PDA

View Full Version : Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe) Performance


MacRumors
Jul 14, 2006, 09:14 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

DailyTech reports (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3228) that the Non-Disclosure for performance benchmarks on Intel's upcoming Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors was lifted today. The new processors, code named Conroe, are the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.

Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors have a plethora of new features including Intel Wide Dynamic Execution, Intel Smart Memory Access, Intel Advanced Smart Cache and Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost.

The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme could make their Mac debut in Apple's PowerMac computers which are rumored to be released on August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers Conference.

Intel is expected to start shipping the new processors on July 23rd with an official announcement on July 27th. The Core 2 Duo will have clock speeds of 1.86GHz, 2.13GHz, 2.4GHz and 2.67GHz while the Core 2 Extreme will clock in at 2.93GHz. All share a 1066MHz front side bus with between 2-4MB of L2 cache. Pricing for the chips range from $183 to $999 per chip.

As mentioned above, a number of benchmarks of the new chips have been released today, with DailyTech providing a roundup (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3319) of many reviews.

ksz
Jul 14, 2006, 09:16 AM
Bring 'em on, but place them in a mid-tower case.

Chaszmyr
Jul 14, 2006, 09:18 AM
Why does the high-end Conroe cost more than the high-end Woodcrest?

G5power
Jul 14, 2006, 09:18 AM
This is good to see. High performance chips from Intel and a great design from Apple, this will be fun to see what is announced at WWDC.

Derekasaurus
Jul 14, 2006, 09:19 AM
Bring 'em on, but place them in a mid-tower case.
Or a mini. ;-)

danielwsmithee
Jul 14, 2006, 09:19 AM
Why does the high-end Conroe cost more than the high-end Woodcrest?Because it has the Extreme moniker.

ctachme
Jul 14, 2006, 09:20 AM
The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme are widely expected to make their Mac debut in Apple's PowerMac computers which are rumored to be released on August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers Conference.

I want my MacBook Pro Core 2!!!.

jdechko
Jul 14, 2006, 09:22 AM
Woohoo! 3GHz here we come. As was mentioned before, though, a mid-sized tower priced at the iMac level (but upgradable) would be the final logical step in the Apple product line. That would leave Woodcrest to the high end MacPro with its quad configuration.

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 09:23 AM
Woohoo! 3GHz here we come. As was mentioned before, though, a mid-sized tower priced at the iMac level (but upgradable) would be the final logical step in the Apple product line. That would leave Woodcrest to the high end MacPro with its quad configuration.I might be able to slide with a $1799 education discount tower. I want a laptop though. :(

TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 2006, 09:25 AM
[snip]The new processors, code named Conroe, are the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.[snip]


Der. No! The Conroe CPU is the desktop version of the the Merom CPU which is not currently used in any Mac.


The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme are widely expected to make their Mac debut in Apple's PowerMac computers which are rumored to be released on August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers Conference.


Der. No! The Woodcrest CPU is widely expected to make its debut in Apple's PowerMac replacement computer (widely expected to be called Mac Pro) on
August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers' Conference.


Intel is expected to start shipping the new processors on July 23rd with an official announcement on July 27th. The Core 2 Duo will have clock speeds of 1.86GHz, 2.13GHz, 2.4GHz and 2.67GHz while the Core 2 Extreme will clock in at 2.93GHz. ALl share a 1066MHz front side bus with between 2-4MB of L2 cache. Pricing for the chips range from $183 to $999 per chip.


At last, something concrete!


As mentioned above, a number of benchmarks of the new chips have been released today, with DailyTech providing a roundup (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3319) of many reviews.


The bench marks show that the Conroe based CPU's are going to smoke the AMD competition. :)

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 09:27 AM
Der. No! The Conroe CPU is the desktop version of the the Merom CPU which is not currently used in any Mac.I don't get where this Conroe in the iMac thing came from either. The power it draws and heat it produces even puts the 970FX to shame.


The bench marks show that the Conroe based CPU's are going to smoke the AMD competition. :)Yeah, the FX-62 has some competition. Even the 1.86 GHz model can compete in some tests.

QCassidy352
Jul 14, 2006, 09:28 AM
wait, now conroe is "widely expected" in the powermacs? I thought woodcrest was... I still think it will be:

mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)

We shall know soon! :)

ksz
Jul 14, 2006, 09:29 AM
Conroe benchmarks posted on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795) are really good. I luv this statement:

As you will soon see, Intel's new Core 2 lineup has basically made all previous Intel processors worthless. The performance of the new Core 2 CPUs is so much greater, with much lower power consumption, that owners of NetBurst based processors may want to dust off the old drill bits and make some neat looking keychains.

MacBoobsPro
Jul 14, 2006, 09:31 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?

I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:

supremedesigner
Jul 14, 2006, 09:31 AM
Awesome!

Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.

Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.

Chaszmyr
Jul 14, 2006, 09:32 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?

I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:

Intel got up to 3.4ghz with the Pentium 4, then they went back and released 2ghz with the Core Duo, so we're working back up from there.
The 2ghz Core Duo is faster than the 3.4ghz Pentium 4

gnasher729
Jul 14, 2006, 09:33 AM
Why does the high-end Conroe cost more than the high-end Woodcrest?

Because Intel is trying to maximise their profit.

Conroes will be in relatively affordable computers, and there will be some people who spend hundreds of dollars extra for the fastest graphics card possible, and hundreds for the fastest processor possible. It will be sold to people who are willing to pay over the top for highest performance.

Woodcrest will be sold in expensive servers to businesses, who will _not_ pay for bragging rights, but only as much as the extra performance is worth.

Two relatively slow Woodcrests could be used to build a system that is faster and possibly cheaper than the Conroe Extreme Edition.

TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 2006, 09:34 AM
Woohoo! 3GHz here we come. As was mentioned before, though, a mid-sized tower priced at the iMac level (but upgradable) would be the final logical step in the Apple product line. That would leave Woodcrest to the high end MacPro with its quad configuration.

The fasted Core 2 Extreme at launch will be 2.93 (ok, that's pretty close to 3GHz).... however, if we're going QUAD, then we're looking at Xeon 5100 series
and the 5050, 5060 and 5080 will be 3GHz and above!

What about a a Mac Pro with dual 3.73 GHz Xeon 5080's?? :D

We might need an enclosure the size of the G5 for those!! :eek:

I agree, there's space int he Apple line-up for a single cpu (Conroe) system which is aimed to business and people who want the upgradeability of a "box" but don't want to splash out on dual Xeons!!

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 09:36 AM
Awesome!

Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.

Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.
iMac = Socket 479 (Yonah)
Conroe = Socket 775

So, no.

w_parietti22
Jul 14, 2006, 09:39 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
The new processors, code named Conroe, are the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.

...and Mac Mini. ;)

Thats awesome We are going to have some screaming fast macs! :D

ksz
Jul 14, 2006, 09:40 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?

I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
If you raised the clock speed of NetBurst-based Pentium 4s (or Pentium Ds) to 4GHz, you would still not achieve the same performance as today's Conroe at 2.13GHz. Clock speed alone is not an accurate gauge of performance.

Because of increasing problems with heat density, clock speeds haven't been rising at their historical rates. A kind of brick wall was hit when the semiconductor industry moved to 90nm. At those dimensions a series of unexpected problems plagued ramp and ushered a change away from blindly raising clock speeds towards more functionality and more optimized functionality at more manageable clock speeds.

Clock speeds will hit 4GHz and keep rising, but not at the rate we have been accustomed to. But as the Core 2 benchmarks show, Intel has intelligently redesigned the processor to achieve significant speed improvements at existing clock speeds.

TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 2006, 09:45 AM
wait, now conroe is "widely expected" in the powermacs? I thought woodcrest was... I still think it will be:

mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)

We shall know soon! :)

Right except iMac.... it'll go to Merom which is a drop-in replacement for Yonah (Core Duo)

Although I agree that eventually Mac mini and MacBook will be Merom, I think it may be many months later..... I think the mini with the Core Solo might get upgraded to Core Duo tho' ... so that Apple can boast to be the _only_ major manufacturer to use dual-core across the whole product range!

Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).

Oh.... the recently released educational iMac won't get Merom at first either... it'll get left behind so as to make the proper iMacs better value and worth splashing out for! :)

Derekasaurus
Jul 14, 2006, 09:47 AM
Clock speeds will hit 4GHz and keep rising, but not at the rate we have been accustomed to.
I'm not so sure that 4GHz is a given. Doesn't that pesky speed of light put a practical cap on clock frequency? At 4GHz a signal doesn't have time to cross the chip in one clock, so is there any point to such high frequencies?

TerryJ
Jul 14, 2006, 09:48 AM
Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).
Perhaps some kind of high performance consumer-oriented/gaming-oriented tower?

(Just pure speculation...)

-Terry

longofest
Jul 14, 2006, 09:48 AM
wait, now conroe is "widely expected" in the powermacs? I thought woodcrest was... I still think it will be:

mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)

We shall know soon! :)

I'm working with Arn on that one... Woodcrest is pretty much slated towards the PowerMacs. We may have to update the story...

Hunts121
Jul 14, 2006, 09:51 AM
iMac = Socket 479 (Yonah)
Conroe = Socket 775

So, no.


since the iMac uses a laptop chip this should be no surprise (its practically a laptop)

however merom (the mobile version of conroe or core 2 whatever) will drop in, so many people say ;)

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 09:53 AM
since the iMac uses a laptop chip this should be no surprise (its practically a laptop)

however merom (the mobile version of conroe or core 2 whatever) will drop in, so many people say ;)It's a mess to open up the iMac and take the heatsink/CPU assembly off. Even I think it's scary. :eek:

dr_lha
Jul 14, 2006, 09:55 AM
Der. No! The Woodcrest CPU is widely expected to make its debut in Apple's PowerMac replacement computer (widely expected to be called Mac Pro) on
August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers' Conference.
Rumored maybe, but not "widely expected". I only expect the high end Mac Pros to have Woodcrest, I can see the low end having Conroe easily.

Hunts121
Jul 14, 2006, 09:56 AM
Right except iMac.... it'll go to Merom which is a drop-in replacement for Yonah (Core Duo)

Although I agree that eventually Mac mini and MacBook will be Merom, I think it may be many months later..... I think the mini with the Core Solo might get upgraded to Core Duo tho' ... so that Apple can boast to be the _only_ major manufacturer to use dual-core across the whole product range!

Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).

Oh.... the recently released educational iMac won't get Merom at first either... it'll get left behind so as to make the proper iMacs better value and worth splashing out for! :)

I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.

arn
Jul 14, 2006, 09:56 AM
wait, now conroe is "widely expected" in the powermacs? I thought woodcrest was... I still think it will be:

mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)

We shall know soon! :)

sorry about that. story updated.

arn

DeVizardofOZ
Jul 14, 2006, 09:56 AM
This is good to see. High performance chips from Intel and a great design from Apple, this will be fun to see what is announced at WWDC.

I wonder if JOBS is acknowledging the hardware quality issues. APPLEs have deteriorated to hardware lemons. No better or even worse than any other quality laptop. I am not talking about those who got lucky... To me luck is not something I connect with exchanging my money with any product. We are consumers and should tell JOBS loud and clear, that we expect quality, especially from APPLE!:mad:

If and when APPLE will offer a new product, new design, new casing (material) we must be careful. Magnesium disintegrates in connection with heat, haha. Just kidding.

Hunts121
Jul 14, 2006, 09:57 AM
It's a mess to open up the iMac and take the heatsink/CPU assembly off. Even I think it's scary. :eek:

haha I never said I'd attempt it, just that its possible :D

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 09:59 AM
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?

TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 2006, 10:03 AM
Perhaps some kind of high performance consumer-oriented/gaming-oriented tower?

(Just pure speculation...)

-Terry

Exactly!!! Here's hoping! :D

jiggie2g
Jul 14, 2006, 10:06 AM
Why does the high-end Conroe cost more than the high-end Woodcrest?


Because the mulitplier is unlocked , making it very easy to overclock.

JackSYi
Jul 14, 2006, 10:07 AM
I want my MacBook Pro Core 2!!!.

