I remember, only the higher end MBPs can run Vista fully (with Aero and all), and even then it requires at least 1GB of ram. One word: Bloat.:)MacBook will run Vista but the eye candy will hurt with that level of IG. Fixed in Fall with 950 IG set. I agree with you, it's a shame how many old iMac owners don't run Leopard on their FW equiped models. :)

AidenShaw
Jul 2, 2006, 02:06 PM
From what I remember, only the higher end MBPs can run Vista fully (with Aero and all), and even then it requires at least 1GB of ram. One word: Bloat.:)
Give me a penny for every post in this forum that complains about Apples shipping with less than 1 GiB .... :p

MacsAttack
Jul 2, 2006, 02:51 PM
yea apple is really hurting themselves by not releasing either the xserve or the macpro w/ the woodcrest chip. if everyone else already has them then theirs no excuse as to why apple shouldnt have one out yet.....i hope this doesnt happen w/ the mbp and merom chips

Looking at most of the people who are offering Woocrest systems at this time, it would appear that they will not ship until closer to the end of the month...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/26/woodcrest_intel/

Releasing a product that does not ship for weeks has happend before with Apple. The MacBook launch suggests they are trying to avoid doing that sort of thing again.

Come August I expect Steve will be able to stand up and say...

1. Transition complete (ahead of schedule)

2. 3 GHz Mac at last (see? this is why we went with Intel!)

3. So what is keeping those Universal Binaries?

Its all Marketing-speak of course (Apple is a business) and anything they can talk up to boost share prices is a "good thing" from their point of veiw. A fringe benifit is that we get faster Macs and OS X 10.5 in the pipeline.

JosiahPB
Jul 2, 2006, 04:53 PM
Is there a reason for "quietly" upgrading products?

Multimedia
Jul 2, 2006, 05:14 PM
TDP of T2700 is not higher than T2600. Macbook pros get hot bcos steve wanted to make nano like laptops with regular proc. He should have used low voltage or ultra low voltage for that. If he had made Macbook pro slightly thicker with better ventilation we would not see so many complaints. Dell XPS M1710 with 7900GTX does not get as hot as macbook pro.

I hope rev2 fixes all issues.TDP is an acronym for what? Thermal Design Point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point)?

I'm now holding out for an entirely new MacBook Pro design that includes the easy user upgradable HD feature like the MacBook has. IE a reworked interior so we don't have to remove 25 screws to upgrade the HD.

Eidorian
Jul 2, 2006, 07:03 PM
TDP is an acronym for what? Thermal Design Point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Design_Point)?

I'm now holding out for an entirely new MacBook Pro design that includes the easy user upgradable HD feature like the MacBook has. IE a reworked interior so we don't have to remove 25 screws to upgrade the HD.It's not terribly hard to upgrade the hard drive yourself in the MacBook Pro.

generik
Jul 2, 2006, 07:17 PM
It's not terribly hard to upgrade the hard drive yourself in the MacBook Pro.

It certainly is very easy in the MB though.. not like the MBP is so short of space in its internals either :rolleyes:

generik
Jul 2, 2006, 07:23 PM
Actually, no. There are no Dell computers with AMD CPUs inside.

Dell recently bought Alienware, which has been shipping AMD chips in some systems, but those were existing product lines and do not carry the "Dell" brand.



Then why was Apple the last big vendor to announce Yonah, and why does Apple *still* not have a Woody when everyone else does? (http://www.supermicro.com/products/nfo/woodcrest.cfm)

Until there's evidence of Intel favoring Apple over its other customers, any "Apple is special" talk is fanboi fantasy.

Intel IS favoring Apple, just that it is not favored as highly as you put it. For the coming lot of chips it is said that both Apple and Leveno are guaranteed the bulk of Intel's chip allocations, while Dell along with the other manufacturers have to fight amongst each other for the left overs.

Multimedia
Jul 2, 2006, 07:25 PM
It's not terribly hard to upgrade the hard drive yourself in the MacBook Pro.ULR To the Tutorial please? I don't believe you. :mad:

Multimedia
Jul 2, 2006, 07:27 PM
Intel IS favoring Apple, just that it is not favored as highly as you put it. For the coming lot of chips it is said that both Apple and Leveno are guaranteed the bulk of Intel's chip allocations, while Dell along with the other manufacturers have to fight amongst each other for the left overs.How do you know this? What is your source? If true, then Steve will be able to say "Quad Intel Shipping Today" August 7.

Eidorian
Jul 2, 2006, 07:30 PM
ULR To the Tutorial please? I don't believe you. :mad:*sigh*

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/85.6.0.html

http://www.repairyourmac.com/macbook-pro.pdf

Intel IS favoring Apple, just that it is not favored as highly as you put it. For the coming lot of chips it is said that both Apple and Leveno are guaranteed the bulk of Intel's chip allocations, while Dell along with the other manufacturers have to fight amongst each other for the left overs.You are correct. Then again I think it was you who said it in the first place.

Multimedia
Jul 2, 2006, 07:45 PM
I don't believe you. :mad: *sigh**sigh*

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/85.6.0.html

http://www.repairyourmac.com/macbook-pro.pdf23 Screws plus extremely fragile connectors and flat ribbons Vs. 7 Screws on the MacBook.