Me too.

ksz
Jul 14, 2006, 10:07 AM
I'm not so sure that 4GHz is a given. Doesn't that pesky speed of light put a practical cap on clock frequency? At 4GHz a signal doesn't have time to cross the chip in one clock, so is there any point to such high frequencies?
You can already overclock 3.6GHz and 3.8GHz Pentiums to 4.0 GHz.

Remember that the pulse width is the reciprocal of frequency. At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds. Light travels 0.000075 km in 250 picoseconds. There are 1 million mm in a km, hence light travels about 75mm in that time.

The size of the Core 2 chip is 143 square mm, or about 12mm x 12mm and getting smaller with each new process generation. At 4GHz, a single pulse can go back and forth across the chip at least 6 times.

In practice, propagation delays of this type are analyzed by CAD tools and the chip's physical layout is designed to minimize the signal path.

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 10:08 AM
Because the mulitplier is unlocked , making it very easy to overclock.Yeah, otherwise it's FSB antics.

The goal was to reach the highest possible speed that was benchmark stable. Super Pi, 3DMarks, and several game benchmarks were run to test stability. The 2.93GHz chip reached 4.0GHz on air cooling in these overclocking tests. That represents a 36% overclock on air with what will likely be the least overclockable Core 2 processor - the top line X6800.

To provide some idea of overclocking abilities with other Core 2 Duo processors, we ran quick tests with E6700 (2.67GHz), and E6600 (2.4GHz). The test E6700 reached a stable 3.4GHz at default voltage and topped out at 3.9GHz with the Tuniq Cooler. The 2.4GHz E6600 turned out to be quite an overclocker in our tests. Even though it was hard-locked at a 9 multiplier it reached an amazing 4GHz in the overclocking tests. That represents a 67% overclock. Not that the locked chips aren't that bad either.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18

jiggie2g
Jul 14, 2006, 10:14 AM
Yeah, otherwise it's FSB antics.

Not that the locked chips aren't that bad either.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18

That freakin' Tuniq Tower 120 is an abosolute Beast , I may have to look into purchasing one if my Artic Cooling Freezer Pro 7 isn't up to the task. I am hoping for atleast 3.6ghz from an E6600. Can't wait till Aug.

TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 2006, 10:18 AM
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.

I know what you mean, and I agree, but Apple has had to work to a pretty tight schedule. I doubt they've had time to redesign the iMac from scratch. Merom will be pretty good performance wise.... especially near the top end. The heat contraints of the iMac might infact force Apple to go the "mobile" route. The Conroes might be good, but they still produce a fair amount of heat.

I'm hoping they'll plonk a bog standard Intel mobo into a nice pretty box and stick the Apple logo on the side for a Conroe based "MacPC". :confused:

GFLPraxis
Jul 14, 2006, 10:27 AM
Awesome!

Why 2 negatives over 1 positive? Wow.

Is there a way you can upgrade this new chip on previous intel mac? Just wondering. This is new to me.

No, but when Merom comes out (the laptop version of Conroe/Core 2 Duo), you can upgrade the iMac to that.


Conroe and Merom are 64-bit, right?

I know what you mean, and I agree, but Apple has had to work to a pretty tight schedule. I doubt they've had time to redesign the iMac from scratch. Merom will be pretty good performance wise.... especially near the top end. The heat contraints of the iMac might infact force Apple to go the "mobile" route. The Conroes might be good, but they still produce a fair amount of heat.

I'm hoping they'll plonk a bog standard Intel mobo into a nice pretty box and stick the Apple logo on the side for a Conroe based "MacPC". :confused:

I'm really hoping for a Conroe iMac. It's not a huge redesign, they'll just need a motherboard of the same form factor with a different socket.

rxse7en
Jul 14, 2006, 10:29 AM
I'm not so sure that 4GHz is a given. Doesn't that pesky speed of light put a practical cap on clock frequency? At 4GHz a signal doesn't have time to cross the chip in one clock, so is there any point to such high frequencies?

As I said in the last post, Core 2 Duo has already been easily clocked to 4ghz :D http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18

QCassidy352
Jul 14, 2006, 10:29 AM
I'm working with Arn on that one... Woodcrest is pretty much slated towards the PowerMacs. We may have to update the story...

sorry about that. story updated.

arn

yay, I feel special now. ;) Thanks guys. :)

I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.

My thoughts exactly. Now that intel has a real desktop processor, why shouldn't apple's desktop computer use it?

Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?

The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 10:35 AM
The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.Thanks for the additional research. Still, you're taxing the current 180w power supply. I don't think the Power Mac G5 is a good example either. Are we expecting a redesign for Conroe? Not that I don't WANT Conroe in the iMac. It just seems a bit much.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/12/ibm_90nm_g5_chip/

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-powerenv/

Infinity
Jul 14, 2006, 10:37 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?

I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:

Would you rather a Pentium D @ 4Ghz or, Core 2 Extreme @ 2.93Ghz or even Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz?

Granted, the Pentium D example was a little bad and although its been hammered a billion times already, let me just say, Gigaherz is only a part of the equation when it comes to speed of modern CPU's.

According to Anadtech, Conroe blows eveything else out of the water in regards to sheer performance. Give me a Core 2 Architecture anyday.

rxse7en
Jul 14, 2006, 10:37 AM
Please! Let the Merom be overclockable in the next MBP or at least make it a CPU-swappable socket! If not, I may consider just getting a new Mac Pro that will be. Would hate to spend $3k on a new 17" with a stagnant (yet potent) CPU when every other Mac system out there will be overclockable or swappable. Any thoughts?

B

zero2dash
Jul 14, 2006, 10:44 AM
Conroe benchmarks posted on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795) are really good.

The overclocking features are even more impressive.
The $316 E6600 with a 2.4ghz cpu clock speed was air overclocked to 4ghz stable. ON AIR. I shudder to think of what they could do with liquid cooling.

This brings me to think another thing - conceivably Apple could forego the whole "Quad Woodcrest" setup (which will undoubtedly cost a boatload) and they could simply take a Core 2 and (with Intel's help) overclock it with the current air flow setup of the G5 case, and probably double cpu clock speed at a cheaper price.

But they won't do it. :( a) retail systems (save for the overpriced Dell XPS lineup) aren't usually overclocked and b) it would screw up their whole price scheme. It does bring up another interesting point though...people could coincidentally *possibly* overclock their [Core 2] Macs (since the technology is there in the cpu itself)...for the first time ever? We could see iMacs potentially being overclocked to outperform a Mac Pro. (if someone figures out how to do it that is)

DHUK
Jul 14, 2006, 10:45 AM
If Apple put a proper desktop processor in the iMac, then I'll buy. I want desktop specs not laptop specs if it's going to sit on my desk.

iAlan
Jul 14, 2006, 10:51 AM
Remember that the pulse width is the reciprocal of frequency. At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds. Light travels 0.000075 km in 250 picoseconds. There are 1 million mm in a km, hence light travels about 75mm in that time...

...In practice, propagation delays of this type are analyzed by CAD tools and the chip's physical layout is designed to minimize the signal path.
Posts like the one from ksz above just remind me how computer-illiterate I am

Reciprocal of frequency
No idea what that means

At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds
Isn't picoseconds a character from one of those Japanese card games?

Propagation delays
Isn't that something about people not having children till later in life, thus an aging population?


Anyway, let's hope Apple can bring something to market that is leaps above Windows boxes (and not the ones you put flowes in outside your house) and in a nice new enclosure

Fingers crossed

:D :D :p :D :D

jiggie2g
Jul 14, 2006, 10:58 AM
The overclocking features are even more impressive.
The $316 E6600 with a 2.4ghz cpu clock speed was air overclocked to 4ghz stable. ON AIR. I shudder to think of what they could do with liquid cooling.

This brings me to think another thing - conceivably Apple could forego the whole "Quad Woodcrest" setup (which will undoubtedly cost a boatload) and they could simply take a Core 2 and (with Intel's help) overclock it with the current air flow setup of the G5 case, and probably double cpu clock speed at a cheaper price.

But they won't do it. :( a) retail systems (save for the overpriced Dell XPS lineup) aren't usually overclocked and b) it would screw up their whole price scheme. It does bring up another interesting point though...people could coincidentally *possibly* overclock their [Core 2] Macs (since the technology is there in the cpu itself)...for the first time ever? We could see iMacs potentially being overclocked to outperform a Mac Pro. (if someone figures out how to do it that is)

Dude you mac guy should really look into Xtremeforums if u want to see the full potential of Conroe , I saw Coolaler hit 5.2ghz on Phase when he broke the 1M Super Pi World Record by being the 1st to hit 9.2sec's , then He hit 4.0ghz on a Kentsfierld(yes people already have ES chips) CPU scoring over 2000 in 11sec Cinebench rendering.

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 10:58 AM
Please! Let the Merom be overclockable in the next MBP or at least make it a CPU-swappable socket! If not, I may consider just getting a new Mac Pro that will be. Would hate to spend $3k on a new 17" with a stagnant (yet potent) CPU when every other Mac system out there will be overclockable or swappable. Any thoughts?

B

Um. Most laptops are not overclockable or swappable. So you are asking a bit much there.

Also, Professionals don't overclock, children do. Buy accordingly.

TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 2006, 11:00 AM
Rumored maybe, but not "widely expected". I only expect the high end Mac Pros to have Woodcrest, I can see the low end having Conroe easily.
Yeah, OK, "rumored" then.... but there are more "rumors" that it'll be Xeon (Woodcrest) rather than Core 2 Duo (Conroe).

In fact, I think "Chinese Wispers" might be more appropriate! :confused:

QCassidy352
Jul 14, 2006, 11:02 AM
I don't think the Power Mac G5 is a good example either. Are we expecting a redesign for Conroe? Not that I don't WANT Conroe in the iMac. It just seems a bit much.

Why isn't the PM G5 a good example? True, most of those were duals, but even the single 1.6 and 1.8 G5s in the first generation drew more power than Conroe, and the G5 imacs got up to 2.1 Ghz! A resdesign would be fine by me too. :)

I'm definitely no expert on this issue, but the numbers I've seen on Conroe so far don't look all that bad. Yeah, it will be hot, but not substantially, or perhaps at all, more so than the G5.

It just seems to me that if apple wants to sell the imac as a mid-range desktop, it needs to have a competitive desktop processor. The mini can use laptop components, but the imac is both bigger and more expensive; it should compete with similarly priced PC desktops.

4God
Jul 14, 2006, 11:06 AM
iMac = Socket 479 (Yonah)
Conroe = Socket 775

So, no.

I thought the Yonah was Socket 775. It's not? :confused:

CANEHDN
Jul 14, 2006, 11:08 AM
If I bought one of these, could I put it in my Intel iMac and have it work?

rxse7en
Jul 14, 2006, 11:10 AM
Um. Most laptops are not overclockable or swappable. So you are asking a bit much there.

Also, Professionals don't overclock, children do. Buy accordingly.

LOL! That's the silliest thing I've seen on here in a long time.

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 11:10 AM
I thought the Yonah was Socket 775. It's not? :confused:No, Yonah is a variant of Socket 479. The Pentium-M used it too. Yonah has the same number of pins but there placement is slightly different.

If I bought one of these, could I put it in my Intel iMac and have it work?No, the Sockets aren't compatible.

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 11:10 AM
Yeah, OK, "rumored" then.... but there are more "rumors" that it'll be Xeon (Woodcrest) rather than Core 2 Duo (Conroe).

In fact, I think "Chinese Wispers" might be more appropriate! :confused:

MacPro will have Woodcrest in dual configs, but i'd expect to see Conroe in the low end.

MacPro's: Now with Intel Core 2 and Xeon Processors.

Merom in the iMac. If there is not a big difference between the Merom and Conroe(which I doubt there will be) it would make sense to go with the chip with lower power consumption for better temps.

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 11:11 AM
LOL! That's the silliest thing I've seen on here in a long time.

I am glad you have enough knowledge to tell me why it is silly, instead of making a silly comment yourself.

rxse7en
Jul 14, 2006, 11:14 AM
I am glad you have enough knowledge to tell me why it is silly, instead of making a silly comment yourself.
What's up with the personal insults? If you want to pay top dollar for incremental increases that's your choice. Most of us "professionals" would prefer the fastest systems available, because as we all know, time is money!

4God
Jul 14, 2006, 11:18 AM
No, Yonah is a variant of Socket 479. The Pentium-M used it too. Yonah has the same number of pins but there placement is slightly different.

No, the Sockets aren't compatible.


You're right, just went to Intel's site. How 'bout Merom? I thought I
heard (or read) that one of Intel's next generation cpu's would be
pin compatable with the current Yonah's.

EDIT: went to the Merom link in your sig. I hope to see a BIOS/EFI updater so I can upgrade the cpu in my iMac.

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 11:19 AM
What's up with the personal insults? If you want to pay top dollar for incremental increases that's your choice. Most of us "professionals" would prefer the fastest systems available, because as we all know, time is money!

1: Where is this personal insult you speak of? You could have said this in the original post, instead you decided to call my comment "silly" with no reasoning. That is a personal insult, not to mention childish.

2: I don't pay top dollar for incremental increase. Why the assumption?

3: Professionals may upgrade processors, but they don't overclock. Overclocking causes instability and decreases the life of the chip. And take time to do it correctly. If time is money, then a professional doesn't have time to tinker with the FSB and multipliers for hours, then stability test at every change.

4: The poster was saying he wouldn't buy a MBP unless it was swappable or overclockable, which since the dawn of time there have only been a few laptops where this was possible. I simply stated that he was asking too much for laptops. MacPro's and other Intel iMacs of course will more than likely be swappable, which the poster stated and is true.

ksz
Jul 14, 2006, 11:20 AM
I don't see the connection between overclocking and childishness. Overclocking is done by enthusiasts and power users of all ages. There is nothing wrong with it, and the practice should not be stigmatized.

brepublican
Jul 14, 2006, 11:23 AM
Quote:
Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors have a plethora of new features including Intel Wide Dynamic Execution, Intel Smart Memory Access, Intel Advanced Smart Cache and Intel Advanced Digital Media Boost.

Wow. Are all these features actually on an Intel chip? It's not obvious or anything :rolleyes:

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 11:23 AM
You're right, just went to Intel's site. How 'bout Merom? I thought I
heard (or read) that one of Intel's next generation cpu's would be
pin compatable with the current Yonah's.

EDIT: went to the Merom link in your sig. I hope to see a BIOS/EFI updater so I can upgrade the cpu in my iMac.Merom is socket compatible with Yonah. Some users have already put in the new chips in current machines.

jiggie2g
Jul 14, 2006, 11:27 AM
I don't see the connection between overclocking and childishness. Overclocking is done by enthusiasts and power users of all ages. There is nothing wrong with it, and the practice should not be stigmatized.


There is no connection , just ignorant people who can't handle the fact that someone just saved alot of money buying a lower end cpu and overclocking it to a point where it stomps their $999 cpu. I would never spend over $350 for a CPU or Video Card.

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 11:28 AM
I don't see the connection between overclocking and childishness. Overclocking is done by enthusiasts and power users of all ages. There is nothing wrong with it, and the practice should not be stigmatized.

You are right, there is nothing wrong with it. However, expecting to buy a Pro machine seemingly to do "work" with it and expecting to overclock it is childish.

I don't the servers that make this website and forum work are overclocked. They seem to be doing just fine as well.

I have overclocked and will in the future, however overclocking a machine to do "work" is childish.

crap freakboy
Jul 14, 2006, 11:28 AM
Remember that the pulse width is the reciprocal of frequency. At 4 GHz, the pulse width is 250 picoseconds. Light travels 0.000075 km in 250 picoseconds. There are 1 million mm in a km, hence light travels about 75mm in that time.

The size of the Core 2 chip is 143 square mm, or about 12mm x 12mm and getting smaller with each new process generation. At 4GHz, a single pulse can go back and forth across the chip at least 6 times.

In practice, propagation delays of this type are analyzed by CAD tools and the chip's physical layout is designed to minimize the signal path.

that was just noise.

Either way I'll wait until the imac gets a desktop chip rather than a Laptop one.

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 11:31 AM
There is no connection , just ignorant people who can't handle the fact that someone just saved alot of money buying a lower end cpu and overclocking it to a point where it stomps their $999 cpu.

Yeah I can't handle it... :cool:

I have overclocked. My point is that someone buying a Professional Workstation and trying to overclock it is childish.

If you want to overclock, head over to newegg and buy some parts and do it.

Also, overclocking take a lot of work. And most don't take the time to do it right. They pop it in, rail up the multi and/or fsb and say "oh, look at me, I overclocked to 3.0Ghz!"

ksz
Jul 14, 2006, 11:35 AM
that was just noise.
Someday you might pick up the signal in that noise. :)

Either way I'll wait until the imac gets a desktop chip rather than a Laptop one.
Why?

ksz
Jul 14, 2006, 11:40 AM
I have overclocked. My point is that someone buying a Professional Workstation and trying to overclock it is childish.
Overclocking has its uses, but I tend to agree that for most business applications, overclocking is frowned upon. I will not overclock a processor on a system I am spec'ing for a customer because it is a form of gambling. When you have to meet MTBF requirements, you tend to be conservative and cautious.

AML707
Jul 14, 2006, 11:41 AM
Ok, has anyone even stopped to think what graphic they will use on the heatsink cover. You know like the current PMs have "G5". Are they going to leave it blank? Maybe C2:cool: :confused:

smazany
Jul 14, 2006, 11:52 AM
I just bought a Macbook, what does this news mean to me? How much more powerful is Conroe compared to my own Core Duo? Can anyone direct me to some benchmarks of Conroe that are being put against the Core Duo?

boncellis
Jul 14, 2006, 11:53 AM
I anticipated reading some of the same vitriol contained within the Mac Pro confirmed with Woodcrest thread. I hate to admit it, but I'm a little disappointed so far...

I didn't expect Conroe to have the 1066 MHz FSB, so that's a plus.

shawnce
Jul 14, 2006, 12:03 PM
It's not a huge redesign, they'll just need a motherboard of the same form factor with a different socket. :eek:

Yeah mother boards are easy to make =P

p0intblank
Jul 14, 2006, 12:08 PM
Wow, 2.93 GHz... I can't wait until what August brings us! :D

BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 2006, 12:11 PM
...the desktop versions of the Core Duo processors which currently reside in Apple's MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac computers.


But the current Core Duos are "mobile" processors right? :confused:

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 12:13 PM
But the current Core Duos are "mobile" processors right? :confused:Yes, the Core Duo (Yonah) is a mobile chip. The Core 2 Duo equivalent is Merom.

BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 2006, 12:22 PM
Yes, the Core Duo (Yonah) is a mobile chip. The Core 2 Duo equivalent is Merom.

What? You said the word Merom but didn't include a link to the guide? :p

Well anyways, if Apple could get Conroes into iMacs it would be great. A challenge I know (and I still personally think it is more likely to be a Merom iMac) but it would help to be that little bit more competitive. The rest is pretty much predictable, Merom for MBPs and eventually MacBooks and Mac Minis. Woodcrest for Mac Pro and MacServe (Macs in everything right ;) ). iMac's future is a big ?.

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 12:26 PM
What? You said the word Merom but didn't include a link to the guide? :p

Well anyways, if Apple could get Conroes into iMacs it would be great. A challenge I know (and I still personally think it is more likely to be a Merom iMac) but it would help to be that little bit more competitive. The rest is pretty much predictable, Merom for MBPs and eventually MacBooks and Mac Minis. Woodcrest for Mac Pro and MacServe (Macs in everything right ;) ). iMac's future is a big ?.Yeah, if they can fit a Conroe into the iMac, more power to Apple. I just hope it doesn't turn it into the blast furnace my iMac G5 was.

From what I can tell Merom is just a Conroe that can operate at a lower TDP. They're all just fabricated off the same piece of silicon. (Someone posted an image on this.)

BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 2006, 12:28 PM
Yeah, if they can fit a Conroe into the iMac, more power to Apple. I just hope it doesn't turn it into the blast furnace my iMac G5 was.

From what I can tell Merom is just a Conroe that can operate at a lower TDP. They're all just fabricated off the same piece of silicon. (Someone posted an image on this.)

I believe only Rev. As and Rev. Bs are blast furnaces, Rev. C iMac G5 was supposedly much quieter thanks to the bulged case.

I know the image you're talking about. Meroms on the inside, Conroes on the outside ring, Celerons furthest out.

sonnys
Jul 14, 2006, 12:29 PM
If Apple does go with the Core 2 Extreme on the Mac Pro across the line, I think they will retain the liquid cooling technology in the top end and push the chip just beyond its rated specs to 3 GHz. This will cross a major threshold for the Mac Pro line and finally deliver on that "promise" Jobs made a while back. It will also keep the Mac Pro moving forward on the GHz front, similar to the other lines.

Most likely, however, Apple will employ Woodcrest across the entire line of Mac Pros and XServes for economies of scale and volume discounts. Apple's advertising will not promote GHz, obviously, but will still focus on the "3x faster" and post some impressive benchmark figures.

I also believe the Mac Pro will include some additional "new" or landmark technologies, simply because it's been so long in the making and Apple's stock has been taking a beating lately. Perhaps they will include Blu-Ray capability or some other "wow" technology that we hadn't foreseen. I think Apple needs to make a big splash with the Mac Pro.

Also, since Apple has like $7 billion in the bank, can someone tell me why they don't spend a few hundred million dollars on a really powerful Mac ad campaign? I know they're advertising now, but it's not anywhere near what it should be -- it's just token advertising. We need Apple to saturate the media, and do really hard-hitting ads. Now is the time, especially if Microsoft is going to steal any thunder from the iPod this Christmas. Apple has put too many eggs into its iPod basket, and it hasn't focused much on promoting the Mac in a serious, powerful way.

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 12:32 PM
What? You said the word Merom but didn't include a link to the guide? :p

Well anyways, if Apple could get Conroes into iMacs it would be great. A challenge I know (and I still personally think it is more likely to be a Merom iMac) but it would help to be that little bit more competitive. The rest is pretty much predictable, Merom for MBPs and eventually MacBooks and Mac Minis. Woodcrest for Mac Pro and MacServe (Macs in everything right ;) ). iMac's future is a big ?.

If you notice. Nowhere on the Apple store does it say "Yonah". It says Core Duo.

So all Apple has to do is say Core 2 Duo. There will be no "Merom" or "Conroe" differentation.

Besides I would rather have a Merom. It requires less power, which makes it run cooler, which makes it more effecient. Heat kills performance.

It is very likely that in the same box (iMac), that the the Merom will beat out the Conroe. Why? Because of heat.

BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 2006, 12:33 PM
So all Apple has to do is say Core 2 Duo. There will be no "Merom" or "Conroe" differentation.


It's dead easy to notice the difference... Conroe has a 1066MHz FSB. Merom has a 667MHz FSB.

fabsgwu
Jul 14, 2006, 12:33 PM
that was just noise.

Either way I'll wait until the imac gets a desktop chip rather than a Laptop one.

I actually enjoyed that :P

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 12:36 PM
It's dead easy to notice the difference... Conroe has a 1066MHz FSB. Merom has a 667MHz FSB.

Yes, but to the average consumer. These things aren't very important. They will be looking at Ghz, and Apple's "X times faster" looks at the processor. That is what Apple is marketing, not FSB.

DavidCar
Jul 14, 2006, 12:36 PM
So how soon should I expect to see a Merom in a MacBook? "Some months later," or "many months later" than it's appearance on a MacBook Pro? Why not sooner? Just to differentiate the product lines? I thought Merom would replace Yonah in general. I read one report suggesting Merom would be introduced at the same time as the Conroe official introduction near the end of this month.

BTW, Hannibal posted his opinion of Core 2 Duo on Ars, along with his opinion of most other reviewers:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060714-7267.html

boncellis
Jul 14, 2006, 12:36 PM
From what I can tell Merom is just a Conroe that can operate at a lower TDP. They're all just fabricated off the same piece of silicon. (Someone posted an image on this.)