That is COMPLETELY INSANE!!! You think that is "not terribly hard"? No way in hell would I ever attempt all that and expect it to go back together again without damage. :mad: I knew you were making that up. There is nothing EASY about that process and it would be very easy to break several of those parts in the process. :rolleyes:

FragTek
Jul 2, 2006, 07:47 PM
Oh wow. 34Mhz gain in speed.
Someone dropped out of grade school, ROFL.

Eidorian
Jul 2, 2006, 08:37 PM
I don't believe you. :mad: *sigh*23 Screws plus extremely fragile connectors and flat ribbons Vs. 7 Screws on the MacBook.

That is COMPLETELY INSANE!!! You think that is "not terribly hard"? No way in hell would I ever attempt all that and expect it to go back together again without damage. :mad: I knew you were making that up. There is nothing EASY about that process and it would be very easy to break several of those parts in the process. :rolleyes:It's not a 12" PowerBook though. I'd worry about the cables moreso then the screws.

zakatov
Jul 2, 2006, 08:43 PM
Someone dropped out of grade school, ROFL.
well, technically....

Some_Big_Spoon
Jul 2, 2006, 09:59 PM
Does it even make sense for Apple to ship these in anything with the other chips (Core2Duo) coming out so soon? I'll probably be proved wrong, but it seems like a better plan to throw all their resources towards refitting and revamping the product lines with the more efficient chips.

AvSRoCkCO1067
Jul 2, 2006, 10:02 PM
Does it even make sense for Apple to ship these in anything with the other chips (Core2Duo) coming out so soon? I'll probably be proved wrong, but it seems like a better plan to throw all their resources towards refitting and revamping the product lines with the more efficient chips.

It can't be that tough - they switched the MacBook Pros at the last minute (1.6 -> 1.83 ghz, 1.83 -> 2.0 ghz) and then switched them again a few months later (1.83 -> 2.0 ghz, 2.0 -> 2.16 ghz).

Shrug.

Eidorian
Jul 2, 2006, 10:13 PM
I say give Apple two weeks after a new Intel chip ships.

SiriusExcelsior
Jul 2, 2006, 11:41 PM
It can't be that tough - they switched the MacBook Pros at the last minute (1.6 -> 1.83 ghz, 1.83 -> 2.0 ghz) and then switched them again a few months later (1.83 -> 2.0 ghz, 2.0 -> 2.16 ghz).

Shrug.

With the Core Duo upgrades isn't it just a matter of putting in a faster chip, since it's from the same family (using the same slot)? However, that might not be so true upgrading Core Duo to Core 2 Duos. They'd probably want to up to front side bus etc along with it to take full advantage of it. So that means a different chipset/mother(daughter?)board.

Evangelion
Jul 3, 2006, 02:53 AM
yea apple is really hurting themselves by not releasing either the xserve or the macpro w/ the woodcrest chip. if everyone else already has them then theirs no excuse as to why apple shouldnt have one out yet.....i hope this doesnt happen w/ the mbp and merom chips

Dell hasn't relased them either. They have ANNOUNCED them, but they are not available yet.

freestyleguy128
Jul 3, 2006, 06:24 PM
Apple has always been and will remain ahead of the game with chip releases. Hell, they were one of only two companies (Lenovo as well) who reserved the first batch of meroms to be placed in thier notebooks.

AidenShaw
Jul 3, 2006, 11:20 PM
Apple has always been and will remain ahead of the game with chip releases. Hell, they were one of only two companies (Lenovo as well) who reserved the first batch of meroms to be placed in thier notebooks.
What a ludicrous statement.

Put this post in your favourites, and check on it the first of October....

If, in October, Apple and Lenovo are shipping tons of Merom books, and Dell/HP/Asus/Acer/... are trickling them out - only then can this weak rumour be supported.

If, in October, everyone has tons of Meroms - then the rumour shows itself to be merely the wet dreams of all the fanbois.

Multimedia
Jul 4, 2006, 09:15 AM
ThinkSecret's Ryan Katz reports (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0606macpro.html) the Merom MacBook Pro will come with an all new design. Looks like good things will come to those who wait. I'm hoping the new design will include the easy to upgrade HD access like the MacBook has.

Eidorian
Jul 4, 2006, 09:17 AM
ThinkSecret's Ryan Katz reports (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0606macpro.html) the Merom MacBook Pro will come with an all new design. Looks like good things will come to those who wait. I'm hoping the new design will include the easy to upgrade HD access like the MacBook has.*sigh* 33 more days it is. I hope the Back to School offer works on the new laptops. I know that Apple's releases don't always take into account previous rebates. This happened last year with the iPod Nano.

freestyleguy128
Jul 4, 2006, 10:30 AM
What a ludicrous statement.

Put this post in your favourites, and check on it the first of October....

If, in October, Apple and Lenovo are shipping tons of Merom books, and Dell/HP/Asus/Acer/... are trickling them out - only then can this weak rumour be supported.

If, in October, everyone has tons of Meroms - then the rumour shows itself to be merely the wet dreams of all the fanbois.
Fact: Apple and Lenovo reserved the first batch of Merom chips.
Fact: High demand = limited supply
Fact: This is a rumor site
Conclusion: Why criticize my theory when you don't even offer one of your own...I'm not passing this off as fact, I am simply offering my opinion.