That's right. Even Woodcrest is part of the same family. They're just designed and engineered for different purposes (mobile, desktop, server).

What's missing to me is the uniform marketing scheme to help sell potential customers. Intel has Centrino Duo currently, presumably Centrino 2 Duo (terrible name, in my opinion) for Merom, Core 2 Duo/Extreme (equally terrible) for Conroe, but I haven't heard anything for Woodcrest. Xeon Duo? Xeon Core 2? I have no idea.

The point is that they all have a lot in common, but it's easy to get confused, and Intel isn't really helping at this point. Where are the marketing people to get it right? At least Apple's scheme is somewhat better--Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro--more clearly defined segmentation in my opinion.

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 12:36 PM
I believe only Rev. As and Rev. Bs are blast furnaces, Rev. C iMac G5 was supposedly much quieter thanks to the bulged case.Yeah, I had a friend who got a Rev. C iMac G5 20". It was whisper quiet compared to my 17" Rev. B. I don't have any experience with the Rev. C 17" mode though.

The Rev. C design really changed things around inside. They moved the CPU and power supply toward the top of the case instead of the bottom as in preview models. They might just be able to get a Conroe in there.


I know the image you're talking about. Meroms on the inside, Conroes on the outside ring, Celerons furthest out.Yeah, that's the one.

If you notice. Nowhere on the Apple store does it say "Yonah". It says Core Duo.

So all Apple has to do is say Core 2 Duo. There will be no "Merom" or "Conroe" differentation. Yeah, they average consumer won't notice but BlizzardBomb has the answer.

What's missing to me is the uniform marketing scheme to help sell potential customers. Intel has Centrino Duo currently, presumably Centrino 2 Duo (terrible name, in my opinion) for Merom, Core 2 Duo/Extreme (equally terrible) for Conroe, but I haven't heard anything for Woodcrest. Xeon Duo? Xeon Core 2? I have no idea.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Xeon#Dual-Core_Xeon_.2865_nm_Intel_Core_Microarchitecture.29

Looks like a number game.

BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 2006, 12:39 PM
Yes, but to the average consumer. These things aren't very important. They will be looking at Ghz, and Apple's "X times faster" looks at the processor. That is what Apple is marketing, not FSB.

Yup, I know Apple's marketing loves to be ridiculous. :p 95% of customers* wouldn't notice the difference. I'm one of the 5% who will notice it but its not like I'm buying one, my iMac G5 will keep me happy for another 2+ years.

*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 12:41 PM
Yup, I know Apple's marketing loves to be ridiculous. :p 95% of customers* wouldn't notice the difference. I'm one of the 5% who will notice it but its not like I'm buying one, my iMac G5 will keep me happy for another 2+ years.

*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)Yeah, considering we get so many posts about "Will this RAM work?". It seems like the populous is clueless about DDR/DDR2 and FSB.

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 12:41 PM
Yup, I know Apple's marketing loves to be ridiculous. :p 95% of customers* wouldn't notice the difference. I'm one of the 5% who will notice it but its not like I'm buying one, my iMac G5 will keep me happy for another 2+ years.

*75% of statistics are made up on the spot ;)

Very nice. :D

I have to admit, they will be apart of me thats want to drop a Merom into my iMac CD. I may just do it.

AppleCare or Merom? So many choices!

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 12:44 PM
Yeah, considering we get so many posts about "Will this RAM work?". It seems like the populous is clueless about DDR/DDR2 and FSB.

Exactly. Which is why the Ghz myth will stay for a long time. You can't market Memory or FSB or SATA or PCI-X/PCI-E, you won't get anywhere.

Ghz, GB, "X times faster", and you can play games that look very pretty. Those will be what computer marketing will be all about for many years to come.

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 12:47 PM
Exactly. Which is why the Ghz myth will stay for a long time. You can't market Memory or FSB or SATA or PCI-X/PCI-E, you won't get anywhere.

Ghz, GB, "X times faster", and you can play games that look very pretty. Those will be what computer marketing will be all about for many years to come.Yeah, the GHz made sense to me until AMD started pulling this XXXX+ naming. Then I realized it. It worked pretty much until Intel gave up on clock speed is the THING when it comes to computing power.

I didn't buy a new computer between 1999 - 2003 so I had a lot of catching up to do.

BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 2006, 12:49 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Xeon#Dual-Core_Xeon_.2865_nm_Intel_Core_Microarchitecture.29

Looks like a number game.

Hey, it beats Sudoku anyday. :)

Stridder44
Jul 14, 2006, 01:05 PM
To all you G5/PPC fanboys:

http://www.crazyass13.com/wp-content/theburgerking.jpg

ShnikeJSB
Jul 14, 2006, 01:18 PM
Does a 1333MHz bus matter? (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6)

Not only is the Anandtech Article one of the better ones, they simulated a 1333 bus speed with the X6800-EE processer, and came up with an overall inprovement of 2.4%, with DivX 6.1 providing a 7.5% boost!

Also, to quote the article:

"If Apple does indeed use a 1333MHz Woodcrest for its new line of Intel based Macs, running Windows it may be the first time that an Apple system will be faster out of the box than an equivalently configured, non-overclocked PC. There's an interesting marketing angle."

WOOHOO!!!

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 01:19 PM
To all you G5/PPC fanboys:

http://www.crazyass13.com/wp-content/theburgerking.jpgI've seen worse with that tag line. Much, much worse. :eek:

alexdrinan
Jul 14, 2006, 01:19 PM
Well anyways, if Apple could get Conroes into iMacs it would be great. A challenge I know (and I still personally think it is more likely to be a Merom iMac) but it would help to be that little bit more competitive. The rest is pretty much predictable, Merom for MBPs and eventually MacBooks and Mac Minis. Woodcrest for Mac Pro and MacServe (Macs in everything right ;) ). iMac's future is a big ?.

After looking at a chart of all the Core 2 Duo's, it seems like the most reasonable implementation would be to but the 2MB L2 cache Allendale cores into the iMacs (1.86ghz for the 17" and 2.16ghz for the 20") and the 4MB L2cache Conroe cores into the 3 Mac Pros (2.33ghz @ $1999, 2.66ghz @ $2499, and 2.93ghz @ $2999), with possibly and ultra-high end Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest offering @ $3499 (I don't think economy of scale effects that likleyhood as Apple will already be purchasing them for their entire X-Serve line).

That's probably how I would roll it out if it were up to me.

QCassidy352
Jul 14, 2006, 01:22 PM
To all you G5/PPC fanboys:

http://www.crazyass13.com/wp-content/theburgerking.jpg

You're impressed that a chip not even available yet beats a chip from june 2003?

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 01:27 PM
You're impressed that a chip not even available yet beats a chip from june 2003?Actually October 19, 2005 for the 970MP.

Stridder44
Jul 14, 2006, 01:37 PM
You're impressed that a chip not even available yet beats a chip from june 2003?


No Im amused that people still think (more or less wish really) the G5 is better.

andiwm2003
Jul 14, 2006, 01:41 PM
After looking at a chart of all the Core 2 Duo's, it seems like the most reasonable implementation would be to but the 2MB L2 cache Allendale cores into the iMacs (1.86ghz for the 17" and 2.16ghz for the 20") and the 4MB L2cache Conroe cores into the 3 Mac Pros (2.33ghz @ $1999, 2.66ghz @ $2499, and 2.93ghz @ $2999), with possibly and ultra-high end Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest offering @ $3499 (I don't think economy of scale effects that likleyhood as Apple will already be purchasing them for their entire X-Serve line).

That's probably how I would roll it out if it were up to me.


while i agree with you general lineup i don't think the imac goes below 2ghz for marketing reasons.
i also think the prices for the 2.33 and 2.66 are simply too high. the performance gain will not be that much over the one year old dual core g5's. so the price should go down.

but in general i would be happy with any 4MB conroe model.


in a few weeks we will know.

alexdrinan
Jul 14, 2006, 01:52 PM
while i agree with you general lineup i don't think the imac goes below 2ghz for marketing reasons.
i also think the prices for the 2.33 and 2.66 are simply too high. the performance gain will not be that much over the one year old dual core g5's. so the price should go down.

but in general i would be happy with any 4MB conroe model.


in a few weeks we will know.

Do we have benchmarks for Conroe vs. G5 yet? I haven't seen any but I would think that a 2.33ghz chip with more advanced architecture would out-perform a 2.0ghz chip with "old" architecture by enough to justify at least keeping the same price point.

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 01:54 PM
Does a 1333MHz bus matter? (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6)

Not only is the Anandtech Article one of the better ones, they simulated a 1333 bus speed with the X6800-EE processer, and came up with an overall inprovement of 2.4%, with DivX 6.1 providing a 7.5% boost!

Also, to quote the article:

"If Apple does indeed use a 1333MHz Woodcrest for its new line of Intel based Macs, running Windows it may be the first time that an Apple system will be faster out of the box than an equivalently configured, non-overclocked PC. There's an interesting marketing angle."

WOOHOO!!!


I like Anandtech, they are very fair to all sides and give the facts.

BlizzardBomb
Jul 14, 2006, 01:58 PM
After looking at a chart of all the Core 2 Duo's, it seems like the most reasonable implementation would be to but the 2MB L2 cache Allendale cores into the iMacs (1.86ghz for the 17" and 2.16ghz for the 20") and the 4MB L2cache Conroe cores into the 3 Mac Pros (2.33ghz @ $1999, 2.66ghz @ $2499, and 2.93ghz @ $2999), with possibly and ultra-high end Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest offering @ $3499 (I don't think economy of scale effects that likleyhood as Apple will already be purchasing them for their entire X-Serve line).

That's probably how I would roll it out if it were up to me.

If it were up to me, I would make the product line look like this before November (I doubt Apple would make a Mini-Tower, but think it would be great):

Mac Mini (Combo) - $549/£399
Core 2 Duo T5500 (Merom) -> 1.66GHz, 2MB, 667MHz FSB
GMA X3000

Mac Mini (SuperDrive) - $749/£499
Core 2 Duo T5600 (Merom) -> 1.83GHz, 2MB, 667MHz FSB
GMA X3000

Mac Plus (Mini-Tower) - $1,049/£699 + iMac 17" - $1,299/£849
Core 2 Duo E6400 (Conroe/Allendale) -> 2.13GHz, 2MB, 1066MHz FSB
Radeon X1600 Pro (128MB)

Mac Plus (Mini-Tower) - $1,299/£849 + iMac 20" - $1,699/£1,099
Core 2 Duo E6600 (Conroe) -> 2.4GHz, 4MB, 1066MHz FSB
Radeon X1600 XT (256MB)

Mac Pro - $2,699/£1,999
Dual Xeon 5150s (Woodcrest) -> 2.66GHz, 4MB, 1333MHz FSB
Radeon X1900 GT (256MB)

Mac Pro - $3,699/£2,699
Dual Xeon 5160s (Woodcrest) -> 3GHz, 4MB, 1333MHz FSB
Radeon X1900 XT (512MB)

amols
Jul 14, 2006, 02:11 PM
Whoa!! I feel a lot better that MBP is not getting CPU upgrade anytime soon. I don't want my month-old MBP getting obsolete in another month.

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 02:15 PM
Whoa!! I feel a lot better that MBP is not getting CPU upgrade anytime soon. I don't want my month-old MBP getting obsolete in another month.I will be obsolete. Merom is next month.

macidiot
Jul 14, 2006, 02:17 PM
Conroe benchmarks posted on AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795) are really good. I luv this statement:


I'm wondering how the yonah stacks up against this chip...

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 02:21 PM
I'm wondering how the yonah stacks up against this chip...http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1

Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.

macidiot
Jul 14, 2006, 02:34 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1

Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.


hmm, so it looks like the core duo is roughly similar to the athlon 64 x2 2.0Ghz.

Soo... the 2.16 Yonah is around 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo speed. Kind of figures, considering Merom is supposed to come in ~30% faster.

Not that great, but not that bad either.

ksz
Jul 14, 2006, 02:34 PM
I'm wondering how the yonah stacks up against this chip...
As Eidorian's link points out, Core Duo (Yonah) performance falls somewhere between the Athlon X2 3800 and the Athlon X2 4200. The 2.40GHz E6600, 2.66GHz E6700, and 2.93GHz X6800 Core 2 Duos in particular are at least 40% faster, which is exactly what Intel promised at the IDF (although they were comparing it against the Pentium D).

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 02:37 PM
As Eidorian's link points out, Core Duo (Yonah) performance falls somewhere between the Athlon X2 3800 and the Athlon X2 4200. The 2.40GHz E6600, 2.66GHz E6700, and 2.93GHz X6800 Core 2 Duos in particular are at least 40% faster, which is exactly what Intel promised at the IDF.That's where I gauged it as well. The 1.86 GHz Conroe beats AMD's FX-62 in a few tests.

Hell the E6400 (2.13 GHz, $224) and the E6500 (2.4 GHz, $316) are more then enough to compete with the FX-62 (2.8 GHz, $999)

jiggie2g
Jul 14, 2006, 02:41 PM
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1

Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.


AMD 64 , Core 1 , G5 all perform similar , Core 2 on the other hand is a different beast with a 20% boost clock per clock. so a good measure of performance would be to take a clock seed number then add 20% to get the equalivilancy performance. For the 2MB C2D's we can lower figure this to say
14%. Based on what i see on Anandtech.

Example :

Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86ghz + 14% = 2.12ghz G5/X2/CD

Core 2 Duo E6600 @2.4ghz + 20% = 2.88ghz G5/X2/CD

Core 2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93ghz + 20% = 3.51ghz G5/X2/CD

Now u see why Steve wet his pants when he saw these chips over a year ago. Then Decided to switch , He knew if he had not. Apple's platform would be dead in the water.

Stridder44
Jul 14, 2006, 03:18 PM
Whoa!! I feel a lot better that MBP is not getting CPU upgrade anytime soon. I don't want my month-old MBP getting obsolete in another month.


I know man, I know! High five for us.

QCassidy352
Jul 14, 2006, 03:18 PM
Actually October 19, 2005 for the 970MP.

the original quote was to "G5/PPC fanboys," not "970MP fanboys." But whatever. My point is that it's hardly surprising that a bleeding edge chip beats an old one. That's kinda the point of technological progress, no?

Now u see why Steve wet his pants when he saw these chips over a year ago. Then Decided to switch , He knew if he had not. Apple's platform would be dead in the water.

So then AMD and IBM are dead in the water? Somebody better call them and tell them.

Believe it or not, the fact that intel is releasing new chips does not mean that the other companies have given up or that intel has "won." IBM's desktop and server chips have been and will continue to be very competitive. Apple switched because PPC was not cutting it for laptops.

Hunts121
Jul 14, 2006, 03:32 PM
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?


other than the extreme edition (which i don't suggest should go in an iMac) i doubt its any more than the G5 that was in there before....

kresh
Jul 14, 2006, 03:49 PM
So then AMD and IBM are dead in the water? Somebody better call them and tell them.



AMD may not be dead, but the reason for their all out, full court press on the legal front is becoming more apparent. It now appears to be a desperation move.

If all they can do is lower prices and maybe release an FX-64 variant before 2007, they might as well be dead in the water. (link: http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/articles/view.php?id=1980&cid=2&pg=13 ** Second Paragraph). I just don't have that good vibe from AMD anymore. I know that doesn't mean a crap to anyone, but It seems like Intel has made a huge leap and are not looking back.

I have not owned an Intel processor based machine since the 90's. (Man I loved Cyrix DX4/100: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cyrix_486_DX4_100_Front.jpg). I can see myself joining the ranks of Intel owners very shortly.


edit: Cyrix Link

bloodycape
Jul 14, 2006, 03:49 PM
Cnet net already has a 2 reviews and a one video for this chip on two different pcs. One is Dell the other is Falcon Northwest.

The dell review and video here.

jiggie2g
Jul 14, 2006, 03:52 PM
the original quote was to "G5/PPC fanboys," not "970MP fanboys." But whatever. My point is that it's hardly surprising that a bleeding edge chip beats an old one. That's kinda the point of technological progress, no?



So then AMD and IBM are dead in the water? Somebody better call them and tell them.

Believe it or not, the fact that intel is releasing new chips does not mean that the other companies have given up or that intel has "won." IBM's desktop and server chips have been and will continue to be very competitive. Apple switched because PPC was not cutting it for laptops.

1st of all I said Apple not IBM or AMD. AMD is going to get a through ass kicking for the next 12-18 months till K8L comes out. The Turion X2 is a flop(that's also 6 months late) It's so bad for AMD that they are practically having a fire sale on X2/A64's come the 24th. Let's not even go there with IBM they are too busy making toy CPU's for M$ , and talk about the nightmare IBM/Sony are having with the Cell yields(what are they like 20-30%).lol:D

mlrproducts
Jul 14, 2006, 04:20 PM
Wow, that seems pretty darn reasonable.

I was considering putting a 2.16 Core Duo in my currently Core Solo Mac mini. But now I'd much rather put the 1.83 Core 2 Duo in there for less than $200!

Silentwave
Jul 14, 2006, 05:22 PM
Wow, that seems pretty darn reasonable.

I was considering putting a 2.16 Core Duo in my currently Core Solo Mac mini. But now I'd much rather put the 1.83 Core 2 Duo in there for less than $200!

You can't, unless you wait for the Merom version later next month which will be more expensive. Conroe (Core 2 duo that is out now) uses a different socket from Yonah. Merom is the pin-compatible one.

zz5555
Jul 14, 2006, 06:04 PM
Whether IMac takes Merom or Conroe, it's still 64 bit. Does anybody have any feeling whether the IMac will be able to handle > 2GB of memory (assuming 2GB dimms are for sale)? That would make me very happy :)

Thanks,
Steve

SiliconAddict
Jul 14, 2006, 06:12 PM
Woohoo! 3GHz here we come. As was mentioned before, though, a mid-sized tower priced at the iMac level (but upgradable) would be the final logical step in the Apple product line. That would leave Woodcrest to the high end MacPro with its quad configuration.


Try 4Ghz...Anandtech in their review (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18) overclocked their X6800 to a stable 4Ghz. :eek:

GFLPraxis
Jul 14, 2006, 07:25 PM
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?

Is it more than a G5? I see someone posted PowerMac processor power consumption, but those were dual processors in a PowerMac. I want to see how much power the single G5 in an iMac consumed.

Eidorian
Jul 14, 2006, 08:20 PM
Is it more than a G5? I see someone posted PowerMac processor power consumption, but those were dual processors in a PowerMac. I want to see how much power the single G5 in an iMac consumed.The 970FX specifications are littered in my earlier posts in this thread and in the Woodcrest thread.

I believe it was along the lines of 80w of power with 25-47w TDP.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2608770&postcount=148

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2608968&postcount=154

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2614723&postcount=44

kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 2006, 10:49 PM
Whether IMac takes Merom or Conroe, it's still 64 bit. Does anybody have any feeling whether the IMac will be able to handle > 2GB of memory (assuming 2GB dimms are for sale)? That would make me very happy :)

Thanks,
Steve

As far as I know it can handle 2GB+ memory now up to 4GB on the 945G.
http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/945g/

The 945G supports 64-bit, so you can drop in a Merom. So current intel iMacs will do 4GB and 64bit.

If Apple drops in Merom in the next few months without moving to a new chipset. I am guessing the amount of memory will still be limited by the chipset, at 4GB.

If Apple goes Merom with a new chipset, or Conroe that will change the ball game.

So. The last factor is of course cost. 2GB sticks are way too much to be cost effective. I would hope to see the cost come down, once the need for 4GB of memory in a mobile becomes necessary. I don't think it is right now.

THX1139
Jul 15, 2006, 03:48 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?

I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:

They have given up on speed and are focussing on multiple processors instead. You will see speed increases but not as often. In the next few years you might see dozens of processors all with Quad or Octo cores instead of just dual core today. IMHO, I prefer additional processors over sheer GHZ anyday. Your 4ghz wish isn't going to mean anything against a Kenstfield in 2007. However, a Quad 4ghz would be sweet... but damn hot.

seenew
Jul 15, 2006, 04:24 AM
:( And I thought I was hot stuff with my 2GHz Core Duo iMac... Less than a month old!
Oh well, that's the way it always goes...


What's the probability of being able to drop one of the newer, more powerful chips into my iMac sometime in the future? I mean, I've got 2GB RAM and a 500GB HDD, and a 256MB video card... A newer processor down the line should work well, right?

Eidorian
Jul 15, 2006, 05:21 AM
:( And I thought I was hot stuff with my 2GHz Core Duo iMac... Less than a month old!
Oh well, that's the way it always goes...Someone should have paid attention to the Buyer's Guide.

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

I've had the money for an iMac for over a month now. I haven't bought it though.


What's the probability of being able to drop one of the newer, more powerful chips into my iMac sometime in the future? I mean, I've got 2GB RAM and a 500GB HDD, and a 256MB video card... A newer processor down the line should work well, right?The CPU is possible but you probably wouldn't want to it yourself. The hard drive is easier. The video card would require an entire logic board replacement.

zenmac
Jul 15, 2006, 07:51 AM
Have anybody seen a benchmark which compares the core 2 duo with the actuall core duo?

I can only see benchmarks between core 2 duo and AMD CPU's and standard dual core Pentium 4 cpu.

Thanks
Masoud

Eidorian
Jul 15, 2006, 08:26 AM
Have anybody seen a benchmark which compares the core 2 duo with the actuall core duo?

I can only see benchmarks between core 2 duo and AMD CPU's and standard dual core Pentium 4 cpu.

Thanks
Masoud

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1

Compare Core Duo vs. AMD. At least until someone does a Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo benchmark.

As Eidorian's link points out, Core Duo (Yonah) performance falls somewhere between the Athlon X2 3800 and the Athlon X2 4200. The 2.40GHz E6600, 2.66GHz E6700, and 2.93GHz X6800 Core 2 Duos in particular are at least 40% faster, which is exactly what Intel promised at the IDF (although they were comparing it against the Pentium D).*yawns*

Silentwave
Jul 15, 2006, 10:12 AM
Have anybody seen a benchmark which compares the core 2 duo with the actuall core duo?

I can only see benchmarks between core 2 duo and AMD CPU's and standard dual core Pentium 4 cpu.

Thanks
Masoud

Core 2 duo out so far is a desktop chip being compared against other dektop chips. The Core Duo only came as a notebook chip (with one version as a very low power server chip, Sossaman)

zenmac
Jul 15, 2006, 02:21 PM
I know that it is a desktop chip but I would expect that a site like anandtech or tomshardware would check againt the core duo just to see how much the difference is between the two "core" CPU.

seenew
Jul 15, 2006, 03:41 PM
Someone should have paid attention to the Buyer's Guide.

http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/

I've had the money for an iMac for over a month now. I haven't bought it though.


I did, at the time, it said mid-product cycle. And I had to have the computer for school, so I had to get it then. I'm just sad.

Eidorian
Jul 15, 2006, 03:44 PM
I did, at the time, it said mid-product cycle. And I had to have the computer for school, so I had to get it then. I'm just sad.Well I don't have a computer right now either. So I have to get one for school too. I'm holding out until WWDC at least. If I'm lucky maybe even Apple Expo Paris. I doubt that one though. Unless work buys me a computer.

Silentwave
Jul 15, 2006, 04:28 PM
I know that it is a desktop chip but I would expect that a site like anandtech or tomshardware would check againt the core duo just to see how much the difference is between the two "core" CPU.

Why?

Mobile vs. desktop
32 bit vs. 64 bit
Pentium M architecture vs. Intel Core microarchitecture (yes, Yonah uses the latest version of the pentium M architecture, far more efficient than netburst)
and I doubt very much they have comparable Mobos/ machines to test them on.

Mainyehc
Jul 15, 2006, 10:24 PM
I did, at the time, it said mid-product cycle. And I had to have the computer for school, so I had to get it then. I'm just sad.

I know your pain... Just this friday I received an unexpected e-mail from the Uni, telling me to fill the paperwork for the Erasmus (an european interchange programme, for which I supposedly was not accepted for having not-so-great grades... :o )! Now I'll probably have to get a MacBook come September, whether it has a Core Duo or a Core 2 Duo inside... I'm figuring it will have the first, even though the latter would be preety sweet. Damn! :rolleyes:

Anyway, either processor will kick my rev.A 20'' iMac G5's ass any day of the week (13'' is tiny, but I can always get an external monitor to go with it later when I come back, now that you can hook'em up without the need for hacks...)! :cool:

DVK916
Jul 16, 2006, 01:02 AM
There is no way apple with go with Merom for the imac. One huge factor you are all ignoring, is price. Merom cost alot more than conroe for the same speed. Apple will try to lower cost, and that means going with Conroe.

Silentwave
Jul 16, 2006, 02:01 AM
There is no way apple with go with Merom for the imac. One huge factor you are all ignoring, is price. Merom cost alot more than conroe for the same speed. Apple will try to lower cost, and that means going with Conroe.

It's a matter of heat. We can't be sure that they'll go Conroe if the actual heat put off by the chip (ignoring TDP quotes on either side) is much more than a G5.

I hope they use Conroe though- that would be fantastic.

But I honestly can't say that I think it will go conroe YET. It would be more likely when they have to redesign the Logic Board next year because Merom's 800MT/S FSB version will have a new socket and need the new Santa Rosa chipset. They'll be just as well off if they do a new LB at that point for Conroe.

bloodycape
Jul 16, 2006, 03:33 AM
1st of all I said Apple not IBM or AMD. AMD is going to get a through ass kicking for the next 12-18 months till K8L comes out. The Turion X2 is a flop(that's also 6 months late) It's so bad for AMD that they are practically having a fire sale on X2/A64's come the 24th. Let's not even go there with IBM they are too busy making toy CPU's for M$ , and talk about the nightmare IBM/Sony are having with the Cell yields(what are they like 20-30%).lol:D
I got do a firmware upgrade and get on that X2 sales action. I just hope it will be fairly priced like the non X2's.

Opps forgot to post the cnet review. http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_XPS_700_Intel_Core_2_Extreme_X6800/4505-3118_7-31972975.html?tag=cnetfd.sd

Silentwave
Jul 16, 2006, 04:09 AM
I got do a firmware upgrade and get on that X2 sales action. I just hope it will be fairly priced like the non X2's.

Opps forgot to post the cnet review. http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_XPS_700_Intel_Core_2_Extreme_X6800/4505-3118_7-31972975.html?tag=cnetfd.sd

Hrm...I don't trust cnet: looking at their comparisons I was struck by the XPS 700 with the X6800 being so much faster than the intel board testbed for the X6800. Then I saw what was going on....they skewed the results by using only half the RAM in the X6800.

Of course considering how it performed despite this, i'm very glad we're using intel core :D

Manic Mouse
Jul 16, 2006, 03:23 PM
There is no way apple with go with Merom for the imac. One huge factor you are all ignoring, is price. Merom cost alot more than conroe for the same speed. Apple will try to lower cost, and that means going with Conroe.

The CPU is probably the single most expensive component of the iMac, so if they use Conroe they not only have faster processors but they are also saving money which means more profit for Apple.

The million dollar question is whether or not the thermals of Conroe allow it to be used within the constrained iMac design. At the very least it'll need a new motherboard, or possibly a re-design.

Conroes are the most power efficient desktop processor currently available, so fingers crossed!

tintub
Jul 17, 2006, 07:45 AM
Could someone please clarify, are we expecting the MacBook Pro to be updated at WWDC? I'm ready to purchase a MacBook Pro right away, but if we are fairly certain that there will be a new release in August I will wait as my current laptop is doing the job.

Does anyone want to give some odds? I know that no-one can be certain but for instance for a 25% chance I'll wait, for a 5% chance I'll just order one now.

Eidorian
Jul 17, 2006, 08:02 AM
Could someone please clarify, are we expecting the MacBook Pro to be updated at WWDC? I'm ready to purchase a MacBook Pro right away, but if we are fairly certain that there will be a new release in August I will wait as my current laptop is doing the job.

Yes, we're expecting an update to the MacBook Pro at WWDC. Either they're shipping with Merom or are pre-ordering for it.

]Does anyone want to give some odds? I know that no-one can be certain but for instance for a 25% chance I'll wait, for a 5% chance I'll just order one now.I'd say greater then 25%.

Silentwave
Jul 17, 2006, 08:08 AM
Could someone please clarify, are we expecting the MacBook Pro to be updated at WWDC? I'm ready to purchase a MacBook Pro right away, but if we are fairly certain that there will be a new release in August I will wait as my current laptop is doing the job.

Does anyone want to give some odds? I know that no-one can be certain but for instance for a 25% chance I'll wait, for a 5% chance I'll just order one now.


I wouldn't give you good odds for WWDC, but you should have your update within less than a month from it.

Merom isn't out at the time of WWDC- it won't be until later in August. It is possible they may let apple take pre-orders if steve wants to really make it a massive attack at WWDC on all parts of the line charging ahead into the next generation, but you never know with him.

Of course the way things are going, for all we know there may really be PB G5s at WWDC, who knows nowadays :rolleyes:

Eidorian
Jul 17, 2006, 08:16 AM
I wouldn't give you good odds for WWDC, but you should have your update within less than a month from it.

Merom isn't out at the time of WWDC- it won't be until later in August. It is possible they may let apple take pre-orders if steve wants to really make it a massive attack at WWDC on all parts of the line charging ahead into the next generation, but you never know with him.

Of course the way things are going, for all we know there may really be PB G5s at WWDC, who knows nowadays :rolleyes:Unless Apple gets some special early treatment from Intel, I agree with preorders.

foo10
Jul 17, 2006, 09:31 AM
I hope well have a Core 2 Duo on a MBP soon. I've been thinking of selling my 20" G5 iMac and buying a 17" MBP.

MacSA
Jul 17, 2006, 10:17 AM
I wouldn't give you good odds for WWDC, but you should have your update within less than a month from it.

Merom isn't out at the time of WWDC- it won't be until later in August. It is possible they may let apple take pre-orders if steve wants to really make it a massive attack at WWDC on all parts of the line charging ahead into the next generation, but you never know with him.

Of course the way things are going, for all we know there may really be PB G5s at WWDC, who knows nowadays :rolleyes:

But wasnt Yonah supposed to come out in January this year, and Apple released the iMac early January. So tens of thousands of chips must have been shipping before the official release date, I dont see why the same couldn't be true of these new chips.

Eidorian
Jul 17, 2006, 10:26 AM
But wasnt Yonah supposed to come out in January this year, and Apple released the iMac early January. So tens of thousands of chips must have been shipping before the official release date, I dont see why the same couldn't be true of these new chips.Intel launched Yonah at CES on January 5, 2006. 5 days later Apple had it in the iMac. So it's entirely possible that Apple is sitting on a cache of Conroe and even Merom chips.

Peace
Jul 17, 2006, 10:38 AM
Merom to launch July 23rd according to the latest Intel roadmap from this site :

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=631837

whatever
Jul 17, 2006, 10:48 AM
Woohoo! 3GHz here we come. As was mentioned before, though, a mid-sized tower priced at the iMac level (but upgradable) would be the final logical step in the Apple product line. That would leave Woodcrest to the high end MacPro with its quad configuration.
Adding a mid-sized tower would be a bad move for Apple. They tried this before and the Cube lasted less than a year. Yes, the Cube was Apple's mid-sized tower. Apple knows that a mid-sized tower would either cannibalize their other lines (iMac, Mini and Pro) or suffer the same fate as the Cube.

Eidorian
Jul 17, 2006, 10:55 AM
Merom to launch July 23rd according to the latest Intel roadmap from this site :

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=631837I sure hope it's July 23rd.

DJMastaWes
Jul 17, 2006, 11:04 AM
I sure hope it's July 23rd.
If it's July 23rd, that would be SEXY! Because then if it's annouced (MBP) at WWDC, I can order it and it will ship fast.

1 Questoin. If i got a Rev B Week 1 MBP, will there be problems like heating, moos...?

Thanks.

gnasher729
Jul 17, 2006, 11:47 AM
www.theregister.com quotes a chinese language website which apparently has leaked price information for the Merom chips. This is what it looks like: Merom will supposedly come in variants with 2.33, 2.16, 2.00, 1.83 and 1.66GHz. The versions with 2.00 or more GHz have four MB L2 cache, the slower ones have two MB L2 cache. Prices up to 2.16 are exactly the same as the current Yonah chips in the latest intel price list ($209, $241, $294 and $423 when buying 1000 chips), and the 2.33 GHz is supposed to cost $637.

That means that Apple could afford to replace every Yonah with a Merom of same clock speed and sell them at exactly the same price. Even with current 32 bit applications, this should give 10 percent speed because of better execution units, and another 10 percent speed on the faster chips for the larger L2 cache, with another ten percent in the future with 64 bit applications. There might be a 2.33 GHz option for a premium price.

It seems that using Yonah would only make sense if Intel reduces Yonah prices a lot, and only for low-end products, like an entry level MacBook or the MacMini.

milo
Jul 17, 2006, 11:54 AM
Adding a mid-sized tower would be a bad move for Apple. They tried this before and the Cube lasted less than a year. Yes, the Cube was Apple's mid-sized tower. Apple knows that a mid-sized tower would either cannibalize their other lines (iMac, Mini and Pro) or suffer the same fate as the Cube.

The only reason the cube flopped was that it was horrible bang for buck. It was a great box, it just was about triple what it should have cost. The cube was extremely expensive, it cost almost as much as a tower. In this case we're talking about a box that would allow expandability for hundreds less than the "pro" towers. The same argument was used why apple would never ship a mini, and it was wrong then.

And cannibalizing other lines doesn't matter, a mac sold is a mac sold. There's no reason a mid tower couldn't be as profitable as any other mac.

SiliconAddict
Jul 17, 2006, 02:38 PM
Adding a mid-sized tower would be a bad move for Apple. They tried this before and the Cube lasted less than a year. Yes, the Cube was Apple's mid-sized tower. Apple knows that a mid-sized tower would either cannibalize their other lines (iMac, Mini and Pro) or suffer the same fate as the Cube.


The cube was NOT a mid-sized tower. Heck it wasn't even a tower. The upgradability of the thing was partly what killed it but also the price and the funky design. All Apple has to do is take the G5, decrease it's size down to that of something the size of Dell's small form factors...
http://img.dell.com/images/global/cs1/chassis/gx520_120x107.jpg

and vola. You have a winner. The G5 design is there because of heat dist reasons. There is no reason that Apple can't have a high end dual CPU dual core design in the current G5 form factor and a single CPU dual core in in a smaller one that can still accom. 2 hard drives and an optical drive. We just replaced all the systems in our office with the above from factor. There is not a single person out of the 180 systems upgraded that doesn't love the extra desk space. Smaller is better when it comes to computers.

Multimedia
Jul 17, 2006, 03:45 PM
Could someone please clarify, are we expecting the MacBook Pro to be updated at WWDC? I'm ready to purchase a MacBook Pro right away, but if we are fairly certain that there will be a new release in August I will wait as my current laptop is doing the job.

Does anyone want to give some odds? I know that no-one can be certain but for instance for a 25% chance I'll wait, for a 5% chance I'll just order one now.I wouldn't give you good odds for WWDC, but you should have your update within less than a month from it.

Merom isn't out at the time of WWDC- it won't be until later in August. It is possible they may let apple take pre-orders if steve wants to really make it a massive attack at WWDC on all parts of the line charging ahead into the next generation, but you never know with him.I'm expecting a reprise of September 2003 when Steve Jobs personally introduced the Aluminum 15" PowerBook G4 at the Paris Apple Expo. This year it starts on Tuesday September 12 which would be perfect timing for the release and "shipping today" Debut Of Merom Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros.

greenstork
Jul 17, 2006, 03:54 PM
I'd bet it all that the iMac gets an Allendale with maybe a Conroe top-end option.

That makes sense, it offers some product differentiation, and saves Apple a few pennies allowing them to offer a lower priced consumer desktop. Mac Pros will likely get at least one Woodcrest dualie model on the top end and perhaps a Conroe on the bottom but it is entirely possible that it will be Woodcrest across the board, to achieve economies of scale both in purchase power and motherboard engineering.

Could someone answer me this, who actually understands the Core Microarchitecture. Is the Conroe extreme edition (2.93 GHz) a better high end gaming chip than a quad woodcrest setup, say at 2.66 GHz? I've heard more than a couple comments that the Conroe is better suited for gamers than a Woodcrest but this makes no sense to me. Again please, no fanboy speculators answering this, I'd really like to know the rationale using some expert technological analysis. What makes the conroe EE so expensive? At a higher cost than the 3.0 GHz Woodcrest, it must excel in some regard.

DJMastaWes
Jul 17, 2006, 04:09 PM
This year it starts on Tuesday September 12 which would be perfect timing for the release and "shipping today" Debut Of Merom Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros.

That's horrible news for me. I Don't know how much longer I will be able to use my iMac for. But I don't want to order a MBP and 3 weeks later, a new one comes out.

Multimedia
Jul 17, 2006, 04:16 PM
That's horrible news for me. I Don't know how much longer I will be able to use my iMac for. But I don't want to order a MBP and 3 weeks later, a new one comes out.Alternative temporary plan is buy the refurb 1.83 GHz MacBook for $949 now then sell it for about the same when the 2.33 GHz Merom MacBook Pros ships. I would think any almost new MacBook will sell for the same price as refurb or worst case $50 less until the Merom MacBooks ship - which could be at the same time as the MBP but more likely by November. :)

DJMastaWes
Jul 17, 2006, 04:18 PM
Alternative temporary plan is buy the refurb 1.83 GHz MacBook for $949 now then sell it for about the same when the 2.33 GHz Merom MacBook Pros ships. I would think any almost new MacBook will sell for the same price as refurb or worst case $50 less until the Merom MacBooks ship - which could be at the same time as the MBP but more likely by November. :)

I don't want to buy and sell for a month use.

If the chip is comeing out on staurday (23rd) doesnt that mean that they MBPs will chip the 7th? seeing as how the chip would already be out...

Multimedia
Jul 17, 2006, 04:33 PM
I don't want to buy and sell for a month use.

If the chip is comeing out on staurday (23rd) doesnt that mean that they MBPs will chip the 7th? seeing as how the chip would already be out...Not sure if introduction will mean shipping in quantity by then. Think Apple may need time to build invintory 'til September so they can fill orders upon announcement. I would love to see it happen for everyone August 7th. I just don't think it's wise to get your hopes up for that to be the day.

Seems like the Mac Pro and Leopard will be more than enough for August 7th. September 12th seems like a more logical time to spotlight Merom in MacBook Pros in Paris like they did with the 15" Aluminum 1.25GHz PowerBook G4 three years ago. That's when USB 2 and FW 800 ports were added to the line as well. At the time it was a very big power shift-up among the mobile Macs. :)

I have that three year old model PB so I am like you waiting for a 2.33 GHz Merom MacBook Pro to ship. I'm OK with my old mobile though. 'Cause I'm hooked on my Quad at home all the time now. ;)

Silentwave
Jul 17, 2006, 06:23 PM
I'd bet it all that the iMac gets an Allendale with maybe a Conroe top-end option.

That makes sense, it offers some product differentiation, and saves Apple a few pennies allowing them to offer a lower priced consumer desktop. Mac Pros will likely get at least one Woodcrest dualie model on the top end and perhaps a Conroe on the bottom but it is entirely possible that it will be Woodcrest across the board, to achieve economies of scale both in purchase power and motherboard engineering.

I'd actually say they'd be more likely to go straight Conroe, TDP is the same, has speedstep so it throttles back, and the Conroe has a bigger L2 Cache- just like the Meroms that would be most likely for the iMac.

Could someone answer me this, who actually understands the Core Microarchitecture. Is the Conroe extreme edition (2.93 GHz) a better high end gaming chip than a quad woodcrest setup, say at 2.66 GHz? I've heard more than a couple comments that the Conroe is better suited for gamers than a Woodcrest but this makes no sense to me. Again please, no fanboy speculators answering this, I'd really like to know the rationale using some expert technological analysis. What makes the conroe EE so expensive? At a higher cost than the 3.0 GHz Woodcrest, it must excel in some regard.

Well, the main thing here is its a desktop chip not a server/workstation chip. Woodcrest is the same microarchitecture and all that. Just a 1333 FSB and slightly different clocks. The woodcrest's additional costs however would be a totally different MB/Chipset, and FB-DIMM RAM.

I suppose it may depend on how the game is written to take advantage of the cores.

Silentwave
Jul 17, 2006, 06:27 PM
But wasnt Yonah supposed to come out in January this year, and Apple released the iMac early January. So tens of thousands of chips must have been shipping before the official release date, I dont see why the same couldn't be true of these new chips.

Its a matter of availability. Intel supposedly just bumped the announce date to the same as Conroe later this month, but the availability is apparently unchangd from August.

However now that the chip 'exists' prior to WWDC, I would not think that Steve would hesitate to put it in ASAP.

So I think we may see the entire line get a revamp: mac mini gets faster chips (still Yonah), perhaps same with MB, though that may just get a price drop. MBPs/iMacs get new processors, and we get the new MPs.

DJMastaWes
Jul 17, 2006, 07:15 PM
So I think we may see the entire line get a revamp: mac mini gets faster chips (still Yonah), perhaps same with MB, though that may just get a price drop. MBPs/iMacs get new processors, and we get the new MPs.

All at WWDC?

Silentwave
Jul 17, 2006, 07:36 PM
All at WWDC?

With the bumped up date for Merom, it is all possible. Since core duo is going to see a price drop the mac mini may get speed bumped, the MB may see a price drop or speed bump, merom MBPs *may* be released, iMac may get updated, and the MPs will come uot.

greenstork
Jul 17, 2006, 07:38 PM
I'd actually say they'd be more likely to go straight Conroe, TDP is the same, has speedstep so it throttles back, and the Conroe has a bigger L2 Cache- just like the Meroms that would be most likely for the iMac.


I think this is all the more reason why they'll go with an Allendale, it's not as high of a performace chip but it does exceed the performace of the Meroms. It's a desktop chip, designed for lower end desktops, not a mobile chip without as much power.

barneygumble
Jul 17, 2006, 07:43 PM
All i can say is that i will buy a Core 2 Duo iMac when they come out and my parents will be buying a Core 2 Duo tower if such a thing is introduced (not mac pro):)

Manic Mouse
Jul 18, 2006, 04:16 AM
I think this is all the more reason why they'll go with an Allendale, it's not as high of a performace chip but it does exceed the performace of the Meroms. It's a desktop chip, designed for lower end desktops, not a mobile chip without as much power.

Why wouldn't they just use Conroe? It's not like the chips are expensive, they have the same thermal output and a bigger L2 cache. I'm expecting a 2.4Ghz 17' and a 2.66Ghz 20'. Which would work out cheaper than using 2.16Ghz and 2.33Ghz Meroms.

ro2nie
Jul 18, 2006, 10:48 AM
Any one know when the 45nm architecture processors are going to appear?
I'm gonna wait for those, for OS X 10.5 and iLife 07 to invest in a Mac

Manic Mouse
Jul 18, 2006, 05:33 PM
Any one know when the 45nm architecture processors are going to appear?
I'm gonna wait for those, for OS X 10.5 and iLife 07 to invest in a Mac

In about a years time, maybe slighly more...

Silentwave
Jul 18, 2006, 09:08 PM
Any one know when the 45nm architecture processors are going to appear?
I'm gonna wait for those, for OS X 10.5 and iLife 07 to invest in a Mac

On track for 2007.

gnasher729
Jul 19, 2006, 03:08 AM
Why wouldn't they just use Conroe? It's not like the chips are expensive, they have the same thermal output and a bigger L2 cache. I'm expecting a 2.4Ghz 17' and a 2.66Ghz 20'. Which would work out cheaper than using 2.16Ghz and 2.33Ghz Meroms.

The only problem with Conroe vs. Merom in an iMac is the heat production. I am sure it is possible to keep an iMac with a Conroe cool enough. What I think is very hard to achieve is to keep it cool and quiet at the same time. I have never, ever _heard_ the iMac in my office, and that is really nice.

Of course it would be possible to put something into the Energy Saver Preferences like a "Keep Quiet" option. If selected, processing power could be cut down when the iMac gets too hot to be cooled down without making much noise. You would still have the potential to get full performance if you choose so.

Silentwave
Jul 19, 2006, 04:03 AM
The only problem with Conroe vs. Merom in an iMac is the heat production. I am sure it is possible to keep an iMac with a Conroe cool enough. What I think is very hard to achieve is to keep it cool and quiet at the same time. I have never, ever _heard_ the iMac in my office, and that is really nice.

Of course it would be possible to put something into the Energy Saver Preferences like a "Keep Quiet" option. If selected, processing power could be cut down when the iMac gets too hot to be cooled down without making much noise. You would still have the potential to get full performance if you choose so.


Called intel SpeedStep, implemented in all Core/Core 2 processors.

Manic Mouse
Jul 19, 2006, 04:07 AM
The only problem with Conroe vs. Merom in an iMac is the heat production. I am sure it is possible to keep an iMac with a Conroe cool enough. What I think is very hard to achieve is to keep it cool and quiet at the same time. I have never, ever _heard_ the iMac in my office, and that is really nice.

Of course it would be possible to put something into the Energy Saver Preferences like a "Keep Quiet" option. If selected, processing power could be cut down when the iMac gets too hot to be cooled down without making much noise. You would still have the potential to get full performance if you choose so.

Hmmm, it's a tough one. But I think the price vs. performance of Conroe being so much better than Merom will mean that Apple will try their best to cram one into the iMac. It would mean a more powerful computer that's cheaper for Apple to produce, and it is a desktop after all.

But you are right that the thermals of Conroe could be a problem. I'm not sure how much of a difference speed-step will make. Although it is the most power-efficient desktop chip out there, it consumes less power under load than Pentium D's at idle:

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/power_conroe.png

And it runs much cooler than the chips in the Macbook and Macbook Pro in normal computer cases:

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/conroe_temp_min.gif

25 degrees celcius with speedstep...

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/x6800_temp_max.gif

And 45 degrees at max clockspeed. And that's the 75W Conroe, the 65W one should be slightly cooler. Now I know this isn't in the iMac case, but if the chips run that cool in desktops then hopefully they shouldn't run too much hotter in an iMac...

Eidorian
Jul 19, 2006, 10:50 AM
Hmmm, it's a tough one. But I think the price vs. performance of Conroe being so much better than Merom will mean that Apple will try their best to cram one into the iMac. It would mean a more powerful computer that's cheaper for Apple to produce, and it is a desktop after all.

But you are right that the thermals of Conroe could be a problem. I'm not sure how much of a difference speed-step will make. Although it is the most power-efficient desktop chip out there, it consumes less power under load than Pentium D's at idle:

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/power_conroe.png

And it runs much cooler than the chips in the Macbook and Macbook Pro in normal computer cases:
http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/conroe_temp_min.gif

25 degrees celcius with speedstep...

http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/x6800_temp_max.gif

And 45 degrees at max clockspeed. And that's the 75W Conroe, the 65W one should be slightly cooler. Now I know this isn't in the iMac case, but if the chips run that cool in desktops then hopefully they shouldn't run too much hotter in an iMac...Then all we're looking at is cranking up the current 180 watt power supply. I remember my iMac G5 2.0 GHz hitting 75-76º C at 100% load. The Rev. C iMac G5 was whisper quiet compared to my machine using the same 970FX chip. If Conroe doesn't break 45° C then it's not a thermal nightmare to put into the iMac. It's just a pain to power.

dpMacsmith
Jul 19, 2006, 03:14 PM
Ok, here are my predictions.

MacPro - woodcrest (available immediately, all dual duals, 3 levels starting at 2.0 GHz)
XServe - woodcrest (Available soon)
iMac - Conrow (It is the oldest Intel computer and has received 0 upgrades in 6 months. E6400 in the 17" and E6600 in the 20", we may see a small price decrease)
MacBook Pro - Merom (in 1 Month, Paris intro?)
MacBook - Yonah for now (Merom in about 4 months)
MacMini - Yonah (use existing 1.66 and 1.83 parts)

I would love to see the MacMini get Conroe parts.. it should reduce the cost. Heat may be an issue. The E6300 might work.

I would love to see a small tower, Video Card would be replaceable. Maybe room for a second 3.5" drive. Does SATA have the capability of driving 2 HDs from one controller. It would be similar size to the cube. Pricing about $100 more than the Mini. No expansion slots.

I've got to admit though, I really like my 1.66 GHz Mini. Small, quiet, and fast enough.

DVK916
Jul 19, 2006, 03:21 PM
Allendale is not faster than Merom. Benchmarks show it is slower.

Eidorian
Jul 19, 2006, 07:38 PM
Allendale is not faster than Merom. Benchmarks show it is slower.Links please. Both low end Merom and Allendale have the same amount of cache. Still, Allendale clocks higher and faster.

Peace
Jul 19, 2006, 07:58 PM
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html?part=rss&tag=6096192&subj=news

Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006

Eidorian
Jul 19, 2006, 07:59 PM
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html?part=rss&tag=6096192&subj=news

Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006Stop tempting me. I need a new Mac NOW as it is.

THX1139
Jul 19, 2006, 08:26 PM
http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6096192.html?part=rss&tag=6096192&subj=news

Cloverton and Kentsfield coming 4th quarter 2006

So we will see them introduced at MWSF 2007. That's a no-brainer that we knew was coming.

DVK916
Jul 19, 2006, 10:59 PM
Links please. Both low end Merom and Allendale have the same amount of cache. Still, Allendale clocks higher and faster.


Who is talking about low end Merom. I am talking about higher end with 4mb of Cache.

I highly doubt apple would use a low end merom, when they can go with a higher end.

The MacBook and MacBook Pro will both get 4mb Meroms.

DJMastaWes
Jul 19, 2006, 11:03 PM
another update in Q1 2007? damn. So fast, but screw it, once the new MBP design is out, I'm ordering. I wish it was the 7th, but now most likly the 12 of September.

gnasher729
Jul 20, 2006, 03:34 AM
Who is talking about low end Merom. I am talking about higher end with 4mb of Cache.

I highly doubt apple would use a low end merom, when they can go with a higher end.

The MacBook and MacBook Pro will both get 4mb Meroms.

Just FYI: It seems that Merom will ship at speeds from 1.66 to 2.33 GHz, the 1.66GHz and 1.83 GHz have 2 MB cache, and 2GHz and faster all have 4 MB cache. Prices seem to be identical to the current Yonah prices (except the 2.33; there is no 2.33 GHz Yonah). So I would expect that all Yonahs will be replaced with Merom at same clockspeed, and that means 4MB cache except for the low end MacBook and possibly MacMini.

Silentwave
Jul 20, 2006, 03:42 AM
Just FYI: It seems that Merom will ship at speeds from 1.66 to 2.33 GHz, the 1.66GHz and 1.83 GHz have 2 MB cache, and 2GHz and faster all have 4 MB cache. Prices seem to be identical to the current Yonah prices (except the 2.33; there is no 2.33 GHz Yonah). So I would expect that all Yonahs will be replaced with Merom at same clockspeed, and that means 4MB cache except for the low end MacBook and possibly MacMini.

Actually there is a 2.33 Yonah, but it just shipped recently.

gnasher729
Jul 20, 2006, 03:43 AM
But you are right that the thermals of Conroe could be a problem. I'm not sure how much of a difference speed-step will make. Although it is the most power-efficient desktop chip out there, it consumes less power under load than Pentium D's at idle:

The new version of Speedstep that is available from Yonah upwards seems to be quite good. The operating system can reduce the clockspeed, but at lower clockspeed it can also reduce the voltage, and power consumption is proportional to (clockspeed x voltage x voltage).

So my idea would be: A control that lets you set "maximum fan noise". If you need to render an hour of video, you should set it to maximum, if you are doing audio recordings with your Mac and want it silent you set it to minimum. That control also shows whether your clockspeed has been throttled, so if you prefer the Mac fast instead of quiet, you can have that as well. So you get the best of both worlds.

gnasher729
Jul 20, 2006, 07:38 AM
Just a thought:

If Apple had gone with AMD instead of Intel as many people demanded when the move to x86 chips was announced, wouldn't Apple and Steve Jobs look really stupid today?

Since Intel announced that their four core chips would be available in the last quarter 2006, there is another possibility now for Mac Pros: Just Conroe chips for the "low end" replacing the dual core G5s, and the quad core G5 remains the last PowerPC until it is replaced in the last quarter with a much cheaper quad core system based on Intel's Kentsfield quad core desktop chip. Depends on how urgent it is for Apple to finish the transition.

GFLPraxis
Jul 20, 2006, 12:29 PM
Then all we're looking at is cranking up the current 180 watt power supply. I remember my iMac G5 2.0 GHz hitting 75-76º C at 100% load. The Rev. C iMac G5 was whisper quiet compared to my machine using the same 970FX chip. If Conroe doesn't break 45° C then it's not a thermal nightmare to put into the iMac. It's just a pain to power.

I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...

I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.

The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.

A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).


If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.

If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.


I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.


From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.

Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.

Eidorian
Jul 20, 2006, 01:22 PM
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...

I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.

The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.

A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).


If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.

If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.


I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.


From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.

Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.You're the first one to bring this up. Conroe is well worth the money for its processing power. Getting a higher output power supply for the iMac shouldn't be to hard. So, I really do hope Apple somehow puts a Conroe in the iMac. :D

Oh and no underclocking please. :p

THX1139
Jul 20, 2006, 01:49 PM
...Since Intel announced that their four core chips would be available in the last quarter 2006, there is another possibility now for Mac Pros: Just Conroe chips for the "low end" replacing the dual core G5s, and the quad core G5 remains the last PowerPC until it is replaced in the last quarter with a much cheaper quad core system based on Intel's Kentsfield quad core desktop chip. Depends on how urgent it is for Apple to finish the transition.

Better be careful. I posted a similar idea in another thread and got flamed by a couple antagonistic people who have limited vision and are knashing for Woodcrest. I'm in agreement with you. I think having Conroes in the middle and lowend to replace the currently shipping Powermacs is feasible for Apple. Keep the G5 Quad until Kentsfield and maybe introduce a 3.0 Quad Woodcrest on the high-end workstation model to start a new professional line?

I can see why folks are clamoring for Woodcrest, but to me it seems a bit weird for Apple to adopt a chipset for 6 months or less. With Kentsfield shipping at the end of the year, why bother with Woodcrest now? If they would have begun selling last month when they first came out it would have made more sense. Now I'm thinking Apple is going to hold off simply because they haven't announced anything. Woodcrest has been out for around a month now, if Apple is/was going to use them, what's the hold up? I think they have been waiting for Conroe, not WWDC.

DJMastaWes
Jul 20, 2006, 01:52 PM
If they are holding back untill later this year after WWDC and such, taht leaves room for a new update. MacBook Pro or iMac maybe?

milo
Jul 20, 2006, 04:43 PM
Better be careful. I posted a similar idea in another thread and got flamed by a couple antagonistic people who have limited vision and are knashing for Woodcrest. I'm in agreement with you. I think having Conroes in the middle and lowend to replace the currently shipping Powermacs is feasible for Apple. Keep the G5 Quad until Kentsfield and maybe introduce a 3.0 Quad Woodcrest on the high-end workstation model to start a new professional line?

I can see why folks are clamoring for Woodcrest, but to me it seems a bit weird for Apple to adopt a chipset for 6 months or less. With Kentsfield shipping at the end of the year, why bother with Woodcrest now? If they would have begun selling last month when they first came out it would have made more sense. Now I'm thinking Apple is going to hold off simply because they haven't announced anything. Woodcrest has been out for around a month now, if Apple is/was going to use them, what's the hold up? I think they have been waiting for Conroe, not WWDC.

You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.

Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.

Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.

Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.

THX1139
Jul 20, 2006, 05:15 PM
You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.

Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.

Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.

Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.

I didn't mean to suggest the Conroe as a replacement for the G5 Quad. I was thinking more in line with replacing the duals. At this time, the only thing that would come close to replacing the current Quad would be Woodcrest and that's why I mentioned a possiblity for a 3GHZ Woodie in the lineup. I do see a need for a Woodcrest Quad as a professional work station, now and in the future... I just don't see why they would need to put Woodcrest in the complete line-up. Not sure how Kentsfield would play into the long term plan. However, I see nothing wrong with using Conroe in the middle and bottom (non Quad) machines if those are going to continue. Yea, everyone seems to want Quad across the board, but for some people that would be overkill and overly expensive. If you are a web developer or motion graphics designer working at web resolutions, do you need a Woodcrest Quad? Once the currently shipping duals are gone, are we going to be forced with choosing between Woodcrest in a tower... or an iMac or mini?

Maybe it all boils down to the need for Apple to split the lineup as been suggested in other threads. They should have a couple medium towers with Conroe (call them Macs) and then 2 or 3 high-end workstations that are priced accordingly for the Macpro line. I would love to get a Quad Woodcrest, but for the most part, it would be over-kill. Most professional work I do can be done on a single chip / dual core.

It's going to be interesting to see what direction Apple reveals next month. I still think it's strange that Apple hasn't announced Woodcrest if they are indeed going with that solution. Why wait for WWDC if the chips are ready?

milo
Jul 20, 2006, 05:27 PM
I didn't mean to suggest the Conroe as a replacement for the G5 Quad. I was thinking more in line with replacing the duals.

Maybe I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant releasing conroe machines and not shipping quads until months later. If that were the case, people would inevitably compare the new towers to the G5 quads, regardless if they were intended to replace those models.

I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.

THX1139
Jul 20, 2006, 08:48 PM
Maybe I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant releasing conroe machines and not shipping quads until months later. If that were the case, people would inevitably compare the new towers to the G5 quads, regardless if they were intended to replace those models.

I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.

Exactly! I think the orginal argument was someone saying that there was no way a Conroe was going into a tower or workstation. That the line-up was to be all Woodcrest because that was the only chip that would be feasible to use in a workstation. My counter point to that is - if it was all Woodcrest, they would be out by now. Waiting for WWDC says to me that Conroe is going in there somewhere. My guess is that the Conroe will be used to replace the currently shipping duals at a speed increase. Others argue that the proline will be all Quad... or at least all Woodcrest even if they use only one Woodcrest chip in the lower-end. My best guess is they split the line-up and use both processors. Woodcrest on top in Quad, Conroe on the bottom and middle. They will continue to offer G5 until MWSF to accommodate legacy users.

It's going to be interesting to see what path Apple chooses. The unknown element is that they "might" have something in secret development that will allow them to produce machines we haven't considered. Doubtful but fun to think about.

Multimedia
Jul 20, 2006, 11:27 PM
You don't think Apple would get raked over the coals if they released towers that were slower than the last generation? Conroe is fast, but no way it beats a quad G5. And I don't think a promise of a quad machine later on helps public relations any.

Also, doesn't the kentsfield have the same limitation as conroe? That you can only use it in single processor configs? A woodcrest chipset would have a longer life since you'd use the same one for multiple cloverton configs.

Next gen, conroe gets you 2 cores, woodcrest gives you 2 chips for 4 cores.

Gen after that, kentsfield gets you 4 cores, cloverton gets you 2 chips for 8 cores. There's room for both chipsets for at least the next two generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it continues beyond that.Maybe I misunderstood your post, I thought you meant releasing conroe machines and not shipping quads until months later. If that were the case, people would inevitably compare the new towers to the G5 quads, regardless if they were intended to replace those models.

I think the reason they haven't announced woodcrest towers is because they want to wait for WWDC, and because the line will be split between woodcrest and conroe. It wouldn't make sense to announce half the tower lineup, people would assume that was it and react accordingly.I believe this is the correct analysis. I am in full agreement with Milo. Good job M. :)